David Norris on the 1916 rebels...

jakdelad

deise go deo wrote: »

Why do people assume that putting the word FACT after their points makes them any better?

It dosent, it just makes the person doing it look silly.

FACT:)

sorry only i tend to find facts are more truthfull
dont you?

jakdelad

Deedsie wrote: »

An inability to write also.

Ya, she was a power hungry dictator who would not loosen her grip on power. Cop onto yourself, an election would have been a ridiculous waste of money. Any candidate who ran against her would have been destroyed in an election. Such was and is the presidents popularity.

so to allow the people of ireland to vote for a president in 2004
would have been a ridiculous waste of money, interesting idea
any other times you think would be a ridiculous waste of money
by the country voting???

popularity must be vindicated by the ballot box
there lies the true answer

Apogee

A.Tomas wrote: »

Oh wow, we get to be a republic AND subservient (i.e.subjects) to Britain in their former empire (or commonwealth for slow learners)!!!

Can you please explain how joining the Commonwealth would convert the citizens of a republic into subjects?

A.Tomas wrote: »

DeValera, only wanted to stay in it so that Ireland would not be more divided than it already was (as Britain owned the North), once Ireland was unified he wanted to be free from all British pomposity, naturally.

When did he state that Ireland would leave the Commonwealth after unification?

A.Tomas wrote: »

You may have noticed he was not a neo-unionist at some stage.

Yet he supported remaining in the Commonwealth, just like Norris.

A.Tomas

Apogee wrote: »

Can you please explain how joining the Commonwealth would convert the citizens of a republic into subjects?

Anyone under a monarch (or in a surrogate empire of which the UK monarch is head) is a de facto subject.

Try understanding the lingo. Republics have citizens, monarchies have subjects.

We'd be entering back into a position were we were officially subjects, (but it became un-pc and militarily weak to enforce that) so alas no longer.

A.Tomas

Apogee wrote: »

When did he state that Ireland would leave the Commonwealth after unification?



Yet he supported remaining in the Commonwealth, just like Norris.

Well Apogee, that's usually the idea.

I suppose he supported swearing the oath to the english monarch aswell, did he?

Deedsie

jakdelad wrote: »

so to allow the people of ireland to vote for a president in 2004
would have been a ridiculous waste of money, interesting idea
any other times you think would be a ridiculous waste of money
by the country voting???

popularity must be vindicated by the ballot box
there lies the true answer

There was no candidate credible enough to run against President McAleese in 2004. You seem to think she wouldnt allow an election? Is that your interpretation of what happened? And I stand by my comment, it would have been a waste of resources. Do you know how much it costs to hold an election? An election that would have been an a landslide victory for the incumbent president.

Other examples of when the electorate shouldn't vote? Is that what you were asking? I'm a democrat, but I am also a tax payer, the office of the president is expensive to run. Adding in the price of an election with a foregone conclusion is not a proper use of resources.

I think all our referendums should be held simultaneously with local government, European or general elections. Paying poll clerks for all these election days is a waste of money.

jakdelad

Deedsie wrote: »

There was no candidate credible enough to run against President McAleese in 2004. You seem to think she wouldnt allow an election? Is that your interpretation of what happened? And I stand by my comment, it would have been a waste of resources. Do you know how much it costs to hold an election? An election that would have been an a landslide victory for the incumbent president.

Other examples of when the electorate shouldn't vote? Is that what you were asking? I'm a democrat, but I am also a tax payer, the office of the president is expensive to run. Adding in the price of an election with a foregone conclusion is not a proper use of resources.

I think all our referendums should be held simultaneously with local government, European or general elections. Paying poll clerks for all these election days is a waste of money.

how do you decide no candidate was credible, enough???
wow what an insult to the people who put them selves forward

paying poll clerks is a waste of money??perhaps we should have E voting?

says a lot about the calibre of person
who considers the cost of the election over the result of the election
had macaleese done the honorable thing after her term was up
she would have stood down and let the people decide their president
instead that right was taken for the irish people
why ??? as i said before the political partys conspired to not allow a presidential election, so they could concentrate on the vacent seat left by macreevey when he went to his gravy job in brussells

Adding in the price of an election with a foregone conclusion is not a proper use of resources
now there s a statement
could you apply the above quote to many elections???

phantom_lord

Denerick wrote: »

This will make me less likely to vote for him.

I believe that he really does think that the men of 1916 were effectively terrorists - and if not exactly terrorists, then at the very least violent fanatics, the kind who'll eventually get the whole world killed.

I believe he backtracked on this and claimed that he doesn't think they were terrorists because it won't go down well with the little irelander crowd.

Tis politics I suppose.

It would have been refreshing to see a politician say what he really thinks and bugger to the consequences.

Does Norris strike you as someone that doesn't say what he really thinks?

If you find something that substantiates what you say I'll happily stand corrected but going by what he said when I met him the other night I believe what he said in his email in the op.

I can't remember fully the details, and I'm sure it'll come up at some stage in the campaign but he gave a lengthy reasoning for why he doesn't believe they're terrorists, mainly in his mind that label is for groups that reckless endanger civilian lives in conflicts. Comparing the likes of Hamas to the chivalrous acts of the people involved in 1916 and the document they produced puts them in a very different group.

laughter189 wrote: »

Well he's not getting my vote ,

Imo he is more English than Irish

I'm curious how someone that speaks fluent Irish, served in Irish public life for most of his career and has done more for Irish artists than most is more English than Irish?

RandolphEsq

phantom_lord wrote: »

I'm curious how someone that speaks fluent Irish, served in Irish public life for most of his career and has done more for Irish artists than most is more English than Irish?

I would imagine the prejudice comes from the accent of Norris. Sort of feigned British upper class accent. Sounds quite pretentious but we'd be buggered to rule him out based on his accent

A Dub in Glasgo

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Sounds quite pretentious but we'd be buggered to rule him out based on his accent

More like he'd be buggered :pac:

Wolfe Tone

Interestingly I have spoken to a few people who maintain that in the past Norris displayed attitudes not in synch with the email he sent me. First hand accounts too.

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Interestingly I have spoken to a few people who maintain that in the past Norris displayed attitudes not in synch with the email he sent me. First hand accounts too.

Any evidence of it? There should be some article or maybe a video showing it.

Anyway, even if he a "West Brit" on the issue, I think he'd be respectful of his role. I couldn't see him making an issue of it really.

Wolfe Tone

K-9 wrote: »

Any evidence of it? There should be some article or maybe a video showing it.

Anyway, even if he a "West Brit" on the issue, I think he'd be respectful of his role. I couldn't see him making an issue of it really.

Just their word... trustworthy people too, otherwise I wouldn't mention it.

I agree on you second point.

lugha

K-9 wrote: »

Anyway, even if he a "West Brit" on the issue, I think he'd be respectful of his role. I couldn't see him making an issue of it really.

It's all utterly irrelevant anyway. Whatever "celebrations" will be planned for 2016 will be done by, or under the direction of, the government of the day. What the president, whoever it will be, thinks on the matter, or many other matters, is of no consequence.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

It's all utterly irrelevant anyway. Whatever "celebrations" will be planned for 2016 will be done by, or under the direction of, the government of the day. What the president, whoever it will be, thinks on the matter, or many other matters, is of no consequence.

It's not a matter of consequence. It's a matter of who do we want to symbolically head the state at the 100 year anniversary for one of the pinnacle moments in Irish history. If he considers the volunteers of the Easter Rising as terrorists, then he shouldn't represent the state as it's symbolic head while it occurs. It would be thoroughly disrespectful to those that gave their lives in more ways than one to liberate Ireland from a truly oppressive regime, and allow Irish people to control their own affairs.

I think the issue should be clarified if his past words are contradicting what he has e-mailed WT.

K-9

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not a matter of consequence. It's a matter of who do we want to symbolically head the state at the 100 year anniversary for one of the pinnacle moments in Irish history. If he considers the volunteers of the Easter Rising as terrorists, then he shouldn't represent the state as it's symbolic head while it occurs. It would be thoroughly disrespectful to those that gave their lives in more ways than one to liberate Ireland from a truly oppressive regime, and allow Irish people to control their own affairs.

I think the issue should be clarified if his past words are contradicting what he has e-mailed WT.

It's unfair to cast aspersions based on what a few people say though, we don't know the context or if their recollection is correct. Until somebody can post quotes or video evidence people should rely on a pretty strong denial which he backed up with legal action, so he obviously takes the issue seriously.

dlofnep

I'm not casting aspirations, which is why I said it's something that will need to be clarified. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but no doubt - as the election moves forward, I'm sure the issue will come up again and he will have to clarify it to the media.

later12

I'm glad for David Norris that he has responded to the OP's request for clarification in a manner which satisfies the nationalist republican vote. Given particularly that the anticipated term of office for the next president extends to and beyond 2016, to not do so would be electoral suicide.

Personally, however I disagree that the men of 1916 should be celebrated at all. I urge anyone who thinks otherwise to take a look at their ancestors' census records of 1911 (the last census taken before the armed rebellion) and seek out amongst your ancestors, slaves, serfs and the oppressed with cause for murdering their fellow man. You will have some trouble. You will instead undeniably find people whose living standards corresponded with those of their class in England Scotland and Wales and who were better off than Irish people had ever been in its cruel history.

Read, similarly, unbiased academic accounts of life in the early 20th century following on from the Liberal land and governmental reforms and investigate the political and indeed legislative situation of that time - perhaps FSL Lyons's Ireland Since The Famine or his work on John Dillon and the Irish Parliamentary Party.

Read journalistic sources like The Munster Express or The Freeman's Journal and look for incidences of such barbarous oppression as genuinely had existed seventy and one hundred and two hundred years previously but which was, nevertheless, even then, confined to history, and justify loutish fanaticism so shamefully dressed up as a human rights rebellion on these bases.

Apogee

A.Tomas wrote: »

I suppose he supported swearing the oath to the english monarch aswell, did he?

Dev swore the oath in 1927. A Fianna Fáiler would never let a deeply held principle prevent him from amassing power.

kraggy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Douglas Haig was a legitimate commander fighting a legitimate war. It doesn't make his methods of warfare any more agreeable. But at least he had a right to be fighting a war.


Don't even go there. Unless your willing to draw comparisons between the early twentieth century UK and Gaddafie's Libya.


What exactly is ridiculous about it?

What would you say if I rounded up twenty of my pals, stole guns, forcibly took over the Town Hall in Monaghan and proclaimed a new Frostyland Republic while reading a speach I wrote myself for the occasion promising all citizens of Frostyland (what is now Cavan, Monaghan and Louth) liberty, equality, fraternity and Frosty Chocolate milkshakes.

Would you go along with my new Frostyland Republic? Would you praise me as a freedom fighter for securing Frostyland independence from Ireland? Or would you expect the guards to crush my rebellion? What if I shot some guards, whould you then expect the guards to send in SWAT teams?

What if instead of twenty friends I brought along two thousand (I'm very popular) and we occupied various buildings around Monaghan (future capital of Frostyland) Would you then expect the Army to put down my rebellion because it's too much for the SWAT teams? Maybe shell the building I'm occupying because storming it would lead to too many casualties?

Would you support my violent rebellion if the Irish Navy sent LÉ Niamh up the river to shell Monaghan town hall? What about if I was convicted of treason and they decided to shoot me (even though it's illegal).

Is this scenario "ridiculous" enough for you? Well apart from the Frosty chocolate milkshake idea I can draw many similarities between this and what happened in 1916.

You'd be attempting to take over that which is not yours.

The 1916 revolutionaries were leading the way in getting back what was ours.

Massive difference.

alan85

phantom_lord wrote: »

I'm curious how someone that....... and has done more for Irish artists than most is more English than Irish?

Would that be stand up for paedos in the Senate?

lugha

later10 wrote: »

Personally, however I disagree that the men of 1916 should be celebrated at all.

They are not heroes to me either, but let those who want to celebrate them as such do so.
But can we please stop this notion that the only issue for consideration in the next presidential election is the 2016 celebrations. Perhaps the republicans posting here have tremendous fate in the FG led coalition to lead in such a way that the most pressing matter on our agenda in 5 years will be the question of the 1916 centenary celebration.

I fear we will have far more troubling questions to deal with.:(

Bottle_of_Smoke

lugha wrote: »

They are not heroes to me either, but let those who want to celebrate them as such do so.
But can we please stop this notion that the only issue for consideration in the next presidential election is the 2016 celebrations. Perhaps the republicans posting here have tremendous fate in the FG led coalition to lead in such a way that the most pressing matter on our agenda in 5 years will be the question of the 1916 centenary celebration.

I fear we will have far more troubling questions to deal with.:(

The thread is called "david Norris on the 1916 rebels" not "will david norris make a good president"

Iwasfrozen

kraggy wrote: »

You'd be attempting to take over that which is not yours.

The 1916 revolutionaries were leading the way in getting back what was ours.

Massive difference.

No there isn't, you can look at that anyway. If the People's republic of Cork declared independence tomorrow morning they could claim to be taking back what is theirs. Same logic with Frostyland.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No there isn't, you can look at that anyway. If the People's republic of Cork declared independence tomorrow morning they could claim to be taking back what is theirs. Same logic with Frostyland.

Cork people are not oppressed, have full democratic rights and see themselves as Irish to be ruled by Irish government. Your posts are getting sillier and are insulting to the heroes who gave us our freedom.

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote:

Cork people are not oppressed, have full democratic rights and see themselves as Irish to be ruled by Irish government. Your posts are getting sillier and are insulting to the heroes who gave us our freedom.

Neitehr where Irish people, home rule was only delayed due to the war. Whether you like my examples or not they use the same logic as you are using.

Denerick

gurramok wrote: »

Cork people are not oppressed, have full democratic rights and see themselves as Irish to be ruled by Irish government. Your posts are getting sillier and are insulting to the heroes who gave us our freedom.

Somebody please shoot me.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Neitehr where Irish people, home rule was only delayed due to the war. Whether you like my examples or not they use the same logic as you are using.

Now you're trying to rewrite history.

Denerick wrote: »

Somebody please shoot me.

No.

phantom_lord

gurramok wrote: »

Cork people are not oppressed, have full democratic rights and see themselves as Irish to be ruled by Irish government. Your posts are getting sillier and are insulting to the heroes who gave us our freedom.

TBF the rebels didn't have much support in the beginning either so his example isn't really that silly.

It would be interesting to see how they would have been viewed if they hadn't been executed and Ireland went on to gain independence through home rule.

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote: »

Now you're trying to rewrite history.

No, I'm asking how you would feel if there was a violent secessionist movement in Ireland. Would you still consider them heroes?

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, I'm asking how you would feel if there was a violent secessionist movement in Ireland. Would you still consider them heroes?

Not applicable. We are not oppressed or being denied full voting rights or having our full affairs directed from a foreign power, big difference.

Denerick

gurramok wrote: »

Not applicable. We are not oppressed or being denied full voting rights or having our full affairs directed from a foreign power, big difference.

But hold on a minute. What if 200 poets from Cork are oppressed because they aren't allowed to cut turf anymore (EU directive) and some of them are under 18 (Denied voting rights). Their affairs are directed from a foreign power based in Dublin, which they do not recognise. Would you support the right of these 200 people in Cork to rise up against the Dublin administration and seize the city of Cork (Which would be their new capital)? Its all about perspective. I'm sure these 200 people would in later years become 'the people who granted us our freedom', or some other muck of that sort.

How were Irish men not granted full voting rights in 1916? If anything Ireland was over-represented in Westminster, we had more MPs per head of population than anywhere else in the UK. Women of course could not vote, like most other places in the world at this time.

Basically I'm saying its absurd to defend the rights of a few hundred extremists to blow up Cork with no popular mandate whatsoever.

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote: »

Not applicable. We are not oppressed or being denied full voting rights or having our full affairs directed from a foreign power, big difference.

Of course it's applicable. We were not oppressed, saying it doesn't make it so. Home rule was coming just after the war. England wasn't foreign, we were in the same state as them. And our full affairs were not being directed by them, we elected members of parliament, just like Scotland and Wales. Remember?

Now put the shoe on the other foot, if Cork did secede from Ireland all of what you mentioned would be applicable to them.

phantom_lord

gurramok wrote: »

Not applicable. We are not oppressed or being denied full voting rights or having our full affairs directed from a foreign power, big difference.

What happens if somehow Lowry was removed from the Dáil and the 14k people who voted him in Tip North decided that they weren't going to take this oppression from a "foreign" power and tried to cede from the country?

gurramok

Denerick wrote: »

But hold on a minute. What if 200 poets from Cork are oppressed because they aren't allowed to cut turf anymore (EU directive) and some of them are under 18 (Denied voting rights). Their affairs are directed from a foreign power based in Dublin, which they do not recognise. Would you support the right of these 200 people in Cork to rise up against the Dublin administration and seize the city of Cork (Which would be their new capital)? Its all about perspective. I'm sure these 200 people would in later years become 'the people who granted us our freedom', or some other muck of that sort.

How were Irish men not granted full voting rights in 1916? If anything Ireland was over-represented in Westminster, we had more MPs per head of population than anywhere else in the UK. Women of course could not vote, like most other places in the world at this time.

Basically I'm saying its absurd to defend the rights of a few hundred extremists to blow up Cork with no popular mandate whatsoever.

Sure go on and try to dream up ridiculous scenario's in order to justify British rule in Ireland at the time. Ireland's affairs were not dictated to by the Irish, they were dictated to by a foreign power in Westminister. A parliament in Dublin served the Irish people, not the British people.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course it's applicable. We were not oppressed, saying it doesn't make it so. Home rule was coming just after the war. England wasn't foreign, we were in the same state as them. And our full affairs were not being directed by them, we elected members of parliament, just like Scotland and Wales. Remember?

Now put the shoe on the other foot, if Cork did secede from Ireland all of what you mentioned would be applicable to them.

Trying to rewrite history again. Home Rule was not coming after the war, a war with the Unionists who objected to it in blood was coming even after 45years of trying for Home Rule. Yes, England was foreign, an annexation of the population against her will does not make a country's takeover of another country legit.

phantom_lord wrote: »

What happens if somehow Lowry was removed from the Dáil and the 14k people who voted him in Tip North decided that they weren't going to take this oppression from a "foreign" power and tried to cede from the country?

Yeh right, another non-applicable walter mitty type post.

phantom_lord

Do you not realise that they did not have the mandate of the people?

You can talk about oppressed people all you want but that was not the feeling at the time.

gurramok

phantom_lord wrote: »

Do you not realise that they did not have the mandate of the people?

You can talk about oppressed people all you want but that was not the feeling at the time.

There was no mandate for Britain to rule Ireland. Denial of self-determination is quite one aspect of oppression in my book.

Iwasfrozen

gurramok wrote: »

There was no mandate for Britain to rule Ireland. Denial of self-determination is quite one aspect of oppression in my book.

So if there was no mandate for Ireland to rule Cork would you accept succession?

gurramok wrote: »

Trying to rewrite history again. Home Rule was not coming after the war, a war with the Unionists who objected to it in blood was coming even after 45years of trying for Home Rule. Yes, England was foreign, an annexation of the population against her will does not make a country's takeover of another country legit.

Home rule was coming after the war, it had only been delayed because of the war. There would have been no war, the country would have been partitioned with the north not being subject to home rule.

gurramok

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So if there was no mandate for Ireland to rule Cork would you accept succession?

Err, the people of Cork accept the Irish govt as their legitimate representative.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Home rule was coming after the war, it had only been delayed because of the war. There would have been no war, the country would have been partitioned with the north not being subject to home rule.

No war? So hundreds of thousands of Unionists signed the Covenant in blood for fun and formed a huge UVF to oppose Home Rule?! This revisionism is getting crazier.

phantom_lord

gurramok wrote: »

There was no mandate for Britain to rule Ireland. Denial of self-determination is quite one aspect of oppression in my book.

You just don't really get it.

later12

gurramok wrote: »

No war? So hundreds of thousands of Unionists signed the Covenant in blood for fun and formed a huge UVF to oppose Home Rule?! This revisionism is getting crazier.

The country was about to be partitioned through two home rule governments; the North's political and industrial class were indifferent to unity with the south as long as they retained their British link. However you look at it, the South would have had Home Rule. I don't know anybody who understands this period of Irish history who disputes that; do you? Similarly, in the 1880s right up to the rising, most people would agree that independence for Ireland was not the big political issue as much as land reform and home rule were. What the men of 1916 were advocating was something totally without a mandate or popular support. That support came later and that was the revisionist aspect of the rising.

gurramok

phantom_lord wrote: »

You just don't really get it.

You don't get it. What you were trying to do is equate the annexation of a country and its subsequent struggle for freedom to a TD(Lowry) who is allegedly found to be corrupt by a tribunal.

later10 wrote:

The country was about to be partitioned through two home rule governments; the North's political and industrial class were indifferent to unity with the south as long as they retained their British link. However you look at it, the South would have had Home Rule. I don't know anybody who understands this period of Irish history who disputes that; do you? Similarly, in the 1880s right up to the rising, most people would agree that independence for Ireland was not the big political issue as much as land reform and home rule were. What the men of 1916 were advocating was something totally without a mandate or popular support. That support came later and that was the revisionist aspect of the rising.

How do you know this was going to happen after 45years of being denied a few times already? And why no Home Rule for the north seemingly as the pro-union posters indicate that the system was 'all democratic' at the time? Ireland was a whole administrative unit at the time, the vast majority did not want to be ruled from Westminister.

Denerick

gurramok wrote: »

There was no mandate for Britain to rule Ireland. Denial of self-determination is quite one aspect of oppression in my book.

And if the people of Cork feel there is no mandate for Ireland to rule Cork, will you uphold their rights to self determination? What if a tiny town in Donegal demands independence, because they don't accept the right of Dublin to govern their affairs? What if a small group of people take arms against the State in pursuance of this inalienable right to self determination? What if 99% of the population of Cork are indifferent to rule by Dublin? What if the 1% decide that they get to shoot people for 'the cause'? How far are you willing to go?

Denerick

gurramok wrote: »

How do you know this was going to happen after 45years of being denied a few times already? And why no Home Rule for the north seemingly as the pro-union posters indicate that the system was 'all democratic' at the time? Ireland was a whole administrative unit at the time, the vast majority did not want to be ruled from Westminister.

There is a difference between being a unionist and not thinking it is acceptable for tiny unrepresentative minorities to shoot people because they haven't got the intelligence or conscience for democratic politics.

phantom_lord

gurramok wrote: »

You don't get it. What you were trying to do is equate the annexation of a country and its subsequent struggle for freedom to a TD(Lowry) who is allegedly found to be corrupt by a tribunal.

No I'm not.

gurramok

Denerick wrote: »

And if the people of Cork feel there is no mandate for Ireland to rule Cork, will you uphold their rights to self determination? What if a tiny town in Donegal demands independence, because they don't accept the right of Dublin to govern their affairs? What if a small group of people take arms against the State in pursuance of this inalienable right to self determination? What if 99% of the population of Cork are indifferent to rule by Dublin? What if the 1% decide that they get to shoot people for 'the cause'? How far are you willing to go?

Denerick wrote: »

There is a difference between being a unionist and not thinking it is acceptable for tiny unrepresentative minorities to shoot people because they haven't got the intelligence or conscience for democratic politics.

All these what if's about poets, turfcutters, Lowry supporters, Frostyland separatists & Cork people is really fairytale revisionism as there is no oppression or denial of people's democratic rights in said areas by the Irish govt administration lasting 1 day nevermind 800 odd years.

Your last post is trying to be very insulting to the intelligent founding heroes of this state and I am not going to rise to such childish flaming.

later12

gurramok wrote: »

How do you know this was going to happen after 45years of being denied a few times already?

The only educated individuals I have ever met who still insist on taking this position are, for some reason, ageing national school teachers with nationalist hangovers. Until I was about thirteen I actually accepted this theory, I would have hoped it is one that most adults would see through; The home rule legislation became law in 1914. The legislation stipulated that it would be postponed for wartime operations, which in itself is understandable, but it should reminded that it did actually happen, it did become law and it was enacted. Ireland had Home Rule on the statute books at the time of the 1916 rising, and it had Home Rule in physical reality by the time it went to war with Britain. These are irrefutable facts.

And why no Home Rule for the north seemingly as the pro-union posters indicate that the system was 'all democratic' at the time? Ireland was a whole administrative unit at the time, the vast majority did not want to be ruled from Westminister.

Ah yes, but you have just said that denial of self determination was oppression, therefore, as the majority of unionists in the North, with their own distinct identity, wanted union and home rule for Ulster, that was what they got.

phantom_lord

gurramok wrote: »

All these what if's about poets, turfcutters, Lowry supporters, Frostyland separatists & Cork people is really fairytale revisionism as there is no oppression or denial of people's democratic rights in said areas by the Irish govt administration lasting 1 day nevermind 800 odd years.

Your last post is trying to be very insulting to the intelligent founding heroes of this state and I am not going to rise to such childish flaming.

Why did the rebels not have the mandate of the people?

gurramok

later10 wrote: »

The only educated individuals I have ever met who still insist on taking this position are, for some reason, ageing national school teachers with nationalist hangovers. Until I was about thirteen I actually accepted this theory, I would have hoped it is one that most adults would see through; The home rule legislation became law in 1914. The legislation stipulated that it would be postponed for wartime operations, which in itself is understandable, but it should reminded that it did actually happen, it did become law and it was enacted. Ireland had Home Rule on the statute books at the time of the 1916 rising, and it had Home Rule in physical reality by the time it went to war with Britain. These are irrefutable facts.

Ah yes, but you have just said that denial of self determination was oppression, therefore, as the majority of unionists in the North, with their own distinct identity, wanted union and home rule for Ulster, that was what they got.

Plenty of people young, middle aged and old people share my view. Perhaps you should meet more Irish people in Paris

The vast majority on the island of Ireland did not want to be ruled from Westminister, that was denied. The people who had the right to vote wanted their own parliament which was denied for generations.

The 'North' did not exist until partition time. Trying to rewrite history does not help your argument.

phantom_lord wrote: »

Why did the rebels not have the mandate of the people?

The rulers did not have the mandate to rule Ireland and annexed the place without her consent. Subsequently voting rights for Catholics(teh vast majority of the population at the time) and then Home Rule was denied. The rebels had the right to fill the vacuum as democracy was denied to the nation.

phantom_lord

gurramok wrote: »

The rulers did not have the mandate to rule Ireland and annexed the place without her consent. Subsequently voting rights for Catholics(teh vast majority of the population at the time) and then Home Rule was denied. The rebels had the right to fill the vacuum as democracy was denied to the nation.

You didn't answer my question.

gurramok wrote: »

The rebels had the right to fill the vacuum as democracy was denied to the nation.

The people at the time didn't think so.