Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Time to bow before the queen?

12357…11

Comments

  • #202
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I mean, the 89% of the UK parliament which is made up of MP's based in England. English MP's have an extreme influence in UK politics. I do not want them to dictate any affairs of Ireland. It's quite simple really.

    Aah, you mean English MPs like George Galloway.


  • #203
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    I suspect there is a fair amount of confusion about the answers given in the attached Poll. I answered Yes to bowing to the Queen, but I didn't answer Yes to the ROI rejoining the UK (because its not a realistic prospect).

    Time to bow before the queen? YES IMO

    How would you vote in a referendum on ROI joining NI in the UK? > NO, not realistic.

    Should the ROI rejoin the Commonwealth? YES we should, in my opinion.


  • #204
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Aah, you mean English MPs like George Galloway.

    You can cherry-pick whatever MP's you like. It doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the MP's in the UK parliament are from England, and that they dictate most of the UK affairs such as war, foreign relations, etc.. You can be obtuse all you like. You know what I'm saying is valid and true.


  • #205
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Nodin wrote: »
    So theres nobody alive that contributed to what happened in Kenya, Aden, NI etc and theres no problem* with admitting that the whole Imperial enterprise was wrong? No one in the 1990's covered up those killings in Malaysia? That Iraqi fella wasn't kicked around the place on a British helicopter on the way to a "secret" prison?

    *Except for yourself, of course.



    Let's say that I support the Nepalese Maoists, Arsenal FC and like the X Factor as well. Precisely how would that impact on (a) any of the facts I've related (b) the morality of an Empire (c) the desirability of joining a constitutional monarchy that has never fully acknowledged the wrongs its done world wide?



    A terrifyingly in-depth rebuttal, particularily with regard to the dead and displaced No doubt historians of India and Kenya are revising their positions in it's light.

    A lot of wrongs were committed in the name of the empire, many.if them before Ireland left.

    Lots of Irish people became rich as a result. Now Ireland has left, it likes to pretend it wasn't part of it. It's a bit like leaving a party at 4am and then complaining about the noise the next morning.


  • #206
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    1641 was an act of genocide commited against settlers. The only genocide commited on this island.

    In short, the Irish are no better than the British.
    a) not really, since the settlers are demonstrably still here, and b) the only act of attempted genocide on this island was committed by the english against the Irish. For which there is a long overdue balancing of accounts en route.
    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Perhaps not a majority but this thread has a decent number saying yes.
    But we all know boards attracts noddies like flies on shite keith. Lets have a referendum on the UK giving up its entire territory to Ireland, that at least would have some justifiable basis in international law.
    LordSutch wrote: »
    I suspect there is a fair amount of confusion about the answers given in the attached Poll. I answered Yes to bowing to the Queen, but I didn't answer Yes to the ROI rejoining the UK (because its not a realistic prospect).

    Time to bow before the queen? YES IMO

    How would you vote in a referendum on ROI joining NI in the UK? > NO, not realistic.

    Should the ROI rejoin the Commonwealth? YES we should, in my opinion.
    Sutch weighs in on the side of the unionists, what a shock. Where's bwatson, or has he stopped posting in this thread.


  • #207
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Lots of Irish people became rich as a result.
    And the factual fail award goes to...


  • #208
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    But we all know boards attracts noddies like flies on ****e keith. Lets have a referendum on the UK giving up its entire territory to Ireland, that at least would have some justifiable basis in international law.
    What do you mean? You think some people don't want it?


  • #209
    youreadthis
    Registered Users Posts: 181 ✭✭youreadthis


    dlofnep wrote: »
    You can cherry-pick whatever MP's you like. It doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the MP's in the UK parliament are from England, and that they dictate most of the UK affairs such as war, foreign relations, etc.. You can be obtuse all you like. You know what I'm saying is valid and true.

    England doesn't really dictate though. Those English MP's represent constituencies, not England. Cornish MP's and Merseyside MP's don't team up to butt**** Scotland. Some probably care less about the south east than some MP's in NI.

    A memo doesn't go out to English MP's saying "Come on guys, we need some serious war, but these bloddy celts are so peaceful and don't want any war, so you know what to do".


  • #210
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    What do you mean? You think some people don't want it?
    I think lots of people would be delighted to see the UK accepting its responsibilities like a mature nation and surrendering itself wholesale to the Republic.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Johro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    forfuxsake wrote: »
    Given that more Irish people choose to live under British rule than under Irish rule. (6,000,000 in Britain + population of NI) is it time for referendum for a united Ireland under British rule?

    Now the idea sickens me but as my belief in democracy is stronger than my republicanism, then part of me feels such a referendum would be fair.

    A united Ireland under British rule would enjoy a lot of autonomy as does NI and Scotland. Perhaps more autonomy than we will 10 years from now anyway.

    What do you think, should we have a referendum and how would you vote?
    So much crap in one post..


  • #212
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    youreadthis wrote: »
    England doesn't really dictate though. Those English MP's represent constituencies, not England.

    They vote in England's favour when it suits them. Like when they voted to flood the Welsh village of Capel Celyn for a water reservoir to suit Liverpool, despite 35 out of 36 Welsh MP's voting against it.


  • #213
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    a) not really, since the settlers are demonstrably still here, and b) the only act of attempted genocide on this island was committed by the english against the Irish. For which there is a long overdue balancing of accounts en route..

    So no genocide was committed in 1641, because the Ulster Scots are still here, but the British committed genocide. Are you claiming there are no Irish people left? That might come as a shock to some people.


  • #214
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    So no genocide was committed in 1641, because the Ulster Scots are still here, but the British committed genocide. Are you claiming there are no Irish people left? That might come as a shock to some people.
    Some slavers were killed by black people, is that an act of genocide against slavers? And I did say attempted genoicide.


  • #215
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    A lot of wrongs were committed in the name of the empire, many.if them before Ireland left..

    Did the irish take a vote and join?
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Lots of Irish people became rich as a result. .......

    "lots". Seeing as we're going to be using such precise terms, we might just clarify whether thats Imperial "lots" or Metric, because the whole land war thing rather pointed out that (metric) "lots" of people were either tenant farmers or landless labourers, the population having been dispoessed by earlier policies.


  • #216
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    So no genocide was committed in 1641, because the Ulster Scots are still here, but the British committed genocide. Are you claiming there are no Irish people left? That might come as a shock to some people.

    No, no genocide was committed in 1641. A rebellion occurred in 1641.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dlofnep wrote: »
    They vote in England's favour when it suits them. Like when they voted to flood the Welsh village of Capel Celyn for a water reservoir to suit Liverpool, despite 35 out of 36 Welsh MP's voting against it.
    I can't be bothered to google the history, but it would be a good guess that this happened before devolution!

    As usual this has turned into a "my history is better than yours" type of a thread. :rolleyes:

    Edit: i wiki'ed it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capel_Celyn 1956!


  • #218
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Deleted User wrote: »
    As usual this has turned into a "my history is better than yours" type of a thread. :rolleyes:
    Do compare and constrast the population of Ireland circa 1840 versus same circa 2012 like a good man.


  • #219
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    Nodin wrote: »
    Did the irish take a vote and join?

    This is actually not as easy an answer as you might think. Grattan's Parliament voted to abolish itself, effectively endorsing the Act of Union. Now I'm not arguing that the Parliament of 18th century Ireland was in any way whatsoever representative of the population but then again at the time in history no country was. Furthermore the vote to abolish the parliament was mired in allegations of corruption and vote buying.

    However, leaving aside those issues a revisionist historian could argue that Ireland did in fact vote to join via it's albeit unrepresentative parliament.

    Edit: This isn't my personal opinion but is something that could be argued.


  • #220
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Do compare and constrast the population of Ireland circa 1840 versus same circa 2012 like a good man.
    I could do the same for usa, paris or greenland so what!


  • #221
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I can't be bothered to google the history, but it would be a good guess that this happened before devolution!

    As usual this has turned into a "my history is better than yours" type of a thread. :rolleyes:

    Edit: i wiki'ed it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capel_Celyn 1956!

    There are still many matters which are reserved and not devolved - which means that English MP's call the shots. So you've not actually made a point here, and my point still stands.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, no genocide was committed in 1641. A rebellion occurred in 1641.
    Depends what you mean by genocide. If you mean killings, then yes, killings did happen.


  • #223
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Depends what you mean by genocide. If you mean killings, then yes, killings did happen.

    That is not what the definition of genocide is I'm afraid.


  • #224
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    dlofnep wrote: »
    That is not what the definition of genocide is I'm afraid.
    Well if evicting thousands of Protestants from homes in the winter and thousands dying isn't genocide, then can you explain to me what is?


  • #225
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Depends what you mean by genocide. If you mean killings, then yes, killings did happen.

    Killings and massacres did indeed happen. However its the modern consensus that they were not pre-planned or organised and were not on the scale previously thought.
    http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/news/pressreleases/pressRelease.php?headerID=1312&pressReleaseArchive=2010

    Its obviously not comparable to British government policy in Kenya in the 1950's etc, as its a different kind of beast.


  • #226
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Well if evicting thousands of Protestants from homes in the winter and thousands dying isn't genocide, then can you explain to me what is?

    The same planters that evicted Catholics from their homes, and pushed them off their land? My heart bleeds. That's not genocide, it's retribution.


  • #227
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    This is actually not as easy an answer as you might think. Grattan's Parliament voted to abolish itself, effectively endorsing the Act of Union. Now I'm not arguing that the Parliament of 18th century Ireland was in any way whatsoever representative of the population but then again at the time in history no country was. Furthermore the vote to abolish the parliament was mired in allegations of corruption and vote buying.

    However, leaving aside those issues a revisionist historian could argue that Ireland did in fact vote to join via it's albeit unrepresentative parliament.

    Edit: This isn't my personal opinion but is something that could be argued.

    It has been. It didn't convince me for reasons mentioned above, and the vast amount of bribery that went on.


  • #228
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    dlofnep wrote: »
    The same planters that evicted Catholics from their homes, and pushed them off their land? My heart bleeds.
    But it did happen. So that is all we need to know. Oliver Cromwell is blamed for genocide but this wasn't genocide, just retribution. Double standards to be honest.


  • #229
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    But it did happen. So that is all we need to know. Oliver Cromwell is blamed for genocide but this wasn't genocide, just retribution. Double standards to be honest.

    Er no, Irish people didn't go over to England and boot English people off their land. Cromwell's slaughter wasn't justified, under any means. Irish people trying to reclaim their land however is just.


  • #230
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Er no, Irish people didn't go over to England and boot English people off their land. Cromwell's slaughter wasn't justified, under any means. Irish people trying to reclaim their land however is just.
    We are discussing this in historical terms. So if what was acceptable in 1641, then why was what Oliver Cromwell did not the same? 1641 involved the slaughter of thousands. Same with Cromwell. You only interpret it different. But it is the same thing.


  • #231
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dlofnep wrote: »
    There are still many matters which are reserved and not devolved - which means that English MP's call the shots. So you've not actually made a point here, and my point still stands.

    Well I have, as the MPs each represent a similar number of the electorate, before devolution there was only one parliament, so therefore national issues were given equal weight amongst all the MPs, after devolution, issues that affected Scottish or Welsh interests (as opposed to English) were exclusively voted on by the Scots or Welsh assembly members.

    As things currently stand, legislation that affects only England can be voted on by MPs of the whole UK, whereas legislation that only affects Scotland, Wales or NI, can only be voted on by "local MPs".

    Much of the legislation that is not devolved, are the major laws like international relations, defence etc, A lot like the EU in fact (with the exception of defence (So far)).

    In most cases, there is little difference between English, Welsh or Scottish MPs when it comes to international issues (outside of political party lines).


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    But it did happen. So that is all we need to know.
    You lads are going to have to come up with a new line when big Ian goes to the hell he richly deserves.


  • #233
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I could do the same for usa, paris or greenland so what!
    What the blue christ are you talking about. The populations of all of those places are hugely larger than they were in the late 19th century. Unlike Ireland.

    Are you genuinely unaware of this fact?


  • #234
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    You lads are going to have to come up with a new line when big Ian goes to the hell he richly deserves.
    How do you know he is going to hell?


  • #235
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    How do you know he is going to hell?
    I don't to be honest keith, but sometimes you look at a man and the deeds of a lifetime of sour hatred are just scored too deeply. He's rank with it, if there was ever one for the long chair its big Ian. You get the smell just by looking at him.


  • #236
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    I don't to be honest keith, but sometimes you look at a man and the deeds of a lifetime of sour hatred are just scored too deeply. He's rank with it, if there was ever one for the long chair its big Ian. You get the smell just by looking at him.
    Your opinion. I respect that. I just don't see how he would be going to hell if it doesn't exist. Well in my opinion it doesn't anyway. And if there is a hell, he will be in good company.


  • #237
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    What the blue christ are you talking about. The populations of all of those places are hugely larger than they were in the late 19th century. Unlike Ireland.

    Are you genuinely unaware of this fact?
    But does it matter to the people of today!


  • #238
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Er no, Irish people didn't go over to England and boot English people off their land. Cromwell's slaughter wasn't justified, under any means. Irish people trying to reclaim their land however is just.

    Mainly because they weren't given the chance. The loyalists and confederate were preparing an army to invade England. Cromwell didn't just wake up one morning and decide to invade Ireland.


  • #239
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    And if there is a hell, he will be in good company.
    There's no company at all in hell, keith, just a shitty flourescent lightbulb buzzing and blue lit 1970s style soundproof walls.


  • #240
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But does it matter to the people of today!
    What people? There are millions of people who should be here who aren't. Does it matter to them? Someone has to speak up.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Some slavers were killed by black people, is that an act of genocide against slavers? And I did say attempted genoicide.

    There was no attempted genocide either.


  • #242
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    What people? There are millions of people who should be here who aren't. Does it matter to them? Someone has to speak up.
    Are you getting a bit tied up here, history is full of events that could have resulted in "millions of people who should be here who aren't", the black death being a classic example, or would you like to include the people killed in the "troubles" or the American civil war or even the English civil war.

    Edit: plus a couple of world wars etc,

    You can't change history, nor should you get too hung up on it either!


  • #243
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are you getting a bit tied up here, history is full of events that could have resulted in "millions of people who should be here who aren't", the black death being a classic example, or would you like to include the people killed in the "troubles" or the American civil war or even the English civil war.

    You can't change history, nor should you get too hung up on it either!
    What the feck. The black death was a medieval plague at a time when the acme of medicine was to attach a parasite to your jugular. The stunning, world beating but sadly typical incompetence exhibited by the english during the great hunger was of a very different character. Now I'll hold it against no man where he came from, but if some yuck docks up trumpeting loudly the benefis of unionism, I won't be long straightening him out.


  • #244
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    What the feck. The black death was a medieval plague at a time when the acme of medicine was to attach a parasite to your jugular. The stunning, world beating but sadly typical incompetence exhibited by the english during the great hunger was of a very different character. Now I'll hold it against no man where he came from, but if some yuck docks up trumpeting loudly the benefis of unionism, I won't be long straightening him out.
    What the fuck has an górta mór and unionism got to do with the subject of this thread!

    The subject if you remember is "should Ireland have a closer relationship with the commonwealth as opposed to being in the yolk of the EU?"

    Which is the lesser of two evils!


  • #245
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    What the feck. The black death was a medieval plague at a time when the acme of medicine was to attach a parasite to your jugular. The stunning, world beating but sadly typical incompetence exhibited by the english during the great hunger was of a very different character. Now I'll hold it against no man where he came from, but if some yuck docks up trumpeting loudly the benefis of unionism, I won't be long straightening him out.

    One of the biggest problems the poor societies faced in feeding people in the work houses was the excessively high price of food. This was due to stockpiling, speculating and profiteering, by Irish farmers.


  • #246
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So much for tying to bring the thread back to the 21st century! :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What the fuck has an górta mór and unionism got to do with the subject of this thread!

    The subject if you remember is "should Ireland have a closer relationship with the commonwealth as opposed to being in the yolk of the EU?"

    Which is the lesser of two evils!
    The EU definetely, and what a stupid question.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    One of the biggest problems the poor societies faced in feeding people in the work houses was the excessively high price of food. This was due to stockpiling, speculating and profiteering, by Irish farmers.
    Bullshit, lad. From that oul trout queen vic stopping foreign sovereigns donating more than she had to the charitable cause of the famine to the wretched armpit of the world that was the british empire spending more on revitalising a park in london than was spent helping Irish people, it's entirely on the shoulders of apologists like you.


  • #248
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So much for tying to bring the thread back to the 21st century! :rolleyes:
    The 21st century will not be kind to the UK, I predict.


  • #249
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    The 21st century will not be kind to the UK, I predict.

    Rather than unkind I suspect it will be more a case of the UK declining in importance to a level more in line with its population. I suppose you could look on that as unkind, I would view it more as a natural progression. It will still have that seat on the UN Security Council as well as its nuclear weapons so it will still have some power, but probably more on a European scale rather than a global one.

    This all presumes that the UK remains as a single state, if Scotland goes the whole edifice will come crashing down very quickly I suspect.


  • #250
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    One of the biggest problems the poor societies faced in feeding people in the work houses was the excessively high price of food. This was due to stockpiling, speculating and profiteering, by Irish farmers.

    ...one of the things that always struck me about the colonialist mindset is that the langauge used - no matter the fact it was referring to being used by vastly different peoples - is that it is so similar. "blame the natives" is a classic example. Evidently this holds true for apologists for same as well.


  • #251
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    Rather than unkind I suspect it will be more a case of the UK declining in importance to a level more in line with its population. I suppose you could look on that as unkind, I would view it more as a natural progression. It will still have that seat on the UN Security Council as well as its nuclear weapons so it will still have some power, but probably more on a European scale rather than a global one.
    Personally I feel it will become more England, Scotland and Wales than a united kingdom to be honest. Even if the Scots don't break away this time, its going to happen.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement