No concept for a United Ireland except by Sinn Féin?

Chips Lovell

thecommietommy wrote: »

Now tell me, if the British and unionists really believed that only 17% would vote pro a UI then why aren't they demanding a border poll ASAP .....

Why would they demand a border poll when they're happy with the status quo?

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Why would they demand a border poll when they're happy with the status quo?

Well won't it put Sinn Fein and their dearest hopes in their place ? Wouldn't be like the unionists or British to miss a chance to have a swipe at SF Anyway, the unionists were demanding a border poll not long after the GFA was signed ( as they knew the outcome was going to be a clear win for them). If they wanted one back then why not now - unless the result is something to be afraid of ?

Chips Lovell

So they ought to ask for a poll on an issue they don't want changed, just to make a political point?

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So they ought to ask for a poll on an issue they don't want changed, just to make a political point?

They were happy enough to do it after the signing of the GFA. Tell me, if SF thought only 17% would vote pro maintaining British occupation, are you seriously going to tell me that SF would be shying away from a border poll ?? and liek I said, it wouldn't be like the unionists or British to miss a chance to have a swipe at SF and humiliate them. Indeed in SF's case, surely it would undermine their main declared aim ? Now don't tell me the unionists wouldn't want that !!!!!

Chips Lovell

I'm kind of bemused about why Sinn Fein are agitating for a border poll now. On the principle of not picking a fight unless you think you can win, I think they should have kept their powder dry until the odds improved.

Thomas_I

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So they ought to ask for a poll on an issue they don't want changed, just to make a political point?

What else than to make a political point? It´s a political matter that needs some answers, clearly and not by some polls in which some 1000 people were picked to express their opinions.

It´s the sometimes (or even constant) negative perception of SF that deters people to read and think about their proposals. I can only be in favour or against a political proposal after I´ve read it and made up my mind. So I did with these SF papers and although I´m also more skeptical towards them, I´d sign up for almost 90% of their proposals for many of them fits into my Social Democratic conviction. That´s so to say for what is written there, it´s not to be taken as if I´d jump on every thing they do.

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So they ought to ask for a poll on an issue they don't want changed, just to make a political point?

And isn't that why elections and referendums are called, to allow the individual exercise his political wishes ? And anyway, it's under border polls are under the terms of the GFA.

Chips Lovell

Why does it "need some answers" though? I mean I've no doubt that you regard it as a priority, but all indications are that the majority don't.

It's like someone saying that we need a poll soon on reintroducing the death penalty, when there's no evidence that a decent number would support it.

Chips Lovell

thecommietommy wrote: »

And isn't that why elections and referendums are called, to allow the individual exercise his political wishes ?

Indeed. But we don't call referendums on every random issue. They're called when its felt that there is a significant chance of one passing.

Thomas_I

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Why does it "need some answers" though? I mean I've no doubt that you regard it as a priority, but all indications are that the majority don't.

It's like someone saying that we need a poll soon on reintroducing the death penalty, when there's no evidence that a decent number would support it.

What a way to compare these two different matters. It´s not my priority to advocate a UI it´s to find out what is possible and worth to achieve for a better future of the whole of this Island. I admit that this is also a way to keep that thing in the peoples mind that it won´t be forgotten.

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Why does it "need some answers" though? I mean I've no doubt that you regard it as a priority, but all indications are that the majority don't.

It's like someone saying that we need a poll soon on reintroducing the death penalty, when there's no evidence that a decent number would support it.

Is not election results in very election not enough for you ? Your ' evidence ' is a fecking BBC poll :rolleyes: Like I said, if the GAA had a poll asking the same questions and it produced a very pro UI result, you'd be the very first one denying it.

Thomas_I

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Indeed. But we don't call referendums on every random issue. They're called when its felt that there is a significant chance of one passing.

How do you work out the chances of passing and its sigificance? The polls? Not 100% reliable.

thecommietommy

Thomas_I wrote: »

How do you work out the chances of passing and its sigificance? The polls? Not 100% reliable.

Plenty of polls down the years showing Scottish independence will not be passed, didn't stop the British govt from calling one. Why ? Because they knew it had little hope - unlike the six counties which would be a much closer run affair and that's why they fear it.

Chips Lovell

thecommietommy wrote: »

Is not election results in very election not enough for you ? Your ' evidence ' is a fecking BBC poll :rolleyes: Like I said, if the GAA had a poll asking the same questions and it produced a very pro UI result, you'd be the very first one denying it.

If the GAA was in the habit of commissioning opinion polls on the population of Northern Ireland from Ipsos MRBI or some other reputable polling firm, I'd be quite happy to believe that too.

Thomas_I

thecommietommy wrote: »

Plenty of polls down the years showing Scottish independence will not be passed, didn't stop the British govt from calling one. Why ? Because they knew it had little hope - unlike the six counties which would be a much closer run affair and that's why they fear it.

Interesting point you´ve made there. The result has yet to be made. Probably it´s not the British govt, it´s the unionists in NI who fears that.

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If the GAA was in the habit of commissioning opinion polls on the population of Northern Ireland from Ipsos MRBI or some other reputable polling firm, I'd be quite happy to believe that too.

You might be - untill the results came

thecommietommy

Thomas_I wrote: »

Interesting point you´ve made there. The result has yet to be made. Probably it´s not the British govt, it´s the unionists in NI who fears that.

The British govt are for a Scottish poll because they know they'd win it. Their against a NI one because it would be a very much closer run, something they don't want regardless what they say.



( It's another story altogether but Tory's/Lib Dems/Labour also don't want to leave the EU whatever their public statements )

Chips Lovell

thecommietommy wrote: »

Plenty of polls down the years showing Scottish independence will not be passed, didn't stop the British govt from calling one. Why ? Because they knew it had little hope - unlike the six counties which would be a much closer run affair and that's why they fear it.

Actually, support for Scottish Independence according to polls is far higher (40 per cent in some periods) than support for a United Ireland. That and an overall majority for the SNP in the assembly swung things for a referendum.

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Actually, support for Scottish Independence according to polls is far higher (40 per cent in some periods) than support for a United Ireland. That and an overall majority for the SNP in the assembly swung things for a referendum.

Well fair enough, clearly nationalist party's will be in the majority in a few years and we may have to wait until then - but don't be giving me shyte that BBC or NILT polls are a greater indicator of how people will vote in a border poll than election results for decades :rolleyes:

Thomas_I

thecommietommy wrote: »

The British govt are for a Scottish poll because they know they'd win it. Their against a NI one because it would be a very much closer run, something they don't want regardless what they say.



( It's another story altogether but Tory's/Lib Dems/Labour also don't want to leave the EU whatever their public statements )

They´re in the better position to point out some consequences for Scotland (they´re already at it and many things has to come up yet until the date of the referendum). Some of these could quite good to disencourage people to vote in favour of independence.

They fear the outrageous reaction of the unionists and loyalists when a poll shows that there is indeed a majority in favour of a UI. Whithout that, it´d be not a great problem at all.

Chips Lovell

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well fair enough, clearly nationalist party's will be in the majority in a few years and we may have to wait until then - but don't be giving me shyte that BBC or NILT polls are a greater indicator of how people will vote in a border poll than election results for decades :rolleyes:

It's hardly "shyte". Elections are not single issue polls. People vote for parties for multiple reasons. Indeed, that's been born out in the last poll, where significant chunks of SDLP and SF voters said they wouldn't favour an immediate change in status of Northern Ireland.

Thomas_I

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's hardly "shyte". Elections are not single issue polls. People vote for parties for multiple reasons. Indeed, that's been born out in the last poll, where significant chunks of SDLP and SF voters said they wouldn't favour an immediate change in status of Northern Ireland.

No chance that they´ve asked the wrong people in that poll? Ah, so no special purpose involved of course.

Chips Lovell

If a properly commissioned opinion poll had revealed a majority in favour of unification, would you still be claiming it was rigged? Or how would you react if someone from the unionist community started claiming it was rigged?

The Corinthian

Thomas_I wrote: »

The idea of an New United Ireland keeps me thinking and searching about some concepts already drawn at the moment. So I´ve checked the websites of the four greater parties in the Republic of Ireland to see, whether they have either a drawn concept or even that topic on their agenda at all.

The southern political parties pretty much dropped the ball on the northern question with the civil war; priorities turned towards the struggle between the regulars and irregulars and the north ended up on the back burner.

As the Free State became the Republic, joined the EEC/EC/EU and eventually evolved into the modern society it is today, many of the nationalistic ideals of 1916 were retained, but for the most part they became de jure, rather than de facto aims - lip service is offered, and occasionally money is thrown at issues surrounding it (e.g. the Irish language), but a general status quo attitude towards these ideal has taken root. The classic Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Why? Probably because we're not in 1916 any more and Irish people don't really share the same ideals to the same extent as they did back them. Sure, we'll sing our songs and come out with an cupla focal and almost everyone will cite support for unification in principle, but I suspect when facing the cost of such a unification, to a population that has essentially been foreign for a century, in the privacy of a ballot box, you'll probably find that they'll vote out of self interest than out of patriotism - and as things stand that's going to be a resounding 'no'. The north probably isn't all that different, in this regard.

This is not to say that it won't happen - after all, in principle the majority still wants it to happen, some day - but it's going to take not only time, but probably a significantly more competent body than SF (or frankly any Irish party) to so so.

GRMA wrote: »

You do know that there are many economists with socialist opinions?

Not really - at least not many respected ones. Of course, it depends on what you mean by socialist, because the term is forever changing, but it's pretty much been accepted for a very long time that there are real flaws with socialism (even Kosygin recognised this).

Most serious modern 'socialist' economic systems are more correctly derived or inspired by the principles of socialism, but have little in common with good, old-fashioned Marxism.

SF isn't terribly good at economics. I just don't think it has managed to attract the necessary talent to develop a realistic economic policy. This isn't too surprising as being a nationalist party it will always tend twoards anti-intellectualism and it's economic policies to date have not exactly endeared the educated and professional classes, judging by the barely literate SF supporters that you see turn up to election counts.

GRMA

They are a republican party - Irish republicanism has never been "anti intellectual".

Godge

Thomas_I wrote: »

It´s not my priority to advocate a UI it´s to find out what is possible and worth to achieve for a better future of the whole of this Island. I admit that this is also a way to keep that thing in the peoples mind that it won´t be forgotten.

If your priority is to find out what is worth achieving for a better future for the whole of this island, why do your other posts argue so trenchantly for a United Ireland and show little openness to other ideas such as the status quo continuing for the next 50 years or reunification with the UK or a federal Europe with the status quo?

Like most people (including myself at times) a declared openness to new ideas sometimes masks a blinkered view of the world. Everyone has to be brave enough to consider that they are wrong and maybe you should reconsider why you believe unification to be the the best way forward for this island when there is only minority support for it.

Iwasfrozen

thecommietommy wrote: »

Catholic children will mainly vote nationalist, Protestant children will mainly vote unionist. It's been the pattern for many decades and shows no sign of changing of it ever changing as election after election has proven.

Elections are not referendums. I huge number of catholics are turning away from a united Ireland. But that's not the point. You presented the two as if they were equal, they aren't and I called you up on it.

Iwasfrozen

GRMA wrote: »

They are a republican party - Irish republicanism has never been "anti intellectual".

Socialism and the far left wing ideologies in general have always been anti intellectual by their nature.

The Corinthian

GRMA wrote: »

They are a republican party - Irish republicanism has never been "anti intellectual".

Who are you trying to kid?

The pursuit of a united Ireland is a fundamentally nationalist concept - it's called irredentism - not a republican one, which is simply the pursuit of a particular type of government, and given the core importance of the former to SF ideology, it's pretty difficult to deny the priorities and thus basic ideology of SF. So SF may well be a republican party too (not to mention socialist), but principally it's nationalist; like it or not.

And nationalism is unfortunately anti-intellectual, as it demands the subversion of thought for the national ideal. That's why the modern nation state was invented, BTW, because fealty to the principle of the divine right of kings wasn't cutting it any more by the late eighteenth century.

The other issue is that is is also a socialist party (originally Marxist, but I'm not sure if this really applies any more), and unfortunately a lot of socialist rhetoric and ideology tends to revolve around class structure, favouring the proletarian (working) classes, over the bourgeoisie (middle) classes or nobility.

This naturally doesn't sit too well with that bourgeoisie class, who tend to also be the ones who have degrees, and so far fewer of them will join such a movement, leading to a much smaller pool of educated supporters who may assist in the development of more coherent policies in areas such as economics.

Now, you may not like the sound of that, but you can hardly deny that SF isn't exactly a magnet for people earning much above the industrial wage, compared to practically all the other parties.

This is not to say that FF, FG or Labour are brimming with geniuses (absolutely not), but however poor their policy output, it's still way better than what comes out of SF - again not a criticism on SF, per say, just of the unfortunate lack of talent they have in the ranks at present.

The Corinthian

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Socialism and the far left wing ideologies in general have always been anti intellectual by their nature.

I would largely disagree, with one caveat.

If anything socialism's problem was that it was often too intellectual - much of Das Kapital and what followed it looked good in theory, but turned out to be a disaster when implemented.

However (the caveat), combined with aggressive 'class war' it can become anti-intellectual as it asks the follower to reject reason, in return for loyalty to a class, in the same way as nationalism will ask the same, in return for loyalty to a nation or ethnic group.

Iwasfrozen

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would largely disagree, with one caveat.

If anything socialism's problem was that it was often too intellectual - much of Das Kapital and what followed it looked good in theory, but turned out to be a disaster when implemented.

However (the caveat), combined with aggressive 'class war' it can become anti-intellectual as it asks the follower to reject reason, in return for loyalty to a class, in the same way as nationalism will ask the same, in return for loyalty to a nation or ethnic group.

Oh I'd agree totally, I was half thinking of adding in general to that point. The early days of socialism were very theoretical and all the major branches added changes to that, but the movement by it's nature rejecting what it sees as "elitism" has definitely given it an anti intellectual feeling. Added to that it's rejected by the vast majority of economists as simply inefficient compared to the free market.

Thomas_I

Godge wrote: »

If your priority is to find out what is worth achieving for a better future for the whole of this island, why do your other posts argue so trenchantly for a United Ireland and show little openness to other ideas such as the status quo continuing for the next 50 years or reunification with the UK or a federal Europe with the status quo?

Like most people (including myself at times) a declared openness to new ideas sometimes masks a blinkered view of the world. Everyone has to be brave enough to consider that they are wrong and maybe you should reconsider why you believe unification to be the the best way forward for this island when there is only minority support for it.

I´m not aware that my other posts "argue so trenchanly for a United Ireland" as it is your perception. In general terms I have an openness for other ideas but I match them more on what is more realistic feasible and not what is theoretically all possible. Honestly in an realistic consideration it´s clear to me that the status que will continue for an I don´t know how long further priod, that it might change in the next couple of years isn´t to be anticipated.
There is - imo - no realstic way that the Republic of Ireland would had the farest intention to "re-united" with the UK. A federal Europe as like to say a "United States of Europe" is not in sight and there is more resistance among the member states towards such an idea.

When did I say that I believe that unification is the best way forward for the whole of the Irish Island as the only option? I can´t remember that.

Happyman42

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So getting involved in every initiative to bring peace and equality to Northern Ireland now amounts to standing idly by?

Classic!
Did it ever occur to you why there was NO peace or equality? Because a section of our people where abandoned to what was a sectarian and discriminatory rogue state.
FF/FG and partitionists...past masters at trying to shut doors when the horse has bolted.

Thomas_I

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Socialism and the far left wing ideologies in general have always been anti intellectual by their nature.

I wouldn´t sign up to that. The only ideology which was (and for some of its disciples still is) clearly and manifested anti-itellectual is Fascism.

You´re relating intellectual thinking to free thinking per see and there can be partisan intellectuals as well.

I think that there are more assertions and allegations towards SF than it might be the truth. SF´s grass-roots are in the Socialists movement, like their founders J. Connolly and J. Larkin. In this 100 years since its foundation this party probably went through some alterations and adopting modern standards to their manifesto. That´s what most parties from this background went through. Social Democratic Parties in other European states, which are from the same ideological stock, did that too. They had also some parts of Karl Marx´s theories in their manifestos. They changed it after WWII and were better off in doing so to gain votes from the middle class voters.

Chips Lovell

Happyman42 wrote: »

Classic!
Did it ever occur to you why there was NO peace or equality? Because a section of our people where abandoned to what was a sectarian and discriminatory rogue state.
FF/FG and partitionists...past masters at trying to shut doors when the horse has bolted.

How exactly were they "abandoned"? And what would have had successive FF and FG governments do?

Thomas_I

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

How exactly were they "abandoned"? And what would have had successive FF and FG governments do?

Maybe something like this scenario:

- launch an full scale invasion of NI
- overthrow the Stormont regime and put them into interrogation camps
- cut all communication access to the UK
- annex NI
- tear down the borders
- install an oppressive anti-unionist / loyalist law for the time being
- evict all suspicious unionist / loyalists to prevent an uprising from that part
- declare NI with the RoI united and wait whether the British give a damn to fight for NI, if not

"Mission accomplished, Ireland free, abandoned Irish people freed from the sectarian Stormont dictatorship".

Something like that (but not all points from this scenario) were expected to take place in the view of the Irish public in the RoI in 1968/1969 (more in fear of it than in favour) when the tensions in NI grew stronger.

Happyman42

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

How exactly were they "abandoned"? And what would have had successive FF and FG governments do?

Calling what was going on for what it was, would have been a start. The British where embarassed by international pressure to do something about it in the end, make no mistake about that. That could have been achieved a lot earlier and with a lot less bloodshed had successive Irish governments shown some balls, there where plenty of opportunities to do that over the years. Had Lynch not wimped out and had sent troops into Derry to 'protect' the nationalist community, there would be a whole lot less casulties now, because the British would have been forced to do something much sooner and the IRA would not have filled the vacumm. Yes, Irish soldiers may have died, but look what happened anyway. (personally I don't think the British would have responded violently, I think it would have been addressed diplomatically, in which case Lynch would have had a bargaining chip to secure protection and equality for nationalists)
Instead of colluding with the British, by their silence and by shoring up the security of a failed state, they should have been trenchant and insistent on calling for the British to fairly intercede and establish a democrat society, that was and is the responsibility of any truly concerned Irish government.
They had all the evidence they needed in images of civil rights protestors being beaten off the streets by a sectarian police force, the whole world could see what was actually going on.

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's hardly "shyte". Elections are not single issue polls. People vote for parties for multiple reasons. Indeed, that's been born out in the last poll, where significant chunks of SDLP and SF voters said they wouldn't favour an immediate change in status of Northern Ireland.

If people vote for parties for multiple reasons as you state, election results would show vastly greater cross over of voting patterns in various elections which clearly does not happen and shows no sign of happening. And it is very much shyte that a TV poll is a greater indicator of how people would vote in a referendum than election results for decades. Unionism is hiding behind a TV poll, just like they hid behind the NILT polls. If you crowd were as confident as you pretend to be, you'd want one tomorrow

Chips Lovell

thecommietommy wrote: »

...a TV poll...

How exactly do you think this poll was conducted? Because your referring to it as "TV poll" leads me to believe you may be misunderstanding it.

thecommietommy

Thomas_I wrote: »

Maybe something like this scenario:

- launch an full scale invasion of NI
- overthrow the Stormont regime and put them into interrogation camps
- cut all communication access to the UK
- annex NI
- tear down the borders
- install an oppressive anti-unionist / loyalist law for the time being
- evict all suspicious unionist / loyalists to prevent an uprising from that part
- declare NI with the RoI united and wait whether the British give a damn to fight for NI, if not

"Mission accomplished, Ireland free, abandoned Irish people freed from the sectarian Stormont dictatorship".

Something like that (but not all points from this scenario) were expected to take place in the view of the Irish public in the RoI in 1968/1969 (more in fear of it than in favour) when the tensions in NI grew stronger.

The Civil rights movement and the ROI intervention in Derry etc would have had total international backing, especially in America, where one telephone call from Washington would have ended any British thoughts of throwing their weight around. The Brits are only a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world and have to act as America's bitch whenever they want to play at been an important power

Lynch and FF didn't send the army in because the Gombeen men in the 26 govt - despite their rhetoric for 5 decades regarding a United Ireland - as it would have disturbed their cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up, and didn't want their profitable political life and little fiefdoms disturbed in anyway. These quislings have absolutely not the slightest care or concern for the ordinary people of Ireland, we seen it in 1969 and we are now seeing it again with NAMA etc as they ditch the country so to protect themselves and their corrupt cronies at the expense of everyone else.

thecommietommy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who are you trying to kid?

The pursuit of a united Ireland is a fundamentally nationalist concept - it's called irredentism - not a republican one, which is simply the pursuit of a particular type of government, and given the core importance of the former to SF ideology, it's pretty difficult to deny the priorities and thus basic ideology of SF. So SF may well be a republican party too (not to mention socialist), but principally it's nationalist; like it or not.

And nationalism is unfortunately anti-intellectual, as it demands the subversion of thought for the national ideal. That's why the modern nation state was invented, BTW, because fealty to the principle of the divine right of kings wasn't cutting it any more by the late eighteenth century.

The other issue is that is is also a socialist party (originally Marxist, but I'm not sure if this really applies any more), and unfortunately a lot of socialist rhetoric and ideology tends to revolve around class structure, favouring the proletarian (working) classes, over the bourgeoisie (middle) classes or nobility.

This naturally doesn't sit too well with that bourgeoisie class, who tend to also be the ones who have degrees, and so far fewer of them will join such a movement, leading to a much smaller pool of educated supporters who may assist in the development of more coherent policies in areas such as economics.

Now, you may not like the sound of that, but you can hardly deny that SF isn't exactly a magnet for people earning much above the industrial wage, compared to practically all the other parties.

This is not to say that FF, FG or Labour are brimming with geniuses (absolutely not), but however poor their policy output, it's still way better than what comes out of SF - again not a criticism on SF, per say, just of the unfortunate lack of talent they have in the ranks at present.

SF have an unfortunate lack of talent while the bourgeoisie class in FG, FG, Labour, Independent newspapers etc etc are brillant ......... oh but wait, the country is bankrupt !!!!! And they are insisting we bailout the super rich of Europe, bourgeoisie brillance strikes again !!!

Happyman42

thecommietommy wrote: »

The Civil rights movement and the ROI intervention in Derry etc would have had total international backing, especially in America, where one telephone call from Washington would have ended any British thoughts of throwing their weight around. The Brits are only a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world and have to act as America's bitch whenever they want to play at been an important power

It was the single biggest missed oppurtunity by the Irish government. No way would the British have gotten away with a sustained assault to drive out a 'protecting force' and had the Irish been careful to be only that, the troubles wouldn't have happened imo. The irresponsibilty of The British and the fear of the Irish Government allowed the IRA to fill the vacumm and the lid came off.

PeadarCo

thecommietommy wrote: »

The Civil rights movement and the ROI intervention in Derry etc would have had total international backing, especially in America, where one telephone call from Washington would have ended any British thoughts of throwing their weight around. The Brits are only a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world and have to act as America's bitch whenever they want to play at been an important power

Lynch and FF didn't send the army in because the Gombeen men in the 26 govt - despite their rhetoric for 5 decades regarding a United Ireland - as it would have disturbed their cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up, and didn't want their profitable political life and little fiefdoms disturbed in anyway. These quislings have absolutely not the slightest care or concern for the ordinary people of Ireland, we seen it in 1969 and we are now seeing it again with NAMA etc as they ditch the country so to protect themselves and their corrupt cronies at the expense of everyone else.

You do realize the UK and USA are/were part of NATO a military alliance. Invading(NI is internationally considered part of the UK) a fellow member of this alliance wouldn't have gone down well. Especially given that were in the middle of the cold war I don't imagine NATO would have allowed Ireland to get away with it. Given the Irish army called the potential operation exercise Armageddon gives an idea of the chance Ireland had of succeeding.

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

I also find it amusing that the USA would consider Ireland more deserving of its support when Ireland decides to attack America's most dependable ally. As you said the UK is Americas "bitch"

Happyman42

PeadarCo wrote: »

You do realize the UK and USA are/were part of NATO a military alliance. Invading(NI is internationally considered part of the UK) a fellow member of this alliance wouldn't have gone down well. Especially given that were in the middle of the cold war I don't imagine NATO would have allowed Ireland to get away with it. Given the Irish army called the potential operation exercise Armageddon gives an idea of the chance Ireland had of succeeding.

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

I also find it amusing that the USA would consider Ireland more deserving of its support when Ireland decides to attack America's most dependable ally. As you said the UK is Americas "bitch"

All the more reason that it would have been sorted diplomatically, behind closed doors.
The Irish played it wrong, they should never have contemplated 'invading', it should always have been done in a 'protecting' role.
That would have put the British in a hugely difficult position, because they, where considering sending in their own tropps to do the same thing. The world's leading powers knew it had to be done and would not have, and couldn't have stood by while the British tried to drive them out.

PeadarCo

Happyman42 wrote: »

All the more reason that it would have been sorted diplomatically, behind closed doors.
The Irish played it wrong, they should never have contemplated 'invading', it should always have been done in a 'protecting' role.
That would have put the British in a hugely difficult position, because they, where considering sending in their own tropps to do the same thing. The world's leading powers knew it had to be done and would not have, and couldn't have stood by while the British tried to drive them out.

Northern Ireland was and is part of the UK. The Irish Army would only be allowed across the border with the explicit permission of the UK government. Anything else would constitute an invasion of some degree. An invasion of a NATO country in which each country promised to give mutual assistance in this event. Also remember the cold war. Imagine the message it would have sent out to the USSR if NATO had rolled over to a country with negligible military strength.

British troops could adopt the protecting role no problem because they were operating in what was/is considered internationally to be their own country and part of the normal security forces that sovereign nations have. Irish soldiers operating a foreign country(UK/NI) couldn't claim the same.

Godge

thecommietommy wrote: »

The Civil rights movement and the ROI intervention in Derry etc would have had total international backing, .

Yes, the Chinese, Russians, East Germans, etc would have made sure that the UN Security Council blocked any votes to condemn Ireland. They might even have offered logistical support - that is the international support who are referring to?

thecommietommy wrote: »

especially in America, where one telephone call from Washington would have ended any British thoughts of throwing their weight around. The Brits are only a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world and have to act as America's bitch whenever they want to play at been an important power.

One word - NATO. In 1969, you do not invade a NATO state and expect to get away with it. If there were any phone calls in 1969, they were phonecalls to Lynch from Washington telling him not to go there.

There was no Kennedy as President in 1969.

thecommietommy wrote: »

Lynch and FF didn't send the army in because the Gombeen men in the 26 govt - despite their rhetoric for 5 decades regarding a United Ireland - as it would have disturbed their cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up, and didn't want their profitable political life and little fiefdoms disturbed in anyway. These quislings have absolutely not the slightest care or concern for the ordinary people of Ireland, we seen it in 1969 and we are now seeing it again with NAMA etc as they ditch the country so to protect themselves and their corrupt cronies at the expense of everyone else.

Lynch and FF didn't send the army in because the Irish army with its 1920s set-up would have got its ass kicked and we would probably have a 20-county republic now.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Yes, the Chinese, Russians, East Germans, etc would have made sure that the UN Security Council blocked any votes to condemn Ireland. They might even have offered logistical support - that is the international support who are referring to?



One word - NATO. In 1969, you do not invade a NATO state and expect to get away with it. If there were any phone calls in 1969, they were phonecalls to Lynch from Washington telling him not to go there.

There was no Kennedy as President in 1969.



Lynch and FF didn't send the army in because the Irish army with its 1920s set-up would have got its ass kicked and we would probably have a 20-county republic now.

Had the British shot one Irish soldier on a protective mission,(remember the whole island of Ireland was calling for something to be done, ) they would have been swamped by men arriving from the lenght and breath of the country, because the country was a tinderbox. That was not lost on anybody at the time.
They could not have sustained an attack on a protective Irish force, (and we would have had to have been prepared to lose men) behnd the doors diplomacy (the same quiet diplomacy that shut Churchill up about our neutrality during WW11 and allowed him to use our air corridors and ports) would have sorted it, and we would have then been able to bargain and negotitiate what the IRA/SF managed to get negotitiated around the GFA table after all the bloodshed. As I say, the biggest missed oppurtunity.

p1akuw47h5r3it

thecommietommy wrote: »

SF have an unfortunate lack of talent while the bourgeoisie class in FG, FG, Labour, Independent newspapers etc etc are brillant ......... oh but wait, the country is bankrupt !!!!! And they are insisting we bailout the super rich of Europe, bourgeoisie brillance strikes again !!!

And you conveniently didn't read/mention the second last line in his post:

This is not to say that FF, FG or Labour are brimming with geniuses (absolutely not)

While the country is in a bad way, it would be in a way worse way had SF been in Government.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Had the British shot one Irish soldier on a protective mission,(remember the whole island of Ireland was calling for something to be done, ) they would have been swamped by men arriving from the lenght and breath of the country, because the country was a tinderbox. That was not lost on anybody at the time.
They could not have sustained an attack on a protective Irish force, (and we would have had to have been prepared to lose men) behnd the doors diplomacy (the same quiet diplomacy that shut Churchill up about our neutrality during WW11 and allowed him to use our air corridors and ports) would have sorted it, and we would have then been able to bargain and negotitiate what the IRA/SF managed to get negotitiated around the GFA table after all the bloodshed. As I say, the biggest missed oppurtunity.

This is very very very stupid. Any invasion of the north would have hardened the British position. We wouldn't have the gfa today because the British would simply refuse to negotiate. Look at the falklands to show how the British respond to arms. Nice to know you want to plunge the country into war though. Let's us know what we're dealing with.

Chips Lovell

I figured as much that invasion would have been floated as the course of action the Irish government should have taken.