Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's germane to the topic.

As is my Grattan's parliament question to you oscar.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

As is my Grattan's parliament question to you oscar.

It's really not. It may be relevant to the tangent you've gone off on, but not to the topic as I was discussing it.

You're demanding that I justify my belief that Ireland went from being a colony to not being a colony. At the same time, you're refusing to discuss whether or not you believe that Ireland went from being a colony to not being a colony.

Sorry, not playing by those rules.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's really not. It may be relevant to the tangent you've gone off on, but not to the topic as I was discussing it.

Why are you setting boundaries? I'll leave the Grattan question with you.

You're demanding that I justify my belief that Ireland went from being a colony to not being a colony.

No. You've already done so. (Act of Union). I've disagreed with you on this with regards to the representative aspect of that parliament, which then may relate to the legitimacy of that act.

At the same time, you're refusing to discuss whether or not you believe that Ireland went from being a colony to not being a colony.

No. Already discussed I believe. But just to clarify, I don't think Ireland went to not being a colony post 1800.

Sorry, not playing by those rules.

???? What rules?

GRMA

Utterly bizarre that someone is seriously claiming that 19th century Ireland was not a colony of Britain. Bizarre.

And all because of a law illegally passed by an unrepresentative parliament


Conceding that you were wrong on this point doesn't necessarily mean that NI is a colony now... but you have dug very deep here.

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

Utterly bizarre that someone is seriously claiming that 19th century Ireland was not a colony of Britain. Bizarre.

And all because of a law illegally passed by an unrepresentative parliament


Conceding that you were wrong on this point doesn't necessarily mean that NI is a colony now... but you have dug very deep here.

So 19th century Ireland was a colony, but Northern Ireland isn't a colony.

You'll have to explain that reasoning to me. Also, at some point someone's going to have to explain what law the Act of Union broke.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

So 19th century Ireland was a colony, but Northern Ireland isn't a colony.

I'd guess this line of reasoning comes from your apparently inflexible attitude to the right of parliaments to pass laws and subsequently the population having no rights whatsoever to disregard such laws because they don't like or agree with them. Do you not think that the rights of such parliaments to do this is related to how representative such parliaments are/were of their respective populations?

You brought up the example of the laws regarding the winding down of the banks earlier. Don't know how you can compare the validity of laws passed by a body elected by universal suffrage to laws passed by one which most of the Irish population in the late 18th century was not represented by tbh.

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

So 19th century Ireland was a colony, but Northern Ireland isn't a colony.

You'll have to explain that reasoning to me. Also, at some point someone's going to have to explain what law the Act of Union broke.

I never said that - I was making the point that you may have picked the wrong point in history to say Ireland ceased being a colony, if indeed it has.

I've already pointed out that members of the house were bribed and threatened, and funds were illegally used to get papers to print stuff favorably to it. I dont have books atm but the Irish parliaments powers did not extend to such an degree that it could vote itself out of existence. But beside that it was a govt which was not representative of the Irish people the vast majority of whom could not sit in it. It was a parliament set up by a foreign power as a puppet government in effect - it had no legitimacy. Except in the eyes of those who have an unhealthy fetish for the myth of the rule of law.

Remember that it was a couple of years after a mass rebellion - how can its law be legitimate?

Its clear from studying history that Ireland was a colony of Britain in the 19th century - the Act of Union was forced through to get rid of the power the Irish had and to centralize the power and business of the elite in Britain so that they wouldn't get notions like Grattan and the United Irishmen did that they would be better off independent. Per population Ireland also had far less MPs in London that they were entitled to. The Act of Union was about removing what little control the Irish had over their own affairs - Ireland was more of a colony after the act of union, rather than less.

By implying that if 19th century Ireland was a colony then NI is today you are making a more convincing argument that NI is a colony rather than that 19th century Ireland was not.

If a colonial powers puppet government in an occupied country gives power to its controller then the occupied country suddenly stops being a colony? Doesn't make sense. (after all you say that Ireland was a colony before the Act of Union....)

GRMA

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I'd guess this line of reasoning comes from your apparently inflexible attitude to the right of parliaments to pass laws and subsequently the population having no rights whatsoever to disregard such laws because they don't like or agree with them. Do you not think that the rights of such parliaments to do this is related to how representative such parliaments are/were of their respective populations?

You brought up the example of the laws regarding the winding down of the banks earlier. Don't know how you can compare the validity of laws passed by a body elected by universal suffrage to laws passed by one which most of the Irish population in the late 18th century was not represented by tbh.

Not to mention the fact that the Irish people rejected the Irish parliament and English rule in Ireland in a mass rebellion just a few years before which was brutally put down by English soldiers

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

I never said that - I was making the point that you may have picked the wrong point in history to say Ireland ceased being a colony, if indeed it has.

So, get off the fence. Is Northern Ireland a colony? If so, why isn't Scotland a colony? If not, when did it stop being one?

GRMA

Care to address the rest of my post?

Its nonsense to say that Ireland was not a colony in the 19th century. You know that which is why you are moving goalposts and talking about Scotland. You are going to desperate lengths to revise history to suit your world view - you are loath to admit that Ireland was a colony of Britain after the act of union because of the implications that would have for the people who fought against that colonialism - and we all know your opinion on these people. Its transparent stuff Oscar and to be fair usually you have fairly sensible arguments even if I dont agree with you. This time though you are talking nonsense.

tbh I'm not really interested in whether or not NI is a colony today but what caught my interest in this thread is your view on the act of union which is an interesting direction this thread has taken compared to the usual fare. Its obvious why you are asking that question too - you are simply looking to "turn the knife". You are the person who claimed Ireland was no longer a colony after the act of union, and you have offered nothing logical at all to back up that obviously wrong assertion. You've made the claim, not anyone else. Justify it.

One only needs to look at the vast amount of coercion and disarmament bills aimed at Ireland Britain brought in during the 19th century to clearly see that she was a colony.

Iwasfrozen

GRMA wrote: »

Care to address the rest of my post?

Its nonsense to say that Ireland was not a colony in the 19th century. You know that which is why you are moving goalposts and talking about Scotland. You are going to desperate lengths to revise history to suit your world view - you are loath to admit that Ireland was a colony of Britain after the act of union because of the implications that would have for the people who fought against that colonialism - and we all know your opinion on these people. Its transparent stuff Oscar and to be fair usually you have fairly sensible arguments even if I dont agree with you. This time though you are talking nonsense.

tbh I'm not really interested in whether or not NI is a colony today but what caught my interest in this thread is your view on the act of union which is an interesting direction this thread has taken compared to the usual fare. Its obvious why you are asking that question too - you are simply looking to "turn the knife". You are the person who claimed Ireland was no longer a colony after the act of union, and you have offered nothing logical at all to back up that obviously wrong assertion. You've made the claim, not anyone else. Justify it.

One only needs to look at the vast amount of coercion and disarmament bills aimed at Ireland Britain brought in during the 19th century to clearly see that she was a colony.

You can't colonise your own country, by that definition Wales and Scotland were colonies too. :rolleyes:

GRMA

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You can't colonise your own country, by that definition Wales and Scotland were colonies too. :rolleyes:

So Ireland was never a colony, is that what you are saying?

Iwasfrozen

GRMA wrote: »

So Ireland was never a colony, is that what you are saying?

Parts of it were colonised but it's unfair to say the whole country was.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Parts of it were colonised but it's unfair to say the whole country was.

It may not be the fashionable word for it but it is still a colony. There is a sovereignty dispute/issue which the Britiah have finally said is ours and ours alone to resolve. The British are quite comfortable with the term 'United Ireland'. Just because the Irish government are currently benign in their handling of that issue, doesn't make it any less of a dispute/issue.
There is no thrid party involved in Scotland that I am aware of and their part in the Union is voluntary, as evidenced by the upcoming free referendum to end their participation.
I think the more preposterous notion is that Britain would simply 'give a country away' that legally belonged to them, in the event of a vote for a UI.
Just like the Falklands they won't call it a 'colony' when they are interested in keeping it for their own ends.

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

Care to address the rest of my post?

Not really, no. It's pretty much a verbose attempt to avoid answering my question.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

It may not be the fashionable word for it but it is still a colony. There is a sovereignty dispute/issue which the Britiah have finally said is ours and ours alone to resolve. The British are quite comfortable with the term 'United Ireland'. Just because the Irish government are currently benign in their handling of that issue, doesn't make it any less of a dispute/issue.
There is no thrid party involved in Scotland that I am aware of and their part in the Union is voluntary, as evidenced by the upcoming free referendum to end their participation.
I think the more preposterous notion is that Britain would simply 'give a country away' that legally belonged to them, in the event of a vote for a UI.
Just like the Falklands they won't call it a 'colony' when they are interested in keeping it for their own ends.

Problem with the te colony, and by extention the word colonist implys a since of the foreign, of not belonging. Is that how you still view us unionists?

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not really, no. It's pretty much a verbose attempt to avoid answering my question.

Says the man who's been avoiding some himself?

Well oscar, do the laws of a parliament elected by universal suffrage, count for more than those of a parliament unrepresentative of its population since you brought up laws related to the winding up of the banks previously?

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Well oscar, do the laws of a parliament elected by universal suffrage, count for more than those of a parliament unrepresentative of its population since you brought up laws related to the winding up of the banks previously?

Not relevant to the discussion. If you're going to argue that the Act of Union didn't end Ireland's status as a colony, then you need to decide whether or not Northern Ireland is still a colony. If it is, why isn't Scotland? If it's not, when did its status change?

GRMA

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Says the man who's been avoiding some himself?

Well oscar, do the laws of a parliament elected by universal suffrage, count for more than those of a parliament unrepresentative of its population since you brought up laws related to the winding up of the banks previously?

All you can do is laugh really, he's dug himself into a hole with a ludicrous assertion which makes no sense and now all he can do is try to turn the knife.

No one with the faintest historical understanding of 19t century Ireland can claim that it was not a colony.

And Oscar, as for NI being a colony, I dunno if it is or not, perhaps the good Friday agreement where Irish people agreed to the way things are marked the end of it being a colony. Or maybe it still is, I don't know. I'd lean towards the former though. But I can tell you for sure that 19th century Ireland was a colony.

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

All you can do is laugh really, he's dug himself into a hole with a ludicrous assertion which makes no sense and now all he can do is try to turn the knife.

Sure, it makes no sense if you ignore my reasoning - which pretty much goes directly to my original point. I'm not sure what you mean by "turning the knife" - sounds like a fairly nasty metaphor in the context of a conversational discussion.

No one with the faintest historical understanding of 19t century Ireland can claim that it was not a colony.

"Anyone who disagrees with my perspective is ignorant."

And Oscar, as for NI being a colony, I dunno if it is or not...

Strange how someone who knows as an INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT what Ireland was a hundred years ago can't figure out what Northern Ireland is today.

Is Scotland a colony? Was it ever?

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not relevant to the discussion. If you're going to argue that the Act of Union didn't end Ireland's status as a colony, then you need to decide whether or not Northern Ireland is still a colony. If it is, why isn't Scotland? If it's not, when did its status change?

?? Excuse me? Firstly, With the greatest of respect what rights have you to state what is relevant or not to this discussion?

I'll mention NI here then in attempt to move the discussion along.

To make myself clear on this, my position is that Ireland continued to be a colony post 1800 as an Irish parliament unrepresentative of its population passed the law known as the Act of Union. Such laws I believe are not legitimate when passed by such parliaments. One could make the point that NI is currently not a colony on the grounds it has a freely elected legislature that most of the people are represented by.

So in relation to this I'll ask you again:

Are the laws of a parliament unrepresentative of most of its population illegitimate as opposed to those passed by one elected by universal suffrage since you brought up the issue of laws related to the winding up of the banks previously as an example of laws we don't like or agree with but must nonetheless accept?

As well as not representing it's population, the pre1800 Irish parliament actually passed laws discriminating against most of them, i.e. the Penal Laws. Do you consider laws as valid when its clear they are discriminatory in nature?

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

?? Excuse me? Firstly, With the greatest of respect what rights have you to state what is relevant or not to this discussion?

This particular discussion is on the topic of intransigence of thinking: I asked a poster who had accused a Unionist poster of being unable to change his way of thinking what it would take to change his way of thinking of Northern Ireland as a colony. He (and others) obliged by demonstrating that they were incapable of changing their way of thinking, which illustrated my point.

That led to the question of when I believed Ireland stopped being a colony, so I identified the Act of Union as the point in time when it became an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Now, you want to discuss whether or not the Act of Union was "legitimate". My point all along has been that it had the force of law, and has not (that I'm aware of) been challenged in a court or otherwise repealed (in the UK), and as such its "legitimacy" in the sense of how annoyed some Irish people are determined to remain about it doesn't in any way change the fact that it integrated Ireland (and, later, Northern Ireland) into the United Kingdom.

To make myself clear on this, my position is that Ireland continued to be a colony post 1800 as an Irish parliament unrepresentative of its population passed the law known as the Act of Union. Such laws I believe are not legitimate when passed by such parliaments. One could make the point that NI is currently not a colony on the grounds it has a freely elected legislature that most of the people are represented by.

So Scotland was a colony prior to the Scottish Assembly?

Are the laws of a parliament unrepresentative of most of its population illegitimate as opposed to those passed by one elected by universal suffrage since you brought up the issue of laws related to the winding up of the banks previously as an example of laws we don't like or agree with but must nonetheless accept?

As well as not representing it's population, the pre1800 Irish parliament actually passed laws discriminating against most of them, i.e. the Penal Laws. Do you consider laws as valid when its clear they are discriminatory in nature?

I don't have to like those laws, but I don't get to decide that they don't exist or never had force. Women didn't get to elect members of Parliament before 1928; that doesn't mean that laws enacted during the 19th century didn't have effect.

Your argument in essence is that, because the Acts of Union were enacted by unrepresentative parliaments, Ireland didn't become part of the United Kingdom - but it did.

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, it makes no sense if you ignore my reasoning - which pretty much goes directly to my original point. I'm not sure what you mean by "turning the knife" - sounds like a fairly nasty metaphor in the context of a conversational discussion. "Anyone who disagrees with my perspective is ignorant." Strange how someone who knows as an INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT what Ireland was a hundred years ago can't figure out what Northern Ireland is today.

Is Scotland a colony? Was it ever?

Well you are.

No one with an understanding of 19th century Ireland would say that it was not a colony of Britain. Can you find me a respected academic who makes that claim? I can point you out many who say the opposite.

Its amazing the mental leaps you are making to justify your world view.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

This particular discussion is on the topic of intransigence of thinking: I asked a poster who had accused a Unionist poster of being unable to change his way of thinking what it would take to change his way of thinking of Northern Ireland as a colony. He (and others) obliged by demonstrating that they were incapable of changing their way of thinking, which illustrated my point.

Not with me. Still don't think it was fair of you to say what was relevant or not in our discussion anyway.

That led to the question of when I believed Ireland stopped being a colony, so I identified the Act of Union as the point in time when it became an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Fair enough.

Now, you want to discuss whether or not the Act of Union was "legitimate". My point all along has been that it had the force of law, and has not (that I'm aware of) been challenged in a court or otherwise repealed (in the UK), and as such its "legitimacy" in the sense of how annoyed some Irish people are determined to remain about it doesn't in any way change the fact that it integrated Ireland (and, later, Northern Ireland) into the United Kingdom.

Facts versus legitimacy again. The law is the law concept? Challenged in a court of law? In 19th century Ireland?

So Scotland was a colony prior to the Scottish Assembly? I don't have to like those laws, but I don't get to decide that they don't exist or never had force.

Why do you need props (Scotland etc) to back up your argument? Just Ireland will do thanks.

Women didn't get to elect members of Parliament before 1928; that doesn't mean that laws enacted during the 19th century didn't have effect.

The law is the law again? People, even if they were Catholics, had a duty to obey the Penal Laws? Those particular laws were first enacted in the time when you say Ireland was a colony. Did people have to abide by them after 1800 when Ireland was supposedly no longer a colony?

Your argument in essence is that, because the Acts of Union were enacted by unrepresentative parliaments, Ireland didn't become part of the United Kingdom

Yes. Plus in Ireland's case, the majority were banned from sitting in parliament due to their religion. Don't understand why you continue to elevate the primacy of law over concerns such as these.

but it did.

Not legitimate in my opinion on the grounds of the unrepresentative nature of that parliament. So you believe then that how representative a parliament is of its population is not related at all to the laws they pass and one's duty to abide by them? People, even if they were Catholics, had a duty to obey the Penal Laws? Yes?

Predictable line you're following though, since in previous threads you've condemned the Easter Rising as it disrupted the Home Rule route to independence. Claiming that Ireland wasn't a colony prior to independence wouldn't fit in with that idea as the insurgents would then have rebelled against an illegal authority wouldn't they?

Do you believe that those who wanted independence for Ireland only had the right to work exclusively within the British political system to achieve it? Did they have the right to work outside that system pre 1800 when you said Ireland was a colony, including the use of armed force if needed?

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

Well you are.

I'm ignorant because I disagree with you? How humble of you.

No one with an understanding of 19th century Ireland would say that it was not a colony of Britain. Can you find me a respected academic who makes that claim? I can point you out many who say the opposite.

Its amazing the mental leaps you are making to justify your world view.

And yet you're not actually answering any of my questions, but simply calling me names because I disagree with you.

Is Scotland a colony?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Facts versus legitimacy again. The law is the law concept? Challenged in a court of law? In 19th century Ireland?

It has been claimed - repeatedly - in this thread that the Act of Union was illegal. When challenged to demonstrate how it was illegal, the result is arm-waving about "legitimacy".

"There oughtta be a law" doesn't make something illegal.

Why do you need props (Scotland etc) to back up your argument? Just Ireland will do thanks.

It's not a prop, it's a parallel. Scotland was integrated into Great Britain by the 1706/7 Acts of Union. The passage of the Act in Scotland didn't enjoy popular support, but Parliament passed it amid talk of bribery and corruption.

That's an almost exact parallel for the union with Ireland almost a century later. Therefore, by any objective analysis of your (and others') arguments, Scotland was as much a colony post 1707 as Ireland was post 1801.

I'd like someone to explain to me why I'm being considered some sort of drooling idiot for contemplating the very notion that Ireland wasn't a colony post-union, while none of the people calling me names appear remotely interested in the question of whether or not Scotland was a colony in the preceding century, and indeed since.

The law is the law again? Facts, effects and legitimacy.

I don't know what you're getting at, other than some arm-waving about how the Act of Union didn't change the status of Ireland just because you're upset that it was enacted.

Yes. And as I've said already in Irelands case, the majority were banned from sitting in parliament due to their religion. Don't understand why you continue to elevate the primacy of law over concerns such as these.

Because those concerns - entirely valid as they are - do nothing to change the historical fact that the Kingdom of Ireland was absorbed into a whole new country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the start of the nineteenth century. Whether or not the parliament of Ireland had a mandate to carry out that merger changes by not one iota the fact that it did, any more than the lack of a mandate by a more recent British government prevented them from invading Iraq.

Not legitimate in my opinion on the grounds of the unrepresentative nature of that parliament. So you believe then that how representative a parliament is of its population is not related at all to the laws they pass and one's duty to abide by them? People, even if they were Catholics, had a duty to obey the Penal Laws? Yes?

I'm not talking about a duty to obey a law, I'm talking about the historically documented fact that the kingdom of Ireland was absorbed into the United Kingdom.

Predictable line you're following though, since in previous threads you've condemned the Easter Rising as it disrupted the Home Rule route to independence. Claiming that Ireland wasn't a colony prior to independence wouldn't fit in with that idea as the insurgents would then have rebelled against an illegal authority wouldn't they?

I'm having trouble keeping up with your logic. My primary objection to the 1916 rebellion is that it involved bloodshed that was unnecessary, as I'm fairly certain that what it and the war of independence achieved could have been achieved anyway, and quite possibly sooner.

Even if Ireland was a colony prior to independence, I would have the same argument with the rebellion. I have no issue with the idea of seeking independence per se; my problem is with the desire to kill people in order to bring it about when it can be achieved through negotiation.

Do you believe that those who wanted independence for Ireland only had the right to work exclusively within the British political system to achieve it? Did they have the right to work outside that system pre 1800 when you said Ireland was a colony, including the use of armed force if needed?

I don't think anyone has the right to kill people to achieve a political end when it can be achieved by peaceful means. Colonial status has no bearing on that belief.

Ambient Occlusion

Definition of a colony:

A country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country

According to our good friend, the Oxford English Dictionary, Ireland was indeed more of a colony after the Act of Union. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was not a single country, it was a state.

Definition of a country:

A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory

Definition of a state:

A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government

The difference here is that since Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland were not independent of each other yet still individual countries, the definition of state with respect to territory applies to the UKoGBaI. They were all countries under the banner of one state.

The fact that a foreign military acted in Ireland on behalf of its inhabitants only supports this more. Ireland was, after the Act of Union, still a colony. This is especially true because the political power was to a large extent put into the hands of foreign politicians, - Westminster.

I think it is more correct to say that the Government of Ireland Act removed the North's status as a colony as British soldiers were no longer necessary to make sure that the local populous behaved. While still partially controlled by Britain, the North then had its own parliament, so it broke these two requirements for being a colony.

**That would mean that none of the nations that now make up the UKoGBaNI are now colonies.**

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

It has been claimed - repeatedly - in this thread that the Act of Union was illegal. When challenged to demonstrate how it was illegal, the result is arm-waving about "legitimacy".

No "arm waving" or "upset people" here. You asked for and got reasons why it was illegal, and now are dismissing them on the grounds of arm waving. That isn't a valid rebuttal. You consider it legal, I don't, for reasons already outlined. Since you keep saying its a fact (I've said this myself already so there's no need for you to keep repeating it), can I ask then why you think the Act of Union was legal?

You've said that Ireland was a colony pre the Act of Union. Do you believe that the British colonial presence in Ireland was legal or illegal? If you think it was illegal (I do), then all the apparatus to administer colonial rule (including so called parliaments) must then be illegal, yes? So how can laws or acts passed by such bodies therefore be legal? The Act of Union was passed when Ireland was a colony.

I don't know what you're getting at, other than some arm-waving about how the Act of Union didn't change the status of Ireland just because you're upset that it was enacted. Because those concerns - entirely valid as they are - do nothing to change the historical fact that the Kingdom of Ireland was absorbed into a whole new country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the start of the nineteenth century. Whether or not the parliament of Ireland had a mandate to carry out that merger changes by not one iota the fact that it did, any more than the lack of a mandate by a more recent British government prevented them from invading Iraq. I'm not talking about a duty to obey a law, I'm talking about the historically documented fact that the kingdom of Ireland was absorbed into the United Kingdom.

Ah yes, the primacy of facts. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, and when the Turkish Cypriots declared an independent state in 1983 it was recognized by Turkey only. The UN doesn't recognize it. Now its a fact that it happened, i.e the state was set up and currently exists. Do you believe that the UN should grant this state recognition and hence legality merely because it's a historical fact?

I'm having trouble keeping up with your logic. My primary objection to the 1916 rebellion is that it involved bloodshed that was unnecessary, as I'm fairly certain that what it and the war of independence achieved could have been achieved anyway, and quite possibly sooner.

If Ireland wasn't a colony in 1916, the Rising was illegal wasn't it?

Even if Ireland was a colony prior to independence, I would have the same argument with the rebellion. I have no issue with the idea of seeking independence per se; my problem is with the desire to kill people in order to bring it about when it can be achieved through negotiation. I don't think anyone has the right to kill people to achieve a political end when it can be achieved by peaceful means. Colonial status has no bearing on that belief.

Yes, but if no peaceful alternative is available, do the people of a colony eventually have the right to use force against their occupier to achieve independence?

guinnessdrinker

I must say, I have been enjoying the last few pages of this discussion.

A few things though, if Ireland ceased to be a colony after the Act of Union, did it become a colony again in January 1919 when the first Dáil approved the Declaration of Independence?

I see Scotland has been bought into the discussion a few times. One of the key differences between 19th century Scotland and Ireland was that Ireland had an armed police force and Scotland did not.

Could the requirement of an armed police force during the 19th century mean that Ireland continued to be a considered a colony by the British administration even after the Act of Union?

ONeill2013

I'm not even sure if I would be living in N.Ireland when/if there is a referendum in my life time but it would all depend on how well ROI is doing and if they actually want us, I wouldn't vote yes if the opinion in ROI was anti-unification. At the end of the day, Northern Ireland could be ruled by USA or China but it will always be in Ireland and as long as I am considered Irish I am ok with it.

oh and if N.Ireland unionists could kindly stop calling Northern Ireland 'Ulster' that would be great

Iwasfrozen

ONeill2013 wrote: »

I'm not even sure if I would be living in N.Ireland when/if there is a referendum in my life time but it would all depend on how well ROI is doing and if they actually want us, I wouldn't vote yes if the opinion in ROI was anti-unification. At the end of the day, Northern Ireland could be ruled by USA or China but it will always be in Ireland and as long as I am considered Irish I am ok with it.

oh and if N.Ireland unionists could kindly stop calling Northern Ireland 'Ulster' that would be great

Only if republicans stop calling their country Ireland.

ONeill2013

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Only if republicans stop calling their country Ireland.

I can't speak for others but when I say 'Ireland' I'm talking about the island and say 'republic' and 'northern ireland'

Iwasfrozen

ONeill2013 wrote: »

I can't speak for others but when I say 'Ireland' I'm talking about the island and say 'republic' and 'northern ireland'

Not according to the constitution of Ireland. The official name of the 26 counties is "Ireland".

ONeill2013

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not according to the constitution of Ireland. The official name of the 26 counties is "Ireland".

Though if i said 'Ireland' it could be confused with the island. I could say Republic of Ireland but it can prove as a bit of a mouthful.
it's better than a lot of people who say 'down south' when going to Donegal.

Iwasfrozen

ONeill2013 wrote: »

Though if i said 'Ireland' it could be confused with the island. I could say Republic of Ireland but it can prove as a bit of a mouthful.
it's better than a lot of people who say 'down south' when going to Donegal.

So why is it ok for the the 26 counties of Ireland to call itself Ireland but not ok for the 6 counties of Ulster to call itself Ulster?

ONeill2013

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So why is it ok for the the 26 counties of Ireland to call itself Ireland but not ok for the 6 counties of Ulster to call itself Ulster?

I don't agree with ROI being referred to as 'Ireland' either, it actually irritates me more than N.Ireland being called Ulster but it is all political correctness gone mad now.

maccored

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So why is it ok for the the 26 counties of Ireland to call itself Ireland but not ok for the 6 counties of Ulster to call itself Ulster?

maybe because theres 9 counties in Ulster?

Iwasfrozen

ONeill2013 wrote: »

I don't agree with ROI being referred to as 'Ireland' either, it actually irritates me more than N.Ireland being called Ulster but it is all political correctness gone mad now.

It's in the constitution, Ireland is the official name of the 26 counties.

Iwasfrozen

maccored wrote: »

maybe because theres 9 counties in Ulster?

There are 32 counties in Ireland but the 26 are still called Ireland. You stop calling your country Ireland and the unionists will stop calling theirs Ulster.

ONeill2013

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's in the constitution, Ireland is the official name of the 26 counties.

I never disputed that, doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Iwasfrozen

ONeill2013 wrote: »

I never disputed that, doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Fair enough, at least you're logically consistent.

AllthingsCP

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There are 32 counties in Ireland but the 26 are still called Ireland. You stop calling your country Ireland and the unionists will stop calling theirs Ulster.

The country is Called the Republic of Ireland, the Island is called Ireland. Nice tread for you to be posting on lol

Iwasfrozen

AllthingsCP wrote: »

The country is Called the Republic of Ireland, the Island is called Ireland. Nice tread for you to be posting on lol

The country is called Ireland.

Constitution of Ireland, Article 4 wrote:

The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.

AllthingsCP

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The country is called Ireland.

Yes but the Island is the Island of Ireland like America is Also United State and and Canada

Iwasfrozen

AllthingsCP wrote: »

Yes but the Island is the Island of Ireland like America is Also United State and and Canada

This country doesn't cover all of Ireland. No more then "Ulster" when used for N. Ireland covers all of Ulster.

AllthingsCP

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This country doesn't cover all of Ireland. No more then "Ulster" when used for N. Ireland covers all of Ulster.

The entire land mass is called Ireland, Nations and borders is a different matter.

it dose not matter where you are from the North or South your nation sits on the Island of Ireland the land mass.

I understand where you are coming from but the point i am trying to make is its all Ireland

Iwasfrozen

AllthingsCP wrote: »

The entire land mass is called Ireland, Nations and borders is a different matter.

it dose not matter where you are from the North or South your nation sits on the Island of Ireland the land mass.

I understand where you are coming from but the point i am trying to make is its all Ireland

Wait so if we are in agreement why are we arguing?

AllthingsCP

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Wait so if we are in agreement why are we arguing?

I don't know are we arguing.

ONeill2013

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This country doesn't cover all of Ireland. No more then "Ulster" when used for N. Ireland covers all of Ulster.

but from my experience when some people in N.Ireland refer to Ireland they are talking about the island and are not trying to make out that there is no British rule in some of the land. Usually when unionists refer to Ulster they usually are insinuating that Ulster is British.

Madam

ONeill2013 wrote: »

but from my experience when some people in N.Ireland refer to Ireland they are talking about the island and are not trying to make out that there is no British rule in some of the land. Usually when unionists refer to Ulster they usually are insinuating that Ulster is British.

But it is - or at least six of the counties are. One land mass two country's , at least if your a Unionist that what you believe/maintain.

ONeill2013

Madam wrote: »

But it is - or at least six of the counties are. One land mass two country's , at least if your a Unionist that what you believe/maintain.

in terms of the land of Ulster, approx. 43% of it is in ROI and 57% is in N.Ireland. There is no need for it to be referred to as British because a great deal of it isn't.