Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So it wasn't a democratic process then as to how Irish nationalism became a 'minority in the UK'?

Given that the Act of Union predates any real democratic process, it's not terribly surprising, is it?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

But at the same time you would use the selective application of the democratic process to attempt to show that it was a 'minority', once this 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' was complete as you so diplomatically put it.

Because it was a minority movement within a parliamentary democracy; yes.

Just to be clear - 1800: no democracy, 1918: democracy, but minority electoral representation for Irish independence within that democracy.

Rubeter

alastair wrote: »

That's correct. Just as the demand for independence was from a minority of the people of the UK.

alastair wrote: »

Rubbish. Try telling that to any unionist.

These two comments show you feel the aspirations of the Unionist people to be a genuine and "acceptable" attitude but the aspirations of the Irish people was nothing more than an unruly minority in a greater country.

Why do you have this inconsistency regarding people's desires in how they would like to be governed?

Could you also explain how these competing fiefdoms created an acceptable (to you) country, yet when one "tribe" continues this (acceptable to you) processes all of a sudden it is no longer valid or acceptable.

In other words all you are saying here is what the British do is grand and what the Irish do is wrong irrespective that they might be doing the same thing, that doesn't seem right, don't you think?

alastair

Rubeter wrote: »

These two comments show you feel the aspirations of the Unionist people to be a genuine and "acceptable" attitude but the aspirations of the Irish people was nothing more than an unruly minority in a greater country.

They do? Or could it be that they just mean what they say? It's perfectly acceptable for two groups of society to hold contrary aspirations regarding their nationality. Both nationalist and unionist Irish lobbies/opinions were minority ones within the democratic structure of the UK. Neither had any claim to greater democratic legitimacy.

Rubeter wrote: »

Why do you have this inconsistency regarding people's desires in how they would like to be governed?

There is no inconsistency. That's an invention of yours.

Rubeter wrote: »

Could you also explain how these competing fiefdoms created an acceptable (to you) country, yet when one "tribe" continues this (acceptable to you) processes all of a sudden it is no longer valid or acceptable.

There were no fiefdoms at play in 1918. I've made no comment on the acceptability or validity of competing fiefdoms. The reality is however, that they were the historic background to the region.

Rubeter wrote: »

In other words all you are saying here is what the British do is grand and what the Irish do is wrong irrespective that they might be doing the same thing, that doesn't seem right, don't you think?

That probably doesn't seem right, because it's not anything I've said. My point was that the political initiatives of 1914, 1920, and 1922 were prompted by Irish demands, and not any British originated plan. Partition is a consequence of there being no unanimity between the Irish on the issue of nationalism, not 'lack of respect' by the British towards Irish aspirations. Those aspirations were, and are, not universal.

Rubeter

alastair wrote: »

They do? Or could it be that they just mean what they say? It's perfectly acceptable for two groups of society to hold contrary aspirations regarding their nationality. Both nationalist and unionist Irish lobbies/opinions were minority ones within the democratic structure of the UK. Neither had any claim to greater democratic legitimacy.


There is no inconsistency. That's an invention of yours.


There were no fiefdoms at play in 1918. I've made no comment on the acceptability or validity of competing fiefdoms. The reality is however, that they were the historic background to the region.


That probably doesn't seem right, because it's not anything I've said. My point was that the political initiatives of 1914, 1920, and 1922 were prompted by Irish demands, and not any British originated plan. Partition is a consequence of there being no unanimity between the Irish on the issue of nationalism, not 'lack of respect' by the British towards Irish aspirations. Those aspirations were, and are, not universal.

It's very simple. The UK was created by a certain process and the creation of the republic was nothing more than a continuation of that process.

My point is the creation of the UK by that (violent) process was no more legitimate than the continuation that created the Free State.
In fact I would consider the Free State MORE legitimate than the UK of GB&Ireland as there was more of an aspect of self determination in the creation of that state rather than the violent subjugation of populations to create the UK.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

Given that the Act of Union predates any real democratic process, it's not terribly surprising, is it?

Because it was a minority movement within a parliamentary democracy; yes.

Just to be clear - 1800: no democracy, 1918: democracy, but minority electoral representation for Irish independence within that democracy.

Since you appear to be saying that Irish nationalism didn’t come to be a ‘minority in the UK’ through any application of democracy, you’ll understand then why one would have issues with the British government then, and you now, arbitrarily deciding that it was.

I must say though, the term: 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' is one of the best whitewashes I’ve read here in quite a while describing a process of colonial annexation and exploitation.

alastair

Rubeter wrote: »

It's very simple. The UK was created by a certain process and the creation of the republic was nothing more than a continuation of that process.

Except that it continued under a parliamentary democracy. Violent conflicts between fiefdoms were pretty much understandable in the context of, eh, fiefdoms. Not so much under a democratic parliamentary structure. You might as well claim that it's currently perfectly legitimate for Corkonians to take to insurrection and ignore the governance of the Dail, because they decided they'd like to operate a separate republic of Cork.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Since you appear to be saying that Irish nationalism didn’t come to be a ‘minority in the UK’ through any application of democracy, you’ll understand then why one would have issues with the British government then, and you now, arbitrarily deciding that it was.

Nothing arbitrary about it. The reality was there was a parliamentary democracy in place in 1918, and Irish nationalism only formed a minority within that democracy.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I must say though, the term: 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' is one of the best whitewashes I’ve read here in quite a while describing a process of colonial annexation and exploitation.

Conflict between fiefdoms on these islands predated any notion of colonialism.

Rubeter

alastair wrote: »

Except that it continued under a parliamentary democracy. Violent conflicts between fiefdoms were pretty much understandable in the context of, eh, fiefdoms. Not so much under a democratic parliamentary structure. You might as well claim that it's currently perfectly legitimate for Corkonians to take to insurrection and ignore the governance of the Dail, because they decided they'd like to operate a separate republic of Cork.

`
Surely you as an Ulster Unionist would be in favour of the people of Cork having the right to make that decision if they so wish, I certainly would, it would be quite similar to many people of the north wanting to go it alone if the political future looked like involving the words "United" and "Ireland".
Or do you feel of all the people on these islands only the northern Unionists have the right to decide their own future?

Minor addition, the people here VOTED in 1918 to leave that democracy (and I use that word lightly because that democratic wish was ignored).

on the river

Rubeter wrote: »

`
Surely you as an Ulster Unionist would be in favour of the people of Cork having the right to make that decision if they so wish, it would be quite similar to many people of the north wanting to go it alone if the political future looked like involving the words "United" and "Ireland".
Or do you feel of all the people on these islands only the northern Unionists have the right to decide their own future?

Hold on what are you suggesting ??????

alastair

Rubeter wrote: »

`
Surely you as an Ulster Unionist

:rolleyes: I'm neither from Ulster, nor a unionist.

Rubeter wrote: »

`would be in favour of the people of Cork having the right to make that decision if they so wish,

Through purely democratic means - no problem.

Rubeter wrote: »

`it would be quite similar to many people of the north wanting to go it alone if the political future looked like involving the words "United" and "Ireland".

Yes. It would.

Rubeter wrote: »

`Or do you feel of all the people on these islands only the northern Unionists have the right to decide their own future?

Any group have the right to lobby for their own arrangement, but, in a scenario of parliamentary democracy, only through that mechanism.

Rubeter

on the river wrote: »

Hold on what are you suggesting ??????

I have suggested nothing, I have however made a point which I will discuss if you so wish.

on the river

Rubeter wrote: »

I have suggested nothing, I have however made a point which I will discuss if you so wish.

you Dont have the courage to say what your thinking . Instead you make up assumptions on no known facts.

alastair

Rubeter wrote: »

Minor addition, the people here VOTED in 1918 to leave that democracy (and I use that word lightly because that democratic wish was ignored).

Cork unilaterally deciding to leave the state, without any dialogue or negotiation with the state, would have no democratic mandate within the terms of the state, and if they, consequently, decided to declare war on the state as their next move, the Irish state would be both mandated, and justified in re-asserting their rule of law. This would apply even if a majority of Corkonians were voting for secessionist candidates.

Rubeter

alastair wrote: »

:rolleyes: I'm neither from Ulster, nor a unionist.

Interesting.

Through purely democratic means - no problem.

Pity the British didn't have such an enlightened outlook during the occupation and not ignore our democratic attempts.

Yes. It would.

Good.

Any group have the right to lobby for their own arrangement, but, in a scenario of parliamentary democracy, only through that mechanism.

If that always worked the world would be a very different place.

What I can't understand is you are here arguing for peaceful democratic resolution of issues yet it was the British ignoring such means that lead directly to the conflicts in 1920 and more recently from the begining of the civil rights movement in NI.
As a lover of the democratic method you seem to be on the wrong side.

on the river

Rubeter wrote: »

Interesting.

Pity the British didn't have such an enlightened outlook during the occupation and not ignore our democratic attempts.

Good.

If that always worked the world would be a very different place.

What I can't understand is you are here arguing for peaceful democratic resolution of issues yet it was the British ignoring such means that lead directly to the conflicts in 1920 and more recently from the begining of the civil rights movement in NI.
As a lover of the democratic method you seem to be on the wrong side.

You wouldnt even replay. I rest my case .

Rubeter

on the river wrote: »

you Dont have the courage to say what your thinking . Instead you make up assumptions on no known facts.

What the hell is that rubbish about.
I will only ask you once to explain.

alastair

Rubeter wrote: »

Pity the British didn't have such an enlightened outlook during the occupation and not ignore our democratic attempts.

Is the Irish state currently 'occupying' Cork? In 1918 Ireland was just a constituent part of the UK.

Rubeter wrote: »

What I can't understand is you are here arguing for peaceful democratic resolution of issues yet it was the British ignoring such means that lead directly to the conflicts in 1920 and more recently from the begining of the civil rights movement in NI.
As a lover of the democratic method you seem to be on the wrong side.

The British didn't ignore anyone in 1918/1920. SF had the policy of ignoring the institutions of the state, and of supporting violent insurrection against the state. The British were plugging away legislating for the constitutional change that had been demanded of them by Irish voters in 1914. The British came to a negotiated settlement with SF, when SF finally decided to engage with parliament in 1922. The civil rights movement within NI was directed not at issues of British rule/law, but with devolved Ulster rule/law.

on the river

Rubeter wrote: »

What the hell is that rubbish about.
I will only ask you once to explain.

Firstly calm down.
You know prefectly well what im asking yet you direct you attention to your usual rubbish . Answer up ?????

Rubeter

alastair wrote: »

Cork unilaterally deciding to leave the state, without any dialogue or negotiation with the state, would have no democratic mandate within the terms of the state, and if they, consequently, decided to declare war on the state as their next move, the Irish state would be both mandated, and justified in re-asserting their rule of law. This would apply even if a majority of Corkonians were voting for secessionist candidates.

Why don't you consider the fight for home rule dialog?

on the river

alastair wrote: »

Is the Irish state currently 'occupying' Cork? In 1918 Ireland was just a constituent part of the UK.


The British didn't ignore anyone in 1918/1920. SF had the policy of ignoring the institutions of the state, and of supporting violent insurrection against the state. The British were plugging away legislating for the constitutional change that had been demanded of them by Irish voters in 1914. The British came to a negotiated settlement with SF, when SF finally decided to engage with parliament in 1922. The civil rights movement within NI was directed not at issues of British rule/law, but with devolved Ulster rule/law.

Fair play i admire your great knowledge of this . I totally agree with your views. :)

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

Nothing arbitrary about it. The reality was there was a parliamentary democracy in place in 1918, and Irish nationalism only formed a minority within that democracy.

Reality to you it appears is giving an Anglo-centric interpretation of events.

Conflict between fiefdoms on these islands predated any notion of colonialism.

So where does colonialism come in then on the timeline when talking about the 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' and the appearance of the UK, or do you believe that there was ever a colonial era in Ireland?

alastair

Rubeter wrote: »

Why don't you consider the fight for home rule dialog?

It was. The 1918 SF MP's were not part of that process.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So where does colonialism come in then on the timeline when talking about the 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' and the appearance of the UK, or do you believe that there was ever a colonial era in Ireland?

Well - you could start with the Celts, or the Vikings, or the Normans, just as legitimately as the British, if you really want to focus on oppressive foreign forces.

Rubeter

alastair wrote: »

Is the Irish state currently 'occupying' Cork? In 1918 Ireland was just a constituent part of the UK.

Indeed it was and just like France being part of the German Reich in 1942 and Kuwait being part of Iraq in 1990 this particular arraignment had been forced upon the Irish people by the liberal use of violence.
Obviously you feel violence was OK for the British to use to create a legitimate state, but not OK for the Irish, why is this?

The British didn't ignore anyone in 1918/1920. SF had the policy of ignoring the institutions of the state, and of supporting violent insurrection against the state. The British were plugging away legislating for the constitutional change that had been demanded of them by Irish voters in 1914. The British came to a negotiated settlement with SF, when SF finally decided to engage with parliament in 1922. The civil rights movement within NI was directed not at issues of British rule/law, but with devolved Ulster rule/law.

If the British didn't ignore anyone in 1918 then why didn't the Free State (or even a republic) appear after the vote, maybe you could produce some documentation from the time showing how the British had started making plans for the withdrawl before the war kicked off.

on the river

Rubeter wrote: »

Indeed it was and just like France being part of the German Reich in 1942 and Kuwait being part of Iraq in 1990 this particular arraignment had been forced upon the Irish people by the liberal use of violence.
Obviously you feel violence was OK for the British to use to create a legitimate state, but not OK for the Irish, why is this?





If the British didn't ignore anyone in 1918 then why didn't the Free State (or even a republic) appear after the vote, maybe you could produce some documentation from the time showing how the British had started making plans for the withdrawl before the war kicked off.

Here we go again with the " what ifs"

Rubeter

alastair wrote: »

It was. The 1918 SF MP's were not part of that process.

Yes because it was going nowhere and died when WWI kicked off.

on the river

Rubeter wrote: »

Yes because it was going nowhere and died when WWI kicked off.

:eek::eek:
Get your facts right.
It was going somewhere (Home Rule)

and secondly continued during and after the war ( 1916 rising and N. Ireland act 1920)

tdv123

alastair wrote: »

They didn't 'do' partition, any more than they 'did' Irish self-governance. They provided what was being asked of them by two different groups of Irish lobbyists. Partition was an Irish demand.

Lol, I actually could have accepted partition (but I'm not sure how it was an "Irish Demand" but what was the need to make the 26 counties in to a "Free State" during the negotiations?

Why couldn't they just leave the South as the Irish Republic (because not many people didn't care about the partition at the timr) as it was? I'll tell you whiy - Britain still had a vast interest in Ireland at that time.

Rubeter

on the river wrote: »

:eek::eek:
Get your facts right.
It was going somewhere (Home Rule)

and secondly continued during and after the war ( 1916 rising and N. Ireland act 1920)

The 1914 act had died, the 1920 one was after the shit had already kicked off, and 1916 was scuppered by wanting to make partition permanent.

tdv123

Rubeter wrote: »

Indeed it was and just like France being part of the German Reich in 1942 and Kuwait being part of Iraq in 1990 this particular arraignment had been forced upon the Irish people by the liberal use of violence.
Obviously you feel violence was OK for the British to use to create a legitimate state, but not OK for the Irish, why is this?





If the British didn't ignore anyone in 1918 then why didn't the Free State (or even a republic) appear after the vote, maybe you could produce some documentation from the time showing how the British had started making plans for the withdrawl before the war kicked off.

Brilliant post.

K-9

Rubeter wrote: »

What the hell is that rubbish about.
I will only ask you once to explain.

on the river wrote: »

Firstly calm down.
You know prefectly well what im asking yet you direct you attention to your usual rubbish . Answer up ?????

on the river wrote: »

Here we go again with the " what ifs"

Mod:

Cut out the personal sniping please.

on the river

Rubeter wrote: »

The 1914 act had died, the 1920 one was after the shit had already kicked off, and 1916 was scuppered by wanting to make partition permanent.

The british government promised to introduce home rule after the ww1 . the 1914 act was only beginning . Look at any history text book before you replay. ;)

on the river

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

Cut out the personal sniping please.

Please define your role as Moderator . I am relatively new to boards

K-9

on the river wrote: »

Please define your role as Moderator . I am relatively new to boards

There is more information on this link,Top 10 Questions & Answers (For new Boards.ie users)

alastair

Rubeter wrote: »

Indeed it was and just like France being part of the German Reich in 1942 and Kuwait being part of Iraq in 1990 this particular arraignment had been forced upon the Irish people by the liberal use of violence.

The act of union didn't follow any use of violence, liberal or otherwise. Ireland was essentially as much a part of the UK as Wales or Scotland - both with their own history of violent assimilation into Great Britain. France wasn't part of any Reich btw.

Rubeter wrote: »

Obviously you feel violence was OK for the British to use to create a legitimate state, but not OK for the Irish, why is this?

Because Ireland was part of a democratic parliamentary structure, and any constitutional change could be negotiated through that mechanism.

Rubeter wrote: »

If the British didn't ignore anyone in 1918 then why didn't the Free State (or even a republic) appear after the vote, maybe you could produce some documentation from the time showing how the British had started making plans for the withdrawl before the war kicked off.

I'm finding it difficult to decipher the above passage. SF didn't engage with the parliament until 1922, and no elected representatives of the Irish had asked the British to withdraw troops from Ireland prior to that, so why would you have expected them to have any plans for the same?

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

Well - you could start with the Celts, or the Vikings, or the Normans, just as legitimately as the British, if you really want to focus on oppressive foreign forces.

So did 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' mingle with colonialism or come after it or what?

Plus if nationalist Ireland became a minority in the UK through undemocratic means as you have hinted at earlier on:

Given that the Act of Union predates any real democratic process

how can the fact that a democratic system then emerged in the UK allow one to say that nationalist Ireland was a part of and a minority in the UK? If Ireland democratically opted to join the UK in the first place your idea that it was rightfully a minority in the era of democracy in Britain in 1918 might carry more credibility.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So did 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' mingle with colonialism or come after it or what? .

Before, during, and after.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Plus if nationalist Ireland became a minority in the UK through undemocratic means as you have hinted at earlier on:



how can the fact that a democratic system then emerged in the UK allow one to say that nationalist Ireland was a part of and a minority in the UK? If Ireland democratically opted to join the UK in the first place your idea that it was rightfully a minority in the era of democracy in Britain in 1918 might carry more credibility.

Sorry to break it to you, but all democratic states have a heritage of pre-democratic conflict. The UK is no exception in that regard. The reality was that the UK was a democratic parliamentary state on 1918, and that those who sought Irish independence were a minority within that democracy. I'm not sure why this needs constant repetition?

Rubeter

alastair wrote: »

The act of union didn't follow any use of violence, liberal or otherwise. Ireland was essentially as much a part of the UK as Wales or Scotland - both with their own history of violent assimilation into Great Britain. France wasn't part of any Reich btw.

So you don't consider the events of 1798 violent.
OK .......... not much I can say about that.

Because Ireland was part of a democratic parliamentary structure, and any constitutional change could be negotiated through that mechanism.

That had been imposed with violence. Seems you're back to violence grand for the British, bad for the Irish again.

I'm finding it difficult to decipher the above passage. SF didn't engage with the parliament until 1922, and no elected representatives of the Irish had asked the British to withdraw troops from Ireland prior to that, so why would you have expected them to have any plans for the same?

The English/British had been asked to leave for over 700 years by the time of the Easter Rising. I'm sure they had an inkling they weren't welcome.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

Before, during, and after.

Vague to say the least.

Sorry to break it to you, but all democratic states have a heritage of pre-democratic conflict. The UK is no exception in that regard. The reality was that the UK was a democratic parliamentary state on 1918, and that those who sought Irish independence were a minority within that democracy.

Thanks for that assumption. Not what I asked you. Since you've already said that the Act of Union 'predates any real democratic process', can the fact that a democratic system subsequently emerged within the UK be used on its own as a reason to justify saying that nationalist ireland was rightly part of the UK?

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Vague to say the least.?

Clear and comprehensive, I'd have said.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Thanks for that assumption. Not what I asked you. Since you've already said that the Act of Union 'predates any real democratic process', can the fact that a democratic system subsequently emerged within the UK be used on its own as a reason to justify saying that nationalist ireland was rightly part of the UK?

No assumption required. The numbers bear out that fact. And yes - it can and did. Northern Ireland is legitimately part of the UK now, and the same legitimacy as a part of the UK applied to the whole of Ireland then.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

And yes - it can and did.

Nope. Your not offering any explanation at all as to how you get from this:

the Act of Union predates any real democratic process

to blandly stating this:

the same legitimacy as a part of the UK applied to the whole of Ireland then.

How does democracy democratize an action that was never so?

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

How does democracy democratize an action that was never so?

It's pretty simple stuff. If you've a democratic state, then the history prior to that democratic scenario have no relevance to the legitimacy of the democratic processes that apply at that point. I assume you accept the legitimacy of the majority within the UK now? - and yet that same history and political evolution of the state are crammed full of anti-democratic actions.

Do you accept the legitimacy of the democratic process and electoral mandate within the UK now? In NI? In Scotland? In Wales?

Because if you do - then you've no argument that the 1918 parliament was acting in anything but a democratic fashion.

K-9

alastair wrote: »

It's pretty simple stuff. If you've a democratic state, then the history prior to that democratic scenario have no relevance to the legitimacy of the democratic processes that apply at that point. I assume you accept the legitimacy of the majority within the UK now? - and yet that same history and political evolution of the state are crammed full of anti-democratic actions.

Do you accept the legitimacy of the democratic process and electoral mandate within the UK now? In NI? In Scotland? In Wales?

Because if you do - then you've no argument that the 1918 parliament was acting in anything but a democratic fashion.

But surely with Wales and Scotland having devolved assemblies, that recognises that there are differences within the UK and some of that is down to events centuries ago, some before the democratic processes were founded.

It's also very debatable how democratic the Act of Union between Ireland and the UK was, age, sex, property and religious discrimination existed then that we'd laugh at now.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

If you've a democratic state, then the history prior to that democratic scenario have no relevance to the legitimacy of the democratic processes that apply at that point.

If a state transforms into a democracy, in no way should that be used as an excuse to forget or exonerate it's past actions. If a state claims to be a democracy it should undo its previous undemocratic behaviour. Why should the onus be on those who were wronged against by the state to act first?

Do you accept the legitimacy of the democratic process and electoral mandate within the UK now? In NI? In Scotland? In Wales?

I accept the 'legitimacy of the democratic process'. It's how the British state have selectively applied it to their own advantage that I have problems with.

then you've no argument that the 1918 parliament was acting in anything but a democratic fashion.

Er, no. It passed the Gov of Ireland Act in 1920 without any consideration of the wishes of the majority of the Irish people as expressed in the 1918 election.

alastair

K-9 wrote: »

But surely with Wales and Scotland having devolved assemblies, that recognises that there are differences within the UK and some of that is down to events centuries ago, some before the democratic processes were founded.

It's also very debatable how democratic the Act of Union between Ireland and the UK was, age, sex, property and religious discrimination existed then that we'd laugh at now.

Wales and Scotland only have had devolved assemblies in the recent past - all well within the democratic era. Ireland was on track to have one in 1918. I've already stated that the act of union pre-dated democratic governance. But the reality is that Scotland and Wales both share the same history of violent assimilation as Ireland, and that reality doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the democratic process in the UK now, so why should it have in 1918?

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

If a state transforms into a democracy, in no way should that be used as an excuse to forget or exonerate it's past actions. If a state claims to be a democracy it should undo its previous undemocratic behaviour. Why should the onus be on those who were wronged against by the state to act first?

This is interesting. You believe that the UK should be obliged to jettison Wales, Scotland, NI, and presumably the various regions of England, including Cornwall etc, that did not traditionally fall under the control of the London monarchy? And they should do this pre-emptively and without regard to dialogue with the voters of these regions?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I accept the 'legitimacy of the democratic process'. It's how the British state have selectively applied it to their own advantage that I have problems with.

You either respect the legitimacy of the democratic process and the parliamentary process, or you don't - which is it?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Er, no. It passed the Gov of Ireland Act in 1920 without any consideration of the wishes of the majority of the Irish people as expressed in the 1918 election.

On the basis of the wishes of the Irish people as expressed by the last elected representatives that bothered to engage with them.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

that did not traditionally fall

You always keep ignoring how they came to be under their control alastair. What do you mean by 'traditionally'?

And they should do this pre-emptively and without regard to dialogue with the voters of these regions?

The state should begin dialogue with the voters first on what they want? You can't seem to grasp the concept of this at all it seems.

You either respect the legitimacy of the democratic process and the parliamentary process, or you don't - which is it?

Answered already.

On the basis of the wishes of the Irish people as expressed by the last elected representatives that bothered to engage with them.

You mean those elected in the election of December 1910?

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

You always keep ignoring how they came to be under their control alastair. What do you mean by 'traditionally'?

I'm not ignoring anything. I've already been quite clear that the history of the region is one of competing fiefdoms, serial invasions, and conflict.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

The state should begin dialogue with the voters first on what they want? You can't seem to grasp the concept of this at all it seems.

I'd say it's you who has the difficulty in comprehending the logical consequences of the 'undoing previous undemocratic behaviour' you suggest should apply.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Answered already.

Actually you didn't. You made a contradictory statement.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

You mean those elected in the election of December 1910?

That's correct. The last set of representatives that engaged with them.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

I'd say it's you who has the difficulty in comprehending the logical consequences of the 'undoing previous undemocratic behaviour' you suggest should apply.

I think not.

Actually you didn't. You made a contradictory statement.

Theres nothing contradictory when I said: 'I accept the 'legitimacy of the democratic process'. It's how the British state have selectively applied it to their own advantage that I have problems with.'

That's correct. The last set of representatives that engaged with them.

So ignore the outcome of an election? How bizarre. It's you who has problems with democracy alastair............

K-9

alastair wrote: »

Wales and Scotland only have had devolved assemblies in the recent past - all well within the democratic era. Ireland was on track to have one in 1918. I've already stated that the act of union pre-dated democratic governance. But the reality is that Scotland and Wales both share the same history of violent assimilation as Ireland, and that reality doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the democratic process in the UK now, so why should it have in 1918?

Because the game had changed by 1918, Home Rule was no longer the option wanted by the majority of people on the island of Ireland as proven by democratic elections.