John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

So then it would be accurate to say that in the view of the militant groups of the time, violence did not succeed in taking Ireland out of the Empire and the British monarchy remained head of state?

In the view of some of the militant groups at the time. Had the monarch been removed, doubtless some would still say there was a need to fight on.



Is this going to go on until you manage to contrive an historical scenario where you can ask me a question, I'll answer and you can jump in with a "Ha!!!Gotcha!!! remark that you will presume shows the inherent illogic of my world view? Just as a matter of interest.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

In the view of some of the militant groups at the time. Had the monarch been removed, doubtless some would still say there was a need to fight on.



Is this going to go on until you manage to contrive an historical scenario where you can ask me a question, I'll answer and you can jump in with a "Ha!!!Gotcha!!! remark that you will presume shows the inherent illogic of my world view? Just as a matter of interest.

Given that violence failed to remove Ireland from the Empire or the British monarch as head of state and both were achieved by constitutional politics, do you consider it odd that constitutional Ireland is planning to celebrate an unnecessary militant act that largely failed by its own measure?

steddyeddy

View wrote: »

Prior to 1800, Ireland was a single, independent, sovereign Kingdom (as opposed to the modern sense of nation).

It was ruled by the King of Ireland. He was also the Duke/Prince of the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg (aka Hanover), King of Great Britain plus ruled half a dozen other Kingdoms or Principalities.

It is an important point to remember though that Kingdoms were very much the personal properties of their monarchs back then. They ruled directly and made day-to-day decisions or via personally appointed and directed Ministers - the phrase "His Majesty's Government" had the emphasis on the first part of the phrase back then!

As such all the talk of "occupation" on this thread is a bit silly since no one at the time would have suggested a King was "occupying" his own Kingdom.

Indeed, it is noticeable that no one suggests though that Ireland was "occupied" by those nasty Brunswick-Lüneburgers. :-)

You're using semantics to support a view that the Irish were happy under British rule because they considered Ireland the property of the king? That's like saying republicans in the north were happy with British rule because the north was under British rule. It's a self contained sentence not revealing anything else about the context.

steddyeddy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland wasn't occupied in 1916. If you believe it was, then - again - there isn't the basis for a rational conversation, because that's just making up definitions of words in order to create historical justifications.

A large number of people were unhappy under British rule. They considered it occupied. It was certainly a country ruled by a foreign colonial power.

steddyeddy

I get the impression that some of the people condemning the violence of 1916 are simply condemning it because it came from republicans.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Given that violence failed to remove Ireland from the Empire or the British monarch as head of state and both were achieved by constitutional politics, do you consider it odd that constitutional Ireland is planning to celebrate an unnecessary militant act that largely failed by its own measure?

Not at all. Were it not for the rising the opportunity would not have arisen.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

Not at all. Were it not for the rising the opportunity would not have arisen.

Hasn't the main challenge of modern Irish constitutional republicanism been to achieve concrete gains by effective, peaceful means whilst holding off the ineffective militant republican factions since at least 1916 onwards?

steddyeddy

Sand wrote: »

Hasn't the main challenge of modern Irish constitutional republicanism been to achieve concrete gains by effective, peaceful means whilst holding off the ineffective militant republican factions since at least 1916 onwards?

This statement doesn't make sense.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Hasn't the main challenge of modern Irish constitutional republicanism been to achieve concrete gains by effective, peaceful means whilst holding off the ineffective militant republican factions since at least 1916 onwards?

Bit of a bizarre juxtaposition. If you're referring to the North, that's where constitutional means had no way of making progress, without the added impetus of the armed struggle, all of which rather falls outside the remit of this thread.

(and has been done to death in any event)

steddyeddy

Nodin I admire your patience but I hate to tell you that all have Sand's posts for the last three pages have been questions. He didn't reply to any comment without a question so I wouldn't continue.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

Bit of a bizarre juxtaposition. If you're referring to the North, that's where constitutional means had no way of making progress, without the added impetus of the armed struggle, all of which rather falls outside the remit of this thread.

(and has been done to death in any event)

Would your answer change if you looked at Ireland as a whole and considering modern Irish constitutional republicanism as including political parties in the Republic?

steddyeddy

Sand wrote: »

Would your answer change if you looked at Ireland as a whole and considering modern Irish constitutional republicanism as including political parties in the Republic?

Are you a pacifist or do you think that that violence is sometimes necessary? Do you think violence should never be celebrated?

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Would your answer change if you looked at Ireland as a whole and considering modern Irish constitutional republicanism as including political parties in the Republic?

Not really.

Now, before I answer any more questions - you might answer mine - Is this going to go on until you manage to contrive an historical scenario where you can ask me a question, I'll answer and you can jump in with a "Ha!!!Gotcha!!! remark that you will presume shows the inherent illogic of my world view? Just as a matter of interest.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

Not really.

Now, before I answer any more questions - you might answer mine - Is this going to go on until you manage to contrive an historical scenario where you can ask me a question, I'll answer and you can jump in with a "Ha!!!Gotcha!!! remark that you will presume shows the inherent illogic of my world view? Just as a matter of interest.

Do you not feel that the problem that the dissidents pose currently in Northern Ireland is the same as the Provos, Anti-Treaty IRA and the Rising posed to constitutional Republicans and nationalists?

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Do you not feel that the problem that the dissidents pose currently in Northern Ireland is the same as the Provos, Anti-Treaty IRA and the Rising posed to constitutional Republicans and nationalists?

No,I do not.

Now kindly answer my question above......

steddyeddy

Nodin why are you answering someone that can't answer yours? I wouldn't it's a not a debate.

Nodin

steddyeddy wrote: »

Nodin why are you answering someone that can't answer yours? I wouldn't it's a not a debate.

I think I will now. I've shown more curtsy that has often been shown to myself.

steddyeddy

What about this one Sand or anyone else?

Are you a pacifist or do you think that that violence is sometimes necessary? Do you think violence should never be celebrated?

irishpancake

Sand wrote: »

Do you not feel that the problem that the dissidents pose currently in Northern Ireland is the same as the Provos, Anti-Treaty IRA and the Rising posed to constitutional Republicans and nationalists?

Why do you ask "Do you not feel"??

Ho do you expect anyone to answer such a ridiculous question??

In what sense do you mean "the same"??

How can totally different situations in totally different eras, with totally different organisations and people be "the same"??

irishpancake

steddyeddy wrote: »

I get the impression that some of the people condemning the violence of 1916 are simply condemning it because it came from republicans.

There was also counter violence from the forces of the Crown.

One of Connolly's few mistakes was to think that the Brits, as Capitalists, would be reluctant to destroy property with artillery bombardment.

They destroyed 200 buildings in Dublin.






Source:

National Library of Ireland. The 1916 Rising: personalities and perspectives

irishpancake

Sand wrote: »

Hasn't the main challenge of modern Irish constitutional republicanism been to achieve concrete gains by effective, peaceful means whilst holding off the ineffective militant republican factions since at least 1916 onwards?

Sand wrote: »

Would your answer change if you looked at Ireland as a whole and considering modern Irish constitutional republicanism as including political parties in the Republic?

So, do you include parties such as Fianna Fáil, Cumann na nGael, The Labour Party, Clann na Poblachta, Workers Party, Democratic Left, Provisional Sinn Féin, amongst those parties you classify as "militant republican factions since at least 1916 onwards"??

If not, why not??

LordSutch

From a unionist point of view, from that time . . .

Ireland England Scotland & Wales, four independent interconected nations connected by geography, culture, history and bloodlines. These four countries made up the British Isles (they still do), and Ireland was but one part of the group. One of these countries was always going to more powerful and advanced, and from the very off it was England, probably due to its constant influx of newcomers, ideas, technology and influence from the rest of the British isles + the continent.

England, Scotland, Ireland & Wales created the Empire, and Ireland then left whenever it did, (1949)ish?

Ireland could never have fought 'the Empire' which comprised of more than half the countries on the globe, (the very notion seems quaint and foolish).

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

From a unionist(................) and foolish).

Nauseating. You could swear it was some Gentlemans touring club, not an Empire built on violent racism, sectarianism and plunder

steddyeddy

Has the argument now changed to republicans couldn't use violence successfully as opposed to republicans shouldn't use violence?

jank

It is good that we question the current narrative and not take such hero worship of Irish republicans of old blindly. I see that john bruton has been misquoted numerous times here in an effort to denigrate him personally. Some people complain that people are against the rising just to be anti republican. Well I see a lot if that as well from the other side. John bruton is a closet unionist and west Brit right, therefore his opinion is worthless. It's good that an ex TD can be so forthwrite with their opinion and not be worried about the electorate. Kinda refreshing.

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

It is good that we question the current narrative and not take such hero worship of Irish republicans of old blindly. I see that john bruton has been misquoted numerous times here in an effort to denigrate him personally. Some people complain that people are against the rising just to be anti republican. Well I see a lot if that as well from the other side. John bruton is a closet unionist and west Brit right, therefore his opinion is worthless. It's good that an ex TD can be so forthwrite with their opinion and not be worried about the electorate. Kinda refreshing.

It's not worthless but it's sort obvious that he doesn't like the 1916 rising because he was a unionist and not because it glorifies violence. It would be refreshing for him to be honest about it and say I don't like the rising because I am a unionist. You couldn't argue with that as it's just his viewpoint.

jank

John Bruton was a unionist? Tell me do you have evidence to this like being a member of a party of campaigning for Ireland to rejoin the union. Or is it that anyone who challenges the historical republican narrative must therefore be a unionist?

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

John Bruton was a unionist? Tell me do you have evidence to this like being a member of a party of campaigning for Ireland to rejoin the union. Or is it that anyone who challenges the historical republican narrative must therefore be a unionist?

If you look up when Bruton met Prince Charles it will give you a few clues. Exactly how far up Charles' backside Bruton wanted to get up is unknown but this statement made my toes curl

"Sir, you are everything we aspire to."

Even if he wasn't a unionist his apologetic and grovelling attitudes towards anything republican convince me that he hates the 1916 rising because he hates republicanism and nothing to do with violence.

jank

See, this is what I am on about when people try and degenerate the personality. First he was a Unionist, now he is not or eh... might be cause of a speech, so no proof that he was a unionist so. Thanks for playing. Didn't the country roll out the red carpet for the Queen a few years ago? Mary McAleese must be a unionist for uttering the words "Wow....Wow.." when the queen uttered a few words of Irish....

Tbh I am sick of people trying to claim that Irishness has to be a 'type', one cannot be a true Irish person if they don't tick the appropriate boxes, number one of these is the absolutely reverence and belief in Irish Republicanism, whatever that may be but it must be the violent kind. John Bruton is as Irish is anyone and the people who claim otherwise must be terribly insecure of their own convictions first and foremost.

Irish republicanism is irrelevant in todays world. It means nothing in of itself and is just a 'brand' used by political parties and media commentators to segment people into boxes and used as a marketing gimmick for the uneducated to what actual republicanism is. This obsession with painting people who are not atypical Irish republicans as a West Brit or god forbid a Unionist strikes me as something similar to the middle ages where people where burned at the stake for not being devout enough or not being true believers. They are in other words 'deniers of the truth, gods truth'...In Ireland we still have people who kneel down at the alter of Irish Republicanism and paint anyone who questions their precious dogma as a heretic who is an enemy of the state. i.e a West Brit or Unionist i.e not Irish. Its very sad to be honest that in 2014 we carry on with this load of $hite when much more important matters are at hand.

Of course people forget the elephant in the room, would the country have been better off if FG and Labour won the 97 election rather than FF under Bertie? Wasn't Berite a Republican or was he a socialist or was he a [insert appropriate ism]..

steddyeddy

No I'm just claiming that he hates republicanism and that his "anti-violence" rhetoric is a cover for that. I'm claiming I would respect him more if he was honest. For example he is a firm supporter of John Redmond who was a proponent of the execution of the 1916 leaders. This hardly seems in line with his violence solves nothing mantra. I also have to take you up on your straw man argument. I never said anti republican or unionist is anti Irish.

Frank Lee Midere

John Bruton is a unionist because he believes we didn't need 1916. Without 1916 all that was on offer was home rule within the UK - not that that was even a certainty - and therefore he is clearly pro union. Therefore a unionist. Also a West Brit which just means the same as unionist. Scottish No voters are unionists and North Britons.

The term unionist does not mean Ulster Protestant.

Frank Lee Midere

jank wrote: »

See, this is what I am on about when people try and degenerate the personality. First he was a Unionist, now he is not or eh... might be cause of a speech, so no proof that he was a unionist so. Thanks for playing. Didn't the country roll out the red carpet for the Queen a few years ago? Mary McAleese must be a unionist for uttering the words "Wow....Wow.." when the queen uttered a few words of Irish....

Tbh I am sick of people trying to claim that Irishness has to be a 'type', one cannot be a true Irish person if they don't tick the appropriate boxes, number one of these is the absolutely reverence and belief in Irish Republicanism, whatever that may be but it must be the violent kind. John Bruton is as Irish is anyone and the people who claim otherwise must be terribly insecure of their own convictions first and foremost.

Irish republicanism is irrelevant in todays world. It means nothing in of itself and is just a 'brand' used by political parties and media commentators to segment people into boxes and used as a marketing gimmick for the uneducated to what actual republicanism is. This obsession with painting people who are not atypical Irish republicans as a West Brit or god forbid a Unionist strikes me as something similar to the middle ages where people where burned at the stake for not being devout enough or not being true believers. They are in other words 'deniers of the truth, gods truth'...In Ireland we still have people who kneel down at the alter of Irish Republicanism and paint anyone who questions their precious dogma as a heretic who is an enemy of the state. i.e a West Brit or Unionist i.e not Irish. Its very sad to be honest that in 2014 we carry on with this load of $hite when much more important matters are at hand.

Of course people forget the elephant in the room, would the country have been better off if FG and Labour won the 97 election rather than FF under Bertie? Wasn't Berite a Republican or was he a socialist or was he a [insert appropriate ism]..

The only person making extremist arguments to shut down debate here is you. If you call someone who is in favour of a union a "unionist" you are

similar to the middle ages where people where burned at the stake for not being devout enough

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

See, this is what I am on about when people try and degenerate the personality. First he was a Unionist, now he is not or eh... might be cause of a speech, so no proof that he was a unionist so. Thanks for playing. Didn't the country roll out the red carpet for the Queen a few years ago? Mary McAleese must be a unionist for uttering the words "Wow....Wow.." when the queen uttered a few words of Irish....

Tbh I am sick of people trying to claim that Irishness has to be a 'type', one cannot be a true Irish person if they don't tick the appropriate boxes, number one of these is the absolutely reverence and belief in Irish Republicanism, whatever that may be but it must be the violent kind. John Bruton is as Irish is anyone and the people who claim otherwise must be terribly insecure of their own convictions first and foremost.

Irish republicanism is irrelevant in todays world. It means nothing in of itself and is just a 'brand' used by political parties and media commentators to segment people into boxes and used as a marketing gimmick for the uneducated to what actual republicanism is. This obsession with painting people who are not atypical Irish republicans as a West Brit or god forbid a Unionist strikes me as something similar to the middle ages where people where burned at the stake for not being devout enough or not being true believers. They are in other words 'deniers of the truth, gods truth'...In Ireland we still have people who kneel down at the alter of Irish Republicanism and paint anyone who questions their precious dogma as a heretic who is an enemy of the state. i.e a West Brit or Unionist i.e not Irish. Its very sad to be honest that in 2014 we carry on with this load of $hite when much more important matters are at hand.

Of course people forget the elephant in the room, would the country have been better off if FG and Labour won the 97 election rather than FF under Bertie? Wasn't Berite a Republican or was he a socialist or was he a [insert appropriate ism]..

By the way you create the straw man that unionist means anti Irish yet you claim republicanism means nothing. Do what I say not what I do?

Nodin

steddyeddy wrote: »

If you look up when Bruton met Prince Charles it will give you a few clues. Exactly how far up Charles' backside Bruton wanted to get up is unknown but this statement made my toes curl

Even if he wasn't a unionist his apologetic and grovelling attitudes towards anything republican convince me that he hates the 1916 rising because he hates republicanism and nothing to do with violence.

I know I'm being masochistic here, but you don't happen to have or a link to the full text of the speech?

steddyeddy

Nodin wrote: »

I know I'm being masochistic here, but you don't happen to have or a link to the full text of the speech?

I'll have a look. It might be on youtube.

Nodin

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'll have a look. It might be on youtube.

The only clip I could find there was a minute long, but ye might be better at finding it than me.

Sand

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

John Bruton is a unionist because he believes we didn't need 1916. Without 1916 all that was on offer was home rule within the UK - not that that was even a certainty - and therefore he was clearly pro union. Therefore a unionist. Also a West Brit which just means the same as unionist. Scottish No voters are unionists and North Britons.

The term unionist does not mean Ulster Protestant.

MacNeill tried to cancel the Rising. Was he a unionist?

Under the Good Friday agreement the Provos have settled for home rule within the UK, with a democratic unionist majority for the forseeable future. Is Gerry Adams a unionist?

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I'm just claiming that he hates republicanism and that his "anti-violence" rhetoric is a cover for that. I'm claiming I would respect him more if he was honest. For example he is a firm supporter of John Redmond who was a proponent of the execution of the 1916 leaders. This hardly seems in line with his violence solves nothing mantra. I also have to take you up on your straw man argument. I never said anti republican or unionist is anti Irish.

You mean he hates violent Irish Republicanism like that perpetuated by those in the Rising and the PIRA. Many Irish people (most I would gather) hated violent Irish republicanism, does that mean they are all unionist. Isn't it great to live in such a monochromatic world. Black and white, good and evil, Irish republican and West Brit Unionist.

People know damm well what those through away remarks mean. Calling someone a unionist or a west brit is playground stuff and a slight of hand way of calling someones patriotism, nationality and loyalty to the state into question. Can someone really be in your eyes be a West Birt and Irish at the same time? Would that Irish person be as Irish as Gerry Adams or Dev?

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

John Bruton is a unionist because he believes we didn't need 1916. Without 1916 all that was on offer was home rule within the UK - not that that was even a certainty - and therefore he is clearly pro union. Therefore a unionist. Also a West Brit which just means the same as unionist. Scottish No voters are unionists and North Britons.

See my reference to kneeling down to the alter of Irish Republicanism. This statement is a classic example of this.

steddyeddy wrote: »

By the way you create the straw man that unionist means anti Irish yet you claim republicanism means nothing. Do what I say not what I do?

Is that why people call John Bruton a traitor and West Brit, why do people who may disagree with this statement use such childish remarks to personalise the debate? People use the term 'unionist' knowing full well the negative connotations it has in middle Ireland. However, there is a grain of truth to the term unionist being made redundant in todays world. The term itself as political objective has lost its meaning over the years. Its just mainly used now in the Republic to either describe people who identify with the Ulster-Scottish tradition in the north or insult people for not being quite Irish enough in the South.

The word Republicanism has been abused around the world as, usually by left leaning parties of the socialist or communist kind. China, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea are all 'republic's' in name but nobody of sound mind would claim that its an actual republic (of the law) in practice unlike say Germany, France or the USA (the longest running republic in the world afaik). The only reason Irish republicans cling onto the term is to draw attention to that fact that we no longer have a queen as head of state, as if it actually makes a difference to the day to day running of the country or average joe down the street. Are Irish people better off because they are a 'republic' and Canada, Sweden, Netherlands and Australia are not? No, that is a misnomer. It is a way for Irish republicans to hold up some prize, some achievement that stats 'Yes, starting all those conflicts was worth it, wasn't it'?

steddyeddy

Sand wrote: »

MacNeill tried to cancel the Rising. Was he a unionist?

Under the Good Friday agreement the Provos have settled for home rule within the UK, with a democratic unionist majority for the forseeable future. Is Gerry Adams a unionist?

Are you a pacifist and do you believe violence should never be used?

Frank Lee Midere

jank wrote: »

People know damm well what those through away remarks mean. Calling someone a unionist or a west brit is playground stuff and a slight of hand way of calling someones patriotism, nationality and loyalty to the state into question. Can someone really be in your eyes be a West Birt and Irish at the same time? Would that Irish person be as Irish as Gerry Adams or Dev?



See my reference to kneeling down to the alter of Irish Republicanism. This statement is a classic example of this.



Is that why people call John Bruton a traitor and West Brit, why do people who may disagree with this statement use such childish remarks to personalise the debate? People use the term 'unionist' knowing full well the negative connotations it has in middle Ireland. However, there is a grain of truth to the term unionist being made redundant in todays world. The term itself as political objective has lost its meaning over the years. Its just mainly used now in the Republic to either describe people who identify with the Ulster-Scottish tradition in the north or insult people for not being quite Irish enough in the South.

I am not going to let you get away with your strawman arguments. Firstly I remedially pointed out that if Bruton was in favour of home rule and not the rising he was a unionist. To want to maintain the union is to be a unionist. To want to stay in Britain is to want to be a British subject. ( you can also be Irish just as you can be English and British). Ireland would be in the West of the United Kingdom so the term West Brit is apposite. Supporting the monarchy, as Bruton appears to is Monarchist.

From this remedial explanation of terms you decide that "I kneel at the altar of a republicanism". You rant about "socialist or communist" Republicans and veer into some non-sequitur about how great monarchy's are. Nothing to do with anything.

You seem to be arguing with some one else. I am a centrist, pro law and order 26 county small r republican.

I call Bruton a unionist because he supports the union. A west Brit because in supporting the union he would live in the West of Britain, a monarchist because of his reaction to Prince Charles. These are all valid non insulting political descriptions.

You in the other hand can't seem to type the word republican without recourse to terms including violence, socialism, communism, even North Korea appears in a spittle flecked rant.

Good loser

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I am not going to let you get away with your strawman arguments. Firstly I remedially pointed out that if Bruton was in favour of home rule and not the rising he was a unionist. To want to maintain the union is to be a unionist. To want to stay in Britain is to want to be a British subject. ( you can also be Irish just as you can be English and British). Ireland would be in the West of the United Kingdom so the term West Brit is apposite. Supporting the monarchy, as Bruton appears to is Monarchist.

From this remedial explanation of terms you decide that "I kneel at the altar of a republicanism". You rant about "socialist or communist" Republicans and veer into some non-sequitur about how great monarchy's are. Nothing to do with anything.

You seem to be arguing with some one else. I am a centrist, pro law and order 26 county small r republican.

I call Bruton a unionist because he supports the union. A west Brit because in supporting the union he would live in the West of Britain, a monarchist because of his reaction to Prince Charles. These are all valid non insulting political descriptions.

You in the other hand can't seem to type the word republican without recourse to terms including violence, socialism, communism, even North Korea appears in a spittle flecked rant.

No they're not and you are using them pejoritively.

Your definitions are laboured, self serving and rabble rousing.

I would not apply any of these terms to John Bruton.

His observations are just that - an interesting slant on that era relevant to the centeneries we are about to observe. More right than wrong imo.

Why apply any label to him?

Sand

steddyeddy wrote: »

Are you a pacifist and do you believe violence should never be used?

Do you believe violence is inherently a better, cleaner and more noble solution to any problem than negotiation and compromise?

I.E. is having to compromise with an opponent always inferior to not having to compromise with them?

Nodin

Good loser wrote: »

....................
Why apply any label to him?

"Sir, you are everything we aspire to" would justify it.

Good loser

Nodin wrote: »

"Sir, you are everything we aspire to" would justify it.

Nobody is defined by a sentence.

Nodin

Good loser wrote: »

Nobody is defined by a sentence.

Added to the tone of the speech as I remember and his general attitude as expressed in articles over the years, I'd say it's a fairly good summation.

Sligo Quay

So Bruton says the Easter rising was unnecessary, infact we can say the 1st World War was unnecessary, 50,000 Irish slaughtered to end all wars, when infact it sowed the seeds for the 2nd World War.
When you see whats happen in Ukraine, Gaza, Iraq and Syria, it's a wonder there's not a 3rd World War.
Bruton really is an idiot of the highest order, playing on the fact that he is an ex Taoiseach and the rest of us should sit up and take notice even if he is talking nonsense.


BTW great piece in today's ''Mail on Sunday'' by Sam Smith about Bruton, the banker's friend and the scourge of the poor.

Good loser

Nodin wrote: »

Added to the tone of the speech as I remember and his general attitude as expressed in articles over the years, I'd say it's a fairly good summation.

Better to discuss the opinions than the labels. Light over heat.

jank

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I am not going to let you get away with your strawman arguments. Firstly I remedially pointed out that if Bruton was in favour of home rule and not the rising he was a unionist. To want to maintain the union is to be a unionist. To want to stay in Britain is to want to be a British subject.

You contradict yourself there.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I call Bruton a unionist because he supports the union.

When did he support Ireland joining the United Kingdom?

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

A west Brit because in supporting the union he would live in the West of Britain, a monarchist because of his reaction to Prince Charles. T.

Mary McAlesse and Martin McGuinnes are monarchists too I suppose

.

steddyeddy

Sand wrote: »

Do you believe violence is inherently a better, cleaner and more noble solution to any problem than negotiation and compromise?

I.E. is having to compromise with an opponent always inferior to not having to compromise with them?

No Sand I didn't ask for a question thanks. I wanted a debate. If you're unable to detail your own views on the matter don't worry I'll engage with someone who can.

steddyeddy

Sligo Quay wrote: »

So Bruton says the Easter rising was unnecessary, infact we can say the 1st World War was unnecessary, 50,000 Irish slaughtered to end all wars, when infact it sowed the seeds for the 2nd World War.
When you see whats happen in Ukraine, Gaza, Iraq and Syria, it's a wonder there's not a 3rd World War.
Bruton really is an idiot of the highest order, playing on the fact that he is an ex Taoiseach and the rest of us should sit up and take notice even if he is talking nonsense.


BTW great piece in today's ''Mail on Sunday'' by Sam Smith about Bruton, the banker's friend and the scourge of the poor.

Indeed. WW1 has far shakier grounds for celebration.