"IF" a United Ireland did happen...(Mod warning in OP, stay on topic!))

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

Good point about our own government. You could add in the turning a blind eye to the decades of abuse and how thousands of our own childrens lives were destroyed and or maimed as a result. Not exactly what I would call normal either.

That's in the past. We have faced up to our past.

katydid

maccored wrote: »

... and this was posted in the part of the forum reserved exclusively for talk on northern ireland. I think that outlines the kind of logic being used here - ie, not much.

You said it was a Northern Ireland forum. You were wrong.

katydid

circadian wrote: »

Every country, region, town in the world has problems unique to it.

Is the fact that Irelands government clearly has corrupt politicians not abnormal?

Ever been to Downtown Eastside in Vancouver? Far from what most people consider normal. Canada itself has problems with racism against it's native people. Is that normal?

You're stating that it's abnormal as if it were fact. It is purely subjective and opinion. Like I said, everywhere has it's problems.

No country is perfect, but NI is unique in its problems. Problems we don't need in this state.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

but NI is unique in its problems

No it's not. It's just another example of people reacting negatively to perceived differences in others. One of humanity's most common and unfortunate traits.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

No it's not. It's just another example of people reacting negatively to perceived differences in others. One of humanity's most common and unfortunate traits.

Please tell me what other European country has "peace walls", and people who throw a wobbly every time time another group want to walk down a road? In what European country are politics and religion so bound up that are you regarded as a traitor to your "tribe" if you change your religion? In what other European country do people riot about the flying of the national flag?

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Please tell me what other European country has "peace walls", and people who throw a wobbly every time time another group want to walk down a road? In what European country are politics and religion so bound up that are you regarded as a traitor to your "tribe" if you change your religion? In what other European country do people riot about the flying of the national flag?

Bosnia & Kosovo not doing too well are they.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Bosnia & Kosovo not doing too well are they.

No, they're not. But interesting what you compare NI to...

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

No, they're not. But interesting what you compare NI to...

It's fascinating you continue to exacerbate the differences with regards to NI, and other areas of conflict in Europe, when you said you agreed with the tactics of the 'army of the First Dail' in another thread.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

It's fascinating you continue to exacerbate the differences with regards to NI, and other areas of conflict in Europe, when you said you agreed with the tactics of the 'army of the First Dail' in another thread.

I don't see the connection. Can you elaborate?

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

I don't see the connection. Can you elaborate?

Was being discussed over in this thread. The way you go on about NI, you swear there was never any conflict here from 1919 to 1923.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Was being discussed over in this thread. The way you go on about NI, you swear there was never any conflict here from 1919 to 1923.

It wasn't a terrorist campaign.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

It wasn't a terrorist campaign.

Is this the part where you claim it was backed by the mandate of the 1918 election, when in reality it was well known that the IRA conducted that campaign on its own terms, with no Dail control over it, and in fact such attempted control being resented by the IRA because it may have impacted adversely on the IRA's waging of that campaign. "Irresponsible meddlers" was what Michael Collins called them.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Is this the part where you claim it was backed by the mandate of the 1918 election, when in reality it was well known that the IRA conducted that campaign on its own terms, with no Dail control over it, and in fact such attempted control being resented by the IRA because it may have impacted adversely on the IRA's waging of that campaign. "Irresponsible meddlers" was what Michael Collins called them.

Yes, this is the part where I invoke fact. I know people like you hate it, but there it is...

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Yes, this is the part where I invoke fact. I know people like you hate it, but there it is...

I don't 'hate' facts at all. It's just that you don't know what they are in relation to this period.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I don't 'hate' facts at all. It's just that you don't know what they are in relation to this period.

I know exactly what they are. I acknowledged that the elected government had trouble with the IRA, who were not fully on board in their role as the military arm of the republic. But that is what they were, that was what was agreed, despite the hiccoughs, and it was a democratic mandate.

There was no democratic mandate whatsoever for the PIRA.

Jesus.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

"Irresponsible meddlers" was what Michael Collins called them.

Very diplomatic language compared to most soldiers/Generals in the field talking about their politicians. You'd want to read some of the things British Army commanders said about Westminster when conducting their various campaigns down the years.

Most of it would be unreadable on here due to the swear filter...

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

elected government

Elected government? Only happened with the election to the Third Dail, held on 16 June 1922.

MRL Smith's 'Fighting for Ireland', chapter 3 is useful reading on IRA/First-Second Dail relationships. Any declarations re 'the army of the republic' were utter window dressing. The IRA ran the campaign as it saw fit.

icecold1066

icecold1066 wrote: »

Everyone with a brain accepts the principle of democratic consent.
NI will only be part of an UI with the consent of the majority of the population of NI.
Then of course the people of the Republic of Ireland would have to have their say if they want NI to be part of an UI.

I say let them vote to leave the UK then we vote to not accept them in ROI!!

RED L4 0TH

Jesus. wrote: »

Very diplomatic language compared to most soldiers/Generals in the field talking about their politicians. You'd want to read some of the things British Army commanders said about Westminster when conducting their various campaigns down the years.

Most of it would be unreadable on here due to the swear filter...

Aye, very mannerly. Religious upbringing?

Jesus.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Aye, very mannerly. Religious upbringing?

Must have been. A good Catholic lad

Eamondomc

katydid wrote: »

I know exactly what they are. I acknowledged that the elected government had trouble with the IRA, who were not fully on board in their role as the military arm of the republic. But that is what they were, that was what was agreed, despite the hiccoughs, and it was a democratic mandate.

There was no democratic mandate whatsoever for the PIRA.

Free will is sometimes as important as a mandate. It can justify neccessary actions even against those with a mandate especially when the mandate is to suppress civil rights.

Free will
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the philosophical questions of free will. For other uses, see Free will (disambiguation).
Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unimpeded by certain prevailing factors. Such prevailing factors that have been studied in the past have included metaphysical constraints (such as logical, nomological, or theological determinism),[1] physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), and mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions). The principle of free will has religious, legal, ethical, and scientific implications.[2] For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent, omniscient divinity that raises certain injunctions or moral obligations for man. In the law, it affects considerations of punishment and rehabilitation. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.

circadian

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I say let them vote to leave the UK then we vote to not accept them in ROI!!

Charming.

katydid

Eamondomc wrote: »

Free will is sometimes as important as a mandate. It can justify neccessary actions even against those with a mandate especially when the mandate is to suppress civil rights.

Free will
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the philosophical questions of free will. For other uses, see Free will (disambiguation).
Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unimpeded by certain prevailing factors. Such prevailing factors that have been studied in the past have included metaphysical constraints (such as logical, nomological, or theological determinism),[1] physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), and mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions). The principle of free will has religious, legal, ethical, and scientific implications.[2] For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent, omniscient divinity that raises certain injunctions or moral obligations for man. In the law, it affects considerations of punishment and rehabilitation. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.

One of the most nonsensical posts I've read in a long time. Of course the IRA had free will - they could have exercised it by deciding not to kill people, but they chose otherwise.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Elected government? Only happened with the election to the Third Dail, held on 16 June 1922.

MRL Smith's 'Fighting for Ireland', chapter 3 is useful reading on IRA/First-Second Dail relationships. Any declarations re 'the army of the republic' were utter window dressing. The IRA ran the campaign as it saw fit.

Nope, the result of the election of 1918 was based on a platform of SF members being mandated to set up an alternative government.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Nope, the result of the election of 1918 was based on a platform of SF members being mandated to set up an alternative government.

The function of the election of 1918 was to elect MP's to attend parliament in London.

Jesus.

Katy, you make good points to be fair to you. I do think however that considering your revulsion of the PIRA, I'd be fairly certain you'd have been totally against the Old IRA had you lived back then too. Its just that the long lapse of time since that conflict gives otherwise constitutionalists like yourself a safe viewing platform to look from and claim you'd have supported that particular group.

The Anglo-Irish war was a grubby and brutal affair. Not for the conscientious and certainly not for folk who place a lot of faith in law and order.

That's no slight on you by the way, it may even be a compliment.

circadian

circadian wrote: »

Charming.

I would love to write a detailed reply but my tongue is still somewhat in my cheek!

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

The function of the election of 1918 was to elect MP's to attend parliament in London.

Indeed, that was the function. But not the outcome.

katydid

Jesus. wrote: »

Katy, you make good points to be fair to you. I do think however that considering your revulsion of the PIRA, I'd be fairly certain you'd have been totally against the Old IRA had you lived back then too. Its just that the long lapse of time since that conflict gives otherwise constitutionalists like yourself a safe viewing platform to look from and claim you'd have supported that particular group.

The Anglo-Irish war was a grubby and brutal affair. Not for the conscientious and certainly not for folk who place a lot of faith in law and order.

That's no slight on you by the way, it may even be a compliment.

I'm under no illusion that the Old IRA were saints. They were tough men, and found it hard to toe the line during this period. But they did have a mandate, and, despite isolated actions by individuals and renegades, their modus operandi was not to terrorise the public by murdering and maiming them. They were men of principle and they fought on principle. The examples of atrocities carried out by them and others at the time, were exceptions rather than the rule.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

the outcome.

Which was an assembly that the IRA itself paid no heed too, plus the British didn't recognise and indeed tried to suppress.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Which was an assembly that the IRA itself paid no heed too, plus the British didn't recognise and indeed tried to suppress.

The IRA DID heed it. They gave it nominal support. In 1919, there was an agreement drawn up between them stating that the government had the power to sanction actions of the IRA. The IRA volunteers agreed to take an oath to this effect, and although they did so begrudgingly and dragged their heels until time and circumstances overtook matters, but that is beside the point. They agreed in principle to the relationship.

The point is there was nothing approaching such a mandate or a relationship between the PIRA and any elected forum.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

They agreed in principle to the relationship.

Back to discussing the window dressing again I see. In reality this meant absolutely nothing. The IRA waged it's campaign regardless of what the Dail may have said. Liam Lynch said that the 'army had to hew the way for the politics to follow'.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Back to discussing the window dressing again I see. In reality this meant absolutely nothing. The IRA waged it's campaign regardless of what the Dail may have said. Liam Lynch said that the 'army had to hew the way for the politics to follow'.

I have described the relationship between the provisional government and the IRA. It wasn't window dressing; it was a problematical but aspirational relationship that wasn't resolved over the couple of years between the setting up of the provisional government and the establishment of the Free State. The IRA were men of principle, used to ploughing their own furrow, and they didn't submit easily to the authority of the Dáil. But they did recognise it...

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

I have described the relationship between the provisional government and the IRA.

You haven't. The provisional government only came into being on 14 January 1922, after the signing of the treaty the month before. What you've been describing is essentially the PR stuff the 1st & 2nd Dail were putting out re the IRA being an army, in the classical sense of the word, under its command (when in reality it wasn't) before the negotiations started after the truce came into effect in July 1921.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You haven't. The provisional government only came into being on 14 January 1922, after the signing of the treaty the month before. What you've been describing is essentially the PR stuff the 1st & 2nd Dail were putting out re the IRA being an army, in the classical sense of the word, under its command (when in reality it wasn't) before the negotiations started after the truce came into effect in July 1921.

The Dáil that was established in 1919 was the provisional government of the first republic.

Godge

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

A United Ireland is simple normality. It is a bit rich, but typical, that people are using the abnormality of the 6 counties as a justification for opposing the very thing that would make it normal.

That is like saying that Scotland is an abnormality and the UK makes it normal.

Or that East Timor is an abnormality and Indonesia made it normal.

Or that Portugal is an abnormality and Spain would make it normal.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

The Dáil that was established in 1919 was the provisional government of the first republic.

The provisional government of the republic was actually established by declaration at Easter 1916. It's mentioned in the proclamation itself.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

The provisional government of the republic was actually established by declaration at Easter 1916. It's mentioned in the proclamation itself.

Confirmed by the vote of 1918.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Confirmed by the vote of 1918.

All that was confirmed by 1918 was that SF won the largest number of votes & seats campaigning on a manifesto offering full independence and a promise of establishing an alternative government to the British. How it was actually going do this in realistic terms, i.e. with British agreement, wasn't illustrated, and claiming that the IRA had a mandate from this is engaging in fanciful analysis by hindsight, since nothing specific other than proposing setting up the previously mentioned alternative government was mentioned by SF in its manifesto.

Sheldons Brain

Godge wrote: »

That is like saying that Scotland is an abnormality and the UK makes it normal.

Or that East Timor is an abnormality and Indonesia made it normal.

Or that Portugal is an abnormality and Spain would make it normal.

No. It isn't.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

All that was confirmed by 1918 was that SF won the largest number of votes & seats campaigning on a manifesto offering full independence and a promise of establishing an alternative government to the British. How it was actually going do this in realistic terms, i.e. with British agreement, wasn't illustrated, and claiming that the IRA had a mandate from this is engaging in fanciful analysis by hindsight, since nothing specific other than proposing setting up the previously mentioned alternative government was mentioned by SF in its manifesto.

Their manifesto was that they would not take their seats in Westminster the intention to set up a provisional government was clear, as was everything that followed.

Godge

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No. It isn't.

Yes, it is.

It is also like saying Ireland rejoining the UK makes sense because of the British Isles.

Geographical sense does not make political sense. We don't have a united people on this island so geographical unity does not make sense.

I mean, have you read the new Articles 2 and 3 where they effectively say that?

There is nothing normal about a united Ireland.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

as was everything that followed.

Like I said, analysis aided by hindsight. How could everything that followed be possibly clear? All that was promised in the manifesto was independence & the promised setting up of an alternative government. The IRA then started a campaign without warning.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Like I said, analysis aided by hindsight. How could everything that followed be possibly clear? All that was promised in the manifesto was independence & the promised setting up of an alternative government. The IRA then started a campaign without warning.

How is it hindsight when they made their intentions clear in their election campaign?

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

How is it hindsight when they made their intentions clear in their election campaign?

That the IRA was going to start a military campaign?

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

That the IRA was going to start a military campaign?

That they would form a properly constituted government, with all that implies. Including a military arm.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

That they would form a properly constituted government, with all that implies. Including a military arm.

The IRA that started the campaign was not formed by this alternative government. It was entirely it's own decision to initiate hostilities without reference to any prospective alternate government.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

The IRA that started the campaign was not formed by this alternative government. It was entirely it's own decision to initiate hostilities without reference to any prospective alternate government.

Its leadership agreed to cooperate with the government and to act as their military arm - reluctantly, I admit, but they did agree.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Its leadership agreed to cooperate with the government and to act as their military arm - reluctantly, I admit, but they did agree.

Which in reality meant little or nothing on the ground. The Dail only formally accepted responsibility for IRA actions in March 1921, 4 months before the truce. Not only did the Dail have no influence on IRA strategy, but the IRA leadership was in the same situation, re controlling it's own men. Local commanders ran the the campaign in their respective areas as they saw fit, with little or no influence from GHQ.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Which in reality meant little or nothing on the ground. The Dail only formally accepted responsibility for IRA actions in March 1921, 4 months before the truce. Not only did the Dail have no influence on IRA strategy, but the IRA leadership was in the same situation, re controlling it's own men. Local commanders ran the the campaign in their respective areas as they saw fit, with little or no influence from GHQ.

It means that, unlike the PIRA, they had a mandate.