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

braddun

before they wanted to turn it into a socialist country communist

where the govererment would control everything


but I don't think this could happen,it would have to break away from Europe for a start


communism/socialism is dying out


http://www.leftfutures.org/2012/11/just-how-left-wing-is-sinn-fein/

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

unlike the PIRA, they had a mandate.

Not asked (IRA to start a campaign) in the 1918 election and as for the March 1921 election, it's purpose was to elect members to a 26 county parliament under the rules laid down in the Government of Ireland Act. This election wasn't really held, in that the people didn't get to vote at all.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Not asked (IRA to start a campaign) in the 1918 election and as for the March 1921 election, it's purpose was to elect members to a 26 county parliament under the rules laid down in the Government of Ireland Act. This election wasn't really held, in that the people didn't get to vote at all.

Alternative government made clear in 1918 election. Goverments have military arms.

What is your point about the 1921 election? It was a bit crazy to have an uncontested "election", but it has nothing to do with the 1918 election.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Alternative government made clear in 1918 election. Goverments have military arms.

More irrelevant theorising. The IRA that started it's campaign in 1919 was beholden to no government, and for practical purposes that situation remained for the duration of 1919-21.

What is your point about the 1921 election? It was a bit crazy to have an uncontested "election", but it has nothing to do with the 1918 election.

This election was used as an exercise in convenience to form the 2nd Dail.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

More irrelevant theorising. The IRA that started it's campaign in 1919 was beholden to no government, and for practical purposes that situation remained for the duration of 1919-21.



This election was used as an exercise in convenience to form the 2nd Dail.

Which bit of "it agreed to be the military arm of the governement" have you a problem with?

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Which bit of "it agreed to be the military arm of the governement" have you a problem with?

Which bit of "and for practical purposes" have you a problem with? The Dail had no input into the direction of the IRA campaign.

Jesus.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

The Dail had no input into the direction of the IRA campaign.

Wasn't the Minister for Finance directing it?

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Which bit of "and for practical purposes" have you a problem with? The Dail had no input into the direction of the IRA campaign.

The bit about the principle of the matter.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

the principle of the matter.

Means nothing since nothing practical resulted from it, i.e. how the IRA conducted it's campaign.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Means nothing since nothing practical resulted from it, i.e. how the IRA conducted it's campaign.

Principle doesn't matter?

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Principle doesn't matter?

It didn't practically matter, because it didn't have an influence on the IRA campaign.

Jesus.

Jesus. wrote: »

Wasn't the Minister for Finance directing it?

RED?

RED L4 0TH

Jesus. wrote: »

RED?

I think your exaggerating the importance of the title just a tad.

Jesus.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I think your exaggerating the importance of the title just a tad.

The title is largely irrelevant alright but the orchestrator of the war was a senior member of the Cabinet!

To claim the Dail had no input into the direction of the armed campaign in light of this fact seems a bit crazy.

RED L4 0TH

Jesus. wrote: »

To claim the Dail had no input into the direction of the armed campaign in light of this fact seems a bit crazy.

Not at all. Did the rest of said cabinet, or Dail, have an influence? I think you'll find his 'official' ministerial portfolio counted for d*ck, when he was being the Minister for General Mayhem.

Jesus.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Not at all. Did the rest of said cabinet, or Dail, have an influence?

I don't know but he was part of the Cabinet so one of the most integral parts of the Dail.

I'd say Brugha had given his nature and Dev had when he proposed set piece battles which led to the disaster (from an IRA point of view) at the Customs House.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I think you'll find his 'official' ministerial portfolio counted for d*ck, when he was being the Minister for General Mayhem.

I agree that his official portfolio was irrelevant but as you say, he was Minister for general mayhem, meaning that he was the man responsible for it. And he was in the actual Cabinet!

What did the Cabinet talk about with Collins? The weather?

RED L4 0TH

Jesus. wrote: »

I'd say Brugha had given his nature and Dev had when he proposed set piece battles which led to the disaster (from an IRA point of view) at the Customs House.

A very good reason then for the Cabinet/Dail staying out of IRA affairs.

Minister for general mayhem

A tongue in cheek remark. I doubt if there was an official cabinet post thus named.

What did the Cabinet talk about with Collins? The weather?

Well since he was minister for finance, maybe about the balance of payments?

Jesus.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

A very good reason then for the Cabinet/Dail staying out of IRA affairs.

Absolutely. But obviously they didn't/couldn't seeing as Collins was a senior member of said Cabinet/Dail!

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

A tongue in cheek remark. I doubt if there was an official cabinet post thus named.

Of course there wasn't. But that's what he was, as you said yourself. And he was part of the bloody Cabinet!

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Well since he was minister for finance, maybe about the balance of payments?

So the Cabinet talked about Finance and presumably all the other areas but not the war that they were waging?

C'mon Red, you're talking yourself into a corner here mate

RED L4 0TH

Jesus. wrote: »

So the Cabinet talked about Finance and presumably all the other areas but not the war that they were waging?

C'mon Red, you're talking yourself into a corner here mate

Not at all. You suggested, humourously, that maybe they talked about the weather, hence my equally humourous reply re the balance of payments, which you didn't seem to pick up on in kind. In reality, they could talk about it all they wanted, but their influence over its actual conduct was pretty small.

Jesus.

You've moved a bit from saying it had no influence to a small influence so respect for that. Nevertheless, its chief organiser and exponent was a senior member of the Cabinet itself so if Collins had influence over it (which obviously he had), the Cabinet had and by extension the Dail had also.

I know what you're saying though mate. It was largely a regional affair with local commanders operating off their own bat. Particularly in those days when Ireland was, metaphorically speaking, a much larger place. Plus, I'm sure Collins kept a lot of stuff in his own head and between other "soldiers" in the field so as not to bother the overworked and stressed politicians

RED L4 0TH

Jesus. wrote: »

You've moved a bit from saying it had no influence to a small influence so respect for that. Nevertheless, its chief organiser and exponent was a senior member of the Cabinet itself so if Collins had influence over it (which obviously he had), the Cabinet had and by extension the Dail had also.

I know what you're saying though mate. It was largely a regional affair with local commanders operating off their own bat. Particularly in those days when Ireland was, metaphorically speaking, a much larger place. Plus, I'm sure Collins kept a lot of stuff in his own head and between other "soldiers" in the field so as not to bother the overworked and stressed politicians

Personally, I think it's more accurate to say that the Cabinet/Dail accepted responsibility for IRA actions, as opposed to influencing how the IRA conducted the campaign, which they did publicly from March 1921 onwards.

Jesus.

Seeing as the director of the campaign was a senior cabinet member, I certainly wouldn't go that far. But, like I said, I see where you're coming from.

RED L4 0TH

Jesus. wrote: »

Seeing as the director of the campaign was a senior cabinet member, I certainly wouldn't go that far.

You can discern a collective cabinet influence re the Customs House raid (Collins opposed it), but I think it was one of the few known exceptions to the overall scheme of things.

Jesus.

Awh Red for fukk's sake, will you stop! I tried to meet you in the middle but you're not having it. You'd argue the paint off a wall ye mad yoke!

RED L4 0TH

Jesus. wrote: »

I tried to meet you in the middle but you're not having it.

Ah that's a tad unfair. The Customs House raid was an exception to the rule in my opinion, plus it occurred nearly at the end of the WoI. But if collective cabinet influence on IRA strategy was the rule and not the exception, wouldn't we have seen similar set piece affairs like at the Customs House?

Jesus.

You're shifting the goalposts all the time RED lad. First you said the Dail had "no" influence over the war. Then you revised that to a "little" bit. Now you're adding the word "collective" before Cabinet to insinuate that Collins was acting independently of the rest of the Cabinet when he was in fact part of the Cabinet. You could say that our current Defence Forces are doing what they're doing independently of the Irish parliament because Simon Coveney may or may not be telling the rest of his Cabinet colleagues of his intentions. Different scenario today for sure but it shows how you're dancing on the head of a pin on this one.

The reason there was no set piece affairs before that was because the guerrilla campaign was working until Dev discovered when he was in America that the international press were painting the IRA as gangsters and bandits rather than soldiers. Can't a Government change tactics? I would assume the reason it didn't happen again was because of the disastrous nature of it.

Look RED, you're melting my brain man. Give my head some peace would ye?

RED L4 0TH

Jesus. wrote: »

Now you're adding the word "collective" before Cabinet to insinuate that Collins was acting independently of the rest of the Cabinet when he was in fact part of the Cabinet. You could say that our current Defence Forces are doing what they're doing independently of the Irish parliament because Simon Coveney may or may not be telling the rest of his Cabinet colleagues of his intentions. Different scenario today for sure but it shows how you're dancing on the head of a pin on this one.

Rubbish comparison tbh. Theres no doubting that today's army is under the control of the government, unlike during the WoI. Despite Collins being in the cabinet, it's well known that he and Richard Mulcahy (IRA chief of staff) resented its attempted interference regardless.

DeJa VooDoo

circadian wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting this 'abnormal society' from. You spent a total of 3 days in the north.

I spent a night in Cork once for a gig.
Now, that's an abnormal place.....from what I seen that night!

DarkyHughes

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Rubbish comparison tbh. Theres no doubting that today's army is under the control of the government, unlike during the WoI. Despite Collins being in the cabinet, it's well known that he and Richard Mulcahy (IRA chief of staff) resented its attempted interference regardless.

Where most of the cabinet members or former members of Volunteers? What was Cathal Brugha's role as Minster of Defense? It couldn't have been very big if he didn't have a national military to control.

RED L4 0TH

DarkyHughes wrote: »

What was Cathal Brugha's role as Minster of Defense? It couldn't have been very big if he didn't have a national military to control.

Don't think it was very big tbh. Collins and his IRB grouping had the influence. Local independent actions defined most of the conflict, Tom Barry, Liam Lynch etc. The idea of a national military really existed in name only I think.

DarkyHughes

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Don't think it was very big tbh. Collins and his IRB grouping had the influence. Local independent actions defined most of the conflict, Tom Barry, Liam Lynch etc. The idea of a national military really existed in name only I think.

It was like bits & pieces of a military here & there & more effective in certain areas than other like Tom Barry's West Cork brigade. Yeah I get what your saying. The Provisional's probably had a much more centralized military force it probably helped a lot that they only had to concentrate on 6 counties & the Volunteers doing the fighting where all from them counties & that the warfare after 73/74 was of a much lower intensity.

DarkyHughes

Back to original point.

Did anyone read Brain Feeneys article on a Federal Ireland & how it would be good for unionists? I can't find a link to it at the moment.

A centralised socialist state is going to maintain the regional problems that a capitalist centralized state has caused. There is no good argument in the context of Ireland for centralizing power and institutions in Dublin. The closer people are to the levers of power the better and federalism would allow for this far better than a centralized state would.
But if I did want power centralized I'd want to be governed from Crossmaglen the people there just seem like they can get things done plus I have relatives there, my second choice would be Derry/ LondonDerry/ MunichDerry/ West BankDerry/ I can't believe it's not DerryDerry/ Get me the hell ofDerry.

(Brian Feeney didn't write any of that, that's just my own input if anyone was wondering,)

ardmacha

DarkyHughes wrote: »

But if I did want power centralized I'd want to be governed from Crossmaglen the people there just seem like they can get things done

Good idea. Tony McEntee would make a cracking Minister of health.

eire4

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Back to original point.

Did anyone read Brain Feeneys article on a Federal Ireland & how it would be good for unionists? I can't find a link to it at the moment.

A centralised socialist state is going to maintain the regional problems that a capitalist centralized state has caused. There is no good argument in the context of Ireland for centralizing power and institutions in Dublin. The closer people are to the levers of power the better and federalism would allow for this far better than a centralized state would.
But if I did want power centralized I'd want to be governed from Crossmaglen the people there just seem like they can get things done plus I have relatives there, my second choice would be Derry/ LondonDerry/ MunichDerry/ West BankDerry/ I can't believe it's not DerryDerry/ Get me the hell ofDerry.

(Brian Feeney didn't write any of that, that's just my own input if anyone was wondering,)

To be fair power in Ireland is way too centralized in Dublin as it is. We all could benefit from a much less centralized system of government.

Eamondomc

eire4 wrote: »

To be fair power in Ireland is way too centralized in Dublin as it is. We all could benefit from a much less centralized system of government.

Aye, we tried the decentralisation bit before, The CS and the Unions soon put a halt to that.
Darkie if a United Ireland did happen I m sure the London in Derry would be kicked off fairly fast. I live just south of the border and never hear it referred to as Londonderry here.

eire4

Yes we did try decentralization before and it was not well received as you say and did not work out. However that was just a case of moving some departments to towns outside Dublin. It never involved actual decentralization of power in Ireland.
For me we need to be looking for a decentralized system of government that brings actual governmental powers and services closer to the people.

DarkyHughes

eire4 wrote: »

To be fair power in Ireland is way too centralized in Dublin as it is. We all could benefit from a much less centralized system of government.

I liked the Iroquois system of government. It's a good model that Ireland could adopt. Mohawk = Loyalist bigots, Onondaga = Moderate Unionists, Tuscarora = Moderate Nationalists Oneida = Mainstream Republicans, Cayuga = Dissidents & Seneca = Free Staters. It worked for the United States it will work here to. It's the only way to get are hopelessly divided societies to work together.

Godge

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I liked the Iroquois system of government. It's a good model that Ireland could adopt. Mohawk = Loyalist bigots, Onondaga = Moderate Unionists, Tuscarora = Moderate Nationalists Oneida = Mainstream Republicans, Cayuga = Dissidents & Seneca = Free Staters. It worked for the United States it will work here to. It's the only way to get are hopelessly divided societies to work together.

The labels won't work except in Sinn Fein's twisted mind.

DarkyHughes

Godge wrote: »

The labels won't work except in Sinn Fein's twisted mind.

Okay change Free Staters to Blueshirts & Loyalist Bigots to just Bigots.

Godge

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Okay change Free Staters to Blueshirts & Loyalist Bigots to just Bigots.

And change "Mainstream Republicans" to "Non-Muslim Terrorism Apologists"

Karl Stein

Godge wrote: »

And change "Mainstream Republicans" to "Non-Muslim Terrorism Apologists"

So you'd describe the majority of SF voters, among others, as 'non-Muslim Terrorist Apologists'?

That a pretty hysterical view to hold.

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

So you'd describe the majority of SF voters, among others, as 'non-Muslim Terrorist Apologists'?

That a pretty hysterical view to hold.

Hardly hysterical. Factual. They support SF, SF support terrorism. And don't say they don't - they attend terrorist memorials, and they fought for terrorists to be let out of prison early.

Karl Stein

katydid wrote: »

Hardly hysterical. Factual. They support SF, SF support terrorism. And don't say they don't - they attend terrorist memorials, and they fought for terrorists to be let out of prison early.

The word terrorist, when used hysterically, by people like you is effectively meaningless. Your problem isn't with violence per se but who is using it and to what ends.

I'll remind you that the people who were being terrorised by the so-called police backed by 'loyalist' thugs were the nationalist community. Whoever sent arms to Republicans from the south should have a statue built to them for their efforts to prevent ethnic cleansing.

Educate yourself on who was being terrorised and by whom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWTvrLavAtA

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

The word terrorist, when used hysterically, by people like you is effectively meaningless. Your problem isn't with violence per se but who is using it and to what ends.

I'll remind you that the people who were being terrorised by the so-called police backed by 'loyalist' thugs were the nationalist community. Whoever sent arms to Republicans from the south should have a statue built to them for their efforts to prevent ethnic cleansing.

Educate yourself on who was being terrorised and by whom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWTvrLavAtA

You're now claiming that the IRA weren't terrorists?? Are you for real? Their modus operandi was to terrorist the population, and they murdered innocent civilians left, right and centre instead of choosing to engage in the political process.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Karl Stein

katydid wrote: »

You're now claiming that the IRA weren't terrorists??

There were a lot of 'terrorists' in the north if the use of force is the criteria. Lots of them wearing uniforms and now receiving state pensions for their efforts.

Their modus operandi was to terrorist the population, they murdered innocent civilians left, right and centre

Wrong. More than two thirds of the people Republicans killed were in the 'security' forces. If Republicans MO was to 'terrorist the population' then the above figure would be inverted.

instead of choosing to engage in the political process.

Wrong. SF were seeking a political settlement from the early 1980's.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

This isn't the place for children's proverbs.

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

There were a lot of 'terrorists' in the north if the use of force is the criteria. Lots of them wearing uniforms and now receiving state pensions for their efforts.



Wrong. More than two thirds of the people Republicans killed were in the 'security' forces. If Republicans MO was to 'terrorist the population' then the above figure would be inverted.



Wrong. SF were seeking a political settlement from the early 1980's.



This isn't the place for children's proverbs.

Nope, the use of force isn't the hallmark of terrorism. Otherwise every army on the planet would be terrorists. Unlawful or unethical use of violence, and a deliberate targeting of the population in order to terrorise them are hallmarks of terrorism.

"Security forces" are human beings. Doing a legitimate job. No one has a right too take human life.

Karl Stein

katydid wrote: »

Unlawful or unethical use of violence, and a deliberate targeting of the population in order to terrorise them are hallmarks of terrorism.

BY your own criteria the RUC and the B specials were terrorists. It was guns in the hands of Republicans that put a stop to their terrorism. What would you have done if the RUC and loyalists were terrorising your community? Sat around singing 'come-by-ya' and throwing flowers in a summer dress and bare feet to fend them off? The real world doesn't resemble silly movies.

"Security forces" are human beings.

Well spotted.

Doing a legitimate job.

No. When the so-called 'security forces' act to preserve the privileges of one group and ignore and participate in violence against another then they deserve to lose their monopoly on force.

No one has a right too take human life.

Oh you're a pacifist? You think that the allies were wrong to fight the Axis power in WWII? If someone was running at you with a hatchet you wouldn't shoot them if you had a gun?

Let's try to keep the discussion in the real world Katy.

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

BY your own criteria the RUC and the B specials were terrorists. It was guns in the hands of Republicans that put a stop to their terrorism. What would you have done if the RUC and loyalists were terrorising your community? Sat around singing 'come-by-ya' and throwing flowers in a summer dress and bare feet to fend them off? The real world doesn't resemble silly movies.



Well spotted.



No. When the so-called 'security forces' act to preserve the privileges of one group and ignore and participate in violence against another then they deserve to lose their monopoly on force.



Oh you're a pacifist? You think that the allies were wrong to fight the Axis power in WWII? If someone was running at you with a hatchet you wouldn't shoot them if you had a gun?

Let's try to keep the discussion in the real world Katy.

SOME British Army personnel were terrorists, because they stepped out of line and behaved unethically or unlawfully. However, ALL IRA members were terrorists. They did nothing that was not illegal or unethical; bypassing the political process, and choosing to murder people instead is criminal and unethical.

Maybe in your world things work differently.

Karl Stein

This is twice you've ignored my individual points and instead reverted to some sort of self-constructed dogma.

katydid wrote: »

SOME British Army personnel were terrorists, because they stepped out of line and behaved unethically or unlawfully

I didn't mention the BA, they're a whole different level of terrorist (your criteria) if you'd like me to bring you up to speed on it?

However, ALL IRA members were terrorists.

Even the ones who prevented loyalists from burning them out of their homes? The ones who defended their communities by engaging in numerous gun battles? I'm afraid I don't share your black-and-white 'Cowboys and Indians' view of the world. The real world doesn't work like you see in the movies with simple caricatures of bad guys and good guys.

bypassing the political process,

Wrong. Please don't make me repeat myself. See above.

and choosing to murder people instead is criminal and unethical.

You consider killing people who are suppressing you, beating members of your community to death (check out the RUC record before the PIRA ever gained impetus CAIN's website), and shooting your community dead for protesting 'murder'? Good for you.

I see you've conveniently ignored the points I've made that explode your silly views like 'nobody has a right to take human life'.

Now if you're going to quote me take the time to quote my individual points like I'm doing with yours.

pilgrim pat

the ira wouldn't exist if it were not for the British presents in Ireland,some one had to stand up for the nationalists. why it was called the troubles i will never know, it was war ,I think you would have to have lived here to see with your own eyes the things that went on the way we lived our lives .can you people think about the truth and the facts bloody Sunday did actually happen