Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP
Options
Comments
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »ni isnt a country :pac:
Its an utter failure
I have to admit I do think of it as a country. I don't think it's fair to say NI is an utter failure.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Did the uk syphion off 66% of the islands econmic outputbin 1921 and attempt to get us to pay for its bailout of landlords here in 1880s with repararations??
That being said,once we got on our feet and began to progress,we are flying it (we some issues aswell)...i think people of the 6 counties deserve the same oppurtunities.
.the people running england,dont even care about people in northern england,what hope do people in 6 counties ever have in getting fair deal....its a failed colony,which isnt going to be turned around under british rule
Yes, I get this Ireland and gallant knight, swooping to the rescue of the wretch that are people less fortunate and brillant than itself. But why stop and NI ? Should Ireland not do the same for other nations, that it considers in its wisdom, to be struggling. Where does it end ? An Ireland on which the sun never sets ?0 -
You are talking about my country the way you accused England of talking about your country several centuries ago.
The people of my country can vote to let you take us over at any time. They are consistently not doing it and you continue to talk about us as if you own us.
I highly doubt it would be a "take over". It's not going to be an invasion scenario.0 -
As recently as... right now, the majority party voted for by your community have continued to oppose equality legislation.
You may not be responsible for that which happened before you're born, but you're certainly responsible for that which has happened in the time you've been old enough to vote. Trying to compare what still living people are responsible for to something which happened before anyone who is currently living could've met someone who met someone who lived at the time.....well you know how foolish that is.
Absolutely I do. But I thought it was the correct level of discussion to employ on this thread as it seems par for the course eg all the comparisons with Carson to the modern ira0 -
None of those can ever break away as they cannot join the Eu and they would struggle otherwise[Deleted User] wrote: »No.....just the citizens of the island
If wales or scotland seeks independance,by all means give them assistance needed,if us and malta can make a success of independance,they can too
If northern england wants to break away/seek devolution from london,help aswell.....a country run by bankers for bankers has neglected its poorest the most.....its been that way with 100s of years within the uk.....
The whole premise of the union is a scam,sold to people to funnel money to already rich in london0 -
Advertisement
-
Absolutely I do. But I thought it was the correct level of discussion to employ on this thread as it seems par for the course eg all the comparisons with Carson to the modern ira
Carson's declaration was as close to some of the PIRA atrocities you point out as those atrocities are to now, Downcow.
You can just acknowledge you misspoke instead of trying to play the, 'it was all part of my cunning plan' card.0 -
still doesn't answer the question.
It does for me. If you want a world with elites and privileged you go ahead and vote for it.The commonwealth isn't a union, you can be in both. Just like Malta and Cyprus are.
In what way is the UK volatile and how could they use the commonwealth divisively?
Not if Boris revisits his plan to turn it into a trade bloc. Which answers your other question...the UK is too volatile.0 -
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »They can join the eu,once they meet the criteria??
Not according to most of you guys. Unless of course you have a solution up your slieve in how to solve the land border ? That you tell us is impossible to manage.
Unless of corse the mask has slipped and it is actually the threat of violence that prevented a land border on this island?0 -
Not according to most of you guys. Unless of course you have a solution up your slieve in how to solve the land border ? That you tell us is impossible to manage.
Unless of corse the mask has slipped and it is actually the threat of violence that prevented a land border on this island?
Scotland is a country and the Scots people are a nation. NI is neither a country nor a nation. The British border in Ireland divides the Irish nation.
Please stop pretending there is some sort of equivalence.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not according to most of you guys. Unless of course you have a solution up your slieve in how to solve the land border ? That you tell us is impossible to manage.
Unless of corse the mask has slipped and it is actually the threat of violence that prevented a land border on this island?
There is a difference between a 'threat' and people seeing violence as inevitable.
It is the difference between beligerent stubborn and a desire to maintain hard won peace.
An abstract border (you are only actually separated in your mind) in the Irish Sea was the best, least costly to US, solution. You wanted t Brexit, why should it cost us.
The Scottish and Welsh cases are different, unless England is going to bombe them back into the union?0 -
That’s a bit of a stretch.
What a fool I was! I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into Power.
Edward Carson 1921
The Provos formed in 1969.
That would be 48 years.
It is now 2021, that would be 52 years since the provos formed.
Even if we go back to the Ulster Covenant, we're in the same ballpark timewise, fifty odd years.
How exactly is that a stretch?! It is literally a statement of fact.0 -
Here is an interesting opinion piece on the state of the UK in Bloomberg by Max Hastings who is a former editor of the (English) Telegraph. As a reporter he was based in Ireland and covered the early years of the Troubles.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-14/u-k-breakup-good-for-ireland-bad-for-england-scotland-wales
He clearly doesn't have much time for the Scots or the Welsh or their aspirations for independence. He hasn't much time for Unionists either - He makes the point:
He goes onto say:Ever since, the Northern Ireland fragment has been governed by a so-called Unionist Protestant majority, whose sole rationale is the negative one of staying out of the Irish Republic by remaining attached to Britain.Until very recently, when made to stop by London, Ulster’s Protestant rulers governed their own 42% Catholic minority almost as harshly as U.S. white segregationists in the old South treated African Americans. Lord Brookeborough, a Protestant grandee who served as Ulster prime minister between 1943 and 1963, said without embarrassment that, while he knew fellow landowners who employed Catholics on their estates, he would never do so himself.
Thats very harsh criticism of Ulster unionists coming from someone like him.0 -
No you stop pretending. The narrative used by most nationalists was that it was impossible to manaff grr e the number of road crossings, and then they would hint at violence as a threat. Why not be honest and admit that it was the threat of violence that resulted in an Irish Sea border and that the only strategy that will work for loyalists to get rid of it is also a threat of violence.Junkyard Tom wrote: »Scotland is a country and the Scots people are a nation. NI is neither a country nor a nation. The British border in Ireland divides the Irish nation.
Please stop pretending there is some sort of equivalence.
You can’t have it both ways.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »There is a difference between a 'threat' and people seeing violence as inevitable.
It is the difference between beligerent stubborn and a desire to maintain hard won peace.
An abstract border (you are only actually separated in your mind) in the Irish Sea was the best, least costly to US, solution. You wanted t Brexit, why should it cost us.
The Scottish and Welsh cases are different, unless England is going to bombe them back into the union?
I agree 100% Francie. It’s exactly why there is a small rump of unionists murmuring that the threat is no use but rather that they need to make violence south of the border inevitable.
It is a sad lesson that has been learnt ie the inevitability of violence gets results - look what one guy with a paint brush could do. I heard someone say the other day, “ if a tin of paint in Larne could achieve more than all our politicians, then what would an omagh bomb in Temple Bar do?”
Bad lessons0 -
What a fool I was! I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into Power.
Edward Carson 1921
The Provos formed in 1969.
That would be 48 years.
It is now 2021, that would be 52 years since the provos formed.
Even if we go back to the Ulster Covenant, we're in the same ballpark timewise, fifty odd years.
How exactly is that a stretch?! It is literally a statement of fact.
Its fact but it’s a nonsense argument.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »People do genuinely forget how short history is.....we are roughly as far from the omagh bomb,as it was from kingsmills
(Kingmills and the attack in which sean south and ohanlon killed were closer than kingsmills and omagh)
The unborn children killed at omagh,would likely be nearing finished college now
When you continuely look back,everyone grows old around you....its why likes of truth comission need to happen irregardless of how politically damaging it is for anyone......let families draw some sort of line under it
Would you agree with a commission that looked into the sectarianism of the Irish state since 1921 and how Protestants were treated in it? Serious question0 -
If you have so little history for the larger part of the island you live on (one that was the same country for the vast majority of that history, and the actual location for much you claim as part of your own cultural history), why do you continue to make such confident, definitive claims about it?
For the record, the De Valera quote was, 'we are a Catholic nation', he did not say a Catholic state for Catholic people (granted the Protestant state for Protestant people is also a paraphrasing of what James Craig said).
What is arguably more interesting is the follow up statement from Craig in that same speech.
"It would be rather interesting for historians of the future to compare a Catholic State launched in the South with a Protestant State launched in the North and to see which gets on the better and prospers the more. It is most interesting for me at the moment to watch how they are progressing.").
I don’t think you limit your quotes to have a go at our people, I think you are so fed a one sided history by your nation that you believe it.
Firstly Craig never said “a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people’ and was making a comparison between the north and the south during a debate. He said that southerners had boasted and ‘. . . still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State.
It was your leader who was making the sectarian pronouncements0 -
I don’t think you limit your quotes to have a go at our people, I think you are so fed a one sided history by your nation that you believe it.
Firstly Craig never said “a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people’ and was making a comparison between the north and the south during a debate. He said that southerners had boasted and ‘. . . still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State.
It was your leader who was making the sectarian pronouncements
Did you read the post you quoted, Downcow? The one where I explicitly stated that, 'a Protestant state for Protestant people' was not accurate?
The real beauty of your complaint being that it was YOU that actually brought that misquote into the conversation (and misattributed it), you've tried to correct me by quoting a post where I said YOUR use of that quote was paraphrasing!I have told you before I have little Roi history. But was I de Valera said it and then Carson responded with a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Maybe other can help. Francie?
I'll note you didn't actually respond to the substance of my post regarding the latter half of the Craig quote in question.0 -
Unionist violence would just bring your so-called 'union' to an even quicker end tbh. Any sympathy for unionists that remained, after the DUP's behaviour in Westminster these last few years, would evaporate overnight and calls for a border poll to go ahead would become attractive to the British as a way of offloading the north.
All in a centenary year too.
The tragedy of Unionism.0 -
Advertisement
-
I agree 100% Francie. It’s exactly why there is a small rump of unionists murmuring that the threat is no use but rather that they need to make violence south of the border inevitable.
It is a sad lesson that has been learnt ie the inevitability of violence gets results - look what one guy with a paint brush could do. I heard someone say the other day, “ if a tin of paint in Larne could achieve more than all our politicians, then what would an omagh bomb in Temple Bar do?”
Bad lessons
About that famous can of spray paint ..... Why would the PSNI claim they had no knowledge of any threats directed at port staff ? Was it a political stunt ? Such a strange situation .
The point about bombs in Temple bar is hilarious , are certain loyalists/unionists that blinded by their hate that they cannot see it was HMG that screwed them ?
Serious question Downcow , why do they not direct their anger at London ?0 -
About that famous can of spray paint ..... Why would the PSNI claim they had no knowledge of any threats directed at port staff ? Was it a political stunt ? Such a strange situation .
The point about bombs in Temple bar is hilarious , are certain loyalists/unionists that blinded by their hate that they cannot see it was HMG that screwed them ?
Serious question Downcow , why do they not direct their anger at London ?
The 'spray can' and the fabricated threats have achieved the sum total of zero. Bar the embarrassment of the UK government...sent home with a flea in their ear and told to operate the protocol properly. Achieving a 'debate' in the HoC, which has argued and fought amongst itself for 4 or 5 years is about the height of it. Entertainment for the masses as they shout and roar at one another and Sammy's blood pressure rises.
Or maybe I am missing something?0 -
I don’t think you limit your quotes to have a go at our people, I think you are so fed a one sided history by your nation that you believe it.
Firstly Craig never said “a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people’ and was making a comparison between the north and the south during a debate. He said that southerners had boasted and ‘. . . still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State.
It was your leader who was making the sectarian pronouncements
Bizarre claim. You might familarise yourself with what was actually going on. There is no doubt at all that the RC church tried to take control BUT it was resisted by men like DeValera and BolandPRESIDENT Éamon de Valera signed into law the constitutional amendment abolishing article 44’s recognition of “the special position” of the Catholic Church on Jan 5, 1973. Ironically, the clause dealing with religion had caused de Valera the greatest anxiety in drafting the Constitution in 1937.
He had sought “to produce a constitution which would not require any fundamental change when the unity of Ireland was accomplished”. Subject to “public order and morality”, the proposed constitution guaranteed “fundamental rights”, like freedoms of speech, conscience, association, and assembly, as well as habeas corpus, and the inviolability of one’s home. All citizens were equal before the law, and there was protection against religious discrimination.
Nevertheless, the Constitution accorded closely with Catholic thinking. “The Most Holy Trinity” was described as the source of all authority in the Preamble. The document was drafted with the help of the President of Blackrock College, Dr John Charles McQuaid, who was shortly to become Archbishop of Dublin.
De Valera showed early proofs of the document to some colleagues, who raised strong objections to the religious clause. “The State acknowledges that the true religion is that established by Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ Himself, which he committed to his Church to protect and propagate, as the guardian and interpreter of true morality,” the article read. “It acknowledges, moreover, that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.”
Gerry Boland, the Minister for Lands, was appalled. “If this clause gets through as now worded,” he said, “it would be equivalent to the expulsion from our history of great Irishmen.” Protestant patriots like Tone, Emmet and Parnell, would never have lived in Ireland “under such a sectarian constitution”, he argued.
“And I would not live under it either,” Boland added. “I would take my wife and children and put myself out of it.”
The clause was so contentious that de Valera removed it from the draft constitution circulated to the whole cabinet on Mar 16, 1937. The clause needed further work, he explained. He proceeded to consult personally with leaders of the various churches.
Eventually, he came up with a clause recognising the existence of the main Protestant churches in Ireland, as well as the Jewish religion, and it recognised “the special position” of the Roman Catholic Church “as the guardian of the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens”.
Meanwhile, there is NO NEED for a Commission of Investigation into sectarianism in the north...they were open and proud of it and furthermore they openly stated it on the official record:
'There was a great number of Protestants and Orangemen who employed Roman Catholics. He felt he could speak freely on this subject as he had not a Roman Catholic about his own place (Cheers). He appreciated the great difficulty experienced by some of them in procuring suitable Protestant labour, but he would point out that the Roman Catholics were endeavouring to get in everywhere and were out with all their force and might to destroy the power and constitution of Ulster. ... He would appeal to loyalists, therefore, wherever possible to employ good Protestant lads and lassies.'
Sir Basil Brooke, Unionist Party, then junior government whip, 12 July 1933
later to become Lord Brookeborough and Northern Ireland Prime Minister
Reported in: Fermanagh Times, 13 July 1933;
Quoted in: Hepburn, A. C. (1980), The Conflict of Nationality in Modern Ireland, London: Edward Arnold (Documents of Modern History series). Page 164.
"When I made that declaration last ‘twelfth’ I did so after careful consideration. What I said was justified. I recommended people not to employ Roman Catholics, who were 99 per cent disloyal."
Sir Basil Brooke, Unionist Party, then Minister of Agriculture, 19 March 1934
later to become Lord Brookeborough and Northern Ireland Prime Minister
[Reported in: Belfast News Letter, 20 March 1934];
Quoted in: Commentary upon The White Paper (Cmd.558) entitled 'A Record of Constructive Change' (1971)
"The hon. Member for South Fermanagh (Mr. Healy) has raised the question of what is the Government's policy [in relation to the employment of Catholics]. My right hon. Friend (Sir Basil Brooke) spoke [on 12 July 1933 and 19 March 1934] as a Member of His Majesty's Government. He spoke entirely on his own when he made the speech to which the hon. Member refers, but there is not one of my colleagues who does not entirely agree with him, and I would not ask him to withdraw one word he said."
Sir James Craig, Unionist Party, then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, 20 March 1934
Reported in: Parliamentary Debates, Northern Ireland House of Commons, Vol. XVI, Cols. 617-618.
"I suppose I am about as high up in the Orange Institution as anybody else. I am very proud indeed to be Grand Master of the loyal County of Down. I have filled that office many years, and I prize that far more than I do being Prime Minister. I have always said I am an Orangeman first and a politician and Member of this Parliament afterwards. ... The Hon. Member must remember that in the South they boasted of a Catholic State. They still boast of Sourthern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast is that we are a Protestant Parliament and Protestant State."
Sir James Craig, Unionist Party, then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, 24 April 1934
Reported in: Parliamentary Debates, Northern Ireland House of Commons, Vol. XVI, Cols. 1091-95.
Quoted in: Bardon, Jonathan. (1992) A History of Ulster. Belfast: The Blackstaff Press. Pages 538-539.
I wouldn't for a second defend the role f the RC church here, they were a powerful influence, there was some discrimination and there were incidents of sectariaism here, but they are in the halfpenny place in comparison to the endemic and state sponsored bigoted and sectarian regime in the north.
And the proof of that is how it led to the complete breakdown of the place.0 -
I heard someone say the other day, “ if a tin of paint in Larne could achieve more than all our politicians, then what would an omagh bomb in Temple Bar do?”
Bad lessons
About as much as the Dublin-Monaghan bombings achieved for loyalists (34 people killed - a lot more loss of life than in the Omagh bombing.
Loyalists hoped then that the bombs would force the Irish Government to react by closing the border. They didn't.0 -
About that famous can of spray paint ..... Why would the PSNI claim they had no knowledge of any threats directed at port staff ? Was it a political stunt ? Such a strange situation .
The point about bombs in Temple bar is hilarious , are certain loyalists/unionists that blinded by their hate that they cannot see it was HMG that screwed them ?
Serious question Downcow , why do they not direct their anger at London ?
Logic goes out the window when people feel cornered, and some unionists feel corned.
You may as well ask why republicans bombed omagh, why the ira burnt 12 people to death in la mon house, etc,etc.0 -
Imagine feeling cornered in your own Statelet as a result of the actions of your political leaders and your government and the solution in your mind is to bomb innocent people in a "foreign country".
I mean, imagine how'd they react if they couldn't vote, get housing or even jobs. Poor craturs.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Bizarre claim. You might familarise yourself with what was actually going on. There is no doubt at all that the RC church tried to take control BUT it was resisted by men like DeValera
Francie maybe you should familiarise yourself with some of this from you hero de Valera (and you pretend you are opposed to the ex church haha)
Eamon de Valera’s statement in 1932 welcoming the Papal Legate, "It is most fitting that the Irish Government should not only assist in every way the great and solemn function of the Eucharistic Congress here in Ireland, but also should take their due part and place in its proceedings", and his later remarks: "Since the coming of St Patrick 1500 years ago Ireland has been a Christian and a Catholic nation. She remains a Catholic nation."
Or this
De Valera’s basic Catholic Nationalism was highlighted at a Dublin election meeting in February 1932, when he said:”The majority of the people of Ireland are Catholic and we believe in Catholic principles. And as the majority are Catholics it is right and natural that the principles to be applied by us will be principles consistent with Catholicity.” In October 1933 his deputy premier, Sean T O’Kelly declared that “the Free State Government was inspired in its every administrative action by Catholic principles and doctrine”.
Or this
De Valera’s basic Catholic nationalism was further highlighted by a radio broadcast on St Patrick’s Day 1935 when he said “since the coming of St Patrick, Ireland has been a Christian and a Catholic nation, she remains a Catholic nation.” This statement demonstrates, according to Conor Cruise O’Brien the peculiar nature of Irish Nationalism, as it is actually felt, not as it is rhetorically expressed. The nation is felt to be the Gaelic nation, Catholic in religion. Protestants are welcome to join this nation. If they do, they may or may not retain their religious profession, but they become as it were, Catholic by nationality. In 1937, de Valera was thus able to produce a new constitution, which was in essence a documentation of contemporary Roman Catholic social theory."
Or this (that he was still at in the 1950s)
Taoiseach Éamon de Valera said in 1951:
"I am an Irishman second: I am a Catholic first and I accept without qualification in all respects the teaching of the hierarchy and the church to which I belong."
Of course there was no cold house for prods in Roi. Catch yourselves on!0 -
BonnieSituation wrote: »Imagine feeling cornered in your own Statelet as a result of the actions of your political leaders and your government and the solution in your mind is to bomb innocent people in a "foreign country".
I mean, imagine how'd they react if they couldn't vote, get housing or even jobs. Poor craturs.
Haha. Is that not exactly how republicans reacted for 30 years.
Difference is we are talking about a small number of loyalists and the unionist community will not be running out and voting for them.
Tell me this. Do you think the ira campaign was in any way justified?0 -
Tell me this. Do you think the ira campaign was in any way justified?
of course it was as we wouldnt have a peace process without it. was it necessary? Only because Unionists thought they were gods and superior to their catholic neighbours. If unionism had been in any way peaceful, there would have been no conflict in the first place.0 -
Advertisement
-
Francie maybe you should familiarise yourself with some of this from you hero de Valera (and you pretend you are opposed to the ex church haha)
Eamon de Valera’s statement in 1932 welcoming the Papal Legate, "It is most fitting that the Irish Government should not only assist in every way the great and solemn function of the Eucharistic Congress here in Ireland, but also should take their due part and place in its proceedings", and his later remarks: "Since the coming of St Patrick 1500 years ago Ireland has been a Christian and a Catholic nation. She remains a Catholic nation."
Or this
De Valera’s basic Catholic Nationalism was highlighted at a Dublin election meeting in February 1932, when he said:”The majority of the people of Ireland are Catholic and we believe in Catholic principles. And as the majority are Catholics it is right and natural that the principles to be applied by us will be principles consistent with Catholicity.” In October 1933 his deputy premier, Sean T O’Kelly declared that “the Free State Government was inspired in its every administrative action by Catholic principles and doctrine”.
Or this
De Valera’s basic Catholic nationalism was further highlighted by a radio broadcast on St Patrick’s Day 1935 when he said “since the coming of St Patrick, Ireland has been a Christian and a Catholic nation, she remains a Catholic nation.” This statement demonstrates, according to Conor Cruise O’Brien the peculiar nature of Irish Nationalism, as it is actually felt, not as it is rhetorically expressed. The nation is felt to be the Gaelic nation, Catholic in religion. Protestants are welcome to join this nation. If they do, they may or may not retain their religious profession, but they become as it were, Catholic by nationality. In 1937, de Valera was thus able to produce a new constitution, which was in essence a documentation of contemporary Roman Catholic social theory."
Or this (that he was still at in the 1950s)
Taoiseach Éamon de Valera said in 1951:
"I am an Irishman second: I am a Catholic first and I accept without qualification in all respects the teaching of the hierarchy and the church to which I belong."
Of course there was no cold house for prods in Roi. Catch yourselves on!
Nobody has denied any of this downcow. We were unduly influenced by the RC church but you have been presented with facts and now you are off on a mission to ignore those facts.
What we didn't have and what you are running from is members of government actively encouraging sectarianism.
Please stop inventing 'hero's' for me, I have a practical and fact based opinion of Devalera and I am as anti RC church as any citizen of this island.
I will not LIE about the facts though.0
Advertisement