How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

jm08

duplication

Terry136

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

The Republic put in a huge effort to curtail the IRA something is curiously misrepresented by some unionist politicians. The Gardai had a genuine revulsion for what they were doing and a determination to thwart them. Anyone who knows any Gardai knows this, it still endures. The IRA killed a number of Garda members.
Basically the IRA were pariahs in the South, hated by the vast majority. It is sometimes forgotten now but they were despised. And rightly so.

They had some security measures in place but claiming they "fought the IRA" is a joke the Irish state was seen by the British as completely incompetent.

jm08

Terry136 wrote: »

They had some security measures in place but claiming they "fought the IRA" is a joke the Irish state was seen by the British as completely incompetent.

The IRA were robbing banks and post offices and kidnapping people in the south. They were not popular to say the least down here.


Bearing in mind that Northern Ireland was a militarised zone with 25,000 troops in NI at the height of the troubles, I'm not sure who was incompetent. The facts are that the British imposed a border in Ireland - it was up to them to sort out the policing of it for their needs.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I suspect you need to have a read through it again yourself, Downcow. There are specific circumstances required to allow any changes (such as a global pandemic, not so much because Jim Allister is full of bluster again and Arlene is laying bare her hypocrisy to save plummeting polling numbers), and in the case that there are changes to be made, there is a specific process to be followed.

If the height of your understanding of the Withdrawal Agreement is, 'we can just ignore bits we don't like and ask you to find solutions', I'd suggest that perhaps your grasp of international law and treaties doesn't even meet the basic requirements to have an educated exchange of opinions on the matter.

Either way, I see you've downgraded your outlook from, 'potential gamechanger' to, 'maybe in a few years it'll have SOME impact.'

There is no global pandemic mentioned in the Protocol I saw. It’s something along the lines of ‘seriously damages the economic, societal and democratic fabric of Northern Ireland’ that allows for unilateral changes - as the U.K. have now done with the unilateral extensions.
I see no justification in the protocol for the intended blocking of vaccines to ni, indeed it is contrary to the possible justifications

Thelonious Monk

Reunification... Were we ever actually unified in the first place?

downcow

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Reunification... Were we ever actually unified in the first place?

No. But some clearly think we were

jm08

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Reunification... Were we ever actually unified in the first place?

Yes. Prior to Act of Union that created the United Kingdom of GB and Ireland had its own Parliament.

"Grattan's parliament" is the name usually given to the two decades of parliamentary independence which ended with the Act of Union in 1800. Certainly, there was much celebration in 1782, and parliament voted its hero £50,000 in gratitude. The final years of the century saw great commercial activity, and a prosperous Dublin acquired many of the handsome Georgian buildings for which it is noted today.

http://www.irelandseye.com/aarticles/history/events/dates/grattan.shtm

jm08

downcow wrote: »

No. But some clearly think we were

Downcow - those tik-tok videos - who are they aimed at because they start off with falsehoods which most people would recognise.


The Fintech claim is just amazing. I don't think NI would make the Top 100 in the world, let alone first.

Hamsterchops

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Reunification... Were we ever actually unified in the first place?

No, always disunited as an island until the act of Union which had the whole of Ireland within the United Kingdom, then the South decided to go on a solo run .....

jm08

Hamsterchops wrote: »

No, always disunited as an island until the act of Union which lasted from 1802 until 1921, then the South decided to go on a solo run .....

So, what was Grattan's Parliament?

AdrianG08

Is Downcow really Jamie Bryson? Hows the faux legal career going?

Fionn1952

Hamsterchops wrote: »

No, always disunited as an island until the act of Union which had the whole of Ireland within the United Kingdom, then the South decided to go on a solo run .....

You've been corrected on this (along with sources) on multiple occasions, yet still pop along every few months and spout it again. It is a very obvious attempt at the old, 'repeat a lie often enough' school of thought.....and even then, completely and utterly irrelevant anyway. Regardless of whether or not Ireland was, 'united' before British rule, the fact of the matter is we have agreed that it is a legitimate aspiration, and indeed have an international treaty in place agreeing to how it can happen.

ulster

AdrianG08 wrote: »

Is Downcow really Jamie Bryson? Hows the faux legal career going?

I've started to suspect that there's one troll with several accounts on here. The posts from these accounts all sound the same, have the same bitterness level, intentionally controversial.etc.

It's probably actually just someone from Dublin who's pretending to be a Unionist haha, rather than a real one from NI. Maybe with the exception of lurleen lumpkin, I don't think there's anyone on here.

eire4

ulster wrote: »

I've started to suspect that there's one troll with several accounts on here. The posts from these accounts all sound the same, have the same bitterness level, intentionally controversial.etc.

It's probably actually just someone from Dublin who's pretending to be a Unionist haha, rather than a real one from NI. Maybe with the exception of lurleen lumpkin, I don't think there's anyone on here.

Would not surprise me at all if you were close to the mark there.

Hamsterchops

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You've been corrected on this (along with sources) on multiple occasions, yet still pop along every few months and spout it again. It is a very obvious attempt at the old, 'repeat a lie often enough' school of thought.....and even then, completely and utterly irrelevant anyway. Regardless of whether or not Ireland was, 'united' before British rule, the fact of the matter is we have agreed that it is a legitimate aspiration, and indeed have an international treaty in place agreeing to how it can happen.

I don't believe this island was ever truly United pre act of Union, but as you say "I've been corrected on multiple occasions" so I'm wrong

I don't know if NI will ever vote to leave the UK, but if it does then what happens next? A harmonious marriage between Orange & Green?

If this island goes forward as one country - one nation then that's great, as long as it's not acrimoneous, bitter and twisted.

Yes to a United Ireland, if that's what the people in NI vote for.

RobMc59

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I don't believe this island was ever truly United pre act of Union, but as you say "I've been corrected on multiple occasions" so I'm wrong

I don't know if NI will ever vote to leave the UK, but if it does then what happens next? A harmonious marriage between Orange & Green?

If this island goes forward as one country - one nation then that's great, as long as it's not acrimoneous, bitter and twisted.

Yes to a United Ireland, if that's what the people in NI vote for.

I think you are correct Hampster,that Ireland has never been united pre being part of the UK but meaningful discussion with disgruntled,delusional republicans is impossible as they've airbrushed history to suit their version of events.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think you are correct Hampster,that Ireland has never been united pre being part of the UK but meaningful discussion with disgruntled,delusional republicans is impossible as they've airbrushed history to suit their version of events.

Amazing that the lad who popped along claiming to be a neutral with an interest in Ireland is now putting himself forward as an expert on Irish post-classical history.

As usual, the narrative revolves around trying to draw illogical comparisons between the feudal society of Ireland at the time with that of a modern democracy or federal system of government.

As has been explained many times (I think I have a post from around two years ago on the matter, and a more detailed one about six months back), the existence of a shared culture isn't disputed by even the most ardent of deniers, the existence of common law across the island isn't disputed, in fact Brehon Law is likely the oldest codified legal system in Europe.

What the argument against seems to focus on is the suggestion that as parts of the country were ruled by multiple different rulers at the time, it couldn't have ever been one country (while bypassing any discussion of the unifying nature of shared culture and law). The issue with this is that it also ignores periods of history when there were High Kings without Opposition. Arguing that Ireland wasn't united as one country under, for example Brian Boru would demonstrate either a total lack of knowledge of the history of the island during that time period, or a willful ignorance of said history to push a certain agenda.

Two years later, pretty much the same group of posters are still parroting the, 'never united' line, but seem to magically disappear from the conversation for a while without ever actually addressing the above.

If you'd like to have the 'meaningful discussion' on the matter you claim to be prevented from having, I'd suggest you start with bringing actual history to the discussion instead of your usual pointless jibes at anyone who disagrees with you.

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think you are correct Hampster,that Ireland has never been united pre being part of the UK but meaningful discussion with disgruntled,delusional republicans is impossible as they've airbrushed history to suit their version of events.

So what do you make of Roderic O'Connor, the last High King of Ireland who died in 1198, prior to the Normans landing in Ireland?


And what is your view of Grattan's Parliament prior to the Act of Union in 1800?

Fionn1952

jm08 wrote: »

So what do you make of Roderic O'Connor, the last High King of Ireland who died in 1198, prior to the Normans landing in Ireland?


And what is your view of Grattan's Parliament prior to the Act of Union in 1800?

Two years or so I've been trying to get an answer to that.....but it's always the casual, 'never unified' snipe with zero supporting information, then hide for a while without responding to the raised response.....followed by showing up a few months later and making the same claim.

downcow

I was bombarded for the most of last year that ni should have went with our southern neighbours and broke with the rest of our nation on our response to covid.
Would you still argue the same. I am so glad we didn’t.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Amazing that the lad who popped along claiming to be a neutral with an interest in Ireland is now putting himself forward as an expert on Irish post-classical history.

As usual, the narrative revolves around trying to draw illogical comparisons between the feudal society of Ireland at the time with that of a modern democracy or federal system of government.

As has been explained many times (I think I have a post from around two years ago on the matter, and a more detailed one about six months back), the existence of a shared culture isn't disputed by even the most ardent of deniers, the existence of common law across the island isn't disputed, in fact Brehon Law is likely the oldest codified legal system in Europe.

What the argument against seems to focus on is the suggestion that as parts of the country were ruled by multiple different rulers at the time, it couldn't have ever been one country (while bypassing any discussion of the unifying nature of shared culture and law). The issue with this is that it also ignores periods of history when there were High Kings without Opposition. Arguing that Ireland wasn't united as one country under, for example Brian Boru would demonstrate either a total lack of knowledge of the history of the island during that time period, or a willful ignorance of said history to push a certain agenda.

Two years later, pretty much the same group of posters are still parroting the, 'never united' line, but seem to magically disappear from the conversation for a while without ever actually addressing the above.

If you'd like to have the 'meaningful discussion' on the matter you claim to be prevented from having, I'd suggest you start with bringing actual history to the discussion instead of your usual pointless jibes at anyone who disagrees with you.

If you search `was Ireland unified prior to being part of the UK` there is little evidence to support that claim.
Regardless of what my original intentions were when I originally joined boards were ,I`ve as much right as you to express an opinion as to whether a vague band of feudal warlords a thousand years ago constituted a `united Ireland`or not.Why you as a British person who decided to identify as Irish feel you are somehow exclusively qualified to speculate on these matters is a mystery to many.
Regarding Roderic O`Conner,as I understand it he was a vassal of Henry the second and was expelled from his kingdom by his own people.

Hamsterchops

downcow wrote: »

I was bombarded for the most of last year that ni should have went with our southern neighbours and broke with the rest of our nation on our response to covid.
Would you still argue the same. I am so glad we didn’t.

Not a week went by where the wasn't a call from some politician or other that Northern Ireland should (really must) fall into line with the rest of this island in its strategy in its fight against Covid-19. The demand was based in the fact that this is one island, hence you must have the same response top to bottom!

Great Britain is an island and yet they have at least three different approaches to fighting the virus in different regions, anyway, the whole argument that NI should be exactly the same as the ROI has been blown out of the water since they got their vaccine programme started well in advance of us down here.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you search `was Ireland unified prior to being part of the UK` there is little evidence to support that claim.
Regardless of what my original intentions were when I originally joined boards were ,I`ve as much right as you to express an opinion as to whether a vague band of feudal warlords a thousand years ago constituted a `united Ireland`or not.Why you as a British person who decided to identify as Irish feel you are somehow exclusively qualified to speculate on these matters is a mystery to many.
Regarding Roderic O`Conner,as I understand it he was a vassal of Henry the second and was expelled from his kingdom by his own people.

I'm am Irish person, Rob. Born on the island of Ireland and holding an Irish passport. While I've visited many times, and found many of the people wonderful, I've never lived in Britain.

I was happy to defend Downcow when posters were trying this nonsense from the other side. I believe you were arguing in his defense at the time, and it really reduces your credibility to try pulling it now. If you wish to persist with that, I will just report your posts in future.

While it is interesting that a rudimentary Google search didn't provide you with the information I just supplied, I'd imagine that is due to user issues rather than the lack of actual information available. Perhaps you could address the actual points I raised regarding culture, law and specifically how the country could be described as unified under the rule of Brian Boru, as one example.

Roderic O'Conor was a painter who died in 1940, so probably isn't terribly relevant to the discussion. If you're attempting to discuss Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, I'd suggest learning his name, as once more it doesn't suggest a great degree of credibility when you don't even know the name of the people you're claiming to have knowledge of. He signed a treaty with Henry II, after the Norman invasion. Given that we are discussing whether Ireland was united before this point, it isn't very relevant either. He was however the unopposed High King of Ireland from 1166 until the Norman invasion, so how exactly do you still contend the country was not united at the time.

You have just as much of a right to share your opinions, Rob.....you don't have a right to your own facts and it is very clear you're entering this particular topic greatly lacking any actual knowledge of it apart from your very brief (and cherry picked) Google search, together with a handful of insults directed at me.

Fr D Maugire

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think you are correct Hampster,that Ireland has never been united pre being part of the UK but meaningful discussion with disgruntled,delusional republicans is impossible as they've airbrushed history to suit their version of events.

Depends what you mean by United. Ireland was always regarded as a single entity regardless of what it's relationship with Britain was at the time. In any History book that is pretty clear. There was always political/religious divides but the same happened in Britain as well. I mean the Government of Ireland had to be coerced into agreeing to the Act of Union in 1800 and they were all Protestants.

I never really see this discussed here, but the whole idea of a Republic completely separate from Britain was first pushed by a movement that was formed and dominated by the Presbyterian Ulster Scot's, and who described themselves as Irishmen first and foremost, the same people who now swear undying loyalty to Britain. How bizarre is that?

When you look at the idea of the formation of a Republic, it was always based on the idea of equality for everyone regardless of religion and that is reflected in various figureheads down through the years from McCracken, Wolf Tone, Robert Emmett, John Mitchell, Countess Markiewicz etc, etc, etc. Republicanism historically, had little interest in religion reflected in the formation of the US and the French Republic. Also the Catholic Church was totally opposed to the movement in the late 19th century, they didn't like the idea of a more secular Country.

Unionism is more based on retaining Protestant dominance over Catholics and really only took hold with the rise of the OO in the 19th century. The idea of Republicanism as a Catholic movement is more of a 20th century invention and only really relevant to NI.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'm am Irish person, Rob. Born on the island of Ireland and holding an Irish passport. While I've visited many times, and found many of the people wonderful, I've never lived in Britain.

I was happy to defend Downcow when posters were trying this nonsense from the other side. I believe you were arguing in his defense at the time, and it really reduces your credibility to try pulling it now. If you wish to persist with that, I will just report your posts in future.

While it is interesting that a rudimentary Google search didn't provide you with the information I just supplied, I'd imagine that is due to user issues rather than the lack of actual information available. Perhaps you could address the actual points I raised regarding culture, law and specifically how the country could be described as unified under the rule of Brian Boru, as one example.

Roderic O'Conor was a painter who died in 1940, so probably isn't terribly relevant to the discussion. If you're attempting to discuss Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, I'd suggest learning his name, as once more it doesn't suggest a great degree of credibility when you don't even know the name of the people you're claiming to have knowledge of. He signed a treaty with Henry II, after the Norman invasion. Given that we are discussing whether Ireland was united before this point, it isn't very relevant either. He was however the unopposed High King of Ireland from 1166 until the Norman invasion, so how exactly do you still contend the country was not united at the time.

You have just as much of a right to share your opinions, Rob.....you don't have a right to your own facts and it is very clear you're entering this particular topic greatly lacking any actual knowledge of it apart from your very brief (and cherry picked) Google search, together with a handful of insults directed at me.

My mistake,I was under the impression you were originally from NI which would have made you British by birth.
As an English person who speaks English as first language using the anglicised Roderic isn't unreasonable or ignorant imo.I understand English is the default language here on boards unless in specific Irish language threads.

lurleen lumpkin

RobMc59 wrote: »

My mistake,I was under the impression you were originally from NI which would have made you British by birth.

Poor effort. You can do better than this, I know you can.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

My mistake,I was under the impression you were originally from NI which would have made you British by birth.
As an English person who speaks English as first language using the anglicised Roderic isn't unreasonable or ignorant imo.I understand English is the default language here on boards unless in specific Irish language threads.

Your country did sign up to the GFA, which states British OR Irish OR both. As much as your country has trouble keeping up its international agreements, I'm Irish by birth, being born in Co. Fermanagh, on the island of Ireland, not the island of Britain as you are well aware.

Do you tend towards anglicising the names of anyone who isn't English? If so, why were you referring to Jurgen Klopp in a previous one of your posts rather than being consistent and anglicising that to George? You know full well that it was a low grade baiting attempt.

And still, you've contributed nothing of any value regarding the actual topic of whether Ireland was united before the Norman invasion. One could grow to suspect that you don't actually have any knowledge of the topic.

RobMc59

lurleen lumpkin wrote: »

Poor effort. You can do better than this, I know you can.

Lurleen,if you're born in NI you're British by default although you have the right to identify as Irish if you so choose or have I missed something?

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Your country did sign up to the GFA, which states British OR Irish OR both. As much as your country has trouble keeping up its international agreements, I'm Irish by birth, being born in Co. Fermanagh, on the island of Ireland, not the island of Britain as you are well aware.

Do you tend towards anglicising the names of anyone who isn't English? If so, why were you referring to Jurgen Klopp in a previous one of your posts rather than being consistent and anglicising that to George? You know full well that it was a low grade baiting attempt.

And still, you've contributed nothing of any value regarding the actual topic of whether Ireland was united before the Norman invasion. One could grow to suspect that you don't actually have any knowledge of the topic.

I genuinely wasn't aware Jurgen was George in English and imagine a joke about George Klopp would baffle the majority of people.
I noticed you are from Fermanagh and not Fear Manach...

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

I genuinely wasn't aware Jurgen was George in English and imagine a joke about George Klopp would baffle the majority of people.
I noticed you are from Fermanagh and not Fear Manach...

Yes, and you only know that Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair could be anglicised to Roderic from quickly looking him up on Wikipedia to try and feign knowledge of the topic.

So I take your p*ss poor baiting as an acknowledgement that you know absolutely nothing about the topic, and you'd prefer to just derail rather than openly admit that?

Fair enough, but it isn't subtle. Nobody forced you to engage on the topic, so you could just not share an opinion if you don't know what you're talking about.