Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You ignore facts that don't suit your narrative.

In fairness Francie, you are the gold standard in this forum on that front.
The classic example, accepting the ICC report when it suits and diminishing facts from similar reports when it doesn't.
But anyway, what 'facts' do I ignore?

I think you didn't know about the threat from Britain if the treaty was not signed tbh.
You also don't seem to know that Unionists set about changing the voting system after partition or that many unionists (the COI for one) laid out exactly what would happen if partition went ahead.

I knew full well the details of the Treaty negotiations. It doesn't matter.

The treaty was signed and democratricly passed in the Dail. People like you can try and drive a wedge into the legitimacy of it by making comment after comment about some threat, but at the end of the day, you have nothing more, because even after all the huff and bluster, in Septemnber 2020, Ireland is still partitioned.
That should really tell you something Francie, as someone who claims to live in a border county/.

Logical outcome is 'war'?

Not necessarily IMO.

OK, go...
Tell me the next stage of this then.
The treaty negotiations fail...... and then what?

Give me a reasonable scenario that both avoids war, bloodshed AND does away with partition....

:D:D:D
I can't wait for you to explain this to me.


And this 'you are not a democrat' ****e again.

Are those who thought the Brexit vote was wrong undemocratic? (You can't use your outdated and edgy 'Godwin theory' on that, so could you answer the question this time?)

Not agreeing with a result is one thing, not accepting it is another.
You are the latter.

You do not and would not accept the outcome of the Treaty, even though it was democraticly passed in Dail. Indeed SF right up till the 80's didn't accept the Dail as being legitimate, thus you are carrying on that fine tradition. Hell, SF didn't even see the Gardai or the Irish Army as legimate police and defence forces of the state.
You have Republican SF still going on about this crap 100 years later.

This is not new or earth shattering stuff, SF types are knee deep in this traitorous thinking, that is why its easy for their PIRA friends to murder and kill Gardai and Irish Army personal.

Fionn1952

markodaly wrote: »

In fairness Francie, you are the gold standard in this forum on that front.
The classic example, accepting the ICC report when it suits and diminishing facts from similar reports when it doesn't.
But anyway, what 'facts' do I ignore?




I knew full well the details of the Treaty negotiations. It doesn't matter.

The treaty was signed and democratricly passed in the Dail. People like you can try and drive a wedge into the legitimacy of it by making comment after comment about some threat, but at the end of the day, you have nothing more, because even after all the huff and bluster, in Septemnber 2020, Ireland is still partitioned.
That should really tell you something Francie, as someone who claims to live in a border county/.









OK, go...
Tell me the next stage of this then.
The treaty negotiations fail...... and then what?

Give me a reasonable scenario that both avoids war, bloodshed AND does away with partition....

:D:D:D
I can't wait for you to explain this to me.


And this 'you are not a democrat' ****e again.



Not agreeing with a result is one thing, not accepting it is another.
You are the latter.

You do not and would not accept the outcome of the Treaty, even though it was democraticly passed in Dail. Indeed SF right up till the 80's didn't accept the Dail as being legitimate, thus you are carrying on that fine tradition. Hell, SF didn't even see the Gardai or the Irish Army as legimate police and defence forces of the state.
You have Republican SF still going on about this crap 100 years later.

This is not new or earth shattering stuff, SF types are knee deep in this traitorous thinking, that is why its easy for their PIRA friends to murder and kill Gardai and Irish Army personal.

I'm not getting into your whole tit-for-tat with eachother here, but I would just point out that it is perfectly possible to not accept a democratic decision yet continue to be a democrat.

The key is in the methods one uses to express their lack of acceptance. In the case of Brexit for example, it is not undemocratic for someone to continue to campaign for remaining in the EU, despite a leave vote passing. It is not undemocratic to point out problems or irregularities with the opposing campaign and to continue to argue for another referendum on the matter. (Obviously it's a bit late for all of that now, I'm talking in the hypothetical sense).


Your idea of democracy seems to be highly stagnant- accept the outcome forever or you're not a democrat?

Zebra3

markodaly wrote: »

So you wanted to up the emotional language then to try and (badly at that) hammer home some point?

Why not go all in and say the Brits threatened to nuke Dublin? For effect, like!

More distractions. You're getting really boring.

I'll ask you one last time because you love banging on about democracy so much.

Is a vote that takes place under the threat of violence a democratic vote, yes or no?

markodaly

Zebra3 wrote: »

More distractions. You're getting really boring.

I'll ask you one last time because you love banging on about democracy so much.

Is a vote that takes place under the threat of violence a democratic vote, yes or no?

I already answered that one.

markodaly

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'm not getting into your whole tit-for-tat with eachother here, but I would just point out that it is perfectly possible to not accept a democratic decision yet continue to be a democrat.

Possibly, yes. One can use the democratic means to change previous democratic outcomes.

However, in this case, we had people reject the democratic means and its outcome and reject the state itself because of it, and turn traitor. That is a very different thing.

Do you agree that those who took up arms against the Free State were traitors?
If not, what were they?

Your idea of democracy seems to be highly stagnant- accept the outcome forever or you're not a democrat?

No, not at all.
A democrat is one that accepts the will of the people and has to worth within the system to change it.

The SF/IRA types on the other hand conflate the two. These are people who took up arms against the state and murdered Gardai and Irish army personal because they did not like the democratic outcome.

The New IRA do not like the democratic outcome of the GFA, do you think they are legitimate?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

In fairness Francie, you are the gold standard in this forum on that front.
The classic example, accepting the ICC report when it suits and diminishing facts from similar reports when it doesn't.
But anyway, what 'facts' do I ignore?




I knew full well the details of the Treaty negotiations. It doesn't matter.

The treaty was signed and democratricly passed in the Dail. People like you can try and drive a wedge into the legitimacy of it by making comment after comment about some threat, but at the end of the day, you have nothing more, because even after all the huff and bluster, in Septemnber 2020, Ireland is still partitioned.
That should really tell you something Francie, as someone who claims to live in a border county/.

More bluster to cover the fact that you ignore stuff to make your point. Your refusal to take on board militaristic bullying by Britain being a case in point. Democracy you say.

OK, go...
Tell me the next stage of this then.
The treaty negotiations fail...... and then what?

Give me a reasonable scenario that both avoids war, bloodshed AND does away with partition....

:D:D:D
I can't wait for you to explain this to me.

Have all the shennigans and offer and counter offer over Brexit led to war...will it lead to war? No, it won't because war wouldn't solve the issues.

And this 'you are not a democrat' ****e again.



Not agreeing with a result is one thing, not accepting it is another.
You are the latter.

You do not and would not accept the outcome of the Treaty, even though it was democraticly passed in Dail. Indeed SF right up till the 80's didn't accept the Dail as being legitimate, thus you are carrying on that fine tradition. Hell, SF didn't even see the Gardai or the Irish Army as legimate police and defence forces of the state.
You have Republican SF still going on about this crap 100 years later.

This is not new or earth shattering stuff, SF types are knee deep in this traitorous thinking, that is why its easy for their PIRA friends to murder and kill Gardai and Irish Army personal.

Where have you ever seen me do that? Are you EVER going to back a claim up?

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

First you faux-pas about the Irish blue-state being in the United Kingdom, now this?

Seriously??
Honestly, you have lots of things about Irish history wrong and back to front.

So, have you ever wondered why fascism didn't take hold in Ireland when it was probably ripe for it?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have all the shennigans and offer and counter offer over Brexit led to war...will it lead to war? No, it won't because war wouldn't solve the issues.

Strawman alert.

Tell me Francie, again, please don't ignore the question this time.
If the Treaty negotiations failed or the Irish delegation team or the Dail rejected them, what then.....
Please outline your plan that a) avoids war and b) ends partition.

Remember, you said earlier the Republican Leaders of the day, should have don't 'Whatever it took' to not partition Ireland. I presume that also means wagging war?

Where have you ever seen me do that? Are you EVER going to back a claim up?

Are you ever going to answer the simple questions I posted to you above?
Lay out your alternative scenario.

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

So, have you ever wondered why fascism didn't take hold in Ireland when it was probably ripe for it?

Why didn't communism take over?

I am eager to find out your take on it, given that you don't know even the basics of Irish history and get all types of things mixed up and muddled.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Strawman alert.

Tell me Francie, again, please don't ignore the question this time.
If the Treaty negotiations failed or the Irish delegation team or the Dail rejected them, what then.....
Please outline your plan that a) avoids war and b) ends partition.

Remember, you said earlier the Republican Leaders of the day, should have don't 'Whatever it took' to not partition Ireland. I presume that also means wagging war?

I have answered this before. If a war war could not be avoided then yes, sometimes war is unavoidable. Thousands died in the conflict/war that inevitably broke out. Just because the can was kicked (they KNEW what would happen on all sides, see links posted earlier to the warnngs and who they came from) down the road doesn't malke the decision any more correct. Partition caused thousands of deaths on this island = fact.
Sadly, IMO we did not pressure the British enough to stand up to Unionism, had they done that and not offered partition I think the outcome would have been different. You cannot say one side was tired of war and not the other...the Unionists had been ravaged and weakened by war too.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Why didn't communism take over?

Because the Catholic Church opposed it. Communists would be excommunicated. I'm surprised you didn't know this as I thought you knew everything!

PS - and of course property ownership which was relatively new to Irish people now that our overmasters were kicked out.

Did you know that Dev specificially included a clause in the Constitution of a Right to own property as a specific anti-communism measure?

Now tell me why you don't think that if the Blueshirts were in power in the 30s, we would not have followed the trend in Europe and become a fascist state?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have answered this before. If a war war could not be avoided then yes, sometimes war is unavoidable. Thousands died in the conflict/war that inevitably broke out. Just because the can was kicked (they KNEW what would happen on all sides, see links posted earlier to the warnngs and who they came from) down the road doesn't malke the decision any more correct. Partition caused thousands of deaths on this island = fact.
Sadly, IMO we did not pressure the British enough to stand up to Unionism, had they done that and not offered partition I think the outcome would have been different. You cannot say one side was tired of war and not the other...the Unionists had been ravaged and weakened by war too.

Interesting looking article going by first few paragraphs. Nothing we didn’t know about Gerry setting up Tyrone brigade, but interesting to hear Tom king mentioning.
I don’t pay the subscription so maybe some that do will update usb

BonnieSituation

markodaly wrote: »

I already answered that one.

Shouldn't be too hard to answer it again so. Just to clear it up.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Not at all. I couldn’t care less what you write on your signs. I was simply asking why Roi put Derry on their road signs and uk put the official name.
Bonnie want evidence of ROI taking sides in ni issues. Then she said she needed something current. So I gave her this example.
I actually have a wee smile to myself when I see ROI demonstrating so publicly that the can’t tolerate any reference to uk.
It’s all a help in keeping northerners reminded that their would be no equality in a UI.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Please point exactly to the post where I sought "evidence of the ROI taking sides in NI issues".

Thank you.

Downcow, now that you've gotten back to the thread please point out these posts.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Ireland was heading towards fascism if the Blueshirts were not kicked out by Fianna Fail. One great achievement of Dev is that while fascism was all the rage in Europe, he didn't go down that route.

Funny post.

Fine Gael kicked Duffy and his pals out of their party in 1934 because they didn't agree with fascism. Where did they go?

They didn't disappear, they took up with Sean Russell, Sinn Fein and the IRA, and kept siding with the Nazis during the war. so the party with the most recent involvement with fascism is your party Sinn Fein. What's more, while Fine Gael have wiped Duffy from their history book, Sinn Fein are still proud of their links to guys like Russell.

Capt'n Midnight

The success or failure on NI can be measured by comparing it to Ireland.

Here's an interesting comment. https://sluggerotoole.com/2020/09/14/this-is-the-very-moment-to-speak-out-against-the-old-wolfe-tone-trope-that-britain-is-the-source-of-all-irish-ills/

Wolfe Tone did not say Britain was the source of all ills. He said the connection with Britain was the source of the ills. And in effect he was proven right. He said that when the British connection was broken it would matter not if one was Catholic, Protestant or Dissenter(Presbyterian) we would come together as Irishmen. The success of the Republic of Ireland is testament to this ideal. With the British connection removed it has become an outward looking, liberal and forward democracy with all denominations and none united as Irishmen doing their best for this little island perched on the edge of Europe in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Funny post.

Fine Gael kicked Duffy and his pals out of their party in 1934 because they didn't agree with fascism. Where did they go?

Dev sacked O'Duffy as Garda Commissioner in 1933. Tom O'Higgins (of the O'Higgins Fine Gael dynasty) and Ernest Blythe co-founded the Army Comrades Association (better known as the Blueshirt) with O'Duffy in 1933 after he was sacked by Dev.

They didn't disappear, they took up with Sean Russell, Sinn Fein and the IRA, and kept siding with the Nazis during the war. so the party with the most recent involvement with fascism is your party Sinn Fein. What's more, while Fine Gael have wiped Duffy from their history book, Sinn Fein are still proud of their links to guys like Russell.

You're not wiping O'Duffy out of Fine Gael's history much and all as you would like to.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have answered this before. If a war war could not be avoided then yes, sometimes war is unavoidable. Thousands died in the conflict/war that inevitably broke out. Just because the can was kicked (they KNEW what would happen on all sides, see links posted earlier to the warnngs and who they came from) down the road doesn't malke the decision any more correct. Partition caused thousands of deaths on this island = fact.
Sadly, IMO we did not pressure the British enough to stand up to Unionism, had they done that and not offered partition I think the outcome would have been different. You cannot say one side was tired of war and not the other...the Unionists had been ravaged and weakened by war too.

So, its was pure hope, like saying a Hail Mary and hoping something would happen?
"Just put pressure on the British..." is not an alternative policy, its make-believe, like a fairy tale.

The truth is partition was inevitable, and you still have not given us an alternative that a) avoids it and b) avoids war

The PIRA tried to end partition for 30 years and they failed... yet you think 'putting the British under pressure in 1920 would have succeeded?

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

Because the Catholic Church opposed it. Communists would be excommunicated. I'm surprised you didn't know this as I thought you knew everything!

PS - and of course property ownership which was relatively new to Irish people now that our overmasters were kicked out.

Did you know that Dev specificially included a clause in the Constitution of a Right to own property as a specific anti-communism measure?

Now tell me why you don't think that if the Blueshirts were in power in the 30s, we would not have followed the trend in Europe and become a fascist state?

Wrong again, property ownership goes back further then the bulwark against communism you make it out to be, it goes back to the land leage of the 19th century, hence why property rights in this country is very strong still.

Not sure, why you are going off on some blueshirt tangent, I guess you have no arguments left re the UI so want to change the debate.. :D

markodaly

blanch152 wrote: »

Funny post.

Fine Gael kicked Duffy and his pals out of their party in 1934 because they didn't agree with fascism. Where did they go?

They didn't disappear, they took up with Sean Russell, Sinn Fein and the IRA, and kept siding with the Nazis during the war. so the party with the most recent involvement with fascism is your party Sinn Fein. What's more, while Fine Gael have wiped Duffy from their history book, Sinn Fein are still proud of their links to guys like Russell.

Fun Fact!

MLMD, in her maiden speech as a member of SF was at a commeneration of Sean Russell in 2003.
Now you may think she may have grown out of that nonsense, but recently only a few months ago she stated that.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mcdonald-under-fire-over-support-for-nazi-collaborator-39231015.html

In an interview with the 'Sunday Independent', Ms McDonald insisted Sean Russell was a "militarist" but not a "Nazi collaborator", despite his well-publicised links to the Third Reich during the Holocaust

Can you imagine the future Taosieach of the country praising a Nazi collaborator?

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

Can you imagine the future Taosieach of the country praising a Nazi collaborator?

*Sigh*

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

*Sigh*

Sigh

collaborator
noun
1.
a person who works jointly on an activity or project; an associate.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Dev sacked O'Duffy as Garda Commissioner in 1933. Tom O'Higgins (of the O'Higgins Fine Gael dynasty) and Ernest Blythe co-founded the Army Comrades Association (better known as the Blueshirt) with O'Duffy in 1933 after he was sacked by Dev.






You're not wiping O'Duffy out of Fine Gael's history much and all as you would like to.

Yes, and O'Duffy was then kicked out of Fine Gael for his fascist views, upon which he took up with Sinn Fein, Sean Russell and the IRA. So disowned by Dev, rejected by Fine Gael, your favourite fascist worked with Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Funny that it seems to be yourself who is intent on wiping O'Duffy and Nazi collaboration out of the history books because of the Sinn Fein/IRA links.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

So, its was pure hope, like saying a Hail Mary and hoping something would happen?
"Just put pressure on the British..." is not an alternative policy, its make-believe, like a fairy tale.

The truth is partition was inevitable, and you still have not given us an alternative that a) avoids it and b) avoids war

The PIRA tried to end partition for 30 years and they failed... yet you think 'putting the British under pressure in 1920 would have succeeded?

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

No Mark...conflict/war was 'inevitable' and they just managed to kick that ball down the road.
It is STILL with us today despite FG and FF's gallant attempts to ignore it.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Wrong again, property ownership goes back further then the bulwark against communism you make it out to be, it goes back to the land leage of the 19th century, hence why property rights in this country is very strong still.

Which supports my argument. If property rights were so strong anyway, why write it into the 1937 Constitution? (Just for the record, in the Oireachtas Reform of the Constitution on Property Rights (about 20 years ago), the reason given for why they were included in the Constitution was as an anti-communist measure).

Not sure, why you are going off on some blueshirt tangent, I guess you have no arguments left re the UI so want to change the debate.. :D

You headed off that route with this post.


Originally Posted by markodaly
What it was Francie, that the Dail accepting the Treaty was a democratic decision. Now we didn't turn into a fascist state afterwords, so talk about Hitler is stupid to say the least.

JM08: Ireland was heading towards fascism if the Blueshirts were not kicked out by Fianna Fail. One great achievement of Dev is that while fascism was all the rage in Europe, he didn't go down that route.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, and O'Duffy was then kicked out of Fine Gael for his fascist views, upon which he took up with Sinn Fein, Sean Russell and the IRA. So disowned by Dev, rejected by Fine Gael, your favourite fascist worked with Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Funny that it seems to be yourself who is intent on wiping O'Duffy and Nazi collaboration out of the history books because of the Sinn Fein/IRA links.

First of all Blanch, I have nothing to do with Sinn Fein other than for the first time ever, I gave them a second preference vote in the last general election.

Grandees of Fine Gael were involved in setting up the Blueshirts in 1933 and installing O'Duffy as the Generalisimo. Grandees of Fine Gael made him Commissioner of the Gardai despite him being every bit as ruthless as the PIRA were (shooting informers, raiding protestant farms on the border etc) back in the early years of the State. He presided over the execution of 80+ anti-treaty Irish people.

I don't give two tosses about what Sean Russells relationship with the Nazis (though I think it is well accepted that it was more ''England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity'' arrangement rather than supporting the nazi regime.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No Mark...conflict/war was 'inevitable' and they just managed to kick that ball down the road.

Well first of all, the troubles in the North was not inevitable. The PIRA and their misguided leadership or should I say foolish and megalomanic leadership were proof positive of that.

Again, you have no shown us how a) partition was not inevitable or b) saying no to the treaty in 1920 would have not led to more war.

It is STILL with us today despite FG and FF's gallant attempts to ignore it.

What exactly are FF and FG ignoring now?
Like a mystery novel this is a new turn of events. Please elaborate

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

Which supports my argument. If property rights were so strong anyway, why write it into the 1937 Constitution? (Just for the record, in the Oireachtas Reform of the Constitution on Property Rights (about 20 years ago), the reason given for why they were included in the Constitution was as an anti-communist measure).

I am not sure what your point is, in regards this and what it has to do with the Parition of the North and the Anglo-Irish treaty?

You headed off that route with this post.

Actually it was Francie that Godwin'd the thread, not me.
The point I was making was the Free State did not turn into a Communist state more a facsit state. This is just a fact.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

I am not sure what your point is, in regards this and what it has to do with the Parition of the North and the Anglo-Irish treaty

Read the thread and you will get it.

Actually it was Francie that Godwin'd the thread, not me.
The point I was making was the Free State did not turn into a Communist state more a facsit state. This is just a fact.

Well my point is that it didn't turn into a fascist state because De Valera came to power. It would have been quite likely if Fine Gael/Blue Shirts had remained in power with O'Duffy as Garda Commissioner.


As for Communism - you asked and I answered.

markodaly wrote: »

Why didn't communism take over?

I am eager to find out your take on it, given that you don't know even the basics of Irish history and get all types of things mixed up and muddled.

So Mark, whats your take on ''Unquiet Graves'' (on RTE player if you have not seen it yet). It might help you understand why Irish people are not inclined to celebrate the activities of the RIC/RUC/British Army in Ireland.
https://www.rte.ie/player/movie/unquiet-graves/147130920020

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

Well first of all, the troubles in the North was not inevitable. The PIRA and their misguided leadership or should I say foolish and megalomanic leadership were proof positive of that.

Again, you have no shown us how a) partition was not inevitable or b) saying no to the treaty in 1920 would have not led to more war.




What exactly are FF and FG ignoring now?
Like a mystery novel this is a new turn of events. Please elaborate

They are ignoring the role of this man during his time in the RUC. As we are facing possible loyalist violence and a hostile administration in Westminster with the backdrop of the collapse of brexit talks and a complete disregard for the GFA I see Drew Harris as a security risk.

https://twitter.com/Ordinaryman13/status/1306362507074961411?s=19