They have'nt gone away you know.

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Northern Ireland is a state that is a constitiuent part of the UK.

Do you know why NI was created by partitioning Ulster and allowing 3 counties to form part of the Irish Free State and the remaining 6 counties to become NI?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

If NI was independent, I would regard it as a country

Zulu

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If NI was independent, I would regard it as a country

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, you consider the "26 Counties" as an independent country - you just don't agree it should be called Ireland.

Is that your position?

FTA69

Zulu wrote:

Good man FTA, sure we'll put you up in front of the UN: Hello, I'm FTA, President of "The 26 County State". :rolleyes:

Personally I prefer "Ireland", or "the Republic of Ireland" as the name of our little country.

Considering I'm not the president of the 26 county state I doubt I will be put in front of the UN, wouldn't that be a job for Mary McAleese?

The term "Ireland" is incorrect when refferring to the southern state because it does not encompass the entire country of Ireland.

Zulu

FTA69 wrote:

Considering I'm not the president of the 26 county state I doubt I will be put in front of the UN, wouldn't that be a job for Mary McAleese?

Did you try hard to miss that point? Have another go at it...

FTA69 wrote:

The term "Ireland" is incorrect when refferring to the southern state because it does not encompass the entire country of Ireland.

According to who? "The sothern state" as you call is encompasses most of the island. It is an independant country referred globally as Ireland.
....but then the rest of the world is wrong, and you evidently, are right. :rolleyes:
What is the correct name of this "southern state" so? - or is that it - "The Southern State"

FTA69

It does indeed cover most of Ireland, what I am saying is that the entity of Ireland does not end at the Monaghan border. If your basis is simply a matter of global terminology would you then agree that Ireland did not exist as a country after 1801 since it became a part of the UK and was referred to as such?

Zulu

FTA69 wrote:

If your basis is simply a matter of global terminology would you then agree that Ireland did not exist as a country after 1801 since it became a part of the UK and was referred to as such?

I certinally would not. Ireland was referred to as such after 1801 and internationally wasn't considered by many as the UK - perhaps you should study your history a little better.
(Clue for research: the Catalpa.)

Guy's guy's guy's, this is all getting a bit academic isn't it?

Of course Ireland is/was and is a country,It's just that part of it is legally a region of the UK in the same way as the isle of man or the channel islands are a region of the UK.
Legally at the moment, the Republic of Ireland consists of only the 26 counties and recently that has been the constitutional position aswell.

Zulu

Earthman wrote:

Guy's guy's guy's, this is all getting a bit academic isn't it?

This is true Earthman, but when someone refuses to accept Ireland as a country in this day and age, it makes my blood boil that such ignorance still exists.

A Dub in Glasgo

Zulu wrote:

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, you consider the "26 Counties" as an independent country - you just don't agree it should be called Ireland.

Is that your position?

Correct - the Republic of a large portion of Ireland will do just nicely

FTA69

Actually most did consider Ireland as just another part of the UK, even most of our own people supported that position at one stage, eg the Home Rule Party (who rarely questioned Ireland's position as UK dependent) was by far and away the most popular Irish party.

I also never stated Ireland had "no right to exist", it does of course exist and will remain in existance. What I am saying however, is that Ireland is not confined to the 26 Counties. And as a DIG stated, it is a Republic in Ireland, but it is not the sole embodiement of the Irish nation living in the country of Ireland.

Zulu

FTA69 wrote:

Actually most did consider Ireland as just another part of the UK, even most of our own people supported that position at one stage, eg the Home Rule Party (who rarely questioned Ireland's position as UK dependent) was by far and away the most popular Irish party.

That is highly debatable. There was a massive populas in both America and Austriala (for example) who acknowledged the country of Ireland as being occupied and not part of the UK. This was idea was widely spread across Europe - hence the forgien support.

FTA69 wrote:

I also never stated Ireland had "no right to exist", it does of course exist and will remain in existance.

Nobody said you did.

FTA69 wrote:

What I am saying however, is that Ireland is not confined to the 26 Counties. And as a DIG stated, it is a Republic in Ireland, but it is not the sole embodiement of the Irish nation living in the country of Ireland.

So you would be happier if were recognised as the "Republic in Ireland". :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, this was the comment I had a problem with...

FTA69 wrote:

What I am saying is that the 26-Counties cannot describe itself as "the Republic of Ireland"...

I'm not going to argue over "of/in".

FTA69

There still is a massive population in America and Australia who recognise a part of Ireland is still under British rule.

Look, my position is that the term "Republic of Ireland" implies that the status quo is the embodiement of the Republic declared in 1916 (as was intended when the term came into use in 1949). That assertion is incorrect and as such I refuse to indulge it, any "Republic of Ireland" should include the entire country and not just a part of it.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor

FTA69 wrote:

Look, my position is that the term "Republic of Ireland" implies that the status quo is the embodiement of the Republic declared in 1916 (as was intended when the term came into use in 1949). That assertion is incorrect and as such I refuse to indulge it, any "Republic of Ireland" should include the entire country and not just a part of it.

There are a few ways to look at it:

(a) the republic as envisaged is a work in progress
(b) the state that exists is the Republic of Ireland, not the Republic of Ireland
(c) the state has legitimately and democraticly usurped the 1916 republic
(d) the 1916 republic was a failure that will never come about

It would appear that revolutionary republicanism must realise that forcing, cajoling or convincing everyone on the island to agreeing to the 1916 republic is not going to work, now or in the long term future.

FTA69 wrote:

A United Ireland existed as part of the UK of GB and Ireland that was created in 1801.

Well, nominally it existed, even before then, right up to the point where the IRA screwed up.

FTA69

I never made that second quote at all Victor.

Republicans do not seek to cajole or coerce anybody into the 1916 Republic, I believe that people do not need coercing considering most Irish people are in favour of a united Ireland. As far as I'm concerned the only way to find out is through national self-determination ie the Irish people as a unit vote on the issue.

marco murphy

Victor wrote:

There are a few ways to look at it:

(a) the republic as envisaged is a work in progress
(b) the state that exists is the Republic of Ireland, not the Republic of Ireland
(c) the state has legitimately and democraticly usurped the 1916 republic
(d) the 1916 republic was a failure that will never come about

It would appear that revolutionary republicanism must realise that forcing, cajoling or convincing everyone on the island to agreeing to the 1916 republic is not going to work, now or in the long term future.Well, nominally it existed, even before then, right up to the point where the IRA screwed up.

Tiocfaidh ar la eventually(dunno the irish for it.)

bonkey

Poblachtach wrote:

Tiocfaidh ar la eventually(dunno the irish for it.)

Thats the funniest thing I've read all week.

jc

billy the squid

Republicans do not seek to cajole or coerce anybody into the 1916 Republic, I believe that people do not need coercing considering most Irish people are in favour of a united Ireland. As far as I'm concerned the only way to find out is through national self-determination ie the Irish people as a unit vote on the issue.

so blowing stuff up like the IRA did between 1969 and 1994 and in 1996 is not considered cajoling or coersing.

in another thread you said the IRA were part of the republican movement no?

FTA69

billy the squid wrote:

so blowing stuff up like the IRA did between 1969 and 1994 and in 1996 is not considered cajoling or coersing.

in another thread you said the IRA were part of the republican movement no?

That was an attempt to remove a repressive military prescence and to dismantle a neo-colonial apartheid state. There is a vast difference between bombing and shooting a British connection out of existance and bringing Irish unity into existance.

The Republican Movement recognises this fully so I really don't see your point.

Victor

FTA69 wrote:

I never made that second quote at all Victor.

Sorry, my error. I'll ask a mod to sort it.

As far as I'm concerned the only way to find out is through national self-determination ie the Irish people as a unit vote on the issue.

I'm not sure everyone would agree to this precondition, that is massively biased in favour of your preferred result.

FTA69

What is or isn't my wish is entirely inconsequential, I also fail to see how a nation voting is a unit can be construed as biased. If such a vote arose (without threats of violence from either side) I would accept the result whatever that may be.

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

What is or isn't my wish is entirely inconsequential, I also fail to see how a nation voting is a unit can be construed as biased. If such a vote arose (without threats of violence from either side) I would accept the result whatever that may be.

why not just let the people in the six counties vote, they are the ones that have to live there. Let them make the desision for themselves rather than the people in other juristictions.

FTA69

Because the people of the Six Counties form a minority of the nation as a whole. Since when did local minorities have the sole right to decide the political destinies of countries? If the people of Mayo decided to cecede from Ireland on the basis of a local vote would that be realistic or practical? What about the town of Castlebar? Or Main St, Castlebar? The Irish nation is one and indivisible and as such any vote taken should involve the people as a unit.

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

Because the people of the Six Counties form a minority of the nation as a whole. Since when did local minorities have the sole right to decide the political destinies of countries? If the people of Mayo decided to cecede from Ireland on the basis of a local vote would that be realistic or practical? What about the town of Castlebar? Or Main St, Castlebar? The Irish nation is one and indivisible and as such any vote taken should involve the people as a unit.

Then why not include the rest of the Uk, wether you like it or not, northern ireland is a part of the Uk. should the UK citezens be entitled to vote on what would affect their nation too.

Victor

FTA69 wrote:

The Irish nation is one and indivisible and as such any vote taken should involve the people as a unit.

Oh, stop being so patronising. A nation and island aren't the same thing, but that aside, what would you propose of those who identify themselves as British, but are bona fide residents of Derry?

FTA69

That is an incorrect analogy considering partition is an Irish issue that was imposed against the wishes of the Irish people, what happens in Ireland is the business of the Irish people only. I fail to see how British opinion matters any more than Vietnamese opinion or the wishes of any foriegn country.

Although, now that you say it, it raises an interesting prospect considering the average member of the British public could not care less about Ireland and resents the tax drain it causes them.

billy the squid

That is an incorrect analogy considering partition is an Irish issue that was imposed against the wishes of the Irish people, what happens in Ireland is the business of the Irish people only. I fail to see how British opinion matters any more than Vietnamese opinion or the wishes of any foriegn country.

When the Idea of partition came about, the Dail (which ratified the treaty) came to the realisation that the war of independence was over and they lost.

The Dail was elected by the people of ireland so I cannot see how it went against the will of the majority of the people of ireland when it was ratified by the majority of the elected representatives in the Dail.

Following on from that there was the Civil War which the anti-treaty side eventually Lost.

FTA69

Victor wrote:

Oh, stop being so patronising. A nation and island aren't the same thing, but that aside, what would you propose of those who identify themselves as British, but are bona fide residents of Derry?

I know the difference thanks, but I really believe that there is no denying the fact that those above the border, whether Protestant or Catholic, are as Irish as you or me. Ireland was one linguistic and cultural entity for thouands of years, did an entirely different "nation" spring up during 80 years of partition?

I bear no ill-will to people of a Unionist persuasion, I am not calling for ethnic cleansing of people with a British tradition. I recognise the fact they are a substantial element of the Irish people and are as entitled to the same treatment and respect as any other group in this country. But let us examine the Unionist traditions they like to laud as part of "British" heritage. The concept of Orangeism, with its marches etc are a uniquely Irish phenomenon, they do not occur in Kent or Cardiff but are the sole preserve of Irish Protestants and their emigrants in Scotland. The Unionist tradition has little relationship with a British public that views them with indifference, they have little voice in a state of which they make up 2% of the population. Irish Unionism is just that, Irish, it is simply a different aspect of the diverse Irish culture we are used to.