They have'nt gone away you know.

FTA69

billy the squid wrote:

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.

One could question the authority the Dáil had to make such a decision as parliaments rarely have the remit to usurp themselves.

Anyway, that is besides the issue, the Treaty vote was held in a climate where Lloyd George, an imperial, foriegn preim minister was threatening "an immediate and terrible war" if the Treaty was not passed. A result achieved in the climate of blackmail, threats and war-weariness is hardly a prime example of democracy at work is it? The only free and fair election involving the Irish people as a unit was the one in 1918 and we all know how that turned out.

I don't mean to be harking back to those days as a justification for my position, but I do think a similar referendum and election should be held in the same manner as that of 1918. Then we could be clear on where everything stands.

A Dub in Glasgo

billy the squid wrote:

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.

Whaen the idea of partition came about, the line drawn was the maximum political entity which would ensure a Unionist/Loyalist majority. It did not matter that vast swathes of the counties that were included were nationalist majority. A boundary commission was meant to have been set up to look at the actual border and the counties that should not have been included. That never took place.

Victor

FTA69 wrote:

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.

Likewise the people of the Outer Hebrides* has little relationship with a British public that views them with indifference, they have little voice in a state of which they make up ~0% of the population.

* I think they have recently renamed themselves.

FTA69

What is your point exactly? I know very little about the Outer Hebrides so I won't comment on it. I do know however, that the Unionist population in the Six Counties forms a large part of the Irish nation of which they are a member.

Victor

FTA69 wrote:

a large part of the Irish nation of which they are a member.

Fair enough, but they do not want to be ruled over, as a minority by an Irish government.

growler

A vote on the future of the North by the generral citizenship of the UK would likely be vote for the "get rid of it" option.

It's not like Dr Paisley would accept that either, so it's fairly pointless.

Mr.Nice Guy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Whaen the idea of partition came about, the line drawn was the maximum political entity which would ensure a Unionist/Loyalist majority. It did not matter that vast swathes of the counties that were included were nationalist majority. A boundary commission was meant to have been set up to look at the actual border and the counties that should not have been included. That never took place.

Actually the Boundary Commission did take place.Westminster nominated a chairman,Richard Feetham,Dublin nominated the Minister for Education,Eoin MacNeill and since Craig refused to nominate for the unionists,the British government nominated a unionist for him,J R Fisher.
In a leaked report it was found that there would be little change to the border areas as the Irish Free State had misinterpreted the Boundary Commission particularly a line in an Article which stated territory would be determined "so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions".
In the Morning Post it was revealed there would be only minor adjustments including parts of East Donegal going to the Northern Ireland state.The Free State would lose territory and the Irish people were understandably outraged at this.
Leader of the Free State,WT Cosgrave met Craig and British PM Stanley Cosgrave in London and agreed to suppress the report.The border was to stay as it was.
So to correct you,the Boundary Commission did take place it's just that Irish incompetence played its part as per usual.

cdebru

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Actually the Boundary Commission did take place.Westminster nominated a chairman,Richard Feetham,Dublin nominated the Minister for Education,Eoin MacNeill and since Craig refused to nominate for the unionists,the British government nominated a unionist for him,J R Fisher.
In a leaked report it was found that there would be little change to the border areas as the Irish Free State had misinterpreted the Boundary Commission particularly a line in an Article which stated territory would be determined "so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions".
In the Morning Post it was revealed there would be only minor adjustments including parts of East Donegal going to the Northern Ireland state.The Free State would lose territory and the Irish people were understandably outraged at this.
Leader of the Free State,WT Cosgrave met Craig and British PM Stanley Cosgrave in London and agreed to suppress the report.The border was to stay as it was.
So to correct you,the Boundary Commission did take place it's just that Irish incompetence played its part as per usual.

i think what dub meant was that at time of the treaty the percieved wisdom was that the border commision would redraw the border to such an extent that a northern state would be unviable
infact it was basically taken for granted that this is what would happen and partition did not play a big role in the debate at the time
the issue of an oath of allegiance i believe was much bigger at the time

cdebru

Victor wrote:

Fair enough, but they do not want to be ruled over, as a minority by an Irish government.

well that would put them pretty much in the same boat as the nationalists in the north not want to be ruled over by britain

as far i can see the institutions set up by the GFA are how the north is going to be run even after a united ireland

Mr.Nice Guy

cdebru wrote:

i think what dub meant was that at time of the treaty the percieved wisdom was that the border commision would redraw the border to such an extent that a northern state would be unviable
infact it was basically taken for granted that this is what would happen and partition did not play a big role in the debate at the time
the issue of an oath of allegiance i believe was much bigger at the time

It's clear that Lloyd George deceived the Free State,no doubt about that.Thats why they called him the Welsh Wizard.

A Dub in Glasgo

cdebru wrote:

i think what dub meant was that at time of the treaty the percieved wisdom was that the border commision would redraw the border to such an extent that a northern state would be unviable
infact it was basically taken for granted that this is what would happen and partition did not play a big role in the debate at the time
the issue of an oath of allegiance i believe was much bigger at the time

That explains it much better

cdebru

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

It's clear that Lloyd George deceived the Free State,no doubt about that.Thats why they called him the Welsh Wizard.

was that not a snooker player

sceptre

cdebru wrote:

was that not a snooker player

That'd generally be "The Wizard", "The Ginger Wizard" or "The Wishaw Wizard" (though I've seen unimaginative reporters use the phrase Welsh Wizard to refer to Matthew Stevens, Mark Williams, Dani Behr's ex and anyone from Wales that can do anything excluding speak Welsh, dig for coal and sing in valleys)

Lloyd George was of course called the Welsh Wizard partly for his double-dealing (including as Mr NG said, his careful machinations at defeating the evil Irish over tea and crumpets) as well as his other negotiating skills. Finding an answer to Gladstone's question that everyone except himself hated almost equally must have been one of his career triumphs after winning WW1 and whipping Asquith.

I'm going to assume the post was a pithy attempt at humour. Probably wouldn't work well in this thread.

Fact is that the Boundary Commission was offered as part of the process and accepted. The Irish delegation and representatives made certain assumptions about the eventual outcome of the proceedings. Assumptions that didn't come true. Like it or not (and I'm sure if I had been alive at the time I wouldn't have liked it much), west Tyrone wasn't offered as part of the deal but the Boundary Commission was. The negotiations may have been among Lloyd-George's finest but the letter of the law on the agreement itself appears to have been lived up to. One should never assume. If one does, it's worthless blaming someone else for one's own assuming shortcomings.
(and yes, that's a potential short debate opener for the more coherent)

cdebru

sceptre wrote:

.

I'm going to assume the post was a pithy attempt at humour. Probably wouldn't work well in this thread.

No i really tought he had mixed up Lloyd-George with terry griffiths

sceptre wrote:

.


Fact is that the Boundary Commission was offered as part of the process and accepted. The Irish delegation and representatives made certain assumptions about the eventual outcome of the proceedings. Assumptions that didn't come true. Like it or not (and I'm sure if I had been alive at the time I wouldn't have liked it much), west Tyrone wasn't offered as part of the deal but the Boundary Commission was. The negotiations may have been among Lloyd-George's finest but the letter of the law on the agreement itself appears to have been lived up to. One should never assume. If one does, it's worthless blaming someone else for one's own assuming shortcomings.
(and yes, that's a potential short debate opener for the more coherent)

yes the Irish side did make assumptions but this was probably as much to do with their lack of negotiating experience compared to the British and the lack of the back up of a civil service and the other supports the british would have had.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bebop wrote:

In the end it does not matter, the vast majority of Citizens here could not give a toss about Pearse and Connolly,

Some Irish people are so ashamed that the link with the UK was broken. I have never seen a country with so many of its citizens ashamed of their independence and history. Can you imagine Americans being ashamed of their independence?

nor do we need lectures from diesel washers on the legality of our republic

It is not in you to put a point across without insulting forum members?

A Dub in Glasgo

Where did his post go?

gandalf

He deleted it, the reason he listed was wrong thread ?