Northernisation: the erosion of democracy and the need for repartition.

oscarBravo

AmenToThat wrote:

The most important single issue for me is a united Ireland, all else is secondary, job security, better infrastructer, the whole lot of it.

Why?

true

AmenToThat wrote:

The most important single issue for me is a united Ireland, all else is secondary, job security, better infrastructer, the whole lot of it.

oscarBravo in the previous post simply asks " why ? "

An interesting statement and an interesting question. It is an astonishing statement, given that there is relative peace in Northern Ireland, and given that a United Ireland would mean arguably far higher taxes , less political stability , and a greater risk of terrorism , at least in the short term.

We must ask why is the concept of a 32 county republic so important to AmenToThat. I do not blame AmenToThat for his attitude, and at least he is frank about it. I think, and this is only my theory, that the reason AmenToThat has this irrational desire for a united Ireland above all else - even his job security, never mind peace and prosperity on the island - is due to something akin to what President McAleese talked about recently. In other words, some youngsters are brought up with an irrational hatred of the British / Northern Protestants. I know from schooling here in the 26 counties how it was generally drummed in to us about the famine, the injustices etc.
In my third level college there was a poster of the heros of 1916 in the entrance foyer. Much of the media gives a nationalist viewpoint. I think that is why our poor friend AmenToThat has ended up indoctrinated. As a Priest once said " give me a child until the age of 9 and I'll give you the man "

cdebru

Flex wrote:

but to have a legally recognised Irish nationality is something our ancestors didnt;100 years ago a person from Ireland was British..

Actually a person from Ireland was always Irish never British
before the treaty
it was the united kingdom of great britain and Ireland since the act of union 1801
those from England Scotland and Wales and its Islands making up Great Britain and thus being British those from Ireland being Irish
Ireland was never part of Great Britain it was part of the United Kingdom

today it is the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so the same applies those from Northern Ireland are Northern Irish or Irish
those from great Britain are British

true

Quite right, and people born in Northern Ireland are ( rightly) entitled to an Irish passport or a UK passport.

cdebru

true wrote:

oscarBravo in the previous post simply asks " why ? "

An interesting statement and an interesting question. It is an astonishing statement, given that there is relative peace in Northern Ireland, and given that a United Ireland would mean arguably far higher taxes , less political stability , and a greater risk of terrorism , at least in the short term.

We must ask why is the concept of a 32 county republic so important to AmenToThat. I do not blame AmenToThat for his attitude, and at least he is frank about it. I think, and this is only my theory, that the reason AmenToThat has this irrational desire for a united Ireland above all else - even his job security, never mind peace and prosperity on the island - is due to something akin to what President McAleese talked about recently. In other words, some youngsters are brought up with an irrational hatred of the British / Northern Protestants. I know from schooling here in the 26 counties how it was generally drummed in to us about the famine, the injustices etc.
In my third level college there was a poster of the heros of 1916 in the entrance foyer. Much of the media gives a nationalist viewpoint. I think that is why our poor friend AmenToThat has ended up indoctrinated. As a Priest once said " give me a child until the age of 9 and I'll give you the man "

why is it irrational to want a united Ireland or to view it as the most important thing to be achieved
Northern Protestants are not british some of them may be of british descent but they are Irish or if you prefer Northern Irish they do not live in Britain they were not born in Britain their ancestors may have come from britain but in general that was nearly 400 years ago
as for an irrational hatred of protestants I was educated in the 26 counties and i have never heard an allegation that northern protestants were responsible for the famine
in fact i was tought that revolutionary republicanism was introduced to Ireland by protestants such as wolfe tone

as for the Poster of the leaders of 1916 what is wrong with that why should the leaders of 1916 not be remembered and celebrated
what is wrong with a nationalist viewpoint what kind of view point should they have a unionist one

cdebru

true wrote:

Quite right, and people born in Northern Ireland are ( rightly) entitled to an Irish passport or a UK passport.

at last true we have found something we agree on


it is the lazy shorthand of the word british to describe the UK that gives people the false idea that ireland was once british or indeed that northern ireland is british

cdebru

true wrote:

From your correspondence below, I would never have guessed that your "grandparents were republican volunteers in NI." This sounds like they were charity volunteers or something. At best they were freedom fighters. At worst, they were terrorists. It depends on your point of view. I know some IRA actions in the 40's and 50's raised the sectarian temperature in the North and led to events which caused the troubles. Did they shoot and bomb? Or did they tell you only the nice bits ?.

what a rewriting of history the IRA of the 1940s caused the toubles not the gerrymandering or discrimination
,

true wrote:

Flex, instead of hating Britain and picking holes the whole time, I think you need to broaden your mind. Look at some of the crimes that have been commited in the name of your ideals. You may not recognise them as crimes ( eg abduction and murder of a mother of ten ), but they are crimes. And all was not rosy in our little republic either. Look at all the descrimination, burnings out and intimidatiuon in the early part of last century that resulted in over 100,000 ordinary civilian protestants leaving the state then. Oh, your grandparents did not tell you about that that ? How very convenient. Read a book called " The IRA and its enemies" by Peter Harte, or Marcus Tanners " Holy Wars in Ireland". There are many reasons why the people of Northern Ireland do not want to join the 26 counties. We will not see a 32 county Ireland in our lifetime.

the figure of 100,000 is made up of various figures nor is it true to suggest that they were all ordinary civilians
it is made up of the withdrawal of 24,000 british troops mostly protestant
the figure includes the thousands of irish protestants who died in the first world war
it includes voluntary emigration
it includes the thousands of RIC men who were advised by the British government to leave after the war of independence
it includes the people who had been associated with the former regime

it is undeniable that thousands of protestants left Ireland after the war of independence because they did not feel at home in the catholic dominated society that was created but it is unfair to suggest that they were hounded out or that the then free state government forced them out an ethnic cleansing movement

of course don't mention erskine childers or indeed Douglas Hyde first president of Ireland

true

cdebru wrote:

why is it irrational to want a united Ireland ?

I never said it was. However, surely it is irrational for the previous poster ( who we are discussing) to exclaim as the main theme of his topic : "The most important single issue for me is a united Ireland, all else is secondary, job security, better infrastructer, the whole lot of it. " Where else would someone in a thriving democratic country, part of the EU, put national border politics above job security , better infrastructure etc. Are there not more important issues in life ? Does he not respect the wishes of the majority in N. Ireland ?

cdebru wrote:

Northern Protestants are not british some of them may be of british descent but they are Irish or if you prefer Northern Irish they do not live in Britain they were not born in Britain their ancestors may have come from britain but in general that was nearly 400 years ago

Their allegiance is to Britain and 99% of them want to stay in the UK, just like 32% of northern catholics do.

cdebru wrote:

as for an irrational hatred of protestants I was educated in the 26 counties and i have never heard an allegation that northern protestants were responsible for the famine

I said "an irrational hatred of the British / Northern Protestants" There is a difference. I never heard or said an allegation that Northern Protestants were responsible for the famine - where did you get that from ? Maybe it was from the same poster who earlier made the allegation that the British sold the Irish off to Sweden as slaves ! Funny how things get exaggerated over time.

cdebru wrote:

in fact i was tought that revolutionary republicanism was introduced to Ireland by protestants such as wolfe tone

Funny, so was I. I never said anything to the contary, or mentioned Wolfe Tone at all. Your point being?

cdebru wrote:

as for the Poster of the leaders of 1916 what is wrong with that why should the leaders of 1916 not be remembered and celebrated
what is wrong with a nationalist viewpoint what kind of view point should they have a unionist one

Nothing, my point was that the history of Ireland that is constantly propogated in the 26 counties is the nationalist one. The big poster in my college in Dublin was just one example. Stamps, Street renamed, history taught etc. its all the same. Did you know 70,000 volunteers from the 26 counties fought in WW1 , and 50,000 from N. Ireland. Are there many posters commemorating these people, who were also from that era, in our taxpayer funded institutions ? I would guess there are more descendants of these 120,000 people on the island than desendants of IRA people. What if glorifying one side in 1916 has caused more than a little justification for more recent atrocities ?

true

cdebru wrote:

what a rewriting of history the IRA of the 1940s caused the toubles not the gerrymandering or discrimination

I actually said " I know some IRA actions in the 40's and 50's raised the sectarian temperature in the North and led to events which caused the troubles" There was the odd IRA bombing and shooting and break in during the decades before the troubles, or did you not know that cdebru? I never said this in itself caused the troubles. I know there was some gerrymandering and discrimination in N. Ireland , all of which I would condemn. However, I can understand how sometimes descrimination happens eg a businessman if he is employing people, is going to offer work first to his / her brothers, cousins , friends, sports colleagues etc. I know one businessman up there before the troubles told me he did not employ catholics because he was afraid "they would throw a spanner in the works".
I remember his words well as I was shocked at them. There was bitterness on both sides unfortunately. I hate bitterness and sectarianism from any quarter so do not think I condone it.

cdebru wrote:

the figure of 100,000 is made up of various figures nor is it true to suggest that they were all ordinary civilians
it is made up of the withdrawal of 24,000 british troops mostly protestant
the figure includes the thousands of irish protestants who died in the first world war
it includes voluntary emigration
it includes the thousands of RIC men who were advised by the British government to leave after the war of independence
it includes the people who had been associated with the former regime

it is undeniable that thousands of protestants left Ireland after the war of independence because they did not feel at home in the catholic dominated society that was created but it is unfair to suggest that they were hounded out or that the then free state government forced them out an ethnic cleansing movement

of course don't mention erskine childers or indeed Douglas Hyde first president of Ireland

No, actually you are wrong, the 100,000 figure excludes army and police people. I know it includes voluntary emigration. Do you know how many Protestants got jobs in the Gardai, or any of the other state sectors? In the early decades of independance some people were hounded out, just like the catholic VC Cross winner who was hounded out of his native west Belfast after WW2. And what about incidents like Fethard on Sea? Its ok mentioning Childers or Hyde as presidents, these were just figureheads to try to show the world all was well, while the Protestant population of the country more than halved. As for the Jews, our history with regard to them is not a proud one either : look at how they were hounded out of Limerick in the 1930's by the Redemptorists.

true

True said :Quite right, and people born in Northern Ireland are ( rightly) entitled to an Irish passport or a UK passport

cdebru wrote:

at last true we have found something we agree on


it is the lazy shorthand of the word british to describe the UK that gives people the false idea that ireland was once british or indeed that northern ireland is british

Well, cdebru, in case you read too much in to what I wrote, its nice to agree on something, but I have to say that if a person from N. Ireland declares that they are British, I would take that to mean that their allegiance is to the United Kingdom of Gt. Britain and N. Ireland. They are technically a "United Kingdomer" but call themselves British for short. I have seen it numerous times when checking in at airports with friends from N. Ireland. They are a mixture of Catholics and Protestants but all have what they call " British " passports. Incidentally, they make good humoured fun of my " Pas" Irish passport. I could'nt care less ; I am not exceptionally proud of it given some events in our history ( eg DeValera signing the book of condolences on the death of Hitler , which no other leader in the world done : or McAleese comparing Northern people teaching their children to hate catholics to the way the Nazis hated Jews ).

Regarding your "false idea that ireland was once british" .....Ireland was part of the " United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " since the act of union 1801, until Irish independence, as far as I know. We were as British as the islands that make up Japan are Japanese today. Our Union was comparable to the North and South Island of New Zealand. We were all taught about the potato famine ( which affected Europe as well) , but did you ever stop to think the positive effect Britain had here eg state of the art infrastructure at the time , harbours, canals, railways, buildings , institutions, universities, legal system, etc etc

true

True said :Quite right, and people born in Northern Ireland are ( rightly) entitled to an Irish passport or a UK passport

cdebru wrote:

at last true we have found something we agree on


it is the lazy shorthand of the word british to describe the UK that gives people the false idea that ireland was once british or indeed that northern ireland is british

Well, cdebru, in case you read too much in to what I wrote, its nice to agree on something, but I have to say that if a person from N. Ireland declares that they are British, I would take that to mean that their allegiance is to the United Kingdom of Gt. Britain and N. Ireland. They are technically a "United Kingdomer" but call themselves British for short. I have seen it numerous times when checking in at airports with friends from N. Ireland. They are a mixture of Catholics and Protestants but all have what they call " British " passports. Incidentally, they make good humoured fun of my " Pas" Irish passport. I could'nt care less ; I am not exceptionally proud of it given some events in our history ( eg DeValera signing the book of condolences on the death of Hitler , which no other leader in the world done : or McAleese comparing Northern people teaching their children to hate catholics to the way the Nazis hated Jews ).

Regarding your "false idea that ireland was once british" .....Ireland was part of the " United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " since the act of union 1801, until Irish independence, as far as I know. We were as British as the islands that make up Japan are Japanese today. Our Union was comparable to the North and South Island of New Zealand. We were all taught about the potato famine ( which affected Europe as well) , but did you ever stop to think the positive effect Britain had here eg state of the art infrastructure at the time , harbours, canals, railways, buildings , institutions, universities, legal system, etc etc

cdebru

true wrote:

True said :Quite right, and people born in Northern Ireland are ( rightly) entitled to an Irish passport or a UK passport



Well, cdebru, in case you read too much in to what I wrote, its nice to agree on something, but I have to say that if a person from N. Ireland declares that they are British, I would take that to mean that their allegiance is to the United Kingdom of Gt. Britain and N. Ireland. They are technically a "United Kingdomer" but call themselves British for short. I have seen it numerous times when checking in at airports with friends from N. Ireland. They are a mixture of Catholics and Protestants but all have what they call " British " passports. Incidentally, they make good humoured fun of my " Pas" Irish passport. I could'nt care less ; I am not exceptionally proud of it given some events in our history ( eg DeValera signing the book of condolences on the death of Hitler , which no other leader in the world done : or McAleese comparing Northern people teaching their children to hate catholics to the way the Nazis hated Jews ).

Regarding your "false idea that ireland was once british" .....Ireland was part of the " United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " since the act of union 1801, until Irish independence, as far as I know. We were as British as the islands that make up Japan are Japanese today. Our Union was comparable to the North and South Island of New Zealand. We were all taught about the potato famine ( which affected Europe as well) , but did you ever stop to think the positive effect Britain had here eg state of the art infrastructure at the time , harbours, canals, railways, buildings , institutions, universities, legal system, etc etc

no you are wrong Ireland was never a part of britain it was the UK of GB and Ireland
if this was britain it would the UK of GB
did you ever stop to think of the negative effects that british occupation had on ireland and on generations of Irish people

you have more reason to be proud of an Irish pasport than you could possibly have to be proud of a UK one

Poker_Peter

At the time, many of the residents of Fermanagh and Tyrone would say it was closer to being 50/50 rather than "a nationalist area".

Okay but they DID have a Catholic majority - as in over 50%. In fact, at the time Co.Fermanagh was a constitutency and had a SF MP. So why should Tyrone and Fermanagh have formed part of the new NI state? So much for the NI state being about "the 6 'Protestant' counties that wanted to remain in the UK". The 4 Protestant counties would have been a better description.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/fox.htm

In the county elections of June 1920, Fermanagh and Tyrone had passed to Nationalist control indeed throughout Ireland, the Unionist controlled only four counties and some of those only with small majorities. As in the 1918 elections it proved the fallacy of the Protestant claim that there was a Protestant homogeneous six counties, as even so-called Protestant areas had substantial Catholic penetration.

Catholics were 53% of the population of Fermanagh and 57% in Tyrone. Including them in NI was unnecessary and the Boundary Commission's supposed "Neutral" member, Justice Feetham of South Africa, was actually closely linked to the Unionists. The Commission was not an honest broker. If it had been it would have handed Derry City, South Armagh, South Down, and at least most of Co.'s Fermanagh and Tyrone. But no, British imperialism was still alive and well at that stage.I don't accept the argument that a 4 county NI would have been too small to work economically. You only have to look at how Gibraltar (a town smaller than Waterford city) is thriving with its e-commerce industry and tax-haven status.

Regarding AG2004's reference to Irish people being sold to slavery in Sweden after the Ulster Plantation, I must admit I have come across something like this a long time ago on the net, but I can't quite recall where. I don't think what he is saying is without basis.

Their allegiance is to Britain and 99% of them want to stay in the UK, just like 32% of northern catholics do.

That poll was admittedly a couple of years ago (2001). I agree that 99% of Protestants want to stay in the UK. However, most polls show the pro-Union proportion of the Catholic in NI to be 18%, with about 14% undecided. This suggests to me that a large proportion of so-called pro-Union Catholics are open to persuasion. Also, it would be very wrong to assume that pro-Union NI Catholics take this position out of some kind of sense of "feeling British" or of feeling loyal towards Britain. The % of NI Catholics voting for Unionist parties is in single figures, just like the % of Protestants voting for Nationalist parties. Just 3% of Catholics polled describe themselves as "Unionist", compared to 1% of Protestants. I definitely recall these figures and when I recover the source, I will post it on this forum. But it can hardly be denied that parties in favour of a United Ireland are consistently getting virtually all the Catholic vote in NI, and perhaps then, this is a better indicator of what NI Catholics actually feel. After all, they have the option of voting Alliance Party if they are just turned off by the links to or affinity with Orangeism among virtually all the Unionist parties.

The Unionists can think what they like, but as far as I and true democrats are concerned, if a majority in NI ever vote for a UI, it MUST then happen. Repartition in this situation would not be on, because it would be saying "a Protestant vote matters more than a Catholic vote" which is utterly despicable to all true believers in democracy.

BTW true, with regard to your references to Protestant's getting a rough deal in parts of the Free State, you might also like to reflect on the fact that NI Catholics got a rougher deal:

http://www.inac.org/irishhistory/1921.php

With the British diligently preparing the legal ground for partition, the unionist forces set about preparing to rule the 6-Counties. Between June 1920 and June 1922, in a bout of ethnic cleansing that would repeat itself in the north-east on the average of once every 12 years since partition, 428 people were killed in political conflict there; 8,750 Catholics were driven from their jobs; 23,000 Catholics were driven from their homes.

Also, you refer to "some gerrymandering". There was massive gerrymandering. In Derry city, the Unionists had a majority on the Council, even though they were only one-third of the population. The gerrymandering took two major forms: laws were passed banning people living with their parents (mostly Catholics) from voting in local-elections, and businesses (mostly Unionists_ were given 7 votes each in local-elections. The Unionists, also abolished PR for Stormont and local elections. More details in next post.

Poker_Peter

http://www.answers.com/topic/gerrymandering

Gerrymandering in Northern Ireland
A particularly famous case occurred in Northern Ireland, where the Ulster Unionist Party government created electoral boundaries for local councils which, coupled with restrictions on voting rights based on economic status, ensured the election of unionist candidates in electoral areas where nationalists were in the overwhelming majority. This policy, coupled with a policy that gave council houses to unionists at the expense of nationalists (in one famous case, giving a council house to an unmarried protestant woman rather than a large catholic family), to ensure unionist control of electoral wards, produced the Civil Rights Movement. The battle for civil rights in local government, and an end to gerrymandered discrimination, led to The Troubles.
Apologists dismiss the gerrymandering of the Northern Ireland Assembly to be popular myth, saying that the electoral boundaries for the Parliament of Northern Ireland were not gerrymandered to any great extent, and the electoral system originally used for this body Single Transferable Vote (STV) made it difficult to gerrymander successfully. However, this system of proportional representation was abolished in the late 1920s in favour of first-past-the-post. The Parliament of Northern Ireland was abolished in 1973, and STV was restored for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. (See Tullymandering below.)

A detailed description of some of the ways the Unionists implemented HUGE (not some as you say) gerrymandering is explained here. I suggest you read it.
It was written in 1964 when it was well and truly in vogue:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/pdfs/csj179.pdf

Also, systematic Unionist discrimination against Catholics in employment in the public service was found in the Cameron Commission Report, quoted here:
The Cameron Commission examined employment practices in five unionist-controlled areas, and concluded:

We are satisfied that all these Unionist controlled councils have used and use their power to make appointments in a way which benefited Protestants. In the figures available for October 1968 only thirty per cent of Londonderry Corporation's administrative, clerical and technical employees were Catholic. In Dungannon Urban District none of the Council's administrative, clerical and technical employees was a Catholic. In County Fermanagh no senior council posts (and relatively few others) were held by Catholics. . . Armagh Urban District employed very few Catholics in salaried posts, but did not appear to discriminate at lower levels. Omagh Urban District showed no clearcut pattern of discrimination, though we have seen what would appear to be undoubted evidence of employment discrimination by Tyrone County Council. [Cameron, 1969: para. 138]

Somewhat similar figures can be found for the Northern Ireland civil service. The only Catholic to reach the rank of Permanent Secretary (highest in the service) during the years covered by this paper was Bonaparte Wyse, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education from 1927 to 1938 (Akenson, 1973: 96, 146). After his retirement no other Catholic reached the same rank until Patrick Shea was appointed Permanent Secretary, also at the Ministry of Education, in 1969, just after the period covered by this paper. Taking senior officers as a group, Gallagher (1957: 214) reported that in the '50s there was no Catholic among the top forty. The Campaign for Social Justice (1969: 5) reported that of 319 officers down to the rank of Deputy Principal, twenty-three, or 7.2 per cent, were Catholics. These figures from nationalist sources square well with those found elsewhere. Barritt and Carter (1962: 96) carried out a survey of civil servants down to the rank of staff officer, and found that in 1927 fourteen of the 229 officers in such ranks, or 6 per cent, were Catholic, while in 1959 there were forty-six Catholics out of 740 in such ranks, or once again, 6 per cent. An internal enquiry by the Ministry of Finance in 1943, designed to meet ultra-unionist complaints that Catholics were taking over the civil service (!), found that there were only thirty-seven Catholics out of 634, or 5. 8 per cent, in the higher grades, and no Catholics at all in the fifty-five most senior posts (Buckland, 1979: 20). (Some further, though controverted, statistics are available from just after the period covered by this paper. In 1973 Professor David Donnison found that only 5 per cent of civil servants down to the rank of Deputy Principal were Catholics -but a Northern Ireland Office rejoinder claimed that the correct figure was 15 per cent. Darby, 1976: 66.)

There was a similar imbalance in the judiciary. The first Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Denis Henry, was a Catholic, but after his death in 1925 no other Catholic appears to have been appointed to the Supreme Court until Mr Justice Sheil in 1949. Gallagher (1957: 214) claimed that of the forty judges, registrars and senior officials in the higher courts, not one was drawn from the minority - though this cannot be entirely accurate, because Sheil was on the bench then. (This is one of the few errors of fact, as opposed to interpretation, that I have found in Gallagher's book.) By 1969 the situation was somewhat improved. Aidan Corrigan, writing in that year, found that Catholics held six of the sixty-eight senior judicial appointments, including one of the six Supreme Court judgeships, and one of the four County Court judgeships (Corrigan, 1969: 28).

Catholics were also under-represented on statutory bodies, and among the higher ranks of the employees of such bodies. Gallagher (1957: 213-14) reported that there was no Catholic on the Civil Service Commission, the Promotion Board for the Postal Service, the Unemployment Assistance Board, or the Fire Authority. Of 139 medical, surgical and other consultants appointed by the Hospitals Authority, nine were Catholics (ibid.: 214). The Campaign for Social Justice (1969: 6) listed twenty-two public boards, with a total membership of 332, of whom forty-nine, or 15 per cent, were Catholics. In the publicly owned gas, electricity and water industries the imbalance against Catholics seems to have reached down through all levels. The census of 1971 (Religion Tables, table 9, heading XXI) shows that of 8,122 people employed in these industries, only 1,952, or 154 per cent, recorded themselves as Catholics.

The facts, then, form a consistent pattern. At manual labour levels, Catholics generally received their proportionate share of public employment. But at any level above that, they were seriously under-represented, and the higher one went, the greater the shortfall. A working overall figure may be taken from the census of 1971, which showed that of 1,383 senior government officials- a category which included Ministers, MPs, senior government officials and senior officers in local authorities - 11 per cent reported themselves as Catholic (Census of 1971, Religion Tables, table 8, headings 173-4). Since 31.4 per cent of the population as a whole declared themselves as Catholic at this census, this suggests that Catholics received far short of their proportionate share of such appointments.[5]

I will now address the main reasons for the decline in Protestant numbers in Southern Ireland since 1911, using sources.

A: The Protestant population fell by 30% in the period 1911-26, mainly as a result of border Protestants moving north to remain in the UK:

http://www.battlehill395.freeserve.co.uk/protestantsdecline.htm#dec
{QUOTE]The relative Protestant population fell sharply (by over 30%) between 1911 to 1926.
The relative Protestant population has been declining at a more or less constant rate since 1926.

These effects have a number of causes:

In the period 1911 to 1921, the Home Rule movement was gaining momentum, and it began to be clear to Irish people that Home Rule was indeed going to be granted and that the resulting country would have a Republican government. Many of the Protestants living far from Ulster decided to remain, but in border areas many Protestants decided that it was worth moving house so that when Home Rule took place they would be in part which did not get Home Rule (today's Northern Ireland). This is what the majority of the Protestant reduction between 1911 and 1926 can be attributed to. This movement of Protestants out of the Irish Free State (as the Republic was known in 1921) continued after the independence also.

In the border counties (Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth), there were instances of Protestants being intimidated by more extreme neighbours and groups, most notably the IRA. There are records of Protestant farmers in these areas being attacked. Many of these Protestants responded by leaving their homes and moving across the border into Northern Ireland. This also contributed to the Protestant decline between 1911 and 1926.[/QUOTE]

B: The main reason for the decline in Protestant numbers from 1926-91 is INTERMARRIAGE with Catholics.

In the Republic of Ireland, since 1926, there has been a constant pattern of Protestants marrying Catholics. In most counties (exceptions being Cork, Dublin and the border counties) there were insufficent Protestants to enable most Protestants to realistically marry another Protestant, so most married Catholics. Until recently, the Roman Catholic church had a rule that the children of mixed-marriages had to be brought up Catholic. Therefore, in Catholic-Protestant marriages the Protestant faith would die out after one generation. This is the main cause of the constantly declining Protestant populationsince 1926.

Poker_Peter

Regarding your "false idea that ireland was once british" .....Ireland was part of the " United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " since the act of union 1801, until Irish independence, as far as I know. We were as British as the islands that make up Japan are Japanese today. Our Union was comparable to the North and South Island of New Zealand. We were all taught about the potato famine ( which affected Europe as well) , but did you ever stop to think the positive effect Britain had here eg state of the art infrastructure at the time , harbours, canals, railways, buildings , institutions, universities, legal system, etc etc

If you are going to make comparisons with Japan then a better comparison would be the incorporation of Taiwan and Korea into the Japanese empire in the early 20th century.

Your attitude is like saying that Soviet occupied Eastern Europe was "Russian" or "as Russian as Moscow", as far as I can see. Regarding your comments on infrastructure, I will repeat what Gandhi said about it being better having a bad Indian government running India than a good British government. Also, the building of this infrastructure came far later than in mainland UK, as British Government policy was designed to keep the Irish down. Constitutionally, you can say that Ireland was "British" but to say that "we were British" is not something I agree with at all. Were occupied countries in the Third Reich "German"?

Arcadegame2004's reference to genocide by the British are correct. Cromwell said that in Drogheda :
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/irish_pf.html

"We put to the sword the whole number of inhabitants. I do not think thirty of the whole number escaped with their lives."

He also passed laws requiring ALL Irish people east of the Shannon to move to Connaught or be exterminated or sold into slavery

"Irish landowners found east of the river Shannon after 1 May, 1654 faced the death penalty or slavery in the West Indies and Barbados." (8.) The expression "To hell or Connaught" originated at this time: "those who did not leave their fertile fields and travel to the poor land west of the Shannon would be put to the sword." (9.)

Ultimately, Cromwell's reducing of the Irish to serfdom (which had been abolished in England after the Black Death in the 1300's), together with the refusal of Britain to half food exports from Ireland during the Famine, led to the starvation of 1 million people and the exodus of millions more Irish people from the country.

By the way, someone here said that genocide means destroying an entire race (or something along those lines). However, the UN definition of genocide (in the Genocide Convention Article 2) is :

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

So it is fair to describe periods under Cromwell and the Famine as genocidal.

Ajnag

Mt,
Class post. Damn fine analysis and certainly worth further consideration.

As for the rest of you....:/

Some good points raised, But so much condescending crap and self righteousness as well, Maybe it's just me being overly grumpy towards debate you may well find on any politics boards, Or maybe just maybe, In terms of N.I, most couldn't give a damn for the truth or solutions needed, Just their own self vindication.

At the end of the day,
N.I is just a pain in the arse, Create a U.I get a war, Maintain the status quo you get the same or just more bull**** politics that make no progress.
In the face of this would repartition be such a bad solution?
And if your still not happy....Lets just nuke it!
Or build a wall round it...
Or physically remove it and relocate it to somewhere with a better climate Yeah...That would work.

bonkey

Poker_Peter wrote:

So it is fair to describe periods under Cromwell and the Famine as genocidal.

Its the accuracy of the statement, not the fairness which is at issue.

Given that this is - surprise surprise, goshI'dNeverHavePredictedIt - yet another thread where we're seeing two posters both insisting that they know what they're on about arguing over whether or not its right to use the term "British"....I think getting an agreement on whether or not something was genocide, was genocidal, had genocidal tendencies, or was simply brutal oppression is...well.....pretty certainly not gonna happen.

Seriously lads...hundreds of years of shared history and you can't get past arguing what the right terminology is. Makes you wonder just how over-ambitious the thread-starter must have been to think the topic was discussable.

jc

Didnt Tony Blair apologise for the Famine?

Talking about Genocide in the time of Cromwell is a bit like condemning todays Catholics for the spanish inquisitions etc or the Italians for cruelty to Lions


So passé

Poker_Peter

Earthman wrote:

Didnt Tony Blair apologise for the Famine?

Talking about Genocide in the time of Cromwell is a bit like condemning todays Catholics for the spanish inquisitions etc or the Italians for cruelty to Lions


So passé

No because it is an historical figure I am condemning when I mention Cromwell.

cdebru

true wrote:

I actually said " I know some IRA actions in the 40's and 50's raised the sectarian temperature in the North and led to events which caused the troubles" There was the odd IRA bombing and shooting and break in during the decades before the troubles, or did you not know that cdebru? I never said this in itself caused the troubles. I know there was some gerrymandering and discrimination in N. Ireland , all of which I would condemn. However, I can understand how sometimes descrimination happens eg a businessman if he is employing people, is going to offer work first to his / her brothers, cousins , friends, sports colleagues etc. I know one businessman up there before the troubles told me he did not employ catholics because he was afraid "they would throw a spanner in the works".
I remember his words well as I was shocked at them. There was bitterness on both sides unfortunately. I hate bitterness and sectarianism from any quarter so do not think I condone it.





No, actually you are wrong, the 100,000 figure excludes army and police people. I know it includes voluntary emigration. Do you know how many Protestants got jobs in the Gardai, or any of the other state sectors? In the early decades of independance some people were hounded out, just like the catholic VC Cross winner who was hounded out of his native west Belfast after WW2. And what about incidents like Fethard on Sea? Its ok mentioning Childers or Hyde as presidents, these were just figureheads to try to show the world all was well, while the Protestant population of the country more than halved. As for the Jews, our history with regard to them is not a proud one either : look at how they were hounded out of Limerick in the 1930's by the Redemptorists.

peter poker has accurately answered all this so no point in repeating it
just to mention

the major decrease in protestant numbers happened between 1911 and 1926

the example of sectarian anti protestantism are from the 1940s and 1950s
and the fethard on sea incident is a perfect example of why protestant numbers continued to decrease as it was a row about the children being raised as catholics
the fact that this is the main reason for the continuing decline of protestants gives the lie to your assertion that protestants were being hounded out of this country they were not they were marrying catholics and their children were being raised as catholics

and lastly the pogrom against the Jews in limerick did not take place in the 1930s it actually took place in 1902 to 1904

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Didnt Tony Blair apologise for the Famine?

Talking about Genocide in the time of Cromwell is a bit like condemning todays Catholics for the spanish inquisitions etc or the Italians for cruelty to Lions


So passé

no its a bit like condemning the catholic church of the time for carrying out the inquisition

Flex

Post 27; Yeah, you didnt accuse me of that so ill "withdraw the allegation".But the implication seemed to be there.

With regards to the whole Fermanagh,t Tyrone nationalist thing heres a link which shows a religious breakdown of the province at wards level
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/maps/map12.htm

As far as I recall 4 of the counties have Catholic majorities today, with Antrim and Down having clear Protestant majorities( and having greatest population density).The 2003 census gave these figures ; 53% Protestant-44% Catholic-3% Neither or Unknown and also that 51.5% of all primary school children in NI at the moment are Catholic.Thus Catholic community is still growing quite faster than the Protestant community.

Post 31 from oscarBravo; Last I read the Norse armies were driven from Ireland by High King Brian Boru on Good Friday in 1014 ad, and the remaining Norse were assimilated into Irish society, I think the expression was "...as Irish as the Irish themselves".I see the point you were making though.
You misquoted me or something.Never said British was a shameful nationality,past or present.British rule was a rejected rule on this island.From the point English laws began having prominence throughout Ireland(and indeed before) there was never a considerable period of peace or sufficient support to make it acceptable.

About the 32% Catholic Unionists, I already stated that most are economic reasons and that most Catholics do aspire to a UI, and as someone else pointed out, if they were Unionists they could simply vote Alliance Party.Also 3.5% of Protestants fall into the "Nationalist" category.

You said you dont see anything wrong with OO parades, yet you seemed critical of a poster of 1916.Why can one traditions celebrations/commemorations be reasonable and anothers not?I think a poster in a building is far more simple than months of parades, which like it or not cause huge civil tension in a places that are already tense enough.
They say they celebrate Protestant culture, yet never celebrate the Protestant republicans of 1798, or Protestant leaders who led the Home Rule movement, or Protestant Presidents of Ireland.As an organisation based in Ireland its surprising they dont, since their not anti-Irish.I dont like the fact we dont celebrate the Easter Rising anymore, but I accept it had to stop to try help reduce tensions; yet the OO has never made a similar gesture.Your absolutely right that the volunteers were booed and jeered leaving the GPO, but do ya remember why public opinion suddenly turned in their favour too?Also wasnt the German army welcomed by the people of the Ukraine at first but then villified.

I dont regard Irish nationalism as irredentism.The fact that Britain says it will leave NI and allow for Irish union when a majority consent proves tht NI, while an integral part of the UK, is a "special" part.

I stand by my earlier post about my aspiration for a UI in the future, by ballots, and that i regard partition as unjust and unfair.None of the 105 MP's from Ireland voted in favour of it.Also, the boundary commission the Irish delegation was guaranteed would give large areas of land to the Free State was deliberately biased.Britain was supposed to appoit a neutral chairman to the commission,originally an American lawyer had been picked, but by 1925 a new one was chosen.A man named Lord Justice Feetham, who was born in South Africa of English parents.He himself was quite more sympathetic to the Unionist side of Ireland.

With regards to the name of Derry, I always call it Derry.Some UnionistsIve chatted with regard as an acceptable name aswel because they see "Derry" as the Anglicised version of Doire.

Today, unfortunately is going to be of intransigence for the people of NI.However maybe as a result of the bank raid, Catholics will reject SF and return support to the SDLP.In response to this return of "moderates" on the nationalist side, perhaps Unionists will return to the UUP.Optimistic.

true

cdebru wrote:

no you are wrong Ireland was never a part of britain it was the UK of GB and Ireland
if this was britain it would the UK of GB

Oh my God, I had literally just wrote ".....Ireland was part of the " United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " since the act of union 1801, until Irish independence". It is like if you read "True says black is black" how can you come back in the next post and write "True says black is white "? It does not exactly inspire great confidence in your arguments.

cdebru wrote:

did you ever stop to think of the negative effects that british occupation had on ireland and on generations of Irish people

Yes, lots of times, my ancestors were here as well, and probably running round in poverty like almost everone else. However, unlike most Irish people, I think of the positive effects that integration with Britain had. For example,
Dublin was once the second richest city in the union.

cdebru wrote:

you have more reason to be proud of an Irish pasport than you could possibly have to be proud of a UK one

LOL. To say a UK passport is inferior to an Irish passport is a racist remark.

true

Flex wrote:

Post 27; Yeah, you didnt accuse me of that so ill "withdraw the allegation".

Thank you.

Flex wrote:

As far as I recall 4 of the counties have Catholic majorities today, with Antrim and Down having clear Protestant majorities( and having greatest population density).The 2003 census gave these figures ; 53% Protestant-44% Catholic-3% Neither or Unknown and also that 51.5% of all primary school children in NI at the moment are Catholic.Thus Catholic community is still growing quite faster than the Protestant community.

I do not disagree with your figures. A few generations ago there were far fewer catholics than there are today. Not bad going for a community that has been repressed and abused. Usually its the other way round.

Flex wrote:

From the point English laws began having prominence throughout Ireland(and indeed before) there was never a considerable period of peace or sufficient support to make it acceptable.

There was not peace anywhere in the world over 800 years. There was a civil war in the 1600's in England in which Cromwell and his English soldiers fought other English soldiers. That does not mean Yorkshire should be independent. Did you take polls of the electorate during the 800 years, and how long is a "considerable period of peace" ?

Flex wrote:

About the 32% Catholic Unionists, I already stated that most are economic reasons and that most Catholics do aspire to a UI, and as someone else pointed out, if they were Unionists they could simply vote Alliance Party.Also 3.5% of Protestants fall into the "Nationalist" category.

How do you know the reasons that 32% of Northern Catholics have? And even if they are economic reasons , do you belittle their right to choice because of that ? It seems you do. I know some catholics who vote for a unionist party. And the percentage of protestants who fall in to the Nationalist category is 1%, not 3.5%.

Flex wrote:

you seemed critical of a poster of 1916.Why can one traditions celebrations/commemorations be reasonable and anothers not?I think a poster in a building is far more simple than months of parades, which like it or not cause huge civil tension in a places that are already tense enough.
They say they celebrate Protestant culture, yet never celebrate the Protestant republicans of 1798, or Protestant leaders who led the Home Rule movement, or Protestant Presidents of Ireland.As an organisation based in Ireland its surprising they dont, since their not anti-Irish.I dont like the fact we dont celebrate the Easter Rising anymore, but I accept it had to stop to try help reduce tensions; yet the OO has never made a similar gesture.Your absolutely right that the volunteers were booed and jeered leaving the GPO, but do ya remember why public opinion suddenly turned in their favour too?Also wasnt the German army welcomed by the people of the Ukraine at first but then villified.

The large poster of 1916 was just but an example, as I said. My point was that the history of Ireland that is constantly propogated in the 26 counties is the nationalist one. The big poster in my college in Dublin was just one example. Stamps, Street renamed, history taught etc. its all the same. Did you know 70,000 volunteers from the 26 counties fought in WW1 , and 50,000 from N. Ireland. Are there many posters commemorating these people, who were also from that era, in our taxpayer funded institutions ? I would guess there are more descendants of these 120,000 people on the island than desendants of IRA people. What if glorifying one side in 1916 has caused more than a little justification for more recent atrocities ?

Yes I do know why public opinion turned in favour of the rebels of 1916. Why? This has nothing to do with the argument above, and neither has the Nazis in Ukraine.

Flex wrote:

I dont regard Irish nationalism as irredentism.The fact that Britain says it will leave NI and allow for Irish union when a majority consent proves tht NI, while an integral part of the UK, is a "special" part.

What more do you want ?

Flex wrote:

I stand by my earlier post about my aspiration for a UI in the future, by ballots, and that i regard partition as unjust and unfair.

That is your right, and I respect your right. I have no problem with Ireland being united if and when there is a majority in N. Ireland that want this. As long as the ballot box it used.

Flex wrote:

.Also, the boundary commission the Irish delegation was guaranteed would give large areas of land to the Free State was deliberately biased.Britain was supposed to appoit a neutral chairman to the commission,originally an American lawyer had been picked, but by 1925 a new one was chosen.A man named Lord Justice Feetham, who was born in South Africa of English parents.He himself was quite more sympathetic to the Unionist side of Ireland.

1925 was long before my time, or probably yours either. Someone is always going to argue about it being biased. The vast majority of the MPs returned over the years in N.I were unionist. OK I know there was "gerrymandering" in some areas etc, it was not perfect, but you never could have had a situation that could have kept everyone happy.

Flex wrote:

With regards to the name of Derry, I always call it Derry.Some UnionistsIve chatted with regard as an acceptable name aswel because they see "Derry" as the Anglicised version of Doire

There are more important things in life to worry about. Some people on both sides are like little children.

Flex wrote:

Today, unfortunately is going to be of intransigence for the people of NI.However maybe as a result of the bank raid, Catholics will reject SF and return support to the SDLP.In response to this return of "moderates" on the nationalist side, perhaps Unionists will return to the UUP.Optimistic

I hope so as well, but it is perhaps sad that it would take a bank robbery for people to reject Sinn Fein rather than eg Warrington, when a three year old boy was killed. ( OK, before somebody starts, I know there were atrocities commited by the other side too...... )

true

Earthman wrote:

Didnt Tony Blair apologise for the Famine?

Talking about Genocide in the time of Cromwell is a bit like condemning todays Catholics for the spanish inquisitions etc or the Italians for cruelty to Lions


So passé

Agreed and well said. Cromwell and his English troops wrre involved in the English civil war, when they killed many thousands of their fellow Englismen.
In France, the Catholics there killed and tortured Hugenots, and the spanish inquisition also murdered and tortured many , many protestants, did it not.
Much of the middle ages was not a rose garden anywhere in Europe.

cdebru

true wrote:

Agreed and well said. Cromwell and his English troops wrre involved in the English civil war, when they killed many thousands of their fellow Englismen.
In France, the Catholics there killed and tortured Hugenots, and the spanish inquisition also murdered and tortured many , many protestants, did it not.
Much of the middle ages was not a rose garden anywhere in Europe.

it seems yet again that you are very one sided while you are very eager to point out the jewish pogrom in limerick over a hundred years ago
or that some protestants left this country after independence
or that dev offered condolences to germany on the death of hitler
or anything else that you percieve to be a wrong done by Irish people or on behalf of the irish people

yet you dismiss out of hand or diminish any wrong done by the British over the 800 years
or any wrong done by the Unionist government in the 6 counties more recently

to follow your logic the reaction now to the pogrom against the jewish people in limerick should be
1 sure all those people are dead thats nothing to do with us
2 sure everyone had it bad its not just the jews weren't we being oppressed ourselves
3 well it was only a couple of thousand sure hitler killed millions it wasn't that bad
4 well if the jews were being oppressed how come hitler could find 6 million of them to kill they couldn't have had it that bad

the fact that no one in britain now was alive when cromwell was committing genocide is irrelevant
as will the fact that in 30 odd years no german from the holocaust era will be alive it wont mean it did not happen

m1ke

after a suprisingly interesting start to the thread it's descended back to Cromwell... pity.

Nevertheless, ther'll never be a Utd. Ireland as most people here would think of it... people should come to terms with that. The closest we'll get to it is through a federated europe.

cdebru

true wrote:

Oh my God, I had literally just wrote ".....Ireland was part of the " United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " since the act of union 1801, until Irish independence". It is like if you read "True says black is black" how can you come back in the next post and write "True says black is white "? It does not exactly inspire great confidence in your arguments..

oh my god you dont even know what you wrote
here it is for you

"We were as British as the islands that make up Japan are Japanese today. Our Union was comparable to the North and South Island of New Zealand. We were all taught about the potato famine ( which affected Europe as well) , but did you ever stop to think the positive effect Britain had here eg state of the art infrastructure at the time , harbours, canals, railways, buildings , institutions, universities, legal system, etc etc"

if you dont even know what you wrote it doesn't say much for your arguement

true wrote:

Yes, lots of times, my ancestors were here as well, and probably running round in poverty like almost everone else. However, unlike most Irish people, I think of the positive effects that integration with Britain had. For example,
Dublin was once the second richest city in the union..

and had some of the poorest areas in any city in europe
stop and think about what you are saying and consider if Ireland had been ruled by its own people for the last 800 years how much better a society we might have had by now
considering the progress the 26 counties has made in the last 80 years



[

true wrote:

LOL. To say a UK passport is inferior to an Irish passport is a racist remark.

not what i said yo said you weren't very proud of your Irish passport for one or two reasons including what mary mcaleese said about people being taught to hate catholics

while i dont think she said anything wrong the truth can sometimes be hurtful
i was expressing the view that if you were carrying a UK passport you would have an awful lot more to feel ashamed of

Flex

"I do not disagree with your figures. A few generations ago there were far fewer catholics than there are today. Not bad going for a community that has been repressed and abused. Usually its the other way round."

There was discrimination towards Catholics and alot of repressive laws(eg. flags and emblems act).There was also abuses dished out to Catholics.

"There was a civil war in the 1600's in England in which Cromwell and his English soldiers fought other English soldiers. That does not mean Yorkshire should be independent."

I dont agree with that point at all.Its like saying Ireland is a region of Britains and our claim to independence is somehow irrational, ie. like Co. Longford wanting to leave Ireland.We are not a British territory or piece of Britain; no more than Poland is German, etc.etc.etc.etc.

"Did you take polls of the electorate during the 800 years, and how long is a "considerable period of peace" ?"

No, I wasnt alive back then, but I think the constant uprisings and penal laws,which were repressive, are enough to show British rule was a rejected rule.A "considerable period of peace" is a "considerable period of peace".

"How do you know the reasons that 32% of Northern Catholics have? And even if they are economic reasons , do you belittle their right to choice because of that ? It seems you do. I know some catholics who vote for a unionist party. And the percentage of protestants who fall in to the Nationalist category is 1%, not 3.5%."

Im going by polls and surveys, same way as you I presume; or did ya do a person-to-person questionaire of everyone in NI?I dont know if yours or mine is more accurate, but assembly election results generally confirm that most Catholics are nationalist; most Protestants are Unionists or to put it another way, the ratio of nationalist-unionist MLA's is generally consistant with the religious breakdown of NI.
I dont belittle their right to choice but you do by implying Catholics who are ambigouis to a UI are unionists who are loyal to the UK.

" Did you know 70,000 volunteers from the 26 counties fought in WW1 , and 50,000 from N. Ireland. Are there many posters commemorating these people, who were also from that era, in our taxpayer funded institutions ? I would guess there are more descendants of these 120,000 people on the island than desendants of IRA people."

Yes it is quite disappointing.I had relatives who fought in WW1, as most do and I certainly dont feel shame or anything else to make me want to keep it in my closet.

"What if glorifying one side in 1916 has caused more than a little justification for more recent atrocities ?"

True, but Unionists glorify only one side of 1690.

"What more do you want ?"

Nothing, I didnt think i asked for more.Merely pointing out that the fact Britain has stated that as being its policy on NI is a type of de facto recognition that nationalist ideals for a UI are not unreasonable nor are they irredentist.

"That is your right, and I respect your right. I have no problem with Ireland being united if and when there is a majority in N. Ireland that want this. As long as the ballot box it used."

Thank you and I appreciate that.Likewise, I respect your right to your opinion, and while its clear we disagree over certain issues, I dont regard your opinion and POV as "wrong".I simply have a different one, glad we can still be frank though.

"1925 was long before my time, or probably yours either. Someone is always going to argue about it being biased."

Was long before my time.However, Feetham was not a neutral chairman.As I said, the Irish delegation was assured the commission would end up favourably for the Free State.Even Unionists realised this which is why they refused to appoint their own member.Consequently, Westminster appointed JR Fisher for them; staunch Unionist.

"OK I know there was "gerrymandering" in some areas etc,"

Ironic thing is that there was no need for it.Protestants composed approx 65.5% of NI in the 1920's so even by non-gerrymandered PRSTV elections they still would have swept the board in most places anyway.All it did was allow them to control Derry City Council and other wards and even further polarise nationalists.Besides that was simply one of many injustices and the fact it was done so blatently makes it worse.Also people living under it probably found it even worse and antaonising.

"There are more important things in life to worry about. Some people on both sides are like little children."

True, but its on the agenda anyway and has to be dealt with and it clearly is important to people.Best thing to do is rename the city and county.Foyle for the city since its on the Foyle river, and Coleraine for the county since that was its original name.Compromise is necessary and personally I think Derry is a fine name because its the name used by the great majority of people all over Ireland already and is non-political, unlike Londonderry.

"I hope so as well, but it is perhaps sad that it would take a bank robbery for people to reject Sinn Fein rather than eg Warrington, when a three year old boy was killed.( OK, before somebody starts, I know there were atrocities commited by the other side too...... )"

Wonder what itll take for Unionists to reject DUP.

true

cdebru wrote:

oh my god you dont even know what you wrote
here it is for you
"if you dont even know what you wrote it doesn't say much for your arguement

I wrote "Ireland was part of the " United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland " since the act of union 1801, until Irish independence".

You then wrote "no you are wrong Ireland was never a part of britain it was the UK of GB and Ireland"

Cant you read cdebru?

cdebru wrote:

and had some of the poorest areas in any city in europe
stop and think about what you are saying and consider if Ireland had been ruled by its own people for the last 800 years how much better a society we might have had by now
considering the progress the 26 counties has made in the last 80 years

I took a train journey recently. It was on the same railway lines the "British" laid, and the CIE train must nearly be as old. I am not joking. Yes, I know Ireland has boomed especially this last ten years, mainly due to EC grants and foreign investment and tourism ( which N.I. does not have ). The UK has been the second largest contributer to the EC funds since the EEC started.
Ireland per head of population has beneffited most from the EC. The reality is nobody can say for definite if Ireland had been ruled by its own people for the last 800 years how much better or worse a society we might have had by now. I know if we had not UK co-operation over the centuries, we would not have the fine architecture we inherited, ( what have we produced since independence ), the canals, harbours, railways, law courts etc. State of the art stuff in the age of the industrial revolution.




[

cdebru wrote:

not what i said yo said you weren't very proud of your Irish passport for one or two reasons including what mary mcaleese said about people being taught to hate catholics

Yes, I said I could'nt care less about it ; I am not exceptionally proud of it given some events in our history ( eg DeValera signing the book of condolences on the death of Hitler , which no other leader in the world done : or McAleese comparing Northern people teaching their children to hate catholics to the way the Nazis hated Jews ). Who does that overpaid bitch think she is to compare the hatred of people in Ireland ( of course she mentioned the hatred of catholics, as if catholics were never brought up to hate the British etc ) to the hatred in Nazi Germany. Fat lot of use her Fianna Fail govt of the time did about the injustices in Germany. At least Northern Ireland fought in the war and done its bit. If every country behaved like the 26 counties then, what sort of world would we have now?
Hitler invaded many neutral countries when it suited him. I think what few Jews were left in Ireland then would not have escaped his attention, as least.

cdebru wrote:

while i dont think she said anything wrong the truth can sometimes be hurtful
i was expressing the view that if you were carrying a UK passport you would have an awful lot more to feel ashamed of

That is your opinion : I know quite a few catholics in N. Ireland who would not only disagree with you, but have the opposite opinion.