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

cdebru · 18-02-2005 3:21pm

folk_smith wrote:

Are you daft? cdebru's comments were drawing a comparison between what you said about catholics and the kinds of things that people say about pakistanis and blacks - he, cdebru was not "saying" those things. You're bleeding idiot! Really, were you dropped on your head as a child? Do you sniff glue? For the love of mike, get a clue....

thank you

gandalf · 18-02-2005 7:41pm

folk_smith banned for a week for personal abuse.

cdebru · 18-02-2005 7:48pm

gandalf wrote:

folk_smith banned for a week for personal abuse.

i think thats unfair considering true has been trying to provoke a flame here for the last week or so

true · 18-02-2005 10:20pm

cdebru wrote:

i think thats unfair considering true has been trying to provoke a flame here for the last week or so

Sorry, cdebru, I do not think I was trying to provoke a flame. If I was , was it for trying to get you to withdraw your racist remarks about pakistanis and blacks ? As you are a self confessed Republican, I did not expect you to withdraw your remarks about the British etc.

Anyway cdebru, can we end this debate on a happy, friendly note by agreeing to differ. As someone who calls Derry "Derry" , I know your side of the story only too well, believe it or not.

Shake hands ?

A Dub in Glasgo · 19-02-2005 12:51am

I agree with cdebru here

'The myopic see what they want to see'

gurramok · 19-02-2005 1:06am

Just a thought...
If religion ceased to exist up north and there was mass atheism, how would it affect the populations attitudes on the divide towards each other ?

A Dub in Glasgo · 19-02-2005 1:09am

Would that be Catholic atheism or Protestant atheism?

gurramok · 19-02-2005 1:14am

Christian atheism

It would be pretty hard to identify ones allegiance for MT's 'voluntary' nor 'involuntary' repartition if there was no religion.

cdebru · 19-02-2005 1:19am

which side of the new divide would they send the muslims jews hindus

[ Daithí ] · 19-02-2005 3:41am

Okay, I've only read the first four pages of this thread, but anyway... this is my opinion on the whole "but the North's majority wants to remain in the UK" ****e.

Can someone tell me, has there ever been a United Ireland referendum? What's that I hear? Random mumbling? NO? *Gasp* You mean there HASN'T? Oh, dear.

The point I am making is that a census, a survey, an election... they are all meaningless compared to a referendum.

Imagine this, you are approached by someone asking your opinion on a United Ireland. Are you really going to bother? I conducted a survey for my Leaving Cert Geography class, about a month ago, which we need to have information from for the exam. I'd say 40% of people actually stopped to answer eight questions. They were multiple choice, as are most surveys.

You have the same kind of situation with a census. Your religion? Irrelevant. The greatest Republicans were Protestant. You can't judge political belief by religion. Census forms are multiple choice, and are a pain to fill out. Even if you were asked for your opinion on a United Ireland in the census, would many people bother. "Ah, it'll make no difference anyway." I'd bet you any amount of money that most people would say that to themselves.

Elections? Again, not a reliable way to gather statistical opinions on a United Ireland. Why? Because you have so many candidates to choose from. Multiple choice, yet again.

But picture this. You walk into a polling booth with a pen in one hand and a piece of paper in the other. The paper has two answers on it: "Yes" and "No". You are voting in favour of, or against, a United Ireland. This is the long-awaited United Ireland Referendum. The choice of answer is so much simpler than anything else, because there are only two options. This one choice, for everyone, will affect the entire nation in which you live in. It will affect your daily life. It has attracted a record number of voters because of its significance; its consequences; its future effects on our lives. People actually care about this because it's not some silly survey or election. It is far more significant, and far more straightforward. Is it not more attractive than a piece of paper with ten or twenty names on it, whom you have to put in order of preference? You don't have to think. You know what you want. You just have to tick an answer and put it in the box.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, it's this: you can't say that Ireland as a whole, or just the North, is not in favour of a United Ireland because, honestly, I feel most people couldn't give a damn until something as significant as a referendum arrives. I am a Republican, however, and I express my beliefs whenever possible, I use my native language whenever possible, but most of the Irish people don't. The overwhelming significance of a United Ireland Referendum would get everyone up off their lazy arses to vote for the future of their nation.

Who cares what the so-called Unionist "majority" wants? What about what the rest of the country wants? Obviously the amplitude of Irish political beliefs varies, from extreme Republican to mild Nationalist, from hardcore Loyalist to almost apathetic Unionist, but we all have our opinions on the situation in the North, and I do, whole-heartedly believe, that a referendum (or, referenda, if it would not be a single All-Ireland referendum, but one for the 26 Counties, and another for the Six Counties) is the only way to squeeze our opinions out of us so the fate of our nation may be decided.

I used to support Sinn Féin, and I was going to join Ógra Shinn Féin several months ago. But now I realise that I do not agree with any party in this country. Parties are full of ****, in my humble opinion. That's not to say don't vote for them, but I wouldn't join one under any circumstances.

[ Daithí ] · 19-02-2005 3:49am

By the way, I'll probably forget that I ever posted in this thread by the time I wake up, so I apologise if I don't reply.

Poker_Peter · 19-02-2005 9:17am

Can someone tell me, has there ever been a United Ireland referendum? What's that I hear? Random mumbling? NO? *Gasp* You mean there HASN'T? Oh, dear.

Actually there was one in NI in the 1970's but according to the BBC website, 98.9% of Catholics in NI boycotted in on the advice of the SDLP, leading to a 99% vote against a UI.

billy the squid · 19-02-2005 9:59am

[quote=[ daith ]]Can someone tell me, has there ever been a United Ireland referendum? What's that I hear? Random mumbling? NO? *Gasp* You mean there HASN'T? Oh, dear[/quote]

actually there was a referendum held on March 8, 1973

would you like to see the results? You can find them here under the heading, "Border Poll

Who cares what the so-called Unionist "majority" wants? What about what the rest of the country wants? Obviously the amplitude of Irish political beliefs varies, from extreme Republican to mild Nationalist, from hardcore Loyalist to almost apathetic Unionist,

the unionists might care. you want them to join a country they dont want to be a part of. If the nationalists dont want to be a part of the United Kingdom, then why should the unionists just accept being part of the Republic.

And just because someone is apathetic does not make them a unionist. Is it any wonder people in the south have become apathetic when they have been acting like playground children for the past 30 years.

but we all have our opinions on the situation in the North, and I do, whole-heartedly believe, that a referendum (or, referenda, if it would not be a single All-Ireland referendum, but one for the 26 Counties, and another for the Six Counties) is the only way to squeeze our opinions out of us so the fate of our nation may be decided.

It is more likely that the six counties would reject reunification. where would that leave you. look at what happened in cyprus last year. one half voted in favour of reunification (turkish side) and the greek side rejected it. the end result was that cyprus was still split in two.

By the way, I'll probably forget that I ever posted in this thread by the time I wake up, so I apologise if I don't reply.

oh you'll be back.

Poker_Peter · 19-02-2005 10:26am

It is more likely that the six counties would reject reunification. where would that leave you. look at what happened in cyprus last year. one half voted in favour of reunification (turkish side) and the greek side rejected it. the end result was that cyprus was still split in two.

OK but I don't think that Cyprus is really a fair comparison. The Greeks rejected the peace deal not because they oppose re-unification - quite the contrary. Their own President called for them to vote "No", yet he and his government would claim to want re-unification. The Greek Cypriots opposed the terms of the re-unification, rather than re-unification in principle, e.g. very little territory returned to the Greek Cypriots, Greek Cypriot refugees denied right of return to cities like Kyrenia that were once majority Greek but which the Turks emptied of the Greek population, and to add insult to injury the Turkish troops staying put. Most Greek Cypriots saw these terms as a sellout. It was the perceived sellout they were rejecting, not re-unification.

I propose an Algeria-style solution, with the method of British exit from NI being along the same lines as the French withdrawal from Algeria, where 1 million Unionists demanded France stay in Algeria or else all hell would break loose and they would invade France. The French held a referendum in France on leaving Algeria and 80-90% voted "Yes", then they left. There, problem solved! They didn't partition the country, and in fact it would have been unjust to do so, just as the 1920 partition was.

billy the squid · 19-02-2005 10:32am

OK but I don't think that Cyprus is really a fair comparison. The Greeks rejected the peace deal not because they oppose re-unification - quite the contrary. Their own President called for them to vote "No",

what I am saying is that because one half of cyprus voted against re-unification, it prevented it from happening. If they were to hold a referendum in the south and one in the north, the south would probably accept and the north would reject it meaning that re-unification could not happen.

I propose an Algeria-style solution, with the method of British exit from NI being along the same lines as the French withdrawal from Algeria, where 1 million Unionists demanded France stay in Algeria or else all hell would break loose and they would invade France. The French held a referendum in France on leaving Algeria and 80-90% voted "Yes", then they left. There, problem solved! They didn't partition the country, and in fact it would have been unjust to do so, just as the 1920 partition was.

what are you suggesting , we have a referendum in britain asking if they want to leave northern ireland ?

but how would you bring about a united ireland, the unionists in the north would still have a majority vote. and it would not be possible for the people down south to have a referendum to decide the fate of the north.

Poker_Peter · 19-02-2005 11:02am

what are you suggesting , we have a referendum in britain asking if they want to leave northern ireland ?

but how would you bring about a united ireland, the unionists in the north would still have a majority vote. and it would not be possible for the people down south to have a referendum to decide the fate of the north.

NI is an artificial state with an artificial majority. It's Unionist majority has as much validity as creating a new independent state in Scotland composed of SNP voting constituencies and then declaring "a majority here wants to leave the UK, therefore you must accept that and not have a United Scotland".

For this reason, I consider the NI Unionist majority to be the product of jurisdictional gerrymandering and while under the GFA, which I voted for, I acepted that NI would remain in the UK while a majority there wanted it, my consent to this was predicated on the GFA actually being implemented, which it has not been, is not being, and in all likelihood, will not be.

You can create whatever majority you want if you draw the borders in a certain way.

Flex · 19-02-2005 5:38pm

billy the squid wrote:

actually there was a referendum held on March 8, 1973

would you like to see the results? You can find them here under the heading, "Border Poll

Nationalist parties urged a nationalist boycott on the grounds that it was such an important election that it concerned all of Ireland and should have been island-wide.While the result was 99% against a UI,only 57%(Protestant population at that time) actually voted.

the unionists might care. you want them to join a country they dont want to be a part of. If the nationalists dont want to be a part of the United Kingdom, then why should the unionists just accept being part of the Republic.

Ablosute nonsense and totally invalid point.Heres a simple fact I think Ive mentioned 3 times on this thread and someone else has aswel ; IRELAND IS NOT A REGION OF BRITAIN.Ireland leaving Britain is not like nationalists in Connacht wanting to leave Ireland, its like people of Norway wanting to be free from Sweden.And nationalists wanting to leave the UK was an independence movement which began pretty much right away after Britain conquered Ireland, thus it was not "land grapping" at the UK's expense or something like that, and therefore bears no resemblance to NI.If Unionists shouldnt be expected to be part of a nation they dont want to, then why in Gods name should nationlists, when the overwhelmig desire of nationalists has been for a sovereing Ireland for centuries?Do British people have more rights and influence over democracy than Irish people living in Ireland?

The current 6 county statelet never existed at any point in history and was only made to create a regional majority out of people who are really a national minority.

[ Daithí ] · 20-02-2005 3:21pm

I don't consider that "border poll" legitimate, since "the Nationalist parties urged their supporters to boycott the vote."

Something tells me that a referendum today would have very different results. There is only a Unionist majority because Britain created a Unionist majority.

"but how would you bring about a united ireland, the unionists in the north would still have a majority vote. and it would not be possible for the people down south to have a referendum to decide the fate of the north."

Why not? What if it turns out that we don't want the North? It'll affect us as well. I don't want the North given to us until there is a majority in the Republic that wants it; a majority that WASN'T artificially created.

Britain has had no trouble in forcing Irish people to do things that they don't want to do, so why not give Unionists a taste of it?

"The current 6 county statelet never existed at any point in history and was only made to create a regional majority out of people who are really a national minority."

Exactly.

"oh you'll be back."

Well done. *claps three times, slowly*

billy the squid · 20-02-2005 3:31pm

I don't consider that "border poll" legitimate, since "the Nationalist parties urged their supporters to boycott the vote."

ah yes the old trick of when your proved wrong is to start off with "well i dont consider ..."

whose fault was it that they didnt vote, their own.

if your going to include the rest of ireland in a poll like that then your going to have to include the UK in its entirety as well. having a referendum on reunification in Ireland alone would not be fair, and a referendum where the fate of part of the united kingdom is being considered requires the imput of the entire united kingdom.

Something tells me that a referendum today would have very different results. There is only a Unionist majority because Britain created a Unionist majority.

Do you not think it is better that the brittish only retained controll of an area of northern ireland where most of the unionists were? the alternative at the time was to have an invasion of ireland.

Why not? What if it turns out that we don't want the North? It'll affect us as well. I don't want the North given to us until there is a majority in the Republic that wants it; a majority that WASN'T artificially created.

The brittish held on to the counties where the majority wanted to stay in the united kingdom. it would have been less fair had they taken a portion of the country where there was a 50 50 balance now wouldnt it.

Britain has had no trouble in forcing Irish people to do things that they don't want to do, so why not give Unionists a taste of it?

so you want to punnish people for the crimes of their ansestors. someone is stuck in the 1970s me thinks

Flex · 20-02-2005 4:15pm

whose fault was it that they didnt vote, their own.

Actually Britain created the 6 county statelet to ensure a Unionist majority, so they might be more to blame.

if your going to include the rest of ireland in a poll like that then your going to have to include the UK in its entirety as well. having a referendum on reunification in Ireland alone would not be fair, and a referendum where the fate of part of the united kingdom is being considered requires the imput of the entire united kingdom.

Ireland is not a region of Britain.Besides a referendum in Britain would most likely result in a vote in favor of a UI.

Do you not think it is better that the brittish only retained controll of an area of northern ireland where most of the unionists were? the alternative at the time was to have an invasion of ireland.

Ireland was already invaded back in 1172ad, and the conquest was completed in 1603ad or thereabouts.If Britain could retain NI because there were Unionists there why could Ireland not have Liverpool or Galsgow or other areas of Britain with significant Irish communitys.Liverpool actually elected a Nationalist MP, thus it should have been allowed leave the UK, since you regard Ireland as nothing more than a region of Britain.Personally I find the title "British Isles" an outdated relic of Britains presence in Ireland and proof that the Irish took a back seat to their "fellow UK'ers."

The brittish held on to the counties where the majority wanted to stay in the united kingdom.

Actually Fermanagh and Tyrone were both Catholic/Nationalist counties and elected majority Nationalist county councils and Derry City had elected a majority Nationalist city council in 1920 and all 3 councils immediately swore allegiance to the Dail.

it would have been less fair had they taken a portion of the country where there was a 50 50 balance now wouldnt it.

Actually Ireland was partitioned under the Government of Ireland Act in 1920, which gave Home Rule.Ireland(26 counties) left the UK after the Anglo-Irish Treaty on Dec 6th 1921.Thus the intention had been to create a Unionist majority area in the North while still occupying the south, rather than letting as much be free as possible in the south.Personally I dont think taking any portion of Ireland was fair or just regardless of the ratio of Catholics to Protestants it would have made.

so you want to punnish people for the crimes of their ansestors. someone is stuck in the 1970s me thinks

I think he was making reference to the fact that Nationalists have been ignored for centuries, so now it should be Unionists turns to make the concessions.

true · 20-02-2005 4:29pm

cdebru wrote:

which side of the new divide would they send the muslims jews hindus

Nobody advocated "sending muslims jews hindus" anywhere , cdebru.
Just because a self confessed republican like you has certain ideas on where the brits, protestants and unionists should be, does not mean you should be dragging other groups in to the debate as well. Not that long ago you dragged pakistanis and blacks in to this very debate, and you have not apologised for your racial comments about them since.

billy the squid · 20-02-2005 4:31pm

Actually Britain created the 6 county statelet to ensure a Unionist majority, so they might be more to blame.

that didnt stop the nationalists from getting up off their arses and voting.

Ireland is not a region of Britain.Besides a referendum in Britain would most likely result in a vote in favor of a UI.

northern ireland is though. why should people down south be allowed to decide the fate of another country (that being the UK) if a vote is to take place it has to be either a northern iireland affair or a UK affair. the republican movement want an all ireland referendum not because it would be fair but because it would create a result in their favour. what makes you think that a UK referendum would go against the idea of a united ireland. There is billions being spent on northern ireland. all of it being brittish taxpayers money. There is a case to be made to the brittish electorate for a withdrawal from northern ireland.

reland was already invaded back in 1172ad, and the conquest was completed in 1603ad or thereabouts.If Britain could retain NI because there were Unionists there why could Ireland not have Liverpool or Galsgow or other areas of Britain with significant Irish communitys.Liverpool actually elected a Nationalist MP, thus it should have been allowed leave the UK, since you regard Ireland as nothing more than a region of Britain.Personally I find the title "British Isles" an outdated relic of Britains presence in Ireland and proof that the Irish took a back seat to their "fellow UK'ers."

why, because no one held a referendum to do so, and do you think that they would let france decide whether or not glasgow or liverpool leave the UK

to ask the republic to make decisions like that on the north would be asking the same thing.

Flex · 20-02-2005 4:45pm

that didnt stop the nationalists from getting up off their arses and voting.

Thry knew they would lose because of the demographics.Boycotted because it was regarded as being a vote which would affect all-Ireland so should have been an all Ireland vote.

northern ireland is though. why should people down south be allowed to decide the fate of another country (that being the UK) if a vote is to take place it has to be either a northern iireland affair or a UK affair. the republican movement want an all ireland referendum not because it would be fair but because it would create a result in their favour.

Ireland is Ireland.What gives one country the right to draw a line on a map and divide our ancient land?Most people regarded the British government as alien and foriegn and an occupying force.Might aswel say Germany partitioning Poland in WW2 was a just thing because Poland had been annexed by Germany and there were some Germans living there.

what makes you think that a UK referendum would go against the idea of a united ireland. There is billions being spent on northern ireland. all of it being brittish taxpayers money. There is a case to be made to the brittish electorate for a withdrawal from northern ireland.

I agree with you.My post said a UK referendum would be in favor of a UI.

why, because no one held a referendum to do so, and do you think that they would let france decide whether or not glasgow or liverpool leave the UK

I dont quite understand the first bit, but if Britain could partition Ireland to allow British people here to stay in the UK and keep their link to Britain why couldnt Irish in Britain be "accomadated" in a similar fashion?Because its immoral and unjust, thats why.I dont see how it would concern France.

to ask the republic to make decisions like that on the north would be asking the same thing.

NI is Ireland and Irish soil.Same way as areas of Britian with Irish communitys are no less a part of Britain and are British soil.

true · 20-02-2005 4:49pm

Flex wrote:

Actually Britain created the 6 county statelet to ensure a Unionist majority, so they might be more to blame.
.

By withdrawing from the 26 counties, Britain created the 26 county state.
Before that the 32 counties were together, and some would say that Ireland was united. By partitioning Ireland, Britain thought it was keeping the greated possible number of people happy. The alternative would have been real civil war if it withdrew completely.

Flex wrote:

Ireland is not a region of Britain. .

N. Ireland is part of the United Kingdom , whither you like it or not. Most of the people there like it that way.

Flex wrote:

Personally I find the title "British Isles" an outdated relic of Britains presence in Ireland and proof that the Irish took a back seat to their "fellow UK'ers."
.

LOL If you think a name is "proof" that the much smaller island ( population wise, industry wise, world influence wise , size wise ) took a "back seat" to the bigger island, then I think you have a bit of a problem. Maybe you think the name " Hawaiian island" is proof that Oahu took a back seat to Hawaii big island ?

Flex wrote:

I think he was making reference to the fact that Nationalists have been ignored for centuries, so now it should be Unionists turns to make the concessions.

Yeah, thats like saying south of the border its been unionists who have been ignored for generations, maybe now you want to swap roles down here if they swap up north? What rubbish.

billy the squid · 20-02-2005 4:52pm

Northern ireland was given up to the brittish to end the war of independence. A war that Michael Collins knew he would lose. In return Ireland got their own government, and later (in 1949) the opportunity to leave the brittish commonwealth.

In short. the north was given up as part of a treaty. the war of independence is over, and we lost.

The only time ireland was ever united was under brittish rule. before that you had high kings killing each other, and then the vikings moved in to parts of the country.

Flex · 20-02-2005 5:13pm

By withdrawing from the 26 counties, Britain created the 26 county state.

The 26 county state was created after the Anglo-Irish treaty which was approved as a legitimate international treaty by the League of Nations.Thus, Britain didnt simply create the FS, as they tried to claim.

Before that the 32 counties were together, and some would say that Ireland was united.

Ireland was a united kingdom under the celtic high kingship prior to Britains arrival.Just pointing that out.

By partitioning Ireland, Britain thought it was keeping the greated possible number of people happy. The alternative would have been real civil war if it withdrew completely

LLoyd George was going for a "stick and carrot" approach.It was hoped more people would revert to the Home Rule party to try bring about an end to partition and leave SF, who wanted seperation.In fairness Britain intended to withdraw from NI.The fact Belfast Lough was included among the "Treaty Ports" in the Anglo-Irish Treaty was proof that they didnt expect NI to survive long after the Boundary Commission.Besides if they were only trying to keep as many people as possible happy, then what about the people of Fermanagh,Tyrone and Derry city.I pointed out that they all elected nationalist county/city councils in 1920.

N. Ireland is part of the United Kingdom , whither you like it or not. Most of the people there like it that way.

Well I dont like it.Iv never made any secret of that.A majority up there like it that way because it was created to ensure that.The 1st and 2nd Dail regarded partition as illegitimate and the only reason it was consented to was because the Irish delegation in 1921 were assured the boundary commission would give huge areas of NI to the FS, even Unionists realised this which is why they refused to nominate a representative.

LOL If you think a name is "proof" that the much smaller island ( population wise, industry wise, world influence wise , size wise ) took a "back seat" to the bigger island, then I think you have a bit of a problem. Maybe you think the name " Hawaiian island" is proof that Oahu took a back seat to Hawaii big island ?

Ireland wasnt much smaller than Britain in 1841, in fact we had about 34% of the UK's population and was rising, we were totally unindustrialised because Ireland was treated like a granary to produce food for industrialsed Britain.
I dont know much about those Hawaiin islands.Maybe the people of Oahu are hawaiin,maybe they dont like the term Hawaiin islands,I dont know.Frnakly it doesnt concern me here in the in Ireland.British Isles means "the islands of the British".Ireland is not a region of Britain.Ireland is the island of ther Irish.

Yeah, thats like saying south of the border its been unionists who have been ignored for generations, maybe now you want to swap roles down here if they swap up north? What rubbish

.

Huh? I know Protestants got a raw deal down here, but like it or not it was not as bad as Catholics got up there.How many government ministers publicly encouraged people to give their "jobs to Protestant lads and lasses" or that "we are a Protestant state for Protestant people" or when asked to confront employment discrimination remarked "I wouldnt have a Catholic about the place".

sceptre · 20-02-2005 5:18pm

Flex wrote:

Ireland was a united kingdom under the celtic high kingship prior to Britains arrival.Just pointing that out.

United my ass. Back it up with something reliable, there's a good chap.

Flex · 20-02-2005 5:23pm

In short. the north was given up as part of a treaty. the war of independence is over, and we lost.

North wasnt simply "given up".We were offered a boundary commission.On this commission would sit 3 people.1 Unionist from NI,1 Nationalist from FS and a neutral chairman to be appointed by Britain.However, the "neutral" chairman wasnt actually very neutral.A man named Lord Justice Feetham.Described as an Englishman born in South Africa who was of similar thinking to Unionists about "the cause of the empire ...."and so on.We were cheated put of a fair boundary commission which was the only reason partition was consented to.In short, they didnt live up to their end of the agreement.
I know the WoI ended back in 1921.
Most people on both sides regard the WoI as a stalemate.The British couldnt subdue the IRA, the IRA couldnt beat the British.

The only time ireland was ever united was under brittish rule. before that you had high kings killing each other, and then the vikings moved in to parts of the country.

There were many kings but only 1 High King.The British had many Lords and only 1 King.Our terminology was different does that make it invalid.The last of the Norse armies were driven from Ireland by High King Brian Boru on Good Friday in 1014ad at Clontarf by an army assembled of men from many parts of Ireland.

Flex · 20-02-2005 5:26pm

sceptre wrote:

United my ass. Back it up with something reliable, there's a good chap.

No need for bad language.Find a sight on the internet to give a list of the High Kings of Ireland.Go through google.Brian Boru is the most famous having reigned from 1002-1014.I think the last was in the middle of the 14th century.

billy the squid · 20-02-2005 5:38pm

map before brian boru

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/maps/historical/map950.gif

during brian boru

http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire1000.htm

At the time of the normans

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/maps/historical/map1300.gif

you see at the time you claim that Ireland was united there were several states in ireland. brian boru's title of "king of Ireland" was self proclaimed. if it was not he would have lived to be an old man, but he didnt.

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

Comments