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

Roisin Dubh

It is illogical to claim the aspiration for a united Ireland as a republican ideal. Republicanism involves the principles of self-determination and democracy. UI would involve the imposition of a state upon a region and its people who wish to remain separate from it. This amounts to imperialism and a denial of their democratic wishes. No different from the English invasion and subjugation of Wales, Ireland and Scotland.

If on the other hand you disavow republicanism and admit your desire for geographic imperialism then your support for a UI becomes entirely rational. Still won’t change my strong opposition to the idea just as I would have attacked Cromwell’s imperialism had I been alive in his day.

The independence of Algeria from France involved such an imposition on the Francophone colonial white community in Algeria. Should France have partition Algeria? The same threats were there from the 1 million colons, who set up a paramilitary group called the Secret Army Organisation. Your arguments on against a UI could also be used against a united Algeria back in the 1960's.

I do not accept and will not accept the wanting a UI constitutes an imperial mindset. I do not accept that any partition was necessary and I firmly believe that the South was massively deceived by Lloyd George as to the long term borders of NI - a fact that in my mind further undermines the legitimacy of partition.

I have no desire to dominate Protestants but only to live as equal citizens in a 32 county state.

MT

Flex wrote:

To disenfranchise a group ( as far as I recall) means to remove their right to vote?I dont think I ever implied to do this, merely to unite the island.Your seem so far more worried about "disenfranchising" the unionists whom would regard you(I presume your Irish living in Biel) as a "foreigner"…

But what if they vote for independence? When protestants in the north east have consistently expressed their wish at the ballot box for separate statehood the creation of an all island nation would involve their disfranchisement. There appears to be a severe contradiction in your line of argument.

What if people in the north east do regard those in the Irish Republic as foreigners? Why does that matter? Likewise you live in a separate nation so you should consider them equally foreign. Do you see the Welsh as compatriots?

Flex wrote:

…yet you dont seem to stand up for nationalists who cherish the same nationality as you.

Again I can’t speak for others but I do support the aspirations of northern nationalists while not seeking to deny those of unionists. Before all else I’m an Irish republican in the true sense. I believe in a republic of the Irish people not an arbitrary landmass. Forcing nationalists in NI to live apart from their state of choice is as much a denial of self-determination as forcing unionists to live in a UI. Hence, my proposition of repartition and resettlement for both sides. Extend the boundaries of this republic to encompass all those that aspire to its citizenship. But to go further would be an act of imperialism leading to a situation as intolerable for unionists as the plight nationalists currently find themselves in.

Flex wrote:

I dont think anyone ever implied they dont have the right to live here, merely that they shouldnt have a statelet cut out for them.

Why not? They have desired a separate homeland for the large part of two centuries. They’ve long felt alienated from the rest of the island and failed to identify with it for an equal period. Add this to a centuries long attachment to their own distinct region and you’ve pretty solid grounds for self-determination. Their desires are not a whim of the moment or a recent flight of fancy but a long established world-view. To deny their validity amounts to little more than the bogus claims of false consciousness deployed by the likes of Sinn Fein.

Should the Basques or the Catalonians be denied their independence? What if the Quebecois chose a break with Canada in their next border poll? An imperialist might well support the status quo but republicans – if their ideology is to mean anything – should never fail to rally to the cause of self-determination. Next you’ll be telling us Scotland and Wales should be forever tied to England regardless of their people’s wishes. But if you do believe in republicanism and therefore self-determination why should the doctrines key tenet be suspended in the case of this island?

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I do not accept and will not accept the wanting a UI constitutes an imperial mindset. I do not accept that any partition was necessary and I firmly believe that the South was massively deceived by Lloyd George as to the long term borders of NI - a fact that in my mind further undermines the legitimacy of partition.

The borders of N. Ireland were the borders of N. Ireland - there were no "long term " or "short term " borders set, just borders. Just because you do not like them - what about the hundreds of thousands of people in the 26 counties who did not like them either , and wanted to stay in the UK ?

The Dominican Republic is about the same population as Ireland, and it shares an island with another country without difficulty. An island can have borders, just as the Iberian peninsula has borders.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I have no desire to dominate Protestants but only to live as equal citizens in a 32 county state.

Equality of citizenship is currently guaranteed in both N. Ireland and the Republic by law. The majority in N. Ireland do want want to live under a 32 county govt., for many reasons. Many believe that in the early and mid 20th century, some protestants did not live as equal citizens in the 26 county state. Hence the fall in the protestant population in the 26 counties from 250,000 to approx 100,000 at one stage. The poor unfortunate and discriminated against catholic population in sectarian N. Ireland did not fall like that, did it?

Roisin Dubh

MT wrote:

But what if they vote for independence? When protestants in the north east have consistently expressed their wish at the ballot box for separate statehood the creation of an all island nation would involve their disfranchisement. There appears to be a severe contradiction in your line of argument.

What if people in the north east do regard those in the Irish Republic as foreigners? Why does that matter? Likewise you live in a separate nation so you should consider them equally foreign. Do you see the Welsh as compatriots?

I refuse to consider NI as foreign. I see it as a Frankenstein creation of a new state that was dysfunctional and unstable and tearing itself apart since Day 1. My dislike of partition has sometimes turned to hatred during moments like Drumcree 1995,1996 and 1997, where the RUC were used to ram the Kick the Pope bands, having their Union Jacks in Irish Catholic faces, down the Garvaghy/Ormeau Rd . in displays of the most outrageous triumphalism. I have no problems with parades where local Catholics agree with it going through their areas, but I despise the hateful ethos of the OO. :mad:

Again I can’t speak for others but I do support the aspirations of northern nationalists while not seeking to deny those of unionists. Before all else I’m an Irish republican in the true sense. I believe in a republic of the Irish people not an arbitrary landmass. Forcing nationalists in NI to live apart from their state of choice is as much a denial of self-determination as forcing unionists to live in a UI. Hence, my proposition of repartition and resettlement for both sides. Extend the boundaries of this republic to encompass all those that aspire to its citizenship. But to go further would be an act of imperialism leading to a situation as intolerable for unionists as the plight nationalists currently find themselves in.

Why not? They have desired a separate homeland for the large part of two centuries. They’ve long felt alienated from the rest of the island and failed to identify with it for an equal period. Add this to a centuries long attachment to their own distinct region and you’ve pretty solid grounds for self-determination. Their desires are not a whim of the moment or a recent flight of fancy but a long established world-view. To deny their validity amounts to little more than the bogus claims of false consciousness deployed by the likes of Sinn Fein.

Should the Basques or the Catalonians be denied their independence? What if the Quebecois chose a break with Canada in their next border poll? An imperialist might well support the status quo but republicans – if their ideology is to mean anything – should never fail to rally to the cause of self-determination. Next you’ll be telling us Scotland and Wales should be forever tied to England regardless of their people’s wishes. But if you do believe in republicanism and therefore self-determination why should the doctrines key tenet be suspended in the case of this island?

Well to be fair, the Basques and Catalans are not being oppressed by Spain. They have wideranging autonomy. Notice how Spain gave them this WITHOUT partitioning them. Some historians believe that the Irish might have settled for staying in the UK if we had been giving the original demand of the 1800's Home Rule, for the 32 counties. That would have restored the parliament of Ireland from before the Union of 1801 - albeit without the Protestant Ascendancy.

MT

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I do not accept and will not accept the wanting a UI constitutes an imperial mindset.

Until you explain this claim is there any point in asking me questions. This is a debate not a one sided interrogation. I've proffered my reasoning and am prepared to do so again. Should you not do likewise?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The same threats were there from the 1 million colons, who set up a paramilitary group called the Secret Army Organisation.

Where have I made any threats? What have paramilitary groups got to do with this current exchange or for that matter a just constitutional settlement? Maybe if more concurred the north wouldn't be in the mess it currently finds itself, but that's an aside.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I do not accept that any partition was necessary and I firmly believe that the South was massively deceived by Lloyd George as to the long term borders of NI - a fact that in my mind further undermines the legitimacy of partition.

On the contrary I believe partition is necessary but that the border was drawn in the wrong place. As for Lloyd Georges deception - I'd concur. That's why I started this thread - to debate the possibility of putting right the flawed constitutional settlement bequeathed to this island. However, it must be said that the civil war fought over the matter in the south as well as the assasination of Michael Collins hardly helped matters. Blowing each other to bits was hardly conducive to any attempt to renegotiate the border arrangements.

true

Roisin still does not get it. The proportion of Protestants in the Republic of Ireland fell from sixteen percent in 1922 to two percent today. The proportion of Catholics in Northern Ireland rose from 28 percent in 1922 to 44 percent today. Now which of those figures, in your opinion, offers stronger evidence of ‘religious discrimination’?”

MT

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I refuse to consider NI as foreign.

You can deny reality as much as you wish. Doesn’t make it any less real. Just like France the UK’s a foreign country.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I see it as a Frankenstein creation of a new state that was dysfunctional and unstable and tearing itself apart since Day 1.

I’d largely agree. That’s why I’d like to see this constitutional problem resolved. This time around the solution should be genuine self-determination. That means no Unionist, British or Irish imperialism. To force all of the north and its sizeable unionist population into an all island state would bring into being as much of a Frankenstein creation as the one you currently deplore. Don’t you think a sullen, alienated and bitter unionist mass in the north east would have a destabilising effect on this republic? Never mind the immorality of imperialism it would most likely result in the further negative consequence of jeopardising the harmonious well being of this state.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

My dislike of partition has sometimes turned to hatred during moments like Drumcree 1995,1996 and 1997, where the RUC were used to ram the Kick the Pope bands, having their Union Jacks in Irish Catholic faces, down the Garvaghy/Ormeau Rd . in displays of the most outrageous triumphalism. I have no problems with parades where local Catholics agree with it going through their areas, but I despise the hateful ethos of the OO.

This has nothing to do with partition per se. This is a consequence of improperly implemented and flawed partition. Had the border and peoples of this island been situated in the right place there’d never have been any of the above. We could’ve forgoten all about the northern OO as they’d be beyond a frontier where no Irish citizen resided. To be blunt Unionists could have torn each other to bits and no member of this nation would have been caught in the crossfire. So all the more reason to sort the situation out properly this time around bringing lasting closure to the national question. Think of the piece of mind we’d all gain. No more fears of a flare up at interfaces. No more tribal blood letting. At long last there’d be a complete Irish republic and a durable constitutional settlement. Nationalism could finally recede fully down here with a move to full socio-economic politics, as is the case in other advanced democracies. The nagging constitutional question and a wearying sense of something left behind would have been laid to rest once and for all.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Well to be fair, the Basques and Catalans are not being oppressed by Spain. They have wideranging autonomy. Notice how Spain gave them this WITHOUT partitioning them.

I think you’ve inferred a different analogy from the one I intended to convey. The comparison was actually between the Iberian peninsula and the island of Ireland. It was an allusion to the contradiction of Sinn Fein’s support for Basque independence from the rest of the peninsula while at the same time campaigning against a unionist homeland distinct from the rest of this island. However, to respond to your point, if there was an area within the Basque region which had long desired not to leave Spain then partition would IMO be an equitable solution. In the same way there is a large area of the north – possibly two thirds – whose inhabitants desire not to live separately from the Irish republic. The answer is to partition the north and grant them their rightful statehood.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Some historians believe that the Irish might have settled for staying in the UK if we had been giving the original demand of the 1800's Home Rule, for the 32 counties.

Possibly. As a republican, however, I’d rather not be part of a country headed by a monarchy. This scenario once again – like geographic imperialism – places the unity of the island above the ideal of a republic. As a republican I presume you’d chose the status of the Irish Republic as opposed to that of Scotland?

Flex

But what if they vote for independence? When protestants in the north east have consistently expressed their wish at the ballot box for separate statehood the creation of an all island nation would involve their disfranchisement. There appears to be a severe contradiction in your line of argument.

What I meant was I wouldnt suggest anyone should take their right to vote from them in a UI(ie.forbid them from voting in elections etc.).My attitude is that I know the majority dont want a UI now, but in 3 or 4 generations there will be an Irish majority who will accept a UI and then democracy can prevail.Which Im sure theyd agree with since they seem to claim to have utmost respect for the will of the majority and principle of consent.

What if people in the north east do regard those in the Irish Republic as foreigners? Why does that matter? Likewise you live in a separate nation so you should consider them equally foreign. Do you see the Welsh as compatriots?

No I dont see the Welsh as compatriots, however Ulster is not foreign to Ireland.When NI counties play in GAA, I dont say "Isnt it wonderful seeing Gaelic games being played and supported by people in a foreign country".When I head north I dont consider it being foreign territory and I certainly dont consider myself a foreigner in another country.Likewise I dont regard people from the north as foreign(unless they choose to be so) and I dont regard products from the north as foreign.In fact most people from Britain I know (mainly Scots and English) would regard NI as foreign to them despite the fact its in the UK, because its not a part of Britain(geographically!!).My ancestors were from those 6 counties, I dont regard them as immigrants by moving into the IFS.

Again I can’t speak for others but I do support the aspirations of northern nationalists while not seeking to deny those of unionists.

You support aspiration of Irish nationalists who seek a UI, yet dont want to thread on unionists who want a divided Ireland.

Before all else I’m an Irish republican in the true sense. I believe in a republic of the Irish people not an arbitrary landmass.

Then does that imply youd seek that the Irish in Britain should be allowed to live under the rule of Dail Eireann?Since you seek a nation which encompasses all of the Irish rather than Ireland.Is that what you meant by true sense?

Forcing nationalists in NI to live apart from their state of choice is as much a denial of self-determination as forcing unionists to live in a UI. Hence, my proposition of repartition and resettlement for both sides. Extend the boundaries of this republic to encompass all those that aspire to its citizenship.

Not that I would accept repartition in the first place, but how much territory do you think each should get?Should it be proportional(ie. 53%-Protestant land/44%-Catholic land) or by counties or towns or wards?I posted the address to a site which shows the religious breakdown of NI at ward level.While most of the West and South is Catholic there is significant amounts of Protestant areas surrounded by Catholics, and likewise while Antrim and Down and north Armagh are very much Protestant there are significant Catholic areas,especially in NE Antrim.Not to mention that 30% of Derry City is Unionist and nearly half or so of Belfast is Catholic and that in West Belfast 5 out of 6 of the candidates elected where SF.Youll probably find it very hard to convince people ,on both sides, that they have to "up and leave" or find themselves in 1) a UI or 2) an exclusively Protestant area.And it probably goes against the UN to forcefully remove and redistribute people.It would be like the plantations again.

Why not? They have desired a separate homeland for the large part of two centuries.They’ve long felt alienated from the rest of the island and failed to identify with it for an equal period. Add this to a centuries long attachment to their own distinct region and you’ve pretty solid grounds for self-determination. Their desires are not a whim of the moment or a recent flight of fancy but a long established world-view. To deny their validity amounts to little more than the bogus claims of false consciousness deployed by the likes of Sinn Fein.

Protestants were the ones who founded Irish republicanism in 1798 and created the Home Government Association in 1872or'73, which became the Home Rule party and led it for most of its existence.One could argue that present day republicans and nationalists are simply following their leading example;a free, sovereign Ireland as a republic with no links to Britain.Once again Ill ask this; if British in Ireland get a partitioned statelet to allow them to maintain a link to Britain should the Irish in Britain not be offered the same,Liverpool elected Irish nationalist MPs and there are plenty of other areas?As true pointed out the Irish generally maintain and chaerish their "Irishness" wherever they go, so they to may not identify with the British nation and may feel alienated from it or fear it may diminish their identity.

Next you’ll be telling us Scotland and Wales should be forever tied to England regardless of their people’s wishes.

I think if a majority of 80% of the people voted consistently for independence it should be allowed and that it shouldnt be subverted,distorted and held to ransom by minorities because they use the threat of violence.That makes a mockery of self-determination and democracy.

But if you do believe in republicanism and therefore self-determination why should the doctrines key tenet be suspended in the case of this island?

Yes why have the ideals of democracy and self-determination for so long been absent from these shores.



Basically even if the idea of repartition & resettlement was put to a referendum it would fail in my opinion.Most people on this thread are for it( 4 vs 2 I think), yet it would most likely be like the citizenship referendum.From the campaigning that preceded it and the vocalness of the opposition to it I expected it to get easily defeated because ( like this idea) it seemed the "moral" way to vote.However, an amazingly large majority voted for it and against the "moral" idea.The same would occur with repartition I think.The "moralists" would be most vocal in preaching how part of Ireland should be given up forever to accomadate the British because they dont want to live a UI, however the "silent majority" would defeat it.

Roisin Dubh

true wrote:

Roisin still does not get it. The proportion of Protestants in the Republic of Ireland fell from sixteen percent in 1922 to two percent today. The proportion of Catholics in Northern Ireland rose from 28 percent in 1922 to 44 percent today. Now which of those figures, in your opinion, offers stronger evidence of ‘religious discrimination’?”

By that reasoning, the rise in the population of Ireland between 1800 and 1846 to 8 million + is a sign the Irish were not being persecuted. Rubbish!

The decline in the Southern Protestant % of the population was due to intermarriage in most cases, other than between 1911 and 1926 when emigration to NI explains it. So in a way, the decline of the % proportion of the Southern population is an indicator of good relations rather than bad ones. I also feel that the rise in the Catholic proportion of the NI population happened in spite, rather than because of, how they were treated in NI.

I’d largely agree. That’s why I’d like to see this constitutional problem resolved. This time around the solution should be genuine self-determination. That means no Unionist, British or Irish imperialism. To force all of the north and its sizeable unionist population into an all island state would bring into being as much of a Frankenstein creation as the one you currently deplore. Don’t you think a sullen, alienated and bitter unionist mass in the north east would have a destabilising effect on this republic? Never mind the immorality of imperialism it would most likely result in the further negative consequence of jeopardising the harmonious well being of this state.

Unlike the NI Catholics the Irish state I believe would treat them as equals in a UI. Then they would learn respect for the territorial integrity of the new state and think "Oh, what was I afraid of! This is okay" (well in most cases I hope).

true

The rise in the population of Ireland before the famine is not relevant to the statement "Roisin still does not get it. The proportion of Protestants in the Republic of Ireland fell from sixteen percent in 1922 to two percent today. The proportion of Catholics in Northern Ireland rose from 28 percent in 1922 to 44 percent today. Now which of those figures, in your opinion, offers stronger evidence of ‘religious discrimination’?” However, seeing as it is mentioned, the dramatic rise in the population of Ireland between 1800 and 1846 was due to the Irish people having very large families. If a piece of land that feeds one family has to feed a family of 8 or 10 or 12, and then each of these offspring also produce a large family, it is not difficult to see where this leads. This in itself was one of the major causes of the famine.

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The decline in the Southern Protestant % of the population was due to intermarriage in most cases,

And what about the shootings, the house burnings, the intimidation, the incidents like Fethard on sea , the lack of jobs in the civil service / semi - state bodies etc ? And if it was due to intermarriage, does that excuse it ? Did Roman Catholics also not intermarry? Did Devalera not say it was a Catholic state for a Catholic people? ( leading to a similar sectarian statement up North shorty after)

Roisin Dubh wrote:

other than between 1911 and 1926 when emigration to NI explains it.

I do not think that many people of one creed "emigrated" in a one way direction between 1911 ( long before NI was established ) and 1926.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

So in a way, the decline of the % proportion of the Southern (protestant )population is an indicator of good relations rather than bad ones.

LOL. You remind me of (comical) Chemical Ali in Iraq , or Lord Haw Haw ( also an Irish person ) in WW2. Next thing you will say is that the decline of the Jews in Germany "is an indicator of good relations rather than bad ones"

Roisin Dubh wrote:

also feel that the rise in the Catholic proportion of the NI population happened in spite, rather than because of, how they were treated in NI.

The proportion of Catholics in Northern Ireland rose from 28 percent in 1922 to 44 percent today. I know many who say they or their families were not mistreated.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Unlike the NI Catholics the Irish state I believe would treat them as equals in a UI. Then they would learn respect for the territorial integrity of the new state and think "Oh, what was I afraid of! This is okay" (well in most cases I hope).

Nowadays there is equal treatment for everyone on both sides of the border.
(although many working class protestants in N. I. would disagree, especially in nationalist controlled areas ). Dont worry, the northeners will not have to put up with a Sinn Fein minister for education in an all Ireland govt, pumping irish down their throats. Once bitten , twice shy.

Roisin Dubh

I do not think that many people of one creed "emigrated" in a one way direction between 1911 ( long before NI was established ) and 1926.

I already posted sources in this thread earlier showing that the decline in the Protestant population by 30% in this period was overwhelmingly because of people in border areas moving to NI so as to stay within the Union. In 1912 it was beginning to become clear that some kind of partition was likely, with Carson and Craig running around screaming "we will not accept this...etc.".

And what about the shootings, the house burnings, the intimidation, the incidents like Fethard on sea , the lack of jobs in the civil service / semi - state bodies etc ? And if it was due to intermarriage, does that excuse it ? Did Roman Catholics also not intermarry? Did Devalera not say it was a Catholic state for a Catholic people? ( leading to a similar sectarian statement up North shorty after)

Fethard on sea was certianly the exception and happened in 1951, long before Bombay Street was burned to the ground by Loyalist fascist mobs - on live television because I have seen the TV pictures of this and more obvious repression on this island you will not find.

The house-burnings in Munster were largely the work of the anti-Treaty IRA during the civil war and while outrageous and to be condemned, do not constitute "state-sponsored persecution" since those carrying it out were rebels against the Irish State, acting in violation of the expressed will of the Irish people expressed in the recent victory of pro-Treaty forces in the Dail elections.

Also, the Ne Temere Decree from the Pope required the children of mixed marriages to be brought up as Catholics. Of course Catholics also intermarried! To get intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants that would have to be the case! The fact that the children of these marriages were brought up as Catholics accounts for most of the fall in Protestant numbers are 1926, and you can dispute this till the cows come home, but it is TRUE! (no pun intended ).

LOL. You remind me of (comical) Chemical Ali in Iraq , or Lord Haw Haw ( also an Irish person ) in WW2. Next thing you will say is that the decline of the Jews in Germany "is an indicator of good relations rather than bad ones"

The worst thing that the Irish State can be accused of vis-a-visa treatment of Protestants is the ban on divorce, and incorporation of Catholic social and moral teaching into the Constitution, and the Constitutional references to the "special place" of the Catholic Church as "the religion of the majority". However, all of that (except the abortion ban which also exists in almost the same way in NI - as all the main NI parties want except possible SF) is now gone.

There were no concentration camps in Southern Ireland I assure you! If you think otherwise then maybe you should join the Orange Order which you seem to love so much. Oh wait, if you are born a Catholic you can't join, even if you convert, in which case a 66% majority in the OO Grand Lodge would have to let you in. Make sure then that you don't marry a Papist, since those who do are thrown out!

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I already posted sources in this thread earlier showing that the decline in the Protestant population by 30% in this period was overwhelmingly because of people in border areas moving to NI so as to stay within the Union. In 1912 it was beginning to become clear that some kind of partition was likely, with Carson and Craig running around screaming "we will not accept this...etc.".

The proportion of Protestants in the Republic of Ireland fell from sixteen percent in 1922 to two percent today. In the same period , it has also fallen dramitically in N. Ireland. Now you can argue that some southern protestants moved in to the six counties - which of course they did - but you cannot have it both ways. A hundred thousand people did not move north and disappear, you know.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Fethard on sea was certianly the exception and happened in 1951, long before Bombay Street was burned to the ground by Loyalist fascist mobs - on live television because I have seen the TV pictures of this and more obvious repression on this island you will not find.

Nobody mentioned Lombard st. or asked if you had seen it on live television.
Fethard on sea was not unusual. I know other cases like it, but not as extreme or as well publicised. Why else do you think so many protestants who intermarried were forced to accept the catholic stance on everything in this country ?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The house-burnings in Munster were largely the work of the anti-Treaty IRA during the civil war and while outrageous and to be condemned, do not constitute "state-sponsored persecution" since those carrying it out were rebels against the Irish State, acting in violation of the expressed will of the Irish people expressed in the recent victory of pro-Treaty forces in the Dail elections.

The people around the country whose houses were burnt out , and who were intimidated out of the country, felt the same as those who were burnt out of
Bombay st., which you mention. The effect was the same.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Also, the Ne Temere Decree from the Pope required the children of mixed marriages to be brought up as Catholics. Of course Catholics also intermarried! To get intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants that would have to be the case! The fact that the children of these marriages were brought up as Catholics accounts for most of the fall in Protestant numbers are 1926, and you can dispute this till the cows come home, but it is TRUE! .

I am glad you finally admit the effect the sectarian Ne Temere decree had.
I also note you say "most of the fall in Protestant numbers".

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The worst thing that the Irish State can be accused of vis-a-visa treatment of Protestants is the ban on divorce, and incorporation of Catholic social and moral teaching into the Constitution, and the Constitutional references to the "special place" of the Catholic Church as "the religion of the majority". However, all of that (except the abortion ban which also exists in almost the same way in NI - as all the main NI parties want except possible SF) is now gone.

What about discrimination in the Irish civil service and semi-state bodies a few generations ago ? Even now there are only 12 or 14 protestants in the entire Gardai police force.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

There were no concentration camps in Southern Ireland I assure you!

Nobody ever even mentioned the word or suggested there was , so why do you mention this ?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

If you think otherwise then maybe you should join the Orange Order which you seem to love so much. Oh wait, if you are born a Catholic you can't join, even if you convert, in which case a 66% majority in the OO Grand Lodge would have to let you in. Make sure then that you don't marry a Papist, since those who do are thrown out!

I never mentioned the Orange Order, and it is rude of you to suggest " I seem to love it so much ". It would be as relevant as me complaining to you that "If you think otherwise then maybe you should join the Opus Dei / Knights of St. Columbanus which you seem to love so much. Oh wait, if you are born a ********* you can't join "

So, Roisin , do you still think "the decline of the % proportion of the Southern (protestant ) population is an indicator of good relations rather than bad ones." If the catholic population of N. Ireland fell from 16% to 2% , as the southern population has done , how would you like someone to say " that was as a result of good relations rather than bad ones "
As we all know, the proportion of Catholics in Northern Ireland rose from 28 percent in 1922 to 44 percent today. As I asked earlier, which of those figures, in your opinion, offers stronger evidence of ‘religious discrimination’?

Be honest this time.

Roisin Dubh

true wrote:

The proportion of Protestants in the Republic of Ireland fell from sixteen percent in 1922 to two percent today. In the same period , it has also fallen dramitically in N. Ireland. Now you can argue that some southern protestants moved in to the six counties - which of course they did - but you cannot have it both ways. A hundred thousand people did not move north and disappear, you know.

They were around 10% at the start of partition. They were 18% on the island of Ireland. Methinks you're getting figures mixed up. There were about 300,000 Protestants in 1923 out of 2.8 million.

Nobody mentioned Lombard st. or asked if you had seen it on live television.
Fethard on sea was not unusual. I know other cases like it, but not as extreme or as well publicised. Why else do you think so many protestants who intermarried were forced to accept the catholic stance on everything in this country ?

The people around the country whose houses were burnt out , and who were intimidated out of the country, felt the same as those who were burnt out of
Bombay st., which you mention. The effect was the same.

I am not denying that.

I am glad you finally admit the effect the sectarian Ne Temere decree had.
I also note you say "most of the fall in Protestant numbers".

Ne Temere was not the law of the land. It came from the Pope. From 1922-1994, Southern Ireland was controlled by Catholic social teaching and had much influence in society, hence a Catholic parent would insist on the child being brought up Catholic. People are products of their time. It would be completely and utterly scandalously untrue and unfair to describe the present-day Irish state as being sectarian or overtly religious. You only have to look at the huge decline in Mass-attendance (I havent been in AGES).

What about discrimination in the Irish civil service and semi-state bodies a few generations ago ? Even now there are only 12 or 14 protestants in the entire Gardai police force.

I am not aware of any statistical evidence of that but I would appreciate a link. If true, then maybe a quota should be introduced. Even so, the Gardai have always treated Southern Protestants fairly. The exact opposite can be said of the RUC, which participated in Loyalist riots against Catholics and their burning out of their homes.

Nobody ever even mentioned the word or suggested there was , so why do you mention this ?

Because you made hinted at similarities to the treatment of the Jews in Nazi Germany by saying something like "would you see the decline in Jewish numbers in Nazi Germany as a sign of good relations?".

I never mentioned the Orange Order, and it is rude of you to suggest " I seem to love it so much ". It would be as relevant as me complaining to you that "If you think otherwise then maybe you should join the Opus Dei / Knights of St. Columbanus which you seem to love so much. Oh wait, if you are born a ********* you can't join "

So, Roisin , do you still think "the decline of the % proportion of the Southern (protestant ) population is an indicator of good relations rather than bad ones." If the catholic population of N. Ireland fell from 16% to 2% , as the southern population has done , how would you like someone to say " that was as a result of good relations rather than bad ones "
As we all know, the proportion of Catholics in Northern Ireland rose from 28 percent in 1922 to 44 percent today. As I asked earlier, which of those figures, in your opinion, offers stronger evidence of ‘religious discrimination’?

Be honest this time.

In spite of attrocities by the anti-treaty IRA during the civil war, I still feel that the Southern Irish Government never sunk to the Northern statelet's depths in treatment of the minority community. In the 1920's a Unionist minister urged his community to sack Catholics from their jobs and give them to Protestants, while Lord Brookeborough told his people "not to employ Roman Catholics, 95% of whom are disloyal". Can you get more obvious than that in terms of sectarianism, where you have ministers publicly going on TV to tell people to sack Catholics. To deny the sectarianism in that is just being incredibly dopey :rolleyes: .

Southern Protestants lived in paradise compared to NI Catholics. Outside the Civil War things in the garden were quite rosey, leaving aside the admittedly annoying political power of right wing Catholicism on social teaching and its resultant ban on divorce and silly references to Catholicism's "importance" in the Irish Constitution (deleted in 1981).

true

You mention lots of points, Roisin. I have not time now to go in to the Arms trial , C Haughey, etc, but as you mention the Gardai, let me tell you something about Gardai collusion. You mention the RUC as if the whole force was colluding with terrorists.

Only now has the truth of the role some Garda officers played in the IRA murder campaign been established. The final pieces of the jig-saw are falling into place, as many events which were dismissed as coincidence at the time, now reveal themselves as collusion. The numerous times when IRA murder gangs evaded detection and made their escape over the border all point to the fact that many in the Gardai actually aided the terrorists in their deadly campaign. This help took the form of passing information on the location of checkpoints on both sides of the border, and in some cases actually entailed Gardai officers ferrying gunmen across the border. The direct result of this collusion was the murder of many IRA and INLA victims.
Recently in the British Houses of Parliament Jeffrey Donaldson MP used parliamentary privilege to claim that now retired Garda Sergeant EOIN CORRIGAN was involved in the double murder of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Robert Buchanan who were ambushed on 20 March 1989 on the Edenappa Road near Jonesborough.

Details of their movements are believed to have been leaked by a member of the IRA who was also a senior Garda. RUC special branch confirm that the ambush only could have been staged with the help of members of the Garda.

The event is well catalogued in Toby Harnden's recent book where he states 'There was also technical information which confirmed that the IRA had been contacted by someone within Dundalk station. RUC special branch then received intelligence that a Garda officer had telephoned an IRA member to tip him off.

The sequence of events was confirmed by Detective Inspector L, a former member of Garda Special Branch, who said: 'I'm afraid the leak came from a guard. Bob Buchanan was a lovely, lovely man and those murders were an absolute tragedy. The fact that one of my colleagues was involved made the whole thing ten times worse'

A report indicating further cases of Gardai collusion with Republican terrorists has appeared in an article in the Irish Times on 10 March last year. It shows out the hypocrisy of nationalist Ireland in pointing out cases of complicity with terrorism within the RUC but ignore equivalent cases relating to Gardai collusion with Republicans.

It appears that the Gardai were passing intelligence to the IRA concerning movements of members of the RUC and members of the judiciary which led to the deaths of a number of people at the hands of Republicans. Of course IRA moles within the Gardai have never been caught or punished for their crimes.

One of these attacks led to the deaths of four RUC officers in May 1985: Tracy Doak, Steven Rodgers, David Baird and William Wilson. Such a compromise in border security failed to raise any eyebrows north or south of the border. It is also clear that the bomb itself was detonated from the Republic however as will be revealed later the Irish Authorities were far from co-operative in the following investigation.

Two years following this, information passed on from this mole led to the murder of Lord Justice Gibson and his wife Cecily when the car they were travelling in was bombed crossing the border.

1988 saw the murder of three members of the Hanna family whose car was bombed in an attempt to kill Judge Eoin Higgins and his wife. Once again information relating to the movements of the judge had been passed on from the Gardai.

In 1990 RUC Chief Superintendents Harry Breen and Robert Buchanan were ambushed and killed following a meeting with Dundalk Garda. In complying with Irish law they were both unarmed when they met their deaths thanks to the Garda mole.

The final target was Tom Oliver, a man who had been passing on information about IRA activities in the Cooley peninsular to the Garda who was tortured and then murdered. It was noted that no member of the Fine Fail government was present at his funeral. His death failed to lead to an internal inquiry. When the RUC traced the identity of the mole, he was merely moved to another posting until his retirement.

The lack of effective cross-border security has meant that the Republic had effectively became a safe-haven for terrorists, with many Provos wanted for murder in Northern Ireland living in freedom south of the border. The state of affairs which prevailed in the Republic has led many commentators to conclude that the Irish Authorities had either not the dedication or else the ability to curb Republican violence. The latter while true to some extent must now be questioned after the effective border security policy that was operated during the recent BSE Crisis. For thirty years the Gardai offered a catalogue of excuses for their failure to seal and police the border to prevent cross-border terrorism. However while the threat of murder gangs roving freely across the border was not enough to spur them into effective action the recent fears of BSE infected cattle being smuggled across the border resulted in what local have agreed was an unprecedented level of security. Further damning evidence that undermines the Irish Government's excuses is the recent high profile successes they have had against 'Dissident Republicans'. Numerous arms finds, and arrests have stood in glaring isolation to the lacklustre anti-terrorist campaign throughout the Troubles. Also the legislation brought in after the Omagh bomb, has shown the real hypocrisy of the Irish government who can tackle terrorism when there is some political gain to be made in doing so. Recent reports have shown that the same men behind the Omagh bomb have been involved in the massacre of people for over three decades. The question must be asked - if a more effective effort had been made to defeat the IRA from the start of the Troubles would Omagh even have happened.

The creation of a terrorist safe haven can be traced to the reluctance of the Irish Security forces to co-operate with the RUC and British Army, to counter terrorism. The most shocking fact is perhaps that 800 Irish soldiers were not made availible for joint operations with their Northern counterparts. In the absence of a facility for hot pursuit the frontier was seen as an easy means of escape for the terrorists. Indeed there was more concerted effort to capture British Army patrols which strayed across the border. It is a sorry reflection on the priorities of the Irish Security forces that their most successful night of arrests was not against the IRA but rather eight British soldiers who ended up in court over a map reading error. If the same energy had been shown in the detection and capture of Republican murderers then perhaps the Kingsmill Massacre could have been prevented.

The latest involving a Garda sergeant charged with 40 counts of forging and stealing passports is made all the worse because of the forces' record on extradition. It appears that while some officers were obstructing extradition cases others were supplying terrorists with passports.

Both Finbarr Hickey, of St Mary's Court, Mary Street North Dundalk who faced 40 charges of falsely obtaining and forging passports between January 1995 and April 1996 and James Fox, of Meenascreebe in Saughart, County Louth were from areas which are notorious for their support of the South Armagh IRA.

The whole issue of passports is most serious as it not only allows terrorists to escape the country but also enables them to organise international arms smuggling. Well-known Republicans like Thomas 'Slab' Murphy and Gerry Kelly have been implicated in past Irish passport scandals. Those who supply the passports are as responsible for the deaths of those murdered by the IRA in England or Europe as the man who pulls the trigger.


While I realise that not all Gardai officers are involved it is suspicious how few arrests or prosecutions there have been in the Dundalk area. The lack of effective action against Republicans meant that this area of the Republic was known as a safe haven for terrorists. The extent of the allegations is such that they cannot be dismissed as coincidence but rather point to collusion.

shltter

true has again directly plagarised from this website

http://www.victims.org.uk/gardacollusion.html a sectarian group with links to the DUP

links page is interesting

http://www.upmj.co.uk/ and from here you can link to here http://www.scottishloyalists.com/enter.htm

with biographies on heroes like billy wright johhny adair and micheal stone


copying and pasting this ****e and pretending it is his own work is nothing new for true
because if he told you were all this ****e comes from you could see the biased biggotted nonsense it is and the people behind it who hate terrorism except of course the UVF UDA LVF OV UFF etc

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The worst thing that the Irish State can be accused of vis-a-visa treatment of Protestants is the ban on divorce, and incorporation of Catholic social and moral teaching into the Constitution, and the Constitutional references to the "special place" of the Catholic Church as "the religion of the majority".

LOL. How many protestants were employed by the Irish govt / civil service in the early / mid twentieth century ? For example county Clare library service was told by the Taoiseach, Eamonn de Valera, that it should employ a Catholic chief librarian, and not a Protestant. This discrimination meant that many Irish Protestants had to migrate to Northern Ireland or Britain to seek employment. Incidents like Fethard-on-sea show "things in the garden were NOT quite rosey" for all southern Protestants, as you alledge. I remember a well known Irish third level technology college in Dublin, run by City of Dublin VEC, in the early eighties having life size Catholic statues dotted around inside it, and a large 1916 poster officially displayed in the entrance foyer.


If we say that the proportion of Protestants in the Republic of Ireland fell from ten percent in 1922 to three percent today, and the proportion of Catholics in Northern Ireland rose from 28 percent in 1922 to 44 percent today. Now which of those figures, in your opinion, offers stronger evidence of ‘religious discrimination’?”

Please answer honestly this time. Note the question does not mention any state discrimination in either jursidiction, alledged or otherwise.

shltter

MT wrote:

It is illogical to claim the aspiration for a united Ireland as a republican ideal. Republicanism involves the principles of self-determination and democracy. UI would involve the imposition of a state upon a region and its people who wish to remain separate from it. This amounts to imperialism and a denial of their democratic wishes. No different from the English invasion and subjugation of Wales, Ireland and Scotland.

If on the other hand you disavow republicanism and admit your desire for geographic imperialism then your support for a UI becomes entirely rational. Still won’t change my strong opposition to the idea just as I would have attacked Cromwell’s imperialism had I been alive in his day.

what about the baltic states with their large russian minorities should they have been allowed to partition latvia lithuania estonia etc or indeed i presume you would be supporting the ethnic russians in the ukraine should they decide to breakaway from the "imperialists" in the rest of the ukraine who want to rule them
how you can logically suggest that the reunification of this island is imperialistic is beyond belief

true

shltter wrote:

true has again directly plagarised from this website

http://www.victims.org.uk/gardacollusion.html a sectarian group with links to the DUP

links page is interesting

http://www.upmj.co.uk/ and from here you can link to here http://www.scottishloyalists.com/enter.htm

with biographies on heroes like billy wright johhny adair and micheal stone


copying and pasting this ****e and pretending it is his own work is nothing new for true
because if he told you were all this ****e comes from you could see the biased biggotted nonsense it is and the people behind it who hate terrorism except of course the UVF UDA LVF OV UFF etc

LOL. First, I did not pretend it was my own work. It is too long a passage and I could not be bothered typing it all out. I did say " I have not time now to go in to the Arms trial , C Haughey, etc, but as you mention the Gardai, let me tell you something about Gardai collusion." and I copied and pasted. This is the second time only I done this out of hundreds of posts to this site.


Second, shoot the messenger as usual, not the message.

If you link to a link to a link you can find anything anywhere.

It is not biased biget nonsense.

I detest all terrorism , past and present, including the UDA, UVF, UFF, LVF etc. Many posters to this site cannot say the same with regard to republican terrorism, past or present.

I never say anything on biographies on "heroes" ( your word, not mine ) like billy wright johhny adair and micheal stone : they might be your heroes, but they most certainly are not mine.

Of course you would like to think all RUC people were baddies, and there was never Gardai collusion with terrorist republicans?

shltter

true wrote:

LOL. How many protestants were employed by the Irish govt / civil service in the early / mid twentieth century ? For example county Clare library service was told by the Taoiseach, Eamonn de Valera, that it should employ a Catholic chief librarian, and not a Protestant. This discrimination meant that many Irish Protestants had to migrate to Northern Ireland or Britain to seek employment. Incidents like Fethard-on-sea show "things in the garden were NOT quite rosey" for all southern Protestants, as you alledge. I remember a well known Irish third level technology college in Dublin, run by City of Dublin VEC, in the early eighties having life size Catholic statues dotted around inside it, and a large 1916 poster officially displayed in the entrance foyer.


If we say that the proportion of Protestants in the Republic of Ireland fell from ten percent in 1922 to three percent today, and the proportion of Catholics in Northern Ireland rose from 28 percent in 1922 to 44 percent today. Now which of those figures, in your opinion, offers stronger evidence of ‘religious discrimination’?”

Please answer honestly this time. Note the question does not mention any state discrimination in either jursidiction, alledged or otherwise.

can you provide a link for that claim about eamon de valera

shltter

true wrote:

LOL. First, I did not pretend it was my own work. It is too long a passage and I could not be bothered typing it all out. I did say " I have not time now to go in to the Arms trial , C Haughey, etc, but as you mention the Gardai, let me tell you something about Gardai collusion." and I copied and pasted. This is the second time only I done this out of hundreds of posts to this site.


Second, shoot the messenger as usual, not the message.

If you link to a link to a link you can find anything anywhere.

It is not biased biget nonsense.

I detest all terrorism , past and present, including the UDA, UVF, UFF, LVF etc. Many posters to this site cannot say the same with regard to republican terrorism, past or present.

I never say anything on biographies on "heroes" ( your word, not mine ) like billy wright johhny adair and micheal stone : they might be your heroes, but they most certainly are not mine.

Of course you would like to think all RUC people were baddies, and there was never Gardai collusion with terrorist republicans?

you did not provide the link
or reveal where you had copied and pasted from
look at the site it is full of sectarian biggotted nonsense
if someone copied and pasted from an phoblacth or some other republican site
with out revealing it and pretended that these were undisputed facts you would be the first to attack them

it is two links the first to the Ulster Protestant Movement for Justice

http://www.upmj.co.uk/

where you can read other selected sectarian nonesense and from their link page straight to http://www.scottishloyalists.com/index.htm

true

shltter wrote:

can you provide a link for that claim about eamon de valera

Certainly : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_de_Valera

Also it says "In 1931, in a populist and controversial move, he backed Mayo County Council when they fired a Protestant head librarian on the grounds of religion, stating that "a county that is 98% Catholic is entitled to a Catholic head librarian."

true

shltter wrote:

if someone copied and pasted from an phoblacth or some other republican site with out revealing it and pretended that these were undisputed facts you would be the first to attack them

No I would not ; I would look at what was written. If I did not agree with it, I would not shoot the messenger. To date you have not been able to disagree with anything that was written. Are you denying there was Garda collusion?
Or do you think the only collusion was in the RUC, and it was near 100% ?

shltter

true wrote:

Certainly : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_de_Valera

Also it says "In 1931, in a populist and controversial move, he backed Mayo County Council when they fired a Protestant head librarian on the grounds of religion, stating that "a county that is 98% Catholic is entitled to a Catholic head librarian."

that was not your original claim eamon de valera was not taoiseach
it was in mayo not clare

and the woman in question was not fired mayo county council refused to appoint her alledgedly because she could not speak Irish

she was appointed to a different library

shltter

true wrote:

No I would not ; I would look at what was written. If I did not agree with it, I would not shoot the messenger. To date you have not been able to disagree with anything that was written. Are you denying there was Garda collusion?
Or do you think the only collusion was in the RUC, and it was near 100% ?

there may have been a very few gardai who were sympathetic to the IRA but there was not large scale collusion
i can tell you that as a fact and as a republican in my dealings with the gardai i never once came across one who was anything but vehemently anti sinn fein anti IRA and my guess is that would be the experience of any republican posting here

Roisin Dubh

The final target was Tom Oliver, a man who had been passing on information about IRA activities in the Cooley peninsular to the Garda who was tortured and then murdered. It was noted that no member of the Fine Fail government was present at his funeral. His death failed to lead to an internal inquiry. When the RUC traced the identity of the mole, he was merely moved to another posting until his retirement.

I have heard of that case and the suspicion I heard in the media is that Loyalists may have killed him.

I find it interesting that you are getting "information" from Loyalist websites. It's obvious whose side you are on. Oh dear...

I don't necessarily accept what you are saying about Garda collusion. Even so, I would welcome an independent inquiry.

What is not in doubt is the massive scale of RUC collusion.

Flex

I find it interesting that you are getting "information" from Loyalist websites.

Interestingly, he accused me of getting my knowledge from "An Phoblacht propaganda" because I didnt know about people who lived in New Zealand or something.Hmm.

Heres an interesting link about the man who is likely to be future leader of NI
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/1678/ian.html

Sadly his "henchmen" are so well indoctrinated in his beliefs that the future leaders of NI will continue his policies in his absence when he dies.MT, how can you advocate the creation of a statelet with a tiny minority of Catholics(because there will be) at these people who clearer harbour such hatred?He thinks Catholics are the army of anti-Christs referred to in the book of revelations and that their evil and need to be destroyed.Even if it was only a minority of 8 or 9%, that could include nearly 100,000 people.The south (albeit after being decieved by Britain via their boundary commission joke) left about 420,000 Catholics at the mercy of about 835,000 Protestants and even a minority that big (34.5%) couldnt defend itself adequately.

true mentioned a few times that the Catholic community was at one point only 28%, yet at partition it was 34.5%, so perhaps the Catholic community did fall.As Iv mentioned already, also, my great-grandparents were Presbyterians and after being forced to leave NI after partition,came south, got civil service jobs(quite a good one in my ggfathers case) and had children and lived a happy life, despite the extreme climate of anti-Protestantism youre so certain existed.He was also awarded a medal by the Dail for his services in the WoI, despite his faith.

An interesting fact about the Orange Order and thier marches.Loyalists in their 3 Loyalist organisations (Apprentice Boys of Derry, Orange Order and I think the other is called the Royal Black or something) march over 1,300 times a year.Most of these marches only originated in the 1930's aswel.Also Loyalist parades only numbered about 700 about 40 years ago, but have consistently risen to over 1300 (and are still rising steadily).Nationalist parades number about 200 (having decreased from a peak figure of around 300) and the bulk of this figure of 200 bizarrely includes St. Patricks Day parades.These parades only serve to create the climate of bigotry and intolerance towards others, believing as they do that their parades have every right to go through areas inhabited by people of the faith their parades demean and degrade and celebrate dominance over because their "traditional parades".Great tradition.Frankly, Im willing to bet if there wasnt a Catholic minority there would be no parades.The simple fact its based around the Battle of the Boyne compounds the fact its pure bigotry against Catholics and indeed the Irish people.

Roisin Dubh

Flex, I actually understand there are 15,000 parades by the Loyalists. Just correcting you there. Only a minority have ever been objected to by Catholics (despite their provocative nature) yet the OO members were calling even this "destruction of Protestant culture". Yawn! At least things have greatly calmed down over the years though, especially since 1996 (the Mother of All Drumcrees).

MT, answer me this: Regarding your repartition plan, where exactly woudl you draw the border? How much of NI would you give to the Republic? in particular, what would happen to Catholics living in places like Moyle District in North Antrim where Nationalists control the district assembly?

While utterly desising the idea of repartition, I would concede that if it were to happen, it would have to transfer the Catholic part of North Antrim, all of the South Down, Newry and Armagh, and all of Fermanagh and Tyrone to the South. That leaves the question open about what to do about Belfast, where 47% are Catholic. How would you resolve this?

true

shltter wrote:

there may have been a very few gardai who were sympathetic to the IRA but there was not large scale collusion

I never said there was large scale collusion, but there was collusion in some of these and lots of other cases.

shltter wrote:

i can tell you that as a fact and as a republican in my dealings with the gardai i never once came across one who was anything but vehemently anti sinn fein anti IRA and my guess is that would be the experience of any republican posting here

Do you think any republican would claim otherwise. Anyway, what sort of activities did you do to merit this treatment from the Gardai?
I remember in Claremorris Co. Mayo there was a well pubicised case at the time ( about eighteen years ago ) when the Guards went to a house full of armed republicans / kidnappers , they only surrounded the front, and the boyos escaped out the back.

Any collusion is too much , as some along the border have found to their cost.

true

Flex wrote:

.As Iv mentioned already, also, my great-grandparents were Presbyterians and after being forced to leave NI after partition,came south, got civil service jobs(quite a good one in my ggfathers case) and had children and lived a happy life, despite the extreme climate of anti-Protestantism youre so certain existed.He was also awarded a medal by the Dail for his services in the WoI, despite his faith.

.

I think you said your great -grandparents who were Presbyterians were Republicans, is that not so ? If he got a civil service job, good for him. I can tell you extremely few other protestants got state or civil service jobs in the early / mid twentieth century. Perhaps his extreme republican views and background done him no harm there, or in getting his medal ?

I never said there was "the extreme climate of anti-Protestantism "you alledge I seem so certain existed. There was not an EXTREME climate of anti-Protestantism, but there was more than a little anti-Protestanism in some quarters. It was also a cold house for other minorities eg the Jews, who were hunted / intimidated out of Limerick for example. Extremely few Jewish refugees from Europe were let in , before during or after the second world war.