HOW WOULD YOU VOTE IN A BORDER POLL?

[Lar Naparka]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

You are splitting hairs, sid. All roads led to the same end...
Those who were pro-treaty were prepared to take the Oath of Allegiance and those who were anti- weren't.

I'm not splitting hairs

Partition was not the reason for the existence of the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

The only reason one would believe this is if one took the film "Michael Collins" as definitive historical fact, rather than light entertainment aimed at Middle America

Partition was not the reason for the existence of the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

The only reason one would believe this is if one took the film "Michael Collins" as definitive historical fact, rather than light entertainment aimed at Middle America

If you are not, you have me lost for words.
The anti-treaty side rejected the oath of allegiance . The Free State was to be an entity independent from the United Kingdom but within the British Empire. This entailed the taking of the Oath. One side refused to take it and the other did not. As with the Tan war, neither side declared war but there was an inexorable drift towards conflict.
The Irregulars took possession of the Four Courts. The Brits gave the National side an ultimatum- either get them out or we'll bombard the effing' lot of them.
The government, aka  Nationalists decided to attack to prevent a flare up of the Brits vs the IRA all over again- they were windy that in the event of  resumption of hostilities, the 'ra would have more support among the masses than they had so they borrowed British guns and attacked the place and the rest is history..
Now,, sid, those who were murdered, blown up or plain executed and their kith and kin
weren't too pushed about which came first. partition or the Oath.

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make

Partition wasn't the reason for the Civil War

sid, I am conceding defeat.
Without Partition, there would not have been a civil war.
No partition......no Oath of Allegiance.....no Civil War
Taking the Oath meant accepting the king as head of state, thereby accepting the creation of the Free State. The Bolshies would not take  the oath...they were no party to the creation of the Free State .
Now, you may tie yourself up in semantic conundrums all day long but since I no longer have  a job to go  to, I cannto waste someone else's time so include me out on this one.

You're saying that if a 32 county Republic had been granted, there would not have been a civil war between southern Catholics?

Agreed

But there was never going to be a 32 county Republic granted, that was fantasy

Had the 1912 Home Rule bill been enacted on an all island basis as originally envisaged, had 1916 never happened, there still would have been Civil War, it just would have taken a different form - between Catholic Home Rulers and northern Protestant Unionists

Had a 32 county Republic been granted, the same Civil War, between Catholic Republicans and northern Protestant Unionists, would have occurred

Had a 26 county Republic been granted in 1922 with no oath, there would not have been a civil war between southern Catholics
[/quote]
??
How could a 26 county republic have bee granted?
Did anyone bring up the subject of such a republic?
If such a move ha been made, why did the  Staters  and the Bolshies not jump at it and avoid conflict on a massive scale?

[charlieTully]

Indeed.
A lot of our 6 Co friends still living in 1921.
At least they're 231 years ahead of th'others 

I would be of the opinion let the past go and plan for the future. Hard not to rise to some of the sanctimonious drivel you read here.

[Armagh18]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

That may be true and I think it was more a case of a bird in the hand and just take what is on offer while we can. Nobody can sit here now and definitively say whether that was right or wrong, it was probably the correct decision at that particular time given the context since even the anti treatyites main bone of contention was primarily with the oath and not with partition.

It was presumed then though that a 32 county republic would follow at some point afterwards but somewhere along the line this faded as the southern state had enough problems of its own.

I think it was definitely the correct decision because it did indeed give the Irish Free State the freedom to achieve real freedom

As regards the North, to go to war over the North would have been a bloodbath which would have resulted in total Unionist victory and likely mass murder of Catholics and mass ethnic cleansing

There might barely have been a Catholic in the entire six counties by the end of it

So when people say "youse left us behind", consider that

I wonder do the Bosnian Serbs say to the Serbs "youse left us behind"

Eoghan Harris eat your heart out.

"Sidney" is correct there

You seemed a nicer fella years ago Sidney. What happened?

[sid waddell]

Not that I believe the Serbs were correct but at least they waged war. Genocide war though

Thank goodness for the war in Bosnia, eh

At least the Bosnian Serbs feel less let down as a result of it

[sid waddell]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

That may be true and I think it was more a case of a bird in the hand and just take what is on offer while we can. Nobody can sit here now and definitively say whether that was right or wrong, it was probably the correct decision at that particular time given the context since even the anti treatyites main bone of contention was primarily with the oath and not with partition.

It was presumed then though that a 32 county republic would follow at some point afterwards but somewhere along the line this faded as the southern state had enough problems of its own.

I think it was definitely the correct decision because it did indeed give the Irish Free State the freedom to achieve real freedom

As regards the North, to go to war over the North would have been a bloodbath which would have resulted in total Unionist victory and likely mass murder of Catholics and mass ethnic cleansing

There might barely have been a Catholic in the entire six counties by the end of it

So when people say "youse left us behind", consider that

I wonder do the Bosnian Serbs say to the Serbs "youse left us behind"

The Kosovan Serbs definitely do

And there's still the Srpska Republic within Bosnia & H for the Serbs. Not the best analogy.

It isn't part of Serbia

And? The Bosnian Serbs were accommodated in the Srpska Republic yet they still agitate and gravitate towards Serbia, so yes they do likely say 'youse left us behind'.

I would guess they probably do

The alternative to "leaving them behind" was for Serbia to keep waging war in 1995

I think it was a better outcome that the war stopped

The "youse left us behind" narrative is basically "youse should have waged genocidal war against themmuns"

Yis waged genocidal war against each other, maybe it would have been better against themmuns

I'm surprised I have to explain this but pro-Treaty and and anti-Treaty factions were not ethnic groups

[michaelg]

Indeed.
A lot of our 6 Co friends still living in 1921.
At least they're 231 years ahead of th'others 

Says the man with the classic ussans and themmans post.

[sid waddell]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

You are splitting hairs, sid. All roads led to the same end...
Those who were pro-treaty were prepared to take the Oath of Allegiance and those who were anti- weren't.

I'm not splitting hairs

Partition was not the reason for the existence of the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

The only reason one would believe this is if one took the film "Michael Collins" as definitive historical fact, rather than light entertainment aimed at Middle America

Partition was not the reason for the existence of the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

The only reason one would believe this is if one took the film "Michael Collins" as definitive historical fact, rather than light entertainment aimed at Middle America

If you are not, you have me lost for words.
The anti-treaty side rejected the oath of allegiance . The Free State was to be an entity independent from the United Kingdom but within the British Empire. This entailed the taking of the Oath. One side refused to take it and the other did not. As with the Tan war, neither side declared war but there was an inexorable drift towards conflict.
The Irregulars took possession of the Four Courts. The Brits gave the National side an ultimatum- either get them out or we'll bombard the effing' lot of them.
The government, aka  Nationalists decided to attack to prevent a flare up of the Brits vs the IRA all over again- they were windy that in the event of  resumption of hostilities, the 'ra would have more support among the masses than they had so they borrowed British guns and attacked the place and the rest is history..
Now,, sid, those who were murdered, blown up or plain executed and their kith and kin
weren't too pushed about which came first. partition or the Oath.

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make

Partition wasn't the reason for the Civil War

sid, I am conceding defeat.
Without Partition, there would not have been a civil war.
No partition......no Oath of Allegiance.....no Civil War
Taking the Oath meant accepting the king as head of state, thereby accepting the creation of the Free State. The Bolshies would not take  the oath...they were no party to the creation of the Free State .
Now, you may tie yourself up in semantic conundrums all day long but since I no longer have  a job to go  to, I cannto waste someone else's time so include me out on this one.

You're saying that if a 32 county Republic had been granted, there would not have been a civil war between southern Catholics?

Agreed

But there was never going to be a 32 county Republic granted, that was fantasy

Had the 1912 Home Rule bill been enacted on an all island basis as originally envisaged, had 1916 never happened, there still would have been Civil War, it just would have taken a different form - between Catholic Home Rulers and northern Protestant Unionists

Had a 32 county Republic been granted, the same Civil War, between Catholic Republicans and northern Protestant Unionists, would have occurred

Had a 26 county Republic been granted in 1922 with no oath, there would not have been a civil war between southern Catholics

??
How could a 26 county republic have bee granted?
Did anyone bring up the subject of such a republic?
If such a move ha been made, why did the  Staters  and the Bolshies not jump at it and avoid conflict on a massive scale?
[/quote]
Partition was not the cause of the civil war Lar

It's pretty easy to understand

[charlieTully]

Is there any actual possibility of discussion on how a potential new Ireland might look, or is that not possible without a frank honest discussion on the past?

[Lar Naparka]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

You are splitting hairs, sid. All roads led to the same end...
Those who were pro-treaty were prepared to take the Oath of Allegiance and those who were anti- weren't.

I'm not splitting hairs

Partition was not the reason for the existence of the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

The only reason one would believe this is if one took the film "Michael Collins" as definitive historical fact, rather than light entertainment aimed at Middle America

Partition was not the reason for the existence of the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

The only reason one would believe this is if one took the film "Michael Collins" as definitive historical fact, rather than light entertainment aimed at Middle America

If you are not, you have me lost for words.
The anti-treaty side rejected the oath of allegiance . The Free State was to be an entity independent from the United Kingdom but within the British Empire. This entailed the taking of the Oath. One side refused to take it and the other did not. As with the Tan war, neither side declared war but there was an inexorable drift towards conflict.
The Irregulars took possession of the Four Courts. The Brits gave the National side an ultimatum- either get them out or we'll bombard the effing' lot of them.
The government, aka  Nationalists decided to attack to prevent a flare up of the Brits vs the IRA all over again- they were windy that in the event of  resumption of hostilities, the 'ra would have more support among the masses than they had so they borrowed British guns and attacked the place and the rest is history..
Now,, sid, those who were murdered, blown up or plain executed and their kith and kin
weren't too pushed about which came first. partition or the Oath.

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make

Partition wasn't the reason for the Civil War

sid, I am conceding defeat.
Without Partition, there would not have been a civil war.
No partition......no Oath of Allegiance.....no Civil War
Taking the Oath meant accepting the king as head of state, thereby accepting the creation of the Free State. The Bolshies would not take  the oath...they were no party to the creation of the Free State .
Now, you may tie yourself up in semantic conundrums all day long but since I no longer have  a job to go  to, I cannto waste someone else's time so include me out on this one.

You're saying that if a 32 county Republic had been granted, there would not have been a civil war between southern Catholics?

Agreed

But there was never going to be a 32 county Republic granted, that was fantasy

Had the 1912 Home Rule bill been enacted on an all island basis as originally envisaged, had 1916 never happened, there still would have been Civil War, it just would have taken a different form - between Catholic Home Rulers and northern Protestant Unionists

Had a 32 county Republic been granted, the same Civil War, between Catholic Republicans and northern Protestant Unionists, would have occurred

Had a 26 county Republic been granted in 1922 with no oath, there would not have been a civil war between southern Catholics

??
How could a 26 county republic have bee granted?
Did anyone bring up the subject of such a republic?
If such a move ha been made, why did the  Staters  and the Bolshies not jump at it and avoid conflict on a massive scale?

Partition was not the cause of the civil war Lar

It's pretty easy to understand
[/quote]
No, but it was the end product. They were inexorably linked.
It's pretty easy to understand

[sid waddell]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

You are splitting hairs, sid. All roads led to the same end...
Those who were pro-treaty were prepared to take the Oath of Allegiance and those who were anti- weren't.

I'm not splitting hairs

Partition was not the reason for the existence of the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

The only reason one would believe this is if one took the film "Michael Collins" as definitive historical fact, rather than light entertainment aimed at Middle America

Partition was not the reason for the existence of the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

The only reason one would believe this is if one took the film "Michael Collins" as definitive historical fact, rather than light entertainment aimed at Middle America

If you are not, you have me lost for words.
The anti-treaty side rejected the oath of allegiance . The Free State was to be an entity independent from the United Kingdom but within the British Empire. This entailed the taking of the Oath. One side refused to take it and the other did not. As with the Tan war, neither side declared war but there was an inexorable drift towards conflict.
The Irregulars took possession of the Four Courts. The Brits gave the National side an ultimatum- either get them out or we'll bombard the effing' lot of them.
The government, aka  Nationalists decided to attack to prevent a flare up of the Brits vs the IRA all over again- they were windy that in the event of  resumption of hostilities, the 'ra would have more support among the masses than they had so they borrowed British guns and attacked the place and the rest is history..
Now,, sid, those who were murdered, blown up or plain executed and their kith and kin
weren't too pushed about which came first. partition or the Oath.

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make

Partition wasn't the reason for the Civil War

sid, I am conceding defeat.
Without Partition, there would not have been a civil war.
No partition......no Oath of Allegiance.....no Civil War
Taking the Oath meant accepting the king as head of state, thereby accepting the creation of the Free State. The Bolshies would not take  the oath...they were no party to the creation of the Free State .
Now, you may tie yourself up in semantic conundrums all day long but since I no longer have  a job to go  to, I cannto waste someone else's time so include me out on this one.

You're saying that if a 32 county Republic had been granted, there would not have been a civil war between southern Catholics?

Agreed

But there was never going to be a 32 county Republic granted, that was fantasy

Had the 1912 Home Rule bill been enacted on an all island basis as originally envisaged, had 1916 never happened, there still would have been Civil War, it just would have taken a different form - between Catholic Home Rulers and northern Protestant Unionists

Had a 32 county Republic been granted, the same Civil War, between Catholic Republicans and northern Protestant Unionists, would have occurred

Had a 26 county Republic been granted in 1922 with no oath, there would not have been a civil war between southern Catholics

??
How could a 26 county republic have bee granted?
Did anyone bring up the subject of such a republic?
If such a move ha been made, why did the  Staters  and the Bolshies not jump at it and avoid conflict on a massive scale?

Partition was not the cause of the civil war Lar

It's pretty easy to understand

No, but it was the end product. They were inexorably linked.
It's pretty easy to understand
[/quote]
Partition wasn't the end product of the Civil War

Partition was legislated for in 1920 and introduced in 1921

The Civil War began in June 1922

[sid waddell]

Is there any actual possibility of discussion on how a potential new Ireland might look, or is that not possible without a frank honest discussion on the past?

The fantasy of a glorious "new" Ireland is based on the fantastical premise that Unionists will simply fall in and accept it

I dare say some Protestant Unionists had this same fantasy about Irish Catholics in the six counties

Some will accept it

Many will not

And thus the six counties are destined to always be afflicted with division and turmoil

Doesn't matter which jurisdiction they're under, they will always be afflicted because it's a classic territorial dispute where one section of the population believes it is an inherent state of nature for the territory which makes up the six counties to be part of one state

And another section of the population believes it is an inherent state of nature for the territory which makes up the six counties to be part of a different state

You can't square that, somebody has to lose

The only alternative is that people learn to forget about Irish nationalism and British nationalism and think about forging a society that works for all

The majority of voters in the six counties vote for parties for whom that is not a priority

The best thing that could happen to NI is for every union Jack and tricolour in the place to be burned

[trueblue1234]

Indeed.
A lot of our 6 Co friends still living in 1921.
At least they're 231 years ahead of th'others 

Fair play to Lar, Sid even who attempt to entry into meaning debate on this topic. I'm sure even they must read the posts of Rossfan and think "what is the point of any of his posts?" That, I do believe is one of the few things Angelo has been correct on all along.

[charlieTully]

Is there any actual possibility of discussion on how a potential new Ireland might look, or is that not possible without a frank honest discussion on the past?

The fantasy of a glorious "new" Ireland is based on the fantastical premise that Unionists will simply fall in and accept it

I dare say some Protestant Unionists had this same fantasy about Irish Catholics in the six counties

Some will accept it

Many will not

And thus the six counties are destined to always be afflicted with division and turmoil

Doesn't matter which jurisdiction they're under, they will always be afflicted because it's a classic territorial dispute where one section of the population believes it is an inherent state of nature for the territory which makes up the six counties to be part of one state

And another section of the population believes it is an inherent state of nature for the territory which makes up the six counties to be part of a different state

You can't square that, somebody has to lose

The only alternative is that people learn to forget about Irish nationalism and British nationalism and think about forging a society that works for all

The majority of voters in the six counties vote for parties for whom that is not a priority

The best thing that could happen to NI is for every union Jack and tricolour in the place to be burned

Your conclusion only leaves one loser though. Us as per standard. It reads of accept your lot northern nationalists, maybe this is not your intention.

[ardtole]

Does anyone else feel that there is a stronger power pushing for reunification, probably the EU with Boris silently backing it.

Im from the north, currently living and working in the south and to be honest, reunification of Ireland wouldnt meet the top 10 points of interest if there was an election. At the last election I barely remember it being mentioned.

In fact some comments particulary from fg politicians would indicate no interest at all in dealing with the north.

So why the sudden talk of reunifucation, what has brought it to front pages, current affair programs etc? Why the sudden interest from Jim O'Callaghan etc.

Previously it has been given lip service and kicked as far down the lane as possible.

From living down here, id honestly be 50/50 on whether the vote would pass in the 26. Its definitely not a priority for the majority of voters here.

[sid waddell]

Is there any actual possibility of discussion on how a potential new Ireland might look, or is that not possible without a frank honest discussion on the past?

The fantasy of a glorious "new" Ireland is based on the fantastical premise that Unionists will simply fall in and accept it

I dare say some Protestant Unionists had this same fantasy about Irish Catholics in the six counties

Some will accept it

Many will not

And thus the six counties are destined to always be afflicted with division and turmoil

Doesn't matter which jurisdiction they're under, they will always be afflicted because it's a classic territorial dispute where one section of the population believes it is an inherent state of nature for the territory which makes up the six counties to be part of one state

And another section of the population believes it is an inherent state of nature for the territory which makes up the six counties to be part of a different state

You can't square that, somebody has to lose

The only alternative is that people learn to forget about Irish nationalism and British nationalism and think about forging a society that works for all

The majority of voters in the six counties vote for parties for whom that is not a priority

The best thing that could happen to NI is for every union Jack and tricolour in the place to be burned

Your conclusion only leaves one loser though. Us as per standard. It reads of accept your lot northern nationalists, maybe this is not your intention.

When competing nationalisms divide a society everybody loses

What's your solution?

A functioning society is more important than fwegs