HOW WOULD YOU VOTE IN A BORDER POLL?

[Milltown Row2]

If a republican grouping goes back to killing because the loyalists are doing it then they'll have achieved what they want. Game over. No poll or no votes going towards it.

The thirst for killing is gone. You can blood and thunder all you want but committing crimes will be severely dealt with. Regardless of no RUC the ability to catch people is so much better. Up the prison sentences and lick them away for life. No parole.

Let's see how they'll square that

[armaghniac]

If a republican grouping goes back to killing because the loyalists are doing it then they'll have achieved what they want. Game over. No poll or no votes going towards it.

The thirst for killing is gone. You can blood and thunder all you want but committing crimes will be severely dealt with. Regardless of no RUC the ability to catch people is so much better. Up the prison sentences and lick them away for life. No parole.

Let's see how they'll square that

In a border poll situation they should send any loyalists to prison in England, so that they can be British, and any subsequent release should be based on staying in Britain.

[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]
Sid, mo chara buan, I've been neglecting you but , once in a while, I got to escape into the real world. I have no problems with what you are saying about the sequence of events. It's the importance attached to both Partition and the Oath of Allegiance that bothers me a bit. (To be perfectly honest, not too much either!)
Are you familiar with "The Making of Modern Ireland 1603-1923" by  the historian, JC Beckett, a Prod but an impartial one, IMO anyway.
I can't quote from an online account so I will keep excerpts  short and to the point.
PPS 458-459 are the ones I am referring to with a bit of help from 455.
(The plenipotentiaries have returned to face opposition from De Valera et al..)
"They denied that the delegates had any right to sign it, and accused them of having betrayed the republic; they rejected the notion of dominion status and, in particular, they rejected the Oath of Allegiance to the crown.
But they offered no better alternative." etc. etc.
My contention has been that Partition and the taking of the Oath split the warring factions from the off, as it were.
In fact Beckett does not refer, even once, to the oath of allegiance as he describes events leading up to the commencement of hostilities. In other words, the oath of allegiance was not the root cause of the civil war, according to Beckett.
Did the IRA abandon the North?
"But a powerful section of the anti-treaty party, unwilling to wait and distrustful of public opinion, saw in the renewal of the war with Britain the best chance of restoring unity and reviving the republican cause; "
I'd translate that to mean that the anti-treaty sites did reject partition, in part because it abandoned the Northern Catholics to their fate and were not prepared to allow this to happen.
What do you think?

[Lar Naparka]

If a republican grouping goes back to killing because the loyalists are doing it then they'll have achieved what they want. Game over. No poll or no votes going towards it.

The thirst for killing is gone. You can blood and thunder all you want but committing crimes will be severely dealt with. Regardless of no RUC the ability to catch people is so much better. Up the prison sentences and lick them away for life. No parole.

Let's see how they'll square that

In a border poll situation they should send any loyalists to prison in England, so that they can be British, and any subsequent release should be based on staying in Britain.

Shades of Frongoch 1916-1918..
Intern them and they will return heroes to their communities. They will return better organised and more determined to keep up the fight. Look what happened to the Volunteers after Easter 1916.

[armaghniac]

If a republican grouping goes back to killing because the loyalists are doing it then they'll have achieved what they want. Game over. No poll or no votes going towards it.

The thirst for killing is gone. You can blood and thunder all you want but committing crimes will be severely dealt with. Regardless of no RUC the ability to catch people is so much better. Up the prison sentences and lick them away for life. No parole.

Let's see how they'll square that

In a border poll situation they should send any loyalists to prison in England, so that they can be British, and any subsequent release should be based on staying in Britain.

Shades of Frongoch 1916-1918..
Intern them and they will return heroes to their communities. They will return better organised and more determined to keep up the fight. Look what happened to the Volunteers after Easter 1916.

There are many jails in England. Give them long sentences.

[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

Sid, mo chara buan, I've been neglecting you but , once in a while, I got to escape into the real world. I have no problems with what you are saying about the sequence of events. It's the importance attached to both Partition and the Oath of Allegiance that bothers me a bit. (To be perfectly honest, not too much either!)
Are you familiar with "The Making of Modern Ireland 1603-1923" by  the historian, JC Beckett, a Prod but an impartial one, IMO anyway.
I can't quote from an online account so I will keep excerpts  short and to the point.
PPS 458-459 are the ones I am referring to with a bit of help from 455.
(The plenipotentiaries have returned to face opposition from De Valera et al..)
"They denied that the delegates had any right to sign it, and accused them of having betrayed the republic; they rejected the notion of dominion status and, in particular, they rejected the Oath of Allegiance to the crown.
But they offered no better alternative." etc. etc.
My contention has been that Partition and the taking of the Oath split the warring factions from the off, as it were.
In fact Beckett does not refer, even once, to the oath of allegiance as he describes events leading up to the commencement of hostilities. In other words, the oath of allegiance was not the root cause of the civil war, according to Beckett.
Did the IRA abandon the North?
"But a powerful section of the anti-treaty party, unwilling to wait and distrustful of public opinion, saw in the renewal of the war with Britain the best chance of restoring unity and reviving the republican cause; "
I'd translate that to mean that the anti-treaty sites did reject partition, in part because it abandoned the Northern Catholics to their fate and were not prepared to allow this to happen.
What do you think?
[/quote]
What do I think?

I think it's perfectly possible to come up with any nonsense narrative to claim that partition was the cause of the Civil War and people do this sort of thing all the time

I mean people have tried to come up with narratives to say the US Civil War was not about slavery, they do this all the time actually

Partition did not cause the Civil War and that's the central fact you seem to struggle with

[sid waddell]

If a republican grouping goes back to killing because the loyalists are doing it then they'll have achieved what they want. Game over. No poll or no votes going towards it.

The thirst for killing is gone. You can blood and thunder all you want but committing crimes will be severely dealt with. Regardless of no RUC the ability to catch people is so much better. Up the prison sentences and lick them away for life. No parole.

Let's see how they'll square that

Locking people up will increase the desire of others in their community for violence

This goes for both Irish nationalist and British nationalist

It would act as a rallying call

Did internment teach you nothing

Did the H-Blocks teach you nothing

The only way you can stop this is to quell the crazy nationalist sentiments which lead to people getting locked up in the first place

Nationalisms are what lead to thirst for killing

[yellowcard]

If a republican grouping goes back to killing because the loyalists are doing it then they'll have achieved what they want. Game over. No poll or no votes going towards it.

The thirst for killing is gone. You can blood and thunder all you want but committing crimes will be severely dealt with. Regardless of no RUC the ability to catch people is so much better. Up the prison sentences and lick them away for life. No parole.

Let's see how they'll square that

Locking people up will increase the desire of others in their community for violence

This goes for both Irish nationalist and British nationalist

It would act as a rallying call

Did internment teach you nothing

Did the H-Blocks teach you nothing

The only way you can stop this is to quell the crazy nationalist sentiments which lead to people getting locked up in the first place

Nationalisms are what lead to thirst for killing

What is so crazy about a nationalistic outlook, it's a perfectly legitimate aspiration. Without it, empires would have flourished as imperialism took hold as bigger nations plundered and persecuted the native people. Or should the natives nod obediently say nothing and learn to serve their masters. The Irish state was founded on the same  'crazy nationalism' that seems to irk you. But yet you reckon it is the desire to break free from historical oppression and subservience that is the problem rather than the oppressors themselves, that is certainly an alternative outlook.       

[sid waddell]

If a republican grouping goes back to killing because the loyalists are doing it then they'll have achieved what they want. Game over. No poll or no votes going towards it.

The thirst for killing is gone. You can blood and thunder all you want but committing crimes will be severely dealt with. Regardless of no RUC the ability to catch people is so much better. Up the prison sentences and lick them away for life. No parole.

Let's see how they'll square that

Locking people up will increase the desire of others in their community for violence

This goes for both Irish nationalist and British nationalist

It would act as a rallying call

Did internment teach you nothing

Did the H-Blocks teach you nothing

The only way you can stop this is to quell the crazy nationalist sentiments which lead to people getting locked up in the first place

Nationalisms are what lead to thirst for killing

What is so crazy about a nationalistic outlook, it's a perfectly legitimate aspiration. Without it, empires would have flourished as imperialism took hold as bigger nations plundered and persecuted the native people. Or should the natives nod obediently say nothing and learn to serve their masters. The Irish state was founded on the same  'crazy nationalism' that seems to irk you. But yet you reckon it is the desire to break free from historical oppression and subservience that is the problem rather than the oppressors themselves, that is certainly an alternative outlook.       

Empires were all based on nationalism

Nationalism eats all before it

Nationalism and hatred of the other are indivisible

Nationalism taken to its logical conclusion leads to mass murder and genocide

Personally I think there's a decent case that every national flag in the world should be burned

I certainly think every Union Jack and Tricolour on this island and especially in NI should be burned

Flags in NI are used purely to antagonise the other and most of this board is made up of fleggers

[yellowcard]

If a republican grouping goes back to killing because the loyalists are doing it then they'll have achieved what they want. Game over. No poll or no votes going towards it.

The thirst for killing is gone. You can blood and thunder all you want but committing crimes will be severely dealt with. Regardless of no RUC the ability to catch people is so much better. Up the prison sentences and lick them away for life. No parole.

Let's see how they'll square that

Locking people up will increase the desire of others in their community for violence

This goes for both Irish nationalist and British nationalist

It would act as a rallying call

Did internment teach you nothing

Did the H-Blocks teach you nothing

The only way you can stop this is to quell the crazy nationalist sentiments which lead to people getting locked up in the first place

Nationalisms are what lead to thirst for killing

What is so crazy about a nationalistic outlook, it's a perfectly legitimate aspiration. Without it, empires would have flourished as imperialism took hold as bigger nations plundered and persecuted the native people. Or should the natives nod obediently say nothing and learn to serve their masters. The Irish state was founded on the same  'crazy nationalism' that seems to irk you. But yet you reckon it is the desire to break free from historical oppression and subservience that is the problem rather than the oppressors themselves, that is certainly an alternative outlook.       

Empires were all based on nationalism

Nationalism eats all before it

Nationalism and hatred of the other are indivisible

Nationalism taken to its logical conclusion leads to mass murder and genocide

Personally I think there's a decent case that every national flag in the world should be burned

I certainly think every Union Jack and Tricolour on this island and especially in NI should be burned

Flags in NI are used purely to antagonise the other and most of this board is made up of fleggers

Nationalism was bolstered and grew out of  those very empires. The problem was those empires themselves where the few attempted to impose their will and laws to rule over millions of natives often in far distant lands with entirely different cultures. Yet you perceive the problem as being those same nation states in wanting the right to self determination.

Do you think Ireland was correct to strike out for independence in the early 20th century then, since what was that only borne out of nationalism and a strike against a foreign ruler?

The issue of flags is a separate issue and I'm no great supporter of flags, they are most often used simply as a way of marking out territory. I don't get the obsession with them even if I can understand others living in interface areas and why they do it.   

[dublin7]

If as some insist you shove a united Ireland down the throat of the Unionists and like it or lump it then I've no doubt there will be a paramilitary response. I almost admire the naivety of the nationals who claim there won't be a republican response

[yellowcard]

If as some insist you shove a united Ireland down the throat of the Unionists and like it or lump it then I've no doubt there will be a paramilitary response. I almost admire the naivety of the nationals who claim there won't be a republican response

Your comments are very absolutist.

1) The vast majority do not want to 'shove it down Unionists throats'. That is why there needs to be a prolonged discussion about how a workable solution can be found. Even at this early stage of the discussion I haven't seen too many suggest that there will be this utopia of a 32 county socialist republic, there will be compromise needed on both sides
2) Despite your definitive claim that there will be a paramilitary response, you don't know what will happen. I suspect there would be resistance from within loyalism but that is no reason to thwart democracy. The loyalists are not the broader unionist community in the same way that the dissidents are not representative of wider nationalist sentiment. Apart from anything else I do not think they have either the wherewithal, the structures nor the intelligence needed to begin a paramilitary campaign.
3) Any possible retaliation would depend on the extent of the violence, who it was perpetrated against and how prolonged it became.
4) Lastly the most important point. Nationalists in the north have lived under British rule against their will (subserviently to a protestant ruling class for a large part of it's existence) for 100 years. What is the difference in that and 'ramming a UI down Unionists throat'? If a majority of people decide that they want a new UI arrangement should we kow-tow to Loyalist demands because the playground bully threatens to take up armalites and semtex? A border poll is going to happen at some point in the future anyway due to demographics and even the unionist politicians are beginning to face up to this reality.       

[Milltown Row2]

The ceasefire is well over 20 years, anyone involved back then is suffering with arthritis and hearing loss, the guns are gone and won't be coming back out, there is no backing from anyone to go back down that road, as for the loyalist there is no doubt that there will be a backlash but that will end. If its the will of the people through the poll it could work with little bloodshed.

To be a UI it may take a different path to get there, the devil is in the detail. A hand over period were the boys on the Hill still hold power, pass laws and run the government in the 6 counties, the UK slowly steps away and blending in period begins, life stays the same until the new generation grows up with life in a new country and there are no changes to their day to day.

Shoving down peoples throat is just not going to happen

[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

Sid, mo chara buan, I've been neglecting you but , once in a while, I got to escape into the real world. I have no problems with what you are saying about the sequence of events. It's the importance attached to both Partition and the Oath of Allegiance that bothers me a bit. (To be perfectly honest, not too much either!)
Are you familiar with "The Making of Modern Ireland 1603-1923" by  the historian, JC Beckett, a Prod but an impartial one, IMO anyway.
I can't quote from an online account so I will keep excerpts  short and to the point.
PPS 458-459 are the ones I am referring to with a bit of help from 455.
(The plenipotentiaries have returned to face opposition from De Valera et al..)
"They denied that the delegates had any right to sign it, and accused them of having betrayed the republic; they rejected the notion of dominion status and, in particular, they rejected the Oath of Allegiance to the crown.
But they offered no better alternative." etc. etc.
My contention has been that Partition and the taking of the Oath split the warring factions from the off, as it were.
In fact Beckett does not refer, even once, to the oath of allegiance as he describes events leading up to the commencement of hostilities. In other words, the oath of allegiance was not the root cause of the civil war, according to Beckett.
Did the IRA abandon the North?
"But a powerful section of the anti-treaty party, unwilling to wait and distrustful of public opinion, saw in the renewal of the war with Britain the best chance of restoring unity and reviving the republican cause; "
I'd translate that to mean that the anti-treaty sites did reject partition, in part because it abandoned the Northern Catholics to their fate and were not prepared to allow this to happen.
What do you think?

What do I think?

I think it's perfectly possible to come up with any nonsense narrative to claim that partition was the cause of the Civil War and people do this sort of thing all the time

I mean people have tried to come up with narratives to say the US Civil War was not about slavery, they do this all the time actually

Partition did not cause the Civil War and that's the central fact you seem to struggle with
[/quote]No sid you ain't got it right and not for the first time either, I may add.
My point is and was that the oath of allegiance did not cause the Civil War and there's a difference- as any normal individual would probably agree.
Dev's followers were keen to continue the conflict in the north but desisted as they feared they would not have has enough support. Added to this, Collins and Craig had reached a consensus- a modus operandi, as it were, so Dev and the Bolshies knew they had no chance of success.
To accept your thesis, I would have to disregard what J C Beckett and me oul' fella had to say and the Staters destroyed my grandfather's brick works so the dad had  vested interest in this war.
Beckett did not refer to the oath as he described the descent into Civil War. Nobody I know of suggested that a 26 county was ever a possibility either- until you cme along.
There's no point in throwing Lord Paul Bew or Diarmuid Ferriter at you either I fear.
I'm going to sign off- which  I promised I was going to do days ago. Everyone else is wrong
(Yeah, I know I'm a feckin' eejit.)

[Rossfan]

How about concentrating on the future in this thread?
If people want to rehash 100 years ago set up a separate one.
We may be able to shape the future but we certainly can NOT reshape the past.