On the twenty-eighth day of November....

[Farrandeelin]

Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

so is Britain's occupation of Ireland.

How?

Cos I said so!

[lynchbhoy]

Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

so is Britain's occupation of Ireland.

How?

Cos I said so!

I didnt hear simon saying it ?

[Evil Genius]

And it is currently part of the Union precisely because a majority of the people who live here want it to be so, as recognised by over 90% of the people of this island, North and South, Unionist and Nationalist (theGFA, in case you'd forgotten).

In case I'd forgotten?? No need to be a smart arse EG.
Also, 90% of people on this island voted for the GFA, many of whom saw it as the best way to eventually achieve a United Ireland.
90% of people did not WANT it to be part of the Union, there really werent many other options given.

Whether they liked it or not, 90% of the people of Ireland voted for a settlement which recognises that NI is a part of the UK and shall remain so as long as a majority of the people of NI will it so. That's the way it is and unless or until some significant part of that changes drastically, that is the starting point from which we must proceed - not 1968, 1947, 1921, 1916, 1912, 1845, 1801, 1798, 1741, 1690, 1607, 1170 or any other date which you or I might choose to pluck from history.

"Some would argue" - and some would be wrong, since there is no place for "whataboutery" or irrelevance in my thesis. Try again.

Try what again? And what the hell is that statement even meant to mean?

I made my thesis clear. You replied by saying "some would argue" (something different). I don't care if they do, it's just irritating when you gratuitously introduce such irrelevanices into the argument to avoid addressing my point.

I never said that the present day problems which fall to be resolved by our present day politicians are "black and white".

I never said you did 

When someone finishes his reply to another poster with the observation that "things aren't black and white", the only logical inference to be drawn is that he is accusing the other of taking a black and white view of things. To reiterate my point, it is precisely because I don't consider (Irish) history to be black and white that causes me to argue that history should not be allowed to define our present day attempts to run our own affairs.

But they will be a hell of a sight less (intractably) grey if we stop harping on about grievances from the past which weren't even suffered by us. Or haven't we all got enough grievances from the here-and-now to be going on with? 

We need to be very clear about the difference between "harping on" and remembering the past.
Its crucial that we remember whats gone before at this stage, lest we make the same mistakes again.
This means remembering right back to the arrival of the British in Ireland. I'm not saying this should be the only thing taken into account by any means, but history cannot be forgotten and must always be taken into account.

Politicians and Soldiers in Ireland have been "remembering the past" ever since there has been a "past" - and a fat lot of good it has done any of us, since we have continued to "make the same mistakes again" throughout pretty much all that period!

And precisely why should we remember "right back to the arrival of the British in Ireland"? What on earth relevance has an invitation by the King of Leinster (McMorrough) to an Anglo-Welsh Norman of Scandinavian descent (Strongbow) in 1170 to help him out with a quarrel with the King of Connaught (O'Connor) got to do with anything nearly a Millenium later? If we are to take that as a starting point for our deliberations to find a settlement to the problems of Ireland today, then all those who would advocate that it should be a united Ireland are just about fucked, since Ireland was self-evidently anything but united in those days! (Besides,how exactly does anyone under the age of 850 "remember" such events? )

Ultimately, whilst we should all be informed of our History, the moment our History starts to inform us is the moment when History should be consigned to the bin.

[Evil Genius]

I think you'll find that no representatives of "the Provisional republican movement" signed the GFA nor was were the articles within officially endorsed by "the Provisional republican movement". What happened was that SF suggested to the rest of the "the Provisional republican movement" that, for now, it presented the best way forward toward their common goals. So, you are incorrect in your assertion that members of the republican movement have accepted the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland statlet or it's position in the UK.

I now begin to understand why Paisley demanded a photograph, if that's the sort of thing your Masters in Connolly House teach you to say when out on your paper round...

[his holiness nb]

Christ I made one simple comment which made perfect sense and get dragged into this 
I get the feeling if I just posted to say "you are great EG" you would try to prove me wrong. 

Whether they liked it or not, 90% of the people of Ireland voted for a settlement which recognises that NI is a part of the UK and shall remain so as long as a majority of the people of NI will it so. That's the way it is and unless or until some significant part of that changes drastically, that is the starting point from which we must proceed - not 1968, 1947, 1921, 1916, 1912, 1845, 1801, 1798, 1741, 1690, 1607, 1170 or any other date which you or I might choose to pluck from history.

Correct, did I say otherwise?

Good to see "want" is changed to "whether they liked it or not" now. Thats a bit more like it. And a bit more honest.

I made my thesis clear. You replied by saying "some would argue" (something different). I don't care if they do, it's just irritating when you gratuitously introduce such irrelevanices into the argument to avoid addressing my point.

You made the point that the land belongs to the people who live in it. I didnt argue with this, but pointed out that some people out there think otherwise.
Hardly "gratuitously introducing irrelevancies into the argument" 

When someone finishes his reply to another poster with the observation that "things aren't black and white", the only logical inference to be drawn is that he is accusing the other of taking a black and white view of things. To reiterate my point, it is precisely because I don't consider (Irish) history to be black and white that causes me to argue that history should not be allowed to define our present day attempts to run our own affairs.

Jesus christ EG, the only logical conclusion to me saying "things arent black and white" is that I am accusing you of thinking otherwise?
Honest to god EG, its a figure of speech, every comment isnt a dig at yourself 

Politicians and Soldiers in Ireland have been "remembering the past" ever since there has been a "past" - and a fat lot of good it has done any of us, since we have continued to "make the same mistakes again" throughout pretty much all that period!

EG, a fat lot of good its done us? Well pardon my curiousity but dont we have a ceasefire, paramililitary groups hanging up their boots, Paisley and McGuinness pulling the mickey off each other in stormont?
You would think the IRA and the Brits were still shooting at each other they way you said that 

And precisely why should we remember "right back to the arrival of the British in Ireland"? What on earth relevance has an invitation by the King of Leinster (McMorrough) to an Anglo-Welsh Norman of Scandinavian descent (Strongbow) in 1170 to help him out with a quarrel with the King of Connaught (O'Connor) got to do with anything nearly a Millenium later? If we are to take that as a starting point for our deliberations to find a settlement to the problems of Ireland today, then all those who would advocate that it should be a united Ireland are just about fucked, since Ireland was self-evidently anything but united in those days! (Besides,how exactly does anyone under the age of 850 "remember" such events? )

Do you twist the fries for McDonalds? I didnt once say we should use it as a starting point for deliberations to find a settlement today. Merely that we should "remember".
Surely its at worst no harm, or at best helpful to know and discuss the full history of ones land? Especially our political representatives who are trying to make new history for it?? 

EG, I made a simple point about your view today not being surprising. It wasnt in a sneery or nasty way,I just made the point that your view was understandable given your political alliances.
And yet we still get this long drawn out waffle where I have been accused of saying you personally should be held responsible for your ancestors actions and that the events of 1170 should be the starting point for current negotiations, among other things.
I havent said any of this and am dissapointed that you twisted things to suggest this. Your better than that 

[Donagh]

I now begin to understand why Paisley demanded a photograph, if that's the sort of thing your Masters in Connolly House teach you to say when out on your paper round...

I got my Masters from Queen's not Connolly House where no doubt there are some masters working for their Masters but I doubt any of them are really Masters.

[pintsofguinness]

 
A unionist who wants to forget the last 800 years and start history from the GFA - there's a surprise.  Unionists being ashamed of their history is really nothing new. 
Eg thinks democracy is when an empire holds a gun to a small nation's head and says vote they way we want or else so it's hardly surprising when he goes on about a referendum that never give people a chance to vote for an united Ireland.

[Rossfan]

The choice was for or against the Good Friday Agreement.
Most people voted for because what was the alternative to the framework it proposed? - more of the same oul crap as had been put up with since 1921 ?
It's not perfect but at least 95% of people can live with it - and it does NOT maintain a Unionist veto - to do so it would require a majority of UNIONISTS to agree to a change in NEI's status.
In fact it needs only 10% of Unionists to see sense to do so.
In practice there will be a gradual evolution of a new Ireland which will probably end up as a Confederation of some sort with an All Ireland Authority having control over some things and the 6 and 26 Cos having "internal control" of a load of other things. The 6 Cos will also retain some kind of formal connection to Britain.

[Evil Genius]

A unionist who wants to forget the last 800 years and start history from the GFA - there's a surprise.

As opposed to a Nationalist who would prefer to forget about the GFA and start politics 800 years ago - no surprise there, then...

Unionists being ashamed of their history is really nothing new. 

Not in the least bit ashamed, in fact, I'd back my knowledge of, and interest in, the history of Ireland against most posters on this Board. It's just that I don't believe in being bound by people who cannot be held accountable for their words and deed since they are long dead. Much more sensible, imo, to try and strike a deal with the person across the table. You know, the one who's got the advantage of breath in his body...

Eg thinks democracy is when an empire holds a gun to a small nation's head and says vote they way we want or else so it's hardly surprising when he goes on about a referendum that never give people a chance to vote for an united Ireland.

No, I think you'll find that in the post to which you referred, I used the term "politics", not democracy. Now as it happens, I think that the 1921 settlement was justified on political grounds, whereas you no doubt would say it was not justified, since it was not "democratic". But that is where my central thesis comes in to resolve this conundrum i.e. it simply needn't matter which line one takes over those events; much better (imo) to seek a settlement to the problems of today by seeking the contribution of the players of today - and holding them accountable to it!

As for a referendum on a United Ireland, I say bring it on! 

[Evil Genius]

The choice was for or against the Good Friday Agreement.
Most people voted for because what was the alternative to the framework it proposed? - more of the same oul crap as had been put up with since 1921 ?

If you think that the alternative of Direct Rule, which was applied from Westminster in the 1990's, was "the same oul crap as had been put up with since 1921", then you clearly know very little about either period. Much more likely (imo) that people voted for the GFA as an alternative to the carnage and mayhem which had plagued us all for the previous 30 years of The Troubles.

It's not perfect but at least 95% of people can live with it - and it does NOT maintain a Unionist veto - to do so it would require a majority of UNIONISTS to agree to a change in NEI's status.
In fact it needs only 10% of Unionists to see sense to do so.

Agree that it's not perfect, but still remain happy enough to be one of the 95% who can live with it. Can even live with the fact that it does not, as you say, maintain a Unionist veto. Instead, I am quite satisfied with the guarantee that NI's position within the UK will not change unless or until a majority of the people of NI will it so. As for the 10% of Unionists required to "see sense", i can also live with that, since there is an equally likely chance of 10% of the Nationalist population of NI "seeing sense" (imo), thereby making NI's position even stronger. But as I say, I'm quite prepared to wait and see - especially since no-one can now come along and thwart this on the basis of some old Declaration proclaimed by a bunch of long-dead fanatics in the GPO in Dublin in 1916!

In practice there will be a gradual evolution of a new Ireland which will probably end up as a Confederation of some sort with an All Ireland Authority having control over some things and the 6 and 26 Cos having "internal control" of a load of other things. The 6 Cos will also retain some kind of formal connection to Britain.

If that's what a majority of the people of NI wants, then that's what we shall all have. And I must say, while it would never be my first choice, it's a hell of a sight more palatable than the "United [sic] Ireland that Gerry and Martin & Co spent 30 years trying to bomb and shoot us all into, to no avail, but at a cost of thousands dead or maimed...

[his holiness nb]

Jesus christ 

[scalder]

The GFA was framed as "vote for peace" and under this view to oppose it was then to vote for war, it was set out as though these were the only 2 options open. However there were other options and I don't think a return to war was on the cards. A unionist veto on Irish unity still exists today when a minority can decide the extent of the sovereignty of the country. Its bizarre that the for over 100 years now politicians have asked Irish people various questions, do they want Home Rule, do they want the Treaty, do they want the Good Friday Agreement. We've not been asked as a whole if we want Independence and Unity, so forget the past, forget the border and let the people on the island as a whole decide.

[pintsofguinness]

How would there ever be peace or harmony in the North with the likes of EG?

[Main Street]

Pints, did you ever get flogged under article 5 of the SPA ?


SPECIAL POWERS ACT
In April 1963, the South African Minister of Justice, now the Prime Minister,
introduced a new Coercion Bill by saying that he 'vould be willing to exchange
all the legislation of that sort for one clause of the Northern Ireland Special Powers
Act. "
This Act, which has been continuously in operation since 1922, empowers the
authorities to:
(1) Arrest without warrant.
(2) Imprison without charge or trial and deny recourse to habeus corpus or a
court of law.
(3) Enter and search homes without warrant, and with force, at any hour of
day or night.
(4) Declare a curfew and prohibit meetings, assemblies (including fairs and
markets) and processions.
(5) Permit punishment by flogging.
(6) Deny claim to a trial by jury.
(7)Arrest persons it is desired to examine as witnesses, forcibly detain them
and compel them to answer questions, under penalties, even if answers may
incriminate them. Such a person is guilty of an offence if he refuses to be
sworn or answcr a question.

(8)Do any act involving interference with the rights of private property.
Prevent access of relatives or legal advisers to a person imprisoned without
trial.
(9) Prohibit the holding of an inquest after a prisoner's death.
(10) Arrest a person who 'by word of mouth' spreads false reports or makes
false statements.
(II)

(12) Prohibit the circulation of any newspaper.
(13) Prohibit the possession of any fiim or gramophonc record.
(14) Arrest a person who does anything ''calculated to be prejudicial to the
preservation of peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland and not
specifically provided for in the regulations."
(15) The Act allows the Minister of Home Affairs to create new crimes by Government
Decree, e.g., he recently made it a crime to name a club a ''Republican
Club."

[pintsofguinness]

No, why?