Truth At Last

[Evil Genius]

It is one of the great ironies of Irish history that the very people who most desire Irish unity (i.e. militant Irish Republicans) are often the self-same people whose words and actions do most to prevent it ever coming about. I would have hoped that 30 years of the Troubles would have demonstrated to all but the bigot or the fool that just as 800,000 reluctant Nationalists were never going to be cowed into meekly accepting their place in a United Kingdom, then a million more Unionists are never going to accept being "taken over" by a United [sic] Ireland. 

Isn't it an awful shame that it took 30 years of warring to get Paisley to sit in an administration with, not just Taigs, but Republicans, where he couldn't even share a greeting with them before! Of course, being the genius??? that you so evidently are, this logic is total anathema to you, being as it is so soundly grounded in fact -- it is not rare that things have to get (sometimes much) worse, before they can ever improve. And the "800,000 reluctant Nationalists" may never have risen in resistance in the first place had they been treated with anything like the normal respect due to human peers. Moreover, more Unionists than you are obviously aware of are silently resigned to the eventuality of a reunited Ireland at some point, maybe not tomorrow, but in the not too distant future; and there's no equation between their situation and that of the six-county Nationalists, but I'll leave that for you to work out as an exercise in dialectics.

Sorry to puncture your neat, though vacuous, smug and trite little hypothesis.

The paragraph of mine which you quoted addressed the position of Republicans, directed specifically as it was at Lynchboy.

But you should not use that to try to guess my views on the position of Loyalism during the Troubles.

For the record, I have always believed that the bigoted and destructive antics of the likes of Paisley over 30 years or more was utterly deplorable, both for its offence towards, and effect on, his Catholic/Nationalist fellow Irishmen and for the self-defeating harm it did to the cause he purported to serve.

As for the position of Nationalists within NI, I don't blame them for having become alienated at the treatment so many of them received for so long at the hands of successive Unionist Governments at Stormont. That said, I cannot accept that this mistreatment ever justified the violent, terrorist reaction of a (small) section from within their ranks.

Still, may I thank you for putting me right on what Unionists really think; and no, it's not at all "vacuous", "smug" or "trite" of you to point these things out to me. 

[SuperMac]

" Now let me see, have I missed anyone from your list of "Traitors to the Republican Cause"? "

Yourself, ofcourse, I would have thought that one pretty obvious.  All those mentioned did nothing but utter empty empty platitudes regarding uniting the country. If you cann't see that, not going to bother trying to explain. They were just british puppets, it's called Neocolonialism.

Evil Genius again - " Seemingly everybody else, except:

Sinn Fein (though not enough to be worth a Vote?)
and
Republican Sinn Fein*

Still, what do the rest of us all know, anyhow? After all, it's not as if e.g. 95%+ of the population of Ireland ever voted in a Referendum to recognise the continued existence of partition, so long as a majority of people in Northern Ireland so wished, is it?  

* - Was it their sparkling Newspaper articles, their Principles, or the Heroic Blow for Liberation struck in Omagh which swung it for you?  


Wrong - 56% of voters voted in the referendum in the 26 co's, (of that 6% voted against it), 81% in the six counties ( of that 29% againist  ). Not the " 95%+ of the population of Ireland ever voted in a Referendum to recognise the continued existence of partition " as you stated.   

RSF had nothing to do with Omagh. It was the Real IRA linked to the 32 Co. Sovernity Movement. Try and get your facts right. Indeed the RUC and Ronnie Flanagan might know a lot more about Omagh than the RSF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bomb#Police_Ombudsman_Report

To quote Fear ón Srath Bán " Sorry to puncture your neat, though vacuous, smug and trite little hypothesis ".

[Pangurban]

Looking back at the disasterous, wasteful, unjustified years of the troubles, the question arises who was to blame. Part of my thesis would contend that a large part of the blame rests with the two main southern parties FF and FG.  Since the creation of the free state in 1922, both parties continued to pay lip service to the idea of a united Ireland. They included this aim in their respective constitutions, it was even included in the 1937 Constitution. Nationalists in the North continued too look south for support and comfort. But the reality was that this pretence amounted to nothing more than empty rhetoric, trundled out to keep the camp followers happy. Never once was any attempt made to devise a strategy towards realising there declared aim. Not one campaign was organised through their embassies to protest or highlight what they termed the injustice of partition. For all of those years the injustices perpretated against Northern Nationalists were totally ignored. Not one question was raised in the Dail or any International forum regarding same. While left wing British MPS were concerned enough to raise questions occasionally in Westminister, not one peep emanated from the National Parliament of the Oriechtas. As a new educated generation of Nationalists emerged in the North, so did the realisation that looking south for assistance or aid was futile. The emergence of the civil rights movement ,and the resultant turmoil, called for a response from Southern politicians when Nationalists came under siege in the Bogside and Derry. Jack Lynch proclaimed we can not stand idly bye, and then proceeded to stand idly bye, leaving a vaccum which was filled by the provisional I.R.A., and the resultant years of horror.. Throughout those years free state politicians indulged in public handwashing,deeming the problem to be a British one and for them to sort out. Britian fulfilled its proper role of defending the Unionand Unionists, the free state politicos turned their back on Nationalists and denied that they sought unification. A modicum of integrity throughout the years 1922 ---1960 could have prevented what happened. In all that time the only politician in the south who displayed any honour or integrity was Sean Lemass who at least attempted to engage in dialogue with Unionists and Nationalists. The other hypocrites were like the little boy dreaming of becoming a professional footballer but never actually playing football or participating in any activity which would help achieve his aim.

[SuperMac]

By and large I agree, "empty rhetoric, .....pay lip service" etc to a United Ireland since partition, and not just FF and FG, them all, Labour, Greens, the various disguises the stickies had. Sean McBride and Clann na Poblachta were about the only honest exception. In 1948 tried to raise international awareness and were to the forefront of the Anti Partition League. Don't know much about the Anti Partition League, just my parents mentioned it the odd time. Incidentally Robert McCartney's unionist co runner Conor 'booze'(Cruise) O'Brien was a memebr of it !!!!

But what gets me is that you TOTALLY ignore your fellow northerners whom many were just as complicit as any of the free state parties in accepting british occupation. What did they do, empty rhetoric and lip service. As I pointed out in my previous post, the stoops were the very first ones to accept british occupation and the unionist veto, back as early as 1973 I think ? What's your opinion on that ? I'm sure it'll be all the free staters fault no doubt.

Even when partition was first preposed, Joe Devlin the Belfast MP for the Redmondites, had no objections about it.  http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1914/03/laborpar.htm

And when it comes to empty rhetoric, who could beat Uncle Tom John Hume. No doubt about it......" It's not the island that's divided, it's the people, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind " etc I rememeber reading in the Big Issues magazine where he stated that he"didn't like to be referred to as a Nationalist politican " and explained it away as that he represents all the people of NI and understands the fears and traditions of the unionist community etc,etc,etc etc. And this bag of air was the leading 'Nationalist' politican of the "Nationalist" SDLP !!!!

So, why all the blame been thrown at us free state bastards when there was regretfully more than a few 'Nationalists' north of the border more than happy to accept partition. But it wasn't just Irish citizens that the great leaders down in the 'Republic' that they failed to protect, they even failed to protect the citizens in their own juristicion. How ? Something around 50 people were murdered in the 26 co's during the troubles - and not ONE arrest. The largest murder in the history of the state, the Dublin bombings in 1974, was wound down after just one month, despite the Guards and the Army making it very clear to the govt their strong suspisions. If they weren't prepared to protect people in their own juristicion want chance would the quislings do for people in the North.

Still I can understand anyone's frustrations with the electorate down here. I don't care whatevr anyone wants to say, but when you see them electing a swindler like Beverly Cooper Flynn and not a decent politican like Joe Higgins, what can you do with them 

[muppet]

but when you see them electing a swindler like Beverly Cooper Flynn

Mods I hope you have a good lawyer.

[deiseach]

Isn't it an awful shame that it took 30 years of warring to get Paisley to sit in an administration with, not just Taigs, but Republicans, where he couldn't even share a greeting with them before! Of course, being the genius??? that you so evidently are, this logic is total anathema to you, being as it is so soundly grounded in fact -- it is not rare that things have to get (sometimes much) worse, before they can ever improve. And the "800,000 reluctant Nationalists" may never have risen in resistance in the first place had they been treated with anything like the normal respect due to human peers. Moreover, more Unionists than you are obviously aware of are silently resigned to the eventuality of a reunited Ireland at some point, maybe not tomorrow, but in the not too distant future; and there's no equation between their situation and that of the six-county Nationalists, but I'll leave that for you to work out as an exercise in dialectics.

Sorry to puncture your neat, though vacuous, smug and trite little hypothesis.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist. And the greatest trick of politics in these islands was Unionism (aka the most virulent form of British nationalism) convincing the world that they could never be violent, even though there isn't a single strand of Unionist thought which does not reserve the right to use violence to prevent Northern Ireland becoming part of a united Ireland.

[Evil Genius]

Isn't it an awful shame that it took 30 years of warring to get Paisley to sit in an administration with, not just Taigs, but Republicans, where he couldn't even share a greeting with them before! Of course, being the genius??? that you so evidently are, this logic is total anathema to you, being as it is so soundly grounded in fact -- it is not rare that things have to get (sometimes much) worse, before they can ever improve. And the "800,000 reluctant Nationalists" may never have risen in resistance in the first place had they been treated with anything like the normal respect due to human peers. Moreover, more Unionists than you are obviously aware of are silently resigned to the eventuality of a reunited Ireland at some point, maybe not tomorrow, but in the not too distant future; and there's no equation between their situation and that of the six-county Nationalists, but I'll leave that for you to work out as an exercise in dialectics.

Sorry to puncture your neat, though vacuous, smug and trite little hypothesis.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist. And the greatest trick of politics in these islands was Unionism (aka the most virulent form of British nationalism) convincing the world that they could never be violent, even though there isn't a single strand of Unionist thought which does not reserve the right to use violence to prevent Northern Ireland becoming part of a united Ireland.

Although I can only speak for myself, here is one Irish Unionist who would consider it entirely wrong for his fellow Unionists to use violence in the event of a majority of the population of Northern Ireland voting for NI to become part of a united Ireland. I am pretty certain I am not alone, since the consent principle is the very basis of the Good Friday Agreement which a large majority of Unionists voted for.
Therefore, I feel you should withdraw your claim, based as it is on the bigoted premise that "they're all the same, themmuns" 


P.S. Your claim that Unionism, as espoused by millions of your fellow Irish people down the centuries, is the most "virulent form of British Nationalism" is pretty rich, even by your standards.
Considering British Nationalism was responsible for conquering and ruling a quarter world's population at one stage, in just about every corner of the Globe, with numerous associated atrocities and injustices, I hardly think events in Ireland deserve that particular epithet. Still, if you wish to continue to wallow in mopery...    

[deiseach]

Although I can only speak for myself, here is one Irish Unionist who would consider it entirely wrong for his fellow Unionists to use violence in the event of a majority of the population of Northern Ireland voting for NI to become part of a united Ireland. I am pretty certain I am not alone, since the consent principle is the very basis of the Good Friday Agreement which a large majority of Unionists voted for.
Therefore, I feel you should withdraw your claim, based as it is on the bigoted premise that "they're all the same, themmuns" 

Perhaps the Alliance Party can be classed as Unionist. But I can think of no other Unionist party which has not at some point resorted to the rhetoric of not an inch, espoused its willingness to fight to the last man, to defend Ulster against its enemies etc etc. I note you do not dispute this. So, apart from the aforementioned Alliance, I think it is fair to say that no party shys away from the nuclear option of taking up arms to prevent united Ireland.

P.S. Your claim that Unionism, as espoused by millions of your fellow Irish people down the centuries, is the most "virulent form of British Nationalism" is pretty rich, even by your standards.
Considering British Nationalism was responsible for conquering and ruling a quarter world's population at one stage, in just about every corner of the Globe, with numerous associated atrocities and injustices, I hardly think events in Ireland deserve that particular epithet. Still, if you wish to continue to wallow in mopery...    

I'd be interested to know what you think my standards are. But I don't see what's controversial about saying Ulster Unionism is British nationalism in its most extreme form. The current leader of Unionism, Dr Paisley, would have no problem with that description. As for the quarter of the globe blarney, I fail to see what relevance the actions of Robert Clive et al have to 21st century political thought. It'd be like the Shinners claiming they're not at the extreme of Irish Nationalist thought because Liam Lynch was further out there.

[Rossfan]

PConsidering British Nationalism was responsible for conquering and ruling a quarter world's population at one stage, in just about every corner of the Globe, with numerous associated atrocities and injustices.... [/quote]

atrocities and injustices thy got right after 500 years practising on us

[SammyG]

Perhaps the Alliance Party can be classed as Unionist. But I can think of no other Unionist party which has not at some point resorted to the rhetoric of not an inch, espoused its willingness to fight to the last man, to defend Ulster against its enemies etc etc. I note you do not dispute this. So, apart from the aforementioned Alliance, I think it is fair to say that no party shys away from the nuclear option of taking up arms to prevent united Ireland.

Not your usual style deiseach. 

I don't think any of the mainstream Unionist parties (even the 'old style' DUPes before Papa Doc has the labotomy) would 'take up arms' to prevent a United Ireland if the majority voted for one and I've never heard any of them say that they would.

[deiseach]

I don't think any of the mainstream Unionist parties (even the 'old style' DUPes before Papa Doc has the labotomy) would 'take up arms' to prevent a United Ireland if the majority voted for one and I've never heard any of them say that they would.

Even discounting the likelihood that Unionism would demand repartition, much as it did when faced with the majority of Irishmen supporting Home Rule (it's easy to have a majority when you determine whose opinion is to be canvassed) there was nothing stopping the government at Westminster voting NI out of the Union - Parliament, after all, is sovereign in the UK. Knowing this, Unionism has always reserved the right to take up arms to prevent such a corrupt parliamentary bargain. They would, in my opinion, be justified in taking such an action. But let's not pretend that such a nucelar option does not exist at the heart of Unionism.

[Evil Genius]

I don't think any of the mainstream Unionist parties (even the 'old style' DUPes before Papa Doc has the labotomy) would 'take up arms' to prevent a United Ireland if the majority voted for one and I've never heard any of them say that they would.

Even discounting the likelihood that Unionism would demand repartition, much as it did when faced with the majority of Irishmen supporting Home Rule (it's easy to have a majority when you determine whose opinion is to be canvassed) there was nothing stopping the government at Westminster voting NI out of the Union - Parliament, after all, is sovereign in the UK. Knowing this, Unionism has always reserved the right to take up arms to prevent such a corrupt parliamentary bargain. They would, in my opinion, be justified in taking such an action. But let's not pretend that such a nucelar option does not exist at the heart of Unionism.

Alarmist nonsense - at least to anyone who has ever discussed the issue with Unionists.

The facts are quite simple.
Forty years ago, Paisley was able to whip up angry mobs to protest against a simple meeting between Terence O'Neill (NI P.M.) and Sean Lemass.
Thirty years ago, the UDA alone was able to mobilise almost 100,000 members on the streets of NI to protest about Sunningdale.
Twenty Years ago, Loyalist Paramilitarists were uniting under a combined "command", whilst Paisley was mobilising his infamous "Third Force", to oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
As recently as ten years ago, Unionism was split between those who accepted the GFA and those who opposed it (though the former were a clear majority).
Throughout those years, various "Loyalist" terrorists of all types mounted daily attacks on innocent Catholics/Nationalist etc.

Yet look at the situation today. The paramilities are a spent force - drug-dealing and extortion aside - with neglible political support. Paisley is happily shaking hands with Bertie, whilst sitting down to work SF, or having tea with the Catholic Primate of Armagh. Every single Unionist party has signed up to the St. Andrews' Agreement. Meanwhile, the British Army has been withdrawn, the UDR disbanded, the police reformed and re-named, Republican prisoners have been freed etc - all with little or no effective or concerted protest from Unionists of any strand.

By no reasonable interpretation could those immense changes be said to denote a demand on the part of present-day Unionism to be able to resist by force any democratically-agreed change to the constitution of NI.

Oh and by the way, it has always been within the gift of Westminster to end the Union of NI with GB by simple Act of Parliament. What has changed, however, is that such an eventuality has never been less likely at any time* in the 86 years existence of NI than it is today; after all, that was what the GFA was all about.


* - In 1940, Churchill seriously proposed to De Valera that NI be handed to the Free State, in return for GB access to the Treaty Ports, and overflying rights etc. The irony is, that although De Valera declined, Sir James Craig (NI P.M. at the time) acknowledged that if that was the price to be paid for resisting Hitler, then he would acquiesce. Bloody Unionists, eh? All the Bloody same...

[SuperMac]

* - In 1940, Churchill seriously proposed to De Valera that NI be handed to the Free State, in return for GB access to the Treaty Ports, and overflying rights etc. The irony is, that although De Valera declined, Sir James Craig (NI P.M. at the time) acknowledged that if that was the price to be paid for resisting Hitler, then he would acquiesce. Bloody Unionists, eh? All the Bloody same...

Are you joking or what ? " seriously proposed to De Valera ". Christ you've got to be a unionist to beleive that. Yeah, he promised Cyprus the same, Cyprus joined in WW1 AND WW2 and guess what - the brits went back on it as soon as the war was over. Also promised Gandhi he would give India full indepence if he supported WW2, Gandhi wisely refused. Home Rule was also promised before WW1 and look what happened there. Don't expect us to fall for that one  , I mean we are dealing with the british sense of fairplay 


deiseach "  Unionism has always reserved the right to take up arms to prevent such a corrupt parliamentary bargain. They would, in my opinion, be justified in taking such an action " - Are you serious ?

[Evil Genius]

* - In 1940, Churchill seriously proposed to De Valera that NI be handed to the Free State, in return for GB access to the Treaty Ports, and overflying rights etc. The irony is, that although De Valera declined, Sir James Craig (NI P.M. at the time) acknowledged that if that was the price to be paid for resisting Hitler, then he would acquiesce. Bloody Unionists, eh? All the Bloody same...

Are you joking or what ? " seriously proposed to De Valera ". Christ you've got to be a unionist to beleive that. Yeah, he promised Cyprus the same, Cyprus joined in WW1 AND WW2 and guess what - the brits went back on it as soon as the war was over. Also promised Gandhi he would give India full indepence if he supported WW2, Gandhi wisely refused. Home Rule was also promised before WW1 and look what happened there. Don't expect us to fall for that one  , I mean we are dealing with the british sense of fairplay 

Serious historians, both in Britain and Ireland, today accept that Churchill's offer was a sincere one. De Valera refused partly because he wasn't sure about the bona fides, partly because he wasn't sure he could sell it in the country and partly because he feared that if Britain did fall to the Nazis, the Free State would be screwed for having collaborated with the Brits.
The analogy with e.g Cyprus or India was an entirely false one since in both cases they were already part of the Empire, with British troops stationed in them i.e. the offer of independence was an encouragement to the natives to enlist, since Conscription would never have worked, or to prevent a rebellion and switch to the enemy.
By contrast, the Free State had Dominion status (i.e. semi-independence), as well as something to offer (the vital ports) in return for Churchill's offer of NI.
As for the promise of Irish Home Rule, that was made (not by Churchill, btw) to Redmond, in return for the support of the Irish Volunteers in WW1. Which was fair enough, except that the Easter Rebels rose in 1916 at the very time when Britian was in most peril in the war with Germany. This preceived act of treachery (whether you consider it such or not), combined with the massive vote for Sinn Fein in 1918 (consequent to the execution of the Rebels), entirely changed the basis of relations between Britain and Ireland from that which had existed in 1914 and before.

Consider also the character of Churchill, himself. Though an out and out Imperialist, he never had the great attachment to Irish Unionism of his father Randolph (who coined the phrase "Ulster Will Fight and Ulster Will Be Right", I think). Indeed, on one occasion Winston had to abandon a public address in Belfast during the Home Rule Crisis, since the RIC couldn't guarantee his safety - from a Unionist crowd.
Not only that, but Churchill had an almost pathological hatred of Nazism, combined with a fierce pragmatism which would cause him to do whatever it took to prevail.
For example, at the same time as he was making his offer to Dev, he also flew several times to France at enormous personal risk, to bolster the (pre-Vichy) French Government. In particular, he was desperately concerned that the French would give in and the huge French Naval Fleet* in the Med would fall into German hands. Had that occurred, the War might well have been lost, since Britain needed to keep the French fleet out of German hands as much as it wanted the Irish deep-water ports for the Royal Navy (to keep Britain fed and supplied from N.America).
In the end, Churchill was so desperate that his final offer was to form an Anglo-French Union, with French citizens all having full British Citizenship (and vice-versa), with a single Government, if necessary. However, the French military caved in and Reynaud (the French PM) couldn't swing it. Make no mistake, this proposal would have meant the end of the UK as a single, independent sovereign nation and Churchill knew it better than anyone.

Therefore, anyone who knows anything about the man knows that his offer to Dev will have been an entirely serious one. Which is why there is no doubt that Dev blew the best (only?) chance of a United Ireland during the whole of the 20th Century. Shame. 

Still, if you want to go on believing the tired old myths of Irish Nationalism, in the face of clear historical evidence to the contrary, carry on. I hope it gives you a nice warm feeling...


* - When the France finally fell to the Nazis and Churchill didn't trust the French Naval commanders either to sail to British ports, or scuttle before the German/Vichy Government took over, Churchill personally ordered to Royal Navy to sink them, their hitherto allies, with massive loss of life:
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/churchillsinkingfrenchfleet.php

[Canalman]

Won't ever be a UI I fear. Too many Castle Catholics up the north who imo would baulk at voting in favour of UI.