HOW WOULD YOU VOTE IN A BORDER POLL?

[sid waddell]

You say "no one has said invade the North", yet it's the inescapable logic of the "youse left us behind" narrative, that the Free State/Republic should have invaded the North, or at minimum acted like the US did as regards the Contras in Nicaragua

The Free State and later the Republic of Ireland had zero power to do anything in the North, they didn't control it

The only thing they could do was to exercise soft power, and for about six decades they had precisely none of that

A 32 county Republic could not happen because the majority of the people in the north east not just did not want it, but were bitterly hostile to it

Facts on the ground are very difficult to change

[Milltown Row2]

You say "no one has said invade the North", yet it's the inescapable logic of the "youse left us behind" narrative, that the Free State/Republic should have invaded the North, or at minimum acted like the US did as regards the Contras in Nicaragua

The Free State and later the Republic of Ireland had zero power to do anything in the North, they didn't control it

The only thing they could do was to exercise soft power, and for about six decades they had precisely none of that

A 32 county Republic could not happen because the majority of the people in the north east not just did not want it, but were bitterly hostile to it

Facts on the ground are very difficult to change

You couldn't have invaded San Marino never mind the north ffs!

That's why you didn't bother, quietly closed the gate and moved on.

Rubbed your hands and that was that.

It's ok, the north could have just rolled over and during the 30's and 40's that's what happened, but there were some campaigns that failed during the 50's to eventually it got us to the 60's when equality became the focus worldwide, the troubles then moved it to a different level and was prolonged well past the point of return.

During that whole time after partition there was nothing from the South.

[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
[/quote]
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.

[Rossfan]

Is the proposed "Border poll" about rehashing 1919 to 1923 or about the future?

[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.
[/quote]
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

[sid waddell]

Is the proposed "Border poll" about rehashing 1919 to 1923 or about the future?

The people who are most concerned about a border poll are those who are most concerned with the past - an imagined past

This is the problem

[Angelo]

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

Sidney was right about a lot of things.

Sid Waddell just turned into an Eoghan Harris parody.

[sid waddell]

You say "no one has said invade the North", yet it's the inescapable logic of the "youse left us behind" narrative, that the Free State/Republic should have invaded the North, or at minimum acted like the US did as regards the Contras in Nicaragua

The Free State and later the Republic of Ireland had zero power to do anything in the North, they didn't control it

The only thing they could do was to exercise soft power, and for about six decades they had precisely none of that

A 32 county Republic could not happen because the majority of the people in the north east not just did not want it, but were bitterly hostile to it

Facts on the ground are very difficult to change

You couldn't have invaded San Marino never mind the north ffs!

That's why you didn't bother, quietly closed the gate and moved on.

Rubbed your hands and that was that.

It's ok, the north could have just rolled over and during the 30's and 40's that's what happened, but there were some campaigns that failed during the 50's to eventually it got us to the 60's when equality became the focus worldwide, the troubles then moved it to a different level and was prolonged well past the point of return.

During that whole time after partition there was nothing from the South.

I'm not sure exactly what you expected the South to do about the plight of northern Catholics

The fact is that northern Catholics lived in a region of this island in which the majority of the population were fervent Unionists who were prepared to go to war to maintain British rule in that region, and once partition happened, exercise their power to make Catholics second class citizens

It was a shitty situation but the South had basically no power to prevent it

[bennydorano]

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'.

[armaghniac]

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'.

The Serbs in Kosovo probably feel even harder done by.

[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"

[Milltown Row2]

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

[charlieTully]

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

[Tubberman]

Well the forward-looking approach of shaping the New Ireland didn't last long....

[Rossfan]

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