Messages

Spot on.  England didn't unite as anything resembling a country in the modern sense until about 1485, so by Lcohen's yardstick it would seem that England can't have any claim to being a "real" nation either.

As Brendan Behan so memorably put it: We (Irish) were "a proud and intelligent people, who had a language, a literature, when the barbarian woad-painted Briton was first learning to walk upright." 

As much as I love Behan and his comrades in drink (in my case specifically Kavanagh) quotations from literature are no basis for the foundation of a country or re-writing international law or boundaries.

No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.

So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?

It was assumed that you were putting forward the thesis that Ireland had been ruled as a single entity from within (as opposed to under British/Englsh rule).

Why would you assume that? The Irish Parliament sat from medieval times right up to 1800. The Kingdom of Ireland existed from 1542 up to 1800. 

Never governed as a single entity?

Now if you're talking about the Lordship of Ireland that came before the Kingdom of Ireland, maybe then you might have a point, since its influence ebbed and flowed and didn't cover the entire island, but if you're suggesting that Ireland has never ever been governed as a single entity then you're talking through your hat.

Why assume that?? Fantastic point. If your line of argument is that Ireland is a united state because Britain united it then I feel you may incur the considerable wrath of the irish republican movement.

Again I ask -  when was Ireland ruled as a stable single entity from within Ireland?

Lynchboy is directing us to the era of the High Kings. I'm not sure either of his examples could claim control over all of the island of ireland.

I'm not Lynchboy.

I do understand that. All post are anotated in this respect. An earlier poster had made a related post. I answered both points in a single post. I name checked Lynchboy to illustrate this point and assumed fellow readers had the intellect to work that one out. Assumptions are fraught with difficulty in this respect.

No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.

So what was the Irish Parliament then? And why were orange elements so vehemently opposed to its abolition by the Act of Union?

It was assumed that you were putting forward the thesis that Ireland had been ruled as a single entity from within (as opposed to under British/Englsh rule).

Lynchboy is directing us to the era of the High Kings. I'm not sure either of his examples could claim control over all of the island of ireland.

[a majority of the people in the 6 counties voting for it (and presumably a similar vote in the republic]

I am against A united Ireland. I just agianst any of the guff that is spouted about it being achieved in any circumstance other than a majority of the people in the 6 counties voting for it (and presumably a similar vote in the republic) or that violence/murder can be justified in persuit of it (as it will need a democratic vote). Anybody who thinks these are unreasonable views needs urgent help.

Whatever about the past ( about which we can do nothing other than acknowledge facts no matter how unpalatable to us) - that is what we've now agreed under the G F Agreement.

Which founds the National question in democracy - where it should have been all along

No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.

So what part of Ireland wasn't under the jurisdiction of those Viceroys/Lords Lieutenants that the Brits used to send over to live in what's now Aras an Uachtatáin between 1801 and 1921/2 ?
1172 or thereabouts England's King Henry appointed himself " Lord of Ireland".
sometime in the 1500's England and Wales's King Henry 8th appointed himself " King of Ireland".
After 1603 the English ( or their colonists/lackeys) ran IRELAND as a separate single entity.
Until the Act of Union in 1800/1801 They always referred to the "Kingdom of Ireland".
What part of Ireland did they leave out??
I suggest Cohen you learn some real history - not some blinkered bit of unionistic make believe.

Agian apologies but I assumed your point was that Ireland had been united under something other than English/British rule

it was a single country prior to cromwellian forces. various kings ruled and at times areas (must be careful not to use the word states) were often ruled by lesser lords or kings.
go read.

Have read a little on the subject matter over the years. Pre-British rule which person/body ruled all of the island?

No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.

So what part of Ireland wasn't under the jurisdiction of those Viceroys/Lords Lieutenants that the Brits used to send over to live in what's now Aras an Uachtatáin between 1801 and 1921/2 ?
1172 or thereabouts England's King Henry appointed himself " Lord of Ireland".
sometime in the 1500's England and Wales's King Henry 8th appointed himself " King of Ireland".
After 1603 the English ( or their colonists/lackeys) ran IRELAND as a separate single entity.
Until the Act of Union in 1800/1801 They always referred to the "Kingdom of Ireland".
What part of Ireland did they leave out??
I suggest Cohen you learn some real history - not some blinkered bit of unionistic make believe.

Agian apologies but I assumed your point was that Ireland had been united under something other than English/British rule

I am not against A united Ireland. I am just against any of the guff that is spouted about it being achieved in any circumstance other than a majority of the people in the 6 counties voting for it (and presumably a similar vote in the republic) or that violence/murder can be justified in persuit of it (as it will need a democratic vote). Anybody who thinks these are unreasonable views needs urgent help.

Sorry, Lcohen, I've somehow overlooked your answer to this:

Just before the passage of the Act of Union, was Ireland being governed as a single entity or was it not?

Care to repeat it?

Apologies Eamonnca1, An oversight on my behalf (though there some other unanswered question you should address your attention to - in the interests of fairness).

No - Ireland was never rules as a single entity.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Have I denied protestant misrule?

Have I attempted to justify misrule/discrimination?

If so, point out the references.

I have asked you lot to identify the murders by the IRA that were justified. Not one single reply. Yous are struggling with that one seemingly. Very hard to take you seriously.

You justify the unionist/loyalist 'right' to carve up territory, however small, wherein they constitute a 'majority', however construed and constructed, at every turn. Yet, not once, not one measly time, have you defended the right of the natives to protect their polity. (And you've also ignored those posts hereon for which you have no answer.)

You're a fairly nasty piece of work in my book.

Presumably if there was a vote in France and Spain on Catalan independence and a majority of Catalan's voted for indepence but that majority was not carried in wither Spain, France or both you would deny the democratic voice of the Catalans?

To run away from the question admitting the north was I democratically founded, and reply with a request for a fit for tat justification of all the killing done by IRA against the killing and persecution and generations of lives ruined by unionist/loyalist killer gangs/ruc/British army/b specials/ colluding unionist & political parties and their killing squads.

Some might say that none of the deaths were justified.
Others might say that they were all justified as retaliation especially when the ultimate goals of peace and equality have been realized.

It doesn't matter what is said as your blinkered outlook won't deviate from the unionist/loyalist party line!

How have I ran away from the question about the foundation of NI. A majority of people in the 6 counties wanted to stay in UK. They stayed. The will of majority obviously impacted on the minority. Thats democracy.

Retaliation cannot be a justification for murder. What good does it do?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Have I denied protestant misrule?

Have I attempted to justify misrule/discrimination?

If so, point out the references.

I have asked you lot to identify the murders by the IRA that were justified. Not one single reply. Yous are struggling with that one seemingly. Very hard to take you seriously.

Running away from nothing - a majority wanted to stay in the union and they got it. Democracy

As yes Fear ón Srath Bán you should always ignore any contary opinion that contains a typo. Its how one demonstrates maturity and illustratse the integrity of one's argument.

Nally Stand's claims on population movement seem crazed and demented. Others have a good job in exposing that (see above)

Eamonnca1's claim on the governance of Ireland as a single unit are simply not true. He correctly points out that the parliament sat from 1297 until 1800 but he fails to recognise that it not rule Ireland and made little attempt to rule it as a single entity. He makes no mention of the Celtic kings, the brehon law or the english control of the Irish Parliament for most of this time and their use of it as a means of standardisng taxation. Something they failed to do because of the existance of the Celtic Kings and the brehon laws. Ireland definitively was not ruled as a single entity in this period, certainly not from within Ireland. My original point stands.

Rossfan might well be frustrated with the drawing of the border. There was always going to be frustration. My original point was around IRA terror. You will at least accept that the nuances of the border could never justify murder?

Splitting counties was an option. How seriously was it pushed by pro-treatyites/nationalists?

Seafoid's contention that a 6 county state is automatically gerrymandering is nonsense. As pointed out already there has never been a united Ireland and its not obvious that decisions have to me made on unitary all-ireland basis. Its never happened before. It also worth pointing out that there was a pro-union marjority in a 9 county Ulster. If it was a gerrymandered land-grab they could have taken all 9.

Of course there was no 6 county entity mention in earlier Irish history. The creation of NI did not seek its legitimacy in lore or history but in the democratic will of the majority.

Lynchboy makes the same mistake of just presuming that democracy only works on an All-ireland basis.

A majority in the 6 counties wanted to remain in UK. They remained in the UK. I call that democracy.

How any of this justify IRA murders I do not know. Republicans murdered over 2000 people post '69. Which deaths achieved the IRA's stated goals?

This is and what the loyalist/unionist problem has been from the outset. A real ostrich perspective of sticking theirs heads in the sand and willingly/knowingly ignoring reality and truth.

It is not democracy to cherry pick a selected section of an overall region where voting follows a certain way and exclude it from the overall vote.

I think lcohen is on the wum here as no one in the modern era could be as Neanderthally closed minded to believe that the gerrymandering annexing of the six counties was democratic.

I'd like to see how he/she can substantiate this , maybe with examples of this being legally done elsewhere - while not the same, we all know the continuing problems that the creation of the Israeli country has caused!

So if lcohen and loyalists/unionists believe in this method of democracy, we need only to stage the referendum for reunification of Ireland in counties Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh- the result will determine whether we reunify or not. The other three counties will have to abide by this result.

I can't see why loyalists/unionists would object to this, as it is conforming to their precedent and application of democracy!

A mojority in the 6 counties want to say in UK. Its hardly head in sand stuff to accpet this fairly fundamental fact. This reality is being ignored by many posters but not I.

Do any of you think ther will ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south?

You are still making th mistake that the only constitutency was the entire land mass. I and international law don't accept that. I don't think there will be Scotish independence this time around but it a majority of Scots vote for it I think they should have it and the votes of others on the same land mass should be ignored.

I like your concept that some who was born into a nationalist background in a republican area who challenges what they hear for over 40 years are in fact  "Neanderthally closed minded".

I am happy for a referendum to take place and the border to be re-drawn Republicans reject the latter part of that and therefore would not abide by the reult.

I can't see why loyalists/unionists would object to this, as it is conforming to their precedent and application of democracy!
[/quote]

'The idea that partition was anti-democratic is absurd'.

So, if Derry wished to secede from the Union, along with Fermanagh and South Tyrone, then it would be fine?

I'm not against the border changing to reflect democratic will.

I'm not against counties being split.

SF want a single vote at a 6 county level - all or nothing. They are not going to win that any time soon and are not going to go for any further re-drawing of the border.

The options of democrary, protest (e.g. the civil rights movement) and exposé (embarass the mis-rule internationally) were the obvious routes to go.

I think Burntollet Bridge and Bloody Sunday tick both those boxes. Funny enough, they didn't spark a revival in fortunes for the Catholic population. Any other suggestions?

2. The IRA of the trouble's era came into existence due the failure of political leadership in the Catholic/nationalist community. They filled tat gap with their poison. As a young boy the knock my door and the doors in my street trying to get lads involved in murder. I still regard that as child abuse.

Right!!! So the IRA came about due to a failure of political leadership among Catholics?!! What with the lack of voting rights for Catholics for so long and the gerrymandering of borders, you might have to remind me which of the Catholic political leaders caused the re-emergence of the IRA? Probably just a coincidence that it came about around the same time as 200 Catholic homes were burnt to the ground in this oh so democratic haven of yours.

3. Warrington happened. It was real. It was terrible. How did it advance the rights of Catholic or the unification of Ireland? Whether it typifies the IRA campaign is irrelvant unless you are are arguing that some IRA bombers were heroes and some were murderers.

Again, you present it in an attempt to present the IRA campaign as just being full of 'Warringtons'. Which is just dishonest, sensationalist bull.

Where peaceful protest does not work you seemingly argue it should cease. I assume you contend the IRA's campaign of violence and murder was successful from the off and throughout. A bizarre contention.

The fact that you can't address the Warrington issue head on is telling. Very.