Margaret Thatcher....

[LCohen]

Yet another 'typo'. Pull out before you exceed your own bullshit LCohen.

I should pay more attention to my spelling when posting.

And you are quite right. Typo = bullshit = factual innacuracy.

Or could it be, Pedantry = diversionary tactic = inability to challenge the content and put forward a credible alternative.

[LCohen]

A majority of people in the NW of the Island (at the time of partition and today) wanted to remian in the UK. Honouring the views of the mahority is the modus operandi of a democracy. I am not exactly in a corner when defending that viewpoint.

Yes you are, you're very much in the minority, unless of course you engage in your seemingly favourite pastime of carving up territory to create majorities out of minorities (also presuming that you mean the NE of Ireland, again!). That's not democracy, that's a charter for political dystopia, which we've had in spades since the original iniquitous partition of this island.

Tell me more about what you would have expected Britain to do in 1922 and the run up to partition? Did you expect them to ingore the unionist majority in defined geographic area? How would this have played out internationally?

How would it play out today?

Is is ever going to happen (i.e pull out when a majority in favour of the union exists?

Are those who think it is going to happen deluding themselves?

Were those who thought it in the past doing anything other than deluding themselves?

Where the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a withdrawal? Tell me how that would have have played out internationally?

When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI?

And finally - which acts of violence/murder were worth it?

[lynchbhoy]

well they ignored the majority opinion on the entire isand.
the only reason why they retained them (or one of hem) was to get a tranche of votes for the house of common that would be appreciative for this and vote en bloc for them in the house of commons (did work for a while ).

the rest of your ponts are null and void as the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification.
After a while it was thought that reunification would cut to the chase and get rid of all the violence and persecution etc.
The reason for the peace now is that the aim of equality/eradication persecution and the apartheirdesque rule was achieved.

Reunification will come at a later date , mostly when the world economy improves. Lets face it allpeople, especially the unionists/loyalist (and nationalists/working class/middle class) in the north will jump at the chance of better jobs/more money - the precedent was the celtic tiger where all the age old unionist/loyalist principles were rapidly abandoned as they headed south for better jobs and money.
A lot still here (from both sides).

It will happen, and people like yourself will be welcomed and accomodated. But you prob know this already.

[LCohen]

The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union.  Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not.  Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.

The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.

The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.

Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.

Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.

I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?

[Nally Stand]

Did you expect them to ingore the unionist majority in defined geographic area?

Partition was the ignoring of a majority in a defined geographic area.

And finally - which acts of violence/murder were worth it?

You tell us. Britain's state forces started it.

[Eamonnca1]

The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union.  Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not.  Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.

The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.

The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.

Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.

Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.

I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?

I'll take that as a retraction of your previous contention that Ireland has never been ruled as a single entity.

You seem to be a little hung up on whether it was ruled from within or without as a single entity, but that's neither here nor there. Even if what you say is true and that Ireland was only united under British rule (which is debatable at best) it doesn't change the fact that it was governed as a single entity with its own identity.

Gerrymandering a new territory with no prior tradition of nationhood in the interests of promoting a self-entitled minority to the status of a "majority" is not democracy. It's caving in to the unreasonable demands of a people with some ideas above their station.

[LCohen]

well they ignored the majority opinion on the entire isand.
the only reason why they retained them (or one of hem) was to get a tranche of votes for the house of common that would be appreciative for this and vote en bloc for them in the house of commons (did work for a while ).

the rest of your ponts are null and void as the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification.
After a while it was thought that reunification would cut to the chase and get rid of all the violence and persecution etc.
The reason for the peace now is that the aim of equality/eradication persecution and the apartheirdesque rule was achieved.

Reunification will come at a later date , mostly when the world economy improves. Lets face it allpeople, especially the unionists/loyalist (and nationalists/working class/middle class) in the north will jump at the chance of better jobs/more money - the precedent was the celtic tiger where all the age old unionist/loyalist principles were rapidly abandoned as they headed south for better jobs and money.
A lot still here (from both sides).

It will happen, and people like yourself will be welcomed and accomodated. But you prob know this already.

Its quite correct to point out that pre-partition that the majority opinion was ignored. Its also the case that majority opinions were being ignored all over britain at the time due to the restrictive voting franchise.

You claim that "the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification." All those claimimg that their friends, family, loved ones and comrades died in the name of Irish unification were not only failures (as the unification was not achieved) but they themseves are liars. Your claims are alos highly questionable given that:
a) less that 3% of the people killed by republicans were loyalist parmilitaries.
b) Innocent non-combatants were targeted and murdered
c) Gardai were targeted and murdered.
d) Fellow repubican combatants were target and murdered.

Categories b), c) & d) were murdered in your view to stop oppression by loyalsits/unionists? Surely that is nonsense?

Also the very idea that the way to stop unionist/loyalist violence was to commit murders/acts of violence and intensify the culture of hatred, mistrust, fear and emnity is interesting. Can you point me in the direction of the peer reviewed works that detail and endores this strategy?

A united Ireland might well happen - but only when a majority in the 2 jurisdictions want it. Not before and not through violence. There will be those that resist it and that will have to be managed.

I have no issue with a United Ireland that is democratically approved. If current/recent polls are to be trusted (and they have their limitations) I can't see it being achieved anytime soon.

[LCohen]

Did you expect them to ingore the unionist majority in defined geographic area?

Partition was the ignoring of a majority in a defined geographic area.

And finally - which acts of violence/murder were worth it?

You tell us. Britain's state forces started it.

Interesting that you picked that first point out of a wider post but don't answer any of the questions asked in the post. Absolutely no inferences will be drawn from that or the frequent failure of posters to answer questions on this thread.

You do see that there was a clear majority in one part of the isalnd at odds with the majority view on the overall isalnd. I think you are kidding yourself if that position could have been ignored.

I'm not really in the business of defending violence. Others have attempted to. Iask them for specifics - they fall silent. Again no inferences are being drawn.

[Nally Stand]

Did you expect them to ingore the unionist majority in defined geographic area?

Partition was the ignoring of a majority in a defined geographic area.

And finally - which acts of violence/murder were worth it?

You tell us. Britain's state forces started it.

Interesting that you picked that first point out of a wider post but don't answer any of the questions asked in the post. Absolutely no inferences will be drawn from that or the frequent failure of posters to answer questions on this thread.

You do see that there was a clear majority in one part of the isalnd at odds with the majority view on the overall isalnd. I think you are kidding yourself if that position could have been ignored.

I'm not really in the business of defending violence. Others have attempted to. Iask them for specifics - they fall silent. Again no inferences are being drawn.

Remarkably disinterested about the concept of majorities for someone who likes to lecture others on democracy! And I am not actually suggesting you are defending violence. Though you do seem over keen to criticise it from just one side in particular.

[lynchbhoy]

well they ignored the majority opinion on the entire isand.
the only reason why they retained them (or one of hem) was to get a tranche of votes for the house of common that would be appreciative for this and vote en bloc for them in the house of commons (did work for a while ).

the rest of your ponts are null and void as the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification.
After a while it was thought that reunification would cut to the chase and get rid of all the violence and persecution etc.
The reason for the peace now is that the aim of equality/eradication persecution and the apartheirdesque rule was achieved.

Reunification will come at a later date , mostly when the world economy improves. Lets face it allpeople, especially the unionists/loyalist (and nationalists/working class/middle class) in the north will jump at the chance of better jobs/more money - the precedent was the celtic tiger where all the age old unionist/loyalist principles were rapidly abandoned as they headed south for better jobs and money.
A lot still here (from both sides).

It will happen, and people like yourself will be welcomed and accomodated. But you prob know this already.

Its quite correct to point out that pre-partition that the majority opinion was ignored. Its also the case that majority opinions were being ignored all over britain at the time due to the restrictive voting franchise.

You claim that "the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification." All those claimimg that their friends, family, loved ones and comrades died in the name of Irish unification were not only failures (as the unification was not achieved) but they themseves are liars. Your claims are alos highly questionable given that:
a) less that 3% of the people killed by republicans were loyalist parmilitaries.
b) Innocent non-combatants were targeted and murdered
c) Gardai were targeted and murdered.
d) Fellow repubican combatants were target and murdered.

Categories b), c) & d) were murdered in your view to stop oppression by loyalsits/unionists? Surely that is nonsense?

Also the very idea that the way to stop unionist/loyalist violence was to commit murders/acts of violence and intensify the culture of hatred, mistrust, fear and emnity is interesting. Can you point me in the direction of the peer reviewed works that detail and endores this strategy?

A united Ireland might well happen - but only when a majority in the 2 jurisdictions want it. Not before and not through violence. There will be those that resist it and that will have to be managed.

I have no issue with a United Ireland that is democratically approved. If current/recent polls are to be trusted (and they have their limitations) I can't see it being achieved anytime soon.

have to say that your arguments on this are fanfful if not ridiculous.

your whole reasoning now on the undemocratic carve up is because the british government were undemocratic elsewhere n other (completely unrelated) things !!!
come on !! thats juvenle in the extreme.

as for youre points a, b c d - if they occurred, these were incidents as opposed to systematic targeting.
next.

as for the next point- there is no thinking behind retaliation or defending yourself.
If people were ot under oppression or persecution, then they could think and wouldnt need violent retaliation.

Thats all that everyone is saying now- reunification through democracy (though not your skewed nn democratic ideals!!)
The violence is gone because reunification was not sought by this method - only equality and an end to oppressession and persecution.
It no longer exists now, so it looks like that worked.

Dont know when reunification will happen, as I say it will be down to economy, england pulling its civil service jobs back for its citizens and a deal being done to the IRish Gov to take the six counties back.
The economy surrounding this will be harder for southern electorate to vote for it than the northern electorate !


looks like you havent done your research if you still dont realise that Ireland has ben governed as a single entity aside from english before cromwell !
That will be quite amusing in a few years time- the north voting for reunification and the south deadlocked or deliberating on it !

[LCohen]

The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union.  Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not.  Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.

The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.

The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.

Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.

Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.

I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?

I'll take that as a retraction of your previous contention that Ireland has never been ruled as a single entity.

You seem to be a little hung up on whether it was ruled from within or without as a single entity, but that's neither here nor there. Even if what you say is true and that Ireland was only united under British rule (which is debatable at best) it doesn't change the fact that it was governed as a single entity with its own identity.

Gerrymandering a new territory with no prior tradition of nationhood in the interests of promoting a self-entitled minority to the status of a "majority" is not democracy. It's caving in to the unreasonable demands of a people with some ideas above their station.

I have pointed out before that I asumed that the nationalist argument was founded on the basis that Ireland had been united by someone other than England/Britain.

The fact that it was not united beforehand removes the absolute imperiative that Britain had to view it entirely as one entity when considering (partial) withdrawal especially when they considered the demographics in the north. Again I ask you to what where Britain to do? How would their ignoring of a vocal majority in the north have been received internationally?

Those who believ that Britain could have fully withdrawn from the island of Ireland then (or in the absence of a majority now or in the future) are deluding themselves.

[LCohen]

Did you expect them to ingore the unionist majority in defined geographic area?

Partition was the ignoring of a majority in a defined geographic area.

And finally - which acts of violence/murder were worth it?

You tell us. Britain's state forces started it.

Interesting that you picked that first point out of a wider post but don't answer any of the questions asked in the post. Absolutely no inferences will be drawn from that or the frequent failure of posters to answer questions on this thread.

You do see that there was a clear majority in one part of the isalnd at odds with the majority view on the overall isalnd. I think you are kidding yourself if that position could have been ignored.

I'm not really in the business of defending violence. Others have attempted to. Iask them for specifics - they fall silent. Again no inferences are being drawn.

Remarkably disinterested about the concept of majorities for someone who likes to lecture others on democracy! And I am not actually suggesting you are defending violence. Though you do seem over keen to criticise it from just one side in particular.

If someone was on here defending/excusing loyalist violence I would be equally vehement in my critique. My track record is clear and defensible. Those who fall silent when asked for specifics can't make that claim.

Yes you seem dis-interest in the majority view in the 6 counties.

[Oraisteach]

LC, you have "no issue with a United Ireland that is democratically approved," except, of course,  that one that was democratically approved just before the creation of that other carved-out chunk of land whose majority opinion you seem to esteem so highly.  You're good at the game "Twister," I bet.

[lynchbhoy]

The Brits seemed to think of Ireland as a single country with a distinctive identity, every bit as distinctive as Scotland or England. They governed it as a single entity right up until the Act of Union.  Even your crowd thought of it as a single entity. The Church of Ireland, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, all are all-Ireland institutions. When Queen Victoria visited Belfast you had the place bedecked in banners welcoming HM to "Ireland" (Northern Ireland hadn't been invented yet, there was no word of a "national" identity for Ulster, it was always a regional identity), and you had banners saying "Erin go Bragh" and what not.  Just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis.

The use of "you" and "your" is interesting.

The sporting reference is intriguing. I think you are quite right in organising international boundaries based on the views of sporting orgaisations.

Is it correct that "just about every sport other than soccer is governed on an all-Ireland basis"? So many of those that still have players playing for NI and or UK in international games.

Whoever said that there was a national identity in Ulster (at a 9 or the eroneous 6 county level) or Northern Ireland? Neither are countries.

I don't deny that Britain ruled Ireland on an all-island basis. I do deny that the Irish ever did?

I'll take that as a retraction of your previous contention that Ireland has never been ruled as a single entity.

You seem to be a little hung up on whether it was ruled from within or without as a single entity, but that's neither here nor there. Even if what you say is true and that Ireland was only united under British rule (which is debatable at best) it doesn't change the fact that it was governed as a single entity with its own identity.

Gerrymandering a new territory with no prior tradition of nationhood in the interests of promoting a self-entitled minority to the status of a "majority" is not democracy. It's caving in to the unreasonable demands of a people with some ideas above their station.

I have pointed out before that I asumed that the nationalist argument was founded on the basis that Ireland had been united by someone other than England/Britain.

The fact that it was not united beforehand removes the absolute imperiative that Britain had to view it entirely as one entity when considering (partial) withdrawal especially when they considered the demographics in the north. Again I ask you to what where Britain to do? How would their ignoring of a vocal majority in the north have been received internationally?

Those who believ that Britain could have fully withdrawn from the island of Ireland then (or in the absence of a majority now or in the future) are deluding themselves.

entirely incorrect I'm afraid.

even then, it is no reason to ignore the wishes of the majority.

any other excuse is just justifying your delusion to yourself.

will we have local councils or Tyrone, Derry and Fermanagh voting whether we have reunification?
As the current six counties is not fully goverened by the six counties and the people in it are not all pleased with the undemocratic methods of the past !
ya cant have it both ways !

[LCohen]

well they ignored the majority opinion on the entire isand.
the only reason why they retained them (or one of hem) was to get a tranche of votes for the house of common that would be appreciative for this and vote en bloc for them in the house of commons (did work for a while ).

the rest of your ponts are null and void as the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification.
After a while it was thought that reunification would cut to the chase and get rid of all the violence and persecution etc.
The reason for the peace now is that the aim of equality/eradication persecution and the apartheirdesque rule was achieved.

Reunification will come at a later date , mostly when the world economy improves. Lets face it allpeople, especially the unionists/loyalist (and nationalists/working class/middle class) in the north will jump at the chance of better jobs/more money - the precedent was the celtic tiger where all the age old unionist/loyalist principles were rapidly abandoned as they headed south for better jobs and money.
A lot still here (from both sides).

It will happen, and people like yourself will be welcomed and accomodated. But you prob know this already.

Its quite correct to point out that pre-partition that the majority opinion was ignored. Its also the case that majority opinions were being ignored all over britain at the time due to the restrictive voting franchise.

You claim that "the retaliation towards the unionst/loyalist violence were in self defence and not to achieve reunification." All those claimimg that their friends, family, loved ones and comrades died in the name of Irish unification were not only failures (as the unification was not achieved) but they themseves are liars. Your claims are alos highly questionable given that:
a) less that 3% of the people killed by republicans were loyalist parmilitaries.
b) Innocent non-combatants were targeted and murdered
c) Gardai were targeted and murdered.
d) Fellow repubican combatants were target and murdered.

Categories b), c) & d) were murdered in your view to stop oppression by loyalsits/unionists? Surely that is nonsense?

Also the very idea that the way to stop unionist/loyalist violence was to commit murders/acts of violence and intensify the culture of hatred, mistrust, fear and emnity is interesting. Can you point me in the direction of the peer reviewed works that detail and endores this strategy?

A united Ireland might well happen - but only when a majority in the 2 jurisdictions want it. Not before and not through violence. There will be those that resist it and that will have to be managed.

I have no issue with a United Ireland that is democratically approved. If current/recent polls are to be trusted (and they have their limitations) I can't see it being achieved anytime soon.

have to say that your arguments on this are fanfful if not ridiculous.

your whole reasoning now on the undemocratic carve up is because the british government were undemocratic elsewhere n other (completely unrelated) things !!!
come on !! thats juvenle in the extreme.

as for youre points a, b c d - if they occurred, these were incidents as opposed to systematic targeting.
next.

as for the next point- there is no thinking behind retaliation or defending yourself.
If people were ot under oppression or persecution, then they could think and wouldnt need violent retaliation.

Thats all that everyone is saying now- reunification through democracy (though not your skewed nn democratic ideals!!)
The violence is gone because reunification was not sought by this method - only equality and an end to oppressession and persecution.
It no longer exists now, so it looks like that worked.

Dont know when reunification will happen, as I say it will be down to economy, england pulling its civil service jobs back for its citizens and a deal being done to the IRish Gov to take the six counties back.
The economy surrounding this will be harder for southern electorate to vote for it than the northern electorate !


looks like you havent done your research if you still dont realise that Ireland has ben governed as a single entity aside from english before cromwell !
That will be quite amusing in a few years time- the north voting for reunification and the south deadlocked or deliberating on it !

A little typo there - but I read on.

I did point out the nature of British (and generally western) democracy in the early 20s but is hardly te wholw basis of my argument. The majority positions were clear in the absence of a vote. Having a vote would not have changed this but having a vote was impossible given the nature of democracy at the time.

If they occured?? How could phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? Because the targeting was so broad brush are the acts more justifable? Your thoughts please.

Your views on the thought processes prior to commital of an act of violence are illuminating.