Margaret Thatcher....

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Until around the time of Henry 8th most Kings in most countries were kind of overlords of a crowd of semi independent local chiefs/barons/dukes/Taoisigh or what ever.
The Ard Rí was supposed to be in charge of All Ireland but only as a kind of distant Supervisor.
The Ard Ríthe were from present day Co Roscommon usually ( well of course they would) and were in charge till around the 11th Century when Brian Bóramha seized power and all Hell broke loose from there on.
The last Ard Rí of All Ireland was Ruairi Ó Concúbhair ( from Ros of course) as afterwards the the English King was "Lord of Ireland" so the title faded away.

The Ard Ri could be compared to the Holy Roman Emperor, LCohen do you deny the Holy Roman Empire existed.

[Eamonnca1]

Holy Roman Empire? They had no national health service, no national insurance, no national railway network, and no national department of education. Wasn't a country.

[seafoid]

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.

That never ruled as a single entity is from the Israeli hasbara playbook and meaningless.

[lynchbhoy]

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.

I checked afterwards and couldn't even find reference to diarmuid mcmorrough!
Don't know where I got that one from.

However there have been single high kings -elected and by annexing - that have presided over the individual kingdoms, so yes from earliest times ( though undocumented) until medieval to
Ed and up until Cromwell there was a singly governed Ireland.
There were pockets of broken rule  in this though.
Check it out.

Then you will have something else to dodge questions on !

[LCohen]

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.

[LCohen]

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.

[LCohen]

Until around the time of Henry 8th most Kings in most countries were kind of overlords of a crowd of semi independent local chiefs/barons/dukes/Taoisigh or what ever.
The Ard Rí was supposed to be in charge of All Ireland but only as a kind of distant Supervisor.
The Ard Ríthe were from present day Co Roscommon usually ( well of course they would) and were in charge till around the 11th Century when Brian Bóramha seized power and all Hell broke loose from there on.
The last Ard Rí of All Ireland was Ruairi Ó Concúbhair ( from Ros of course) as afterwards the the English King was "Lord of Ireland" so the title faded away.

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.

But England and Britain have been ruled as stable united single entities from within in the period since.

[LCohen]

Until around the time of Henry 8th most Kings in most countries were kind of overlords of a crowd of semi independent local chiefs/barons/dukes/Taoisigh or what ever.
The Ard Rí was supposed to be in charge of All Ireland but only as a kind of distant Supervisor.
The Ard Ríthe were from present day Co Roscommon usually ( well of course they would) and were in charge till around the 11th Century when Brian Bóramha seized power and all Hell broke loose from there on.
The last Ard Rí of All Ireland was Ruairi Ó Concúbhair ( from Ros of course) as afterwards the the English King was "Lord of Ireland" so the title faded away.

The Ard Ri could be compared to the Holy Roman Emperor, LCohen do you deny the Holy Roman Empire existed.

I don't deny that either the Ard Rí or Holy Roman Empire existed,

I do deny that the Ard Rí ruled the island of Ireland as a stable, united single entity

[Eamonnca1]

Just so we're clear, you're conceding the point that Ireland has been governed as a single entity (even if it was under British rule at the time)?

[LCohen]

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.

That never ruled as a single entity is from the Israeli hasbara playbook and meaningless.

That is ofcourse nonsense. I would suggest that my views on Israel are little different than your own.

The fact remains that many posters above have implied that that there is an obvious single entity of ireland and that all democratic decisions should be judged on this single basis. The absence of any single example of any instance of the island being ruled as a stable single entity belies this.

[LCohen]

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.

I checked afterwards and couldn't even find reference to diarmuid mcmorrough!
Don't know where I got that one from.

However there have been single high kings -elected and by annexing - that have presided over the individual kingdoms, so yes from earliest times ( though undocumented) until medieval to
Ed and up until Cromwell there was a singly governed Ireland.
There were pockets of broken rule  in this though.
Check it out.

Then you will have something else to dodge questions on !

I could argue that Ireland was ruled by frogs in an undocumented era. Where is your evidence of these undocumented facts??

I have not dodged questions. If you are on the look out for dodged questions look out for the ones I have asked (and yes documented!!)

[LCohen]

Just so we're clear, you're conceding the point that Ireland has been governed as a single entity (even if it was under British rule at the time)?

Never denied that. It hardly the basis of a nationalistic agenda though.

Surely you are not arguing that because Bridtain (mis)ruled the whole of Ireland that it is a sngle entity on that basis and that any decision on the constitutional position of the land mass should be based on a single constituency even if there was clear evidence of polar majority positions on different parts of the land mass.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

I do deny that the Ard Rí ruled the island of Ireland as a stable, united single entity

I'll repeat what I've said before on this thread, and which you have studiously ignored:

• Ireland was a unitary state prior to the Norman invasion of 1169, not a very unified unitary state, but a homogeneous state in geographical, cultural, and traditional terms nonetheless. And judged by contemporary political entities, there was no state that was more unified in the world at that particular time (none of this disingenuous nonsense of comparing Ireland in the first millenium with political norms in the third).
• The 6 Counties were drawn up on a purely crude sectarian headcount basis (predicated on the threat or (copious) use of 'loyalist' violence, which is OK with you it seems) -- Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan would have been included, if the border bigots weren't fearful for their 'majority in perpetuity'. And nationalist Fermanagh and Tyrone were included in their carve-up since they thought their majority in the other 4 counties would always outweigh the nationalist preponderance therein; though they were wrong, as it's demographically dawning on them now.
• Should that eventuality come to pass, where the unionists are outvoted in the 6 Counties, and as looks very likely demographically now, they [some unionists] have indicated they won't accept that expression of wish of the new 'majority', and will either fight to resist or agitate to have the lines of partition redrawn -- you'll find no problem with that perspective either I assume?
  

You realise that you've been demolished here at every turn, what little credibility you might have had on the subject has vanished like the pretensions of a majoritarian unionist to 'democracy' when faced with the prospect of actually being in the democratic minority!

Tell me too, how the self-avowedly Irish Unionists of 1921 suddenly became British Unionists in 1922? What piece of magical transmogrification was involved in that particular piece of the intrigue?

[LCohen]

a good tester to thrash this one out.

There is no indication that a majority in the 6 counties will vote for a United Ireland at moment. We all have our view on whether/when this will change. All reasonable people must accept that the numbers could change and that the border must change in that scenario. There are certainly unreasonable people within Unionism/Loyalism who don't accept that.

There remains a possibility that a poll on the issue returns a majority in the 6 counties wishing to remain within the Union but a very clear majority wishing to join the Republic of Ireland in certain areas, contiguous with the existing border (some of which will be whole counties and some will not).

Would the people in those areas wish to join the Republic as is (reducing the size of NI and also the chance of there being a Nationalist majority in any further poll in the residual NI)?

Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border for those very reasons?

If they don't could it be argue that that stance is anti-democratic (i.e frustrating the voice of democracy in pursuit of a wider political goal)?

A big issue for SF if they puch for an early referendum (shich they seem intent on doing)

[LCohen]

The failure of Catholic/Nationalist leadership was to not sustain the peaceful campaign and allowing the provos to put themselves forward as an alternative.

The majority of Catholic/Nationalists supported the peaceful campaign throughout the Troubles. This was true even in the six counties. This was despite the fact they never received as much as a crumb from the table of Unionism, whether in Northern Ireland or Westminster. In the face of such intransigence and the state-sponsored violence (please note 'violence' didn't just involve killing people, it included living in constant fear of the police who are supposed to be the first line of defence against criminality), it was a staggering tribute to the political skills of the likes of John Hume and Seamus Mallon that so few followed the alternative.

I have known Seamus almost my entire life. I consider him the outstanding political figure of this island during my life time. I only wish he had achieved greater influence within the wider catholic populace in the 70s and 80s. He won in the end though bt too many had died.