Mary-Lou "United Ireland is within touching distance"

[Sister Sara]

I don't get your point. The risk was mostly of espionage.

Yes, like I said, suspicion and paranoia....at factory working Catholics trying to make a living to bring home the bread and butter, just exactly as working class Protestant people were trying to make a living and bring home for their families.

You have to ask yourself - who instilled this paranoia in ordinary working people? In whose interest was it to divide the working class of Catholic and Protestant?
You only have to look at the system of governance and power that prevailed at the time, supported wholly by the British government - Lord Brookeborough (again).

 

[Sister Sara]

By the time the GFA came around most if not all the grievances of the Nationalist had been addressed.

No they had not. As you said yourself, NI was under direct-rule from London.

i.e.- citizens of NI had next to zero say in how their province was to be governed.

Politicians without a single vote would decide.

Mostly Tory, and Unionist leaning. So when RUC and B-Specials violence erupted on the civil rights movement at the behest of the Unionist Party ("its a front for the IRA") the British response was not to chastise those in authority but to re-enforce the Unionist domination by bringing in the British Army and direct-rule. Then internment, curfews, torture programs, slaughter in Ballymurphy, Derry, criminalistion, shoot-to-kill, collusion, cover-ups, etc, against the Nationalist/Republican/Catholic community.
And lets face it, the RUC enjoyed next to zero confidence from the Nationalist community until eventually Unionists and the British government faced the reality of police reform through all-party negotiations.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

at factory working Catholics trying to make a living to bring home the bread and butter

Yes of course this would be the situation of the vast majority. But then there is the fanatic, possibly even indirectly in the employ of the Fuhrer, passing on info to granda Haughey or the equivalent.

who instilled this paranoia in ordinary working people? In whose interest was it to divide the working class of Catholic and Protestant?

Ahh the well worn cliché of the left - divide and conquer the working people.

supported wholly by the British government

Yes I have already alluded to this. Why oh why did the Brits give NI devolved powers long before that was de rigueur to be administered by a Protestants ascendant class for a Protestant people from a grand newly built castle on a hill overlooking Belfast. From my home in Andersonstown totally on the opposite side of the city I could see this impressive symbol of Protestant domination. There's me using the language of the fanatics. I actually didn't fare badly and whilst the stats demonstrated an unequal society (twice the unemployment rate amongst Catholics) there was nothing to justify 3,000 deaths.

 

[Sister Sara]

Yes of course this would be the situation of the vast majority. But then there is the fanatic, possibly even indirectly in the employ of the Fuhrer, passing on info to granda Haughey or the equivalent.

But you can say that about anyone, at anytime.

@Purple has expressed similar suspicious sentiments. If in a UI referendum, it was likely that the Irish people were to vote in a government that was leaning more to adversaries of the UK/US alliance that it would 'probably be right' to deny Irish people their democratic and constitutional right to self-determination.

Ahh the well worn cliché of the left - divide and conquer the working people.

Nothing cliché about it all, it is a standard political practice to obtain power by coercion rather than through open civic discussion.

Why oh why did the Brits give NI devolved powers long before that was de rigueur to be administered by a Protestants ascendant class for a Protestant people from a grand newly built castle on a hill overlooking Belfast.

Because Irish Unionists threatened a Civil War on the island of Ireland if Home Rule were to be enforced. This, at a time of Britain's need in Europe.

As John Redmond said, "I say to the government that they may tomorrow withdraw every one of their troops from Ireland. I say that the coast of Ireland will be defended from foreign invasion by her armed sons and for this purpose armed nationalist Catholics in the South will be only too glad to join arms with the armed Protestant Ulstermen in the North."

Ireland was betrayed.

They call themselves 'loyalists', but loyal to who? Ireland? no. The British Crown? No.

They are traitors. Traitors to Ireland, Traitors to Ireland and Britain.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Because Irish Unionists threatened a Civil War on the island of Ireland if Home Rule were to be enforced. This, at a time of Britain's need in Europe.

The partition was long decided by the late twenties and the threat of Unionist civil war a distant memory. They would have been happy with Direct Rule as before. What mystifies me is why the Brits went for devolved power to a sectarian and dysfunctional society, as far as I know there was no pressure to do so. It was clearly done by the Brits for their own sake, it seems with hindsight a big mistake.

 

[Sister Sara]

They would have been happy with Direct Rule as before.

Who are 'they'?

What mystifies me is why the Brits went for devolved power to a sectarian and dysfunctional society

Indeed.

Particularly when a devolved Parliament for the whole country of Ireland had been established through law, and through peaceful and democratic means through the British parliament.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Who are 'they'?

The Unionists.

 

[Sister Sara]

The Unionists.

And what about Nationalists? Did they figure in the thinking at all for the new NI?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

And what about Nationalists? Did they figure in the thinking at all for the new NI?

This has become a bit of a rabbit hole.
I was reflecting that the 25 years of Direct Rule following the suspension of Stormont made NI fair for both communities. Which made me muse "if only the Brits had never devolved to Stormont in the first place". The Unionists could hardly have griped though you suggested that in 1920 Unionists would have threatened Civil War if they didn't get their Home Rule. That seemed a bit implausible to me.
But this is all contrafactual musing. If Hitler hadn't turned on Stalin...

 

[Marsupial]

As you said yourself, NI was under direct-rule from London. i.e.- citizens of NI had next to zero say in how their province was to be governed.

Politicians without a single vote would decide.

Not quite. Bear in mind that The Conservative Party's full name is The Conservative and Unionist Party. Hence anyone in NI who voted Unionist in a GE was effectively voting for the Tories, so would have had representation either in the UK government or the main opposition party, depending on which of them was in power. Ditto the SDLP and the UK Labour Party.

(That the Shinners refused to take their seats in Westminster merely highlights the contempt that they have always had for their supporters.)

........

Most of the rape took place in Germany where it's estimated that one in three German women between 15 and 75 were raped by allied soldiers.

And most of the "credit" for that goes to Stalin's boys. It's their culture, both then and now.

 

[Purple]

And most of the "credit" for that goes to Stalin's boys. It's their culture, both then and now.

Yep, some women in Russian occupied Berlin were raped over a hundred times.

 

[Purple]

Not quite. Bear in mind that The Conservative Party's full name is The Conservative and Unionist Party. Hence anyone in NI who voted Unionist in a GE was effectively voting for the Tories, so would have had representation either in the UK government or the main opposition party, depending on which of them was in power. Ditto the SDLP and the UK Labour Party.

The DUP and all Unionist MP's followed the Conservative Whip in Westminster until the Sunningdale Agreement. After that it was ad-hoc most of the time. That decision significantly weakened their power in Westminster.

 

[Sister Sara]

This has become a bit of a rabbit hole.

I agree. Lets park it.

It is beyond my reasoning how anyone could consider the period of 25 Direct Rule 'fair', for either community.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Lets park it.

You left your car running.

It is beyond my reasoning how anyone could consider the period of 25 Direct Rule 'fair', for either community.

 

[Sister Sara]

That the Shinners refused to take their seats in Westminster merely highlights the contempt that they have always had for their supporters.)

They campaigned on that basis. Received a mandate not to take their seats. Similar to SF in 1919 who received a mandate not to take seats in Westminister. From which, independence for 26 countys was eventually obtained.

 

[Sister Sara]

This has become a bit of a rabbit hole.

....but why not try dig some more?

following the suspension of Stormont made NI fair for both communities.

in 1920 Unionists would have threatened Civil War if they didn't get their Home Rule. That seemed a bit implausible to me.

 

[Marsupial]

They campaigned on that basis. Received a mandate not to take their seats. Similar to SF in 1919 who received a mandate not to take seats in Westminister. From which, independence for 26 countys was eventually obtained.

Yep, I know that tired old bit of spin; have heard it a thousand times from various SF canvassers, "activists" and various bots. (Mind you, most of them could spell "counties" correctly!)

But asserting that it was SF's absence from Westminster in 1919 that led eventually to Independence for the 26 Counties is the kind of jaw-dropping revisionism that makes even my cat laugh (my cat is from Tyrone); but if that's the latest spin from HQ, then so be it!

 

[Sister Sara]

@Marsupial why do you rely on SF 'spin', why don't you pick up any number of historical textbooks on the matter and find out for yourself?

It wasn't absenteeism alone from Westminister that brought independence but it was a significant part. As mandated by the people - To declare themselves as the legitimate authority in Ireland , that would govern itself, disable the British court system, crash Britains tax collecting system, shun its police force, immobilise its munitions, infiltrate its security and intelligence, and gallant acts self-sacrifice such as Terence MacSwiney is what let Britain know that Ireland was lost.

How do you understand how independence for the 26 counties was achieved?

 

[Purple]

@Marsupial why do you rely on SF 'spin', why don't you pick up any number of historical textbooks on the matter and find out for yourself?

It wasn't absenteeism alone from Westminister that brought independence but it was a significant part. As mandated by the people - To declare themselves as the legitimate authority in Ireland , that would govern itself, disable the British court system, crash Britains tax collecting system, shun its police force, immobilise its munitions, infiltrate its security and intelligence, and gallant acts self-sacrifice such as Terence MacSwiney is what let Britain know that Ireland was lost.

How do you understand how independence for the 26 counties was achieved?

A good chunk of Sinn Fein left and joined Fianna Fail in 1925. The majority of the public also moved their support from Sinn Fein to Fianna Fail. Over the next few decades FF carried the mantle of Irish Republicanism. SF shrank into a rump that split into a number of small looney left parties. FF are the inheritors of the legacy of the War of Independence era Sinn Fein, not the current SF which is just a pseudo-political manifestation of the Provisional IRA and really only came into existence in the 1970's.

Edit; By the 1930's the IRA had severed it's links with Sinn Fein and they (SF) didn't contest any elections as they had no popular support. The idea that the present Sinn Fein is anything other than a new party which is a political wing of the Provisional IRA (who themselves are not the IRA which was around during the War of Independence) just doesn't stand up to even the most rudimental scrutiny.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

How do you understand how independence for the 26 counties was achieved?

Can I answer?
The War of Independence and other post 1916 shenanigans certainly did persuade Britain that they wanted shot of Ireland - correction, you are right to say the 26 counties. What those shenanigans also persuaded the British of was that they had a duty to protect the 6 counties from the shambles which was about to become the Free State and would be a basket case right up until recently when it learnt how to play the cute hoor game with the EU and latterly the US; a strategy for which CJH is deserving of gratitude and respect.
The idea that the attainment of 26 county independence in 1920 was an heroic achievement is heresy to current SF theology.