Mary-Lou "United Ireland is within touching distance"

[Marsupial]

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

I'm unsure of the relevance (or significance) of my understanding to the reality of the Independence of the 26 Counties (that's if you believe that we're actually independent, given the fact that we seem to do whatever Ursula Von Der Vaccine or the ECHR tells us to); but I'll ask my cat and see what she thinks.

 

[Sister Sara]

@Duke of Marmalade @Purple well this is a hoot!

At the mere suggestion that the SF of today exercising its political mandate of abstentionism from Westminster being the exact same policy as the original SF policy, it appears to have ironically triggered a deluge of revisionism.

The War of Independence and other post 1916 shenanigans certainly did persuade Britain that they wanted shot of Ireland

I'm pretty sure it was Ireland that wanted shot of Britain!

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

And the fact that Ireland was already a basket case under the realm of the British Empire had nothing to do with stoking revolution on this island? A country that had lost half its population in the preceding 60-70yrs, its language, its culture in terminal demise. Yet thousands would still serve in a time of Britains need in Europe before being betrayed in the denial of its own parliament as achieved under British law.

Perhaps you are right after all, the British did want to get shot of the Irish, Catholic and Protestant, by lining them up as canon fodder as well as everything else, but that may stoke the theory of ethnic cleansing and I don't particularly want to go there again.

Anyway, the meaning of Sinn Féin has passed you by - it's "We Ourselves", and not any other false interpretation of the language. "We Ourselves" = We will govern ourselves.

FF are the inheritors of the legacy of the War of Independence era Sinn Fein, not the current SF

I never said the current SF were inheritors of the WoI era of SF. I simply highlighted that the current SF have the exact same mandated policy of abstentionism from Westminster as the original SF did. According to some cat lovers, it is contemptuous for a political party to practice a policy as mandated by its supporters!

Anyway, the idea that FF are the inheritors of the legacy of the WoI is bizarre.

SF split in two, obviously, after the Treaty. Pro-Treaty (Partition) and Anti-Treaty. Why are the Pro-Treaty element that brought this 26 county state not the true inheritors? They won in the end. Most people sided with the Partitionists at the time and they too espouse the aspiration of unification.

FF was not formed until 1925, after Dev lost a vote at the SF Ard Fheis to end boycott of the 26 county Dáil.
He left SF.
He formed a new party called FF. To abandon the practice of armed struggle (a central tenet of Irish Republicanism) , to accept Partition (the reality of it) and enter the 26 county Treaty Dáil.

Republicans had lost, again.

Fianna Fáil are Partitionists. They are charlatan Irish Republicans who bear no lineage to the SF of the era.

With an ideology in one hand and a Partitionist mindset in practice.

Evidenced by the fact that in "carrying the mantle" of Republicanism they still to this day, to the best of my knowledge anyway, are yet to contest one single election in NI.

Not one single vote have they sought from, or obtained from, those people who they "carry the mantle" for. 100yrs! and waiting!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I'm pretty sure it was Ireland that wanted shot of Britain!

The Catholics yes. The Protestants no. Ok, ok the Prods were only blow in planters or in the modern terminology immigrants.
Indeed the Famine and I haven't forgotten that Cromwell's men kicked priests' heads around Drogheda in the forerunner of England's gift of soccer to the World. Does Messi even know that?

 

[Purple]

@Sister Sara, have you heard of Comical Ali? Just sayin...

I'm pretty sure it was Ireland that wanted shot of Britain!

I think there were many in Britain and many in Ireland on both sides of that one.

And the fact that Ireland was already a basket case under the realm of the British Empire had nothing to do with stoking revolution on this island? A country that had lost half its population in the preceding 60-70yrs, its language, its culture in terminal demise. Yet thousands would still serve in a time of Britains need in Europe before being betrayed in the denial of its own parliament as achieved under British law.

Are you still buying into the notion that everyone who served in the British Army during the First World War did it in order to gain Home Rule?!

Perhaps you are right after all, the British did want to get shot of the Irish, Catholic and Protestant, by lining them up as canon fodder as well as everything else, but that may stoke the theory of ethnic cleansing and I don't particularly want to go there again.

And it's a silly red herring of a point.

Anyway, the meaning of Sinn Féin has passed you by - it's "We Ourselves", and not any other false interpretation of the language. "We Ourselves" = We will govern ourselves.

Correct.

I never said the current SF were inheritors of the WoI era of SF. I simply highlighted that the current SF have the exact same mandated policy of abstentionism from Westminster as the original SF did.

But it's a hundred years later and circumstances have changed completely. If your point is that this new party which has appropriated the name is trapped in the past and is a prisoner to a tired rhetoric and has to keep up the charade that the history which emerged from war time propaganda 100 years ago is correct so that they can justify their pointless 30 year campaign of murder then yes, i agree with you.

Anyway, the idea that FF are the inheritors of the legacy of the WoI is bizarre.

No, it's correct. The members and voters left with Dev.

SF split in two, obviously, after the Treaty. Pro-Treaty (Partition) and Anti-Treaty. Why are the Pro-Treaty element that brought this 26 county state not the true inheritors?

They won in the end. Most people sided with the Partitionists at the time and they too espouse the aspiration of unification.

So you're saying that Cumann na nGaedheal, later Fine Gael, are the inheritors. Okay, that has some merit.

FF was not formed until 1925, after Dev lost a vote at the SF Ard Fheis to end boycott of the 26 county Dáil.
He left SF.
He formed a new party called FF.

Yes, and the membership and voters went with him. That's the point.

To abandon the practice of armed struggle

Correct. The weren't fans of pointless wars and terrorism,. That's another thing that they don't have in common with the PIRA or their stooges.

(a central tenet of Irish Republicanism)

No it's not.

, to accept Partition (the reality of it) and enter the 26 county Treaty Dáil.

Yep, the Civil War was over the Collins, with the help of the British, had won. Of course Collins, having absolutely no combat experience, got himself killed in the first proper gun fight he'd ever been in.

Republicans had lost, again.

No, they hadn't and still haven't. This country is a republic and if we run it properly and accept our history, our real history, not the nonsense that was trotted out in schools for generations, and the validity of both of the traditions on this island then we could have a united Ireland. That won't happen by murdering children or blowing up pensioners and all the stuff "Good Republicans" like to do.

Fianna Fáil are Partitionists. They are charlatan Irish Republicans who bear no lineage to the SF of the era.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how groundless. I do accept your point that Cumann na nGaedheal have a claim on the title too.

With an ideology in one hand and a Partitionist mindset in practice.

That doesn't mean anything.

Evidenced by the fact that in "carrying the mantle" of Republicanism they still to this day, to the best of my knowledge anyway, are yet to contest one single election in NI.

They have a Party organisation in Northern Ireland but the Shinners keep a tight rein on who gets to run for election in Nationalist areas there.

Not one single vote have they sought from, or obtained from, those people who they "carry the mantle" for. 100yrs! and waiting!

See that's the problem with the Shinners; you're more interested in slogans and populist soundbites than actual substantive action. FG got the Anglo-Irish Agreement. FF got the Good Friday Agreement. The Shinners got nothing, other than a lot of blood on their hands.

 

[Sister Sara]

The Catholics yes. The Protestants no.

You mean like Henry Grattan, Wolfe Tone, Thomas Russell, Henry Joy McCraken, Edward Fitzgerald, Charles Stuart Parnell, Erskine Childers - those Protestants that advocated for, and some fought for, an Ireland independent of Britain?

For sure, Nothern Protestants leaned towards the union that much is obvious. But the majority of people voted for political parties that aspired for parliament in Ireland and to remain in the UK. When that much was achieved, peacefully and democratically, it should have been delivered. Instead a minority threatened civil war and the British parliament succumbed to the threats.

So what is the point of a parliamentary democracy if the democratic rule of law is subverted?

You seem to have the propensity to consider that Irish Protestants, or Irish Unionists, should have some sort of God given right to a veto over the rest of the people of Ireland. In fairness, you are not alone.

 

[Purple]

The Catholics yes. The Protestants no

There were plenty of Catholics who were happy enough to leave things as they were. Vicky got a great reception in 1900 and most of the crowds couldn't have been proddies.

 

[Purple]

You seem to have the propensity to consider that Irish Protestants, or Irish Unionists, should have some sort of God given right to a veto over the rest of the people of Ireland. In fairness, you are not alone.

The thing was we were part of the UK so the will of all of the people of the UK would have been what mattered. At least that was the position of the British and the Unionist here. A legitimate position from their perspective.

 

[Sister Sara]

I think there were many in Britain and many in Ireland on both sides of that one.

If there were and with such mutual understanding it should have be been a very easy thing to arrange independence for Ireland.

Are you still buying into the notion that everyone who served in the British Army during the First World War did it in order to gain Home Rule?!

Never bought into that notion at all! I'd say most signed up for the promise of pension and nothing more.
That said, the usurpation of the Irish parliament, achieved through democratic and peaceful means, did antagonise a lot of people. So much so, they took up arms to commence a rebellion within a couple of years.

And it's a silly red herring of a point.

Population of 8m reduced to less the 4m in the space of 60/70yrs as part of the richest and biggest Empire in the world. Yeh, you're probably right, not ethnic cleansing.

So you're saying that Cumann na nGaedheal, later Fine Gael, are the inheritors. Okay, that has some merit.

I'm didnt say anything. I'm asking you "Why are the Pro-Treaty element that brought this 26 county state not the true inheritors? They won in the end. Most people sided with the Partitionists at the time and they too espouse the aspiration of unification?"

Yes, and the membership and voters went with him. That's the point.

The point is he lost vote at the SF Ard Fheis. He and his supporters left SF to form a new party. One with principles that didn't match the principles of the original SF party.

The weren't fans of pointless wars and terrorism

But you are proclaiming on the one hand they are the inheritors of the legacy of the WoI era Sinn Féin?? And now you are absolving them of being part of a failed rebellion that brought Dublin to its knees. Murdered unarmed Irish police officers in cold blood without warning, some 40 children were killed including a 2 yr old baby. Then they embarked on a "WoI" that drove sectarianism up north and south, and in your opinion, ethnic cleansing, and they disappeared dozens of people.
All this pointless war and terrorism to end dividing the country and causing a civil war, and all the rest.

So which is it? Are the Partitionists the true inheritors of the pointless war and terrorism of the early 20th century, lionising child killers like Kevin Barry and Thomas Clarke?

 

[Sister Sara]

the will of all of the people of the UK would have been what mattered

The will of all the people of the UK is represented in the democratically elected members of the British parliament.

It was the majority will of the democratically elected members of the British parliament to restore the parliament to Ireland that had been dissolved by the British parliament in 1801.

 

[Purple]

It was the majority will of the democratically elected members of the British parliament to restore the parliament to Ireland that had been dissolved by the British parliament in 1801.

Are you seriously suggesting that Home Rule equated to the restoration of the 1081 Parliament?
Are you aware that the Irish Parliament made the Stormont government look fair and unbiased?

The will of all the people of the UK is represented in the democratically elected members of the British parliament.

Yes, and they were overwhelmingly against Ireland leaving the UK.

 

[Purple]

If there were and with such mutual understanding it should have be been a very easy thing to arrange independence for Ireland.

How come? "Many" is not the same as a majority. I know SF/PIRA don't know the difference but people who respect demcracy do.

Never bought into that notion at all! I'd say most signed up for the promise of pension and nothing more.

Okay, so what were you going on about earlier?

That said, the usurpation of the Irish parliament, achieved through democratic and peaceful means, did antagonise a lot of people.

I agree.

So much so, they took up arms to commence a rebellion within a couple of years.

No, the people who took up arms in 1916 were not fighting in the British Army. The people who did so later were more driven by the aftermath of the Rising.

Population of 8m reduced to less the 4m in the space of 60/70yrs as part of the richest and biggest Empire in the world. Yeh, you're probably right, not ethnic cleansing.

So now there was ethnic cleansing. Make up your mind.

I'm didnt say anything. I'm asking you "Why are the Pro-Treaty element that brought this 26 county state not the true inheritors? They won in the end. Most people sided with the Partitionists at the time and they too espouse the aspiration of unification?"

You asked a leading question and I drew the logical conclusion from your point.

The point is he lost vote at the SF Ard Fheis. He and his supporters left SF to form a new party. One with principles that didn't match the principles of the original SF party.

No, they did match the principles of the original SF party; Irish unity. Dev realised that the only way of achieving that was from within a strong independent "Free State". That's why he kept us in the Commonwealth after he introduced the new constitution and formed a Republic.

But you are proclaiming on the one hand they are the inheritors of the legacy of the WoI era Sinn Féin?? And now you are absolving them of being part of a failed rebellion that brought Dublin to its knees. Murdered unarmed Irish police officers in cold blood without warning, some 40 children were killed including a 2 yr old baby. Then they embarked on a "WoI" that drove sectarianism up north and south, and in your opinion, ethnic cleansing, and they disappeared dozens of people.
All this pointless war and terrorism to end dividing the country and causing a civil war, and all the rest.

So which is it? Are the Partitionists the true inheritors of the pointless war and terrorism of the early 20th century, lionising child killers like Kevin Barry and Thomas Clarke?

I'm not absolving anyone of anything. I'm not a fan of lionising child killers. I'm not a fan of lionising anyone. I'm not a fan of demonising people either. The narrative around Collins and Dev is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Both were great men in many ways but also deeply flawed. Both did great things and appalling things.
Both FF and FG are still guilty of looking at their history with rose tinted glasses.
Sinn Fein are not a political party in the normal sense of the word. They still have child killers and terrorists pulling the strings. They are a new party with an old name, old ideas and a rotten core. They have populist policies which would hurt the poor, the young and working people and benefit the old and the rich. Their economic policies, like their views on a united Ireland, are inconsistent and corrupted by their twisted ideology. We can go around in circles on recent Irish history as long as you like but believing the topic of this thread Mary-Lou's "United Ireland is within touching distance", requires the kind of willful ignorance that the Shinners specialise in but the rest of the world know that it's nowhere close to happening.

 

[Sister Sara]

Yes, and they were overwhelmingly against Ireland leaving the UK.

Yes, so the British parliament, representing the people of the whole of the UK including Ireland, didn't want to get shot of Ireland as @Duke of Marmalade contended. Ireland only wanted a parliament for itself, within the UK. It had achieved that through peaceful, democratic means. Only when that was usurped on the threat of violence from Irish Unionists did the political dial begin to move into the hands of Irish Republicanism and a full independent Ireland, through force if necessary.

 

[Sister Sara]

No, the people who took up arms in 1916 were not fighting in the British Army.

I never said they were. The usurpation of the Irish parliament angered a lot of people (in the BA or out of the BA). It was the threat of violence that the British succumbed to. It gave Republicans the impetus to combat the British through force.

You asked a leading question and I drew the logical conclusion from your point.

You made a statement that FF are the inheritors of the legacy of WoI Sinn Fein era. I just questioned the logic of that given that we know Dev left the SF party after losing the debate on the SF principle of abstentionism to Dáil Éireann. He formed a new party, on new principles separate to SF.

Your statement of FF being the 'inheritors' of SF WoI era has no logic at all - they are different party, with different principles, with a different name.

they did match the principles of the original SF party; Irish unity.

Thats the same as any other Irish Party in favour of unification. People Before Profit are also in favour of unification of Ireland. They were formed in 2005. They can claim to be the true inheritors of the WoI SF era? Same as the Green Party, Fine Gael and the current SF.

Dev realised that the only way of achieving that was from within a strong independent "Free State". That's why he kept us in the Commonwealth after he introduced the new constitution and formed a Republic.

Dev realised that shooting up Dublin city without any mandate was the only way to an independent Irish Republic. He then realised that implementing a parliament and government against the ruling authority was the only way. He then realised that walking out of that parliament and invoking more violence was the way. He then realised, that wasnt the way after all and decided to walk out on his original SF principles and become a Partitionist was the way forward and form a new party, on new principles. To this day, Ireland still remains divided, so I don't how much store in what Dev realised was 'the only way'.

I'm not a fan of lionising child killers

So it must annoy you that FF, a ruling party of this State for the best part of its existence does?

 

[Purple]

@Sister Sara, Dev wasn't a partitionist. His side lost the Civil War fighting against Collins (not really a partitionist either, more of a schemer) who was armed with British guns. Dev then accepted the reality of the situation and changed accordingly. Your one eyed and absolutist view of history leads you to such absolutist views.

Dev and FF would have argued that they remained true to the principals of the real Sinn Fein (Irish unity) and, as the republican party, carried them into the modern era.
A splinter group of the IRA called the Provisional IRA co-opted the name Sinn Fein for their political wing. That's the only link between the current Sinn Fein and the real original one.

It does bother me that FF have been in power for so long, not because of their history as all sides lionise their forbearers, but because for the first 40 years after the foundation of this State they did a lousy job of running the country.
The present Party that calls itself Sinn Fein are in many ways a reincarnation of what Fianna Fail was in the 1970's; populist, incompetent, corrupt and self serving. The present FF is not corrupt and isn't run by child killers so in that they differentiate themselves from Sinn Fein-nua.

 

[Purple]

Only when that was usurped on the threat of violence from Irish Unionists did the political dial begin to move into the hands of Irish Republicanism and a full independent Ireland, through force if necessary.

Sinn Fein (the real one) and the IRA (the real one) never supported Home Rule. Equating the suspension of the Home Rule Bill due to the outbreak of the First World War with the Easter Rising is nonsense.

Are you now a Redmondite? He was the Home Rule guy. He opposed the objectives of the IRA and their love of violent republicanism.
Have you read the stuff Patrick Pierce wrote about redemption through blood and his fetish for blood sacrifice and? He said of the millions dead in France and Belgium "the old heart of the earth needed to be warmed with the red wine of the battlefields. Such august homage was never before offered to God as this, the homage of millions of lives given gladly for love of country." James Connelly, who had actually served in the British Army (as he was British) described him as a blithering idiot. I'm glad that sort of fundamentalism isn't around anymore. We can study it and we can understand it and we can try to justify it in the context of its time but 100 years later we should no longer glorify it.