People from Northern Ireland are not British!

enda1 · 21-05-2010 9:42am

dlofnep wrote: »

So do you denounce that you are Irish? People from England have no problem in calling themselves English. Scotland, Scottish. Wales, Welsh. So why can you not call yourself Irish? I mean, if the hardlined Mr. Ulster says No can call himself Irish - then surely there is hope for OwenC.

When's the last time you heard a Canadian call themselves American?

Sure there from the America's but its clear that the term American has become inextricably linked with the country USA.

Likewise, its would be hard for a NI Unionist to say their Irish if it will so easily be confused with the country Ireland rather than the landmass. Calling themselves British makes a lot more sense for them, and me.

karma_ · 21-05-2010 9:59am

enda1 wrote: »

When's the last time you heard a Canadian call themselves American?

Sure there from the America's but its clear that the term American has become inextricably linked with the country USA.

Likewise, its would be hard for a NI Unionist to say their Irish if it will so easily be confused with the country Ireland rather than the landmass. Calling themselves British makes a lot more sense for them, and me.

Your comparing a continent to an island?

Jaap · 21-05-2010 10:00am

dlofnep wrote: »

So do you denounce that you are Irish? People from England have no problem in calling themselves English. Scotland, Scottish. Wales, Welsh. So why can you not call yourself Irish? I mean, if the hardlined Mr. Ulster says No can call himself Irish - then surely there is hope for OwenC.

If you are from Northern Ireland...going by the England = English, Scotland = Scottish method mentioned above...then people from the north are called Northern Irish I assume...simple enough!!!
Nationality-wise for passports Northern Irish people can choose to be British or Irish!!! All about the right to choose...not people telling you what you are!!!

enda1 · 21-05-2010 10:04am

karma_ wrote: »

Your comparing a continent to an island?

Yes. ?

anymore · 21-05-2010 10:04am

dlofnep wrote: »

Eh, I don't actually give a fiddlers about the use of the British Isles comment. I was referring to the "we're all christians". I'm not a Christian.

Also, I don't remember Africans being called a "Indian Ocean people".

I am sure Nigerians and onther residents of West African countries might be puzzled by this comment ?

dlofnep · 21-05-2010 10:17am

anymore wrote: »

I am sure Nigerians and onther residents of West African countries might be puzzled by this comment ?

Somehow, I doubt that they are.

karma_ · 21-05-2010 10:21am

enda1 wrote: »

Yes. ?

I'm sure enda you really don't need me to tell you that's a poor analogy. A better one would be Puerto Rico, who whilst affiliated with the US they remain a commonwealth of their own and are identified as Puerto Rican.

LordSutch · 21-05-2010 10:25am

Jaap wrote: »

Northern Irish people can choose to be British or Irish!!! All about the right to choose...not people telling you what you are!!!

Eleven pages into this thread and I think we broadly agree that people cannot be told what Nationality they are, which is why Pat Kenny's Statement (Link in Post#1) caught my attention "People from Northern Ireland are Irish, and No Irish person in Northern Ireland is British"

He also speaks of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland ?? :cool:

shouldn't that be Great Britain & Northern Ireland . . .

enda1 · 21-05-2010 10:34am

karma_ wrote: »

I'm sure enda you really don't need me to tell you that's a poor analogy. A better one would be Puerto Rico, who whilst affiliated with the US they remain a commonwealth of their own and are identified as Puerto Rican.

No not really.

My analogy perfectly describes the problem faced with the landmass/citizenship dilemma.

Your's doesn't.

karma_ · 21-05-2010 10:36am

Camelot wrote: »

Eleven pages into this thread and I think we broadly agree that people cannot be told what Nationality they are, which is why Pat Kenny's Statement (Link in Post#1) caught my attention "People from Northern Ireland are Irish, and No Irish person in Northern Ireland is British"

He also speaks of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland ?? :cool: shouldn't that be Great Britain & Northern Ireland . . .

Pedantry.

No one is arguing that the people of NI are not British citizens, they do however remain Irish/Northern Irish whether you like that fact or not.

karma_ · 21-05-2010 10:37am

enda1 wrote: »

No not really.

My analogy perfectly describes the problem faced with the landmass/citizenship dilemma.

Your's doesn't.

Landmass?

What about Europe?

LordSutch · 21-05-2010 10:42am

karma_ wrote: »

Pedantry. No one is arguing that the people of NI are not British citizens, they do however remain Irish/Northern Irish whether you like that fact or not.

Pedantry?

Well maybe it is pedantry to you, but surely this State left the UK many decades ago, leaving the North still part of the UK, where people can choose whether they are British or Irish. > I don't think its pedantry.

enda1 · 21-05-2010 10:43am

karma_ wrote: »

Landmass?

What about Europe?

Ireland is a landmass like America is.

What about Europe?

karma_ · 21-05-2010 10:48am

enda1 wrote: »

Ireland is a landmass like America is.

What about Europe?

You have to be kidding.

Germany, France, Spain?

Hell what about Asia? Africa even.

Landmass/citizenship issues galore.

irishh_bob · 21-05-2010 10:48am

Camelot wrote: »

Eleven pages into this thread and I think we broadly agree that people cannot be told what Nationality they are, which is why Pat Kenny's Statement (Link in Post#1) caught my attention "People from Northern Ireland are Irish, and No Irish person in Northern Ireland is British"

He also speaks of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland ?? :cool: shouldn't that be Great Britain & Northern Ireland . . .

pat kennys statement was indeed peculiar , it originated aroud the topic of rory mcllroy ( a golfer from the unionist community in northern ireland ) and has almost evolved into a diplomatic incident at this stage , personally , im of the opinion that thier are both irish and british people living in the province of ulster which is on the island of ireland , im also of the opinion that you cant be both irish and british , while the big man from ballymena may have once claimed he was an irish man , he is not

enda1 · 21-05-2010 10:51am

karma_ wrote: »

You have to be kidding.

Germany, France, Spain?

Hell what about Asia? Africa even.

Landmass/citizenship issues galore.

What?

I don't know what you're talking about to be honest.
Ireland (landmass) and Ireland (county) have the same name. This is what I'm talking about.

Maybe South African could be another example.

"Hi I'm South African."

"Where in South Africa are you from?"

"Lesotho"

gurramok · 21-05-2010 11:03am

irishh_bob wrote: »

while the big man from ballymena may have once claimed he was an irish man , he is not

Liam Neeson is an Irishman :P

ardmacha · 21-05-2010 11:46am

It is racist to state that anyone who has lived in Ireland from birth to adulthood is not Irish, whatever their ethic origins or political views. There is a sickening casual racism in threads like this which would not be tolerated in other threads.

Gaelic32 · 21-05-2010 2:21pm

How many countries were ruled by Britain?

Do you think the natives of all these places would consider themselves British?!!!

Colonial name
Modern name
Year of independence
Aden
Yemen
1967
Ascension Island

Not yet
Anguilla

Not yet
Australia

1901
Bahamas

1973
Bahrain

1971
Barbados

1966
Basutoland
Lesotho
1966
Bechuanaland
Botswana
1966
Bermuda

Not yet
British Cameroon
Cameroon (part)
1961
British Guyana
Guyana
1966
British Honduras
Belize
1981
British Somaliland
Somaliland
1960
British Solomon Islands
Solomon Is.
1978
Brunei
Brunei
1984
Burma
Myanmar
1948
Canada

1926
Cayman Islands

Not yet
Ceylon
Sri Lanka
1948
Cook Islands

NZ assoc.
Cyprus

1960
Egypt

1922?
Falkland Islands and dependencies

Not yet
Fiji

1970
Gambia

1965
Gibraltar

Not yet
Gilbert and Ellice Islands
Kiribati & Tuvalu
1979
1978
Gold Coast
Ghana
1957
Grenada

1974
Guernsey
Channel Is.

Hong Kong
China
1997
India
Pakistan & Bangladesh)
1947
Iraq

1932
Ireland

1922 (Partial)
Jamaica

1963
Jersey
Channel Is.

Kenya

1963
Kuwait

1961

Malaya
West Malaysia
1965

Maldive Islands

1976

Malta

1964

Mauritius

1961

Montserrat

Not yet

Newfoundland
Canada
1949

New Hebrides (with France)
Vanuatu
1980

New Zealand

1947

Nigeria

1960

North Borneo
Sabah
1965

Nyasaland
Malawi
1963

Oman

Never formally a protectorate

Papua New Guinea

1976

Palestine
Israel
1948

Pitcairn Island

Not yet

Qatar

1971

Rhodesia
Zimbabwe & Zambia
1979
1964

Sarawak
East Malaysia
1965

St Helena

Not yet

St Kitts
St Kitts/Nevis
1983

St Lucia

1979

St Vincent

1979

Seychelles

1976

Sierra Leone

1961

Singapore

1963

South Africa

1910

Sudan

1954

Swaziland

1968

Tanganyika
Tanzania
1963

Tonga

1970

Transjordan
Jordan
1948

Trinidad
Trinidad & Tobago
1962

Tristan Da Cunha

Not yet

Trucial Oman
United Arab Emirates
1971

Turks and Caicos Islands

Not yet

Uganda

1962

Western Samoa

1962

Zanzibar
Tanzania
1963

junder · 21-05-2010 2:29pm

ardmacha wrote: »

It is racist to state that anyone who has lived in Ireland from birth to adulthood is not Irish, whatever their ethic origins or political views. There is a sickening casual racism in threads like this which would not be tolerated in other threads.

Quite right, it is extremly bigoted to dictate to somebody what thier identy is. How dare people tell somebody who was born in northern Ireland and lived there till adulthood that they are Irish .

Gaelic32 · 21-05-2010 2:30pm

oops, sorry - supposed to come out in table format - now have biggest post on this thread :pac:

LordSutch · 21-05-2010 3:03pm

Gaelic32 wrote: »

oops, sorry - supposed to come out in table format - now have biggest post on this thread :pac:

Great list you have there, but does it alter the Nationality of UK citizens?

dlofnep · 21-05-2010 3:21pm

junder wrote: »

Quite right, it is extremly bigoted to dictate to somebody what thier identy is. How dare people tell somebody who was born in northern Ireland and lived there till adulthood that they are Irish .

Isn't that what Britain was doing all this time prior to the Good Friday Agreement? Dictating to one section of the population that they were British.

Gaelic32 · 21-05-2010 3:22pm

Camelot wrote: »

Great list you have there, but does it alter the Nationality of UK citizens?

Glad you liked it Camelot! - It was merely to illustrate that we are not the only ones on the globe who has endured british colonisation. This whole argument regarding nationality in the six counties is a result of said colonisation and occupation here - as already stated, pre 1922, the british refered to the uk as great britain and Ireland, that didnt mean that all the people here regarded themselves as british - they were irish but ruled by britain - similarily post 1922 the british just changed their title but it doesnt mean that people in the six counties are british - they are irish ruled by britain also. If you wish to be affiliated with britishness thats your call, no one is trying to take that away from you.

ardmacha · 21-05-2010 3:30pm

How dare people tell somebody who was born in northern Ireland and lived there till adulthood that they are Irish .

It is a simple fact that they are Irish, they may choose to identify with somewhere else. A person may be from Antrim but identify with Down. However it is clearly racist for people to claim no association with the place they were born and live in because they believe themselves superior to the natives.

LordSutch · 21-05-2010 3:37pm

Gaelic32 wrote: »

This whole argument regarding nationality in the six counties is a result of said colonisation and occupation here - as already stated, pre 1922, the british refered to the uk as great britain and Ireland, that didnt mean that all the people here regarded themselves as british - they were irish but ruled by britain - similarily post 1922 the british just changed their title but it doesnt mean that people in the six counties are british - they are irish ruled by britain also. If you wish to be affiliated with britishness thats your call, no one is trying to take that away from you.

Well, some might call it colonisation, but I fundamentally disagree with that term in relation this little group of islands, eg; (can the term be used in relation to the island next door? was Ireland colonised by the Vikings? was Britain colonised by the Italians?) Does 'colonisation' come into the equation when talking about the isle of Man? :cool: Anyway, the 'jist' of this thread is around what Pat Kenny said. Curiously you didn't pick up on Mr Kenny's reference to the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland' (Maybe he forgot about 1922)?

getz · 21-05-2010 3:45pm

Gaelic32 wrote: »

Glad you liked it Camelot! - It was merely to illustrate that we are not the only ones on the globe who has endured british colonisation. This whole argument regarding nationality in the six counties is a result of said colonisation and occupation here - as already stated, pre 1922, the british refered to the uk as great britain and Ireland, that didnt mean that all the people here regarded themselves as british - they were irish but ruled by britain - similarily post 1922 the british just changed their title but it doesnt mean that people in the six counties are british - they are irish ruled by britain also. If you wish to be affiliated with britishness thats your call, no one is trying to take that away from you.

does it upset you, that most of those colonies you are referring to hate the british so much that they want to still be a part of a commonwealth with the queen at the head ?i would think that on your part,its a own goal,and by the way it was the decision of the northern irish elected members of parliament who opted out of a independent ireland [that was their democratic right] not the british parliament,and it will also be the people in northern ireland who will decide when or if they will join the republic,not britain or ireland

Gaelic32 · 21-05-2010 3:47pm

I think you'll find nothing factually wrong with my last post Camelot, its well documented in librarys around the globe.
With relation to Pat, well.... cant wait to hear what he has to say next. (wonder does he look at these posts?)

Carlos_Ray · 21-05-2010 3:57pm

getz wrote: »

does it upset you, that most of those colonies you are referring to hate the british so much that they want to still be a part of a commonwealth with the queen at the head ?i would think that on your part,its a own goal,and by the way it was the decision of the northern irish elected members of parliament who opted out of a independent ireland [that was their democratic right] not the british parliament,and it will also be the people in northern ireland who will decide when or if they will join the republic,not britain or ireland

There was nothing democratic about the creation of Northern Ireland. Ireland was always ONE country. The majority of the people in that ONE country wanted independence. However, the unionist community largely based in the North East, controlled basically all the industry, decided that they would not "give up" their special status and hence with the help of the British, turned what had always been ONE country into TWO.

Even if each of the six counties got to vote individually on which country they wanted to be part of at the time of partition, Northern Ireland would only have consisted of 4 counties.

dlofnep · 21-05-2010 3:58pm

Camelot wrote: »

Well, some might call it colonisation, but I fundamentally disagree with that term in relation this little group of islands,

How convenient.

Ireland was colonised by Britain. Disagreeing with it will not make it any less true. If you wish to live in delusion, by all means - go for it. Those plantations were not acts of colonisation, oh no - not according to our fine revisionist Camelot.

dlofnep · 21-05-2010 4:00pm

getz wrote: »

who opted out of a independent ireland [that was their democratic right] not the british parliament,and it will also be the people in northern ireland who will decide when or if they will join the republic,not britain or ireland

Actually, it wasn't their democratic right. It was an option afforded to them, through conditions made under duress - against the will of the population of Ireland. That sir, is not democracy.

Carlos_Ray · 21-05-2010 4:09pm

Camelot wrote: »

Well, some might call it colonisation, but I fundamentally disagree with that term in relation this little group of islands, eg; (can the term be used in relation to the island next door? was Ireland colonised by the Vikings?)?

Eh yes. The Vikings established colonies in Ireland e.g limerick in 922AD to name but one.

Camelot wrote: »

was Britain colonised by the Italians?) Does 'colonisation' come into the equation when talking about the isle of Man? ?)?

Yes the Romans did colonise Britain.

Camelot wrote: »

:cool: Anyway, the 'jist' of this thread is around what Pat Kenny said. Curiously you didn't pick up on Mr Kenny's reference to the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland' (Maybe he forgot about 1922)?

Or perhaps it was a slip of the tongue?? Wouldn't read too much into that.

getz · 21-05-2010 4:22pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually, it wasn't their democratic right. It was an option afforded to them, through conditions made under duress - against the will of the population of Ireland. That sir, is not democracy.

being very polite,northern ireland exercised its right under the anglo/irish treaty signed by both parties one year before independance ,to opt out if they wanted,both parties expected they would,that sir is also democracy,it still goes on in this day and age as countries get independance and then split up anyway its all on wiki.org

SlabMurphy · 21-05-2010 4:36pm

The unioinists don't seem to know what nationality they are

. Sometimes they say they from Britain, other times Northern Ireland and others Ulster. Well, British is synonymous with English, so their not that anyway. Northern Ireland is not correct either as geographically the most northern county of Ireland is Donegal and that is not in the six county statelet. And since Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan are also not in the six county statelet, they should not refer to the statelet as Ulster.

getz · 21-05-2010 4:55pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually, it wasn't their democratic right. It was an option afforded to them, through conditions made under duress - against the will of the population of Ireland. That sir, is not democracy.

it wasent against the will of the people of ireland,the treaty was ratified by the dail and the people in the new ireland voted for the treaty 98 seats,against the treaty 36 seats,

dlofnep · 21-05-2010 4:58pm

getz wrote: »

being very polite,northern ireland exercised its right under the anglo/irish treaty signed by both parties one year before independance ,to opt out if they wanted,both parties expected they would,that sir is also democracy,it still goes on in this day and age as countries get independance and then split up anyway its all on wiki.org

Northern Ireland did not exist as an entity. The partition of Ireland was against the will of the people as a whole. The 1918 elections proved, without a shadow of a doubt - that the mandate for a break from British rule was real and valid. 28 out of 32 counties had majority nationalist votes, and even within the 4 north-eastern counties - nationalists still held more constituencies.

You speak of the Treaty as if it was made on just, or fair grounds. Let me be very clear on this. It was not. Only a handful of years after the Irish population demonstrated a very clear mandate across the Island for an independant state, Britain threatened the Irish delegates with terrible and immediate war if they did not accept the terms of the treaty. That sir is NOT democracy.

dlofnep · 21-05-2010 5:02pm

getz wrote: »

it wasent against the will of the people of ireland,the treaty was ratified by the dail and the people in the new ireland voted for the treaty 98 seats,against the treaty 36 seats,

Um, the treaty passed by 64 to 57 votes. If you are going to re-write history, at least get your figures straight. It was against the will of the people of Ireland. A parliamentary vote under duress is not an accurate reflection of the will of the people. They demonstrated their will in the 1918 elections.

lugha · 21-05-2010 5:27pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Northern Ireland did not exist as an entity. The partition of Ireland was against the will of the people as a whole.
The partition of Ireland was against the will of the people as a whole.

Ah yes, this again. You essentially assert that the people of the island of Ireland (a geographical entity!) were the proper constituency to decide on its political fate. Not the people of Britain and Ireland (despite that being essentially a single political entity at the time). Now there was an overwhelming grouping in Ireland, fairly homogenous in the South, who wanted self governance and it was quite proper that they should have been accommodated, regardless of what the rest of the “kingdom” thought, or how their numbers stacked up. However if you are to suggest that the same reasoning be applied recursively on the island of Ireland you will typically be told you have a very British view of democracy, or you are playing the Orange card or some such.
If you deny that the Unionists should have been accommodated on the basis that they were outnumbered by nationalists on the island of Ireland then surely the same reasoning could apply to say that the Irish nationalists yearning for self rule should not have been accommodated on the basis that a majority on the islands of Britain and Ireland did not favour change?

owenc · 21-05-2010 5:43pm

ardmacha wrote: »

It is a simple fact that they are Irish, they may choose to identify with somewhere else. A person may be from Antrim but identify with Down. However it is clearly racist for people to claim no association with the place they were born and live in because they believe themselves superior to the natives.

JAYSUS i will choose to be irish if i want to be or british, but i am not irish, at the most part i would be northern irish not irish!! :mad::mad: We don't live in ireland we live in the UNITED KINGDOM

owenc · 21-05-2010 5:44pm

junder wrote: »

Quite right, it is extremly bigoted to dictate to somebody what thier identy is. How dare people tell somebody who was born in northern Ireland and lived there till adulthood that they are Irish .

Agree with you, they are really taking the piss now and i am not happy. Hows about i tell them they are british!

owenc · 21-05-2010 5:45pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually, it wasn't their democratic right. It was an option afforded to them, through conditions made under duress - against the will of the population of Ireland. That sir, is not democracy.

yea it was they could vote if they wanted a united kingdom and if they didn't want one then don't vote- its called the ulster covenant.

owenc · 21-05-2010 5:46pm

SlabMurphy wrote: »

The unioinists don't seem to know what nationality they are . Sometimes they say they from Britain, other times Northern Ireland and others Ulster. Well, British is synonymous with English, so their not that anyway. Northern Ireland is not correct either as geographically the most northern county of Ireland is Donegal and that is not in the six county statelet. And since Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan are also not in the six county statelet, they should not refer to the statelet as Ulster.

when we say ulster we mean northern ireland not somewhere over the border i didn't even know what monaghan was until i came on here.

dlofnep · 21-05-2010 5:56pm

lugha wrote: »

Ah yes, this again. You essentially assert that the people of the island of Ireland (a geographical entity!) were the proper constituency to decide on its political fate.

There was nothing proper about British rule. To discuss politics in Ireland using such a word would be pointless. Ireland existed as an entity and had done so for a considerable time.

There was a mandate to break from British rule - and it was not respected. And if you are putting it that somehow, a separate entity existed in the north-east of Ireland, it didn't. Out of 105 seats, across the Island of Ireland - nationalists held 79 of them. In Ulster alone - 5 of 9 counties had a nationalist majority.

lugha wrote: »

Not the people of Britain and Ireland (despite that being essentially a single political entity at the time).

Britain never had a valid claim to control Irish affairs. Why would they have suddenly have a valid claim to control a specific portion of Ireland upon a clear mandate for independence?

lugha wrote: »

If you deny that the Unionists should have been accommodated on the basis that they were outnumbered by nationalists on the island of Ireland then surely the same reasoning could apply to say that the Irish nationalists yearning for self rule should not have been accommodated on the basis that a majority on the islands of Britain and Ireland did not favour change?

So perhaps you'll explain to me, why the north consists of 6 counties - when in the 1918 elections, 5 of the 9 counties of ulster (not 3) had a nationalist majority. The unionists weren't only accommodated, they were cradled. Their demands were backed up with a threat of a full-scale invasion by Britain.

The Unionists could very well have been accommodated if they had of stayed within the political framework of a 32 county Ireland. Instead, they forced the partition of the country - which lead to not only a civil war, but decades of conflict that followed.

Whatever way you wish to spin in - the reality of the matter is that the partition of Ireland was not just, nor valid. One cannot preach about democracy, when they hold a pen in one hand and the threat of immediate large scale war in the other.

dlofnep · 21-05-2010 5:59pm

owenc wrote: »

JAYSUS i will choose to be irish

It's about time you accepted it. Good man!

owenc · 21-05-2010 6:04pm

dlofnep wrote: »

It's about time you accepted it. Good man!

im not irish and dont you dare tell me that. I'm fine with northern irish thank you!

owenc · 21-05-2010 6:06pm

dlofnep wrote: »

There was nothing proper about British rule. To discuss politics in Ireland using such a word would be pointless. Ireland existed as an entity and had done so for a considerable time.

There was a mandate to break from British rule - and it was not respected. And if you are putting it that somehow, a separate entity existed in the north-east of Ireland, it didn't. Out of 105 seats, across the Island of Ireland - nationalists held 79 of them. In Ulster alone - 5 of 9 counties had a nationalist majority.

Britain never had a valid claim to control Irish affairs. Why would they have suddenly have a valid claim to control a specific portion of Ireland upon a clear mandate for independence?

So perhaps you'll explain to me, why the north consists of 6 counties - when in the 1918 elections, 5 of the 9 counties of ulster (not 3) had a nationalist majority. The unionists weren't only accommodated, they were cradled. Their demands were backed up with a threat of a full-scale invasion by Britain.

The Unionists could very well have been accommodated if they had of stayed within the political framework of a 32 county Ireland. Instead, they forced the partition of the country - which lead to not only a civil war, but decades of conflict that followed.

Whatever way you wish to spin in - the reality of the matter is that the partition of Ireland was not just, nor valid. One cannot preach about democracy, when they hold a pen in one hand and the threat of immediate large scale war in the other.

Because carson decided so. Plus the nationalists never set up a petition to for homerule so they had no evidence.

dlofnep · 21-05-2010 6:09pm

owenc wrote: »

Because carson decided so. Plus the nationalists never set up a petition to for homerule so they had no evidence.

Great contribution to the thread Owen. Truly groundbreaking stuff.

owenc · 21-05-2010 6:10pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Great contribution to the thread Owen. Truly groundbreaking stuff.

thanks you made my day;):cool:

lugha · 21-05-2010 6:14pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Ireland existed as an entity and had done so for a considerable time.

It didn’t exist as a political entity in any meaningful way. Much of the rest of your post is predicated on this.

dlofnep wrote: »

Britain never had a valid claim to control Irish affairs.

Yet nationalists have a valid claim to control the affairs of Irish unionists?

dlofnep wrote: »

So perhaps you'll explain to me, why the north consists of 6 counties - when in the 1918 elections, 5 of the 9 counties of ulster (not 3) had a nationalist majority.

Your argument about the flaws in the creation of a Northern state are, to use your own words, a red herring. Nationalists insist that Ireland should not have been partitioned at all, not that it wasn’t portioned very fairly.

dlofnep wrote: »

The Unionists could very well have been accommodated if they had of stayed within the political framework of a 32 county Ireland. Instead, they forced the partition of the country - which lead to not only a civil war, but decades of conflict that followed.

I don’t believe the decades of conflict would necessarily have been avoided. There was going to be problems no matter what was done 90 years ago.

ardmacha · 21-05-2010 6:22pm

Britain never had a valid claim to control Irish affairs.
Yet nationalists have a valid claim to control the affairs of Irish unionists?

It says a lot about the conduct of threads such as this that the poster does not see a difference in these two things. For one country to invade another is clearly immoral and so not valid (in a moral sense). For inhabitants of a country to expect a democratic majority to prevail is simply the normal conduct of modern society at this point in history.

People from Northern Ireland are not British!

Comments