John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who's defending the Act of Union? You seem to live in this starkly monochromatic world, where someone can either celebrate the Act of Union or pretend it didn't happen, with no middle ground.

Out here in reality, the Act of Union happened. If you want to say that it shouldn't have happened, fine: I won't argue with that. But to claim that the Union never happened in order to justify a bizarre claim that Ireland was militarily occupied, in turn so you can justify violence in pursuit of a political aim: that's just silly.

Tell me: prior to 1800, when was the last time that Ireland was a single, independent, sovereign nation?

What was this Act of Union about??

How, and why did it 'happen'??

Here is a very small insight as to how this 'union' came about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1800

After centuries subordination to the English, and later, British Parliaments, the Parliament of Ireland gained a large measure of independence by the Constitution of 1782.

Many members of the Irish Parliament jealously guarded its autonomy (notably Henry Grattan) and a motion for union was rejected in 1799.

However, a concerted campaign by the British government overcame the reluctance of the Irish Parliament.

Only Anglicans were permitted to become members of the Parliament of Ireland, though the great majority of the Irish population were Roman Catholic, with many Presbyterians in Ulster.

In 1793 Roman Catholics regained the right to vote if they owned or rented property worth £2 p.a. The Catholic hierarchy was strongly in favour of union, hoping for rapid emancipation – the right to sit as MPs – which was however delayed until 1829.

From the perspective of Great Britain, the union was required because of the uncertainty that followed the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and the French Revolution of 1789, which inspired the rebels;

if Ireland adopted Catholic Emancipation, willingly or not, a Roman Catholic parliament could break away from Britain and ally with the French, while the same measure within a united kingdom would exclude that possibility.

Also the Irish and British parliaments, when creating a regency during King George III's "madness", gave the Prince Regent different powers.

These considerations led Great Britain to decide to merge the two kingdoms and their parliaments.

The final passage of the Act in the Irish Parliament was achieved with substantial majorities, achieved in part according to contemporary documents through bribery, namely the awarding of peerages and honours to critics to get their votes.

Whereas the first attempt had been defeated in the Irish House of Commons by 109 votes against to 104 for, the second vote in 1800 produced a result of 158 to 115.[8]

Tell us what was being United, to result in a single United Kingdom, your 'country' reference from many posts back.

The 'country' which you say was forced to put down a violent Nationalist/Republican 'insurrection'.

The 'country' which put down another violent 'insurrection' by Robert Emmett, a United Irishman, in 1803, who said this, before being hanged and beheaded:

Let no man write my epitaph; for as no man who knows my motives dare now vindicate them, let not prejudice or ignorance, asperse them.

Let them and me rest in obscurity and peace, and my tomb remain uninscribed, and my memory in oblivion, until other times and other men can do justice to my character.

When my country takes her place among the nations of the earth, then and not till then, let my epitaph be written. I have done

oscarBravo wrote: »

I see far too many factual terms being put in danger quotes: this discussion has descended into the usual morass of people inventing definitions of words to fit a specific historical agenda.

If we can't have a conversation without putting quotes around "country" and "insurrection"; if we're at the level of arguing that Ireland was militarily occupied by a foreign power because believing so was the required justification for starting a war; then we're already neck-deep in a game of make-believe that I've no interest in playing.

So I'll bow out. It doesn't matter what I or the small number of people who share my views say: in under two years time this country will be celebrating the "heroes" who started a war. I won't be taking part. On the plus side, the small minority of us who disagree with the majority view in this matter almost certainly won't be killing anyone to force our point of view on the rest of you.

These so-called danger quotes were, in my case anyway, to emphasise the words you used.

I note your use of quotes around the word heroes, presumably meaning those brave people who participated in our Revolution in 1916, and those who fought in our War of Independence, whom you would seek to disparage.

I fear you bowed out some time ago, when you refused to participate in a discussion, which you were unwilling to have, unless on your narrow terms only, providing "dictionary definitions", etc. which you insisted were the only basis for a discussion with you, because, according to you, they were the unvarnished truth.

In essence, you set preconditions, based upon only your own interpretation of events, which, even now, are a matter of dispute, but which you insisted your interpretations only would form the basis for any discussion with you, or no discussion at all.

Just what do you mean by this:

"the small minority of us who disagree with the majority view in this matter almost certainly won't be killing anyone to force our point of view on the rest of you."

Are you attempting to say that people disagreeing with you and like minded colleagues are threatening violence or murder on people holding contrarian points of view??

Or what??

It is a most odd thing to say in relation to those who, in good faith, might hold views which you disagree with.

It betrays kind of paranoia, which perhaps you should talk to someone about.

Nodin wrote: »

Using a situation to ones advantage doesn't imply one approved of how and why one ended up there.

Given Ireland was under military occupation, do you regard the 1918 election result as being illegitimate?

View wrote: »

I am fully aware of that.



Agreed.



I am aware of both.

A poor electoral system, such as FPTP, does not turn a minority of the popular vote cast into a "Clear majority" in favour of a proposition though (particularly with a significant %age of the adult population still disenfranchised at the time).

Nor indeed does the existence of uncontested seats, particularly when those seats were in areas of the country where contemporary reports at the time (before the election) indicated the state had already lost control of (or to use the language of the day "where the King's writ no longer runs").



Very exciting but no one was suggesting it constituted a mandate for GB to leave the UK, were they? :-)

Rather it was an election to elect MPs to Parliament (and, hence, to ensure a government was elected by MPs from the ranks of Parliament).

Exactly as it was in Ireland since it was the same election held on the same day.

I am afraid you are undermining your own case if you are attempting to claim securing a majority of seats in a general election under a poor electoral system has the same validity as securing a majority in a referendum.

Hence the situation is that SF did not secure a majority of votes cast in either the general election or in a subsequent referendum, so they had no "clear majority" - all of which shows them acting without care or consideration for the views of others on the island at a time when a fairly fundamental constitutional issue was up for decision.

My dear confused friend:

You say:

"A poor electoral system, such as FPTP, does not turn a minority of the popular vote cast into a "Clear majority" in favour of a proposition though (particularly with a significant %age of the adult population still disenfranchised at the time)."

Firstly, perhaps you can point out where I ever used the term "Clear majority" in relation to the 1918 GE??

It seems to be a favourite term of yours.

Where, except in you fevered mind, did I claim that the Electoral System turned anything into anything except seats won.

I see you there mentioning "proposition" again.

What are you talking about, this was an Election.

I thought you said you were aware of that??

In your post, which I was replying to, this one:

Originally Posted by View View Post
There were 1,015,515 votes cast in that election. There were more than the above 3 parties who contested the election.

476,087 (not 497,107) voted for Sinn Fein.

Both figures (for SF) are a MINORITY of the votes cast. So, no majority, clear or otherwise from the electorate for them.

"End of" to quote yourself.

you seemed to indicate that by simply counting the numbers of votes cast, and seeing that SF only got a minority of those votes, it somehow invalidates the result, whereby they actually won the vast majority of Irish seats.

I pointed out to you that this was an Election, not a Plebiscite, and the results were attained under the prevailing Electoral System, and therefore the Landslide result for SF was explainable and understandable, poor system or not, it was the system.

Then you move on to make an allegation that some seats were lost, to the state??, due to intimidation, which you produce absolutely no evidence of, except to say there were undefined areas where the "kings writ no longer ran". :eek:

It is actually difficult to make out what exactly your point is.

My reference to the overall UK results, was, of course, for illustrative purposes, as you don't seem to understand how Elections work .

My point was, that just as in Ireland, Coalition Parties got a majority of seats in Parliament, even though they only received a minority of the votes cast, which is what seemed to be your concern regarding the Irish results.

As for the rest of your post, it is simply incoherent rubbish, such as this:

"I am afraid you are undermining your own case if you are attempting to claim securing a majority of seats in a general election under a poor electoral system has the same validity as securing a majority in a referendum."

Now, please show where in my post, I made any such case or claim??

I am not responsible for your chronic lack of education regarding the Electoral process, and how it works, but it is not right to knowingly ascribe something to someone which you must surely know to be untrue??

But maybe not, perhaps you feel it's OK.

Nodin wrote: »

Evidently not, given the fighting. It's easy to judge via hindsight, however.

So then it would be accurate to say that in the view of the militant groups of the time, violence did not succeed in taking Ireland out of the Empire and the British monarchy remained head of state?