Easter Rising vs modern day terrorism

wylo

Hi I am just wondering what peoples views on the differences between the likes of the Easter Rising and modern day work of the IRA.

Bringing this up might make me come across as attempting to troll or trying to defend the murders of the soldiers in the North. I am not attempting to do that one bit and I have as much sympathy for those soldiers as the next man.
Im just putting it out for discussion, a bit of thought provocation if you will.

I was just reading on Wiki about the Easter Rising and the similarities to modern day events are scary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising

-The lack of public support for the rising/or any murders
-The methods of terrorism that followed to eventually get the British to talk to us
-The core sympathy only developing because of the death penalty given to the volunteers.

Without quoting half the article it basically gives an account of how there was little sympathy for the insurgents, and that alot of Dubliners supported the troops. On saying that itdoes also talk about incidents that contradict those claims so its hard to tell.

Basically Im just wondering what 'cause' were they fighting for that the catholics in the north werent fighting for for the last 30 years.

This is merely for debate, I dont have an answer myself, but what I do know is I dont support the murders in the North, however at the same time I dont support the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, countries which these same soldiers are occupying.

Are there many out there that are proud of the likes of the Easter Rising but are strongly against the IRAs terrorist campaign?

TomRooney

the reason being for the lack of action/support is simple, the irish people are far too apathetic, too concerned about climbing the social ladder or making more money than the neighbour.

the irish people need a good kick up the arsse

futurehope

The Irish are too emotional for their own good. As you say, the 1916 rebels were abused and spat on by The Irish populace, but when The UK executed them, The Irish saw them as heroes. What were The British meant to do with them?

NewDubliner

wylo wrote: »

Hi I am just wondering what peoples views on the differences between the likes of the Easter Rising and modern day work of the IRA.

I think it would be incorrect to make comparison just on the basis of the paramilitary actions and the executions of the leaders by the UK government.

In the time up to 1921, people were desperately poor and resented UK exploitation. There was genuine oppression and discrimination.

Whatever way nationalists in the North may feel now, I'd doubt if it's the same as back in 1916-1921. There may now be bad feeling and disgruntlement. But living standards, anti-discrimination laws and police behaviour have improved. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's surely better than 100 years ago.

The most dangerous adversary is one who has nothing to lose. At the beginning of the last century, there were very many people with absolutely nothing to lose. Now, some people may live in relative poverty but I don't think the conditions are quite the same as 1916-1921.

Pandcoa

wylo wrote: »

-The lack of public support for the rising/or any murders

Any sources I read on this always just mentions the populace of Dublin, not the people of the west or the south so it's hard to exactaly say how the whole nation felt. Dublin was always quite well off aswell so many people didn't have a lot to complain about, have you ever heard a man with a full belly complain about his food? The regionally disadvantaged people of the west were quite different in mindset since they saw how most of the wealth was kept in the east/Dublin, so they were more supportive of those who took radical action trying to change that

ednwireland

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter just depends where your looking at it from

sock puppet

Pandcoa wrote: »

Any sources I read on this always just mentions the populace of Dublin, not the people of the west or the south so it's hard to exactaly say how the whole nation felt. Dublin was always quite well off aswell so many people didn't have a lot to complain about, have you ever heard a man with a full belly complain about his food? The regionally disadvantaged people of the west were quite different in mindset since they saw how most of the wealth was kept in the east/Dublin, so they were more supportive of those who took radical action trying to change that

What? Never heard of the strike and lockout? Or read James Joyce? Dublin was the worst place to live in the UK in that time.

Dyr

futurehope wrote: »

As you say, the 1916 rebels were abused and spat on by The Irish populace.

Great to see the dumbing down of history to bulletin points had the desired effect. The cruiser can sleep easy now.

brianthebard

Pandcoa wrote: »

Any sources I read on this always just mentions the populace of Dublin, not the people of the west or the south so it's hard to exactaly say how the whole nation felt. Dublin was always quite well off aswell so many people didn't have a lot to complain about, have you ever heard a man with a full belly complain about his food? The regionally disadvantaged people of the west were quite different in mindset since they saw how most of the wealth was kept in the east/Dublin, so they were more supportive of those who took radical action trying to change that

Tenements.


The main difference between 1916 and the troubles is the way the rising was choreographed, a take over of the city's strategic points and a city war against the British Army. Connolly had studied this sort of war extensively and found that many times in history a smaller force had been able to defeat a bigger army, just through manipulation of the cityscape and strategic use of arms. He had not perhaps factored in modern artillery and guns though which were to bring the rising to a fairly swift end.
The troubles were fought much more like the war of independence, a guerilla war in which surprise attacks and actual terrorist acts (ie bombings and killings designed to terrorise the enemy) were used.

LordSutch

Personally speaking I see very little difference between what the current IRA is doing, to what the original IRA were doing 1916-1922, ie; bumping off Policemen & soldiers one by one. Obviously in 1916 their cunning plan was to attack in the middle of the darkest days of the Great War (how dastardly) :rolleyes: just when tens of thousands of Irish men are being decimated by machine gun in Flanders, Dev & Co think "Ah Yes" lets put the knife in now" ah sure everyone is off fighting the Germans, and those left behind will kiss & hug us for it, to be sure to be sure . . . they actually just got spat at instead for their 'heroic' actions!

Well there is no Great War raging at the moment, so I cant see how the current IRA rabble will get away with anything, unless they occupy City Hall & the Europa Hotel, claiming that "Northern Ireland is now part of the Republic of Ireland" & we will be free of British oppression ble bla bla ..............

Exile 1798

Bambi wrote: »

Great to see the dumbing down of history to bulletin points had the desired effect. The cruiser can sleep easy now.

How true.

jimmmy

futurehope wrote: »

As you say, the 1916 rebels were abused and spat on by The Irish populace

True enough. An awful lot more Irish people volunteered to serve in British uniforms than were ever in the rising. Dublin has a good infrastructure at the time....world class canals, harbours , trading systems, universities, roads, architecture etc. It actually took less time then to go from A to B on some train journeys ( or post a letter to arrive in London ...that was next day delivery in 1916 ) than several generations after independence....some progress !

Mr.Micro

Its been all roses since 1916 has it not? We gained independence De Valera turned the clock back with the Church and we became priest ridden and even more repressed and not forgetting decades of clerical abuses. What economy did we have, hundred of thousands have had to emigrate and die in exile, leave their newly "liberated land ". Our infrastructure is still behind. It is only in the last 15 years or so that we have thrown this mantle off. Independence would have come IMO anyway. There a price for everything, but I do not accept that the 1916 rising was all wonderful and that the aftermath was fantastic.

jimmmy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Its been all roses since 1916 has it not? We gained independence De Valera turned the clock back with the Church and we became priest ridden and even more repressed and not forgetting decades of clerical abuses. What economy did we have, hundred of thousands have had to emigrate and die in exile, leave their newly "liberated land ". Our infrastructure is still behind. It is only in the last 15 years or so that we have thrown this mantle off. Independence would have come IMO anyway. There a price for everything, but I do not accept that the 1916 rising was all wonderful and that the aftermath was fantastic.

+1

walrusgumble

Pandcoa wrote: »

Any sources I read on this always just mentions the populace of Dublin, not the people of the west or the south so it's hard to exactaly say how the whole nation felt. Dublin was always quite well off aswell so many people didn't have a lot to complain about, have you ever heard a man with a full belly complain about his food? The regionally disadvantaged people of the west were quite different in mindset since they saw how most of the wealth was kept in the east/Dublin, so they were more supportive of those who took radical action trying to change that

i would not argue with what you are saying there completely, but, for purpose of debate and a good comment made by you,

plenty of people in dublin had plenty to complain about in those days with slumps and employment conditions etc - note how and why the dublin lock 1913out came about.

in many ways, i would have taught that many rural areas would have less to complain, strictly in the sense that they got their land via land war and parnell's work in the 1880's

i would say though, that if the west was more supportive, why were they not more military action in 1916? granted, many members that took part in dublin 1916 were actually from the west; macdermott and ceannt being too obvious ones and of course the fighting that went on in galway.

one needs to note, though, that for all the women who went mental over 1916, i dont know whether it was over loyality to the crown or the fact that they depended on their husbands, who were fighting for the crown, for money .

according to some diaries from those who took part in the rebellion of 1916, not every dublin pelted fruit and veg and jeered at those who took part. its not like 1916 was a complete secret.

the citizens army and volunteers were prior to this parading around in open view in their uniforms - pearse's speech at o'donovan rossa's grave the year before made it crystal clear what his intentions were.

Nodin

jimmmy wrote: »

True enough(.......)some progress !

'Right. Right. Terrific race, the Romans. Terrific. '

In 1911 Dublin had the worst housing conditions of any city in the United Kingdom. Its extensive slums were not limited to the back-streets or to impoverished ghettos. By 1911 the city slums also incorporated great Georgian houses on previously fashionable streets and squares. As the wealthy moved to the suburbs over the course of the 19th century, their huge, red-brick buildings were abandoned to the rent-paying poor. Tenements in inner-city Dublin were filthy, overcrowded, disease-ridden, teeming with malnourished children and very much at odds with the elite world of colonial and middle-class Dublin.

http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/exhibition/dublin/poverty_health.html

walrusgumble

jimmmy wrote: »

True enough. An awful lot more Irish people volunteered to serve in British uniforms than were ever in the rising. Dublin has a good infrastructure at the time....world class canals, harbours , trading systems, universities, roads, architecture etc. It actually took less time then to go from A to B on some train journeys ( or post a letter to arrive in London ...that was next day delivery in 1916 ) than several generations after independence....some progress !

yes and one of the highest infant mortality rates in the empire. you are aware of the state of many of the homes ordinary people were expected to live in.i would point out that this is not neccessarily the crowns fault, its just, as fine a city dublin was then, it was, and in fairness like other place, no oil painting.

well the irish did rather well in the 1920's with projects like ardnacrusha & bord na mona, CIE did a sterling job considering half of the countries tracks and bridges were in bits. its not like things were peachy in other countries were commodities such as coal and oil were runnin low during the WWII

NOGMaxpower

TomRooney wrote: »

the reason being for the lack of action/support is simple, the irish people are far too apathetic, too concerned about climbing the social ladder or making more money than the neighbour.

the irish people need a good kick up the arsse

here here

Bob Z

ednwireland wrote: »

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter just depends where your looking at it from

Yes it seems to to be the status quo who decide who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist

big b

TomRooney wrote: »

the reason being for the lack of action/support is simple, the irish people are far too apathetic, too concerned about climbing the social ladder or making more money than the neighbour.

the irish people need a good kick up the arsse

NOGMaxpower wrote: »

here here

As usual, an out of date anology.

Most people are concerned about the economy, their job, hanging onto their home.
Nationalism isn't going to feed the kids or pay the mortgage. Quite the opposite.

For most of us, the world has moved on.

K-9

big b wrote: »

As usual, an out of date anology.

Most people are concerned about the economy, their job, hanging onto their home.
Nationalism isn't going to feed the kids or pay the mortgage. Quite the opposite.

For most of us, the world has moved on.

Indeed.

Also, while the majority on this island do want an United Ireland, they want it peacefully and not through coercion and force.

As for comparing the 1916 rebels to this lot, I'll await their takeover of the main Belfast Post Office and their willingness to fight to the death to highlight their cause. Whether it was right, wrong, foolhardy oran act of madness, it was brave and well intentioned.

Sniping at PSNI officers from a distance doesn't cut it with me.

Serenity Now!

K-9 wrote: »

Also, while the majority on this island do want an United Ireland, they want it peacefully and not through coercion and force

Unfortunately all it takes is a few animals to persist in ignoring the will of those inhabiting this island (as voiced in 1998) and take it upon themselves to pursue a deluded ideology (to put it very mildly).

Allah Hu Akbar

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed.

Also, while the majority on this island do want an United Ireland, they want it peacefully and not through coercion and force.

As for comparing the 1916 rebels to this lot, I'll await their takeover of the main Belfast Post Office and their willingness to fight to the death to highlight their cause. Whether it was right, wrong, foolhardy oran act of madness, it was brave and well intentioned.

Sniping at PSNI officers from a distance doesn't cut it with me.

Wars are fought different than they were a hundred years ago. By the way are you aware Micheal Collins shot a police man dead while he was sleeping? Yet he is regarded as a hero while if it's done these days they're terrorists.

Unfortunately all it takes is a few animals to persist in ignoring the will of those inhabiting this island (as voiced in 1998) and take it upon themselves to pursue a deluded ideology (to put it very mildly).

As already stated in a post when Pearse read the proclamation at the GPO people came up and spate at him. It's not a deluded ideology I guess you think we live in a Irish Republic by sitting down and having a few cigars with Churchill. The IRA whether you like to admit it or not achieved many things.

Most people are concerned about the economy, their job, hanging onto their home.
Nationalism isn't going to feed the kids or pay the mortgage. Quite the opposite.

Yeah it's all well and good saying that just because the South is free if it wasn't I wonder would you be saying the same thing, I'd say so I bet you'd more than happy to be singing God save the queen as your anthem.

K-9

Allah Hu Akbar wrote: »

Wars are fought different than they were a hundred years ago. By the way are you aware Micheal Collins shot a police man dead while he was sleeping? Yet he is regarded as a hero while if it's done these days they're terrorists.

Hmmm. Different times as you say yourself. Different police forces too!

Allah Hu Akbar wrote:

Yeah it's all well and good saying that just because the South is free if it wasn't I wonder would you be saying the same thing, I'd say so I bet you'd more than happy to be singing God save the queen as your anthem.

Nice twist on the West Brit mud slinging.

wylo

Bloody Sunday, 21 November 1920 , where the IRA murdered agents and others who had no affiliation with politics, from Wiki:

"In all, 14 people were killed and 6 wounded, including suspected agents and those with no connection to politics, and two Auxiliaries. Four of the British casualties were military intelligence officers and another four were Secret Service or MI5 agents."

I just thought I would give another example of how we look back on our past freedom fighters and how we see modern terrorists. Is it because of incidents like this that we have our own country?

The problem I have trouble dealing with is trying to figure out the difference, although I do appreciate some of the replies regarding discrimination and oppression that they suffered then, that the people in the North do not suffer today.

I guess the point Im trying to put out is, you cant go bashing todays terrorists but look back on our "heroic" figures like Collins proudly.

NewDubliner

wylo wrote: »

I guess the point Im trying to put out is, you cant go bashing todays terrorists but look back on our "heroic" figures like Collins proudly.

You can if you disagree with what they are doing now.

wylo

NewDubliner wrote: »

You can if you disagree with what they are doing now.

I do disagree with it, thats my dilemma.

brianthebard

jimmmy wrote: »

True enough. An awful lot more Irish people volunteered to serve in British uniforms than were ever in the rising. Dublin has a good infrastructure at the time....world class canals, harbours , trading systems, universities, roads, architecture etc. It actually took less time then to go from A to B on some train journeys ( or post a letter to arrive in London ...that was next day delivery in 1916 ) than several generations after independence....some progress !

How many of those volunteers were forced either by economic necessity or economic force to join the British Army? How many were pushed by Redmond to go? Dublin (notice how you only mention the city, as opposed to the whole of the country??? ) had decent infrastructure at the start of the nineteenth century, but a hundred years of neglect and lack of investment had not kept it up to date. If you really believe that Dublin's infrastructure was so good in the years prior to independence, why did that not stay in place after independence was announced? The British didn't pull up the roads when they left you know.

walrusgumble wrote: »

in many ways, i would have taught that many rural areas would have less to complain, strictly in the sense that they got their land via land war and parnell's work in the 1880's

I think this is the case to some extent but just looking at the republican strongholds that exist and existed in West Cork, Leitrim, parts of Mayo, etc, you can see that there was strong support, even if this was not manifested during easter 1916. How could it be though when so many men had been sent to the front?

i would say though, that if the west was more supportive, why were they not more military action in 1916? granted, many members that took part in dublin 1916 were actually from the west; macdermott and ceannt being too obvious ones and of course the fighting that went on in galway.

Two main reasons stand out for me- ITGWU members had been targetted since 1914 by employers to be sent off to the front. While it was not conscription, employers were encouraged to free up potential soldiers. The employers who refused in 1913 to recognise the union (which resulted in the lock out) attempted to rid itself of the union for a second time.

Also, the head of the IVF heard about the planned rising at the 11th hour and called off Easter manoeuvres, this actually delayed the rising by a day. It also confused a lot of volunteers about what was happening and what they were supposed to do.

brianthebard

wylo wrote: »

Bloody Sunday, 21 November 1920 , where the IRA murdered agents and others who had no affiliation with politics, from Wiki:

"In all, 14 people were killed and 6 wounded, including suspected agents and those with no connection to politics, and two Auxiliaries. Four of the British casualties were military intelligence officers and another four were Secret Service or MI5 agents."

I just thought I would give another example of how we look back on our past freedom fighters and how we see modern terrorists. Is it because of incidents like this that we have our own country?

The problem I have trouble dealing with is trying to figure out the difference, although I do appreciate some of the replies regarding discrimination and oppression that they suffered then, that the people in the North do not suffer today.

I guess the point Im trying to put out is, you cant go bashing todays terrorists but look back on our "heroic" figures like Collins proudly.

What do you mean they had no connection to politics?? They were military intelligence officers! I think a better source than wikipedia is required here tbh.

NewDubliner

wylo wrote: »

I do disagree with it, thats my dilemma.

Sometimes you just have to draw a line under history. Accept with regret what happened in the past. Make your own judgement about what is the right thing now.

You can change the present, you can't change the past.

wylo

brianthebard wrote: »

What do you mean they had no connection to politics?? They were military intelligence officers! I think a better source than wikipedia is required here tbh.

Point taken about Wiki, however a bogus and unreferenced article doesnt last too long there so I usually dont have a problem referring to it, and thats where I read that.

Mr. Presentable

Well, now, there's a question OP. I object to the killing of people for whatever end, but if you want to get through to the enemy occupying your townlands, the pleas of the victims spouses/families will call loudest.

I am proud we threw the English out of most of our country. I am sad people had to die. I wish they'd get out of the rest, but can accept it won't happen.

I can see the viewpoint of people in occupied territories like Iraq etc - recall Iraq was occupied and split up by the English before, Kuwait being a province of Iraq. And without any other leverage, guns and bombs is your resort. I don't approve, but I understand.

djpbarry

Allah Hu Akbar wrote: »

...are you aware Micheal Collins shot a police man dead while he was sleeping? Yet he is regarded as a hero...

...by some.

jank

NOOOOOOOOOO! Not this issue again!
History needs to be viewed from the politics, morals and issues of the time.

TBH this should be moved to History. Maybe a MOD can to the business?

FTA69

djpbarry wrote: »

...by some.

By most to be honest.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

...by some.

Some think Hitler and Stalin were great guys too..:pac:

***Opens a can of worms and runs away***

Nodin

One day the technology will exist whereby we can collect the cans of worms at the door...One day....

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

One day the technology will exist whereby we can collect the cans of worms at the door...One day....

Godwin might invent it!

Erin Go Brath

wylo wrote: »

Hi I am just wondering what peoples views on the differences between the likes of the Easter Rising and modern day work of the IRA.


Are there many out there that are proud of the likes of the Easter Rising but are strongly against the IRAs terrorist campaign?

Removing British rule from Ireland was the goal then and its still the goal. Nothing has changed in that respect. If one views an attack on British occupied Ireland justified in 1916 then an attack on British occupied Ireland is equally justified in 2009.

The only difference now is a different political climate in which the Provisional Republican movement have allowed themselves to be painted into a corner by the GFA. The GFA is signed up to by all the major players, and gains its legitimacy by virtue of this.

Britain has succesfully fostered division between Republicans and Unionists some time back, now it looks like they've succesfully fostered an intra-republican division. Part of their tried and tested divide and conquer strategy used to great effect by them in many countries around the world has been successfully deployed.

One mans peace process is another mans sellout. That is the crux of the issue. The only thing assured is that more conflict down the line is inevitable.

Only a full and complete removal of British rule from Ireland can guarantee an end to conflict. The British are the problem, not the Unionists, not the Republicans but the British who have continually fostered division and hatred here through the years. While at the same time succesfully painting it as an 'internal dispute' to the worlds media where they are neutral arbitrators. The shocking history of collusion, state sponsored murder, and anti-catholic apartheid in the orange state has proved what a bogus claim that was.

K-9

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Only a full and complete removal of British rule from Ireland can guarantee an end to conflict.

I'd broadly agree with your post excpet that part. It will not end conflict.
Their will be a new bunch of freedom fighters.

RedPlanet

K-9 wrote: »

I'd broadly agree with your post excpet that part. It will not end conflict.
Their will be a new bunch of freedom fighters.

But they don't have much a history of fighting wars of attrition.
And they seem rather dependent on state support.
Cut of their oxygen and those Loyalists won't last long.

K-9

RedPlanet wrote: »

But they don't have much a history of fighting wars of attrition.
And they seem rather dependent on state support.
Cut of their oxygen and those Loyalists won't last long.

Sure the IRA or indeed the RIRA could/can can do enough damage without state support.

On the history, they can learn!

jimmmy

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Only a full and complete removal of British rule from Ireland can guarantee an end to conflict.

If N. Ireland was not part of the UK, and Britain stopped pumping billions there each year, there would still be conflict....only probably worse. Even if the 1 million or so unionists were "silenced", part of the republican movement would still be dedicated to a socialist cause...and you can bet your last dollar there would still be bickering over Rockall, the Isle of Man or something else. Hell would freeze over before the million people ( who wish to remain part of the UK ) would risk becoming part of a "united" Ireland. Hard to blame them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LordSutch

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Removing British rule from Ireland was the goal then and its still the goal. Nothing has changed in that respect. If one views an attack on British occupied Ireland justified in 1916 then an attack on British occupied Ireland is equally justified in 2009.

Only a full and complete removal of British rule from Ireland can guarantee an end to conflict. The British are the problem, not the Unionists, not the Republicans but the British who have continually fostered division and hatred here through the years. While at the same time succesfully painting it as an 'internal dispute' to the worlds media where they are neutral arbitrators. The shocking history of collusion, state sponsored murder, and anti-catholic apartheid in the orange state has proved what a bogus claim that was.

I presume by 'the British' you mean the British Government? (please clarify), anyway, leaving that aside 4 now, surely nothing changes unless the people of NI vote to leave the Union, and as has been said many times before, the GFA is the only show in town these days (2009) & the Unionists/British are still in the majority who want NI to remain part of the UK, (as do a sizeable percentage of Nationalists) > so why must some people keep banging on about what they demand, whilst holding everybody else to ransome!

ie; "We demand our version of a United Ireland" > we also demand that NI leaves the UK > because "we say so" and in the meantime we will just keep 'bumping off' the odd policeman or sapper here or there ........ :rolleyes:

Allah Hu Akbar

Camelot wrote: »

I presume by 'the British' you mean the British Government? (please clarify), anyway, leaving that aside 4 now, surely nothing changes unless the people of NI vote to leave the Union, and as has been said many times before, the GFA is the only show in town these days (2009) & the Unionists/British are still in the majority who want NI to remain part of the UK, (as do a sizeable percentage of Nationalists) > so why must some people keep banging on about what they demand, whilst holding everybody else to ransome!

ie; "We demand our version of a United Ireland" > we also demand that NI leaves the UK > because "we say so" and in the meantime we will just keep 'bumping off' the odd policeman or sapper here or there ........ :rolleyes:

So why don't they have a vote on it every 5/10 years?

I am pie

Do you know anything about the GFA and the Principle of Consent ?

Doesn't sound like it.

If SF have an electoral mandate of 51% in NI, not inconceivable in the next decade or two what do you think that would mean for the future of NI based on the principle of consent of the democratic majority of NI ?

Still...yeah, you keep on getting teenagers to shoot pizza delivery men in the back while the big men behind the scenes desparately try to cling to the brave and honourable legacy of 1916.

Erin Go Brath

K-9 wrote: »

I'd broadly agree with your post excpet that part. It will not end conflict.
Their will be a new bunch of freedom fighters.

It will put the issue of disputed sovereignty of the 6 counties to bed for good, and remove the reason for conflict in the long term.

Any minor kerfuffles that arise after unity will be put down and the people incarcerated. Even if there is a bit of ongoing conflict as a result of unity, people will soon realise that Ireland is a United 32 county republic for evermore so they'll get the idea that conflict is futile. Live in the new republic or emigrate will be the options.

Republicans will never acqueise to live in anything other than a United Ireland, and there will always be some militants prepared to overthrow Brit rule, just as well as there is some that will work within the system to achieve the same ends. The current Stormont Govt is just something Republicans are part of as an interim deal until the conditions for unity are more favourable. It is a temporary arrangement.

Allah Hu Akbar

I am pie wrote: »

Do you know anything about the GFA and the Principle of Consent ?

Doesn't sound like it.

If SF have an electoral mandate of 51% in NI, not inconceivable in the next decade or two what do you think that would mean for the future of NI based on the principle of consent of the democratic majority of NI ?

Wouldn't mean anything to be honest!

You believe if 51% of the people in northern voted for Sinn Fein there would be a united Ireland? Don't make me laugh.

Erin Go Brath

jimmmy wrote: »

If N. Ireland was not part of the UK, and Britain stopped pumping billions there each year, there would still be conflict....only probably worse. Even if the 1 million or so unionists were "silenced", part of the republican movement would still be dedicated to a socialist cause...and you can bet your last dollar there would still be bickering over Rockall, the Isle of Man or something else. Hell would freeze over before the million people ( who wish to remain part of the UK ) would risk becoming part of a "united" Ireland. Hard to blame them.

Nonsense. Firstly there is much less than 1 million unionists in the occupied territory. They will in fact become a minority even within the gerrymandered part of Ireland in about a decade or so as well. The challenge for the Irish Govt is to find what is the best way to organise Government. A unitary or federal state will be the two options with a devolved regional parliament for the north as part of the federal state solution.

If a localised 6 county majority vote for unity then unity is what we'll have. Theres nothing a few disgruntled loyalists can do about it then i'm afraid.

LordSutch

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Republicans will never acqueise to live in anything other than a United Ireland, and there will always be some militants prepared to overthrow Brit rule, just as well as there is some that will work within the system to achieve the same ends. The current Stormont Govt is just something Republicans are part of as an interim deal until the conditions for unity are more favourable. It is a temporary arrangement.

And so, the 'Troubles' will go on for ever ........ :cool:

Why cant you just accept things the way they are, that NI is currently within the United Kingdom & that the GFA is the only way to go forward (without the bomb & the bullit)!

"Would Northern Ireland be a much better place if it were part of the Republic of Ireland"? would it be more peaceful than it is now? and would its departure from the UK spell the end of the Troubles?