People from Northern Ireland are not British!

dlofnep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

owenc wrote: »

JAYSUS i will choose to be irish

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

owenc

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

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

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

dlofnep wrote: »

Great contribution to the thread Owen. Truly groundbreaking stuff.

thanks you made my day;):cool:

lugha

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

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.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

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

And how could it, under the control of a foreign Government?

lugha wrote: »

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

No, Irish people had a valid claim to control the affairs of Irish people. The 1918 elections gave them the mandate to do so - which was unfairly taken from them under duress.

lugha wrote: »

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.

No, that's actually your argument. I was merely responding. You are attempting to make the claim that Unionists were merely being accommodated. They were not being just accommodated - they were being given privileges over counties that they did not even have a majority vote in.

The fact that Ireland was partitioned, is proof in itself that Ireland was a single entity. Even Britain considered it as such when it titled the Union as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, rather than the Untied Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern and Southern Ireland.

And no - I don't believe that Ireland should have been partitioned at all. I've made this very clear to you on a number of occasions. There was not a mandate to do so and it caused more harm than good.

lugha wrote: »

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.

Ah yes - but so long as it's the nationalists who have a civil war - then it's all hunky for Britain, right?

lugha

ardmacha wrote: »

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.

Ah but you are avoiding the point of contention. You assert that the country of Ireland (a geographical single entity but not a political one) is the "rightful" constituency. Not the larger one of GB + I, nor the smaller one of NI.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

Ah but you are avoiding the point of contention. You assert that the country of Ireland (a geographical single entity but not a political one) is the "rightful" constituency. Not the larger one of GB + I, nor the smaller one of NI.

GB is an Island, consisting of England, Scotland and Wales. Hence the title at the time - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Northern Ireland did not exist prior to partition. Ireland however as a country did exist. Just like Wales, Scotland and England existed.

Your point is irrelevant. Ireland was a single entity. You're trying to excuse the partition of Ireland, which was done under duress - under the pretense that Unionists were just being accommodated. You're doing a very poor job of it.

owenc

dlofnep wrote: »

GB is an Island, consisting of England, Scotland and Wales. Hence the title at the time - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Northern Ireland did not exist prior to partition. Ireland however as a country did exist. Just like Wales, Scotland and England existed.

Your point is irrelevant. Ireland was a single entity. You're trying to excuse the partition of Ireland, which was done under duress - under the pretense that Unionists were just being accommodated. You're doing a very poor job of it.

The irish news channels etc seem to use different terms to in the uk and ni, we don't call it "the north" and we don't say "derry" either (i don't like the idea of londonderry even though my family worked in the london companies, i see it as biogted but anyway), aswell as not using "great britiain and northern ireland"

sceptre

This thread's moved to the usual single entity or not thing that we've had many many times before as well as other things that are completely off-topic. Life support ended, it's no longer anything tangible to do with the original point of the thread and it was generous to let it live for this long. The irony of course is that some of you people know this but you're still toddling down that well-worn yellow brick road, despite the thread title. No points for you, if there was a "list", you'd be on it.

Locked. I suggest kicking a football or something instead.