Should we be offended by the term ‘Free State government’?

ONeill2013

it's not meant as an insult, most older people I know refer to ROI as the free state, some of these people have little interest in politics, i think my grand-parents even call it that.

Cody Pomeray

COYW wrote: »

It's not a sinister act, it's reality.

Not according to the Irish Government; this State recognizes as legitimate claim to Irish nationality of all citizens of this island. The State recognizes this claim as being equally legitimate as someone born in West Kerry.

You're not denying that are you? Sounds "treasonous" and "sinister" to me.

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're not denying that are you? Sounds "treasonous" and "sinister" to me.

I suggest you look up the constitution. Treason is defined in it.

So are lots of other concepts such as that of all Irish citizens owing fidelity to the Nation and loyalty to the State (and its institutions) as fundamental political duties - political duties which very many "Republicans" have shown themselves to be as likely to honour as the average Unionist.

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

I suggest you look up the constitution. Treason is defined in it.

Sorry I just went by the dictionary version, I didn't know I was charging the poster with the article 39 defined offence... wow. I guess i better look up the constitution. Do you have a link?

thanks for the legal clarity there in advance.

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Sorry I just went by the dictionary version, I didn't know I was charging the poster with the article 39 defined offence... wow. I guess i better look up the constitution. Do you have a link?

thanks for the legal clarity there in advance.

Try using Google. You may have heard about it even if you are a bit vague about the Constitution and its contents. It isn't an "Optional Extra".

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

Try using Google. You may have heard about it even if you are a bit vague about the Constitution and its contents. It isn't an "Optional Extra".

What isn't an "optional extra"?
All I want is a link to the constitution. You're really starting to hurt my feelings and making me feel dumb, where can i find the constitution? I just want to learn.

gallag

FTA69 wrote: »

Right so someone in Cavan walks five minutes up the road into Fermanagh to visit a neighbour for tea and you somehow think they've traversed into a different country to converse with a foreigner? .

Could that not be said at any boarder? Anywhere there is a boarder you will have neighbours in different countries. Remember the majority of people of Northern Ireland are happy for it to remain a different country from Ireland.

FTA69

Could that not be said at any boarder?

No. The border in Ireland splits communities, GAA clubs, villages, towns and even farms and houses at times. There are some houses that when you go to a certain room you get a text message welcoming you to the UK. It was a hastily drawn, artificial concept used to give Unionists the maximum amount of territory so Britain could maintain a presence in Ireland.

It isn't a natural phenomenon, certainly not to the communities who live there who regard it as a total irrelevance as opposed to an international border.

Cody Pomeray

gallag wrote: »

Could that not be said at any boarder?

But it is anomalous with the legal provisions on citizenship in this particular jurisdiction, whereby those in Tralee and in Tyrone have equal rights to Irish citizenship as a birthright. Irish Constitutional Law expressly provides for a shared island, and a desire for re-unification.

That is a vision that Republicans share with the Irish State; partitionists are completely out on their own on this one.

So while I appreciate what you are saying in terms of recognized borders being an ordinary fact of life, the Irish legal provisions make COYW's assertion that "people north of the border are foreign to [us]" is, at the very kindest description I might give it, disingenuous.

[Jackass]

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Everyone in the 32 counties is Irish. Some call themselves unionist, some nationalist, but they are all Irish. What country are they in? Ireland. They are not foreigners, they are our own. I refuse to recognize a foreign forced division of my country.

Debatable history there.

The Ulster Unionists are the results of Ulster Scotts (mostly) being relocated to Ireland in order to take advantage of large plantations of land. So they are in fact foreign, and are the majority in the North. And also the reason the 6 Northern Counties were segregated in the peace treaty, for fear that (and rightly so) the Ulster Scots up north would be slaughtered as, well, they weren't very nice to the Irish when they had the protection of the crown, so the crown protection was maintained.

Now with the Good Friday agreement, those descended from the original Irish of the North can claim their citizenship as Irish, but regardless, the majority of what remains in the North are British people foreign to this land.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying the British weren't brutal and treated the Irish in a horriffic manner, but the above is just a historical fact. If they weren't foreign and were actually Irish, then why would the idea of a united Ireland repulse them so much?

Son Of A Vidic

[Jackass] wrote: »

And also the reason the 6 Northern Counties were segregated in the peace treaty, for fear that (and rightly so) the Ulster Scots up north would be slaughtered as, well,..

Rightly so? No I don't think so. In order to maintain and guarantee a strategic foothold on the island of Ireland. The British selected a geographical region based on the maximun amount of loyal subjects present. Nothing to do with 'slaughtering' at all.

wolfpawnat

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Rightly so? No I don't think so. In order to maintain and guarantee a strategic foothold on the island of Ireland. The British selected a geographical region based on the maximun amount of loyal subjects present. Nothing to do with 'slaughtering' at all.

Also at that time it was an industrial center of Ireland.

JustinDee

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It's not acceptable really. It just shows that they don't really recognize the current state and government as legitimate. A bit treasonous in my eyes.

Of course.
Also, the even further hypocritical side of that party is that they claim all Westminster expenses and subsidies courtesy of the taxpayers over there, for the seat that they do not occupy.

All a little . . . Irish.

[Jackass]

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Rightly so? No I don't think so. In order to maintain and guarantee a strategic foothold on the island of Ireland. The British selected a geographical region based on the maximun amount of loyal subjects present. Nothing to do with 'slaughtering' at all.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Also at that time it was an industrial center of Ireland.

Other considerations perhaps, but had the British fully withdrawn from the entire island, there would have been serious violence against Ulster Scots in the North, there was serious violence against them even with British army to protect them, their houses would have been burned to the ground and many would have been murdered. What kind of message would that send to colonies of Britain all over the world if they withdrew and left the settled to be torn apart by the locals? Under no circumstances, EVER would the UK agree to give back those 6 counties, it was absolutely out of the question.

Modern circumstances vs the atmosphere of the day are very different. The unionist portion of the north would have been absolutely annihilated.

As for strategic base and industrial might of Belfast, the Great British empire really wouldn't notice the loss of output from a tiny corner of their vast Empire, and as for strategic control, Britain being about 100 miles off the coast of Ireland with the most powerful army and navy in the world of the day, they could retake Dublin in a week, regardless of Belfast.

Karl Stein

[Jackass] wrote: »

The unionist portion of the north would have been absolutely annihilated.

A vivid nightmare indeed but little but paranoid conjecture.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

To be honest is anyone really surprised? It's rare that Sinn Fein's mask slips but when it does it reminds you who they really are. Obviously from the intro only Sinn Fein supporters were supposed to see that video.

that must be why they cleverly hid it on the internet. a place only sinn fein supporters can go. look at you all here, shinners to a man. God the levels some people will go to have their daily dig at sinn fein are laughable.

Crooked Jack

i use the term free state or 26 counties because it is not ireland and it is not a true republic.
im sure sinn fein will be happy to call them the irish government when they start acting like one. extending presidential voting rights to the north and giving northern mps speaking rights in the dail would be a start.

pablomakaveli

Crooked Jack wrote: »

i use the term free state or 26 counties because it is not ireland and it is not a true republic.
im sure sinn fein will be happy to call them the irish government when they start acting like one. extending presidential voting rights to the north and giving northern mps speaking rights in the dail would be a start.

But it is a republic and the Irish government is still the Irish government. It's not subjective its fact.

And people in the North shouldn't have a vote in any election in the Republic nor should their representatives have any right to speak in the Dail. They don't pay taxes in the south so why should they get a vote? I no longer live in Ireland anymore and im happy to accept that i dont get a vote there anymore because i don't pay taxes there anymore nor will the results of an election will have a lot less impact on me than someone living in the Republic.

Crooked Jack

pablomakaveli wrote: »

But it is a republic and the Irish government is still the Irish government. It's not subjective its fact.

And people in the North shouldn't have a vote in any election in the Republic nor should their representatives have any right to speak in the Dail. They don't pay taxes in the south so why should they get a vote? I no longer live in Ireland anymore and im happy to accept that i dont get a vote there anymore because i don't pay taxes there anymore nor will the results of an election will have a lot less impact on me than someone living in the Republic.

Its a republic in name only. i could call myself the Duke of Armagh but it doesnt make it so. if youre happy to accept that its a real republic because thats what youre told then thats fine for you. i require more substance however, i require it to act like one.

As for speaking and voting rights, the issue here is should you be offended by the term free state government. setting aside the fact that you should instinctively know what offends you and asking if you should be offended reeks of looking out for something to be offended by, if the government continues to act like a free state government, that is what some people will call it. its not necessarily an insult or attempt at causing offence, merely a statement of fact.

EricPraline

OP personally, I'm more offended by them routinely hijacking that particular cemetery for jingoistic ceremonies, with the military-style parades and blaring "orations" over loudspeakers. It's intimidating and deeply insensitive to those who may be burying their loved ones or visiting their graves at the same time. The actual terms used during the "oration" are secondary.

FTA69

[Jackass] wrote: »

Other considerations perhaps, but had the British fully withdrawn from the entire island, there would have been serious violence against Ulster Scots in the North, there was serious violence against them even with British army to protect them, their

Eh the vast majority of violence in the north during the Tan War was doled out by Unionists who were almost a two-thirds majority in the region. They were also extremely well-armed (while the Nationalist community had the small and ill-equipped IRA). Organisations like the UVF ran riot and were responsible for scores of sectarian killings. Thousands of Catholics (and Protestant trade unionists) were violently forced from the shipyards thus serving to deprive Catholics access to the largest industry in Belfast. Thousands of Catholics also had to flee south. Even when the conflict erupted in 1969 many older people who remembered that period were terrified that the pogroms would start again.

This notion of the northern Unionist community in the early-20s cowed by the IRA is nonsense to be honest.

As for strategic base and industrial might of Belfast, the Great British empire really wouldn't notice the loss of output from a tiny corner of their vast Empire, and as for strategic control, Britain being about 100 miles off the coast of Ireland with the most powerful army and navy in the world of the day, they could retake Dublin in a week, regardless of Belfast.

If they had no interest in remaining here then they would leave and it's as simple as that. They left other colonies whenever it was inconveniant to stay there and Ireland is no difference. Ireland has aways had a geopolitical importance to Britain, bear in mind it was invaded twice by other European powers seeking to use it as a base in a broader European political game. Even 20 years after the Tan War, the north was an invaluable base for the Brits and was far from an irrelevant piece of territory. Even today in an age of the Chinese superpower and a belligerent Russia I doubt they are too eager to cede any territory on their western flank.

What I find hilarious is that the Brits will pump billions into an area, maintain a massive security presence in Ireland, actively participate in an armed conflict, collude with Loyalists in killing their own citizens and be brought to a European court for torture.... all for a place they've no interest in.

An imperial power only interested in protecting the democratic rights of a million Irish unionists?

Crooked Jack

EricPraline wrote: »

OP personally, I'm more offended by them routinely hijacking that particular cemetery for jingoistic ceremonies, with the military-style parades and blaring "orations" over loudspeakers. It's intimidating and deeply insensitive to those who may be burying their loved ones or visiting their graves at the same time. The actual terms used during the "oration" are secondary.

I trust you hold the same attitude to all commemorations. or is it just republican ones. do you give out about the same "blaring orations" during the blessing of the graves, for example. people commemorating their dead are not "hijacking" anything. and i have never been to a commemoration that was held while a funeral was on. now youre just grasping at straws

pablomakaveli

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Its a republic in name only. i could call myself the Duke of Armagh but it doesnt make it so. if youre happy to accept that its a real republic because thats what youre told then thats fine for you. i require more substance however, i require it to act like one.

As for speaking and voting rights, the issue here is should you be offended by the term free state government. setting aside the fact that you should instinctively know what offends you and asking if you should be offended reeks of looking out for something to be offended by, if the government continues to act like a free state government, that is what some people will call it. its not necessarily an insult or attempt at causing offence, merely a statement of fact.

It's stated in the constitution that this country is a republic and its recognised by every other country in the world as being one. The free state ceased to exist in 1949. You can complain all you want but that's the reality.

And anyway how can the irish government act like a "free state governement"? What does that even mean?

Cody Pomeray

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It's stated in the constitution that this country is a republic

yeah?

where?

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Its a republic in name only. i could call myself the Duke of Armagh but it doesnt make it so. if youre happy to accept that its a real republic because thats what youre told then thats fine for you. i require more substance however, i require it to act like one.

As for speaking and voting rights, the issue here is should you be offended by the term free state government. setting aside the fact that you should instinctively know what offends you and asking if you should be offended reeks of looking out for something to be offended by, if the government continues to act like a free state government, that is what some people will call it. its not necessarily an insult or attempt at causing offence, merely a statement of fact.

In what way is Ireland not a republic? Bearing in mind neither all citizens being equal, or the country covering it's entire landmass are necessary factors for a republic.

Crooked Jack

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It's stated in the constitution that this country is a republic and its recognised by every other country in the world as being one. The free state ceased to exist in 1949. You can complain all you want but that's the reality.

Like I said, I require it to act like a republic for me to recognise it as one. Clearly, given the increase in support for parties like SInn Fein, others do too.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

And anyway how can the irish government act like a "free state governement"? What does that even mean?

pretty self explanatory. It concerns itself only with the free state, showing little to no regard for Irish citizens in the rest of Ireland.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In what way is Ireland not a republic? Bearing in mind neither all citizens being equal, or the country covering it's entire landmass are necessary factors for a republic.

Well that depends what parameters you are using to define the term republic. Technically you could call any backwards den of corruption a republic so long as it didnt have a monarch.
I, of course, am referring to the Irish Republic, as declared in Easter 1916 and and greater explained in the Democratic Prgramme of the First Dail.
At a more basic level I suppose a Republic could be said to be any government elected by the people to run the country.
Setting aside all the issues of the worrying level of influence private companies and foreign governments seem to have here, how on earth can it be described as a republic and the government described as the Irish government, when around a third of the population is excluded from having any role or say in that government.

Cody Pomeray

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In what way is Ireland not a republic? Bearing in mind neither all citizens being equal, or the country covering it's entire landmass are necessary factors for a republic.

er, the fact that we were a Kingdom for 12 years after the Free State - that our most fundamental law, Bunreacht na hEireann, can facilitate this?

Leaving that aside, it is perfectly reasonable that people can proclaim that Ireland is not a Republic by observing the institutions of state and by examination of the Constitution.

However, what I think you're getting confused with is the distinction between the dictionary Republic and the Republic as sought in 1916.

Many Republicans view the 1st Republic as the legitimate version. Their argument is not necessarily that Ireland is not presently a dictionary Republic, rather that it is not the same, specific dictionary Republic originally sought.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well that depends what parameters you are using to define the term republic. Technically you could call any backwards den of corruption a republic so long as it didnt have a monarch.
I, of course, am referring to the Irish Republic, as declared in Easter 1916 and and greater explained in the Democratic Prgramme of the First Dail.
At a more basic level I suppose a Republic could be said to be any government elected by the people to run the country.
Setting aside all the issues of the worrying level of influence private companies and foreign governments seem to have here, how on earth can it be described as a republic and the government described as the Irish government, when around a third of the population is excluded from having any role or say in that government.

But why use the term "republic" to be synonymous with the first Dáil? Will no other form of government form of government ever be good enough for you or are we truly being ruled by the dead. Language is an important tool in politics and shifting the parameters of definition for a political term to fit your ideology is frankly unsettling.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But why use the term "republic" to be synonymous with the first Dáil? Will no other form of government form of government ever be good enough for you or are we truly being ruled by the dead. Language is an important tool in politics and shifting the parameters of definition for a political term to fit your ideology is frankly unsettling.

Yes, an Irish republican, using the term Irish republic, I could have been referring to anything.
And no, no other form of government apart from a truly representative one will ever be good enough, and that's not about eulogising the dead, that's for the benefit of the living.
What I find unsettling is your willingness to settle for what we have.