Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    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.
    I will never understand the hero worship of Republicans over dead generations. Shifting the parameters of a already defined system of government to fir your own ideology both unnecessary and bizarre. I do agree that we need a second republic but I would be weary of this increasing left wing rhetoric.


  • Options
    #63
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    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.
    We have a representative government. Are you talking about the North again?


  • Options
    #64
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I will never understand the hero worship of Republicans over dead generations.
    Really? Homage to patriotic founding fathers is a pretty normal feature of most countries' political landscape. Obama hangs a portrait of Lincoln in his oval office. A portrait of Michael Collins hangs in the Taoiseach's office. A portrait of another 1916 rebel, Pádraig Pearse, previously hung there. I don't think it's a big deal.
    Shifting the parameters of a already defined system of government to fir your own ideology both unnecessary and bizarre.
    Nobody is shifting the parameters and to do so is hardly 'bizarre'; you're exaggerating that for effect.

    I, for one, couldn't agree more with Republicans who disagree that this country adequately resembles the republic sought in 1916. They may or may not agree that this country is a Republic as a political science construction. The important part is that they generally don't want to employ the term Republic so as not to confuse this Republic with that first Republic of the pre-civil war era. It's as simple and as unoffensive as that, as far as I can see.


  • Options
    #65
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Really? Homage to patriotic founding fathers is a pretty normal feature of most countries' political landscape. Obama hangs a portrait of Lincoln in his oval office. A portrait of Michael Collins hangs in the Taoiseach's office. A portrait of another 1916 rebel, Pádraig Pearse, previously hung there. I don't think it's a big deal.
    It goes further then that though, when someone claims the only true Dail is one formed 100 years ago you know there's really something wrong. Heaven forbid we could actually improve on the founding fathers original plan.
    Nobody is shifting the parameters and to do so is hardly 'bizarre'; you're exaggerating that for effect.

    I, for one, couldn't agree more with Republicans who disagree that this country adequately resembles the republic sought in 1916. They may or may not agree that this country is a Republic as a political science construction. The important part is that they generally don't want to employ the term Republic so as not to confuse this Republic with that first Republic of the pre-civil war era. It's as simple and as unoffensive as that, as far as I can see.
    What would you change? Please don't tell me you're a socialist.


  • Options
    #66
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What would you change? Please don't tell me you're a socialist.
    Okay i won't tell you I'm a socialist.

    I'm not trying to start a game of fantasy nation-building and I don't think it's helpful to do so. The point is clearly people are dissatisfied with country that has emerged from the Civil War and the further undermining of our founding principles via the 1937 constitution. It is entirely legitimate, in that sense, to seek the re-establishment of the 1st Republic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Okay i won't tell you I'm a socialist.

    I'm not trying to start a game of fantasy nation-building and I don't think it's helpful to do so. The point is clearly people are dissatisfied with country that has emerged from the Civil War and the further undermining of our founding principles via the 1937 constitution. It is entirely legitimate, in that sense, to seek the re-establishment of the 1st Republic.
    Thank God for that.

    I disagree, talking about change is meaningless if you don't specify what changes you desire. A neo Nazi and a socialist would both like to change things but they disagree radically on what is to be changed.


  • Options
    #68
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Thank God for that.

    I disagree, talking about change is meaningless if you don't specify what changes you desire. A neo Nazi and a socialist would both like to change things but they disagree radically on what is to be changed.
    No because that's a way of shifting the debate to squabbling over ideologies.

    However the founding principles that I would identify which are incompatible with modern Irish constitutional law are as follows, from the 1916 proclamation:
    The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

    That proclamation is a prescription for a socialist democracy. The Irish constitution and its statute laws are so offensive to this paragraph that it is difficult to know where to start... secular education? inheritance? individual liberty? redistribution of wealth? take your pick.


  • Options
    #69
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    yeah?

    where?

    My mistake. Its covered by the Republic Of Ireland Act though when we became a Republic.


  • Options
    #70
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    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.

    Support for Sinn Fein doesn't mean people don't recognize the country as a Republic nor is Sinn Feins support even that substantial.
    pretty self explanatory. It concerns itself only with the free state, showing little to no regard for Irish citizens in the rest of Ireland.

    Well given that its the people in the Republic that elect them and pay the taxes that run the state thats hardly shocking. It's no different to any other government is it. Besides the UK government and Stormont cover NI anyway in terms of governance.


  • Options
    #71
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    No because that's a way of shifting the debate to squabbling over ideologies.
    Unless we get the ideology sorted we can't move forward in any meaningful way.
    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    However the founding principles that I would identify which are incompatible with modern Irish constitutional law are as follows, from the 1916 proclamation:

    That proclamation is a prescription for a socialist democracy. The Irish constitution and its statute laws are so offensive to this paragraph that it is difficult to know where to start... secular education? inheritance? individual liberty? redistribution of wealth? take your pick.
    Socialism is not what we need, the founding fathers belonged to a different time and we must recognise that. If they were truely calling for socialism, which I don't think they were, then it will not be possible to implement their ideas. Socialism is a non runner.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    pretty self explanatory. It concerns itself only with the free state, showing little to no regard for Irish citizens in the rest of Ireland.
    What happens in the United Kingdom is none of our business. Certainly we care about them, just as we care about irish citizens in America or Austrailia or anywhere else. But while we do so we must respect the national boundaries of our two nations.


  • Options
    #73
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What happens in the United Kingdom is none of our business.

    When it comes to the north? Well you might want to remove your head from the sand.. I know it's warm but, really, you're missing all the reality that happens outside of your own thoughts. Not even Thatcher, at her worst, was as out of touch with reality and accepted the advice given to her by her own people in establishing the Anglo Irish Agreement of 1985 that gave the Irish Govt. a consultative role in the north.

    You probably missed these bits of the GFA, too, while you were otherwise disposed:

    North/South Ministerial Council

    North South Inter-Parliamentary Association

    North South Consultative Forum

    The border isn't some sort of N/S Korean style 38th parallel. You'll probably not have noticed the osmotic movement of workers, goods, services, sporting teams/fans that happens more-and-more too that tends to blur that imaginary line somewhat.


  • Options
    #74
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    When it comes to the north? Well you might want to remove your head from the sand.. I know it's warm but, really, you're missing all the reality that happens outside of your own thoughts. Not even Thatcher, at her worst, was as out of touch with reality and accepted the advice given to her by her own people in establishing the Anglo Irish Agreement of 1985 that gave the Irish Govt. a consultative role in the north.

    You probably missed these bits of the GFA, too, while you were otherwise disposed:

    North/South Ministerial Council

    North South Inter-Parliamentary Association

    North South Consultative Forum

    The border isn't some sort of N/S Korean style 38th parallel. You'll probably not have noticed the osmotic movement of workers, goods, services, sporting teams/fans that happens more-and-more too that tends to blur that imaginary line somewhat.
    How is any of that relevant? It seems you read one line and went off on a tangent. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #75
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    How is any of that relevant? It seems you read one line and went off on a tangent. :rolleyes:
    C.J. It concerns itself only with the free state, showing little to no regard for Irish citizens in the rest of Ireland.

    Irish citizens in the rest of Ireland are the Irish in the 6 counties.

    You respond with:
    What happens in the United Kingdom is none of our business.

    Implying that those Irish in the 6 counties are 'none of our business' (to which I responded)

    If that's not what you meant then it's not clear what you mean at all.


  • Options
    #76
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    Irish citizens in the rest of Ireland are the Irish in the 6 counties.

    You respond with:



    Implying that those Irish in the 6 counties are 'none of our business' (to which I responded)

    If that's not what you meant then it's not clear what you mean at all.
    You didn't read the rest of my post.

    "Certainly we care about them, just as we care about irish citizens in America or Australia or anywhere else. But while we do so we must respect the national boundaries of our two nations."

    The GFA and related bodies are irrelevant to the fundemental principal of national soverignity within ones own borders. The Irish state has no duty of care to Irish citizens who live in the United Kingdom. You're welcome to come live here any time though.


  • Options
    #77
    laoch na mona
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭laoch na mona


    ohh an anti SF thread these are always interesting:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #78
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    laoch na mona wrote: »
    ohh an anti SF thread these are always interesting:rolleyes:
    Far more interesting then a republican circle jerk.


  • Options
    #79
    laoch na mona
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭laoch na mona


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Far more interesting then a republican circle jerk.

    ohh vicious ain't ya


  • Options
    #80
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You didn't read the rest of my post.

    I did.
    The GFA and related bodies are irrelevant to the fundemental principal of national soverignity within ones own borders.

    So the cross-sovereignty institutions have no relevance to, or bearing on, the principle of national sovereignty? Okay - wonderful logic.
    The Irish state has no duty of care to Irish citizens who live in the United Kingdom.

    *Sigh*
    Irish nationality law is contained in the provisions of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 to 2004 and in the relevant provisions of the Irish Constitution. A person may be an Irish citizen through birth, descent, marriage to an Irish citizen or through naturalisation. The law extends to the whole of the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_nationality_law#cite_note-2

    How tiresome.


  • Options
    #81
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The Irish state has no duty of care to Irish citizens who live in the United Kingdom. You're welcome to come live here any time though.

    Quick, you better run down to the Four Courts first thing in the morning with your oracle under your coat, and inform the judiciary of your decision.

    Ireland's responsibilities to Irish citizens abroad is one of the rare cases that the Supreme Court has held its hands up and said it just doesn't know. There is no known answer to this question.

    What can be said with unequivocal certainty is that the Irish State does not care whether an individual was born in Kerry or in Antrim, both are entitled to an equal citizenship and both owe the State an equal fidelity; the State aspires to re-unite all of the territory of all of its citizens on this island

    If you do not share the State's views on this, you are always free to live elsewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Quick, you better run down to the Four Courts first thing in the morning with your oracle under your coat, and inform the judiciary of your decision.

    Ireland's responsibilities to Irish citizens abroad is one of the rare cases that the Supreme Court has held its hands up and said it just doesn't know. There is no known answer to this question.

    What can be said with unequivocal certainty is that the Irish State does not care whether an individual was born in Kerry or in Antrim, both are entitled to an equal citizenship and both owe the State an equal fidelity; the State aspires to re-unite all of the territory of all of its citizens on this island

    If you do not share the State's views on this, you are always free to live elsewhere.
    The state pays lip service to unification you know that as well as I do. Unification couldn't be lower down on the Fine Gael - Labour coalition's list of priorities.


  • Options
    #83
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The state pays lip service to unification you know that as well as I do. Unification couldn't be lower down on the Fine Gael - Labour coalition's list of priorities.
    You're free to adapt your own interpretation of Government priorities but I'd rather you didn't speak for me. This has nothing to do with whether or not Fine Gael or Labour have personal opinions on re-unification; individual members of both parties who sit at Cabinet are required to act in accordance with Article 3 of the Constitution in their capacity as the Irish Government.


  • Options
    #84
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    You're free to adapt your own interpretation of Government priorities but I'd rather you didn't speak for me. This has nothing to do with whether or not Fine Gael or Labour have personal opinions on re-unification; individual members of both parties who sit at Cabinet are required to act in accordance with Article 3 of the Constitution in their capacity as the Irish Government.
    Required by who? The judiciary? They have no powers in these matters.


  • Options
    #85
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Required by who? The judiciary? They have no powers in these matters.
    It depends on what policies the Government pursue. It's possible that a TD belonging to an opposition party could seek an order prohibiting the Government from taking a specific action which would appear incompatible with Article 3 of Bunreacht na hEireann.

    The President may also decide to refer any Act which is repugnant to Article 3 and the desire for re-unification to the Supreme Court.

    There is, therefore, a clear legal provision for re-unification which the Government are obliged to consider in the course of their policymaking.


  • Options
    #86
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    It depends on what policies the Government pursue. It's possible that a TD belonging to an opposition party could seek an order prohibiting the Government from taking a specific action which would appear incompatible with Article 3 of Bunreacht na hEireann.

    The President may also decide to refer any Act which is repugnant to Article 3 and the desire for re-unification to the Supreme Court.

    There is, therefore, a clear legal provision for re-unification which the Government are obliged to consider in the course of their policymaking.
    Indeed it is but now you are going into objective policies. It's impossible for you to say what policies would or would not be deemed to be in violation of article 3 by the supreme court.

    The government merely has to pay lip service to the notion of reunification, beyond that it would need to be a very overt action required by the government to have the policy over turned by the supreme court.

    Like I said reunification is a long way down the governments list of priorities and our concern for the well being of Irish citizens in the UK is no more extensive then our concern for Irish citizens in the US or Australia.


  • Options
    #87
    El Alamein.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3 ✭El Alamein.


    A big reason why they will never get into power in the Irish Republic. No rational, sensible person will vote for them in large enough numbers to get them running the place. They just shoot themselves in the foot all the time. Never has it been a better time to play on the fears of people and make a run for it to get into power and they just can't help themselves by playing to the worst elements within Irish Republicanism.

    Its almost like a disease. They want to be seen to be moving forward and get into power in the Irish Republic but they just can't get the slime off them.


  • Options
    #88
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    El Alamein. wrote: »
    A big reason why they will never get into power in the Irish Republic. No rational, sensible person will vote for them in large enough numbers to get them running the place. They just shoot themselves in the foot all the time. Never has it been a better time to play on the fears of people and make a run for it to get into power and they just can't help themselves by playing to the worst elements within Irish Republicanism.

    Its almost like a disease. They want to be seen to be moving forward and get into power in the Irish Republic but they just can't get the slime off them.

    Considering the "Irish Republic" does not, unfortunately, exist at the present time, I'd suggest that that of itself is sufficient reason why Sinn Féin will not get into power in it.

    Let me guess. You're British?


  • Options
    #89
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    Same old sh1t, different day.


  • Options
    #90
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    MakeEmLaugh wrote: »
    Should we be offended by the term ‘Free State government’?

    If I had a rightwing "law and order" politics which glorifies family members who fought for the British Empire or massacred Irish revolutionaries in Ballyseedy in March 1923, yes then I would be horrified by this evil pernicious term.

    It's time to bring back those moderates, those personifications of democratic values in Fine Gael, Paddy Cooney, Paddy Donegan, Brendan McGahon and Paddy Harte and set up a secret squad to sort out such threats to this state. And perhaps Fine Gael's Alan Shatter would be just the man to gather the required information from state authorities to use against political opponents.

    Personally, I'd find somebody who talks about the 'Free State' more interesting and admirable than somebody who spouts all this revisionist, partitionist, rightwing, anglocentric benighted stuff from the British-Irish power dynamic of the 19th century day-in-day-out. Times have moved on; the EU, and not Britain, is where it's at. People who get upset at the term will strengthen the views of people who use it (because they'd be so extreme and intolerant in expressing that dissatisfaction), while people who can empathise with it will challenge them in a nicer and more amicable way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Seanchai, please deal with poster's arguments rather than using ad hominems and flame bait. Your contribution to not turning the thread into a trainwreck would be appreciated.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement