Is Ireland Really A Republic?

constance tench

Senator Ivana Bacik addressed the question when she spoke at the 11th Annual Philip Monahan Memorial Lecture ...

http://publish.ucc.ie/ijpp/2009/01/bacik/08/en

'Is Ireland really a Republic? This might seem like a simple question
– but one to which there is no simple answer.
It is a question which has interested me for some years now,
and it is as relevant during a recession
as it was during our previous boom years.'

...'Contrary to popular view, the name of this State is not ‘the Republic of Ireland’, nor could it be.
Nowhere in the text of our Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann,
is the word ‘republic’ used –
because in 1937, when the Constitution was adopted,
Ireland was not a republic. The Irish Free State was still legally in existence,
so reference to any legal basis for the State was
studiously avoided in the text...

...In other words, the basis for the status of the
Irish Republic is statutory and not constitutional.
Notably, this ‘description’ of the State as a Republic
does not change the name of the State,
which as we know from Article 4 of the Constitution
is simply ‘Ireland.’ Thus, since 1937
and even since 1948,
the official name for the State is just that - ‘Ireland’.

So... when Professor Diarmaid Ferriter affirms that
''Ireland is a republic'' as he did on tv3 during a discussion
on President Higgins State visit to Britain the other night,
is Professor Ferriter referring to the 'Irish Republic' or 'The Republic of Ireland'?...

Do we have legal remnants of a former or present Republic?

What has prevented Ireland as a Republic from being acknowledged as anymore than a 'description' of the State?


... Senator Bacik: 'This difference between the name
of the State, and its description, has led to various
legal difficulties. In 1989, for example, in the Ellis case,
Judge Walsh condemned the UK courts for referring in extradition warrants to ‘the Republic of Ireland’.

He said that if foreign courts issue warrants in English,
they must refer to the State according to its name in English
– that is, ‘Ireland’ - in accordance with Article 4. Further,
he ruled that warrants which did not comply with this requirement should be returned to Britain for rectification by the courts there.'

... can this problem be addressed only by questioning
or will it form the basis of a future referendum on a united Ireland?...

'Should Ireland become a Republic?'

johnnyskeleton

Ireland, that is the 26 counties, is de facto and de jure a republic.

True, the constitution doesn't say that it is a republic, but the constitution doesn't say murder is illegal or that you have to pay taxes. Something not being in the constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Likewise, some nationalists believe that the Republic of Ireland is just a fictitious state and that they, as successors to the first and second dail, are really the true representatives of the people (even though they would probably command a minority of the popular vote if there was a referendum on it tomorrow).

Put another way, if we are not a republic, what are we?

truedoom

can we not just be ireland; the maddest, craic havingest bunch of lads/ladies in the world?

GaelMise

constance tench wrote: »

Senator Ivana Bacik addressed the question when she spoke at the 11th Annual Philip Monahan Memorial Lecture ...

http://publish.ucc.ie/ijpp/2009/01/bacik/08/en

'Is Ireland really a Republic? This might seem like a simple question
– but one to which there is no simple answer.
It is a question which has interested me for some years now,
and it is as relevant during a recession
as it was during our previous boom years.'

...'Contrary to popular view, the name of this State is not ‘the Republic of Ireland’, nor could it be.
Nowhere in the text of our Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann,
is the word ‘republic’ used –
because in 1937, when the Constitution was adopted,
Ireland was not a republic. The Irish Free State was still legally in existence,
so reference to any legal basis for the State was
studiously avoided in the text...

...In other words, the basis for the status of the
Irish Republic is statutory and not constitutional.
Notably, this ‘description’ of the State as a Republic
does not change the name of the State,
which as we know from Article 4 of the Constitution
is simply ‘Ireland.’ Thus, since 1937
and even since 1948,
the official name for the State is just that - ‘Ireland’.

So... when Professor Diarmaid Ferriter affirms that
''Ireland is a republic'' as he did on tv3 during a discussion
on President Higgins State visit to Britain the other night,
is Professor Ferriter referring to the 'Irish Republic' or 'The Republic of Ireland'?...

Do we have legal remnants of a former or present Republic?

What has prevented Ireland as a Republic from being acknowledged as anymore than a 'description' of the State?


... Senator Bacik: 'This difference between the name
of the State, and its description, has led to various
legal difficulties. In 1989, for example, in the Ellis case,
Judge Walsh condemned the UK courts for referring in extradition warrants to ‘the Republic of Ireland’.

He said that if foreign courts issue warrants in English,
they must refer to the State according to its name in English
– that is, ‘Ireland’ - in accordance with Article 4. Further,
he ruled that warrants which did not comply with this requirement should be returned to Britain for rectification by the courts there.'

... can this problem be addressed only by questioning
or will it form the basis of a future referendum on a united Ireland?...

'Should Ireland become a Republic?'

Since when does a republic have to have the word republic in its official name?

oscarBravo

constance tench wrote: »

...In other words, the basis for the status of the Irish Republic is statutory and not constitutional.

The only aspect of that fact that's at all interesting is that - theoretically - the Oireachtas could decide that Ireland is no longer a republic without reference to the people. I think that's very much in the realm of theory, however: if we weren't a republic, what would we be?

Arthur Beesley

And people claim that politicians are out of touch...

Cookie_Monster

the constitution doesn't mention the world 'banana' either...

55 Glorious Misteries

How about The Democratic People's Republic of Ireland? It's got a nice ring to it, I think

catbear

Whose definition of republic are we using because North Korea is called a Democratic People's Republic?

On a side note the westminister Ireland act 1949 states

even though the Republic of Ireland was no longer a British dominion, it would not be treated as a foreign country for the purposes of British law.

comongethappy

It doesn't feel or act much like a republic.

COYW

55 Glorious Misteries wrote: »

How about The Democratic People's Republic of Ireland? It's got a nice ring to it, I think

From my experience, any country with the word "Democratic" in its name tends to be very undemocratic.

Personally, I call the the RoI, Ireland, and the six counties in the UK, Northern Ireland. Like others, I don't get much of "republic" vibe from the country, even though it has been run by republicans for almost 100 years.

efb

Banana Republic

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Technically, yes it is. But emphasis on the word "technically".

Hotblack Desiato

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_head_of_state_from_1936_to_1949

The role of the King of Ireland was still a grey area in 1937. Ireland was still in the British Commonwealth and ambassadors were accredited by the king.

In those days, although we had a President, the king was still regarded as the head of state of commonwealth countries. Once the President was explicitly made head of state in 1948 and a republic declared, Ireland had to leave the commonwealth under the rules at that time (later changed to allow India to become a republic.)

A true republic would not have a theist constitution stating that power is derived from a god, a republic derives power exclusively from the people.

Davarus Walrus

It is, and a rather successful one, considering the relatively young age of the State, and the challenges faced at its foundation. We managed to escape the tyranny of fascism and far-left socialism. Most reports show we have a very high standard of living. It's just the usual online commentators sitting at their keyboards giving out about something without being troubled with things like perspective and comparison.

catbear

We escaped military fascism but still experienced social and intellectual repression, the nadar of which was the 50's when the exodus out of Ireland left us with a declined pop of 2.9m at a time of much higher birth rates.

Cool Mo D

All a republic is is a country without a hereditary monarchy. By that standard, obviously Ireland is a republic. It's not a very high bar to clear.

on the river

iRELAND AT Present is not a republic. we are controlled by europe in economic and foreign policy.

Are people are continously emigrating. the rich are getting richer and the poor are left to die.

where is the republic in that ? where is equality ? In theory we are in practise we are captilists to the core .

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

on the river wrote: »

iRELAND AT Present is not a republic. we are controlled by europe in economic and foreign policy.

Are people are continously emigrating. the rich are getting richer and the poor are left to die.

where is the republic in that ? where is equality ? In theory we are in practise we are captilists to the core .

That's why I used the word "technically". What you are saying doesn't actually contradict the meaning of a Republic, even though it's pretty accurate (although exaggerated).

You can be a heartless capitalist and still operate within the confines of a republic.

on the river

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's why I used the word "technically". What you are saying doesn't actually contradict the meaning of a Republic, even though it's pretty accurate (although exaggerated).

You can be a heartless capitalist and still operate within the confines of a republic.

The 1916 proclamation has not been inforced

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

on the river wrote: »

The 1916 proclamation has not been inforced

Doesn't mean Ireland is not a republic, but it would depent on which clause you're referring to.

COYW

on the river wrote: »

Are people are continously emigrating. the rich are getting richer and the poor are left to die.

Give it a break will you. When you travel the world you see that we don't have a clue what true poverty is. The poor are very well catered for in Ireland, from the taxes of the middle and upper classes. They are housed, fed, clothed and given exemptions on every new tax that is introduced. They can spend their whole living on social welfare without fear of having it cut.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

COYW wrote: »

Give it a break will you. When you travel the world you see that we don't have a clue what true poverty is. The poor are very well catered for in Ireland, from the taxes of the middle and upper classes. They are housed, fed, clothed and given exemptions on every new tax that is introduced. They can spend their whole living on social welfare without fear of having it cut.

Em... going off topic, here - but social welfare has been a cut a few times in the last few years?

ezra_pound

ninja900 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_head_of_state_from_1936_to_1949

The role of the King of Ireland was still a grey area in 1937. Ireland was still in the British Commonwealth and ambassadors were accredited by the king.

In those days, although we had a President, the king was still regarded as the head of state of commonwealth countries. Once the President was explicitly made head of state in 1948 and a republic declared, Ireland had to leave the commonwealth under the rules at that time (later changed to allow India to become a republic.)

A true republic would not have a theist constitution stating that power is derived from a god, a republic derives power exclusively from the people.

ARTICLE 6
1All powers of government, legislative, executive
and judicial, derive, under God, from the people,
whose right it is to designate the rulers of the
State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions
of national policy, according to the requirements
of the common good.
2These powers of government are exercisable only
by or on the authority of the organs of State
established by this Constitution.

Jackson Valley.

I don't think it is.

on the river

The irish people must stage a rebellion on are banks and win back are economic freedom.

then and only then a republic will be proclaimed.

For Reals

constance tench wrote: »

Senator Ivana Bacik addressed the question when she spoke at the 11th Annual Philip Monahan Memorial Lecture ...

http://publish.ucc.ie/ijpp/2009/01/bacik/08/en

'Is Ireland really a Republic? This might seem like a simple question
– but one to which there is no simple answer.
It is a question which has interested me for some years now,
and it is as relevant during a recession
as it was during our previous boom years.'

...'Contrary to popular view, the name of this State is not ‘the Republic of Ireland’, nor could it be.
Nowhere in the text of our Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann,
is the word ‘republic’ used –
because in 1937, when the Constitution was adopted,
Ireland was not a republic. The Irish Free State was still legally in existence,
so reference to any legal basis for the State was
studiously avoided in the text...

...In other words, the basis for the status of the
Irish Republic is statutory and not constitutional.
Notably, this ‘description’ of the State as a Republic
does not change the name of the State,
which as we know from Article 4 of the Constitution
is simply ‘Ireland.’ Thus, since 1937
and even since 1948,
the official name for the State is just that - ‘Ireland’.

So... when Professor Diarmaid Ferriter affirms that
''Ireland is a republic'' as he did on tv3 during a discussion
on President Higgins State visit to Britain the other night,
is Professor Ferriter referring to the 'Irish Republic' or 'The Republic of Ireland'?...

Do we have legal remnants of a former or present Republic?

What has prevented Ireland as a Republic from being acknowledged as anymore than a 'description' of the State?


... Senator Bacik: 'This difference between the name
of the State, and its description, has led to various
legal difficulties. In 1989, for example, in the Ellis case,
Judge Walsh condemned the UK courts for referring in extradition warrants to ‘the Republic of Ireland’.

He said that if foreign courts issue warrants in English,
they must refer to the State according to its name in English
– that is, ‘Ireland’ - in accordance with Article 4. Further,
he ruled that warrants which did not comply with this requirement should be returned to Britain for rectification by the courts there.'

... can this problem be addressed only by questioning
or will it form the basis of a future referendum on a united Ireland?...

'Should Ireland become a Republic?'

Not really. In name only and here's two reasons off the top of my head.
Senator Ivana Bacik: She's constantly foisted upon us by the Labour Party even though we and their own supporters don't want her, not that their unwashed opinions count. She is a Senator, unelected in a Republic???
The second reason, Ireland is partially occupied so calling a section a Republic is kind of pathetic anyway.

For Reals

COYW wrote: »

Give it a break will you. When you travel the world you see that we don't have a clue what true poverty is. The poor are very well catered for in Ireland, from the taxes of the middle and upper classes. They are housed, fed, clothed and given exemptions on every new tax that is introduced. They can spend their whole living on social welfare without fear of having it cut.

In some countries people are put in death camps, what's your point? A race to the bottom? I think you'll find those well off are champs at tax avoidance. I'm okay with my taxes going to feed and clothe the poor. Housing tax, communications tax? Give me a starving families tax and I'll happily pay it. Maybe we should have bailed out the poor.

Hotblack Desiato

ezra_pound wrote: »

ARTICLE 6
1All powers of government, legislative, executive
and judicial, derive, under God, from the people,
whose right it is to designate the rulers of the
State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions
of national policy, according to the requirements
of the common good.
2These powers of government are exercisable only
by or on the authority of the organs of State
established by this Constitution.

note the bolded words

Also read the preamble.

Preamble to the Constitution of Ireland wrote:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Also Article 44:

RELIGION

ARTICLE 44

1 The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

For Reals wrote: »

Senator Ivana Bacik: She's constantly foisted upon us by the Labour Party even though we and their own supporters don't want her

She's elected from the Trinity panel. Plenty of better examples you could have picked, like Fidelma 'I don't like paying for motor tax, train tickets or plumbing. Don't you know who I am' Healy-Eames.

The Corinthian

constance tench wrote: »

'Should Ireland become a Republic?'

An interesting thing (for me anyway) is that many republics tend to define themselves on the basis of their people; république française, repubblica italiana, república portuguesa and so on.

Others go in the opposite direction, with Ireland being an example, defining the state not in terms of it's people, but on the basis of geography - hence the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, and the two official names (Ireland, Éire) that refer to the Island, rather than the people.

Why we do use this approach is almost certainly tied into irredentism and the north and this is probably underlined by the fact that probably the only country in the World that calls us the Irish Republic is Britain.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting.

But are we a republic? I would imagine we are to everyone other than legal pedants. Are we really debating this? I can see some barristers trying to leverage this into some sort of judicial gravy train, TBH.

For Reals wrote: »

Senator Ivana Bacik: She's constantly foisted upon us by the Labour Party even though we and their own supporters don't want her, not that their unwashed opinions count. She is a Senator, unelected in a Republic???

Now, now. She actually is elected, albeit by Trinity graduates, which is a noble mandate, no doubt.

The second reason, Ireland is partially occupied so calling a section a Republic is kind of pathetic anyway.

Why?

COYW

For Reals wrote: »

I think you'll find those well off are champs at tax avoidance.

Oh, everyone who isn't in debt up to their necks is a tax cheat, of course. :rolleyes: Ridiculous stuff altogether.

For Reals wrote: »

The second reason, Ireland is partially occupied so calling a section a Republic is kind of pathetic anyway.

Really, occupied by who?

on the river

COYW wrote: »

Give it a break will you. When you travel the world you see that we don't have a clue what true poverty is. The poor are very well catered for in Ireland, from the taxes of the middle and upper classes. They are housed, fed, clothed and given exemptions on every new tax that is introduced. They can spend their whole living on social welfare without fear of having it cut.

did you get alot of tax breaks ? when you travel the world ireland is ridiculed by its banking crisis everything is taxed in ireland and you seem to endorse it.

These people on social welfare are easy target for you to pick on.

they cant help if the economy is bust and no employment available.

You are obvious not living in the real world. you must be in a fantasy republic.

COYW

on the river wrote: »

when you travel the world ireland is ridiculed by its banking crisis everything is taxed in ireland and you seem to endorse it.

Really, I am just back from a stint in the USA and nobody mentioned it to me in a personal or professional capacity. A Spanish friend commented on how well Ireland is doing compared to his home country of Spain.

on the river wrote: »

You are obvious not living in the real world. you must be in a fantasy republic.

Well, as a PAYE worker whose pays his taxes and living costs, I think I am. I don't get my rent/mortgage, clothes etc subsisted by the state, as part of my "entitlements". I pay them for other people, in reality.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

on the river wrote: »

did you get alot of tax breaks ? when you travel the world ireland is ridiculed by its banking crisis everything is taxed in ireland and you seem to endorse it.

These people on social welfare are easy target for you to pick on.

they cant help if the economy is bust and no employment available.

You are obvious not living in the real world. you must be in a fantasy republic.

Well, we voted for it - more than once - so we must want it on some level. One way or ther other, as I said before, none of this changes the status of being a "republic".

For Reals

COYW wrote: »

Oh, everyone who isn't in debt up to their necks is a tax cheat, of course. :rolleyes: Ridiculous stuff altogether.

It was a response to your jaded inference that people on welfare are living the life of Reilly. If you chose to see societal groupings in absolutes, that's fine but don't assume everyone does.

COYW wrote: »

Really, occupied by who?

The Klingons. Come off it.

on the river

COYW wrote: »

Really, I am just back from a stint in the USA and nobody mentioned it to me in a personal or professional capacity. A Spanish friend commented on how well Ireland is doing compared to his home country of Spain.



Well, as a PAYE worker whose pays his taxes and living costs, I think I am. I don't get my rent/mortgage, clothes etc subsisted by the state, as part of my "entitlements". I pay them for other people, in reality.

Are you sure you were in the usa , Italked to alot of non european and they are disgusted the way Ireland was treated and how a real republic would not let that happen.

As regards the paye you should be lucky you have a job . many people do have your luxury .

The 1916 rising was a statement of a socialist republic. However what came

out of the rising and aftermath was nothing more then a change of flag.

The 1916 ideals were cast aside.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

COYW wrote: »

Really, I am just back from a stint in the USA and nobody mentioned it to me in a personal or professional capacity. A Spanish friend commented on how well Ireland is doing compared to his home country of Spain.



Well, as a PAYE worker whose pays his taxes and living costs, I think I am. I don't get my rent/mortgage, clothes etc subsisted by the state, as part of my "entitlements". I pay them for other people, in reality.

on the river wrote: »

Are you sure you were in the usa , Italked to alot of non european and they are disgusted the way Ireland was treated and how a real republic would not let that happen.

As regards the paye you should be lucky you have a job . many people do have your luxury .

The 1916 rising was a statement of a socialist republic. However what came

out of the rising and aftermath was nothing more then a change of flag.

The 1916 ideals were cast aside.

I don't think either of you actually know what a republic is or what it's are ideals are (republic generally, not specific to Ireland as one)

The Corinthian

on the river wrote: »

The 1916 rising was a statement of a socialist republic. However what came out of the rising and aftermath was nothing more then a change of flag.

Probably, in large part, because there wasn't much support for it. What people seem to forget is that the 1916 rising did not have widespread support to begin with. The spontaneous nationwide rebellion that the leaders of the rising were hoping for never materialized and even in Dublin it was met largely with indifference at best. It's success was ironically a result of it's failure and the sympathy that it garnered for it's leaders afterwords.

But this support was for independence - one would be seriously mistaken if one presumed that this support was for every supposed value of the rising, such as a 'socialist republic'.

This is before we consider the political realities that would have made such a 'socialist republic' difficult, if not impossible to attain, not to mention your analysis that it was a 'socialist republic' they were looking for in the first place, some of the leaders of the rising may have supported the idea, but there certainly was no consensus on this.

alastair

For Reals wrote: »

The Klingons. Come off it.

Maybe you missed the Good Friday Agreement? No-one is occupying any part of Ireland, bar people with a vote in what sovereign arrangement they choose for themselves.

For Reals

alastair wrote: »

Maybe you missed the Good Friday Agreement? No-one is occupying any part of Ireland, bar people with a vote in what sovereign arrangement they choose for themselves.

Good Friday Agreement? This was were the people of Northern Ireland were balloted on if the wished to remain under British rule? Oh, no wait....

constance tench

Due to cutbacks there will be no resurrection this year ...Happy Easter.

Yours Faithfully,

the Republic, of Ireland.

http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php

catbear

For Reals wrote: »

Good Friday Agreement? This was were the people of Northern Ireland were balloted on if the wished to remain under British rule? Oh, no wait....

No, it's they can choose their own path, given the choice they may ditch both the throne in London and Rome and actually establish a peoples constitution, the rest may follow them.

walrusgumble

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ireland, that is the 26 counties, is de facto and de jure a republic.

True, the constitution doesn't say that it is a republic, but the constitution doesn't say murder is illegal or that you have to pay taxes. Something not being in the constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Likewise, some nationalists believe that the Republic of Ireland is just a fictitious state and that they, as successors to the first and second dail, are really the true representatives of the people (even though they would probably command a minority of the popular vote if there was a referendum on it tomorrow).

Put another way, if we are not a republic, what are we?

Awesome! Superior! Fabulous!

walrusgumble

catbear wrote: »

No, it's they can choose their own path, given the choice they may ditch both the throne in London and Rome and actually establish a peoples constitution, the rest may follow them.

Rome?OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH


Rome is not in the South. Very few Southerners have paid much heed to Il Papa for a very very very very very very very long time. Even the Prods ban abortion in the North. The Good Friday ban on booze was a State thing, which may have been suggested, strongly by the Irish Catholic Church to Cumann na nGaedheal in 1927 (people always, laughable suggest that that was all Dev's fault, sure he was only returning to the Dáil) Sure even Il Papa probably thinks thats mad stuff altogether. Not so long ago there was a lot of pressure in teams like the Ulster Rugby team not to play games on Sunday in the North - no Rome Rule there.

But ya, accurate account as to What the GFA is

on the river

walrusgumble wrote: »

Rome?OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH


Rome is not in the South. Very few Southerners have paid much heed to Il Papa for a very very very very very very very long time. Even the Prods ban abortion in the North. The Good Friday ban on booze was a State thing, which may have been suggested, strongly by the Irish Catholic Church to Cumann na nGaedheal in 1927 (people always, laughable suggest that that was all Dev's fault, sure he was only returning to the Dáil) Sure even Il Papa probably thinks thats mad stuff altogether. Not so long ago there was a lot of pressure in teams like the Ulster Rugby team not to play games on Sunday in the North - no Rome Rule there.

But ya, accurate account as to What the GFA is

im lovin i whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop .

some one buy this man a pint.:pac:

walrusgumble

The Corinthian wrote: »

Probably, in large part, because there wasn't much support for it. What people seem to forget is that the 1916 rising did not have widespread support to begin with. The spontaneous nationwide rebellion that the leaders of the rising were hoping for never materialized and even in Dublin it was met largely with indifference at best. It's success was ironically a result of it's failure and the sympathy that it garnered for it's leaders afterwords. But this support was for independence - one would be seriously mistaken if one presumed that this support was for every supposed value of the rising, such as a 'socialist republic'.

This is before we consider the political realities that would have made such a 'socialist republic' difficult, if not impossible to attain, not to mention your analysis that it was a 'socialist republic' they were looking for in the first place, some of the leaders of the rising may have supported the idea, but there certainly was no consensus on this.

[/QUOTE]

The "socialist republic" thing is a load of waffle. Socialist elements of the Proclamation were sops to Connolly, which were never taken seriously. I doubt Pearse and Plunkett were socialists. Even during the Tan War, Dev made it clear that the time was not right to decide what kind of an Ireland Ireland should be ie a republic/socialists/ corporatism etc. You can be damn sure that the big ranchers and even small farmers were not socialists at heart.

Nice to see that you ignore the Counter command by Eoin McNeill. Forces from the Midlands and Galway were on their way up to Dublin only to turn back at Shannonbridge Offaly on McNeill's orders. Secondly, the Rising were terribly organised based on a lot of wishful thinking (ie its actual support), thirdly, the sinking of arms in Kerry did not help. As Earnie O'Malley would later say, they took a lead

Pearse knew what level of support there was and was not. His intentions succeeded. The Rising changed people's opinions immediately after it, not simply because of the shootings, but because many men were arrested and interned to Dublin or England despite not being involved in the Rising (though were members of the IRB)

Despite a tiny minority, most people don't fall back on the fact that it was not initially accepted. The deeds were more than accepted thereafter. What does the minority seek to achieve? It is too late to get people to change their views on 1916 and subsequent events. Discredit it all ye want, ye will be ignored. Come 1916 anniversary, there will be many people out on the streets viewing the parades.

walrusgumble

on the river wrote: »

did you get alot of tax breaks ? when you travel the world ireland is ridiculed by its banking crisis everything is taxed in ireland and you seem to endorse it.

These people on social welfare are easy target for you to pick on.

they cant help if the economy is bust and no employment available.

You are obvious not living in the real world. you must be in a fantasy republic.

Very few countries, even ze Germans can legitimately "ridicule" Ireland and it's banks and economy. They all , at one stage or another went through a lot of problems. They too had recessions. Sure America had a load of guys in jail for multiple life sentences for their role in Fraud and mortgages contracts. Sure look at Italy, and the legend that is Silvo B.

I would not be questioning whether someone is living in the real world, there is a good chance that that person is financing to social welfare receipt ants to continue their ways and refusing to look for work elsewhere

There are many different class of social welfare holders, some of who deserve to be targeted

walrusgumble

on the river wrote: »

Are you sure you were in the usa , Italked to alot of non european and they are disgusted the way Ireland was treated and how a real republic would not let that happen.

As regards the paye you should be lucky you have a job . many people do have your luxury .

The 1916 rising was a statement of a socialist republic. However what came

out of the rising and aftermath was nothing more then a change of flag.

The 1916 ideals were cast aside.

1916 "ideals" were never taken serious, then and now, bar Connolly and his posse. It was a sop to Connolly, sound nice and fluffy. The Dail of 1919, despite restating much of the 1916 contents more or less said asmuch

Hotblack Desiato

walrusgumble wrote: »

Rome is not in the South. Very few Southerners have paid much heed to Il Papa for a very very very very very very very long time.

Yep. That's the reason our state-funded schools are 100% secular, and we don't have any priests and bishops sitting on the 'ethics' boards of our state funded hospitals dictating what procedures in relation to female fertility are acceptable.
No siree.

The Corinthian

walrusgumble wrote: »

Rome is not in the South.

While I feel that the influence of the Church in the Free State/RoI has often been exaggerated, you would have to be a bit blind to claim that such influence was not significant either, down even to our constitution.

walrusgumble wrote: »

The "socialist republic" thing is a load of waffle.

Kind of my point.

Nice to see that you ignore the Counter command by Eoin McNeill. Forces from the Midlands and Galway were on their way up to Dublin only to turn back at Shannonbridge Offaly on McNeill's orders.

Was there a reason not to ignore it? I pointed out that then "spontaneous nationwide rebellion that the leaders of the rising were hoping for never materialized" and unless the limited Shannonbridge incident constitutes proof of a nationwide rebellion, it hardly needs to be addressed.

Pearse knew what level of support there was and was not. His intentions succeeded. The Rising changed people's opinions immediately after it, not simply because of the shootings, but because many men were arrested and interned to Dublin or England despite not being involved in the Rising (though were members of the IRB)

Not disagreeing with you, although I'd dispute how aware or planned this aftermath would have been. Ultimately the rising was not a success on the part of the IRB, but a failure on the part of the British government.

In short, Irish independence was brought about more by British incompetence than Irish sacrifice. That we choose to remember it as our own Thermopylae doesn't really change that.

walrusgumble

ninja900 wrote: »

Yep. That's the reason our state-funded schools are 100% secular, and we don't have any priests and bishops sitting on the 'ethics' boards of our state funded hospitals dictating what procedures in relation to female fertility are acceptable.
No siree.

Little or nothing to do with Rome itself. Ireland has it's own brand of "Catholicism".

Guess what? The Minister asked for the said schools to be changed, and guess what? Many families said "on your bike sunshine". No church or Pope put a gun to the parent's head on that one

By the way, get that silly notion that Ireland is "securalists" and "plural" out of your head. It is wishfull thinking. And full abortion has been rejected, North and South, time and time again. You don't need to be a holy joe to realise that killing is wrong (ie full abortion)

Private firms and the State are more than welcome to stump up money and buy out these Church runned/patroned hospitals and schools and their property

If we were listening to the Pope, we would still have no divorce and still ban rubber johnnies