Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

Then good luck in unifying the Island with that attitude.

Best of luck 'reuniting' with reactionary unionism, the only way of dealing with the politics-of-hate is containment as the last 50 years have shown.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'What ever it took' means exactly that. Because it took many lives anyway and destroyed many lives long before it went into flames.

Yes, because Michael Collins and Co. had the gift of looking into the future, like you.

I just find it odd that you love proclaiming that the GFA was a great compromise, even though it left NI firmly in the hands of the British and under the rule of Westminster, but in 1920, nothing was off-limits in terms of wanton acts of violence, war, murdering children, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc.., to get the political win.

We can all assume that a war with the Ulster Volunteers would have been very bloody, probably more bloody than anything we have seen and would have set Irish Unity back centuries. It would have been an epic disaster and one the Irish Volunteers could not have won.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

We can all assume that a war with the Ulster Volunteers would have been very bloody

God you just love those violent fantasy counterfactuals. Here's one for you, the British government threatens economic war against Unionists instead of actual war against Ireland unless Unionists agree to a devolved-from-Dublin NI.

What? Your counterfactuals are right and mine are wrong?

You're some laugh you are.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, because Michael Collins and Co. had the gift of looking into the future, like you.

I just find it odd that you love proclaiming that the GFA was a great compromise, even though it left NI firmly in the hands of the British and under the rule of Westminster, but in 1920, nothing was off-limits in terms of wanton acts of violence, war, murdering children, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc.., to get the political win.

We can all assume that a war with the Ulster Volunteers would have been very bloody, probably more bloody than anything we have seen and would have set Irish Unity back centuries. It would have been an epic disaster and one the Irish Volunteers could not have won.

No...because even the Church of Ireland, Unionists themselves, lots in Westminster knew what would happen.
Like your rubbish inferences about nationalists welcoming British troops you need to research the history in a bit more depth.
Plenty knew what would happen and it did.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, because Michael Collins and Co. had the gift of looking into the future, like you.

I just find it odd that you love proclaiming that the GFA was a great compromise, even though it left NI firmly in the hands of the British and under the rule of Westminster, but in 1920, nothing was off-limits in terms of wanton acts of violence, war, murdering children, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc.., to get the political win.

We can all assume that a war with the Ulster Volunteers would have been very bloody, probably more bloody than anything we have seen and would have set Irish Unity back centuries. It would have been an epic disaster and one the Irish Volunteers could not have won.

The war would have been the British versus the Ulster Volunteers. You seem to not understand that Ireland was remaining part of the UK, except with its own Dail with the King as Head of State.

Look up the Curragh Mutiny to understand what the situation was.

Oh and Mark, this video from RTE Archive might give you an idea of the situation of the nationalists in 1969 in Northern Ireland. Downcow you should have a look as well. This is why we ended up with the various versions of the IRA.

https://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibitions/1042-northern-ireland-1969/1048-august-1969/320459-refugees-arrive-from-northern-ireland/
https://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibitions/1042-northern-ireland-1969/1048-august-1969/320457-british-troops-in-ardoyne/

Economic Collapse

Any so called state where Sinn Fein are in power would be a total failure. Just like Republic will be if these far left thugs and cranks take power here.

I won't even mention the well known MI5 infiltration into the hierarchy of Sinn Fein even now, Denis Donaldson for starters. And the latest Dennis McFadden the guy who stung Saoradh/New IRA last week with all those arrests, was a Sinn Fein member for many years.

This is what you are dealing with in Sinn Fein. Terrorists, murderers, rapists, paedophiles, communists, MI5 agents, racists, sectarian bigots, xenophobes. And soon they will be running the show here if they can get their grubby hands on power. Sickening.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

God you just love those violent fantasy counterfactuals. Here's one for you, the British government threatens economic war against Unionists instead of actual war against Ireland unless Unionists agree to a devolved-from-Dublin NI.

What? Your counterfactuals are right and mine are wrong?

You're some laugh you are.

Again, I say to you. What should Collins and Co. do if the Treaty was rejected? Invade the North? Do whatever it took?

The British were always going to give the Unionists a bit more rope, you know that, I know that. The Unionists didn't want to or threaten to leave the Union either. Therefore, the would be Irish Free state had much more to loose, but yea.. lets just start a war we could not win for the feelzzzz.

Sounds eirly familiar to the PIRA campaign, doesn't it?

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

The war would have been the British versus the Ulster Volunteers. You seem to not understand that Ireland was remaining part of the UK, except with its own Dail with the King as Head of State.



Look up the Curragh Mutiny to understand what the situation was.

This was pre-treaty and again proves my point that a continuation of a war with the British or the Ulster Volunteers would have not been successful, at all!!

They had more men, they had more guns, they were battle-hardened from WWI, the had the ultimate backing from the British estanblishment if things went awry AND they would have been defending their own home turf if the Irish Volunteers were going to invade Ulster, to stamp the Free State rule from Dublin on them.

Its nonsense to talk about a Ulster Volunteers vs Irish Volunteers war being anything but a bloody messey stalemate of the status quo. Ulster remaining in the United Kingdom.

Reality is not Call of Duty or playing soldiers in the bedroom.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No...because even the Church of Ireland, Unionists themselves, lots in Westminster knew what would happen.

What would happen Francie?

Like your rubbish inferences about nationalists welcoming British troops .

Well that is a fact.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/day-the-troops-marched-in-to-nationalist-welcome-1.216524

The arrival of British troops was greeted with jubilation by Catholics, who viewed it as a sign that the RUC had been defeated, and the images of smiling nationalists 30 years ago still linger in the memory of many.

Tea, soup and sympathy were dispensed by Catholic women on a regular basis to the soldiers as they manned "peace lines" of barbed wire they had erected to separate the Protestant and Catholic areas. The Irish News said that while the introduction of British troops was "a drastic step . . . If the presence of troops means the withdrawal from Derry of the RUC riot squads and the hundreds of armed Orangemen . . . it may be the first step along the road to peace."

The emotion felt by Catholics was expressed in a report by the Irish News. A resident from the staunchly republican Ardoyne area told a reporter: "The British troops were given a splendid welcome and the residents of Ardoyne felt relief at the sight of them, and relationships with these soldiers has been tremendous up to now.

And this is the most telling.

"Let us hope that this will continue to be the case despite the odd rumour that petitions are being given out to get rid of the troops . . . The people who are behind these petitions had their chance in the past to do something for the area and lost it . . ."

I wonder who were the people behind those petitions?
So, in order to save face, the same people started targeting the BA and went on their cultish crusade for freedom.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

This was pre-treaty and again proves my point that a continuation of a war with the British or the Ulster Volunteers would have not been successful, at all!!

But we would not have been fighting against the British if they had stood up to the unionists.

They had more men, they had more guns, they were battle-hardened from WWI, the had the ultimate backing from the British estanblishment if things went awry AND they would have been defending their own home turf if the Irish Volunteers were going to invade Ulster, to stamp the Free State rule from Dublin on them.

They didn't have more guns than the British Army who their war would be with and I do question whether they had a lot of fighting fit after WWI. They could have sent in the Tans to sort them out, now that they had learned a few tricks in the Irish War of Independence.

Its nonsense to talk about a Ulster Volunteers vs Irish Volunteers war being anything but a bloody messey stalemate of the status quo. Ulster remaining in the United Kingdom.

How many times have you to be told that it was up to the British Gov. to bring unionists into line.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

I wonder who were the people behind those petitions?
So, in order to save face, the same people started targeting the BA and went on their cultish crusade for freedom.

Not these people anyway. They were welcomed initially because the nationalists thought (wrongly) that they would protect them from loyalist mobs and the RUC. That wasn't the case.

Here is some videos of what the BA would have arrived to - catholics being burnt out of their homes by Paisleyites (as one man says). Your hate figure, Bobby Story was burned out of 3 homes by the age of 14 by loyalist mobs. Similar story with Bobby Sands and a lot of other young people who joined the IRA.




https://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibiti...thern-ireland/
https://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibiti...ps-in-ardoyne/

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

What would happen Francie?



Well that is a fact.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/day-the-troops-marched-in-to-nationalist-welcome-1.216524







And this is the most telling.



I wonder who were the people behind those petitions?
So, in order to save face, the same people started targeting the BA and went on their cultish crusade for freedom.

They needed protecting...and of course you ran away when you were asked what that meant.

They would have welcomed Al Queada in the situstion was that terrifyiny...you know that sensation caused by 'terrorists'.

And you also ignore the fact that 4 days later at the behest of the RUC and Stormont they were raiding catholic houses and shortly after that shooting people.

Go look at the overview Mark not your demeaning liittle vignettes that back up the biased narrative you want to promote

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

But we would not have been fighting against the British if they had stood up to the unionists.

OK, let's flesh this out.
Say they went to war with the Ulster Volunteers to impose an all Ireland Anglo-Irish agreement, why do you think they would have beaten them?

The British were not able to successfully defeat the Irish Volunteers, but then we expected them to easily defeat the Ulster Volunteers in a 'What if' scenario.
Makes no sense at all. You want to have it both ways.

The most likely scenario would have been, the status quo, the British would have said, **** that, you two can sort it out among yourselves.

Parition was inevitable. ALWAYS! There was no scenario or reasonable 'what if' that could have avoided it, apart from some fantasy talk about a Utopian deal or large scale genocide by one party or another.

If like some other posters here you are in favour of Genocide in the North to get the United Ireland, then by all means argue it honestly. Dont skirt the issue.

They didn't have more guns than the British Army who their war would be with and I do question whether they had a lot of fighting fit after WWI. They could have sent in the Tans to sort them out, now that they had learned a few tricks in the Irish War of Independence.

The IRA didn't have as many guns as the British Army, yet did OK.....

How many times have you to be told that it was up to the British Gov. to bring unionists into line.

Sorry, but why would they do that? Seriously! Why?
NI wanted to remain in the Union. You honestly think Westminister, the British Army and Establishment as well as the press and general British public would accepted a government that has gone to war with the Unionists to kick them out of the Union?

Are you for real?? :eek:
Come back to reality please!

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They would have welcomed

The fact is that they did welcome the BA, something you dismissed as rubbish, but now the inevitable u-turn.

Madeleine Birchfield

markodaly wrote: »

Parition was inevitable. ALWAYS! There was no scenario or reasonable 'what if' that could have avoided it, apart from some fantasy talk about a Utopian deal or large scale genocide by one party or another.

What wasn't inevitable was the 6 county Ulster. If the Ulster Unionists accepted the 4 county Ulster and allowed the two other counties with majority Catholic populations to have gone to the Irish Free State then Northern Ireland would have been much more stable and prosperous and much less filled with sectarian tensions between Protestant Unionists and Catholics.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

OK, let's flesh this out.
Say they went to war with the Ulster Volunteers to impose an all Ireland Anglo-Irish agreement, why do you think they would have beaten them?

The British were not able to successfully defeat the Irish Volunteers, but then we expected them to easily defeat the Ulster Volunteers in a 'What if' scenario.
Makes no sense at all. You want to have it both ways.

The most likely scenario would have been, the status quo, the British would have said, **** that, you two can sort it out among yourselves.

Parition was inevitable. ALWAYS! There was no scenario or reasonable 'what if' that could have avoided it, apart from some fantasy talk about a Utopian deal or large scale genocide by one party or another.

If like some other posters here you are in favour of Genocide in the North to get the United Ireland, then by all means argue it honestly. Dont skirt the issue.

The IRA didn't have as many guns as the British Army, yet did OK.....

Sorry, but why would they do that? Seriously! Why?
NI wanted to remain in the Union. You honestly think Westminister, the British Army and Establishment as well as the press and general British public would accepted a government that has gone to war with the Unionists to kick them out of the Union?

Are you for real?? :eek:
Come back to reality please!

But Ireland was staying in the Union with the King as Head of State. The big difference was that Ireland would have its own Parliament, similar to what Scotland has now, but is still part of the UK. It was also staying in the Commonwealth. That would have been win-win for everyone. Ireland was a Free State up to 1949 when it became a republic and kicked out of the Commonwealth.

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

But Ireland was staying in the Union with the King as Head of State.

Eh, no.

Ireland left the Union in 1922 and was granted dominion status within the Empire and Commonwealth. NI rejoined the Union after it ceded from the Free State.

You don't even know the basics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

OK, let's flesh this out.
Say they went to war with the Ulster Volunteers to impose an all Ireland Anglo-Irish agreement, why do you think they would have beaten them?

The British were not able to successfully defeat the Irish Volunteers, but then we expected them to easily defeat the Ulster Volunteers in a 'What if' scenario.
Makes no sense at all. You want to have it both ways.

The most likely scenario would have been, the status quo, the British would have said, **** that, you two can sort it out among yourselves.

Parition was inevitable. ALWAYS! There was no scenario or reasonable 'what if' that could have avoided it, apart from some fantasy talk about a Utopian deal or large scale genocide by one party or another.

If like some other posters here you are in favour of Genocide in the North to get the United Ireland, then by all means argue it honestly. Dont skirt the issue.






The IRA didn't have as many guns as the British Army, yet did OK.....




Sorry, but why would they do that? Seriously! Why?
NI wanted to remain in the Union. You honestly think Westminister, the British Army and Establishment as well as the press and general British public would accepted a government that has gone to war with the Unionists to kick them out of the Union?

Are you for real?? :eek:
Come back to reality please!

The Unionists would have cowed. You seriously think they'd have gone to war against the British?

Jesus H. What utter nonsense.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Eh, no.

Ireland left the Union in 1922 and was granted dominion status within the Empire and Commonwealth. NI rejoined the Union after it ceded from the Free State.

You don't even know the basics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty

So why the heck was there a Governor General and TDs declaring fidelity to the King?

The Free State government consisted of the Governor-General, the representative of the King, and the Executive Council (cabinet), which replaced both the revolutionary Dáil Government and the Provisional Government set up under the Treaty. W. T. Cosgrave, who had led both of these governments since August 1922, became the first President of the Executive Council (prime minister). The Oireachtas or legislature consisted of Dáil Éireann (the lower house) and Seanad Éireann, also known as the Senate. Members of the Dáil were required to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution of the Free State and to declare fidelity to the king. The oath was a key issue for opponents of the Treaty, who refused to take the oath and therefore did not take their seats. Pro-Treaty members, who formed Cumann na nGaedheal in 1923, held an effective majority in the Dáil from 1922 to 1927, and thereafter ruled as a minority government until 1932.

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

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Unionists would have cowed. You seriously think they'd have gone to war against the British?

Jesus H. What utter nonsense.

Ah yea, they would have meekly surrendered without a shot being fired, broken their Ulster Convenient, put away their hundreds of thousands of guns and accepted 'Rome Rule'.
Silly me.
Everyone knows Unionists are a passive easy bunch to run over! :D:D:D

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

So why the heck was there a Governor General and TDs declaring fidelity to the King?






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

Because the Monarchy was still the head of state in the Free State until a Republic was declared 25 or so year later.

You do know in places like Canada, Australia and NZ, the Queen is still the head of state, yet they are not part of the United Kingdom.

Again, you have no idea of even the basics here.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Ah yea, they would have meekly surrendered without a shot being fired, broken their Ulster Convenient, put away their hundreds of thousands of guns and accepted 'Rome Rule'.
Silly me.
Everyone knows Unionists are a passive easy bunch to run over! :D:D:D

What was their plan when they won this war? With a beaten Britain beside them and a country to their south that had beaten the British (as you were saying a few minutes ago).

Will you come down out of the clouds onto terra firma?

They would have cowed and negotiated.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Unionists would have cowed. You seriously think they'd have gone to war against the British?

Jesus H. What utter nonsense.

All those loyalists fighting against the Kings forces so that they could retain part of the UK :pac:.

it would be interesting to see what side those British Army soldiers from Ulster would take!

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Because the Monarchy was still the head of state in the Free State until a Republic was declared 25 or so year later.

Actually, he wasn't until the declaration of the republic. Dev pulled a fast one when the King abdicated in 1936.


https://www.theirishstory.com/2011/03/04/the-abdication-of-edward-viii-and-irish-independence/#.X0k3jB17nMU

You do know in places like Canada, Australia and NZ, the Queen is still the head of state, yet they are not part of the United Kingdom.

I think their status has changed since then. Seem to remember Canada did something about in 1988.

Again, you have no idea of even the basics here.

I know that the Irish Free State was a Constitutional Monarchy until Dev pulled a fast one!


That article is very interesting about how the British States had to get the Free State, Australia, NZ and Canada etc. to agree to the abdication of the King and the Dail to agree/approve it!

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What was their plan when they won this war? With a beaten Britain beside them and a country to their south that had beaten the British (as you were saying a few minutes ago).

Stay in the Union. Like its not complicated to what they wanted.

They would have cowed and negotiated.

If it were that easy, why did it not happen?

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

I think their status has changed since then. Seem to remember Canada did something about in 1988.

Dominion status != being part of the Union, like you claimed.
You are awfully confused. Admit you were wrong and move on to save some face.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Stay in the Union. Like its not complicated to what they wanted.

If it were that easy, why did it not happen?

The British could not be arsed.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Stay in the Union. Like its not complicated to what they wanted.

After beating the British in a war? :eek::eek:

If it were that easy, why did it not happen?

Because a strong Conservative givernment with a strategic and selfish interest in NI allowed itself to be convinced by Unionists when it should have been locking them up...Carson for sedition and Bonar Law for some of the things he was saying.
Research the fecking period properly will you and stop looking for handy bullet points and sentences that back up the narrative you are trying to sell. Nobody is buying it.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Dominion status != being part of the Union, like you claimed.
You are awfully confused. Admit you were wrong and move on to save some face.

Well, 'Dominion' status (which is what the Irish Free State had along with other English/white speaking nations of the BE) is defined as something between a colony and a state. Would you have defined Ireland up to gaining independence a colony of the UK?

Zebra3

markodaly wrote: »

You don't even know the basics.

Irony off the scale there.

Yesterday you were telling us all that "we, the Irish people" had to have a long, hard think about a border poll despite the fact that it'll be called by the Brits and only voted on by those in the north.

You might wanna be a little less sneery towards others given you don't know half as much as you think.