Sean.3516 wrote: » 1914 was in fact different. Because of the Parliament Act of 1911 which altered the British parliamentary rules so as to prevent the House of Lords from vetoing the same legislation for more than two years. House of Commons passed the Home Rule Act in 1912 and 1913 (Lords blocked it on both occasions.) meaning the legislation would come into effect in 1914 no matter what. Obviously this was delayed due to World War One but it genuinely was “behind the corner”. As for Redmond, he didn’t “send” anybody anywhere. He instead stated that the best way for the National Volunteers to help affect Home Rule would be for them to help bring WWI to an end as fast as possible.
FTA69 wrote: » Fair play to her.
KWAG2019 wrote: » Typically you ignore 4m others for the benefit of your point of view.
Bambi wrote: » The British had already retroactivley linked the passing of the Home Rule bill to conscription in Ireland, you don't seem to be worried about how many thousands of Irishmen that would have killed. The British Government also assured Carson and Craig that the whole Home Rule issue was still up for debate once the war ended. That Home Rule bill was as dead as the previous ones by 1916 Thankfully the IRB succeeded where O'Connell, Parnell and Redmond had all failed.
Bambi wrote: » You know what's funny? I was going to point out in my post that the ballachingly cliched response is always "Home Rule was around the corner" Absolute guff. Home Rule was "around the corner" for the previous 80 years and it never happened, something always just happened to come up, as it did in 1914 You think 1916 was a tragedy but Redmond sending tens of thousands Irishmen to be slaughtered for a lie wasn't? You don't need me to put a label on that.
bobbysands81 wrote: » So you want to commemorate the men who shot dead 14 innocent people in Croke Park on Bloody Sunday? You think a State commemoration of these people is actually worthy and justified? Commemorating a police force that turned its guns on its own people, the people that the force was meant to be protecting.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Yes, I’m saying wait until the end of WW1 and “trust” Britain as hard as that would be compared fighting a guerilla war. I’m not saying I’d oppose violent means all the way. At least not until every peaceful avenue had been exhausted.
cryptocurrency wrote: » so you do nothing to acknowledge over 1 million on the island until the prize of a united is delivered. That is why isn't not happening any time soon. You just don't get it.
cryptocurrency wrote: » really? the meltdown it is causing so many show the country has so many small minded and backward types who are basically the DUP in the mirror. United Ireland is miles away. I don't blame normal unionists to be concerned.
simongurnick wrote: » Wouldnt agree Home rule had its limitations and there were several iterations that did not make it through both houses. So you think pearce should have just waited until after ww1 and essentially trust britain? How did that work out for collins and the treaty? If we went down that road we would be like wales or even canada, with the queen on our currency.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Ironic from Sinn Féin considering the amount of Irish people the PIRA killed!! But it is a silly idea in fairness. Just don't be hypocritical in your condemnation.
Sean.3516 wrote: » The real tragedy (and you’re gonna love me for saying this. Call me a westbrit/blueshirt if u will) is that the 1916 Rising ever took place.
lmimmfn wrote: » This is revisionism, a United Ireland and the implications of that should be decided and debated if it is ever to go ahead, like I said compromising etc. and with a view to improving the lives of all moving forward. This commemoration for those who were anti state is disgusting. If we have to commemorate it for a united ireland so be it, that's acceptable but for the current government when partitioned to go ahead with this is not acceptable.
Millionaire only not wrote: » When was that motion put forward ?
CrankyHaus wrote: » That rather rosey analysis ignores the Home Rule Crisis provoked by the Ulster Unionists arming, mobilising and pledging violent resistance to Home Rule if it became law. It also ignores the British indulgence of this blatant defiance of the law by the Ulster Unionists and the Curragh Mutiny that ensued when the British Government even suggested enforcing the law upon Ulster Unionists.
lmimmfn wrote: » Completely different, a United ireland should be forward thinking and inclusive with a view to compromise, this commeration is the antithesis of this
cryptocurrency wrote: » The fall out over this has been interesting and just goes to show all this talk about a united ireland is utter nonsense. We are as far from it now as we have ever been.
