FrancieBrady wrote: » Moderate Unionists wouldn't expect us to commemorate this, as middle class Catholics (why are you being sectarian here???) would not expect Unionists to commemorate the IRA or the 1916 leaders. Our reaction to this is for all to see. As someone who is skeptical of a UI in the first place because of stupid hangups, we have about what uniform their great grandfather wore and so on, I am delighted. Kiss that UI goodbye before we even started. Leo thought he could bludgeon this through and point out the detractors as the 'ooh ah up the RA' brigade as some are doing here. Massive fail again Leo.
jmcc wrote: » Rubbish! 50% + 1. That's what it takes. Mature? Traitorous, pondscum intellected FG politicians always used that excuse when they try to downgrade Irish history. A bunch of middle class Germans who had to change their German name to "Windsor" because their government got into a little bit of World War with their inbred moron of a cousin. Would those be the 1916 celebrations where the morons in FG/Labour got some equally dimwitted f*cktards to produce a video about 1916 that had the Queen of England, Sir Bob Geldorf, that gobsh!te Bono but none of the 1916 leaders or the fact that there had been an Easter Rising? One couldn't trust FG/Labour to boil water without burning it. Regards...jmcc
Sean.3516 wrote: » 100% catholic boy from the Republic of Ireland here.
And wasn’t trolling. Just pointing out some facts that don’t quite align with the “Ooh Aah, Up the Ra” mythology.
Nift wrote: » 50 per cent plus 1, how do you think thats going to work out then? The word mature is in regards to realizing that history is complex, and that another civil war would follow, or the lesser evil of an independent Northern Ireland would happen if people like yourself had their way. Sure they should all feck off back to britain after re-unification. Is that your viewpoint, or a like it or lump it one? Thats great for a progressive society.
markodaly wrote: » Again, this was a recommendation by an all-party committee, SF included. People seem to be forgetting this crucial bit of information.
Bambi wrote: » First Dáíl Eireann baby, massive popular mandate for independence. RIC went the other way, became the terrorists.
Nift wrote: » 50 per cent plus 1, how do you think thats going to work out then?
marieholmfan wrote: » The vast majority of voters for the Irish house of commons weren't Irish.
Tzardine wrote: » Do you have any more info on this? Who is organising it?
markodaly wrote: » It was an Irish Parliament. Anyway, what were they?
mariaalice wrote: It would be intersting to see what soemone one like Dermot Ferriter has to say on the matter.
jmcc wrote: » The whole move from Home Rule to Independence must have been missing from the John Bruton colouring book of history for little neo-Unionists (complete with red, white and blue edible crayons).
jmcc wrote: » Are you intellectually challenged are just trolling? That was not Britain's "name".
whisky_galore wrote: » Timings to suit the unemployed and unemployable.
marieholmfan wrote: » They were overwhelmingly English colonists (there were some Irish people who participated).
markodaly wrote: » They did actually. From Wiki
Nift wrote: » 50 per cent plus 1, how do you think thats going to work out then? The word mature is in regards to realizing that history is complex, and that another civil war would follow, or the lesser evil of an independent Northern Ireland would happen if people like yourself had their way. Sure they should all feck off back to britain after re-unification. Is that your viewpoint, or a like it or lump it one? Thats great for a progressive society. I'll put it in bold for you. A United Ireland will never ever, ever happen if thats the way you or others think. And if we railroaded a million or so into the Repuiblic against their wishes, are we not just reversing the roles. Its a situation that needs to be treated with kid gloves. Thats where mature comes into it. And if you don't want a United Ireland, well then you can't be a Republican. But unfortunately for a United Ireland we can't have a Republic. Quite the conundrum.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Yes it is easy for me to say. I accept that. I’m simply making a judgement as to what the best way was to achieve the aims of Irish Nationalism given the situation in 1914. What’s your point? You’re doing the exact same thing when you have the idealistic “Republic or Nothing!” attitude when it’s when now 100 years after the fact and we now have a Republic. Most Irish people weren’t in even in favour of a Republic in 1914-16, not if it meant fighting a rebellion anyway. I mean the people of Dublin threw fruit at the Irish Volunteers as they were being marched to Kilmainham! What makes you think that those people were just as gung ho as you would have been (you having the benefit of hindsight and they don’t) about republican ideals? Yes, it’s very easy for BOTH of us to say what we would have done or would have believed in 1914. At least I’m acknowledging it. (Side note, we weren’t “occupied” by Great Britain in 1914. Ireland was an integrated part of Great Britain.) Well, Jewish immigrants to Palestine during this time didn’t steal the land or colonise it. They bought it. Largely with money donated by Jewish philanthropists in Europe. They bought it from local Arabs a lot of whom were absentee landlords. The Ottoman Empire (who owned Palestine at the time) allowed it.The brits didn’t become involved until after WWI at which point a two-state solution was the best remedy as opposed to deporting Jews who’d been living there for decades now.
The Satanist wrote: » They were collaborators and traitors. I celebrate only their death.
jmcc wrote: » That wasn't the Irish people voting. Are you completely clueless about Irish and British history. Go read about the Act of Union and who could vote for candidates for the "Irish" House of Commons. Regards...jmcc
jmcc wrote: » Catholic, as in the religion, is spelled with a capital 'c'. Perhaps when you grow up and actually read some history, your views will change.
jmcc wrote: » If you were not trolling then the alternative explanation is that you are ignorant of geography and history. The use of the term "Fenian" in the manner you used it is a characteristic of Loyalists. So which is it?
Sean.3516 wrote: » I’m not denying this happened. I’m just saying we weren’t militarily occupied at the time.
Emm. Yea it was. The Act of Union in 1800 integrated the island of Ireland into the nation of Great Britain and changed the country’s name to “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”.
In 1922, they changed the name to “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. This is still the official name today.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So if a majority vote for a UI as per a hard fought international agreement you will 'railroad' them into remaining in a Union they don't want to and continue to call yourself a 'mature democrat'. You have to laugh at the hypocrisy here.
markodaly wrote: » Did the Irish people vote on the Treaty?
Nift wrote: » Where did i say any of that? I'm saying that's where the idea of a "mature" position comes from. It has nothing to do with Fine Gael or anything. A common refrain on here or the journal is...phuck them the orange prods and send them back to Scotland/UK. Its a moronic line of thinking that must be called out every time. Sinn Fein themselves have talked of the changes needed if we do ever re-unite. It needs to be very carefully managed. The whole RIC thing is part of it, rightly or wrongly. Personally i don't think there will be a United Ireland in the next 50 years at least. You can see the reasons all over here, reddit, the journal. Or if it did happen, there would be guaranteed bloodshed. You have to laugh at the misty eyed romantic Republicanism. When it comes face to face with reality there will be tears. As we see with Brexit, a 50 plus one majority may be democratic but its not necessarily good for democracy.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Genuinely sorry for not using the capital “C” for Catholic. Normally I’m the grammar nazi.
Also I would bet that I’m more historically knowledgeable than yourself.
I also didn’t know that it was a term of derision only used by Unionists against Republicans.
Didn’t the Republicans call themselves “The Fenian Brotherhood” for a while?
