Sunny Disposition wrote: » The Republic put in a huge effort to curtail the IRA something is curiously misrepresented by some unionist politicians. The Gardai had a genuine revulsion for what they were doing and a determination to thwart them. Anyone who knows any Gardai knows this, it still endures. The IRA killed a number of Garda members. Basically the IRA were pariahs in the South, hated by the vast majority. It is sometimes forgotten now but they were despised. And rightly so.
Terry136 wrote: » They had some security measures in place but claiming they "fought the IRA" is a joke the Irish state was seen by the British as completely incompetent.
Fionn1952 wrote: » I suspect you need to have a read through it again yourself, Downcow. There are specific circumstances required to allow any changes (such as a global pandemic, not so much because Jim Allister is full of bluster again and Arlene is laying bare her hypocrisy to save plummeting polling numbers), and in the case that there are changes to be made, there is a specific process to be followed. If the height of your understanding of the Withdrawal Agreement is, 'we can just ignore bits we don't like and ask you to find solutions', I'd suggest that perhaps your grasp of international law and treaties doesn't even meet the basic requirements to have an educated exchange of opinions on the matter. Either way, I see you've downgraded your outlook from, 'potential gamechanger' to, 'maybe in a few years it'll have SOME impact.'
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Reunification... Were we ever actually unified in the first place?
"Grattan's parliament" is the name usually given to the two decades of parliamentary independence which ended with the Act of Union in 1800. Certainly, there was much celebration in 1782, and parliament voted its hero £50,000 in gratitude. The final years of the century saw great commercial activity, and a prosperous Dublin acquired many of the handsome Georgian buildings for which it is noted today.
downcow wrote: » No. But some clearly think we were
Hamsterchops wrote: » No, always disunited as an island until the act of Union which lasted from 1802 until 1921, then the South decided to go on a solo run .....
Hamsterchops wrote: » No, always disunited as an island until the act of Union which had the whole of Ireland within the United Kingdom, then the South decided to go on a solo run .....
AdrianG08 wrote: » Is Downcow really Jamie Bryson? Hows the faux legal career going?
ulster wrote: » I've started to suspect that there's one troll with several accounts on here. The posts from these accounts all sound the same, have the same bitterness level, intentionally controversial.etc. It's probably actually just someone from Dublin who's pretending to be a Unionist haha, rather than a real one from NI. Maybe with the exception of lurleen lumpkin, I don't think there's anyone on here.
Fionn1952 wrote: » You've been corrected on this (along with sources) on multiple occasions, yet still pop along every few months and spout it again. It is a very obvious attempt at the old, 'repeat a lie often enough' school of thought.....and even then, completely and utterly irrelevant anyway. Regardless of whether or not Ireland was, 'united' before British rule, the fact of the matter is we have agreed that it is a legitimate aspiration, and indeed have an international treaty in place agreeing to how it can happen.
Hamsterchops wrote: » I don't believe this island was ever truly United pre act of Union, but as you say "I've been corrected on multiple occasions" so I'm wrong I don't know if NI will ever vote to leave the UK, but if it does then what happens next? A harmonious marriage between Orange & Green? If this island goes forward as one country - one nation then that's great, as long as it's not acrimoneous, bitter and twisted. Yes to a United Ireland, if that's what the people in NI vote for.
RobMc59 wrote: » I think you are correct Hampster,that Ireland has never been united pre being part of the UK but meaningful discussion with disgruntled,delusional republicans is impossible as they've airbrushed history to suit their version of events.
jm08 wrote: » So what do you make of Roderic O'Connor, the last High King of Ireland who died in 1198, prior to the Normans landing in Ireland? And what is your view of Grattan's Parliament prior to the Act of Union in 1800?
Fionn1952 wrote: » Amazing that the lad who popped along claiming to be a neutral with an interest in Ireland is now putting himself forward as an expert on Irish post-classical history. As usual, the narrative revolves around trying to draw illogical comparisons between the feudal society of Ireland at the time with that of a modern democracy or federal system of government. As has been explained many times (I think I have a post from around two years ago on the matter, and a more detailed one about six months back), the existence of a shared culture isn't disputed by even the most ardent of deniers, the existence of common law across the island isn't disputed, in fact Brehon Law is likely the oldest codified legal system in Europe. What the argument against seems to focus on is the suggestion that as parts of the country were ruled by multiple different rulers at the time, it couldn't have ever been one country (while bypassing any discussion of the unifying nature of shared culture and law). The issue with this is that it also ignores periods of history when there were High Kings without Opposition. Arguing that Ireland wasn't united as one country under, for example Brian Boru would demonstrate either a total lack of knowledge of the history of the island during that time period, or a willful ignorance of said history to push a certain agenda. Two years later, pretty much the same group of posters are still parroting the, 'never united' line, but seem to magically disappear from the conversation for a while without ever actually addressing the above. If you'd like to have the 'meaningful discussion' on the matter you claim to be prevented from having, I'd suggest you start with bringing actual history to the discussion instead of your usual pointless jibes at anyone who disagrees with you.
downcow wrote: » I was bombarded for the most of last year that ni should have went with our southern neighbours and broke with the rest of our nation on our response to covid. Would you still argue the same. I am so glad we didn’t.
RobMc59 wrote: » If you search `was Ireland unified prior to being part of the UK` there is little evidence to support that claim. Regardless of what my original intentions were when I originally joined boards were ,I`ve as much right as you to express an opinion as to whether a vague band of feudal warlords a thousand years ago constituted a `united Ireland`or not.Why you as a British person who decided to identify as Irish feel you are somehow exclusively qualified to speculate on these matters is a mystery to many. Regarding Roderic O`Conner,as I understand it he was a vassal of Henry the second and was expelled from his kingdom by his own people.
Fionn1952 wrote: » I'm am Irish person, Rob. Born on the island of Ireland and holding an Irish passport. While I've visited many times, and found many of the people wonderful, I've never lived in Britain. I was happy to defend Downcow when posters were trying this nonsense from the other side. I believe you were arguing in his defense at the time, and it really reduces your credibility to try pulling it now. If you wish to persist with that, I will just report your posts in future. While it is interesting that a rudimentary Google search didn't provide you with the information I just supplied, I'd imagine that is due to user issues rather than the lack of actual information available. Perhaps you could address the actual points I raised regarding culture, law and specifically how the country could be described as unified under the rule of Brian Boru, as one example. Roderic O'Conor was a painter who died in 1940, so probably isn't terribly relevant to the discussion. If you're attempting to discuss Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, I'd suggest learning his name, as once more it doesn't suggest a great degree of credibility when you don't even know the name of the people you're claiming to have knowledge of. He signed a treaty with Henry II, after the Norman invasion. Given that we are discussing whether Ireland was united before this point, it isn't very relevant either. He was however the unopposed High King of Ireland from 1166 until the Norman invasion, so how exactly do you still contend the country was not united at the time. You have just as much of a right to share your opinions, Rob.....you don't have a right to your own facts and it is very clear you're entering this particular topic greatly lacking any actual knowledge of it apart from your very brief (and cherry picked) Google search, together with a handful of insults directed at me.
RobMc59 wrote: » My mistake,I was under the impression you were originally from NI which would have made you British by birth.
RobMc59 wrote: » My mistake,I was under the impression you were originally from NI which would have made you British by birth. As an English person who speaks English as first language using the anglicised Roderic isn't unreasonable or ignorant imo.I understand English is the default language here on boards unless in specific Irish language threads.
lurleen lumpkin wrote: » Poor effort. You can do better than this, I know you can.
Fionn1952 wrote: » Your country did sign up to the GFA, which states British OR Irish OR both. As much as your country has trouble keeping up its international agreements, I'm Irish by birth, being born in Co. Fermanagh, on the island of Ireland, not the island of Britain as you are well aware. Do you tend towards anglicising the names of anyone who isn't English? If so, why were you referring to Jurgen Klopp in a previous one of your posts rather than being consistent and anglicising that to George? You know full well that it was a low grade baiting attempt. And still, you've contributed nothing of any value regarding the actual topic of whether Ireland was united before the Norman invasion. One could grow to suspect that you don't actually have any knowledge of the topic.
RobMc59 wrote: » I genuinely wasn't aware Jurgen was George in English and imagine a joke about George Klopp would baffle the majority of people. I noticed you are from Fermanagh and not Fear Manach...
