This post is out of place in the ongoing debate, but anyways. I don't really care about what SF think or belive. There is no groundswell of support for independence in the Basque Country, Cataluyna is more based on economics as it is the richest part of Spain. Both have circumstances way different to NI as both areas can trace their history, culture, lands back to before the Vikings arrived in Ireland. They were also incorporated into the Spanish State, they had not always just been part of Spain. In reality, those regions are more akin to the various countries within Britain.
There had never ever been a mention of a separate state in Ireland until the late 19th century and that was only in response to the possibility of Home Rule. Up until the mid 19th century, the primary identity of all people living on the Island of Ireland was Irish. The first people to push for an independent Republic in Ireland are now the same people who claim not to be Irish, but solely British. Even the geographical lines had to be redrawn to ensure the survival of the new state. It would be like London remaining in the EU because they voted to stay.
You never answered this point either, Unionists in NI made up about 20% of the population of Ireland at the time of partition. Why would you not advocate for the Nationalist population of NI who made up 30% of the NI population at the time get an opportunity to rejoin the Republic?
Actually, now that I think of it, if entering your own territory is legitimate as you keep claiming, we have been getting too upset about the whole 800 years of oppression thing. After all, we invited the Brits over here, and they thought it was their own territory - the British Isles - so we should just give it all up and rejoin the British Empire.
Francie, you have really hoisted yourself on your own petard now.
You have never heard of it because the internet wasn't around back then to give oxygen to lunatic ideas
There is no groundswell of support for a united Ireland either, so how are they different?
This article is a well-rounded evaluation of the idea.
The FF/FG government had it too handy. They'd no will to push for a British withdrawal for the same reasons their supporters today don't want it, they Know it will not help them in the polls. They couldn't give a fiddler's for the people of any group.
When the BA were murdering civilians and we burned the embassy, that was the time to push for a withdrawal of the BA.
sure jaysus SF (at the time) and the 'official' IRA based in Dublin were too busy being communist to bother helping out nevermind the irish govn
Personally I think would have gotten to the 1998 position much quicker and with less bloodshed.
Reading the mindsets of the British, they didn't much care for Unionism and while they criminally ignored what they did in creating a sectarian bigoted statelet, they viewed it with distaste.
Had the Irish government actually meant that they were not going to idly stand by I think the talks around equality, parity of esteem would have been delivered and the Unionist veto stood up to sooner.
There was nothing in the GFA that could not have been delivered in 69.
Allowing the vacuum to form and the place to go up in flames was the mistake and I hold the two governments responsible for that.
A huge part of partitionism is that fear of the loss of power.
Is that why SF have different policies North and South !
You have a whole SF thread to ask that question.
Proves the point though. Some can't see past SF possibly getting an electoral bump and thats all that matters for them regarding a UI.
Hardly surprising given what they get up to.
They clearly decided it was better not to invade as we had an underground army people could join, they obviously decided it was better to leave it to them.
As a Fine Gael TD once said as he famously stood up in the Dail and screamed at the top of his lungs before being forcefully removed, ''IT'S GUNS WE WANT, BAGS OF GUNS''.
Did I say they were different in that respect? Have I been arguing for a United Ireland on here? No. I fall into the group of "yes to a United Ireland, but done pragmatically and in line with the GFA".
That doesn't preclude me from pointing out the creation of NI was undemocratic and a huge mistake, and pointing out the hypocrisy of posters saying Unionists had a democratic right to opt out of Ireland when Nationalist's had no democratic right to opt out of Ni even though their minority was larger.
Nobody has said that Unionists had a democratic right to opt out of Ireland.
What is being said is that there is a Constitutional imperative to united the people of this island before uniting the territory. The uniting of the people hasn't happened making calls for a border poll mischief-making at best.
You're a shinner now whether you are or not. They don't do nuanced debate in these here parts.
The only one who has called him a Shinner is you in that post.
That is a blatant lie and isn't supported by the constitution unless you insert a full stop. Which is not beyond you.
It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions,// recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.
The sentence expresses the aspiration and the measn by which it will be done. Now, unless you are saying we are gonna have a referendum to see if we are all united as people, you are talking rubbish in your usual self serving way.
For your interpretation to be true there would need to be a fullstop after 'traditions' where I placed the two lines.
For those that want to educate themselves on this matter, Newstalk Talking History did a podcast on NI and Partition recently.
TLDR:
Partition and Northern Ireland, in general, were barely mentioned in the Treaty debates and were not the big sticking points that led to the civil war. All the historians state it was a retrospective myth that was formed years later once the other sticking points (such as Oaths and what degree of independence the new Free State was to have) were ironed out...
The only debate on partition was the size of NI itself. Was it to be a 4, 6 or 9 country NI? However, Partition itself was an immovable rock that was going to happen. i.e it was inevitable.
Not one of them advocated war or invading the North or making the Ulster Volunteers stand down or any of that 'Call of Duty' type of History we see in this thread.
Basque independence is not a thing? Didn't ETA have a conflict with Spain about this for decades?
Sinn Fien supported them ceding into an independent state. Why raise this point? Because using Geography alone to determine national borders is idiotic and stupid.
On your other point. There has NEVER EVER been a United Ireland ruled by the Irish. EVER!
Ireland was United under the British... so why then must we be 'Re'-United when we were never united in the first place?
Having a separate Ulster dominion is actually more true for form and history than having a Untied Ireland ruled from Dublin!
Ohhhh! That is a good one! I guess we must forget that NI Unionists have a voice.
Anyway, 10% of SF supporters in the North would vote to remain in the Union...
Oh not at all.
A UI would be the death knell for SF as what are they after the fact? It is in their interests to fight for it but hope it wont happen for a long long while. It will keep their supporters angry enough to care.
You know what would unite people? Making the kids go to the same schools instead of segregating them from as young as 2 or 3.... but you know, the DUP and SF don't want that.... bums on seats is more important.
Partition wasn’t a huge issue because nobody really thought it would last, not because anyone thought it was an “immovable rock”. Most thought that especially after the boundary commission was finished the Northern State would just not be viable.
Now you are getting to the nub of it. Did you fecking miss the long and detailed contribution where the historian talks about Irish nationalists FAILING to realise that partition might be permanent. The boys (mainly) and girls that went off to form FG and FF fucked up Mark, simple as. They had their eye on the prize they went on to swap power in for the next 100 years.
It was a tragic mistake. And can be legitimately criticised as such.
*Bew (or somebody else spouting the same stuff) has already been called out on the rubbish he talked about the civil war being primarily about the oath.
Yes, I am sure the lads in SF in 1921 were eyeing up a 'power swap' for the next 100 years with parties that didn't even exist yet....
FFS, that is 2-year-old type of thinking.
Again though, I've proved my point. Partition was inevitable and it was not the big deal that we made it out to be at the time. It was only decades later that it became an issue and the revisionism that went on afterward.
Besides, we now have the GFA where the people of NI get to decide their future, not some war-mongering keyboard warriors.
You've proved nothing.
What you have done is totally ignore the fact that nationalists leaders took their eye of the ball and didn't treat it as the threat to life and limb and stability that it most certainly turned out to be...to this very day.
Two year olds have the same ability to block things out.
In fairness, it was the PIRA and their ilk who was the biggest threat to life and limb, they did after all rack up the biggest body count. Even killed more Catholics than the British.....
But I guess, 'Da Brits' made them do it, and when I say it, I mean plant bombs in civilian areas with no warnings that killed children and toddlers.
You got schooled on that last week. So you wait a few days to spin that yarn again.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
