Loyalist groups to march in Dublin

murphaph wrote:

No, because the UK exists in it's present incarnation because that's the way most of the people (democracy) living within it wish it to be. This principle, first accepted by an irish government at the signing of the AIG in 1985 was further enshrined in the GFA, an agreement that an overwhelming majority of the population of island of Ireland (ie, your idea of the irish nation) supported in referenda. No, either you accept the democratic wish of 85%+ of the island's population or you don't, which is it?

ArthurF wrote:

I dont see a problem with Northern Unionists/ Orange people marching in Dublin, and to be honest I think the march is long overdue, but what I do have a problem with is last years "Sinn Fein/IRA" March-Rally in Dublin - now that really was a disgrace. The reason for this (2006 March) is to remember those who died in the Troubles, and to bring home the message to the South who the real victims were (The vast majority of victims being from the British/Orange/Uniomist community)! we should all be giving our support to the Marchers instead of having a go at them, lets face it, during the Troubles 99.9% of people down here were against IRA Bombings/ Shootings/ Knee Cappings/ Murders, so why shouldnt we support the victims? As for the Union Flag being flown 'Fair enough' after all, we do own one third of it!

darkman2 wrote:

They will do that, ive no doubt, by intentionally causing trouble. Thats all this is, a provocation, and a VERY stupid one at that.

MY ASS 'Real' victims of the troubles? They were on both sides. People were murdered by the IRA, and people were murdered by Loyalist paramilitaries and British army. It was nearly 50-50 between both communities. You contradiceted yourself in that statement saying

Flex wrote:

Im well aware of the GFA, I was asking hypothethically. If Ireland doesnt have the right to exist as a country because at various points various parts of the nation rejected and resisted the rule of the character who was supposed to represent central authority, then the UK shouldnt have the right to exist because at various points in history Irelands incorporation/annexation into it was resisted and the central authority (British parliament) was rejected or defied..... Hypothethical situation.

Flex wrote:

Being a nationalist who wants a unted Ireland, I absolutely do support the GFA, and I completely do support the princible of consent, always have; for so long as a majority choose the UK, it must remain that way, but when a majority of Ireland in both jurisdictions support reunification, that must happen.

Flex wrote:

And democracy didnt exist back in Ireland during the times of the High Kingship. That was how our ancestors chose to run the place; Kings under a High King; and Ireland was a nation. Why is it people are so against the idea of Ireland existing before British occupation as a nation? Why must it always be tribal savages battering each other and raping and pillaging as if there was nothing but fighting? We produced great historical tales and legends and literature, were regarded as the land of saints and scholars where nobles and scholars came to study, defended the nation from Viking and Norse incursions to ensure Gaelic cultures supremacy

Wikipedia wrote:

Link
The High Kingship of Ireland was a pseudohistorical construct of the eighth century AD, a projection into the distant past of a political entity that did not become reality until the ninth century. The traditional list of High Kings of Ireland is thus a mixture of fact, fiction and propaganda, the individuals appearing prior to the fifth century AD are generally considered legendary and the application of the title to individuals before the ninth century being anachronistic. The annalists frequently describe later high kings as righ erenn co fressabra ("Kings Irish with Opposition"), which is a reference to the instability of the kingship of Tara from the death of Mael Sechnaill II in 1022, the last Uí Niall king; who had been restored to the throne following the death of Brian Boru in 1014, who had taken the throne from him in 1002. The example of Brian's coup was followed by numerous other families in the century following 1022, which was effectively ended by the Norman quasi-conquest of Ireland in 1171. The period between 1022 and 1171 is thus sometimes called 'The Great Civil War' while the Irish civil war proper, 1921-1923, is sometimes called 'The Little Civil War' - but this distinction is far from being a standard view of Irish history.

Flex wrote:

.... Dont get me wrong, Im well aware of inter-provincial wars that were occurring and so on, bt its not as if Britains "arrival" saved us from barbarism and ushered civilised society to Ireland for the first time in our history or something.

Flex wrote:

And Iv said already Im not using the fact Ireland was a nation for around 2000years as a means of claiming the north east, because the whole loyalist argument of 'Ireland was never united' holds little (if any) water with me either. Neither argument makes much ofa difference to the political status of any part of Ireland, only the will of the majority matters where thats concerned. Im just pointing it out; IRELAND WAS A NATION

LovelyHurling wrote:

Also there is an increased involvement of the southern government in northern affairs

murphaph wrote:

First of all. You're putting words in my mouth here. I never said "Ireland doesn't have the right to exist as a nation". I merely pointed out that it never existed as a unified political entity before british rule here and because of this fact it is very misleading for republicans to use the term "Irish re-unification" in that context. There never was a united political entity that encompassed the whole island before anglo-norman rule (british) began, so why should there be now? The only 'reason' republicans can give is that Ireland is a single island, ergo it should be a single country, which is a complete nosense as many islands and land masses are broken up into smaller political entities with borders betwixt and between them where the majority of people within those entities wish it to be so, as is the case with Northern Ireland.

I dont think Ireland should be a country because its an island simply. I think the Irish people have been denied self determination, thats my only motive to be honest. If a situation emerged where the majority of the Irish in NI voted to retain the union, Id see that as being an equally idal solution to this as a united Ireland. As time goes on though I can see repatition being more and more likely, which I wouldnt like from the point of view it would allow unionists to 'have their cake and eat it' (ie. refuse self determination to nationalists for as long as possible, but then in the event of a possible nationalist majority, we have to repartition the province because making people live in a country they dont want is wrong......unless theyre nationalists :rolleyes: ), and we were shafted on the Boundary Commission by Britain, so I prefer a united Ireland solution.

But once again, can a country not be a country if parts of it frequently resist or defy the rule of the character which is representative of supreme authority in the realm?

I would be against unification but if a majority in both jurisdictions, independently vote in favour of it then I'd have to go along with democracy.

Glad we agree. And Ill refer to it as 'unification' if it means so much

You are mistaken when you assert that everyone accepted the high king as the supreme ruler of the entire island of Ireland. It's an area of history that has been so abused by republicans that it is regarded as pseudohistory by many historians!

Iv read through Wiki about the High Kingship before, and Iv read lots of articles about it. I know how the High Kingship was supposed to work in theory, and that more often than not, it didnt work in practice. Im well aware of inter provincial warring that went on. But there was a title that claimed to encompass the whole island as 1 and its legitimacy was recognised by the provincial kings, otherwise why would they have bothered fighting over it?

I never claimed the brits civilised us or anything like it. I merely pointed out that Ireland was a politically divided island, not a single political entity that was to be carved up by british rule. Ireland as always been politically fragmented, just like many parts of Europe.

OK, my bad. Its just the picture painted by an earlier post about tribes warring with each other before British occupation/annexation (do you regard 'occupation' & 'annexation' as a correct words out of curiosity?) painted a 'bad' picture because our nation did many great things. And Ireland may have been politically fragmented, but not like other nations of Europe. There was never a 'High Kingship of Europe' because Europe was full of seperate sovereign states. And Iv said already I dont use the fact we were a nation to claim the north, just like I dont allow loyalist arguments of Ireland being divided make me lose support for a united Ireland.

Ireland was and is a single geographic entity, not a single political one. You wouldn't say "Scandinavia was/is a nation" so no need to say "Ireand was a nation". Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

I dont know much about Scandinavia, except Norway was a part of Sweden til around 1906 and Finland was a part of Russia. Ireland was a nation; Im going by defintion of nation on that; the common laws, language, literature, mythology, customs, history, etc. of the people; the High Kingship of IRELAND; the fact that the Vikings and Norse were repulsed from the (under an army commanded by the High King) nation and Irish cultures supremacy was maintianed, and that the remaining Norse were assimilated into Irish culture and society. Even some of the first wave of settlers were assimilated into Irish society.

LovelyHurlingIf you replaced that foreign power with the Irish government you would have more than 50 % of the North's population who felt they lived under rule of a foreign power...

There are Irish in Britain who live under British rule, and Im sure some fel like they are living under foreign rule but they still live under British rule.

LovelyHurlingAs far as I remember 3 men were responsible for the boundary, and didnt the unionist guy quit or something? Leaving only the south african judge and the irishman? That cant equate to Unionists being greedy, and anyway, you cant blame the actions of unionists back then on their grandchildren today just like I cant blame German schoolkids for starting the second world war or a modern Fitzgibbon for the Norman invasion

No the Unionist guy Fischer didnt quit. The unionists insisted on having Fermanagh and Tyrone which were both 55% nationalist, Craig declared, "I will never give in to any rearrangement of the boundary that leaves our Ulster area less than it is under the Government of Ireland Act." and threatened "bloodshed and chaos of the worst description." and resisted the boundary commission which was meant to put nationalists into the Free State, so the border remained in the wrong place.Thing that really gets me though is that after wantiong those nationalist areas, and in effect nationalist people to be part of the unionist province, they then spent the next 50 years trying to force them to leave; so I call it greed.

Freelancer wrote:

You're happy to in engage in ad homien attacks, snide implied insults, etc...... But you'll demand other posters stop similar behaviour.

Freelancer wrote:

I suspect you "win" debates through stamina rather than logic, wearying a smarter, better oponents, not through logic and reasoning, but because they realise that there is little point continuing with such a vapid empty opponent.

Freelancer wrote:

I see you keep yourself in the shallow end of the pool and rarly tread in areas like politics or humanities,

Freelancer wrote:

Keep swiiming, better be a pike among the AH trouts, eh?

Freelancer wrote:

I'm saying that just because you say (oh and you've a quote from a British PM)

Freeancer wrote:

(and lets because here sonny,

Freelancer wrote:

all you have is your opinion, you've not provided a shred of evidence) doesn't mean we were.

Freelancer wrote:

I'm saying that the people of Ireland in this period felt themselves British and Irish in degrees,

Freelancer wrote:

Any bollockolgy

Freelancer wrote:

and inane semantics isn't going to present the argument, that until Pearse read a proclaimation on the steps of the GPO, and and Helga opened fire, they felt as both British and Irish equally.

Freelancer wrote:

Again. Hey Bartender, get Mr Nice Guy a drink and make it a double standard.

Freelancer wrote:

You're the one claiming that were as a nation as one until one event occured,

Freelancer wrote:

You don't get to dictate how I speak sonny.

murphaph wrote:

Flex, would it be fair to say we're now going round in circles?

I don't think I'm about to convince you of my argument and vice-versa. I respect your views and the most important thing is something upon which we agree, ie, that the democratic will of the majority of the populations of both sides of the border should be respected is not in doubt.

As for whether or not the Anglo-Normans "annexed" or "occupied", well they were invited originally so they didn't exactly invade. The Anglo-Normans did settle and interbreed with native irish and so would be like the Norsemen in that regard (anybody with a 'Fitz' prefx in their name is likely decended from the Anglo-Normans). In truth, it can't be easily defined and to be honest it's not important-you might well be descended from the Anglo-Normans yourself and were it not for their coming here you might not exist.