Sinn Féin,s "Republic Day".

Happyman42 wrote: »

The next century of peace was at stake, they got it tragically wrong and continued to 'get it wrong'.

Far more than just that. Ireland herself was at stake and a full scaled war launched by the British had left the country more devastated than later after the Irish civil war. Some people still believe that the threat by the British was nothing more than a bluff. I don´t believe that. It was just the good will of Lloyd George to not end the cease fire already when the negotiations between him and De Valera reached a deadlock in Summer 1921. The British wanted to have peace in Ireland, but they couldn´t afford to rebuff the Unionists too harsh because otherwise they´d had to deal with an (then earlier) civil war in Ireland and would stick inbetween the Unionists and the Republican. Just as it went decades later in NI.

Griffith and Collins knew very well that this threat of war had to be taken for real and they choose to take the treaty to get peace for their country and nation after years of slaughtering (that includes the Irishmen who fought in WWI).

As for the other posts you´ve sent in to this thread, re the humanitarian mission, such a thing demands that the UK would had called the RoI for aid in this case which would had been an invitation. That´s quite another thing from an launched self-initiative by the Irish government without pre-consultation of the British government. The Irish government, later during the hot phase of the troubles, even akes the British to not withdraw their troops from NI because for fear of another civil war, spreading from NI into the RoI and the Irish government even gave their consent to the British that they can fly up to 6 miles into the RoI for their oversavion flights. Some sort of co-operation by both governments, given that the British-Irish relations were for decades rather bad than good. The common enemy made the common purpose, the "war" against the IRA.

It´s like running in circles when someone is not capable (by refusal) to understand the counterpart (the British) in matters like these we´re talking about.

Thomas_I wrote: »

Griffith and Collins knew very well that this threat of war had to be taken for real and they choose to take the treaty to get peace for their country and nation after years of slaughtering (that includes the Irishmen who fought in WWI).

People often overlook that there were, in effect, three parties to the negotiation.

Griffith is asked about the "threat" in the Dail debate and states that the warning was that the government were due to get a response from Belfast that night and Churchill said that unless every member signed the treaty, a terrible and bloody war would erupt.

Griffith states that they understood this not to mean war in the conventional sense, but that unless the treaty was signed, someone would get killed, someone would retaliate and the whole thing would kick off again, only worse.

The threat of war was the threat of a bloody civil war and the treaty was signed to avoid that.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

People often overlook that there were, in effect, three parties to the negotiation.

Griffith is asked about the "threat" in the Dail debate and states that the warning was that the government were due to get a response from Belfast that night and Churchill said that unless every member signed the treaty, a terrible and bloody war would erupt.

Griffith states that they understood this not to mean war in the conventional sense, but that unless the treaty was signed, someone would get killed, someone would retaliate and the whole thing would kick off again, only worse.

The threat of war was the threat of a bloody civil war and the treaty was signed to avoid that.

Who is the third party you´re refering to? The Unionists kept themselves out of it, the British government was to consult them on the demands from the Irish delegation and the latter itself, was splitt in the middle during the negotiations. The way Griffith depicted the threat of war was imo the more realistic but also not the exclusive one. It had been some mixture of civil and conventional war in Ireland.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

To be fully inclusive the day needs to remember the full path to independence, not just the republican struggle, which is what Sinn Fein are proposing. An independence day, rather than a republic day could include everyone from Wolfe Tone, to Edward Fitzgerald to Padraig Pearse.

So there is just the day that has to found left. Any date suggestions or would you agree to better wait until the re-unification might take place? That "Unification Day" could be the "Independence Day for Ireland. You seem to don´t like the term "Republic Day" even when it refers to the present Republic of Ireland. It´s a pity to leave it to SF.

Thomas_I wrote: »

So there is just the day that has to found left. Any date suggestions or would you agree to better wait until the re-unification might take place? That "Unification Day" could be the "Independence Day for Ireland. You seem to don´t like the term "Republic Day" even when it refers to the present Republic of Ireland. It´s a pity to leave it to SF.

Call it Christmas as far as I'm concerned,

What I object to is Sinn Fein trying to make it Sinn Fein day.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What I object to is Sinn Fein trying to make it Sinn Fein day.

You are being perdictably juvenile Fred, if FF had called for it, would you be referring to it as FF day?

barbiegirl wrote: »

The lack of knowledge of both modern and old Irish history is astounding on this thread. The majority of the Irish people supported the War of Independence. They therefore were NOT terrorists and I reject any assertion that they were so vehemently. The electorate of this land voted for an independent country in 1918 having been lied to and let down once again, in relation to Home Rule by the British. Who also refused us the right to speak at Versailles when WW1 was meant to be about self determination for small nations.

In modern history, the Catholic people of NI were treated horribly. No one man, one vote. It was a disgrace and until Bloody Sunday largely unknown to the rest of the world. The civil rights movement world wide was reflected in the north and initially the IRA was resurrected to protect the people.

Then a horrible war of attrition by both sides broke out and it had less to do with protecting and more to do with power, blood lust and hatred on both sides. They are the terrorists.

Those of you equating the great men and women who risked their lives, so that you could be free should be ashamed of yourselves. Leave, go else where because this country will only get back on her feet with people of heart and loyalty, willing to work and sacrifice not ill educated, apologists. Whatever the hell happens to this country I'm Irish and damned proud to be so.

Rarely does barbiegirl get angry but hell some of the posts here, on both sides are disgusting.

What sort of sacrifice are you refering to in the context of your post?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Only if they wanted a De Velera, Ahern or national property developers day!

You might want to cancel your subscription to The Daily Mail's 'Politics For Dummies' course.

Thomas_I wrote: »

So what´s your point anyway?

Either you have a United Ireland and the Unionists, the Loyalists and the Ulster Scots in NI in the same boat or you won´t get it.

We would end up with two public holidays. Sinn Fein day and Orange day.

It would make sense to have them in the same week so the rest of us could clear off to Spain and leave the Celtic and Rangers fans to slog it out.

We could have one lot marching, the others throwing petrol bombs one day and then swap places the next.

Problem solved.

Bambi wrote: »

Is the boat heading to Scotland?

Seems that you´re short of ideas.

Thomas_I wrote: »

Would you suggest that they pay for the clearance by themselves?

They could do it in Dundalk and it would probably improve the place.