Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?

1…2223242527

Comments

  • #782
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Rubeter wrote: »
    What the hell is that rubbish about.
    I will only ask you once to explain.
    on the river wrote: »
    Firstly calm down.
    You know prefectly well what im asking yet you direct you attention to your usual rubbish . Answer up ?????
    on the river wrote: »
    Here we go again with the " what ifs" :confused:


    Mod:

    Cut out the personal sniping please.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #783
    on the river
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    Rubeter wrote: »
    The 1914 act had died, the 1920 one was after the shit had already kicked off, and 1916 was scuppered by wanting to make partition permanent.

    The british government promised to introduce home rule after the ww1 . the 1914 act was only beginning . Look at any history text book before you replay. ;);)


  • #784
    on the river
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    K-9 wrote: »
    Mod:

    Cut out the personal sniping please.

    Please define your role as Moderator . I am relatively new to boards


  • #785
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    on the river wrote: »
    Please define your role as Moderator . I am relatively new to boards

    There is more information on this link,Top 10 Questions & Answers (For new Boards.ie users)

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #786
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Rubeter wrote: »
    Indeed it was and just like France being part of the German Reich in 1942 and Kuwait being part of Iraq in 1990 this particular arraignment had been forced upon the Irish people by the liberal use of violence.
    The act of union didn't follow any use of violence, liberal or otherwise. Ireland was essentially as much a part of the UK as Wales or Scotland - both with their own history of violent assimilation into Great Britain. France wasn't part of any Reich btw.

    Rubeter wrote: »
    Obviously you feel violence was OK for the British to use to create a legitimate state, but not OK for the Irish, why is this?
    Because Ireland was part of a democratic parliamentary structure, and any constitutional change could be negotiated through that mechanism.

    Rubeter wrote: »
    If the British didn't ignore anyone in 1918 then why didn't the Free State (or even a republic) appear after the vote, maybe you could produce some documentation from the time showing how the British had started making plans for the withdrawl before the war kicked off.
    I'm finding it difficult to decipher the above passage. SF didn't engage with the parliament until 1922, and no elected representatives of the Irish had asked the British to withdraw troops from Ireland prior to that, so why would you have expected them to have any plans for the same?


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    alastair wrote: »
    Well - you could start with the Celts, or the Vikings, or the Normans, just as legitimately as the British, if you really want to focus on oppressive foreign forces.

    So did 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' mingle with colonialism or come after it or what?

    Plus if nationalist Ireland became a minority in the UK through undemocratic means as you have hinted at earlier on:
    Given that the Act of Union predates any real democratic process

    how can the fact that a democratic system then emerged in the UK allow one to say that nationalist Ireland was a part of and a minority in the UK? If Ireland democratically opted to join the UK in the first place your idea that it was rightfully a minority in the era of democracy in Britain in 1918 might carry more credibility.


  • #788
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    So did 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' mingle with colonialism or come after it or what? .
    Before, during, and after.
    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Plus if nationalist Ireland became a minority in the UK through undemocratic means as you have hinted at earlier on:



    how can the fact that a democratic system then emerged in the UK allow one to say that nationalist Ireland was a part of and a minority in the UK? If Ireland democratically opted to join the UK in the first place your idea that it was rightfully a minority in the era of democracy in Britain in 1918 might carry more credibility.

    Sorry to break it to you, but all democratic states have a heritage of pre-democratic conflict. The UK is no exception in that regard. The reality was that the UK was a democratic parliamentary state on 1918, and that those who sought Irish independence were a minority within that democracy. I'm not sure why this needs constant repetition?


  • #789
    Rubeter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Rubeter


    alastair wrote: »
    The act of union didn't follow any use of violence, liberal or otherwise. Ireland was essentially as much a part of the UK as Wales or Scotland - both with their own history of violent assimilation into Great Britain. France wasn't part of any Reich btw.
    So you don't consider the events of 1798 violent.
    OK .......... not much I can say about that.
    Because Ireland was part of a democratic parliamentary structure, and any constitutional change could be negotiated through that mechanism.
    That had been imposed with violence. Seems you're back to violence grand for the British, bad for the Irish again.
    I'm finding it difficult to decipher the above passage. SF didn't engage with the parliament until 1922, and no elected representatives of the Irish had asked the British to withdraw troops from Ireland prior to that, so why would you have expected them to have any plans for the same?
    The English/British had been asked to leave for over 700 years by the time of the Easter Rising. I'm sure they had an inkling they weren't welcome.


  • #790
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    alastair wrote: »
    Before, during, and after.

    Vague to say the least.
    Sorry to break it to you, but all democratic states have a heritage of pre-democratic conflict. The UK is no exception in that regard. The reality was that the UK was a democratic parliamentary state on 1918, and that those who sought Irish independence were a minority within that democracy.

    Thanks for that assumption. Not what I asked you. Since you've already said that the Act of Union 'predates any real democratic process', can the fact that a democratic system subsequently emerged within the UK be used on its own as a reason to justify saying that nationalist ireland was rightly part of the UK?


  • #791
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Vague to say the least.?
    Clear and comprehensive, I'd have said.

    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Thanks for that assumption. Not what I asked you. Since you've already said that the Act of Union 'predates any real democratic process', can the fact that a democratic system subsequently emerged within the UK be used on its own as a reason to justify saying that nationalist ireland was rightly part of the UK?
    No assumption required. The numbers bear out that fact. And yes - it can and did. Northern Ireland is legitimately part of the UK now, and the same legitimacy as a part of the UK applied to the whole of Ireland then.


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    alastair wrote: »
    And yes - it can and did.

    Nope. Your not offering any explanation at all as to how you get from this:
    the Act of Union predates any real democratic process

    to blandly stating this:
    the same legitimacy as a part of the UK applied to the whole of Ireland then.

    How does democracy democratize an action that was never so?


  • #793
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    How does democracy democratize an action that was never so?

    It's pretty simple stuff. If you've a democratic state, then the history prior to that democratic scenario have no relevance to the legitimacy of the democratic processes that apply at that point. I assume you accept the legitimacy of the majority within the UK now? - and yet that same history and political evolution of the state are crammed full of anti-democratic actions.

    Do you accept the legitimacy of the democratic process and electoral mandate within the UK now? In NI? In Scotland? In Wales?

    Because if you do - then you've no argument that the 1918 parliament was acting in anything but a democratic fashion.


  • #794
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    alastair wrote: »
    It's pretty simple stuff. If you've a democratic state, then the history prior to that democratic scenario have no relevance to the legitimacy of the democratic processes that apply at that point. I assume you accept the legitimacy of the majority within the UK now? - and yet that same history and political evolution of the state are crammed full of anti-democratic actions.

    Do you accept the legitimacy of the democratic process and electoral mandate within the UK now? In NI? In Scotland? In Wales?

    Because if you do - then you've no argument that the 1918 parliament was acting in anything but a democratic fashion.

    But surely with Wales and Scotland having devolved assemblies, that recognises that there are differences within the UK and some of that is down to events centuries ago, some before the democratic processes were founded.

    It's also very debatable how democratic the Act of Union between Ireland and the UK was, age, sex, property and religious discrimination existed then that we'd laugh at now.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #795
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    alastair wrote: »
    If you've a democratic state, then the history prior to that democratic scenario have no relevance to the legitimacy of the democratic processes that apply at that point.

    If a state transforms into a democracy, in no way should that be used as an excuse to forget or exonerate it's past actions. If a state claims to be a democracy it should undo its previous undemocratic behaviour. Why should the onus be on those who were wronged against by the state to act first?
    Do you accept the legitimacy of the democratic process and electoral mandate within the UK now? In NI? In Scotland? In Wales?

    I accept the 'legitimacy of the democratic process'. It's how the British state have selectively applied it to their own advantage that I have problems with.
    then you've no argument that the 1918 parliament was acting in anything but a democratic fashion.

    Er, no. It passed the Gov of Ireland Act in 1920 without any consideration of the wishes of the majority of the Irish people as expressed in the 1918 election.


  • #796
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    K-9 wrote: »
    But surely with Wales and Scotland having devolved assemblies, that recognises that there are differences within the UK and some of that is down to events centuries ago, some before the democratic processes were founded.

    It's also very debatable how democratic the Act of Union between Ireland and the UK was, age, sex, property and religious discrimination existed then that we'd laugh at now.

    Wales and Scotland only have had devolved assemblies in the recent past - all well within the democratic era. Ireland was on track to have one in 1918. I've already stated that the act of union pre-dated democratic governance. But the reality is that Scotland and Wales both share the same history of violent assimilation as Ireland, and that reality doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the democratic process in the UK now, so why should it have in 1918?


  • #797
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    If a state transforms into a democracy, in no way should that be used as an excuse to forget or exonerate it's past actions. If a state claims to be a democracy it should undo its previous undemocratic behaviour. Why should the onus be on those who were wronged against by the state to act first?
    This is interesting. You believe that the UK should be obliged to jettison Wales, Scotland, NI, and presumably the various regions of England, including Cornwall etc, that did not traditionally fall under the control of the London monarchy? And they should do this pre-emptively and without regard to dialogue with the voters of these regions?

    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    I accept the 'legitimacy of the democratic process'. It's how the British state have selectively applied it to their own advantage that I have problems with.
    You either respect the legitimacy of the democratic process and the parliamentary process, or you don't - which is it?

    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Er, no. It passed the Gov of Ireland Act in 1920 without any consideration of the wishes of the majority of the Irish people as expressed in the 1918 election.
    On the basis of the wishes of the Irish people as expressed by the last elected representatives that bothered to engage with them.


  • #798
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    alastair wrote: »
    that did not traditionally fall

    You always keep ignoring how they came to be under their control alastair. What do you mean by 'traditionally'?
    And they should do this pre-emptively and without regard to dialogue with the voters of these regions?

    The state should begin dialogue with the voters first on what they want? You can't seem to grasp the concept of this at all it seems.
    You either respect the legitimacy of the democratic process and the parliamentary process, or you don't - which is it?

    Answered already.
    On the basis of the wishes of the Irish people as expressed by the last elected representatives that bothered to engage with them.

    You mean those elected in the election of December 1910?


  • #799
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    You always keep ignoring how they came to be under their control alastair. What do you mean by 'traditionally'?
    I'm not ignoring anything. I've already been quite clear that the history of the region is one of competing fiefdoms, serial invasions, and conflict.

    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    The state should begin dialogue with the voters first on what they want? You can't seem to grasp the concept of this at all it seems.
    I'd say it's you who has the difficulty in comprehending the logical consequences of the 'undoing previous undemocratic behaviour' you suggest should apply.

    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Answered already.
    Actually you didn't. You made a contradictory statement.

    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    You mean those elected in the election of December 1910?
    That's correct. The last set of representatives that engaged with them.


  • #800
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    alastair wrote: »
    I'd say it's you who has the difficulty in comprehending the logical consequences of the 'undoing previous undemocratic behaviour' you suggest should apply.

    I think not.
    Actually you didn't. You made a contradictory statement.

    Theres nothing contradictory when I said: 'I accept the 'legitimacy of the democratic process'. It's how the British state have selectively applied it to their own advantage that I have problems with.'
    That's correct. The last set of representatives that engaged with them.

    So ignore the outcome of an election? How bizarre. It's you who has problems with democracy alastair............


  • #801
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    alastair wrote: »
    Wales and Scotland only have had devolved assemblies in the recent past - all well within the democratic era. Ireland was on track to have one in 1918. I've already stated that the act of union pre-dated democratic governance. But the reality is that Scotland and Wales both share the same history of violent assimilation as Ireland, and that reality doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the democratic process in the UK now, so why should it have in 1918?

    Because the game had changed by 1918, Home Rule was no longer the option wanted by the majority of people on the island of Ireland as proven by democratic elections.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #802
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    K-9 wrote: »
    Because the game had changed by 1918, Home Rule was no longer the option wanted by the majority of people on the island of Ireland as proven by democratic elections.

    It might have well been the case, but since no elected representatives engaged with the state to make that case, how would you expect the democratically elected government of the day to respond?

    It's also worth pointing out that the Scottish have elected a majority of SNP representatives, but that doesn't necessarily equate with a majority demand for independence. The same may well have been the case in Ireland in 1918 (aside from the obvious opposition of the unionist community).


  • #803
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    I think not.
    Clearly.
    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Theres nothing contradictory when I said: 'I accept the 'legitimacy of the democratic process'. It's how the British state have selectively applied it to their own advantage that I have problems with.' .
    Of course there's a contradiction in what you say. You can't deny the legitimacy of the parliamentary democracy, while claiming that it had no legitimacy to govern because of it's pre-democratic heritage. You're denying that Irish republicans had no democratic mandate for their actions.
    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    So ignore the outcome of an election? How bizarre. It's you who has problems with democracy alastair............
    They were not ignoring anyone - why does this need repeating? They can't ignore a lobby that's not been presented to them. The policy of ignoring (it's written on the label!) was SF's - not the UK government's.


  • #804
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    alastair wrote: »
    You can't deny the legitimacy of the parliamentary democracy, while claiming that it had no legitimacy to govern because of it's pre-democratic heritage.

    Yes you can. I'm linking it to the past behaviour of the state. Otherwise any sort of past actions could be excused because of this.
    You're denying that Irish republicans had no democratic mandate for their actions.

    73 SF MP's elected in 1918, a majority?
    They were not ignoring anyone - why does this need repeating? They can't ignore a lobby that's not been presented to them. The policy of ignoring (it's written on the label!) was SF's - not the UK government's.

    Alastair, how can you negotiate with representatives with a mandate from a previous election (December 1910)?


  • #805
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Yes you can. I'm linking it to the past behaviour of the state. Otherwise any sort of past actions could be excused because of this.
    It doesn't matter what you decide you're linking it to. You either recognise the legitimacy of the democratic parliament, or you don't - you clearly don't - despite claiming otherwise.
    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    73 SF MP's elected in 1918, a majority?
    No a minority. 73 in a 707 seat parliament does not a majority make.

    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Alastair, how can you negotiate with representatives with a mandate from a previous election (December 1910)?
    Who said they should, or did?


  • #806
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    alastair wrote: »
    you clearly don't - despite claiming otherwise.

    Nope. How can the emergence of democracy in a territory with disputed boundaries be used as a way of retrospectively justifying those disputed boundaries based on election results that occur within it?
    No a minority. 73 in a 707 seat parliament does not a majority make.

    Only if you believed those 73 and the people that voted for them were considered as a part of the UK. Alastair, do you acknowledge that there are differing interpretations of Irish history on offer?
    Who said they should, or did?

    Then who?


  • #807
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    alastair wrote: »
    Irish people were the ones who voted for the political arrangements of 1914, 1920, and 1922. Irish people were the ones who lobbied and voted for partition in Ulster - the British didn't initiate or promote that particular idea. Partition was always seen and framed as a temporary measure by the legislators, with a permanent arrangement to be negotiated between the two Irish sides. The British didn't 'cheat' the electoral demands of the Irish people for constitutional change - they were responding to two contradictory electoral demands, and the clear probability of a war if they gave either side everything they demanded. Whatever your feelings about the nature of the British military response to insurgency within what was still the UK, or the vulnerability of particular Irish garrisons to mutiny, the policy of the British state was essentially hands-off when it came to the issue of Irish self-governance.

    Oh, and no-one is 'boasting' about any year.

    In 1922 people were terrorized into voting for partition by the threats of "immediate & terrible war" I think it was Churchill (not 100% sure on it) who said the British Army could place a solider for every man, woman & child living in Ireland twice over. Whether those threats were genuine or not that is British interference in Ireland. Another example is the Larne gunrunning, which was the biggest challenge to the British governments power faced since 1798, yet the government did nothing. But when the Irish Volunteers try the same trick later they were confronted. That's a clear double standard.

    And if partition was the only way to go why not let people who wanted a Republic (a Republic was what people wanted otherwise Dev wouldn't have dominated Irish politics for the next 40 years) have one & insist on keeping the South in the Empire, why did they want Irish TD's have to swear an oath to the King & why did Britain want to keep hold of certain ports? Because they had selfish strategic & economic interest in Ireland & were afraid of a domino effect happening around the Empire They didn't give the Free State limited independence because of a war with the IRA, they gave it because of public pressure being put on the them by the English & American public other than that fact they would have kept on fighting until the IRA & shinners were wiped out no matter how long it took, this is a government who just watched millions & millions of people die in the biggest war known to man at that stage what makes you think they would care about a few dead Irish people?


  • #808
    on the river
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭on the river


    tdv123 wrote: »
    In 1922 people were terrorized into voting for partition by the threats of "immediate & terrible war" I think it was Churchill (not 100% sure on it) who said the British Army could place a solider for every man, woman & child living in Ireland twice over. Whether those threats were genuine or not that is British interference in Ireland. Another example is the Larne gunrunning, which was the biggest challenge to the British governments power faced since 1798, yet the government did nothing. But when the Irish Volunteers try the same trick later they were confronted. That's a clear double standard.

    And if partition was the only way to go why not let people who wanted a Republic (a Republic was what people wanted otherwise Dev wouldn't have dominated Irish politics for the next 40 years) have one & insist on keeping the South in the Empire, why did they want Irish TD's have to swear an oath to the King & why did Britain want to keep hold of certain ports? Because they had selfish strategic & economic interest in Ireland & were afraid of a domino effect happening around the Empire They didn't give the Free State limited independence because of a war with the IRA, they gave it because of public pressure being put on the them by the English & American public other than that fact they would have kept on fighting until the IRA & shinners were wiped out no matter how long it took, this is a government who just watched millions & millions of people die in the biggest war known to man at that stage what makes you think they would care about a few dead Irish people?

    Basically your direspecting all of the men women and children did to gain our independece. And you are suggesting they should have doing nothing and just do everything britsh told them. Have you any pride in Irelands Flag ?


  • #809
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Nope. How can the emergence of democracy in a territory with disputed boundaries be used as a way of retrospectively justifying those disputed boundaries based on election results that occur within it?
    So you do dispute the legitimacy of the UK's parliamentary democracy. Why pretend you don't then?
    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Only if you believed those 73 and the people that voted for them were considered as a part of the UK. Alastair, do you acknowledge that there are differing interpretations of Irish history on offer?
    They were part of the UK though. The electoral process and parliament they were elected to was that of the UK - nowhere else. There's no different way to interpret the reality of their position a minority in the election, parliament, and the nature and extent of the state of the day. You can't pretend it away.

    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Then who?
    What are you on about?


  • #810
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    alastair wrote: »
    So you do dispute the legitimacy of the UK's parliamentary democracy. Why pretend you don't then?

    Sorry alastair, I didn't say that. I said 'disputed boundaries'. Nothing to do with the concept of the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy itself, be it the UK's or anywhere else.
    They were part of the UK though. The electoral process and parliament they were elected to was that of the UK

    Does the UK in 1801 after Ireland was joined to it through the Act of Union, have a disputed boundary because this act 'predates any real democratic process'?
    There's no different way to interpret the reality of their position a minority in the election, parliament, and the nature and extent of the state of the day. You can't pretend it away.

    You can't pretend away that the British administration here was an actual physical presence on the island. But if one believes history to be a subjective process, then the differing view can be put forward that one had the right to object to that presence here and how it came to be here, plus describe it as an occupying force if they want to.


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    on the river wrote: »
    Basically your direspecting all of the men women and children did to gain our independece. And you are suggesting they should have doing nothing and just do everything britsh told them. Have you any pride in Irelands Flag ?

    The IRA campaign was definitely a factor but it didn't alone bring independence and wasn't the deceive factor. We seen that during the troubles, the PIRA was one of the most effective guerrilla groups of all time in terms of military capability but still weren't able to achieve their main goal because the political climate was not favorable to them. If the goal of the revolutionaries was a United Republic it clearly failed in doing so.

    I don't know how I'm disrespecting the people who fought for an Irish Republic for stating facts. Clearly the people who took up arms & challenged the largest Empire ever were extremely brave people but I'm pretty sure Lloyd George or Churchill didn't say oh well that's it 17 men dead we beaten better give them a Republic after Kilmichael.

    But you have to wonder if we tried a passive resistance approach if it would have worked better. If Dan Breen & Sean Hogan didn't shoot dead 2 RIC Irish Catholics maybe we would have a United Republic.


Advertisement