John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Sierra Oscar · 05-08-2014 01:54PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

There is no way unionists would have allowed a home rule bill to go through. Bruton's knowledge of history is brutal.

Of course they wouldn't. When the British authorities attempted to put in place contingency plans to counter a unionist rebellion against Home Rule, which was being openly threatened and was a very real possibility, we had the occurrence of the Curragh Mutiny in 1914. The officers in the British Army basically made it very clear that they would not turn on the unionist community if they started to rebel, and to be honest they probably would have supported the unionists over nationalists. So I don't see how people can claim with certainty that Home Rule would have been a success considering that the unionists were threatening armed action to ensure it failed and the British Army had made it known that it was not going to stand in the way of the UVF.

Those that try and claim through whataboutery that the Easter Rising was not necessary are being selective with their historical analysis.

LordSutch · 05-08-2014 03:24PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Of course it was necessary.

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Maybe the timing was bad that's all.

Everything about it was wrong, from the planning to the execution of (the rising) to the execution of the rebels after their failed rising, to the many civilian deaths, to the hurt brought upon the country, to the destruction, to the instability it brought to the 250.000 Irish troops fighting on the home front + the instability it brought to people back home . . . .

The 1916 Easter rising was a big mistake.

Nice to hear Bruton speaking out and bursting the rebel hero 'myth' that many Irish republicans seem to be brainwashed by.

Sierra Oscar · 05-08-2014 03:54PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!

Yeah well Sinn Féin did manage to decisively win the Irish General Election in 1918, a mere two years after the rising, while the Irish Parliamentary Party suffered a spectacular collapse. Everyone knew what position Sinn Féin had regarding the rising. Bruton and other revisionists conveniently try and forget about the democratic election in 1918 though.

Also the vast majority of those Sinn Féin MP's elected actually fought in the Easter Rising.

LordSutch · 05-08-2014 04:06PM

1918 was of course two years later . . .

I still say that physical force violence by an unelected minority (1916) was totally wrong.

Nodin · 05-08-2014 04:19PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!
.

I wasn't aware that being correct was decided by simple majority.

Nodin · 05-08-2014 04:21PM

LordSutch wrote: »

1918 was of course two years later . . .

I still say that physical force violence by an unelected minority (1916) was totally wrong.

Yes, two years later and not in the heat of the moment. You object to "physical force violence" because it was used by Republicans, just after you complain about the effect it has on troops fighting on the front. You don't have a problem with violence per se, but with Republican violence specifically.

Ash.J.Williams · 05-08-2014 04:22PM

I wonder how we would view the rising if there were no executions afterwards.

Ash.J.Williams · 05-08-2014 04:35PM

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, two years later and not in the heat of the moment. You object to "physical force violence" because it was used by Republicans, just after you complain about the effect it has on troops fighting on the front. You don't have a problem with violence per se, but with Republican violence specifically.

The republicans chickened out of the rising beforehand didn't they? What we had on the rising were a minority bunch of armed academics and teachers and the like???

Nodin · 05-08-2014 04:50PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The republicans chickened out of the rising beforehand didn't they? What we had on the rising were a minority bunch of armed academics and teachers and the like???

Academics and teachers can be Republicans too.

Reekwind · 05-08-2014 05:39PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!

Unless you're reading another article, no it's not. At least nor directly. Bruton's argument is the more cowardly suggestion that it was simply unnecessary - that the Home Rule argument had been won and that the road to independence via parliamentary means was clear. Which, as we've extensively covered in this thread, is just gross revisionism.

Ash.J.Williams wrote:

The republicans chickened out of the rising beforehand didn't they? What we had on the rising were a minority bunch of armed academics and teachers and the like???

What? No. The Irish Volunteers leadership (ie MacNeill) wanted no part in the Rising, which was seen as an IRB plot. The latter were committed until then end. Nor was it a matter of a few academics - the IRB/IRA could rely on a fairly diverse social base, to say nothing of the ICA.

I wonder how we would view the rising if there were no executions afterwards.

See my ponderings in the post above.

irishfeen · 05-08-2014 05:44PM

LordSutch wrote: »

1918 was of course two years later . . .

I still say that physical force violence by an unelected minority (1916) was totally wrong.

Absolute bollocks, its almost like you think Ireland pre-1916 was a bed of roses... the famine sown the seeds of real Irish nationalism and eventually it was going to come to a head. The rebels used WW1 to the up-most advantage culminating in the 1916 rising and the declaration of Irish independence.

The shooting of the leaders was the moment where the country galvanised against British rule, up to that point it seemed too much of a big task but after that point society as a whole decided enough was enough, the introduction of the Black and Tans in March 1920 was also a complete an utter disaster from a British point of view - it further more drove public opinion against London.

People can argue about whether full Home Rule/A Republic would have came about without using a gun at the time but to argue with the motives of these men as "unnecessary" is downright disrespectful.

Because of their sacrifice we were born into a fully democratic political entity, you have to remember only 2-3 generations have passed since the creation of this state - most of our grandparents including my own were born into an occupied Ireland ruled from London with an iron fist, they were taxpaying pawns to an empire. Those who fought for our independence should be thanked every single day.

irishfeen · 05-08-2014 05:48PM

BTW I bet the part founder of Bruton's beloved Fine Gael will turn in his grave with such talk - Collins paid the ultimate price for Irish freedom, its easy for this clown to stand up almost 100 years later and question their motives.

Sand · 05-08-2014 06:10PM

@Reekwind

How about the right to conduct an independent foreign policy? Maintain an army? Have complete control over tax policy? Determine trade/customs policy? Legislate on coinage, telegraphs or patents? Or indeed independently alter the Act itself and change Dublin's relationship with London?

And that's not even digging into the constitutional niceties. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the degree of autonomy/independence won historically in 1921 was far greater than that on offer in 1914. The Free State was de facto an independent nationstate (increasingly so as successive governments bulldozed the Treaty) to a degree that Home Rule never came close to promising.

And is your view that it would have been impossible for Ireland to achieve these from the starting point of Home Rule? That the Irish MPs couldn't withdraw from the House of Commons to form a Dail to force the introduction of Home Rule? That they couldn't have achieved more concessions (including Dominion status) from a war weary, exhausted and bankrupt Britain as the price of recognising (nominally at least) the partition of Northern Ireland? Would a bankrupt Britain really go to war over giving Ireland dominion status if it was given access to the Treaty ports?

The Free State as delivered in 1921 was very much an ugly, unloved, red headed step child. It offered nothing that justified the violence and sacrifices over the past 5 years, and indeed the Irish Civil War was a direct result of militant republicans taking the view that it *couldn't* possible promise an independent nation-state. They were wrong.

Step by step, by constitutional and diplomatic means full Irish freedom and sovereignty was achieved without a shot being fired, from a very unpromising start.

I hope you can see why I don't consider it impossible that Home Rule would have only meant a starting position a little further back. Once Home Rule was on the books, the genie was out of the bottle. That was why the Ulster Unionists were so opposed to it - they knew it could only go one way when there was an Irish nationalist majority.

irishfeen · 05-08-2014 06:18PM

Sand wrote: »

@Reekwind

And is your view that it would have been impossible for Ireland to achieve these from the starting point of Home Rule? That the Irish MPs couldn't withdraw from the House of Commons to form a Dail to force the introduction of Home Rule? That they couldn't have achieved more concessions (including Dominion status) from a war weary, exhausted and bankrupt Britain as the price of recognising (nominally at least) the partition of Northern Ireland? Would a bankrupt Britain really go to war over giving Ireland dominion status if it was given access to the Treaty ports?

The Free State as delivered in 1921 was very much an ugly, unloved, red headed step child. It offered nothing that justified the violence and sacrifices over the past 5 years, and indeed the Irish Civil War was a direct result of militant republicans taking the view that it *couldn't* possible promise an independent nation-state. They were wrong.

Step by step, by constitutional and diplomatic means full Irish freedom and sovereignty was achieved without a shot being fired, from a very unpromising start.

I hope you can see why I don't consider it impossible that Home Rule would have only meant a starting position a little further back. Once Home Rule was on the books, the genie was out of the bottle. That was why the Ulster Unionists were so opposed to it - they knew it could only go one way when there was an Irish nationalist majority.

If anything we would be left with exactly what we have today basically with home rule although southern Ireland probably would be like Australia as a constitutional monarchy with the north remaining a full part of the UK... yes there would have been less violence in the north over the decades but to say we would have an All-Ireland republic is very very optimistic at best.

Sand · 05-08-2014 06:51PM

irishfeen wrote: »

If anything we would be left with exactly what we have today basically with home rule although southern Ireland probably would be like Australia as a constitutional monarchy with the north remaining a full part of the UK... yes there would have been less violence in the north over the decades but to say we would have an All-Ireland republic is very very optimistic at best.

We don't have an All-Ireland republic today either. If we could even achieve the status quo without violence in the north, then that's got to be a positive. Especially as less violence would imply a little less bitterness on either side, allowing more fertile ground for progress towards an All-Ireland republic.

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 06:52PM

djpbarry wrote: »

It was. You can ignore historical facts as much as you like, but the reality is it was due to come into law. Now, you can argue that you didn’t like what Home Rule represented and you can argue that Unionists would not have been happy with it, but what you can’t do is ignore that it was passed by The Commons three times.

The Home Rule Bill was passed into law in 1920 but did not take effect in the 'south'. The Irish electorate were given the choice in the 1918 Elections and they rejected it. Therefore Home Rule as far as the Irish public was concerned was a dead duck. They were not interested. The 1916 Rising gave the Irish people another choice i.e. a more militant approach and they accepted. You may not like that but that's what happened.

djpbarry wrote: »

So let’s start a war to force them to become completely independent? Yeah, that makes sense.

When does war ever make sense?

djpbarry wrote: »

Probably.

Conjecture.

djpbarry wrote: »

He refused to consider alternatives. That’s what.

Really? How do you know? I am sure Pearse et al had a good long look at the Home Rule movement and said 'No, I am going to pursue this route.' Yes, he was on the militant side, nothing ground breaking there and he paid with his life.

djpbarry wrote: »

How much violence was the declaration of a republic met by?

Oh come on, not this infantile argument. Yes, the political climate in 1949 was pretty much the same as in 1916-1922. You cannot actually be serious. That point was been addressed already.

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, let’s never examine history and try to learn from past mistakes.

That's noble. Good luck with that one.

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 06:55PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So we should triumphantly celebrate some jingoistic idiots starting a war just because we have no idea whether or not their goals could have been achieved peacefully?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Careful now. You are in danger of showing your true colours.

If you are trying to make sense of something nearly a 100 years on, you are probably pissing against the wind. Give it up for your own sanity.

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 07:11PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!

Ah yes this old 'no mandate' argument and yes it's true. Its wasnt an unpoplular and devisive farce for long thanks to the subsequent executions.

They did not hold a national vote, yes that's true. Bad rebels. Likewise, let's not forget that the Irish electorate was a given a choice in the following elections and they overwhelmingly voted in support of Sinn Fein and the goal/aims of the 1916 Rising.

Can quite easily call this a form of retrospective mandate.

LordSutch wrote: »

Everything about it was wrong, from the planning to the execution of (the rising) to the execution of the rebels after their failed rising, to the many civilian deaths, to the hurt brought upon the country, to the destruction, to the instability it brought to the 250.000 Irish troops fighting on the home front + the instability it brought to people back home . . . .

The 1916 Easter rising was a big mistake.

Big mistake in what context? The Irish electorate did not think so in the subsequent elections. Yes, I know I keep banging on about this point but it is of critical importance.

LordSutch wrote: »

Nice to hear Bruton speaking out and bursting the rebel hero 'myth' that many Irish republicans seem to be brainwashed by.

It is good to have debate and discussion about the 1916 Rising but Bruton certainly wnet about it arseways as usual.

Not entirely sure though where he is' bursting the rebel hero 'myth''...? If that was intention, I don't think he has done a very good job. Do you know many brainwashed Irish republicans?

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 07:18PM

LordSutch wrote: »

1918 was of course two years later . . .

I still say that physical force violence by an unelected minority (1916) was totally wrong.

As opposed to say the 'elected' violence of the British over hundreds of years...okay good one. Violence by the majority against minorities is far more fashionable anyway.

Fair enough you deem it wrong.

Reekwind · 05-08-2014 07:22PM

Sand wrote: »

And is your view that it would have been impossible for Ireland to achieve these from the starting point of Home Rule? That the Irish MPs couldn't withdraw from the House of Commons to form a Dail to force the introduction of Home Rule? That they couldn't have achieved more concessions (including Dominion status) from a war weary, exhausted and bankrupt Britain as the price of recognising (nominally at least) the partition of Northern Ireland?

Nothing is impossible. But that's not the question. Let me come back to that below.

Irish independence was an inevitability. It was going to happen sooner or later - we're just another nation and were never on par with Scotland or Wales. But parliamentary means had made pitiful progress by 1916. Decades had been wasted to obtain something much less than that seized by the IRA in three years*. I see no reason to believe that this would have sped up or that London would have become more eager to release Ireland.

So would Ireland have become independent without the War of Independence? Almost certainly. But it would have taken decades more at best and quite possibly still erupted in violence (either through the same sentiments at the 1910s or continued British repression). Who knows what could happen in an alternative universe.

But, to bring us back to the top, the question is not what might have happened but what looked likely to happen in 1916. By this point - the point at which people had to make the calculation that we're now questioning - the odds of Home Rule (never mind actual independence) looked as distant as ever. Crucially, that was the conclusion reached by the population at large when Nationalist opinion swung from the IPP to Sinn Fein.

*Ignoring for a minute the actual impracticalities of implementing Home Rule. For example, the very suggestion of accepting partition would have torn the IPP apart as easily as it did the IRA. No Nationalist of any stripe was willing to accept that before the event. Really, Home Rule was unworkable.

Would a bankrupt Britain really go to war over giving Ireland dominion status if it was given access to the Treaty ports?

I think it's worth emphasising that the history of British rule in Ireland, right up to the Troubles, shows that London has never had much hesitation in deploying repressive measures to quell dissent in Ireland. Certainly to a degree unimaginable in GB itself - can anyone imagine Crown paramilitaries being given licence to burn Glasgow or Swansea to the ground? So yes, I very much think that Britain would have resisted Irish independence by force.

Thankfully, we'd probably have been spared the 'pacification' methods used elsewhere in the Empire - aerial bombardment and poison gas.

The Free State as delivered in 1921 was very much an ugly, unloved, red headed step child. It offered nothing that justified the violence and sacrifices over the past 5 years, and indeed the Irish Civil War was a direct result of militant republicans taking the view that it *couldn't* possible promise an independent nation-state. They were wrong.

Step by step, by constitutional and diplomatic means full Irish freedom and sovereignty was achieved without a shot being fired, from a very unpromising start.

I do feel that people underestimate the advance that the Free State was. True, nobody was entirely happy with it but that was more a matter of failed ambitions/dreams (and there were a lot of those) than any intrinsic weaknesses on the new state's part.

I've dealt with this above but, crucially, it was a new state that was effectively, if not constitutionally, independent. It would take time (not much) to unravel the legal ties but Ireland effectively became independent in 1922. As a 'stepping stone', the Free State was actually pretty successful and a very effective platform for finalising the divorce with London.

So when you say that it was "constitutional and diplomatic means" that saw this freedom out, I counter that this was only possible because 90% of the progress towards independence had been achieved by physical force in the years 1916-1921. The independence question was settled as soon as the British Army was forced out of the 26 counties.

As an aside, it's worth noting that I, and everyone here, would have preferred to avoid a war. Wars, in fact. But, as i said above, parliamentary means had gotten nowhere in decades and by 1916 and independence looked as far away as ever. Unfortunately physical force proved 'necessary' to force the issue and provide the platform for an independent Ireland.

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 07:45PM

Sand wrote: »

And is your view that it would have been impossible for Ireland to achieve these from the starting point of Home Rule? That the Irish MPs couldn't withdraw from the House of Commons to form a Dail to force the introduction of Home Rule? That they couldn't have achieved more concessions (including Dominion status) from a war weary, exhausted and bankrupt Britain as the price of recognising (nominally at least) the partition of Northern Ireland? Would a bankrupt Britain really go to war over giving Ireland dominion status if it was given access to the Treaty ports?

Nothing was impossible. We will never know.

War weary? Look how the British reacted to the 1916 Rising in the midst of 1916. They also sent 'war weary' soldiers over to form the Black n Tans. Look at Churchill's threat to mobilise 250k troops if the Treaty was not signed? War weary my ass...when has Britain was never ever been war weary.

Of the biggest concern to Britain was not letting a country on it's own doorstep breaking free. What type of example would that set to India etc?

Sand wrote: »

The Free State as delivered in 1921 was very much an ugly, unloved, red headed step child. It offered nothing that justified the violence and sacrifices over the past 5 years, and indeed the Irish Civil War was a direct result of militant republicans taking the view that it *couldn't* possible promise an independent nation-state. They were wrong.

Step by step, by constitutional and diplomatic means full Irish freedom and sovereignty was achieved without a shot being fired, from a very unpromising start.

LOL...almost eloquent. I have read that before so don't try to lay claim on that.

Cherry picking historical events out of conext. As if the Free State just magicaly appeared over night which rendered the previous 6 years redundant and unnecessary. Really?

Plus I think you are forgetting '32 county independent nation state'.

Sand wrote: »

I hope you can see why I don't consider it impossible that Home Rule would have only meant a starting position a little further back. Once Home Rule was on the books, the genie was out of the bottle. That was why the Ulster Unionists were so opposed to it - they knew it could only go one way when there was an Irish nationalist majority.

That's nothing new. You are simply reciting the election campaign of the Home Rule party in 1918. The inference that Ulster Unionists would go quietly and accept the position, while we will never know this, is cute but a little naive.

irishfeen · 05-08-2014 07:46PM

Sand wrote: »

We don't have an All-Ireland republic today either. If we could even achieve the status quo without violence in the north, then that's got to be a positive. Especially as less violence would imply a little less bitterness on either side, allowing more fertile ground for progress towards an All-Ireland republic.

You see hindsight is an absolute wonderful thing, of course there isn't an All Ireland republic yet as you say but under home rule we could very well still be part of the UK in some form or another. The Irish Anglo Agreement was a horrible nasty compromise (notably massively in the favour of London) to the "Irish situation"- it ensured that division, fear and hatred could thrive between the two traditions on the island decade after decade.

If anything the south (apart form economic stagnation) has been extremely stable since the Civil war came to a close - the ironic thing is that the London re-enforcing partition back in 1921 via the Anglo Irish Agreement has meant that the population of the north for which partition was meant to protect has caused untold misery and damage to a society which even today is massively divisive. Had London put the issue to a vote on an All-Ireland basis it could be argued that it would have saved as many if not more lives then the partitioning the country and the subsequent Irish Civil war including "the troubles" to this very day.

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 07:49PM

Sand wrote: »

We don't have an All-Ireland republic today either. If we could even achieve the status quo without violence in the north, then that's got to be a positive. Especially as less violence would imply a little less bitterness on either side, allowing more fertile ground for progress towards an All-Ireland republic.

Unfortunately, even with the reduction of violence. The divide and bitterness is far greater now than during the violence in some parts. But here's hoping.

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 07:55PM

irishfeen wrote: »

If anything the south (apart form economic stagnation) has been extremely stable since the Civil war came to a close - the ironic thing is that the London re-enforcing partition back in 1921 via the Anglo Irish Agreement has meant that the population of the north for which partition was meant to protect has caused untold misery and damage to a society which even today is massively divisive. Had London put the issue to a vote on an All-Ireland basis it could be argued that it would have saved as many if not more lives then the partitioning the country and the subsequent Irish Civil war including "the troubles" to this very day.

I have seen the point being made (by a Unionist- can't for the life of me remember his name) that 'Orangism' etc would actually be better off in an all Ireland state and for one simple reason. The UK as a whole does not give a crap about the Unionists/Orangism etc but in an All Ireland state, he is of the opinions that 'we' would bend over backwards to make them feel welcome. Pretty much over compensate and the Unionist 'tradition' would be better protected and allowed to even flourish.

Knowing us we would prob remove the white and green from the flag and ban St Patrick's Day in our haste to welcome our new friends.

DarkyHughes · 05-08-2014 09:37PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!

Everything about it was wrong, from the planning to the execution of (the rising) to the execution of the rebels after their failed rising, to the many civilian deaths, to the hurt brought upon the country, to the destruction, to the instability it brought to the 250.000 Irish troops fighting on the home front + the instability it brought to people back home . . . .

The 1916 Easter rising was a big mistake.

Nice to hear Bruton speaking out and bursting the rebel hero 'myth' that many Irish republicans seem to be brainwashed by.

1916 happened when their was political upheaval all over Europe. Revolution in Russia , revolution in Germany 2 years later.

Blood would have been spilled all over Ireland as Loyalist armed to the teeth would have resisted Home Rule with the help of conservative officers. 1916 was a god send really.

Bruton is a Blueshirt who couldn't give a sh!t what the Irish people think of course you FG fanboys love to hear a bit of anti-Republican rhetoric

partyguinness · 05-08-2014 09:46PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Bruton is a Blueshirt who couldn't give a sh!t what the Irish people think of course you FG fanboys love to hear a bit of anti-Republican rhetoric

It just kills Bruton and his ilk that his FG forefathers were involved in the 1916 Rising. To maintain the moral high ground in his own head, he must come out with this nonsense. The more he can distance himself the better and just lump in Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Expect a lot more of it over the next 2 years.

Leaving aside personal opinions about the 'ifs' and 'buts' of the period, commemorating a piece of legisation that never took effect in this country? I have never heard such bizarre nonsense.

Is it like some sort of memorial service to lament 'what could have been'?

Good loser · 05-08-2014 10:34PM

I think Bruton is basically correct.

If the Irish had simply adopted the position that they wanted an independent country and absolutely refused to accept anything less than a 32-county free state (probably dominion status) eventually it would have been conceded without a drop of blood being shed. The result would have been an exodus of Unionists from the North probably to Scotland and the colonies.

This might have taken decades I agree. Probably when Indian independence was achieved. The momentum created by the ridiculous 1916 rebellion precluded this ever happening.

Always assuming there would have been a democratic majority for independence along the line.

irishfeen · 05-08-2014 10:35PM

partyguinness wrote: »

I have seen the point being made (by a Unionist- can't for the life of me remember his name) that 'Orangism' etc would actually be better off in an all Ireland state and for one simple reason. The UK as a whole does not give a crap about the Unionists/Orangism etc but in an All Ireland state, he is of the opinions that 'we' would bend over backwards to make them feel welcome. Pretty much over compensate and the Unionist 'tradition' would be better protected and allowed to even flourish.

Knowing us we would prob remove the white and green from the flag and ban St Patrick's Day in our haste to welcome our new friends.

I worked on a little project on the last general elections in both Ireland and N.Ireland - if similar results were seen on an all-Ireland ballot ironically the DUP could hold massive balance of power as a minority party in a Dublin government because they would have a healthy number of TD's from the Unionist vote and even more ironically they would have more power if they went into a Dublin coalition government then they have had since direct rule was imposed on the north (1972).

I would have no problem allowing their culture to flourish in a UI, once its peaceful and lawful they should have every right to. I also would also have no problem in re-joining the commonwealth in a UI, it would show the moderate Unionist population that the south would accept and welcome them and in fact it would finally release the shackles and we could talk and accept our "British history" pre independence.

irishfeen · 05-08-2014 10:39PM

Good loser wrote: »

I think Bruton is basically correct.

If the Irish had simply adopted the position that they wanted an independent country and absolutely refused to accept anything less than a 32-county free state (probably dominion status) eventually it would have been conceded without a drop of blood being shed. The result would have been an exodus of Unionists from the North probably to Scotland and the colonies.

This might have taken decades I agree. Probably when Indian independence was achieved. The momentum created by the ridiculous 1916 rebellion precluded this ever happening.

Always assuming there would have been a democratic majority for independence along the line.

My dear man - you obviously have forgotten how the Unionist population armed themselves and were fully prepared to engage nationalists in a national civil war even over Home Rule... the Unionist population would never ever have conceded a UI republic without fighting back.

oscarBravo · 05-08-2014 10:51PM

partyguinness wrote: »

Careful now. You are in danger of showing your true colours.

...and I'm sure I can rely on you to explain to me what my "true colours" are.

If you are trying to make sense of something nearly a 100 years on, you are probably pissing against the wind. Give it up for your own sanity.

How thoughtful of you. Don't worry about me; my sanity is perfectly capable of surviving the apparently heretical idea that political change is possible without killing people.

Reekwind wrote: »

Irish independence was an inevitability. It was going to happen sooner or later...

...but if it's possible to speed up political change by killing people, then (apparently) that's an acceptable price to pay.

Unfortunately physical force proved 'necessary' to force the issue and provide the platform for an independent Ireland.

So independence was inevitable, but violence was necessary to bring it about. How... internally consistent of you.

irishfeen wrote: »

My dear man - you obviously have forgotten how the Unionist population armed themselves and were fully prepared to engage nationalists in a national civil war even over Home Rule... the Unionist population would never ever have conceded a UI republic without fighting back.

Which would, of course, have been utterly reprehensible of them. Using violence to fight for a political end? Don't they know that that's only acceptable behaviour from one side?

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Comments