John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

LordSutch · 10-08-2014 07:24PM

crown forces indeed . . .

An nice old Dublin police constable (unarmed) in his 60s standing outside Dublin Castle in all weathers, and then some yobbo comes up from behind and shoots him in the head. That's what I mean by murderous tricks, and that's one of the reasons why the authorities were after these fellas.

Your heroes indeed, but they are not my heores

John Bruton is right.

irishfeen · 10-08-2014 07:47PM

LordSutch wrote: »

crown forces indeed . . .

An nice old Dublin police constable (unarmed) in his 60s standing outside Dublin Castle in all weathers, and then some yobbo comes up from behind and shoots him in the head. That's what I mean by murderous tricks, and that's one of the reasons why the authorities were after these fellas.

Your heroes indeed, but they are not my heores

John Bruton is right.

Take down your union jack for a bit and just think about that statement - without these men and women fighting a brutal oppressive empire to the bitter end we could still be ruled by an iron fist from London.

They did what needed to be done in a brutal period of Irish history, it easy for you to step back some 100 years later and denounce them... I suppose you would you have stood back and watched with the same attitude if your friends, family, girlfriend, wife were killed, beaten, raped etc in your own country... people took up arms because they were forced to take up arms by a brutal administration in Dublin and London. Had democracy been respected there would never have been an issue - you almost make it sound like they were causing mischief for the sake of it.

.jacksparrow. · 10-08-2014 07:55PM

Hold on, did anyone watch that programme months back?

John Bruton was on talking about a great uncle I think who was in the ira and how he fought in the war of independence.

He said he agreed with the murders his uncle carried out because it was necessary.

What a hypocrite, just a dig at sinn rein that's all this is.

irishfeen · 10-08-2014 08:06PM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Hold on, did anyone watch that programme months back?

John Bruton was on talking about a great uncle I think who was in the ira and how he fought in the war of independence.

He said he agreed with the murders his uncle carried out because it was necessary.

What a hypocrite, just a dig at sinn rein that's all this is.

I'm sure the Fine Gael hierarchy are having words with Bruton to try shut him up - Ireland still has a very nationalist streak running through it, the rising and the events leading up to our independence is very much looked upon (as it should be IMO) as a very noble, well meaning quest.

Azwaldo55 · 10-08-2014 08:34PM

Bruton has to explain why the British refused to accept the democratic will of the Irish people in 1918 when a clear majority of the people voted for the separatist republicanism of Sinn Féin and what other alternative there was left open for the Irish when the British introduced the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries who introduced a campaign of official reprisals and terrorism against the Irish population?

The Irish Parliamentary Party or IPP got an overwhelming vote in 1910 when they promised to pressure the British Liberals to introduce Home Rule. They were discredited when Home Rule was suspended and when Redmond promised the Irish Volunteers would join the British Army to fight in World War I. Remember that the IPP was divided in the 1890s into Parnellites and Anti-Parnellites and became unified under Redmond in opposition to the Boer War at the turn of the century. So people turned against the IPP when they felt they had been sold down the river. Redmond went from a nationalist hero to a hate figure overnight much like Bertie Ahern did almost a century later.

The British execution of the rebel leaders, the killings of civilians during the 1916 Rising, the cover up of the conduct of British troops and the attempt subsequently to introduce conscription were a series of straws that eventually broke the camel's back.
The Irish electorate morphed from waving union jacks when the King came to visit Dublin to republican in the same way a frog is slowly boiled in a pot without jumping out as the heat is turned up incrementally.

In 1919 most people were horrified by the actions of Dan Breen and Sean Treacy and other fugitive gunmen who started shooting RIC men who were arresting IRA men and Sinn Féin activists in droves. When the RIC and British Army became increasingly draconian and began to lose public support and local elections returned Sinn Féin majorities who began running localities independent of Dublin Castle the British responded by sending in the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries who began ad hoc reprisals which later became systematic such as the burning of Cork and other towns and villages and the destruction of creameries in rural areas. Many Southern Unionists who had opposed Home Rule in 1912-1914 even became republicans. Men like Tom Barry who had fought in British uniform in Iraq during World War I and had been apathetic about the Rising and Irish republican generally became a leading IRA commander.

The Irish people put their faith in Home Rule from the start and were betrayed by the British which is why they turned to republicanism and eventually Dáil Éireann recognized the IRA as the army of the notional independent Republic.

Bruton's analysis does not stand up to scrutiny.

BlaasForRafa · 10-08-2014 09:28PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Bruton has to explain why the British refused to accept the democratic will of the Irish people in 1918

There was this small matter called World War 1 going on at the time, you may have heard of it.

Azwaldo55 · 10-08-2014 09:30PM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

There was this small matter called World War 1 going on at the time, you may have heard of it.

World War I ended on 11 November 1918. The general election was held in 14 December 1918.

irishpancake · 10-08-2014 09:58PM

LordSutch wrote: »

You say 'dear oh dear' to my 'murderous tricks' comment, but if you look at it from a victim point of view, then the rebels actions were indeed murderous actions. Take the 1st few casualties of the rising, like the old unarmed policeman standing outside Dublin castle.

Shot in the head at point blank range, "hurray" I hear you rebel supporters cry :cool:

Fond of policemen??

Which one if these fine upstanding heroes was your grandad??

Ohh, you don't know, that figures.

Any openings in your Party for more screaming madmen, I hear JB is looking for a suitable vehicle.

Nodin · 10-08-2014 10:00PM

LordSutch wrote: »

crown forces indeed . . .

.........

Indeed they were. I believe a British paper once said of JB that he should rid himself of his "extravagantly nonsensical attitudes". Evidently he hasn't taken their advice.

View · 10-08-2014 11:16PM

irishfeen wrote: »

Take down your union jack for a bit and just think about that statement - without these men and women fighting a brutal oppressive empire to the bitter end we could still be ruled by an iron fist from London.

You might want to calm down a bit.

Given that Scotland is currently in the midst of a peaceful independence referendum and many countries of the then British Empire have progressively and peacefully loosened their links to Britain over the years, it is total hyperbole to claim we "could still be ruled by an iron fist from London".

Unless, that is, you believe that the electorate here would have rejected independence in a purely peaceful scenario, that is?

If so, the implication would appear to be that violence was mainly used to intimidate and/or influence the electorate (of Ireland)....

Azwaldo55 · 10-08-2014 11:23PM

View wrote: »

You might want to calm down a bit.

Given that Scotland is currently in the midst of a peaceful independence referendum and many countries of the then British Empire have progressively and peacefully loosened their links to Britain over the years, it is total hyperbole to claim we "could still be ruled by an iron fist from London".

Unless, that is, you believe that the electorate here would have rejected independence in a purely peaceful scenario, that is?

If so, the implication would appear to be that violence was mainly used to intimidate and/or influence the electorate (of Ireland)....

The expense of two world wars and bankruptcy and ruin put an end to the British Empire as it existed at the turn of twentieth century. Not any benevolence or change of heart. It was forced upon them.

View · 10-08-2014 11:26PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Bruton has to explain why the British refused to accept the democratic will of the Irish people in 1918 when a clear majority of the people voted for the separatist republicanism of Sinn Féin

A clear majority of the electorate did NOT vote for Sinn Fein, they secured a MINORITY of the votes cast by the electorate.

The only way you can turn their vote into a majority is if you exclude the votes cast in Northern Ireland.

Also, the 1918 election was no paragon of democracy - there are clear reports at the time of the Home Rule supporters and even candidates being attacked by Sinn Fein supporters during the course of the election.

Azwaldo55 · 10-08-2014 11:37PM

View wrote: »

A clear majority of the electorate did NOT vote for Sinn Fein, they secured a MINORITY of the votes cast by the electorate.

The only way you can turn their vote into a majority is if you exclude the votes cast in Northern Ireland.

Also, the 1918 election was no paragon of democracy - there are clear reports at the time of the Home Rule supporters and even candidates being attacked by Sinn Fein supporters during the course of the election.

497,107 voted for Sinn Féin
257,314 voted for Irish Unionists
220,837 voted for the Irish Parliamentary Party

End of.

View · 10-08-2014 11:38PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The expense of two world wars and bankruptcy and ruin put an end to the British Empire as it existed at the turn of twentieth century. Not any benevolence or change of heart. It was forced upon them.

None of which explains why, prior to WWI, places such as Canada, Australia and South Africa had already been granted huge swathes of autonomy and were increasingly self-governing.

And what did we achieve?

As the Anglo-Irish treaty explicitly put it, we got the exact same status as the above countries (Article 1 if I recall correctly).

Oh, and unlike them, we got our island split into two because none of the then contemporary politicians was prepared to "lose face"' and compromise with their opponents (on our island) and/or work out a formula - as Finland did at the time - where the minority could be guaranteed that the majority would not override the rights of the minority.

View · 10-08-2014 11:46PM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

497,107 voted for Sinn Féin
257,314 voted for Irish Unionists
220,837 voted for the Irish Parliamentary Party

End of.

There were 1,015,515 votes cast in that election. There were more than the above 3 parties who contested the election.

476,087 (not 497,107) voted for Sinn Fein.

Both figures (for SF) are a MINORITY of the votes cast. So, no majority, clear or otherwise from the electorate for them.

"End of" to quote yourself.

Azwaldo55 · 10-08-2014 11:47PM

View wrote: »

None of which explains why, prior to WWI, places such as Canada, Australia and South Africa had already been granted huge swathes of autonomy and were increasingly self-governing.

And what did we achieve?

As the Anglo-Irish treaty explicitly put it, we got the exact same status as the above countries (Article 1 if I recall correctly).

Oh, and unlike them, we got our island split into two because none of the then contemporary politicians was prepared to "lose face"' and compromise with their opponents (on our island) and/or work out a formula - as Finland did at the time - where the minority could be guaranteed that the majority would not override the rights of the minority.

In 1918 a majority of the Irish people voted for independence.

The Irish people did not want dominion status.

The British used terror to try and force the Irish into line.

They wanted a Republic.

After the Free State was created they used the threat of force to push the Free State into crushing republicanism.

The acceptance of the 1921 Treaty in the election of 1921 was an expression of the fear of the people.

The Economic War of the 1930s and De Valera's gradual dismantlement of the Free State was a continuation in another form of the War of Independence.

It was only in the late 1940s that Ireland became a Republic after the British had bankrupted themselves fighting World War 2.

View · 11-08-2014 12:22AM

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

In 1918 a majority of the Irish people voted for independence.

As the election results show, there was NO such majority. Trying to create one from figures that directly disagree with your comments is silly.

With the electoral results reflecting a deeply divided electorate, it would have taken painstaking compromise and negotiation to resolve the differences - the men of violence weren't interested in such negotiation though as the history books show.

irishpancake · 11-08-2014 02:38AM

View wrote: »

There were 1,015,515 votes cast in that election. There were more than the above 3 parties who contested the election.

476,087 (not 497,107) voted for Sinn Fein.

Both figures (for SF) are a MINORITY of the votes cast. So, no majority, clear or otherwise from the electorate for them.

"End of" to quote yourself.

My good friend View.....

You are aware that this was an General Election, not a Plebiscite, or a Referendum??

It, the General Election, was fought in accordance with the Electoral rules prevailing at that time......

The result, in Ireland, when the votes were counted, was a Landslide victory for Sinn Féin and it's Platform.

This was due to votes cast, in the FPTP electoral system, and a considerable number of uncontested seats conceded to SF, which it seems you are totally unaware of.

Here are the stats, from Wikipedia, which in this instance, are 100% correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_1918

Screenshot%202014-08-11%2002.00.32.jpg

In that 1918 Election in GB, there was a victory for the National Coalition Parties [Tory/Liberal/Etc,] in terms of seats won in the GB Parliament, but this was with a combined 47% of votes cast.

A MINORITY of the votes cast....

as you so subtly/shoutily put it......

Here are some of the figures for you, again from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1918

Screenshot%202014-08-11%2002.26.18.png

OMG!!!

but this MINORITY won 67% of the seats in Parliament!!!!

And formed a Government!!!!!

Surely that cannot be right....can it??

Please try to understand the difference between Elections and Referenda.

It appears you don't have the first clue.

Would you ever get a little sense, like a good man.

oscarBravo · 11-08-2014 10:54AM

irishpancake wrote: »

Can I ask, how, and why, does a "country" put down a nationalist/republican "insurrection" in an unoccupied territory??

I'm not sure why you're of the view that repeating a nonsensical question will suddenly make it make sense, so I'll reiterate my reply: there is no requirement for a territory to be occupied for there to be an insurrection. I posted a dictionary definition of the word "insurrection"; you appear to have ignored it.

Do you think, or even feel, that Ireland was not "Occupied".

I've stated clearly that Ireland was not occupied. Quoth Wikipedia: "Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign."

Ireland was not a sovereign country in 1916. You are conflating a desire for sovereignty with the fact of sovereignty. However much you disagree with the Act of Union and how it came about, it happened; the line of argument that goes "I don't like that there was an Act of Union, therefore there wasn't one, therefore Ireland was occupied" is kindergartenesque.

RED L4 0TH · 11-08-2014 11:45AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've stated clearly that I believe that Ireland was not occupied.

FYP.

Ireland was not a sovereign country in 1916.

Part of the "UK of GB & Ire" I suppose then?

However much you disagree with the Act of Union and how it came about, it happened; the line of argument that goes "I don't like that there was an Act of Union, therefore there wasn't one, therefore Ireland was occupied"

The occupation of Ireland was the physical manifestation of the British trying to enforce such a Union. And the consent of the Irish population to such a Union is listed where in the history books? Acts passed by a parliament in another country and a so-called Irish parliament utterly unrepresentative of it's native population do not a Union make. No doubt you derive your viewpoint that the government was suppressing an insurrection "in their own country" from the position that you accept the Act of Union.

Oh, and re your belief that the people of 1916 and the dissidents are the same, even John Bruton wouldn't agree:

Gerry Adams accuses me of 'denigrating' the Volunteers who fought in Dublin in 1916. Not so. I respect their sincerity and their bravery, and I have said so.

I doubt that John Bruton has the same beliefs about the dissidents. If they are the same, what peace process did they end or even majorly alter, if your claiming that 1916 ended the process that was Home Rule?

oscarBravo · 11-08-2014 12:14PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

FYP.

Actually, no. I posted a definition of military occupation to support my argument. The fact that you could only respond with something as pathetic as a "FYP" speaks volumes.

Part of the "UK of GB & Ire" I suppose then?

Why the danger quotes? Why the rhetorical question?

Yes, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Pretending that this wasn't the case is the most transparent and facile debating tactic imaginable.

The occupation of Ireland was the physical manifestation of the British trying to enforce such a Union.

Has it escaped your notice that the people of Ireland voted in Westminster elections? How many military occupations involve the occupying power letting the people of the occupied territory vote for the government of the occupying power?

And the consent of the Irish population to such a Union is listed where in the history books?

It's right there beside the consent of the Scottish people to a similar union a century earlier.

Jesus, seriously? You think referenda were de rigeur in the eighteenth century?

Acts passed by a parliament in another country and a so-called Irish parliament utterly unrepresentative of it's native population do not a Union make.

Sadly, they do. Freeman on the Land woo aside, acts of unpopular and even corrupt governments are still legally binding, and "I would prefer if something hadn't happened" has never, ever made something not have happened.

No doubt you derive your viewpoint that the government was suppressing an insurrection "in their own country" from the position that you accept the Act of Union.

Yes. Because I'm basing my arguments on what actually happened in history, not on what it suits my argument to pretend didn't.

You're basically saying that because the Act of Union wasn't good for Ireland, it doesn't count. That's an utterly bizarre argument.

Oh, and re your belief that the people of 1916 and the dissidents are the same, even John Bruton wouldn't agree:

This may come as a shock to you, but I don't agree with everything John Bruton says.

I doubt that John Bruton has the same beliefs about the dissidents. If they are the same, what peace process did they end or even majorly alter, if your claiming that 1916 ended the process that was Home Rule?

I can see I made a mistake using the phrase "exactly the same"; it allowed you to take my point out of context and score a point by finding an area of subtle difference. Well done.

RED L4 0TH · 11-08-2014 01:13PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Actually, no. I posted a definition of military occupation to support my argument. The fact that you could only respond with something as pathetic as a "FYP" speaks volumes.

Wasn't referring to that, only to you saying that 'Ireland wasn't occupied'. I believe such a statement to be historical interpretation, hence subjective.

Why the danger quotes? Why the rhetorical question?

Yes, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Pretending that this wasn't the case is the most transparent and facile debating tactic imaginable.

Has it escaped your notice that the people of Ireland voted in Westminster elections? How many military occupations involve the occupying power letting the people of the occupied territory vote for the government of the occupying power?

The above is underpinned by you accepting the Act of Union. They're your beliefs. Others may not agree with these beliefs.

Jesus, seriously? You think referenda were de rigeur in the eighteenth century? Sadly, they do. Freeman on the Land woo aside, acts of unpopular and even corrupt governments are still legally binding, and "I would prefer if something hadn't happened" has never, ever made something not have happened. Yes. Because I'm basing my arguments on what actually happened in history, not on what it suits my argument to pretend didn't.

You're basically saying that because the Act of Union wasn't good for Ireland, it doesn't count. That's an utterly bizarre argument.

It never ceases to amaze me, the first thing that people do when defending the Act of Union, is to tell people how bad things were back then, but then go ahead and say that they accept it anyway..........

This may come as a shock to you, but I don't agree with everything John Bruton says.

Not a shock at all. If that's the case that's fine with me.

I can see I made a mistake using the phrase "exactly the same"; it allowed you to take my point out of context and score a point by finding an area of subtle difference. Well done.

I merely made an opposing point as to why I believe that they aren't the same. What's the problem?

oscarBravo · 11-08-2014 07:07PM

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me, the first thing that people do when defending the Act of Union, is to tell people how bad things were back then, but then go ahead and say that they accept it anyway..........

Who's defending the Act of Union? You seem to live in this starkly monochromatic world, where someone can either celebrate the Act of Union or pretend it didn't happen, with no middle ground.

Out here in reality, the Act of Union happened. If you want to say that it shouldn't have happened, fine: I won't argue with that. But to claim that the Union never happened in order to justify a bizarre claim that Ireland was militarily occupied, in turn so you can justify violence in pursuit of a political aim: that's just silly.

Tell me: prior to 1800, when was the last time that Ireland was a single, independent, sovereign nation?

Nodin · 11-08-2014 07:12PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

.....................................

Tell me: prior to 1800, when was the last time that Ireland was a single, independent, sovereign nation?

That's supposed to be an argument? Seriously?

oscarBravo · 11-08-2014 07:14PM

Nodin wrote: »

That's supposed to be an argument? Seriously?

It's a question.

Nodin · 11-08-2014 07:16PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a question.

Whats the relevance? You could fire that question at Greece, the US, the continent of Africa, most of the middle East......

oscarBravo · 11-08-2014 07:21PM

Nodin wrote: »

Whats the relevance? You could fire that question at Greece, the US, the continent of Africa, most of the middle East......

I'll take the defensiveness about the question as confirmation that the answer is "never".

Nodin · 11-08-2014 08:00PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll take the defensiveness about the question as confirmation that the answer is "never".

But "never" is irrelevant.

RED L4 0TH · 11-08-2014 08:22PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Out here in reality, the Act of Union happened.

Also out here in reality, I just see it as merely yet another effort by the British to continue their rule here from before 1800. It's not worthy of consideration in itself as an event to mark the formation of a "new country". Only the British and Unionists thought it was, and that such a country was created.

But to claim that the Union never happened in order to justify a bizarre claim that Ireland was militarily occupied

If one rejected British rule in 1916, why would any such claim be bizarre?

in turn so you can justify violence in pursuit of a political aim

Ah yes, playing the moral card again against those seeking independence outside of the Home Rule path. If you recognize the Act of Union, aren't you also justifying violence as well, since the British government would then be suppressing an insurrection in 'their own country', and you don't appear to have a problem with that?

Tell me: prior to 1800, when was the last time that Ireland was a single, independent, sovereign nation?

Are you trying to claim one only existed after 1800? What was the USA before 1776? What was East Timor before the 1999 to 2002 period?

irishpancake · 11-08-2014 08:36PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who's defending the Act of Union? You seem to live in this starkly monochromatic world, where someone can either celebrate the Act of Union or pretend it didn't happen, with no middle ground.

Out here in reality, the Act of Union happened. If you want to say that it shouldn't have happened, fine: I won't argue with that. But to claim that the Union never happened in order to justify a bizarre claim that Ireland was militarily occupied, in turn so you can justify violence in pursuit of a political aim: that's just silly.

Tell me: prior to 1800, when was the last time that Ireland was a single, independent, sovereign nation?

What was this Act of Union about??

How, and why did it 'happen'??

Here is a very small insight as to how this 'union' came about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1800

After centuries subordination to the English, and later, British Parliaments, the Parliament of Ireland gained a large measure of independence by the Constitution of 1782.

Many members of the Irish Parliament jealously guarded its autonomy (notably Henry Grattan) and a motion for union was rejected in 1799.

However, a concerted campaign by the British government overcame the reluctance of the Irish Parliament.

Only Anglicans were permitted to become members of the Parliament of Ireland, though the great majority of the Irish population were Roman Catholic, with many Presbyterians in Ulster.

In 1793 Roman Catholics regained the right to vote if they owned or rented property worth £2 p.a. The Catholic hierarchy was strongly in favour of union, hoping for rapid emancipation – the right to sit as MPs – which was however delayed until 1829.

From the perspective of Great Britain, the union was required because of the uncertainty that followed the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and the French Revolution of 1789, which inspired the rebels;

if Ireland adopted Catholic Emancipation, willingly or not, a Roman Catholic parliament could break away from Britain and ally with the French, while the same measure within a united kingdom would exclude that possibility.

Also the Irish and British parliaments, when creating a regency during King George III's "madness", gave the Prince Regent different powers.

These considerations led Great Britain to decide to merge the two kingdoms and their parliaments.

The final passage of the Act in the Irish Parliament was achieved with substantial majorities, achieved in part according to contemporary documents through bribery, namely the awarding of peerages and honours to critics to get their votes.

Whereas the first attempt had been defeated in the Irish House of Commons by 109 votes against to 104 for, the second vote in 1800 produced a result of 158 to 115.[8]

Tell us what was being United, to result in a single United Kingdom, your 'country' reference from many posts back.

The 'country' which you say was forced to put down a violent Nationalist/Republican 'insurrection'.

The 'country' which put down another violent 'insurrection' by Robert Emmett, a United Irishman, in 1803, who said this, before being hanged and beheaded:

Let no man write my epitaph; for as no man who knows my motives dare now vindicate them, let not prejudice or ignorance, asperse them.

Let them and me rest in obscurity and peace, and my tomb remain uninscribed, and my memory in oblivion, until other times and other men can do justice to my character.

When my country takes her place among the nations of the earth, then and not till then, let my epitaph be written. I have done

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Comments