John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Prior to 1800, Ireland was a single, independent, sovereign Kingdom (as opposed to the modern sense of nation).

It was ruled by the King of Ireland. He was also the Duke/Prince of the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg (aka Hanover), King of Great Britain plus ruled half a dozen other Kingdoms or Principalities.

It is an important point to remember though that Kingdoms were very much the personal properties of their monarchs back then. They ruled directly and made day-to-day decisions or via personally appointed and directed Ministers - the phrase "His Majesty's Government" had the emphasis on the first part of the phrase back then!

As such all the talk of "occupation" on this thread is a bit silly since no one at the time would have suggested a King was "occupying" his own Kingdom.

Indeed, it is noticeable that no one suggests though that Ireland was "occupied" by those nasty Brunswick-Lüneburgers. :-)

View wrote: »

I am fully aware of that.



Agreed.



I am aware of both.

A poor electoral system, such as FPTP, does not turn a minority of the popular vote cast into a "Clear majority" in favour of a proposition though (particularly with a significant %age of the adult population still disenfranchised at the time).

Nor indeed does the existence of uncontested seats, particularly when those seats were in areas of the country where contemporary reports at the time (before the election) indicated the state had already lost control of (or to use the language of the day "where the King's writ no longer runs").



Very exciting but no one was suggesting it constituted a mandate for GB to leave the UK, were they? :-)

Rather it was an election to elect MPs to Parliament (and, hence, to ensure a government was elected by MPs from the ranks of Parliament).

Exactly as it was in Ireland since it was the same election held on the same day.

I am afraid you are undermining your own case if you are attempting to claim securing a majority of seats in a general election under a poor electoral system has the same validity as securing a majority in a referendum.

Hence the situation is that SF did not secure a majority of votes cast in either the general election or in a subsequent referendum, so they had no "clear majority" - all of which shows them acting without care or consideration for the views of others on the island at a time when a fairly fundamental constitutional issue was up for decision.

My dear confused friend:

You say:

"A poor electoral system, such as FPTP, does not turn a minority of the popular vote cast into a "Clear majority" in favour of a proposition though (particularly with a significant %age of the adult population still disenfranchised at the time)."

Firstly, perhaps you can point out where I ever used the term "Clear majority" in relation to the 1918 GE??

It seems to be a favourite term of yours.

Where, except in you fevered mind, did I claim that the Electoral System turned anything into anything except seats won.

I see you there mentioning "proposition" again.

What are you talking about, this was an Election.

I thought you said you were aware of that??

In your post, which I was replying to, this one:

Originally Posted by View View Post
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.

you seemed to indicate that by simply counting the numbers of votes cast, and seeing that SF only got a minority of those votes, it somehow invalidates the result, whereby they actually won the vast majority of Irish seats.

I pointed out to you that this was an Election, not a Plebiscite, and the results were attained under the prevailing Electoral System, and therefore the Landslide result for SF was explainable and understandable, poor system or not, it was the system.

Then you move on to make an allegation that some seats were lost, to the state??, due to intimidation, which you produce absolutely no evidence of, except to say there were undefined areas where the "kings writ no longer ran". :eek:

It is actually difficult to make out what exactly your point is.

My reference to the overall UK results, was, of course, for illustrative purposes, as you don't seem to understand how Elections work .

My point was, that just as in Ireland, Coalition Parties got a majority of seats in Parliament, even though they only received a minority of the votes cast, which is what seemed to be your concern regarding the Irish results.

As for the rest of your post, it is simply incoherent rubbish, such as this:

"I am afraid you are undermining your own case if you are attempting to claim securing a majority of seats in a general election under a poor electoral system has the same validity as securing a majority in a referendum."

Now, please show where in my post, I made any such case or claim??

I am not responsible for your chronic lack of education regarding the Electoral process, and how it works, but it is not right to knowingly ascribe something to someone which you must surely know to be untrue??

But maybe not, perhaps you feel it's OK.

Nodin wrote: »

Evidently not, given the fighting. It's easy to judge via hindsight, however.

So then it would be accurate to say that in the view of the militant groups of the time, violence did not succeed in taking Ireland out of the Empire and the British monarchy remained head of state?

Nodin wrote: »

In the view of some of the militant groups at the time. Had the monarch been removed, doubtless some would still say there was a need to fight on.



Is this going to go on until you manage to contrive an historical scenario where you can ask me a question, I'll answer and you can jump in with a "Ha!!!Gotcha!!! remark that you will presume shows the inherent illogic of my world view? Just as a matter of interest.

Given that violence failed to remove Ireland from the Empire or the British monarch as head of state and both were achieved by constitutional politics, do you consider it odd that constitutional Ireland is planning to celebrate an unnecessary militant act that largely failed by its own measure?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland wasn't occupied in 1916. If you believe it was, then - again - there isn't the basis for a rational conversation, because that's just making up definitions of words in order to create historical justifications.

A large number of people were unhappy under British rule. They considered it occupied. It was certainly a country ruled by a foreign colonial power.

Sand wrote: »

Hasn't the main challenge of modern Irish constitutional republicanism been to achieve concrete gains by effective, peaceful means whilst holding off the ineffective militant republican factions since at least 1916 onwards?

This statement doesn't make sense.

Nodin I admire your patience but I hate to tell you that all have Sand's posts for the last three pages have been questions. He didn't reply to any comment without a question so I wouldn't continue.

Sand wrote: »

Would your answer change if you looked at Ireland as a whole and considering modern Irish constitutional republicanism as including political parties in the Republic?

Are you a pacifist or do you think that that violence is sometimes necessary? Do you think violence should never be celebrated?

Nodin wrote: »

Not really.

Now, before I answer any more questions - you might answer mine - Is this going to go on until you manage to contrive an historical scenario where you can ask me a question, I'll answer and you can jump in with a "Ha!!!Gotcha!!! remark that you will presume shows the inherent illogic of my world view? Just as a matter of interest.

Do you not feel that the problem that the dissidents pose currently in Northern Ireland is the same as the Provos, Anti-Treaty IRA and the Rising posed to constitutional Republicans and nationalists?

Nodin why are you answering someone that can't answer yours? I wouldn't it's a not a debate.

What about this one Sand or anyone else?

Are you a pacifist or do you think that that violence is sometimes necessary? Do you think violence should never be celebrated?

steddyeddy wrote: »

I get the impression that some of the people condemning the violence of 1916 are simply condemning it because it came from republicans.

There was also counter violence from the forces of the Crown.

One of Connolly's few mistakes was to think that the Brits, as Capitalists, would be reluctant to destroy property with artillery bombardment.

They destroyed 200 buildings in Dublin.






Source:

National Library of Ireland. The 1916 Rising: personalities and perspectives