John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

irishpancake · 14-08-2014 01:04AM

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?

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?

So, do you include parties such as Fianna Fáil, Cumann na nGael, The Labour Party, Clann na Poblachta, Workers Party, Democratic Left, Provisional Sinn Féin, amongst those parties you classify as "militant republican factions since at least 1916 onwards"??

If not, why not??

LordSutch · 14-08-2014 07:04PM

From a unionist point of view, from that time . . .

Ireland England Scotland & Wales, four independent interconected nations connected by geography, culture, history and bloodlines. These four countries made up the British Isles (they still do), and Ireland was but one part of the group. One of these countries was always going to more powerful and advanced, and from the very off it was England, probably due to its constant influx of newcomers, ideas, technology and influence from the rest of the British isles + the continent.

England, Scotland, Ireland & Wales created the Empire, and Ireland then left whenever it did, (1949)ish?

Ireland could never have fought 'the Empire' which comprised of more than half the countries on the globe, (the very notion seems quaint and foolish).

Nodin · 14-08-2014 07:11PM

LordSutch wrote: »

From a unionist(................) and foolish).

Nauseating. You could swear it was some Gentlemans touring club, not an Empire built on violent racism, sectarianism and plunder

steddyeddy · 14-08-2014 07:41PM

Has the argument now changed to republicans couldn't use violence successfully as opposed to republicans shouldn't use violence?

jank · 15-08-2014 12:30AM

It is good that we question the current narrative and not take such hero worship of Irish republicans of old blindly. I see that john bruton has been misquoted numerous times here in an effort to denigrate him personally. Some people complain that people are against the rising just to be anti republican. Well I see a lot if that as well from the other side. John bruton is a closet unionist and west Brit right, therefore his opinion is worthless. It's good that an ex TD can be so forthwrite with their opinion and not be worried about the electorate. Kinda refreshing.

steddyeddy · 15-08-2014 12:33AM

jank wrote: »

It is good that we question the current narrative and not take such hero worship of Irish republicans of old blindly. I see that john bruton has been misquoted numerous times here in an effort to denigrate him personally. Some people complain that people are against the rising just to be anti republican. Well I see a lot if that as well from the other side. John bruton is a closet unionist and west Brit right, therefore his opinion is worthless. It's good that an ex TD can be so forthwrite with their opinion and not be worried about the electorate. Kinda refreshing.

It's not worthless but it's sort obvious that he doesn't like the 1916 rising because he was a unionist and not because it glorifies violence. It would be refreshing for him to be honest about it and say I don't like the rising because I am a unionist. You couldn't argue with that as it's just his viewpoint.

jank · 15-08-2014 12:36AM

John Bruton was a unionist? Tell me do you have evidence to this like being a member of a party of campaigning for Ireland to rejoin the union. Or is it that anyone who challenges the historical republican narrative must therefore be a unionist?

steddyeddy · 15-08-2014 12:49AM

jank wrote: »

John Bruton was a unionist? Tell me do you have evidence to this like being a member of a party of campaigning for Ireland to rejoin the union. Or is it that anyone who challenges the historical republican narrative must therefore be a unionist?

If you look up when Bruton met Prince Charles it will give you a few clues. Exactly how far up Charles' backside Bruton wanted to get up is unknown but this statement made my toes curl

"Sir, you are everything we aspire to."

Even if he wasn't a unionist his apologetic and grovelling attitudes towards anything republican convince me that he hates the 1916 rising because he hates republicanism and nothing to do with violence.

jank · 15-08-2014 02:46PM

See, this is what I am on about when people try and degenerate the personality. First he was a Unionist, now he is not or eh... might be cause of a speech, so no proof that he was a unionist so. Thanks for playing. Didn't the country roll out the red carpet for the Queen a few years ago? Mary McAleese must be a unionist for uttering the words "Wow....Wow.." when the queen uttered a few words of Irish....

Tbh I am sick of people trying to claim that Irishness has to be a 'type', one cannot be a true Irish person if they don't tick the appropriate boxes, number one of these is the absolutely reverence and belief in Irish Republicanism, whatever that may be but it must be the violent kind. John Bruton is as Irish is anyone and the people who claim otherwise must be terribly insecure of their own convictions first and foremost.

Irish republicanism is irrelevant in todays world. It means nothing in of itself and is just a 'brand' used by political parties and media commentators to segment people into boxes and used as a marketing gimmick for the uneducated to what actual republicanism is. This obsession with painting people who are not atypical Irish republicans as a West Brit or god forbid a Unionist strikes me as something similar to the middle ages where people where burned at the stake for not being devout enough or not being true believers. They are in other words 'deniers of the truth, gods truth'...In Ireland we still have people who kneel down at the alter of Irish Republicanism and paint anyone who questions their precious dogma as a heretic who is an enemy of the state. i.e a West Brit or Unionist i.e not Irish. Its very sad to be honest that in 2014 we carry on with this load of $hite when much more important matters are at hand.

Of course people forget the elephant in the room, would the country have been better off if FG and Labour won the 97 election rather than FF under Bertie? Wasn't Berite a Republican or was he a socialist or was he a [insert appropriate ism]..

steddyeddy · 15-08-2014 06:32PM

No I'm just claiming that he hates republicanism and that his "anti-violence" rhetoric is a cover for that. I'm claiming I would respect him more if he was honest. For example he is a firm supporter of John Redmond who was a proponent of the execution of the 1916 leaders. This hardly seems in line with his violence solves nothing mantra. I also have to take you up on your straw man argument. I never said anti republican or unionist is anti Irish.

Frank Lee Midere · 15-08-2014 06:40PM

John Bruton is a unionist because he believes we didn't need 1916. Without 1916 all that was on offer was home rule within the UK - not that that was even a certainty - and therefore he is clearly pro union. Therefore a unionist. Also a West Brit which just means the same as unionist. Scottish No voters are unionists and North Britons.

The term unionist does not mean Ulster Protestant.

Frank Lee Midere · 15-08-2014 06:45PM

jank wrote: »

See, this is what I am on about when people try and degenerate the personality. First he was a Unionist, now he is not or eh... might be cause of a speech, so no proof that he was a unionist so. Thanks for playing. Didn't the country roll out the red carpet for the Queen a few years ago? Mary McAleese must be a unionist for uttering the words "Wow....Wow.." when the queen uttered a few words of Irish....

Tbh I am sick of people trying to claim that Irishness has to be a 'type', one cannot be a true Irish person if they don't tick the appropriate boxes, number one of these is the absolutely reverence and belief in Irish Republicanism, whatever that may be but it must be the violent kind. John Bruton is as Irish is anyone and the people who claim otherwise must be terribly insecure of their own convictions first and foremost.

Irish republicanism is irrelevant in todays world. It means nothing in of itself and is just a 'brand' used by political parties and media commentators to segment people into boxes and used as a marketing gimmick for the uneducated to what actual republicanism is. This obsession with painting people who are not atypical Irish republicans as a West Brit or god forbid a Unionist strikes me as something similar to the middle ages where people where burned at the stake for not being devout enough or not being true believers. They are in other words 'deniers of the truth, gods truth'...In Ireland we still have people who kneel down at the alter of Irish Republicanism and paint anyone who questions their precious dogma as a heretic who is an enemy of the state. i.e a West Brit or Unionist i.e not Irish. Its very sad to be honest that in 2014 we carry on with this load of $hite when much more important matters are at hand.

Of course people forget the elephant in the room, would the country have been better off if FG and Labour won the 97 election rather than FF under Bertie? Wasn't Berite a Republican or was he a socialist or was he a [insert appropriate ism]..

The only person making extremist arguments to shut down debate here is you. If you call someone who is in favour of a union a "unionist" you are

similar to the middle ages where people where burned at the stake for not being devout enough

steddyeddy · 15-08-2014 07:12PM

jank wrote: »

See, this is what I am on about when people try and degenerate the personality. First he was a Unionist, now he is not or eh... might be cause of a speech, so no proof that he was a unionist so. Thanks for playing. Didn't the country roll out the red carpet for the Queen a few years ago? Mary McAleese must be a unionist for uttering the words "Wow....Wow.." when the queen uttered a few words of Irish....

Tbh I am sick of people trying to claim that Irishness has to be a 'type', one cannot be a true Irish person if they don't tick the appropriate boxes, number one of these is the absolutely reverence and belief in Irish Republicanism, whatever that may be but it must be the violent kind. John Bruton is as Irish is anyone and the people who claim otherwise must be terribly insecure of their own convictions first and foremost.

Irish republicanism is irrelevant in todays world. It means nothing in of itself and is just a 'brand' used by political parties and media commentators to segment people into boxes and used as a marketing gimmick for the uneducated to what actual republicanism is. This obsession with painting people who are not atypical Irish republicans as a West Brit or god forbid a Unionist strikes me as something similar to the middle ages where people where burned at the stake for not being devout enough or not being true believers. They are in other words 'deniers of the truth, gods truth'...In Ireland we still have people who kneel down at the alter of Irish Republicanism and paint anyone who questions their precious dogma as a heretic who is an enemy of the state. i.e a West Brit or Unionist i.e not Irish. Its very sad to be honest that in 2014 we carry on with this load of $hite when much more important matters are at hand.

Of course people forget the elephant in the room, would the country have been better off if FG and Labour won the 97 election rather than FF under Bertie? Wasn't Berite a Republican or was he a socialist or was he a [insert appropriate ism]..

By the way you create the straw man that unionist means anti Irish yet you claim republicanism means nothing. Do what I say not what I do?

Nodin · 15-08-2014 08:24PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

If you look up when Bruton met Prince Charles it will give you a few clues. Exactly how far up Charles' backside Bruton wanted to get up is unknown but this statement made my toes curl

Even if he wasn't a unionist his apologetic and grovelling attitudes towards anything republican convince me that he hates the 1916 rising because he hates republicanism and nothing to do with violence.

I know I'm being masochistic here, but you don't happen to have or a link to the full text of the speech?

steddyeddy · 15-08-2014 08:38PM

Nodin wrote: »

I know I'm being masochistic here, but you don't happen to have or a link to the full text of the speech?

I'll have a look. It might be on youtube.

Nodin · 15-08-2014 08:39PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'll have a look. It might be on youtube.

The only clip I could find there was a minute long, but ye might be better at finding it than me.

Sand · 15-08-2014 09:53PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

John Bruton is a unionist because he believes we didn't need 1916. Without 1916 all that was on offer was home rule within the UK - not that that was even a certainty - and therefore he was clearly pro union. Therefore a unionist. Also a West Brit which just means the same as unionist. Scottish No voters are unionists and North Britons.

The term unionist does not mean Ulster Protestant.

MacNeill tried to cancel the Rising. Was he a unionist?

Under the Good Friday agreement the Provos have settled for home rule within the UK, with a democratic unionist majority for the forseeable future. Is Gerry Adams a unionist?

jank · 16-08-2014 03:03AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I'm just claiming that he hates republicanism and that his "anti-violence" rhetoric is a cover for that. I'm claiming I would respect him more if he was honest. For example he is a firm supporter of John Redmond who was a proponent of the execution of the 1916 leaders. This hardly seems in line with his violence solves nothing mantra. I also have to take you up on your straw man argument. I never said anti republican or unionist is anti Irish.

You mean he hates violent Irish Republicanism like that perpetuated by those in the Rising and the PIRA. Many Irish people (most I would gather) hated violent Irish republicanism, does that mean they are all unionist. Isn't it great to live in such a monochromatic world. Black and white, good and evil, Irish republican and West Brit Unionist.

People know damm well what those through away remarks mean. Calling someone a unionist or a west brit is playground stuff and a slight of hand way of calling someones patriotism, nationality and loyalty to the state into question. Can someone really be in your eyes be a West Birt and Irish at the same time? Would that Irish person be as Irish as Gerry Adams or Dev?

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

John Bruton is a unionist because he believes we didn't need 1916. Without 1916 all that was on offer was home rule within the UK - not that that was even a certainty - and therefore he is clearly pro union. Therefore a unionist. Also a West Brit which just means the same as unionist. Scottish No voters are unionists and North Britons.

See my reference to kneeling down to the alter of Irish Republicanism. This statement is a classic example of this.

steddyeddy wrote: »

By the way you create the straw man that unionist means anti Irish yet you claim republicanism means nothing. Do what I say not what I do?

Is that why people call John Bruton a traitor and West Brit, why do people who may disagree with this statement use such childish remarks to personalise the debate? People use the term 'unionist' knowing full well the negative connotations it has in middle Ireland. However, there is a grain of truth to the term unionist being made redundant in todays world. The term itself as political objective has lost its meaning over the years. Its just mainly used now in the Republic to either describe people who identify with the Ulster-Scottish tradition in the north or insult people for not being quite Irish enough in the South.

The word Republicanism has been abused around the world as, usually by left leaning parties of the socialist or communist kind. China, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea are all 'republic's' in name but nobody of sound mind would claim that its an actual republic (of the law) in practice unlike say Germany, France or the USA (the longest running republic in the world afaik). The only reason Irish republicans cling onto the term is to draw attention to that fact that we no longer have a queen as head of state, as if it actually makes a difference to the day to day running of the country or average joe down the street. Are Irish people better off because they are a 'republic' and Canada, Sweden, Netherlands and Australia are not? No, that is a misnomer. It is a way for Irish republicans to hold up some prize, some achievement that stats 'Yes, starting all those conflicts was worth it, wasn't it'?

steddyeddy · 16-08-2014 03:29PM

Sand wrote: »

MacNeill tried to cancel the Rising. Was he a unionist?

Under the Good Friday agreement the Provos have settled for home rule within the UK, with a democratic unionist majority for the forseeable future. Is Gerry Adams a unionist?

Are you a pacifist and do you believe violence should never be used?

Frank Lee Midere · 16-08-2014 03:47PM

jank wrote: »

People know damm well what those through away remarks mean. Calling someone a unionist or a west brit is playground stuff and a slight of hand way of calling someones patriotism, nationality and loyalty to the state into question. Can someone really be in your eyes be a West Birt and Irish at the same time? Would that Irish person be as Irish as Gerry Adams or Dev?

See my reference to kneeling down to the alter of Irish Republicanism. This statement is a classic example of this.

Is that why people call John Bruton a traitor and West Brit, why do people who may disagree with this statement use such childish remarks to personalise the debate? People use the term 'unionist' knowing full well the negative connotations it has in middle Ireland. However, there is a grain of truth to the term unionist being made redundant in todays world. The term itself as political objective has lost its meaning over the years. Its just mainly used now in the Republic to either describe people who identify with the Ulster-Scottish tradition in the north or insult people for not being quite Irish enough in the South.

I am not going to let you get away with your strawman arguments. Firstly I remedially pointed out that if Bruton was in favour of home rule and not the rising he was a unionist. To want to maintain the union is to be a unionist. To want to stay in Britain is to want to be a British subject. ( you can also be Irish just as you can be English and British). Ireland would be in the West of the United Kingdom so the term West Brit is apposite. Supporting the monarchy, as Bruton appears to is Monarchist.

From this remedial explanation of terms you decide that "I kneel at the altar of a republicanism". You rant about "socialist or communist" Republicans and veer into some non-sequitur about how great monarchy's are. Nothing to do with anything.

You seem to be arguing with some one else. I am a centrist, pro law and order 26 county small r republican.

I call Bruton a unionist because he supports the union. A west Brit because in supporting the union he would live in the West of Britain, a monarchist because of his reaction to Prince Charles. These are all valid non insulting political descriptions.

You in the other hand can't seem to type the word republican without recourse to terms including violence, socialism, communism, even North Korea appears in a spittle flecked rant.

Good loser · 16-08-2014 09:00PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I am not going to let you get away with your strawman arguments. Firstly I remedially pointed out that if Bruton was in favour of home rule and not the rising he was a unionist. To want to maintain the union is to be a unionist. To want to stay in Britain is to want to be a British subject. ( you can also be Irish just as you can be English and British). Ireland would be in the West of the United Kingdom so the term West Brit is apposite. Supporting the monarchy, as Bruton appears to is Monarchist.

From this remedial explanation of terms you decide that "I kneel at the altar of a republicanism". You rant about "socialist or communist" Republicans and veer into some non-sequitur about how great monarchy's are. Nothing to do with anything.

You seem to be arguing with some one else. I am a centrist, pro law and order 26 county small r republican.

I call Bruton a unionist because he supports the union. A west Brit because in supporting the union he would live in the West of Britain, a monarchist because of his reaction to Prince Charles. These are all valid non insulting political descriptions.

You in the other hand can't seem to type the word republican without recourse to terms including violence, socialism, communism, even North Korea appears in a spittle flecked rant.

No they're not and you are using them pejoritively.

Your definitions are laboured, self serving and rabble rousing.

I would not apply any of these terms to John Bruton.

His observations are just that - an interesting slant on that era relevant to the centeneries we are about to observe. More right than wrong imo.

Why apply any label to him?

Sand · 17-08-2014 12:52PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Are you a pacifist and do you believe violence should never be used?

Do you believe violence is inherently a better, cleaner and more noble solution to any problem than negotiation and compromise?

I.E. is having to compromise with an opponent always inferior to not having to compromise with them?

Nodin · 17-08-2014 03:20PM

Good loser wrote: »

....................
Why apply any label to him?

"Sir, you are everything we aspire to" would justify it.

Good loser · 17-08-2014 07:29PM

Nodin wrote: »

"Sir, you are everything we aspire to" would justify it.

Nobody is defined by a sentence.

Nodin · 17-08-2014 08:17PM

Good loser wrote: »

Nobody is defined by a sentence.

Added to the tone of the speech as I remember and his general attitude as expressed in articles over the years, I'd say it's a fairly good summation.

Sligo Quay · 17-08-2014 08:48PM

So Bruton says the Easter rising was unnecessary, infact we can say the 1st World War was unnecessary, 50,000 Irish slaughtered to end all wars, when infact it sowed the seeds for the 2nd World War.
When you see whats happen in Ukraine, Gaza, Iraq and Syria, it's a wonder there's not a 3rd World War.
Bruton really is an idiot of the highest order, playing on the fact that he is an ex Taoiseach and the rest of us should sit up and take notice even if he is talking nonsense.

BTW great piece in today's ''Mail on Sunday'' by Sam Smith about Bruton, the banker's friend and the scourge of the poor.

Good loser · 17-08-2014 11:33PM

Nodin wrote: »

Added to the tone of the speech as I remember and his general attitude as expressed in articles over the years, I'd say it's a fairly good summation.

Better to discuss the opinions than the labels. Light over heat.

jank · 18-08-2014 12:57PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I am not going to let you get away with your strawman arguments. Firstly I remedially pointed out that if Bruton was in favour of home rule and not the rising he was a unionist. To want to maintain the union is to be a unionist. To want to stay in Britain is to want to be a British subject.

You contradict yourself there.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I call Bruton a unionist because he supports the union.

When did he support Ireland joining the United Kingdom?

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

A west Brit because in supporting the union he would live in the West of Britain, a monarchist because of his reaction to Prince Charles. T.

Mary McAlesse and Martin McGuinnes are monarchists too I suppose

.

steddyeddy · 18-08-2014 01:55PM

Sand wrote: »

Do you believe violence is inherently a better, cleaner and more noble solution to any problem than negotiation and compromise?

I.E. is having to compromise with an opponent always inferior to not having to compromise with them?

No Sand I didn't ask for a question thanks. I wanted a debate. If you're unable to detail your own views on the matter don't worry I'll engage with someone who can.

steddyeddy · 18-08-2014 01:56PM

Sligo Quay wrote: »

So Bruton says the Easter rising was unnecessary, infact we can say the 1st World War was unnecessary, 50,000 Irish slaughtered to end all wars, when infact it sowed the seeds for the 2nd World War.
When you see whats happen in Ukraine, Gaza, Iraq and Syria, it's a wonder there's not a 3rd World War.
Bruton really is an idiot of the highest order, playing on the fact that he is an ex Taoiseach and the rest of us should sit up and take notice even if he is talking nonsense.

BTW great piece in today's ''Mail on Sunday'' by Sam Smith about Bruton, the banker's friend and the scourge of the poor.

Indeed. WW1 has far shakier grounds for celebration.

John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

Comments