Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Was the Dáil Illegal and does it matter?

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    As usual you have largely ignored the comments of other posters on your unfounded, sweeping assertions and instead of addressing them accurately you have chosen to respond with remarks on ethnicity, ability, spurious references to other posts, etc., that are also off topic.
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    From somebody with such an extraordinary number of corrections by other users to your "historical" claims on this website - and a bizarre and explicit chip on your shoulder about your own ethnic background in Ireland.
    An extraordinary number? Really? As for ethnicity, you are ignorant of my background - like others I was born with an ethnic background, as were Pearse, Plunkett, Connolly, Edward Fitzgerald, Napper Tandy, Parnell, Sam Maguire, etc. It's not enough to give me a chip.
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    No doubt, you deny the role of the British military in channeling violence within Britain upon an external "enemy". Moreover, your entire post is a non-sequitur as you clearly don't understand my point and the very clear English in which it was expressed. I'll go slowly: "inherently lack the culture of violence which the British possess." All that hot air, yet so little understanding of the nuances of basic English
    What gives you the right to infer what I think? Your post was clear; others interpreted your comments as I did. Before your comments on any poster’s English skills can be taken seriously you might like to note that your spelling could be improved – there are two ‘l’s in ‘channelling’.
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Again, given your quite distinctive prejudices (in an Irish context) to date.
    Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, etc, or other characteristics.
    "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."


  • Options
    #33
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    As for ethnicity, you are ignorant of my background.... What gives you the right to infer what I think?


    Actually, several times in this forum you have decided to introduce the topic of your ethnicity as a means to explain your, well, bigotry (to utilise your word of the day). Posts like this one. Therefore, by your own choice your background seems to be quite the decisive factor in your outlook on Irish history (and your myriad of life scapegoats, including a mere schoolteacher). In short, you let the mask slip. The rest of us can just get over it. It's only in your head and sense of victimhood that your ethnicity matters.

    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Your post was clear; others interpreted your comments as I did.

    It was. Your inability to understand it is also clear, and alas unsurprising. And, in fairness, implying that FrattonFred has the same inability to understand a comparative statement does not support your point; it merely accentuates what I'm up against. As I clarified to him: 'To say that the British had/have a more violent culture than the Irish does not say the Irish were devoid of having a culture of violence. Clearly, making a claim that the British are culturally more [hint, hint] violent than the Irish presupposes the existence of an Irish culture of violence.' It really shouldn't be this difficult to understand, but you consistently surpass yourself.


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Before your comments on any poster’s English skills can be taken seriously you might like to note that your spelling could be improved – there are two ‘l’s in ‘channelling’.

    Wrong, again. If you're going to be petty, at least have your facts clear. Here's a little dictionary, where the main entry is recorded under Channeling, and here's the Wikipedia entry under Channeling rather than channelling. Do you get your facts straight on anything before you write on this forum?


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, etc, or other characteristics.
    "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

    This is extremely relevant, I'm sure. Now, how about you support your contention that the Irish historically have a culture of violence as developed as the British culture of violence? That would be on topic, but it would also be a very silly thing to contend. Go on, resist yourself.


  • Options
    #34
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    goose2005 wrote: »
    Almost all of the RIC were Irishmen. Many of the soldiers were as well, and even some of the Black and Tans.

    Odd then that the British empire recruited so many Irish soldiers to wear the butchers apron

    In this romanticising of the British military machine in Ireland, you seem to be oblivious to why Catholics were allowed into the British Army in the first place - Protestant undertakers were unable to raise their quota of Protestant soldiers. It has nothing to do with some mythical "Catholics are better fighters". There is also no mention that until the latter half of the eighteenth century a ban on Catholics in the British Army was enforced, or indeed that the vast majority of the leadership of both the RIC and British Army were Protestants who were unionist in politics.

    In conclusion, it seems the Irish Catholics were great fighters as long as 1) there were not enough Protestants to give the jobs to, and 2) the Catholics with a handful of exceptions could not be represented at the highest levels level of either the RIC or the British Army in Ireland.


  • Options
    #35
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    TwoGallants wrote: »
    ... but it was a well recognised fact that for the majority of the history of the British Empire, particularly in the 19th century, Irishmen provided a vastly disproportional number of soldiers to the British army.

    Given that the "British Empire" existed in one guise of another since the late 15th century, and that for many years before the latter half of the 18th century Irish Catholics were banned from being in the British Army, I'd like to see this "well recognised fact" supported by references.


  • Options
    #36
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Noone reading this is interested in Comments of a personal nature or posters dealing out insults based on previous posts from months ago as contained on this page. They are off topic for a start. Any more of this will earn infractions.

    Moderator.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    In conclusion, it seems the Irish Catholics were great fighters as long as 1) there were not enough Protestants to give the jobs to, and 2) the Catholics with a handful of exceptions could not be represented at the highest levels level of either the RIC or the British Army in Ireland.

    Your sarcasm does not hide the fact that your initial claim was so open to ridicule. The old saying 'think before you wink' applies.

    Your initial claim:
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    The problem with the Irish is that they inherently lack the culture of violence which the British possess. And that is unfortunate for the Irish, and fortunate for British colonial claims over the Irish people and Ireland. It takes some, well, "outlook" to portray the Irish as initiating this "violence".


  • Options
    #38
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    TwoGallants wrote: »
    I also found his claim a little bizarre. For example:



    Not an ideal source I'd agree, but it was a well recognised fact that for the majority of the history of the British Empire, particularly in the 19th century, Irishmen provided a vastly disproportional number of soldiers to the British army. Irish people are no more or less violent than British people, we were just a small country that had the misfortune to be beside a larger one. Some people need to grow up.


    Not sure there is really much basis for the argument that the Irish were over represented in the British army at the time. Take the start of the 19 centuary, its said that Irish people made up about 1/3 of the British army, but remember that the population of Ireland was bigger and the population of England was much smaller. Indeed the population of Ireland and England were close enough to each other for quite a long time, its only in the last 150 years or so that they have diverged greatly.


  • Options
    #39
    TwoGallants
    Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭TwoGallants


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Given that the "British Empire" existed in one guise of another since the late 15th century, and that for many years before the latter half of the 18th century Irish Catholics were banned from being in the British Army, I'd like to see this "well recognised fact" supported by references.

    Hmm... You seem like you'd be willing to argue that black is in fact white and vice versa. Don't really see the point to be honest.


  • Options
    #40
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    The IRA army council is the only legit governing body in Ireland. The Dail gave up it's right when it voted for the Anglo-Irish treaty. So yes, it's illegal


  • Options
    #41
    TwoGallants
    Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭TwoGallants


    tdv123 wrote: »
    The IRA army council is the only legit governing body in Ireland. The Dail gave up it's right when it voted for the Anglo-Irish treaty. So yes, it's illegal

    Does the subsequent endorsement of the Treaty by the Irish people not count? This is one of the reasons why the likes of Conor Cruise O'Brien (accurately) labelled the IRA and its descendants as essentially fascist organisations.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    TwoGallants wrote: »
    Does the subsequent endorsement of the Treaty by the Irish people not count? This is one of the reasons why the likes of Conor Cruise O'Brien (accurately) labelled the IRA and its descendants as essentially fascist organisations.

    You really think the Irish people would have voted for the treaty unless there was a warning of "immediate & terrible war"? They seen what the British Army were capable of they just didn't want to end up like Belgium did at the hands of Germany. If there was no possibility of violence do you think the outcome would the same?

    The treaty was not the will of the Irish people it was the fear of the Irish people. Do you think they really wanted to split the country into two pieces? And there was no difference between the Free State & the old British regime. The Free State/Banana Republic has not kept any of the promises of the first Dail. Democratic Program for instance was throwing out the window when the Free State moved in.

    The treaty was just more bully boy tactics from the British government.


  • Options
    #43
    TwoGallants
    Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭TwoGallants


    Its nice to see Ken Loache's version of the Irish Revolution rehashtagged here on boards, but I think you'll find there is a little more to it than that. Regardless of whether there was a threat of violence, the Irish people clearly and unambiguously stated their disagreement with the armed campaign. Not just during the Civil War, but in every single armed campaign thereafter. No amount of sophistry will contradict that inherent logic.


  • Options
    #44
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    TwoGallants wrote: »
    Its nice to see Ken Loache's version of the Irish Revolution rehashtagged here on boards, but I think you'll find there is a little more to it than that. Regardless of whether there was a threat of violence, the Irish people clearly and unambiguously stated their disagreement with the armed campaign. Not just during the Civil War, but in every single armed campaign thereafter. No amount of sophistry will contradict that inherent logic.

    The first Dail was formed without a single shot. The Volunteers only acted when the RIC or the rest of the gang refused to leave their posts.

    I don't think the Irish people are any different in the regard that no population of any nation wants "armed campaign". Unfortunately violence shapes our planet & some people have to do the dirty work, otherwise no country would need a army. And once the 32 county Republic the Irish people voted for then the IRA will cease to be.

    TAL


  • Options
    #45
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    tdv123 wrote: »
    The first Dail was formed without a single shot. The Volunteers only acted when the RIC or the rest of the gang refused to leave their posts.

    The south tipp IRA attacked an RIC patrole with the specific intent of kiling several RIC men on the same day that the first dáil first met.


  • Options
    #46
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    An Coilean wrote: »
    The south tipp IRA attacked an RIC patrole with the specific intent of kiling several RIC men on the same day that the first dáil first met.

    The attack sanctioned by the Dail or any IRA higher ups for that matter. It wasn't until later that the Volunteers were recognized as the national army of the Republic & the "English garrison" as they put it refused to leave.

    Most Dail TD's opposed violence until it became absolutely necessary. Even when they were deep int the war they were not comfortable with violence. That nutjob Collins was probably the most blood thirsty TD Ireland's ever had
    TAl


  • Options
    #47
    TwoGallants
    Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭TwoGallants


    tdv123 wrote: »
    The first Dail was formed without a single shot. The Volunteers only acted when the RIC or the rest of the gang refused to leave their posts.
    TAL


    That is simply historically inaccurate.


  • Options
    #48
    TwoGallants
    Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭TwoGallants


    tdv123 wrote: »
    The attack sanctioned by the Dail or any IRA higher ups for that matter. It wasn't until later that the Volunteers were recognized as the national army of the Republic & "Egnlish garrison" as they put it refused to leave.


    The Soloheadbeg attack was an entirely local affair. The idea that the Dail had any meaningful control of the IRA is a complete myth. There was a small military council in charge, and even then they only had partial control of the local units out in the regions. There was no nation up in arms, in most parts of the country there was barely a war happening at all.


  • Options
    #49
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    TwoGallants wrote: »
    That is simply historically inaccurate.

    What part is incorrect? It's true there wasn't huge support for what the IRA were doing but they were certainly favored over the paramilitaries sent over from Britain.


  • Options
    #50
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    TwoGallants wrote: »
    The Soloheadbeg attack was an entirely local affair. The idea that the Dail had any meaningful control of the IRA is a complete myth. There was a small military council in charge, and even then they only had partial control of the local units out in the regions. There was no nation up in arms, in most parts of the country there was barely a war happening at all.

    That was a typo I meant to say the "attack wasn't" sanctioned by the Dail or the IRA, just Volunteers acting independently.

    Most of that's true but the Volunteers were recognized as the national army of the Republic however loose the Dails control over them was.

    Was it not Dev who came up with the idea to attack the Customs House?


  • Options
    #51
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    tdv123 wrote: »
    That was a typo I meant to say the "attack wasn't" sanctioned by the Dail or the IRA, just Volunteers acting independently.

    Most of that's true but the Volunteers were recognized as the national army of the Republic however loose the Dails control over them was.

    Was it not Dev who came up with the idea to attack the Customs House?

    So the Dáil was set up without a shot being fired, except for the shots that were actually fired.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    An Coilean wrote: »
    So the Dáil was set up without a shot being fired, except for the shots that were actually fired.

    The shots had nothing to do with establishing the Dail.

    That's like blaming someone for sinking the Titanic for shooting a man in Cork the same day.

    Both events probably would have happened regardless of each other


  • Options
    #53
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    I think George Galloway put it better than anybody else when he said:
    "the only certificate of authenticity required was the one issued by the Irish people for the Irish freedom struggle, they don't require the certificate from the anyone else"

    That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the legality of the Dail.

    If the Scottish people voted for independence (which I don't believe is in their best interest) that would be & have to be respected but it wasn't respected here & in that lies the problem & is why you have organizations like the IRA.


  • Options
    #54
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    tdv123 wrote: »
    The shots had nothing to do with establishing the Dail.

    That's like blaming someone for sinking the Titanic for shooting a man in Cork the same day.

    Both events probably would have happened regardless of each other


    The establishment of the Dáil was not an event that happened in a single day, it was a process that took many months, and included the development of the republican justice system and the county councils withdrawing from the British system and seeking affiliation with the Dáil.

    This process could not have happened without the actions of the IRA which actively disrupted the British system and provided protection for Dáil activities where possible.
    Without the IRA, the Dáil would very quickly have been surpressed.


  • Options
    #55
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    An Coilean wrote: »
    The establishment of the Dáil was not an event that happened in a single day, it was a process that took many months, and included the development of the republican justice system and the county councils withdrawing from the British system and seeking affiliation with the Dáil.

    This process could not have happened without the actions of the IRA which actively disrupted the British system and provided protection for Dáil activities where possible.
    Without the IRA, the Dáil would very quickly have been surpressed.

    They had a role in the development & progress made by the Dail sure but it wasn't the IRA who decided to set up a separate parliament in Dublin. The SF manifesto was clear & in no way ambiguous. The IRA's main allegiance was with the Volunteer Executive, it wasn't until the Dail had been firmly established as real power on the islands that both TD's & Volunteers were made take the same oath.

    The people voting in the election knew well that the people they were voting for had taken part in a violent uprising & quit clearly knew violence was a possibility. So the notion that people were voting in the dark just does not hold up.


  • Options
    #56
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    tdv123 wrote: »
    The IRA army council is the only legit governing body in Ireland. The Dail gave up it's right when it voted for the Anglo-Irish treaty. So yes, it's illegal

    How can it be legitimate when not one person has ever voted for it?


  • Options
    #57
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    tdv123 wrote: »
    I think George Galloway put it better than anybody else when he said:
    "the only certificate of authenticity required was the one issued by the Irish people for the Irish freedom struggle, they don't require the certificate from the anyone else"

    That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the legality of the Dail.

    If the Scottish people voted for independence (which I don't believe is in their best interest) that would be & have to be respected but it wasn't respected here & in that lies the problem & is why you have organizations like the IRA.


    George Galloway, stop you're killing me.


  • Options
    #58
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    Ipso wrote: »
    George Galloway, stop you're killing me.

    Ah one-liners, the foundation of any good debate.

    Will I'd rather be considered a lefty than the embarrassing state of the right at the moment.

    Do you not agree with his statement that Irish people had the right to determine their own future without outside interference? Or do you think London should always be allowed to control what happens in Ireland?

    Tell what part you don't specifically agree with?

    I'm very bemused at the anti-Republican sentiment on this site. It was Republicans who did more than anyone other group of people who founded this state & Republicans who more than any other group who are trying to bring about reunification, I know some people on here think a UI is a bad thing but I think after the dust settles we'll be stronger with the North.


  • Options
    #59
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    tdv123 wrote: »
    Ah one-liners, the foundation of any good debate.

    Will I'd rather be considered a lefty than the embarrassing state of the right at the moment.

    Do you not agree with his statement that Irish people had the right to determine their own future without outside interference? Or do you think London should always be allowed to control what happens in Ireland?

    Tell what part you don't specifically agree with?

    Well the left is in a great state isn't it?
    I couldn't care less about your debate. The Irish can't look after themselves, the last 15 years proved that. Keep it up, it's pure and utter small man syndrome.


  • Options
    #60
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    Ipso wrote: »
    Well the left is in a great state isn't it?
    I couldn't care less about your debate. The Irish can't look after themselves, the last 15 years proved that. Keep it up, it's pure and utter small man syndrome.

    So in other word your just trolling, great.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    tdv123 wrote: »
    The IRA army council is the only legit governing body in Ireland. The Dail gave up it's right when it voted for the Anglo-Irish treaty. So yes, it's illegal

    Let me get this straight: When an assembly, representative of the people, by a majority vote endorses a treaty that somebody doesn't like, it ceases to be representative of the people, and the army that serves that assembly becomes the legislature? Are you talking about Greece 1967, Argentina 1976, Spain 1936, Egypt 2013 or Ireland?


Advertisement