A Bill entitled “For the Better Government of Ireland” was introduced to Westminster parliament by the British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, in December 1919. The Bill proposed the partitioning of Ireland into 2 states. Each jurisdiction would have a parliament –one based in Belfast for the six counties in the northeast and the other in Dublin for the other 26 counties.
The Bill “For the Better Government of Ireland’ provided for a Council of Ireland and allowed for reunion under a single parliament if and when both parliaments agreed. Sinn Fein was totally opposed to the Bill and the whole idea of partition. They had already declared a Republic in 1918 on the basis of their landslide victory in the 1918 Election. Nationalists in Belfast, led by Joe Devlin, were also opposed. The Unionist party, led by Dublin lawyer, Edward Carson, were not enthusiastic about Lloyd George’s Bill but accepted it since the alternative was Home Rule for the whole island as envisaged in Asquith’s 1912 Home Rule Bill. The British were determined that this was how they were going to resolve the Irish question. They were going to keep their unionist friends happy whatever about the rest of the population.
Lloyd George’s Bill for the ‘Better Government of Ireland’ was against everything that the men and women of 1916 and afterwards fought and died to achieve. It was completely undemocratic. It meant the creation of an Orange statelet in the northeast of Ireland, the denial of the Irish nation and the denial of the right of the Irish people to national self determination. It was what James Connolly feared and warned against. He predicted that if it happened there would be ‘a carnival of reaction.’ The democratic wishes of the Irish people were ignored by the British who were determined to maintain control of the most industrialised corner of Ireland at all costs.
The Bill was opposed by the leader of the Irish Catholic Church, Cardinal Logue, who said that the Bill “was engineered solely in the interests of the Ascendancy party to give them sway over the people. The Nationalist people in the north-eastern corner would fare very badly under the Carsonite regime. We shall be made to suffer all the torment of a reactionary clique of Orangemen who would give Catholics no show.”
By the end of August 1920, 4000 Catholic families had been burned out of their homes in Belfast, 200 families had been burned out in Lisburn. A most sinister development occurred on 2nd September 1920 when the Shipyard workers proposed that a local constabulary should be formed. On 14th October 1920, they received the backing of Sir James Craig then a minister in the British government and later to become the first Prime Minister of the Unionist government in Stormont. The Specials were formed on 1st November 1920. Most of ‘the Specials’ came from the UVF and all were Protestants. They became the armed wing of the Unionist party.
The Government of Ireland Bill passed into law in December 1920. The Protestant/Unionist Ascendancy, defeated in the south, was now in charge in the 6 counties. The War of Independence (The Tan War) continued, with casualties on both sides, until the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed in December 1921. Earlier on 25 October, that year, Terence MacSwiney, the Mayor who succeeded Tomás Mac Curtain died on hunger strike in Brixton jail where he was being held on spurious charges. This became international news but it did not bring enough pressure on the British government to take themselves out ofIreland and grant self-determination. Partition was already in place and was going to remain under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty signed in December 1920. This Treaty, especially with the requirement to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, provoked a bitter civil war between those for and those against. That destructive war claimed the life of Michael Collins on 22 August 1922 and it claimed the lives of many others. It continued until the leader of the anti-Treatyites, Liam Lynch, was killed when ambushed by Free State soldiers in the Knockmealdown Mountains on 10 April 1923. Ten days later, a meeting of the leading anti-Treaty people took place and Frank Aiken was appointed Chief of Staff. From this meeting and other meetings soon afterwards with De Valera it was decided to suspend all operations against the Free State forces from 30th April 1923. The ceasefire and the ‘dump arms’ order came on 24 May 1923.
In 1920 it is estimated that 75 people were killed and thousands injured in Belfast and surrounding towns. Given the hostilities at the time, the imposing of partition by the British was bound to create further conflict. The author of an article in the 1971 Capuchin Annual, Ambrose McCauley, reflecting on the situation in Belfast in 1971 in light of what had taken place 50 years earlier, concluded that not much had changed.
Reflecting again in 2017, almost 100 years later, it is difficult to see that very much has changed since then. The one party Unionist control has gone. The B-men have gone away. Sectarianism is still alive and well in this corner of Ireland. Integrated education is not going to solve the problem in spite of what our two famous actors – Neeson and Dunbar -claim. The democratic wishes of the Irish people are still being ignored. There is still no parity of esteem. Deals made are broken or ignored by unionists. The situation for the Irish people will be exacerbated by Brexit. What is needed, most of all at this time is courageous unionist leadership. How long have we to wait for that to happen?
From memory, think you’ll find that whilst Sinn Fein may have won 73 out of 105 seats, a lot of those seats were uncontested, De Valera and Collins stood in multiple constituencies, and crucially Sinn Fein only had 48% of the vote.
How “democratic was it therefore to declare a Republic?
”a lot of those seats were uncontested”. You have an interesting take on democracy HC. Are you suggesting that Sinn Fein should have gone around to the uncontested constituencies and, for want of a better phrase, ‘twisted peoples’ arms’ to ensure there was a contest? Could it be possible that Sinn Fein’s support was so strong in these areas that the opposition just could not be bothered to put someone up?
No James.
I’m pointing out that there are huge differences between a FPTP Westminster election versus a Referendum on a specific issue.
To seize the results of one (the 1918 Westminster election) and try to project ir as an endorsement of the other (ie. The Republic) is historical revisionism on Father Joes part.
Or as it’s known more colloquially, balls.
Having read the 1918 manifesto that Sinn Féin put out, there wasn’t much more to Sinn Féin that endorsing a party who rejected British rule in Ireland, sought to establish an Irish Republic and create a constituent assembly voted for by the Irish people. They became so popular throughout 1916-18 because the old IPP had failed because what they offered for 40, and what they offered again in 1918, was a continuation of broken promises towards Ireland. In seeking to legitimise Westminster’s rule in Ireland, a vote for the IPP equated to an endorsement of partitionism, given it was accepted by Redmond as early as 1914. A vote for Sinn Féin in 1918 was most definitely an endorsement of an Irish Republic, one voted for by the people that other parties didn’t see fit to run against.
@ Tarlach
Where did the electoral phrase “Vote him In, to get him Out” come from?
And how many Sinn Fein candidates were in jail at the time of the 1918.Westminster election?
@huge Celt
In jail or not, Irish republican candidates received an overwhelming endorsement at the ballot box. Evidence that this was bryond a mere protest vote was the remarkable efficiency of the state machinery of the Irish Republic compared to other revolutionary states.
@ Tarlach.
Would that “remarkable efficiency” be anything to do with the fact that they took the British system, stuck a green flag up, and simply called it something different.
That might explain why the 26 Counties used British sterling until 1927.
And why we still in 2017 have Sheriffs to enforce debts and local bylaws.
And it perhaps explains why Cork and Dublin still have Lord Mayors.
Lord Mayors in a Republic?!?!?
Catch yourselves on.
@HC
Of course the Republic isn’t perfect which is why any argument in favour of unification is alongside an argument in favour of a new Constitution and reforming the structure of Irish society. And I have acknowledged, in person, that we inherited a systrm of governance minus a monarch from Britain. While that is the case, the fundamental argument against partition is that Britain has historically proved itself to be unable to rule over all the people of Ireland, or the north now, equally. Even now, there is huge apathy in the British government and moreso amongst the British public to affairs here.
@ Tarlach.
I suspect that neither of us is a Constitutional lawyer, so I tend to glaze over when people like Mary Lou divert a conversation about a document that would need years of preparation by people that are experts in these lofty matters.
I would be more interested in judging “the Republic” by its near-100 years of existence. And there really is very little to be proud of.
Id judge it by one distilled statistic which I find appalling – Homelessness is worse in 2016 than in 1916.
Whatfor died the Sons of Roisin.
HC ,You can be a pedant and try to change history but facts speak for themselves
Sinn Fein 476,087 46.9%
Unionists 257,314 25.3%
Nationalists 220,837 21.7%
“Labour Unionists” 30,304 3.0%
Labour 12,164 1.2%
Ind Un 9,531 0.9%
Ind Nats 8,183 0.8%
Ind Lab 659 0.1%
Ind 436 0.0%
It seems pretty certain that Sinn Féin would have had a majority of the votes if all the seats had been contested. In the contested seats where they won, the total valid vote was 617,262 of an electorate of 907,903 (68.0%); and SF got 414,394 votes out of 619,649 (66.9%). The 25 uncontested constituencies had a total electorate of 474,778; if we assume an identical average turnout and SF vote share, that gives 322,790 extra votes cast, 216,703 for SF and 106,087 for others. This gives SF at least 692,790 votes of a notional Ireland-wide total of 1,306,465, or at least 53.0%. The 66.9% vote share for SF in constituencies they would have won is a very conservative estimate; in nine of the contested constituencies they got over 80% of the vote and their likely vote share in the uncontested seats must be nearer that end of the scale. For their total vote share to be less than 50% (assuming the 68.0% turnout) their vote share in the 25 uncontested seats would have had to be an unrealistically low 54.7%.
It’s not pedantry to point out that Sinn Fein had less that half the vote, and so declaring a Republic was, in itself, not Democratic.
It’s comparable with the SNP declaring an Independent Scotland because they had 56 out of 59 constituencies un a FPTP Westminster election.
The democratic thing to do would have been to demand an all-Ireland referendum to let the people decide.
Perhaps then it would have settled the issue without bloodshed.
*Ps. Thanks for pointing out it was 46.9%,
I had it higher at 48%.
All the other extrapolations are largely irrelevant.
If my Aunt had balls, she would be my Uncle.
It was less than half.
Of course in the unionist part of Ireland SF was heavily defeated and there was a clear mandate for the exclusion of that part, however defined, from an independent Irish state.
It would have been undemocratic to force that part of Ireland into such a state against their democratic will.
Like the forcing out of the population of the six counties from the E U? The majority voted to stay but then it was a UK wide vote like the 1918 election was an Ireland wide vote?
Roscommon was the only county to vote against Marriage Equality.
Are they entitled to declare UDI on the issue.
No, they are part of a larger, settled, sovereign Nation-state.
Similarly, the 6 Counties is part of a larger, settled*, sovereign Nation-state.
The UK joined the EEC as a sovereign Nation-state
It shall leave the EU on the sane basis.
To plead for anything different is ridiculous.
*Sinn Fein accepted the sovereignty of the 6 Counties when they signed the Good Friday Agreement.
That’s what “principle of consent” means.
That’s what you voted for.
You cant come back 20 years later and claim.you don’t like that clause, or you want it to mean something else.
It is perfectly clear.
No, not like that. That was a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. NI doesn’t have its own membership.
The 1918 election was a UK-wide vote.
Actually 1918 General Election was also a U.K. wide vote, it was a UK General Election.
?forcing out? = a democratic note.
That’s the Democracy you signed up for.
Deal with it.
And of course Tam ,the “unionist part of Ireland” was the part that was illegally and brutally planted with a mercenary British population , usurping the rights and lands of the native indigenous population…..thus giving them an inbuilt majority…..hardly rocket science and nothing to boast about!….Remember the old adage ” The cock who crows loudest is usually the first for the pot “
The Plantation wasn’t illegal. Antrim and Down weren’t part of the Plantation. Most Protestants who moved to Ulster weren’t part of the Plantation. And most natives weren’t moved off their land. Apart from that you’ve got it spot on.
Now, care to get back on topic and address the points?
That Tam , is the biggest load of unadulterated gibberish…..and to have emanated from an adult, it’s mind-boggling ….we know Unionism and democracy are polar opposites but where’s your reasoning for this illogical balderdash. Using your logic , any nationalist area could secede from Britain at any time …..you’d be left with isolated pockets of bigotry in counties Antrim and Down …..and taking your reasoning to infinity , I as a single person could secede also at any time….oh , sorry I’ve already done that !
Are you capable of mature discussion that doesn’t involve insulting people?
‘My’ logic is no different to the logic of nationalists. If nationalists were entitled to secede from the UK, why should unionists not be entitled to secede from an all-Ireland state?
It’s the same principle.
Because Ireland at that juncture in time was one political unit…. Sinn Féin won a convincing outright victory but as usual neither Britain nor
its Unionist toadies would play by the rules. All the resulting strife, civil war, murder and mayhem rests firmly on the shoulders of both Britain and the combined Unionist family…. no ifs or buts
Why does it matter that it was one ‘political unit? If the British Isles was one political unit (which it was for many purposes, including elections), would you argue that it could never be divided and thus Ireland could never be independent?
Can new political units never be created?
At what point in time do you draw the line where you don’t allow any new political units?
Eolach? Hello? Were those questions too difficult for you?
The ” British Isles “as you succinctly put it was hardly a legal construct . Ireland never ever wanted any union with England . A casual glance at history will tell you that England was and is a ruthless murder machine and her relationship with Ireland is one of conquest ,genocide ,slavery , enforced famine etc etc. The Act of Union between ” Great Britain ” and Ireland 1800-1801 was hardly an amalgamation of equals………” The Irish Parliament ” at that time was constituted of absentee English Landords…..the mere Irish not being allowed a vote or even the slightest say in their menial lives …so the said act was just a consolidation of English Imperial ambitions.
A little bit of advice Tam , unless you’re very competent and confident don’t argue with a history degree!
All very interesting but would you mind assessing the questions?
Why does it matter that it was one ‘political unit?
Can new political units never be created?
At what point in time do you draw the line where you don’t allow any new political units?
(And the British Isles formed the UK, which was a ‘legal construct’.)
I think we can definitely conclude that the questions were too difficult for you.
@ Eolach.
You’re desperately trying to morph one thing into another thing.
It was a Westminster FPTP election – the notion of the mythical Republic was not the only issue. Some people were voting for the release of prisoners, and some wanted to strengthen Sinn Feins hand in any future negotiated settlement.
What you are doing is like claiming that the people that voted for Bobby Sands were actually voting for Sinn Fein – they weren’t. Sinn Fein have never been able to replicate his 30,000+ votes since.
If Sinn Fein had wanted a clear mandate for The Republic, then the logical step would be to have a referendum.
They didn’t.
And they’ve been claiming those apples were in fact oranges ever since.
And oh how it irks you!
It doesn’t irk me at all – I’m.just pointing out holes in the Sinn Fein narrative.
Have you HC ,invented “time travel”… you seem to know a lot of what people’s thoughts were and the reasons they voted . Have you read Sinn Féin’s election manifesto for 1918…..I presume not , otherwise you would realise it is precisely what you advocate…a referendum
“‘GENERAL ELECTION — MANIFESTO TO THE IRISH PEOPLE”
THE coming General Election is fraught with vital possibilities for the future of our nation. Ireland is faced with the question whether this generation wills it that she is to march out into the full sunlight of freedom, or is to remain in the shadow of a base imperialism that has brought and ever will bring in its train naught but evil for our race.
Sinn Féin gives Ireland the opportunity of vindicating her honour and pursuing with renewed confidence the path of national salvation by rallying to the flag of the Irish Republic.
Sinn Féin aims at securing the establishment of that Republic.
1. By withdrawing the Irish Representation from the British Parliament and by denying the right and opposing the will of the British Government or any other foreign Government to legislate for Ireland.
2. By making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise.
3. By the establishment of a constituent assembly comprising persons chosen by Irish constituencies as the supreme national authority to speak and act in the name of the Irish people, and to develop Ireland’s social, political and industrial life, for the welfare of the whole people of Ireland.
4. By appealing to the Peace Conference for the establishment of Ireland as an Independent Nation. At that conference the future of the Nations of the world will be settled on the principle of government by consent of the governed. Ireland’s claim to the application of that principle in her favour is not based on any accidental situation arising from the war. It is older than many if not all of the present belligerents. It is based on our unbroken tradition of nationhood, on a unity in a national name which has never been challenged, on our possession of a distinctive national culture and social order, on the moral courage and dignity of our people in the face of alien aggression, on the fact that in nearly every generation, and five times within the past 120 years our people have challenged in arms the right of England to rule this country. On these incontrovertible facts is based the claim that our people have beyond question established the right to be accorded all the power of a free nation.
Sinn Féin stands less for a political party than for the Nation; it represents the old tradition of nationhood handed on from dead generations; it stands by the Proclamation of the Provisional Government of Easter, 1916, reasserting the inalienable right of the Irish Nation to sovereign independence, reaffirming the determination of the Irish people to achieve it, and guaranteeing within the independent Nation equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens.
Believing that the time has arrived when Ireland’s voice for the principle of untrammelled National self-determination should be heard above every interest of party or class, Sinn Féin will oppose at the Polls every individual candidate who does not accept this principle.
The policy of our opponents stands condemned on any test, whether of principle or expediency. The right of a nation to sovereign independence rests upon immutable natural law and cannot be made the subject of a compromise. Any attempt to barter away the sacred and inviolate rights of nationhood begins in dishonour and is bound to end in disaster. The enforced exodus of millions of our people, the decay of our industrial life, the ever-increasing financial plunder of our country, the whittling down of the demand for the ‘Repeal of the Union,’ voiced by the first Irish Leader to plead in the Hall of the Conqueror to that of Home Rule on the Statute Book, and finally the contemplated mutilation of our country by partition, are some of the ghastly results of a policy that leads to national ruin.
Those who have endeavoured to harness the people of Ireland to England’s war-chariot, ignoring the fact that only a freely-elected Government in a free Ireland has power to decide for Ireland the question of peace and war, have forfeited the right to speak for the Irish people. The green flag turned red in the hands of the Leaders, but that shame is not to be laid at the doors of the Irish people unless they continue a policy of sending their representatives to an alien and hostile assembly, whose powerful influence has been sufficient to destroy the integrity and sap the independence of their representatives. Ireland must repudiate the men who, in a supreme crisis for the nation, attempted to sell her birthright for the vague promises of English Ministers, and who showed their incompetence by failing to have even these promises fulfilled.
The present Irish members of the English Parliament constitute an obstacle to be removed from the path that leads to the Peace Conference. By declaring their will to accept the status of a province instead of boldly taking their stand upon the right of the nation they supply England with the only subterfuge at her disposal for obscuring the issue in the eyes of the world. By their persistent endeavours to induce the young manhood of Ireland to don the uniform of our seven-century old oppressor, and place their lives at the disposal of the military machine that holds our Nation in bondage, they endeavour to barter away and even to use against itself the one great asset still left to our Nation after the havoc of the centuries.
Sinn Féin goes to the polls handicapped by all the arts and contrivances that a powerful and unscrupulous enemy can use against us. Conscious of the power of Sinn Féin to secure the freedom of Ireland the British Government would destroy it. Sinn Féin, however, goes to the polls confident that the people of this ancient nation will be true to the old cause and will vote for the men who stand by the principles of Tone, Emmet, Mitchel, Pearse and Connolly, the men who disdain to whine to the enemy for favours, the men who hold that Ireland must be as free as England or Holland, Switzerland or France, and whose demand is that the only status befitting this ancient realm is the status of a free nation.
ISSUED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF SINN FÉIN’
Jeez!!!
You should show that to the present leadership of Sinn Fein.
Look at how far they have sold ou everything.
Thanks for highlighting it
Now, back to the discussion….
1/ Since when did 46.9% in a FPTP election – a truly magnificent result, by the way – become a majority?
2/ Where/when did the election phrase “Vote him In, to get him Out” come from?
I see reading , absorbing written facts and then assimilating them are not your strongest points !
46.9% represents SF’s vote in the CONTESTED seats
Taking an average turnout and an average SF vote in the contested seats and applying that average to the uncontested seats gives SF vote at 53%
However in some of the contested seats SF’s vote was 80% + and since the uncontested seats were strongly SF the true Sf vote was minimally around 66.9%
” Vote him in, to get him out ” was the election slogan of Joseph P. McGuinness (10 April 1875 – 31 May 1922) a Sinn Féin winning candidate in the 1918 election . He was serving a prison sentence in HM Prison Lewes, Sussex at the time.
@ Eolach.
You’re not quite getting it.
Your assertion falls at the first hurdle.
A First Past The Post election is NOT a
referendum.
The best comparison that I can give you is the one I’ve already given.you.
The SNP won 56 out of 59 Westminster seats in 2015.
But YES to Independence only won 45% in a referendum.
Did the SNP rush to defend Hadrian’s Wall in arms whilst declaring Independence because of their crushing Westminster victory?
No.
Why not?
Because they had the smarts to realise that a dog can’t be a horse no matter how big it is.
I do hope that comparison helps.
If not, I can do very little else fir you.
People who accept the legitimacy of the interference of the British state in this country and vote for it to continue indefinitely are unionist. It doesn’t matter what their reasons are, what their religion is or what their politics is. They are unionist. Some may be amenable to persuasion. Well and good. Some may not.
Sinn Fein accept the legitimacy of the British state in Ireland, until some impossible conundrum is solved in the future.
Are they Unionist with a large U, or a small u?
You are creepily obsessed with Sinn Féin. Who mentioned SF? Were you blocked from the ‘RÁ or something?
Emmm.
Father Joes article is about Sinn Fein, no?
My post @5.06 wasn’t.
fiosrach
Everyone who supported the GFA accepted the legitimacy of British rule for the time being, ie indefinitely as stated:
” It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains
part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the
consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland”
So yes that includes Sinn Fein.
@ Gio.
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Im which case, its fair to surmise that Sinn Fein are indeed unionist.
How far they have travelled….
Gio and hc, just a wee bit of respect required lads. Perhaps what you display shows what difficulties Nationalism has been up against since the statelet was gerrymandered into existence. Disappointing.
Freddie
It is not intended on my part (and I am sure this goes for hc too) as disrespect, but when fiosrach makes a statement like he did, namely;
“People who accept the legitimacy of the interference of the British state in this country and vote for it to continue indefinitely are unionist”
then I think it is fair enough to point out the logical conclusion of that.
So maybe you should question fiosrach on what he means by his blanket statement.
Well gio or huge. You give me your definition of unionist. By the way a majority of unionists voted against the GFA.
No they didn’t.
Yes they did. A high majority of nationalists and a low minority of unionists voted yes and this was enough to win the day. But the majority of unionists voted against the GFA and by the above argument from gio, they are not unionists.
How do you know? Or are you making it up?
If a “Re-United Ireland is inevitable”, why do nationalists bother about campaigning for it?
The UDR was not “defeated”. It was merged into the Royal Irish Regiment.
The RUC wasn’t “defeated”. It was renamed as the PSNI.
The PIRA on the other hand, gave up its weapons and disbanded without achieving its stated aim, which most people would probably characterise as defeat.
The GFA doesn’t enshrine in law any theoretical definiton of an “Irish Nation” but rather restated the existing position that republicans previously refused to accept, ie the principle of consent for NI.
Of course people born in Tyrone are as Irish as people born in Clare, not under “the Irish Constitution and under International law”, but by the simple fact that NI is no less a part of Ireland than the Republic.
It is nonsensical to say that unionists were “sold down the river at the GFA without a veto – nor, incredibly, without even so much as a provision for re-Partition”, given that they never had a veto to begin with nor any provision for “repartition”. The GFA did not change NI’s constitutional position therefore it could not have “undermined the very reason for the creation of the Northern statelet in the first case”,
fiosrach
It was you who said those who “accept the legitimacy of the interference of the British state in this country and vote for it to continue indefinitely are unionist”
That includes Sinn Fein.
People who did not vote for the GFA are broadly speaking unknowns in that we cannot assume their position. You must know this.
The simplest thing would be to accept that you made a generalisation which you cannot back up.
Many people accept the legitimacy of the place kmown as Northern Ireland but would vote for a United Ireland given the chance.
You should not view opinions in such a black and white fashion.
@ Freddie.
I cant see any “disrespect” in applying Fiosrachs definition of Unionism to Sinn Fein, and concluding by his criteria that yes they are in fact unionist.
Irony, yes.
Disrespect, no.
@huge Celt
Are you RDE?
Does RDE defend the Proclamation and advocate for the Left in Ireland?
I don’t think that SF accept the legitimacy of the British state interfering in the six counties. They and I both accept that there will be no movement until the tribal numbers stack up. Unlike the SWP who are more noise than speed, SF are content to wait for 50+ and in the meantime will try to keep the pressure on the unionists for fair play. May I ask,huge,if you consider yourself to be a unionist by my definition?
Gerry Adams wants a Border Poll “in 5 years”.
Will the tribal numbers add up then?
A Re-United Ireland is inevitable – and there is absolutely nothing but nothing that the ” huge celts ” can do to prevent it.
The UDR has been disgraced, discredited, defeated, disbanded and dumped in the dustbin of history.
The RUC has been disgraced, discredited, defeated, disbanded and dumped in the dustbin of history.
The Orange statelet has been totally and utterly destroyed.
Unionisms best option is to agree to forced power-sharing with the very people who destroyed their Orange statelet.
Such is the impotence of present-day Unionism that they cannot even get a flag up a pole on Belfast City Hall on their own terms.
The Irish Nation encompasses all of the territory of Ireland – including its islands and seas – as enshrined in the Irish Constitution and acknowledged in International law by the GFA so that the Irish Nation and the territory of Ireland – including its islands and seas – are inextricably bonded.
People born in Tyrone are as Irish as people born in Clare under the Irish Constitution and under International law.
Tom King’s idle gloating in 1987 that Partition was irreversible – and permanent – went up in the smoke of The Baltic Exchange and Canary Wharf as the movers and shakers in the City directed their mandarins in Westminster to sell the Unionists down the river at the GFA without a veto – nor, incredibly, without even so much as a provision for re-Partition, thus undermining the very reason for the creation of the Northern statelet in the first case.
Only utterly deluded useful idiots like “huge celt” or fellow-travellers on the British Right and Far Right would claim that the North is as British as Finchley.
Game’s up – a Re-United Ireland is inevitable.
If a “Re-United Ireland is inevitable”, why do nationalists bother about campaigning for it?
The UDR was not “defeated”. It was merged into the Royal Irish Regiment.
The RUC wasn’t “defeated”. It was renamed as the PSNI.
The PIRA on the other hand, gave up its weapons and disbanded without achieving its stated aim, which most people would probably characterise as defeat.
The GFA doesn’t enshrine in law any theoretical definiton of an “Irish Nation” but rather restated the existing position that republicans previously refused to accept, ie the principle of consent for NI.
Of course people born in Tyrone are as Irish as people born in Clare, not under “the Irish Constitution and under International law”, but by the simple fact that NI is no less a part of Ireland than the Republic.
It is nonsensical to say that unionists were “sold down the river at the GFA without a veto – nor, incredibly, without even so much as a provision for re-Partition”, given that they never had a veto to begin with nor any provision for “repartition”. The GFA did not change NI’s constitutional position therefore it could not have “undermined the very reason for the creation of the Northern statelet in the first case”.
UDR – defeated, discredited, disbanded, defunct and dumped in the dustbin of history.
RUC – defeated, discredited, disbanded, defunct and dumped in the dustbin of history.
theoretical definiton of an “Irish Nation” – Tam
Nothing theoretical at all, mo chara.
Article 2 of the Irish Constitution :
“It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation”.
The Irish Nation encompasses all of Ireland – all 32 counties – and its islands and seas.
No Unionist veto – no provision for re-partition.
A Re-United Ireland is inevitable.
It’s fantasy on the basis that Sinn Fein are proposing it.
Why are you repeating yourself? I already pointed out that neither the UDR nor the RUC were “defeated” or disbanded.
And yes the definiton of an “Irish Nation” in the constitution is theoretical. Nations are theoretical concepts. Only states have legal form. And this definiton is not “enshrined” in the GFA.
And we know there is no Unionist veto and no provision for re-partition. There never was, so the GFA has no relevance to these theoretical concepts.
And you didn’t answer: If a “Re-United Ireland is inevitable”, Why do nationalists bother campaigning for one? Too difficult a question?
Do you think,tam, that an Irish language act is inevitable?or same sex marriage? If so, what is the point of campaigning?
Neither is inevitable. Hence the need for advocates to campaign.
A Re-United Ireland is inevitable.
Campaigning for it merely brings it forward – it’s all good.
Unionists have nothing to fear in the inevitable Re-United Ireland – your British identity is already assured in the GFA.
Nationalists have nothing to fear in the United Kingdom – your Irish identity is already assured in the GFA.
When we look beyond the realms of nationality, with British and Irish identities being protected with the north remaining in the UK or re-unifying with the Republic, then we must look beyond basic nationalist thinking over where our government lies. And when we consider that, the Unionist argument loses on every single count. I can’t think of one area where the status quo is better than a united Ireland.
Health would be an obvious example.
Roads.
Police Corruption.
Taxation.
Oligarchy.
Media.
Separation between Church and State.
There’s better roads in the south than the north.
Taxation is not all that different… low earners are better off in the south than the north and after a certain point it is more beneficial to be in the north.
Oligarchy – worse up the north.
Media – as bad as each other.
Separation between church and state – tell me again what time the shops open up north on a Sunday?
Now talk about higher benefits, higher human development index, better education, lower car insurance, lower fuel prices, fastest growing economy in Europe.
You’re a unionists wet dream huge celt.
Thanks Chris.
Now, let’s look at the facts…
Roads. Those roads that you’re so proud of in the South are Toll roads – owned by a Swedish company – where are the Toll Roads in the North?
If Rail is your thing, 50 of 53 train stops are in Unionist areas. That’s why Mallusk and Cullybackey have a train station, but the Citysude of Irelands 4th biggest city doesn’t.
What exactly do you think a United Ireland inherits?
@huge Celt.
Actually no I wasn’t talking about the motorways, I was talking about the national and regional roads which are in far better condition. Now that you mention there being no toll roads up the north maybe it’s time they ought to think about bringing some in to improve the infrastructure.
Rail is not my thing and I’m not sure how that part of your comment is relevant to my comment.
Those are the facts.
” Irish identity is already assured “…Perhaps Tam , you missed the ongoing saga of Ms DeSouza and her husband, Jake. Things are never black and white where England and the law is concerned.
No I didn’t miss that confused and silly story. Ms De Souza, like the rest of us, is free to have whatever identity she wants.
Do you know, tam, that it costs in excess of £200 to renounce the British citizenship that no Irishman ever wanted. You can renounce your Irish citizenship for nothing. So the two are not equal under the GFA.
Plenty of Irishmen wanted and want British citizenship. You need to study some Irish history.
How is this relevant?
I think you’ve got the actual story completely arse-about-face.
But nevermind.
The GFA was agreed by Sinn Fein. Any flaws in it should be directed to them .
We are the lucky ones. We have both 🙂