So what exactly is this curious border that divides the Irish island for and why is it there at all? The Irish border really is the oddest thing in terms of international boundaries.You might say that it is atypical ; a deviant creation in many respects and on a world-scale something of a unique oddity or anomaly.
In terms of its function and geographical context it deviates from the usual orthodoxy and even the very function of other comparable boundaries throughout the world.Ireland is in reality , a tiny island on the very edge of Europe and in terms of the global context it has been split into two separate political entities and its boundaries follow no appreciable physical divisions on the landmass. The whole island is probably smaller than a ranch in Texas.It is certainly no bigger than many states on many continents. The fact that it is also divided is an oddity in terms of its entire economy and infrastructure.
Its real origin lies in the creation by the British Government of artificially constructing a border encompassing a unique separate northern state ,which included the maximum possible amount of space while also ensuring that it contained a very strong Protestant /Unionist voting population within its confines. In this context it is a bit like a wild-life reserve more than anything else.Its purpose was to chop out a specific pro-British “homeland” within Ireland so that its population would be deemed distinctive and different from all its other Irish neighbours.in some respects it was like constructing a specific ghetto in Ireland. To do this , many of those same Protestant/Unionists neighbours who already lived throughout Ireland but fell beyond the new state’s reach, would necessarily have to be also excluded and abandoned from the new state, having fallen beyond those new boundaries.It also happened that by the same token a minority population of Catholic/Nationalists became unwilling partners of the new state ,encompassed within this totally unique new disposition. In some cases this newly devised border literally cut through the middle of the land and homes on which and in which these varied socio-political people lived and worked. You might literally have a border running right through the middle of your home ,leaving you living in two different jurisdictions.You might breakfast in one state and bed down in another.
All of this happened as a result of the enactment of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920. It was somewhat unrealistic when originally conceived in that it envisaged the idea to split the island of Ireland into two separate political entities, each with its own unique parliament but both still firmly under the aegis of Westminster.The British government’s objective was to ensure that Northern Ireland would be as large as possible , with as great a population that would be a Protestant/Unionist majority and crucially, that it would be also economically viable. All of this essentially came as a result of previous British Unionist agitation over Home Rule and the very idea that Ireland might rule itself as a nation.
The background to all of this went back centuries to the first English involvement in Ireland, but in more relatively recent times the tensions were more immediately supplied by increasing militarism across the board.Progress of any kind was slow in that any bill had to go through parliament three times.This enabled Ulster unionists to develop their opposition so that by 1914 they had taken the law into their own hands and threatened the government with armed resistance.They smuggled in a substantial cache of arms from Germany in 1914 to this seditionary end, in the very year that war began with that country. The British army stationed in the Curragh had also rebelled against the state ,leaving the British government toothless to oppose Unionist wishes in Ireland.By contrast Irish Volunteers who also attempted to import arms were met by bloodshed and confrontation by those same troops.
There was much head-scratching in the preparation of this unique scheme. It didn’t simply happen overnight.Earlier in July 1914 at Buckingham Palace ,at conference, it was concluded that like our current Brexit,none of this would be anything other than problematic.Counties Fermanagh and especially Tyrone were seemingly a problem They both contained small nationalist majorities, for one thing.County Armagh had a slight unionist majority at the time. There was even talk of dividing counties to suit the agenda but this was deemed almost impossible to achieve because of reasons of local “county identity”.The Prime Minister Asquith said that they had spent an hour and a half of the morning discussing maps of the counties and population figures but always returned to the huge stumbling block that was the County of Tyrone , which he described as ” that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man”.Curiously both opposing negotiators ,Carson and Redmond both agreed that they “had to have the whole of Tyrone, or die”. On this they were on the same page .
It wasn’t until after the First World War ended in 1918 that they came back to these deliberations by which time Sinn Fein had formed Dail Eireann in Dublin in 1919 outside the jurisdiction of Britain.The British Prime Minister ,Lloyd George ,delegated Walter Long ,the former Irish Chief Secretary, to draft legislation for Ireland, even as the IRA began a military guerrilla war in Ireland against British interests. Britain was still intent on partitioning Ireland into two parcels and were discussuing whether or not the Northern part was to consist of the nine traditional counties or possibly something smaller with only six chopped out of ancient Ulster.The British government really wanted Ulster to remain as it was with it s nine counties intact, the logic being that it made more geographical logic and sense and would be preferable in the face of possible future unity.Ulster Unionist lobbied at a late stage, before the bill was presented to parliament and managed to force the issue and ensure that the new Northern Ireland consisted of only six , more politically manageable counties.They had very obvious reasons for wanting a construct such as this.They split away from their fellow Ulster Unionists in Donegal, Monaghan, and Cavan with the intention that their then current unionist parliamentary majorities would be made secure.Rather than handling a slender 9:7 ratio in relation to the Unionist/ Nationalist balance, their preference was for a 2:1 majority which they thought would be a money in the bank for a “permanent ” Unionist majority for all -time. It has to be said that the rest of Ireland was virtually ignoring the act itself and its outworkings so it was not really a done deal and far from secure.
It was a fact that Britain, from a position of Empirical power, had virtually all the political leverage ranged against a much less powerful contender. One of the other provisions of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, Article 5, had stipulated that the Irish Free State would be responsible for paying a share of Britain’s debts related to the war, but the new Free State had no way to pay it. Michael Collins had done the initial dealings much againt his will , seeing it as a poison chalice but did it at De Valera’s insistence ; his successor , William Cosgrove ,as Chairman of the provisional Irish Government cut a deal in which Ireland would be absolved from any payment of this debt and the borders that had been established in 1920 would remain unchanged.It is assumed that he did not want these facts known or published. Indeed they were not known publicly until many years later.
It has to be remembered that we are speaking of a time when there was a very different kind of Ireland and indeed a time when there was an actual ” British Empire”. It was a time when Ireland’s vital industries were situated in the northern part of the island , centred around heavy industry , ship-building and the booming linen-industry.All of that is now long-since gone , just as the very idea of “empire” dissappeared within fifty years.
Protestant Unionists to a man, were in favour of gerrymandering the border to suit themselves , anyway.In terms of the then Empire , a solid Protestant Ulster would be be a prop in Ireland to that Empire ,without which the whole Naval strength of England would be seen to be jeopardized. A Protestant and Loyal Ulster would be an invaluable jumping-off point for the British Navy and Army ,if it was found necessary to use them in case of serious trouble in Ireland or elsewhere. This was their justification for supporting the six county policy. They saw it as a duty to defend” Ulster “,, or the “homeland”,for that reason alone should it only amount to one single county in terms of the Empire.It should be said that none of those reasons mean much in today’s world.
For nationalists their desire was that the Commission should redraw the border according to local nationalist or unionist majorities at the District Electoral Division level. Since the 1920 local elections in Ireland had resulted in outright nationalist majorities in County Fermanagh, County Tyrone, the City of Derry and in many District Electoral Divisions of County Armagh and County Londonderry (all north and east of the “interim” border), this might well have left Northern Ireland unviable. Unionists were content to have no further negotiations , naturally enough and leave things alone.
The 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty gave the idea of a border a temporary but qualified recognition but instead of what Britain might have preferred, they were left on one hand with a Dominion of the Irish Free State and on the other a northern devolved government still under their rule.
This was all a great cause of much debate. Newry and the surrounding area was an example where three quarters of the population, of obvious nationalist preference, would have preferred to have transferred to the new Free State .It possessed trade and transport facilities ,especially in relation to the then booming linen industry.This , it was thought was a valuable asset as regards supply , exports and marketing In this case the wishes of the inhabitants were over-ruled by British and unionist economics and the fact of the geographic location of the place in relation to the movements of goods. It didn’t matter what the local inhabitants wished for because money was the driver for the British government and they were prepared to support unionism all the way in this.
While what was effectively another Home Rule Bill going through parliament , there were also preparations afoot to recruit the Ulster Special Constabulary(the B Specials) to assist the police and the British Army under the new northern admiistration.
The final bill was drafted in the typically British ambiguity which we have all since become inured to .Some across the world accept that this kind of ambiguity was the stock-in-trade of British diplomacy and at best is perfect waffle. A perfect case in point was :
“a Commission…shall determine in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so
far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions, the boundaries
between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland, and for the purposes of the Government
of Ireland Act, 1920, and of this instrument, the boundary of Northern Ireland
shall be such as may be determined by such Commission (article 12, Articles of
Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland as signed in London, 6
December 1921)”.
Previously there had been no mention of ” economic and geographic conditions ” but the final version made certain that these ideas outweighed any dreams and wishes those nationalist inhabitants might have .Their wishes were never even considered, in effect.
None of the details of any of this was released until 1969, when you can imagine , it may have been largely lost in the mix of the Civil Rights pandemonium on the streets that had swallowed both the world media and the various governments by the time of its release..
It appears that the Free State was effectiv
ely paid -off to turn a blind eye and bury the thought of any lack or lapse of negotiating skills, or political embarrassment, by its players , at the time .There was an urgency to push things through with haste and that these decrees should take immediate legal effect.The Free State engaged in hastily arranged talks with the British and Northern Ireland governments which culminated in a Boundary Agreement signed on 3 December 1925, containing three main elements :
#1.the Boundary Commission’s report would be suppressed and the existing Border would remain unchanged.
#2. A financial settlement would relieve the Free State from liabilities
due under article 5, the other dormant clause of the Treaty.
#3. the Council of Ireland was consigned to history, with its powers transferred
It has to be said that neither Carson , the Unionist,nor the Nationalist John Redmond thought it was a good idea to divide Ireland with such a border. Redmond thought the very idea of Ireland as a “Two-Nation” state was a blasphemy. Carson , for his part would really have preferred a nine county “Ulster”, if it came down to the wire, but Unionist militancy outside of government was growing and the threat of violence was growing .
When Collins and Craig were attempting to achieve some degree of agreement in relation to the shape of a border, they hoped to do so without too much outside interference.In the end the agreement was signed in March 1922 ,but by then their relationship had soured and that specific agreement was abandoned. Collins had every intention of returning to it but that didn’t happen.Within four months Collins had been killed , falling victim to splits within the republican movement and possibly as a result of De Valera pushing him to get involved in those negotiations in the first place.Collins saw De Valera as a more able negotiator and reluctantly accepted the challenge, leaving De Valera untarnished by any of its compromises. His death led to the Irish Civil War between opposing factions and claimed many more victims than did the Irish War of Independence.
When the border across Ireland was finally established, many nationalists believed that the Free State had, in effect, abandoned them to minority status in a new state that might last forever and many unionists also knew this to be a truth ,but were content with their lot. Those abandoned Unionist/ Protestants outside , were assimilated into the new Free State by the same token. Unionism in the north seemed to have no regrets at the break up of Ireland. They seemed to leave that specific union without much regret. After all wasn’t their battlecry “We are The People”. They had achieved their own little redoubt. In that respect nationalists were never going to count in this new northern state which would be claimed to be “a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people”. .From the British government’s viewpoint there was always the hope that Ireland might once-again be re-united some time in the future….their preference seems to have always been for a United Ireland and Britain together.
full circle again,the looney left in westminister brings the border back in 2017.
What exactly do you mean by this , billy?
Looney left??? Tories are implementing it surely!
they had to implement it to stop the invasion of the bogus refugees and every other freeloader piling in to take full advantage of the easy pickings.nhs,dss,crime,ect,ect,ect,all created by labours free for all policies.the majority demanded somebody do something to stop the rot and the result was brexit.
Why would they head to the UK for dole money Billy? Basic level of dole in the UK is £75 per week, in Ireland it’s almost £150 per week. The UK actually has one of the lowest levels of benefit payments in Europe.
more established links in the uk, to blend in with,more crime networks.easier to get housing,easier cash in hand jobs and still claim,nhs,schools to accommodate them ect,need i go on.they are only getting a foothold in the south now as the housing shortage in dublin proves.open borders are the biggest danger to ireland now and in the coming years as the south is finding out costing them millions upon millions as irish men and women are dying in doorways yrds from the dail.is this what it was all for.
Very good and detailed summation,Harry. I wonder would any learned commentator on this blog from the British/Irish camp like to point where you are incorrect or biased. Their attitude is probably that we have the might of the Empire behind us and if you don’t like it you can hitch up your ass and cart and move southwards. Btw, six locations in the north of Ireland have been named by the Sunday Times as some of the best places to live in Britain. They continually do this with regard to hotels etc. Such sloppy lazy ‘journalism’.
Some of those journos are simply ill-informed , fiosrach. Sure they hardly know the place exists at all and that we’re wasting their money hand -over- fist ,even as I write.Brokenshire’s threatening the possibility of spending another £5 million on another election, on the radio this morning just to get to this point all over again …it’s only money !……and like his predecessors he still sticks to the well-tried Wafflespeak …the language of studied ambiguity.We’ve an ex-First Minister who is responsible for wasting billions and they’ll be cryin g anytime soon about how much we need for the Health Service. Watch this space and don’t expect logic.
The parade of broken hearts is being marshalled as we speak. I don’t mean to sound callous but all these reasons to resurrect Stormont existed before Arlene was dismissed. The health system etc will be getting a 95% budget from July. The open threats will continue from our colonial masters. If you don’t behave we have prescription charges, water charges, benefit changes, same sex marriage, a hard border, free travel and many more little nasties ready to roll. Maybe even conscription. Wouldn’t that be interesting?
I certainly know that my preference is for a United Ireland and Britain together, but I wouldn’t be so sure abut my own government’s desire for that.
Anyway, the border is gone. Don’t you see?
The Union is gone too.
New Labour wrote the death sentence and the SNP and SF and merely doing what Nationalists might be expected to do.
And, as Guy Verhofstadt, the chief Brexit negotiator at the European Parliament, said this morning, “no hard border, we cannot return to a hard border.”
And if that is the case, and I expect it will be, then the most practical solution from GB’s point of view is border controls between each island.
I wonder what, “Can I see your passport, please,” is in Ulster-Scots?
That might be something like ,,,,,, “I wud be laeukkin tae dook at yon passbuk of yin?” possibly ….
Interesting post over on Slugger by a poster called Gavin Smithson which I might just copy and paste here for the heck of it –
‘Before anyone reads further, let me emphasise and make clear that I do not hold any of the beliefs below. I am a unionist but I’m afraid I’m a tiny minority in my cadre. Below is true for 95% of political unionism:
Unionism is elitist. Unionism/ Ulste Protestantism regards itself as the chosen ones. This means that it is incapable of reaching out to non Protestants because they are not the chosen ones
Sometimes Unionists play lip service to reaching out but that’s just hot air. It’s not in the Unionist DNA. Unionism regards Catholic Ireland as backward. For this reason, Unionism wants nothing to do with it.
Unionism’s power is declining. A rationale secular party or movement would evangelise and reach out to non core supporters to keep its numbers up.
But not Unionism. Unionism is elite. We will go down with the NI ship and will cut off our nose and ears and eyes to spite our face.
Unionism is morbidly stupid, incapable of reaching out and does not have a strategic bone in its ailing body.
Sometimes people like Basil McCrea, John McAllister and Mike Nesbitt come along holding out a hand but they just get laughed at within unionism and get chewed up and then we are back to political normal. Such people mean well and have brains but Unionism doesn’t have brains. Unionism just has ‘right’ on our side
Such gentle persons I mention are those daffodils that sometime grow in winter. A rarity, an exotic thing to behold but they don’t last long and there’s never more than a handful at a time.
That’s why Unionism will fail. Smart unionists would start negotiating for a UI today. But Unionism is not smart. It never will be
And I am a Unionist saying all this and it pains me. I voted NI21. I thought they would deliver. I was wrong.’
That sounds exactly like it was when I was young.
In the workplace, extremely blatant discrimination was the norm.
I remember when all of the protestants in our whole factory went out to hold a meeting about the drumcree march not getting down the road under the union flag which flew over the factory every day back then.
The message was relayed by line managers right the way around the factory that Catholics were not welcome at the pow wow and that was considered completely normal behaviour. The rest of the year was fairly normal, but every summer they turned into crazies.
For some reason because they were protestant british they felt better than us even though they may have been in the same position doing the same job.
It made no sense to me, but it was how they were brought up, to feel superior or more accurately, that we were inferior.
And we got it straight from the horses mouth back then, from teachers in portadown tech, from the police, from the army, as kids we couldn’t even walk home from school without being attacked and sometimes badly hurt, from civil servants, even bus drivers discrimination was everywhere.
Things today are nothing in the slightest like they were then.
I don’t believe that most unionists today really believe that they are superior. Many still believe it is their right to be superior and would very much like things to be the way they were back then, whether they admit it or not is another thing but deep down all but the deluded know it wont ever be again.
What was the response to that RJC?
The thread is here –
http://sluggerotoole.com/2017/03/09/when-the-ace-of-trumps-became-the-two-unionism-and-the-diminishing-power-of-the-orange-card/
Thanks, I think slugger is being hesitant to repost it.
Good job you posted it here, it may not be coming back there.
Seems to sum up the site from what I have heard
‘Unionists regard Catholics as backward.’ I think that just about sums up the centuries of difficulty.
What a strange blog.
The border between ROI and the UK is not unique, not odd, not atypical, not unorthodox. Land borders dividing jurisdictions exist all over the world. Minorities living either side of them exist all over the world. All over the world there are places where two peoples live in proximity but prefer to belong to one state rather than another.
There is a strain of self-importance among Irish nationalists that appears to think they or their situation is unique.
That’s a perfectly understandable conclusion. It is very obvious that you’ve led a very sheltered life but we’ll make some allowances for that.
“That’s a perfectly understandable conclusion. It is very obvious that you’ve led a very sheltered life but we’ll make some allowances for that.”
A poor response that seeks to disguise your inability to address the criticism.
Criticism?
Yes it is indeed a strange blog. Made all the more “strange” by the very fact that it is based on real events from the historical record.Those things might appear strange in the context of someone who is unaware of the illogic and inherent immorality of the players who conceived of the actual construct being discussed. In light of its origin story it would indeed appear strange to some, but certainly not to anyone with any sense of irony and general knowledge of how the British Government has conducted itself throughout the world during the days of its empire.
“Yes it is indeed a strange blog. Made all the more “strange” by the very fact that it is based on real events from the historical record.Those things might appear strange in the context of someone who is unaware of the illogic and inherent immorality of the players who conceived of the actual construct being discussed. In light of its origin story it would indeed appear strange to some, but certainly not to anyone with any sense of irony and general knowledge of how the British Government has conducted itself throughout the world during the days of its empire.”
You’re only revealing your own insularity and ignorance.
There’s nothing strange about borders, or about border disputes, or different peoples wishing to love in different states. Processes similar to what happened in Ireland have happened all over the world. We are not unique.
“There’s nothing strange about borders, or about border disputes, or different peoples wishing to love in different states. Processes similar to what happened in Ireland have happened all over the world. We are not unique”.
You can see nothing beyond your own point of view MT.
No, borders such as that in Ireland are indeed not unique, there have unfortunately been many conflicts and much human misery caused by borders being enforced where they are not wanted by a majority for the benefit of a militant minority.
We should not carve the world up to accommodate selfish bigotry and sectarian intolerance.
“You can see nothing beyond your own point of view MT.”
That is untrue.
“No, borders such as that in Ireland are indeed not unique, there have unfortunately been many conflicts and much human misery caused by borders being enforced where they are not wanted by a majority for the benefit of a militant minority.”
But the border between the UK and nationalist Ireland was wanted. Nationalists agitated for it. They didn’t like it when it was drawn to reflect unionist wishes as well as their own.
“We should not carve the world up to accommodate selfish bigotry and sectarian intolerance.”
Of course not. We should place borders where they facilitate self-determination, allowing the people either side to.live in the jurisdiction that they want.
“That is untrue. ”
You did it again.
Your way or the highway.
If you don’t like it, it isn’t be true – from your point of view.
“But the border between the UK and nationalist Ireland was wanted. Nationalists agitated for it. They didn’t like it when it was drawn to reflect unionist wishes as well as their own.”
No one wanted the border, not even unionists.
You talk about truth, but your version of truth does not tally with historical fact.
England did not want partition, Ireland did not want partition even unionists such as Carson did not want partition, in fact he viewed it as a failure.
It was an enforced solution to a sectarian problem England could not be bothered resolving fairly as it had resulted from centuries of protestant supremacy which prevented compromise in Ireland then, and the exact same problem still persists to this day.
Any wonder that even Maggie thatcher had to admit in the end it was wrong.
Only an agreed settlement can ever be fair.
“Of course not. We should place borders where they facilitate self-determination, allowing the people either side to.live in the jurisdiction that they want.”
Ireland was divided to appease a 25% minority of unionists who wanted to remain in the UK and created a 30% minority of nationalists in the new 6 county statelet who wanted to remain with the rest of Ireland.
Partition was not self-determination it was a selfish and self serving determination in favour of protestants over Catholics.
We should now facilitate true self-determination based on agreement and equal respect.
“You did it again.”
Did what again?
“Your way or the highway.
If you don’t like it, it isn’t be true – from your point of view.”
That’s untrue. There are lots of flings that I don’t like that are true.
“No one wanted the border, not even unionists.”
Indeed. But nationalist insistence meant that one bad to be drawn.
“You talk about truth, but your version of truth does not tally with historical fact.”
Yes it does.
“England did not want partition, Ireland did not want partition even unionists such as Carson did not want partition, in fact he viewed it as a failure.”
Nationalists wanted it. They’d been agitating for home rule for decades and eventually independence.
“Ireland was divided to appease a 25% minority of unionists who wanted to remain in the UK and created a 30% minority of nationalists in the new 6 county statelet who wanted to remain with the rest of Ireland.”
The British Isles were divided to appease a 10% minority of nationalists who wanted to leave the UK and create a 25% minority of unionlists in a new 32 county statelet who wanted to remain with the rest of the British Isles.
“Partition was not self-determination it was a selfish and self serving determination in favour of protestants over Catholics.”
No. It was the result of self-determination. Have a look at an electoral map and you’ll see unionists concentrated on one side and nationalists on the other.
“Did what again? ”
Expressed your opinion as truth when it isn’t.
“That’s untrue. There are lots of flings that I don’t like that are true. ”
There are also lots of things that you say are true that are not true.
“No one wanted the border, not even unionists. Indeed. But nationalist insistence meant that one bad to be drawn. ”
Only from a point of view.
In my view, had unionists accepted the wishes of the majority in Ireland then we would have had home rule and remained within the UK with no border.
Instead, Englands refusal over many decades to accept the democratic expression and desire for home rule forced nationalists to instead choose to leave the UK entirely which was expressed democratically and had ulster unionism not chosen violent opposition to this democracy then again there would have been no border.
The only reason for a border was to create a separate state in which unionists could rule the roost over a larger minority in the 6 county state than they were in the country.
“You talk about truth, but your version of truth does not tally with historical fact. Yes it does.”
No it doesn’t.
You claimed nationalists wanted partition when the truth was no one wanted it so you are lying.
Unionist intransigence forced the border into existence just as today Unionist intransigence is forcing it out of existence.
“England did not want partition, Ireland did not want partition even unionists such as Carson did not want partition, in fact he viewed it as a failure. Nationalists wanted it. They’d been agitating for home rule for decades and eventually independence. ”
Nationalists asked for home rule, not partition, Ireland would have remained within the UK had unionists not reacted violently against it.
Once again you are telling mistruths. You do not know what would have happened had unionism embraced change.
“The British Isles were divided to appease a 10% minority of nationalists who wanted to leave the UK and create a 25% minority of unionists in a new 32 county statelet who wanted to remain with the rest of the British Isles.”
Again, more lies.
England did not divide Ireland to appease nationalists and Ireland remains a part of the British Isles.
Ireland has also proven we are better off ruling ourselves from within Ireland than we are being ruled from London.
I doubt very much the UK is considered a single country by a majority of people in it.
The UK consists of separate counties who choose to work together for now. That may not always be the case.
“Partition was not self-determination it was a selfish and self serving determination in favour of protestants over Catholics. No. It was the result of self-determination. Have a look at an electoral map and you’ll see unionists concentrated on one side and nationalists on the other.
That is only self-determination from your point of view MT, which could be followed through to a county by county, town by town and hence I do not accept it and I hold a different point of view were self-determination in Ireland has to be over the whole of the island.
The problem with your view of self-determination is that you are prepared to disenfranchise Catholics on the 6 counties to offer self-determination for protestants in a deliberately reduced territory which makes no geographical or communal sense.
But you cannot accept any other point of view, can you?
“Did what again? ”
“Expressed your opinion as truth when it isn’t.”
When did I do that and when did I previously do it?
“There are also lots of things that you say are true that are not true.”
No there aren’t. But just for fun, please list these ‘lots of things’.
“In my view, had unionists accepted the wishes of the majority in Ireland then we would have had home rule and remained within the UK with no border.”
And had nationalists decided to support an iterated. UK we’d have an integrated UK with no border.
“Instead, Englands refusal over many decades to accept the democratic expression and desire for home rule forced nationalists to instead choose to leave the UK entirely which was expressed democratically and had ulster unionism not chosen violent opposition to this democracy then again there would have been no border.”
There wouldnt have been a border? So Ireland would have stayed in the UK? Wow.
“The only reason for a border was to create a separate state in which unionists could rule the roost over a larger minority in the 6 county state than they were in the country.”
The only reason for a border was to create a separate state in which nationalists could rule the roost over a larger minority in a 32 county state than they were in the country.”
“You talk about truth, but your version of truth does not tally with historical fact. Yes it does.”
“No it doesn’t.”
So tell us where my ‘version of truth’ does not tally with historical fact.
“You claimed nationalists wanted partition when the truth was no one wanted it so you are lying.”
No one wanted it? Nationalists had wanted to.partition the British Isles for decades.
“Unionist intransigence forced the border into existence just as today Unionist intransigence is forcing it out of existence.”
Nationalist intransigence forced the border into existence.
“Nationalists asked for home rule, not partition”
Eh? Home Rule meant partition. That was the whole point.
“Ireland would have remained within the UK had unionists not reacted violently against it.
Once again you are telling mistruths. You do not know what would have happened had unionism embraced change.”
I’m not telling mistruths. Unionists did embrace change. Originally they opposed partition but when nationalists insisted they accepted and instead argued for a different location for the border.
“The British Isles were divided to appease a 10% minority of nationalists who wanted to leave the UK and create a 25% minority of unionists in a new 32 county statelet who wanted to remain with the rest of the British Isles.”
“Again, more lies.”
There are no lies. On the contrary it’s the truth.
“England did not divide Ireland to appease nationalists and Ireland remains a part of the British Isles.”
‘England’ didn’t so anything. But the British Isles were partitioned to appease nationalism
“Ireland has also proven we are better off ruling ourselves from within Ireland than we are being ruled from London.”
How?
“Partition was not self-determination it was a selfish and self serving determination in favour of protestants over Catholics. No. It was the result of self-determination. Have a look at an electoral map and you’ll see unionists concentrated on one side and nationalists on the other.”
“That is only self-determination from your point of view MT”
There was self-determination objectively.
“and I hold a different point of view were self-determination in Ireland has to be over the whole of the island.”
Why?
“The problem with your view of self-determination is that you are prepared to disenfranchise Catholics on the 6 counties to offer self-determination for protestants in a deliberately reduced territory which makes no geographical or communal sense.”
I’m not prepared to.disenfranchise anybody and nobody was disenfranchised.
But you seem to believe that it’s wrong to include Catholics in a jurisdiction as a minority yet OK to include even larger numbers of Protestants in a jurisdiction as a minority.
Outrageous hypocrisy.
“There wouldnt have been a border? So Ireland would have stayed in the UK? Wow.”
That’s right MT.
Had unionism not been so blindly bigoted and embraced home rule, the whole of Ireland would have stayed in the UK.
“No one wanted it? Nationalists had wanted to.partition the British Isles for decades.”
Really? I was under the impression that from the late 18th century to early nineteenth, nationalists sought only home rule, not to leave the UK.
Here is your chance to show some evidence where nationalists were at that time seeking to partition the British Isles.
“Nationalist intransigence forced the border into existence.”
Any evidence please?
“Nationalists asked for home rule, not partition” Eh? Home Rule meant partition. That was the whole point.”
No it didn’t, it meant being able to make laws in Ireland for Irish people as it was felt that London was not ruling in the best interests of Irish people.
Here is a definition from a quick Google search
“The Irish Home Rule movement was a movement that agitated for self-government for Ireland within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was the dominant political movement of Irish nationalism from 1870 to the end of World War I.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Home_Rule_movement
“I’m not telling mistruths. Unionists did embrace change. Originally they opposed partition but when nationalists insisted they accepted and instead argued for a different location for the border. ”
Can you provide any links for this?
“There are no lies. On the contrary it’s the truth. ”
Please post some evidence for the above then as it is news to me?
“I’m not prepared to.disenfranchise anybody and nobody was disenfranchised.”
Irish Catholics and nationalists in the gerrymandered northern state were and indeed still are disenfranchised from the rest of Ireland.
“But you seem to believe that it’s wrong to include Catholics in a jurisdiction as a minority yet OK to include even larger numbers of Protestants in a jurisdiction as a minority. Outrageous hypocrisy.”
Ireland is not a jurisdiction, it is a country. The occupied part of Ireland which is still ruled from britain is a jurisdiction separate from both britain and the rest of Ireland.
To say otherwise is once again you telling porkies to promote your blinkered view of the union in Ireland.
If you choose to refute this, show some evidence.
“That’s right MT.
Had unionism not been so blindly bigoted and embraced home rule, the whole of Ireland would have stayed in the UK.”
I meant an integrated singlejurisdiction UK.
“No one wanted it? Nationalists had wanted to.partition the British Isles for decades.”
“Really?”
Yes.
“I was under the impression that from the late 18th century to early nineteenth, nationalists sought only home rule, not to leave the UK.”
Home rule meant partition. You couldnt have home rule for the whole British Isles.or it wouldn’t have been home rule.
“Here is your chance to show some evidence where nationalists were at that time seeking to partition the British Isles.”
You serious? Hey wanted to create a separate Irish jurisdiction. You’re not aware of this?
“Nationalists asked for home rule, not partition” Eh? Home Rule meant partition. That was the whole point.”
“No it didn’t, it meant being able to make laws in Ireland for Irish people as it was felt that London was not ruling in the best interests of Irish people.”
And how could thst have been achieved without partitioning the British Isles?
“I’m not telling mistruths. Unionists did embrace change. Originally they opposed partition but when nationalists insisted they accepted and instead argued for a different location for the border. ”
“Can you provide any links for this?”
Read any general Irish history book.
“Irish Catholics and nationalists in the gerrymandered northern state were and indeed still are disenfranchised from the rest of Ireland.”
No they weren’t and aren’t. Please don’t tell lies
“But you seem to believe that it’s wrong to include Catholics in a jurisdiction as a minority yet OK to include even larger numbers of Protestants in a jurisdiction as a minority. Outrageous hypocrisy.”
“Ireland is not a jurisdiction”
I know, but you want it to be.
“If you choose to refute this, show some evidence.”
Refute what?
self determination…and be ruled by germany.
I sincerely hopre that you atre not making the mistake of calling me” ignorant or insular” MT, because should that be the case you are the only tiny little voice doing such a thing in my entire life and that tiny little voice has decided to delude itself to the very facts of logic which he supposedly puts such great store in.
“I sincerely hopre that you atre not making the mistake of calling me” ignorant or insular” MT, because should that be the case you are the only tiny little voice doing such a thing in my entire life and that tiny little voice has decided to delude itself to the very facts of logic which he supposedly puts such great store in.”
You’re demonstrating ignorance and insularity by your belief that the border here is unique and failing to understand that people and placed are divided by borders the world over. We are not unique.
The “uniqueness” of the border is in the very fact that a vocal and aggressive minority wanted it at all and finally got it through threats of violence against the majority voice and for no other real reason. Nobody else wanted it.Carson might not have wanted Home Rule but he certainly didn’t aspire for an Ireland divided by a silly little border. He really didn’t want that at all .Britain didn’t want to divide it either. Their preference was for a still – United Ireland too. A huge majority of the Irish nation did not want it either.A majority saw it as an act of foolishness on such a small island.The entire driver for it came from Unionist Protestants and their declaration that “Home Rule is Rome Rule” really tells you that it was more of an emotional call rather than an intellectual call that was being made.You could argue that the Catholic Church had too much influence in Ireland , just as you could argue that the Protestant Religion had too much sway in the new Northern Ireland but you could not argue that the border was anything other than an oddity.
In the end, if you read the entire piece ,you’ll find that it was deliberately designed for no other purpose than to provide unionists with what they assumed would be a permanent majority in their own little area.it was fiddled and finessed to that extent. They never really foresaw that in the 21st century that might not continue to be the case. Now that the British Empire no longer exists and Scotland looks set to leave that union sometime very soon and England seems set on stamping its individual Englishness again ,in light of Brexit, it seems an even more incongruous construct in terms of economics , given the end of heavy industry , complications with it being the only land border in the EU and also the huge loss of EU finances which farmers will certainly miss if northern farmers are pulled out against their will.. In terms of cutting a border across a tiny island , it was always not such an intelligent or the smartest thing to do .That is even more evident now than it was a century ago .
“The “uniqueness” of the border is in the very fact that a vocal and aggressive minority wanted it at all and finally got it through threats of violence against the majority voice and for no other real reason.”
And what’s unique about that? Many borders result from.minority peoples asserting their rights and threatening or using violence.
“Nobody else wanted it.Carson might not have wanted Home Rule but he certainly didn’t aspire for an Ireland divided by a silly little border. He really didn’t want that at all ”
Indeed he didn’t. But nationalists were insistent on pursuing home rule and later independence.
“In the end, if you read the entire piece ,you’ll find that it was deliberately designed for no other purpose than to provide unionists with what they assumed would be a permanent majority in their own little area.”
And what’s unique about that? The border between Belgium and the Netherlands was designed to give Belgium a permanent majority in their own area. Similarly the border between Croatia and Serbia. Or the border between Poland and Russia. Or between Pakistan and India. Or between Slovakia and Czech Republic. Or between Norway and Sweden. Or it would be between Catalonia and Spain if they choose independence. etc etc
PK
“I sincerely hopre that you atre not making the mistake of calling me” ignorant or insular” MT,”
Why would it make any difference to you what MT thinks about you, personally? Didn’t we just discuss recently your self-expressed opinion regarding your interest in discussing others?
I mean, all’s fair in what’s sauce for the goose; isn’t it?
Ah, but you argued a different point entirely .Your point was that a public figure such as a politician could not be openly questioned about their morality and could not be the focus of ridicule ,should their public work not jive with that same perceived morality .my point was that that given that they worked for all of us as public figures and knew already that it was a hard road to walk ,that this should be the case and to question them by any means available was the right thing to do, given that they were well-paid for the pleasure. I still think like that about politicians…
In terms of MT’s comments, it was not MT being attacked, but it was the lazy , bitchy way he throws in a question after cutting and pasting another ‘s work and gives nothing more than a one-line answer that was being attacked.mT has never really given anything back to the conversation other than negative opinions. That is neither the stuff of conversation nor debate..It would be fair to say that given some of the questions MT asks that his entire argument is possibly based on the first paragraph of anything posted ,without even reading the description of the historical record which followed. I That has been his perceived form.That is the way it seems to the reader. . He’ll seem to focus focus on a single line and go from there. It’s a tall order to accept being called “ignorant and insular” when I’ve written over 400 blogs about every kind of well-thought out and hopefully researched opinion pieces , stories and observations on all manner of subjects , under the sun and have had plenty of positive engagement and discussion without being called “ignorant and insular”. indeed if anything , my tastes are so catholic(small c) that no-one could ever infer that from my extra -curricular interests , my bulging bookshelves ,huge, diverse music collections, writings and artwork .
All I ask is for is some little thought from MT before he shoots off with a lazy one-line answer in response. Frankly ,I still really wonder why he bothers sometimes, because he has never argued adequately enough yet to change my mind on many topics.I’ve encouraged him and anyone else to write their own stories and explain themselves in a broader sense , If that is what he wants to do essentially, he doesn’t appear to have garnered too many converts to whatever his “vision” is .Other than that …you are right so far in that I am far too busy with too many non ignorant and non-insular projects besides this to worry and …yes… it doesn’t really matter to me at all.
.
“it doesn’t really matter to me at all.”
I suppose that’s the reason for all the words.
And I think you’ll find I argued a much broader point.
That’s conversation PF .That’s something you know a little more about than MT.
There is no country called Republic of Ireland nor ROI.
Yes fiosrach, people do not remember the subtlties involved. Great Britain(GB) does not actually include Northern Ireland and therefore should never be used interchangeably with the term United Kingdom ( UK) ,for example
Technically, (Great) Britain (GB) only refers to England and Wales in British law. Scotland and Northern Ireland , the isle of Man and so on are not part of it at all so , again in typical British ambiguity , Northern Ireland is not actually part of (Great)Britain ..
Come to think of it ,the “Great” in Great Britain has nothing to do with grandeur but was only used as a determination to make distinction between Britanny (Petite Britain/Little Britain) and its bigger neighbour (Grande/Bigger ) Britain.
Words such as ‘formed’, ‘declared’ and ‘created’ which are sometimes used to describe how all these political and geographical entities came into being are often the wrong word to use , when in fact demarcations were often the result of wars and conquests – Many of these current arrangements are still subject to different and quite often hostile interpretations.
No part of Ireland has ever been a part of britain
The islands on the edge of Europe were sometimes known as the “British Islands” , Jessica ….(I suppose from a Roman point of view that made sense , although they called Ireland “Hibernia”). These islands include Ireland, Great Britain, the Isle of Man, Shetland, Orkney, and about six thousand smaller islands. Traditionally the Channel Islands are included, though these specific islands are geographically nearer to mainland continental Europe, being positioned off the French coast of Normandy.
However, the word “British” is also a modern adjective which refers to the United Kingdom. For this reason, the name British Isles is avoided isometimes as such usage could be construed to imply continued territorial claims or political possession of Ireland by the United Kingdom
british isles is for that reason not a suitable name.
Ireland and Britain are two separate entities and always will be.
british isles is for that reason not a suitable name.
Ireland and Britain are two separate entities and always will be.
british isles is for that reason not a suitable name for these islands.
Ireland and great Britain are two separate entities and they always will be.
In fact, tectonically, they are moving away from one another.
“Technically, (Great) Britain (GB) only refers to England and Wales in British law. Scotland and Northern Ireland , the isle of Man and so on are not part of it at all ”
Wow. Which law is this?
Here’s what i meant to say….”Great Britain”(GB) is the name of the largest island in the British Isles and is also a political entity consisting of three countries: England, Scotland, and Wales. (I inadvertently omitted our Scottish buddies!)It is sometimes used interchangeably with the term “United Kingdom,” but that is a confusion to some and actually innacurate in reality .The United Kingdom(UK) is different to Great Britain in that Northern Ireland is not actually part of it at all …hence ..”United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”
We live with the heritage of the obsession that the British Empire had on dividing countries which didn’t belong to them.
Indeed we do ,fiosrach.