Eligibility Rules, Okay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

It was far from a catalyst .That indicates a benign effect on the agents it wished to change.

The rising was far from benign.

I fail to see how up until that moment the "nation" was asleep?

EDIT: I kinda wished I waited 10 more minutes to respond.

---

Well the nation was pretty quiet about kicking the Brits out, aside from a small few who knew their history (Tom Barry, for example, knew nothing of Irish history and was in Iraq in the British Army when he heard about the Easter Rising - then he took an active interest and educated himself on his country's history and soon after left the British Army and started up his own little outfit).
There was talk of Home Rule for years. There was disquiet here and there but a general sense of apathy among the population really.
That was until the leaders of the Rising were shot and people got very very annoyed.. you might even say it stirred something in them and woke them up to the idea of having a different future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Yeah, f'eck off to Canada so.
:D

---

Before I land in Canada I'll head to Iceland as part of my RTW ticket! Sure it's on the way.

@Fixer, I accept what you are getting at now. I still think that the killing of the belligerents rather than the Rising itself is what was the "catalyst". In other words a PR disaster for the British and a pain in the rectum for the country ever since.

"Talk of Home Rule"

It was a bit more than talk, in fairness.

My general opinion on the centenaries is that commemoration does not have have to mean veneration or condemnation and is abused when framed in either way. If the "centenary decade" gets people discussing the events of 100 years ago and drawing educated conclusions, then I'm all for it. But certainly some kind of 1966-style celebration would leave me feeling distinctly uneasy. Of course, a sombre dirge filled memorial would leave me bored and uninterested. I'm not sure how you balance all these things out. (Man, are we off-topic).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

"Talk of Home Rule"

It was a bit more than talk, in fairness.

My general opinion on the centenaries is that commemoration does not have have to mean veneration or condemnation and is abused when framed in either way. If the "centenary decade" gets people discussing the events of 100 years ago and drawing educated conclusions, then I'm all for it. But certainly some kind of 1966-style celebration would leave me feeling distinctly uneasy. Of course, a sombre dirge filled memorial would leave me bored and uninterested. I'm not sure how you balance all these things out. (Man, are we off-topic).

---

Let's take to where the flegs are discussed. Seems legit.

Let's, erm, not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Let's take to where the flegs are discussed. Seems legit.

---

Off topic, due to that Unionist apologist - Bonnie! I reckon he is in cahoots with Edwin the Confessor, telling us how true Unionists feel. Be careful, Stu and Colbert, when Bonnie Prince Shels arrives in Canada. Unfortunately it seems he is invading Oz first!

Let's, erm, not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

But certainly some kind of 1966-style celebration would leave me feeling distinctly uneasy. Of course, a sombre dirge filled memorial would leave me bored and uninterested.

---

You remember the commemoration from 47 years ago?
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Let's, erm, not...

---

Still banned Ardee?

Aye, who knows why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gastric

Off topic, due to that Unionist apologist - Bonnie! I reckon he is in cahoots with Edwin the Confessor, telling us how true Unionists feel. Be careful, Stu and Colbert, when Bonnie Prince Shels arrives in Canada. Unfortunately it seems he is invading Oz first!

---

Well I'm going hunting geysir first. The Coldies will have to wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

"Talk of Home Rule"
(Man, are we off-topic).

---

No, it was talk.
We'd been promised Home Rule for years and it was never coming.
There was always a reason to put it off. Promises, promises.
Just like they made promises in the Treaty and then gerrymandered the North to ensure a Protestant majority.

As for a commemoration, I'd hate a massive 1966-like military parade.
I think it should be a celebration, not a sombre affair. A cultural celebration I think would be very appropriate considering the poets and playwrights that were involved in the Rising itself.
Maybe highlighting plays on the Rising in the Abbey, Music in the NCH, Movies etc etc.
Something that will nod a respectful cap to it while also educating the younger generation about what happened and why it was so important.

Just my two cents on the matter

I plan to watch nothing but "Michael Collins", "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" and "In The Name of The Father" on repeat all through 2014.

I'll just check on here for how we do in the World Cup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixer82

No, it was talk.
We'd been promised Home Rule for years and it was never coming. There was always a reason to put it off. Promises, promises

---

It was enacted by the British Parliament in 1914 suspended until the end of the War.

Quote:

---

Just like they made promises in the Treaty and then gerrymandered the North to ensure a Protestant majority

---

What promises did the British break? The Treaty provided for a Boundary Commission, Cosgrave's Government accepted its proposal for no change in 1925.

What became NI obviously had and has a unionist majority; any smaller area would clearly have had a larger such majority; the priority was clearly to maximise the area covered rather than the size of the majority. Gerrymandering doesn't apply- the drawing of the border isn't comparable to that of Derry's local government areas, for example.

Quote:

---

As for a commemoration, I'd hate a massive 1966-like military parade

---

Is that even possible? I once saw the entire Irish Army parade down Aungier Street in central Dublin, took about ten minutes.

Hmm, clearly an April Fool...
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

It was enacted by the British Parliament in 1914 suspended until the end of the War.

---

It never would have come with the threat of civil war from Edward Carson and the UVF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixer82

[Home Rule] never would have come with the threat of civil war from Edward Carson and the UVF

---

Between 1886 and 1914 British Governments made three attempts to enact Home Rule for Ireland. Hardly suggests they were just stringing Irish nationalists along, does it?

Have you decided yet which promises the British broke after the Treaty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixer82

It never would have come with the threat of civil war from Edward Carson and the UVF

---

More likely they would have just altered it to fit with a partition plan, like they tried to do with the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 (which was basically Home Rule) and the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 (which was basically just Home Rule with an Army).

There was pressure from the 1800s on successive British governments to grant Home Rule.
Parnell and the Land League, Redmond etc. dedicated themselves to the cause of Home Rule.
It did seem as if Gladstone was one Prime Minister who was in favour but other things got in the way of that. When the Great War came about it was conveniently postponed. Nationalists were told 'Fight for 'small nations' and we'll discuss the Home Rule thing when this all dies down'.
You can understand why some Republicans didn't really buy this.

But I don't think it would've been granted with the threat of Carson and the UVF.
The Unionists had many friends in London. The Nationalists had few sympathisers that felt strongly enough to put their political necks on the line.

And yes, after the Government of Ireland Act, the Unionists in power in Belfast, who were very defensive minded, gerrymandered electoral borders to give themselves a political majority and it became a pretty unjust little statelet.
More unjust to Catholics than most of the actual island of Britain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

What promises did the British break? The Treaty provided for a Boundary Commission, Cosgrave's Government accepted its proposal for no change in 1925.
.

---

That was inarticulation on my part

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixer82

When the Great War came about [Home Rule] was conveniently postponed. Nationalists were told 'Fight for 'small nations' and we'll discuss the Home Rule thing when this all dies down'. You can understand why some Republicans didn't really buy this

---

Of course I understand some Republicans' cynicism at the time, but suggesting that the Great War was 'convenient' is a bit crass, don't ye think?

Quote:

---

And yes, after the Government of Ireland Act, the Unionists in power in Belfast, who were very defensive minded, gerrymandered electoral borders to give themselves a political majority and it became a pretty unjust little statelet. More unjust to Catholics than most of the actual island of Britain

---

Unionists already had a political majority in Northern Ireland when it was first created- in itself following from the Unionist population in Ireland as a whole being localised in Ulster, particularly close to Belfast. So they didn't need to gerrymander such a majority. There is actually very little evidence that parliamentary constituency boundaries were drawn to discriminate against Nationalists. Local government, partic. in Derry was gerrymandered, as I suggested above.