N. Ireland Support last night

Shouldnt this thread be in another section ? It doesnt seem exactly relevant to the national side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duncan Gardner

As for the principle of self-determination, I hold to it: but I recognise that, unless you fragment a society into a huge number of Chinese boxes (or Cantons, like in Switzerland), there will inevitably be disaffected minorities. In Ireland they're the northern nationalists: without partition, there would've been a larger number of disaffected unionists. (This is, of course, what basically all unionists think).

---

I think the biggest mistake in the past 100 years was the actual partition line, if they have partitioned along electoral constituency lines then NI would have been smaller ( 3 counties + fractions of 2 others ) but the Unioinsts would have had a much larger majority and more nationalists would have been in the Free State, to the point that actually physically moving people would have been do-able. There should have been a vote on the line, all the people of Ulster should have been allowed self-determination. Anyhow split milk and all that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1MickCollins

Is that a dig at Michael Collins :D ? I don't recall any part of this island being annexed in the last 300 hundred years.

---

Been a bit tied up over the past couple of days. Ireland was annexed into the UK in 1801 - voted out of its colonial status by a parliament which no Catholic could vote for. Most historians claim they were bribed into passing this act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1MickCollins

The Unionist majority agreed to secession. Sinn Fein entered into negiotataions and accepted a 26 county state. They spent much more time quibbling about the oath of allegiance than about the new NI state, that was easily punted to the Boundary Commission. By your definition the majority ( slim in terms of Dail votes but much greater among the people ) of Irish nationalists in the early '20s weren't Irish at all.

---

Both the UN and the UK government refuse to acknowledge 'unlawful' secession of part of a member state. If it did Kosovo would be an independent country now. It isn't despite the mass murder started by Serbia which led to a war. Bosnia and Croatia would also be partitioned. The rest of Yugoslavia was permitted secession because of its federalism which allowed secession, but even here the apple-cart was toppled by Germany jumping the gun and recognising Slovenia and Croatia in 1991 against the wishes of the UN and the other EU nations. Unionists should have fought for a federal Ireland and given the state a chance to prove itself. Had things turned out like Kosovo then their right to secede or return to the UK would have been correct. The last time something like this happened in Ireland to the Unionists was 1641. They never tired of reminding us of this event (Death toll: 12,000) for their refusal to allow Irish autonomy while mocking nationalists 'obsession' with the famine (Death toll: 1M).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1MickCollins

Sinn Fein entered into negiotataions and accepted a 26 county state. They spent much more time quibbling about the oath of allegiance than about the new NI state, that was easily punted to the Boundary Commission. By your definition the majority ( slim in terms of Dail votes but much greater among the people ) of Irish nationalists in the early '20s weren't Irish at all.

---

It is unlikely that the either Sinn Fein nor the eventual Free State government would have agreed to partition without the threat of British military force being used on them. The 1918 election brought about a resounding victory in Ireland for SF whose platform was for total independence (a free referendum would have easily ratified a fudge of 'Dominion status'). Could the declaration by Lloyd George and Churchill about the military consequences for Ireland not have had a bearing on everyone concerned? BTW, I hope that clears up whether you thought I was having a dig at Michael Collins, or Mad Mick as Lux calls him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1MickCollins

What I think you mean is that you can have allegiance to one nation only and I think it is fair to say the oath of allegiance had more to do with the civil war than the NI state and partition - I think it is obvious that any Irishman who took this oath did so in bad faith;

---

Ireland was still in the British Empire so technically the IFS was not an independent state. Anyway, I'd put the civil war over the oath as one of the biggest f*ck ups in Irish history, along with Diarmuid MacMorrow's invitation to Strongbow and Mick and Roy's fall out in Saipan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1MickCollins

If you look it in those terms of allegiance you cannot be both British and Irish as you cannot have true allegiance to to two different soverign nations.

---

Well I wouldn't agree with the notion that you cannot show allegiance to more than one country. Plenty people do it. Ireland recognises dual nationality and so does Britain, and there is only a conflict of interest when the two countries involved are at a state of war (or playing each other in football). Both these countries enjoy good relations (notwithstanding issues like Sellafield) and both countries allow each other's citizens to vote in their general elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1MickCollins

On the other hand if your definition of Irishness is simply 'I was born here' then you could of course be both British and Irish is a shallow or factual sense but not in a real sense.

---

This is a localised version of identity not a nationality. I could be a Londoner or Englishman only in terms of where I'm from but I wouldn't say that is either my nationality (neither I nor my parents have ever elected for me to hold British citizenship) nor my ethnicity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1MickCollins

For instance being British to a Welshman might be something like the equivalent of being a Eurpoean to an Irishman. Ireland first then Europe. Wales first then Britain. I don't know if Duncan would say Ireland first then Britain? That maybe is the question, how much allegiance does Duncan have to the right of the majority of this island to self determination?

---

There is some validity to this but being European is something slightly different. There is no European federal state and even if there was, there are clear markers of nationality and one would expect the right to secede.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duncan Gardner

You may overestimate my knowledge of the Pieds Noirs. I read Albert Camus at school, and saw 'Day of the Jackal' a few times. Incidentally, I imagine Lux will remember when NI played Algeria, in the 1986 World Cup. It was a draw, can't recall if we scored or not.

---

But I think you can recognise a similarity between the pied noir and Irish unionists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duncan Gardner

My claim to be Irish is self-evident to regular readers here because, er, it's immediately obvious to everyone that, apart from growing up there like past generations of my family, and to those that have met me having a strong Irish accent, I am quite happy to admit it. I can't see any rational reason to do otherwise, unlike some of the more contorting Ulster unionists. Oh, and because that argument's simple and brief doesn't lessen its validity, does it?..

---

If I remember our discussion on this site about the merger of both Irish football teams into an ALL-IRELAND side, you claimed that the 26C was 'a foreign country.' In fact you said this about three times. I got the impression that the 26C may as well be Brazil. How do you square this with your Irishness. Or is your Irishness just where you and your ancestors were born and that this extends to no more an affinity with the majority of your neighbours on the island than being 'Afrikaan' entails comradeship with the Hottentots by South Africa's Dutch speakers. Anyway I'm puzzled: Unionists claim that they want to keep their British identity and then get all upset when us Taigs agree that that is what they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duncan Gardner

...without partition, there would've been a larger number of disaffected unionists. (This is, of course, what basically all unionists think).

---

Not in comparison with the rest of the population and all Irish leaders - including DeValera - recognised that Unionists would have had to have autonomy. This of course would have meant that Fermanagh - with a Nationalist majority - and parts of other counties would not have been under this autonomous government.

Quote:

---

But I think you can recognise a similarity between the pied noir and Irish unionists

---

In passing, yes. A better comparison would have been with the British settlement of America and Australia, similarly hundreds of years ago.

Quote:

---

you claimed that the 26C was 'a foreign country'... how do you square this with your Irishness?

---

Simple. There are two countries (one complete, one in part) on the island. Thus perfectly reasonable for someone from one to consider the other foreign. Though I've never lived in Brazil, I imagine I'd find it slightly more foreign, mind.

Quote:

---

Unionists claim that they want to keep their British identity and then get all upset when us Taigs agree that that is what they are

---

I only get upset/ puzzled when others try to take away my Irish identity. No problems with anyone calling me a Brit.

Quote:

---

Not in comparison with the rest of the population

---

There would have been a larger disaffected minority, in obvious absolute numbers, had Ireland been given Home Rule without partition after 1918. Partition was thus a utilitarian alternative (basically, the minimum displacement for the smallest number).

Quote:

---

all Irish leaders - including DeValera - recognised that Unionists would have had to have autonomy

---

Even the most accommodating unionists of the time were unlikely to have been confident that this recognition would be followed up in practice. Not that most unionists at the time were particularly accommodating, of course. They saw the threat of a Sinn Fein government enforcing a (32 county) Irish Republic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1MickCollins

I think the biggest mistake in the past 100 years was the actual partition line, if they have partitioned along electoral constituency lines then NI would have been smaller ( 3 counties + fractions of 2 others ) but the Unioinsts would have had a much larger majority

---

The whole point of the way that partition drawn up was to give the Unionists as big (and therefore economically viable) state as possible, that, however would never hava a Nationalist majority
The Unionists (I think) refused both a four county partitioned state (Down, Derry, Armagh and Antrim) on the grounds that it was basically not economical and also refused an Ulster state (including Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan) on the grounds that the Unionist majority was two thin and would have been eroded meaning incorperation into an All Ireland state.

We should probably stop now as football seems a distant concern for this thread. Ulster was always the most industial of the provinces and that was concentrated primarily in Belfast and generally in Tyrone, Antrim and Down, I think the smaller state with an overwhelming Unionist majority would have been more viable than the current arrangement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1MickCollins

We should probably stop now as football seems a distant concern for this thread. Ulster was always the most industial of the provinces and that was concentrated primarily in Belfast and generally in Tyrone, Antrim and Down, I think the smaller state with an overwhelming Unionist majority would have been more viable than the current arrangement.

---

See post above, it was not. Partition was originally proposed as a compromise on the Home Home Rule Bill - as 'Orange bitters and Irish malts do not mix' sorry can't remember the MP who proposed Four County partition and said this - but was refused as the state was not viable. Indeed one of the reason that Collins accepted partition was because he believed that the boundary commission who so drastically cut the geographical area of the north to make it unworkable - of course believing that the Unionist would give up an inch of land once they had possesion of it was hopelessly optimistic to say the least.

Anyway regardless of the the geographical area, I personally believe that partition of any part of Ireland has and would always have proved an unfortunate scar on the land. Discrimination would still have existed regardless of the area and it has to be presumed that there would have been some reaction to this.

Equally as many Republicans came from the Belfast area and indeed the south the area partitioned would be irrelevent, Belfast would be included in the area and there would have been Republicanism there and some people in the south have shown that they violently disagree with partition.

*Please note this is not a post agreeing or disagreeing with Republicanism, simply stating my view of the situation.

It was Thomas Agar-Robartes, a Liberal backbench MP with a Cornwall constituency, who proposed the 4 county exclusion in June 1912. The idea was an elaboration on the editor of that moderate organ :rolleyes: , The Spectator, who wanted counties to vote for or against inclusion in the Home Rule. Dunno if either said anything about Orange and Malt (is that on offer tommorow night, Mr. Off-Licence Attendant?) but it was clear that any enthusiasm by Carson was purely to wreck Home Rule, per se.

Regarding Belfast and Republicanism. Belfast and Derry were far less Republican at that time than say Cork, Kerry, Tipp or even Dublin. The IPP post-Redmond never lost their seats there (Devlin admitedly was well respected). Martin McGuinness claims as much about Derry in one or two interviews I've read.

As for arguments for or anti republicanism, I hope people take any statement by me as pro-republican. The only inbreds I want to see as head of state are the ones people can vote in...or out seven years later. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

It was Thomas Agar-Robartes, a Liberal backbench MP with a Cornwall constituency, who proposed the 4 county exclusion in June 1912. The idea was an elaboration on the editor of that moderate organ :rolleyes: , The Spectator, who wanted counties to vote for or against inclusion in the Home Rule. Dunno if either said anything about Orange and Malt (is that on offer tommorow night, Mr. Off-Licence Attendant?) but it was clear that any enthusiasm by Carson was purely to wreck Home Rule, per se.

Regarding Belfast and Republicanism. Belfast and Derry were far less Republican at that time than say Cork, Kerry, Tipp or even Dublin. The IPP post-Redmond never lost their seats there (Devlin admitedly was well respected). Martin McGuinness claims as much about Derry in one or two interviews I've read.

As for arguments for or anti republicanism, I hope people take any statement by me as pro-republican. The only inbreds I want to see as head of state are the ones people can vote in...or out seven years later. :cool:

---

The quote can be atributed to Agar-Robarts thanks for the prompt, my good man. My own point about Republicanism in Belfast is that it would naturally happen to grow there and therefore the make up of the partitioned state would be irrelavent.

Admittedly my arguement was so succient it missed out a world war, revolution and war in Ireland, a change of government in Westminster and Bonar Law's impressive tash getting bigger.

Whiskey and orange? Old Mr. Roberts had a point not a combination I can imagine sipping in venerable establishments of north Landaaaan with any enthusiasim (like say somewhere like.... O' Raff's - I must have mentioned the place enough now for a free pint.)

For you Senor it is a sweet sherry after the game then straight to bed.