Gay Mitchel thinks Carson should be commemorated re 1916 ???

DOD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
642
Harpey said:


Monument of a man no matter what side your from.
Yes, he clearly was a man. So are 49% of the world's population. What's your point?
 


jjacollins

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
64
o it would be fair to say that when you criticised people who hark back to British "miss rule", you were just throwing in the mis-rule bit, and for all you know Westminster would have run the 26 counties better than the Dail would have 1922-1970, but you think an emotional attachment to being governed by members of one's own "nation" is more important than efficient and beneficial government?
I hardly think that anyone would ever say that Westminster would have run Ireland better than Dail Eireann.

Westminster was only interested in getting money in the form of taxes from Ireland and having a cheap source of Cattle and vegetables, not to mention a cheap work force.

There was minimal investment in the 26 Country area until Britain left, an example being the shannon scheme.

Irish culture was frowned upon and not supported.

I don't think we need Britains crimes in Ireland glossed over by you any more.
 

Terry Mac

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
20
badinage said:
but I don't really care what nationality those who draw up laws that concern me are,
.
Well you should, because most people will treat other people of the same nationalilty better than people of a different nationality. The EU comparison is not valid, because the EU is comprised of many different nations making laws for all of those nations, and the individual nations have a veto in all the important nations.

The Ireland/UK position is completely different, where you had one dominant nation making laws for a much smaller, less powerful one. Do you think that English politicians, who are voted into power by English voters are going to give equal priority to Irish issues in your little "Westminster ruling the 26 counties 1922-1972" fantasy. They didn't pay much attention to the plight of Northern Catholics did they.
 

civic_critic

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
119
Interesting how it's the Irish who are called upon to justify themselves and their positions all the time. Where is the justification from the british for what actually occurred? Where is the hair-splitting analysis of that, as opposed to the one constantly demanded of the irish?

Badinage speaks of british rule 1870 - 1922. Famine hit Ireland in 1878-79, leading yet again to the beginnings of mass evictions. Only the Land League and the absolute determination of the Irish to unite and prevent this from ever happening again actually stopped it.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
civic_critic said:
Interesting how it's the Irish who are called upon to justify themselves and their positions all the time. Where is the justification from the british for what actually occurred? Where is the hair-splitting analysis of that, as opposed to the one constantly demanded of the irish?
:?: My debate with Big_Ron began when he called upon Irishmen who "hark back to British miss rule" to justify their position. Where does calling upon the British to justify what occured come into that? (other than you wanting it to)

civic_critic said:
Badinage speaks of british rule 1870 - 1922. Famine hit Ireland in 1878-79, leading yet again to the beginnings of mass evictions. Only the Land League and the absolute determination of the Irish to unite and prevent this from ever happening again actually stopped it.
You obviously also believe that Ireland would have ruled itself better 1870-1922 than Westminster did, and Westminster would have ruled it worse than Ireland did 1922-1970. I just want to know what evidence you have for believeing that. Or if its a case of you not caring which parliament would have ruled Ireland better - you still think the Irish should have ruled themselves?
 

Carrier

Active member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
153
Website
www.newrepublicanforum.ie
I disagree with you. I don't think Ireland should re-join the UK, as I don't think it would be economically beneficial for us since the mid-90s, and I think it would destabilise the 26 counties and result in an IRA campaign, but I don't really care what nationality those who draw up laws that concern me are, and I don't mind EU regulations drawn up by non-Irish people over-ruling Irish law.
I don't think you really mean that. Lets say a group of Muslim immigrants here are wanted by the US, the Government refuses to hand them over and we're invaded and occupied (bit of a stretch, I know). Would the occupation (the invasion aside) be ok with you once a resistance movement didn't emerge and legislation left you in a better economic position?
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
Terry Mac said:
badinage said:
but I don't really care what nationality those who draw up laws that concern me are,
.
Well you should, because most people will treat other people of the same nationalilty better than people of a different nationality.

...

The Ireland/UK position is completely different, where you had one dominant nation making laws for a much smaller, less powerful one. Do you think that English politicians, who are voted into power by English voters are going to give equal priority to Irish issues in your little "Westminster ruling the 26 counties 1922-1972" fantasy.
That's a very problematic position to hold. It requires you, for example, to think Hawaii should be independent, because Hawaiins are being ruled by a far off people.

Arguably, it requires you to think Connaught should be independent, as a parliament composed entirely of people from Connaught will govern Connaught better than a parliament in Dublin made up of people from all 26 counties.

Terry Mac said:
Do you think that English politicians, who are voted into power by English voters are going to give equal priority to Irish issues in your little "Westminster ruling the 26 counties 1922-1972" fantasy. They didn't pay much attention to the plight of Northern Catholics did they.
NI had its own parliament. I think NI would have been better off 1920-1972 had it been ruled directly by Westminster.

Would it be your position that if given a choice between NI governing itself, or NI being governed by the UK, the people of NI would be better off ruling themselves?
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
Carrier said:
I disagree with you. I don't think Ireland should re-join the UK, as I don't think it would be economically beneficial for us since the mid-90s, and I think it would destabilise the 26 counties and result in an IRA campaign, but I don't really care what nationality those who draw up laws that concern me are, and I don't mind EU regulations drawn up by non-Irish people over-ruling Irish law.
I don't think you really mean that. Lets say a group of Muslim immigrants here are wanted by the US, the Government refuses to hand them over and we're invaded and occupied (bit of a stretch, I know). Would the occupation (the invasion aside) be ok with you once a resistance movement didn't emerge and legislation left you in a better economic position?
Of course not - because its against the will of the people.

If a clear majority of the population wanted the US to invade and govern us, then I'd accept that. (I'd probably move to a different country, because I think the Americans would be very poor rulers though)
 

Worldbystorm

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
321
badinage said:
Terry Mac said:
badinage said:
but I don't really care what nationality those who draw up laws that concern me are,
.
Well you should, because most people will treat other people of the same nationalilty better than people of a different nationality.

...

The Ireland/UK position is completely different, where you had one dominant nation making laws for a much smaller, less powerful one. Do you think that English politicians, who are voted into power by English voters are going to give equal priority to Irish issues in your little "Westminster ruling the 26 counties 1922-1972" fantasy.
That's a very problematic position to hold. It requires you, for example, to think Hawaii should be independent, because Hawaiins are being ruled by a far off people.

Arguably, it requires you to think Connaught should be independent, as a parliament composed entirely of people from Connaught will govern Connaught better than a parliament in Dublin made up of people from all 26 counties.

[quote="Terry Mac":2bb2au90]
Do you think that English politicians, who are voted into power by English voters are going to give equal priority to Irish issues in your little "Westminster ruling the 26 counties 1922-1972" fantasy. They didn't pay much attention to the plight of Northern Catholics did they.
NI had its own parliament. I think NI would have been better off 1920-1972 had it been ruled directly by Westminster.

Would it be your position that if given a choice between NI governing itself, or NI being governed by the UK, the people of NI would be better off ruling themselves?[/quote:2bb2au90]

I think your broad point is interesting, but not entirely convincing. It seems to me to be essential that within any polity those making legislation have a strong connection with those who operate within the legislation. The EU isn't entirely analagous to British rule since the EU is an agreed experiment in pooled sovereignty which incorporates members from all states including Ireland. There are also fairly clear limits to EU sovereignty and countries have and do get opt-outs. British rule in Ireland was wrong because of the lack of representation of Irish people. This wasn't pooled sovereignty because Irish legislators simply didn't exist in a meaningful way in the pre-partion Westminster parliament due to British based parties having a significantly greater majority and not requiring their input. Representation is the key to any democracy. That's why the EU is so blurred around the edges with the Commission, the Parliament and so on each having a representational element. It's also part of the reason that the EU is so unpopular.

The Hawaii example is wrong simply because the US is a federal setup, and state power is considerably stronger than most people realise. Connaught makes no sense for obvious reasons regarding identity and size of this state.

British rule pre-1922 probably was useful for this state on a purely pragmatic basis. We inherited a civil service with a strongly non-partisan and non-corruptible ethos. The same is true with our judiciary. Rule of law, an understanding of democracy in principle if not practice and so on. Check out: Fanning, Ronan, ‘Britain’s legacy: government and administration’ in Drudy, P.J., (ed.) Ireland and Britain since 1922, (Cambridge, 1986). Very thought provoking.

Vis a vis Northern Ireland, yes, I do agree, it would have been vastly better - had the option been available and failing a UI - if the Stormont parliament hadn't been founded and it had been direct rule. But Northern Ireland was and is in a very different situation due to the contested nature of the cultural and political identities there. At that point, at any point, any majoritarian setup was bound to crash and burn.

In any case, if all was rosy in the garden, why the push by the British state itself to devolve power to local legislatures in Scotland and Wales (and abortively England itself) in recent years?
 

Carrier

Active member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
153
Website
www.newrepublicanforum.ie
badinage said:
Carrier said:
I disagree with you. I don't think Ireland should re-join the UK, as I don't think it would be economically beneficial for us since the mid-90s, and I think it would destabilise the 26 counties and result in an IRA campaign, but I don't really care what nationality those who draw up laws that concern me are, and I don't mind EU regulations drawn up by non-Irish people over-ruling Irish law.
I don't think you really mean that. Lets say a group of Muslim immigrants here are wanted by the US, the Government refuses to hand them over and we're invaded and occupied (bit of a stretch, I know). Would the occupation (the invasion aside) be ok with you once a resistance movement didn't emerge and legislation left you in a better economic position?
Of course not - because its against the will of the people.

If a clear majority of the population wanted the US to invade and govern us, then I'd accept that. (I'd probably move to a different country, because I think the Americans would be very poor rulers though)
Hmm. A 'the people have the right to do wrong'-type thing. I find the idea that you don't care who governs you, once they do an ok job, to be a strange one. I mean, the board of microsoft would probably do a good job of running the country for us, but I'd rather we did it ourselves, even if we do make mistakes.
 

Worldbystorm

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
321
Carrier said:
Hmm. A 'the people have the right to do wrong'-type thing. I find the idea that you don't care who governs you, once they do an ok job, to be a strange one. I mean, the board of microsoft would probably do a good job of running the country for us, but I'd rather we did it ourselves, even if we do make mistakes.
It's a very technocratic view of politics, as if it's a sort of process which has clear inputs and outcomes independent of those being represented. I've mentioned elsewhere how much I disagree personally with that view which was amazingly popular in FG and other parties during the 1980s in particular when people wanted list systems of elections and so on. It's for policy wonks who want to break the direct link between voter and poiltician. I think sometimes it's only that link which keeps them (politicians) even relatively grounded in reality. For instance, much as I might dislike Ivor Callely's politics and even decry the parish pump element to his pronouncements in the past I'm delighted he has his consitutency caravan down in Fairview every weekend and (kills me to say this) fair dues to him.
 

Fantasia

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
917
Meet me at here Gay at (Carsons Spire)

What a jolly splendid idear, Gay. :wink: :wink: I say old chap lets place Carsons statue on top of the spire like we commemorated Nelson for all those years.
 

padraig

Active member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
208
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
wquill said:
I don't mean to flaunt my own work, but I wrote a biography of Carson for the wiki, http://www.politics.ie/wiki/index.php?title=Edward_Carson,_Baron_Carson_of_Duncairn,.

I would be fairly understanding of Carson. He was a man who did believe in the rule of law but showed compassion in his legal career. He has got a lot of stick for the Wilde trial, but, as has been said above, he was a defence lawyer for the Marquess of Queensbury. He took no particular pleasure in taknig that case.

He believed in Ireland, in its unity and its importance, and Dublin was home for him until it became inhospitable. He showed no real affection for Ulster Unionism and was certainly not a sectarian. Although he participated in the gun-running, he did so only reluctantly, and it would not be fair to say that he brought that the gun into Irish politics.
Sorry William there was a problem with your link:

http://www.politics.ie/wiki/index.php?t ... f_Duncairn
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
16
jjacollins said:
Carson was an arch terrorist.

He was doing side deals with the British imperialists when he had no right to be doing so. Ireland had it's own government to represent the Country.

His statue should be removed in the interests of anti sectarianism.
a government in 1916? what are you talking about.

Can somebody PUUULEEASE purge this website of all this filthy disgusting fenian bllsht!
I'm growing tired of it. It stinks of such ignorance and small mindedness. The hiprocrisy of you dirty smelly shinners calling carson a biggot is astounding.

ireland is having a full government is not bad. but i resent any kind of cultural imperialism be it british OR shinner/ignorant/ fenian/gaelic.
 

martin TYRONE

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
76
Would you and the Portadown and Ballemena loyalists plese stop refering to us as Fenians---its so bloody outdated its not even funny---and as for Taigs which in fairness you have yet to use but as far as I can see it is only a matter of time -----Taig was never really a popular name for Catholic boys in the North----come on get with the times Jaffa
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
16
martin TYRONE said:
Would you and the Portadown and Ballemena loyalists plese stop refering to us as Fenians---its so bloody outdated its not even funny---and as for Taigs which in fairness you have yet to use but as far as I can see it is only a matter of time -----Taig was never really a popular name for Catholic boys in the North----come on get with the times Jaffa
A shinner telling me not to use outdated terms! Thats a bit rich.
And inferring that I am a loyalist reflects your level of intelligence. Personally I have no time for loyalists either. They are just as ignorant as you smelly shinners.

Fenians is not an outdated term at all. Thats what you are. Simply because there exists a pan nationalism across this island that makes it seem that there are not other points of view ( home rule, IPP etc), does not mean that they don't exist.

Violent ("republican") revolutionaries like yourselfs have always been referred to as fenians, because that is the tradition you have subsribed to. I'm talking about all the mythology, lore, and celtic nonsense. Oh what do I care its all the same ignorant stuff to me. Anyway, if you believe in all this nonsense you should at least admit to it.

Be honest with everyone here on this website. It would make us all a lot happier.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,015
insidethepalethankfully said:
Can somebody PUUULEEASE purge this website of all this filthy disgusting fenian bllsht!
I'm growing tired of it. It stinks of such ignorance and small mindedness. The hiprocrisy of you dirty smelly shinners calling carson a biggot is astounding.
Cue David Attenborough: And here we have an example of the lesser Sunday Independent journalist in its wild, unspellchecked format. The words will later be gathered up by older members of the pack and used to decorate fishwrapping. :)

Regards...jmcc
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,015
Re: Meet me at here Gay at (Carsons Spire)

Fantasia said:
What a jolly splendid idear, Gay. :wink: :wink: I say old chap lets place Carsons statue on top of the spire like we commemorated Nelson for all those years.
Why not put Gay on top of the spike like the true Oirishman that he is, he would be in the company of other similarly minded blockheads on pedestals.

Regards...jmcc
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top