John Bruton is a Carsonite.

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,993
BarryW said:
pfinnegan said:
Well at the risk of sounding even more outrageous Michael Collins fought a civil war in support of partition
:? That is an incredibly warped version of history - and one which is completely wrong.
I don't ordinarily agree with BarryW on a lot of things but I do agree with this. I think that either pfinnegan is a student of the Eoin Harris school of provocative outrage or an utter ignoramus when it comes to analysing historical events.

Regards...jmcc
 


jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,993
pfinnegan said:
Are you seriously suggesting that the Irish Civil War was not fought over partition?
The Civil War was fought over the Republic. The Treaty established the Free State but the split was over the Republic. The Anti-Treaty side wanted a 32 county Republic rather than the 26 county Free State. The difference between a Free State with external association and a free and independent Republic was the core of the argument. Perhaps you should do some reading about the Civil War and the events leading up to it instead of posting your own, rather unique, fact free interpretation of history.

Regards...jmcc
 

Jozer

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
57
pfinnegan said:
BarryW said:
pfinnegan said:
Well at the risk of sounding even more outrageous Michael Collins fought a civil war in support of partition
:? That is an incredibly warped version of history - and one which is completely wrong.
The Civil War was against people who refused to accept the democratic will of the people

pfinnegan said:
and Fine Gael have always endorsed that position i.e pro-partition
Can you give me one example of where Fine Gael have endorsed Partition? Just one?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Irish Civil War was not fought over partition? If so you are in a minority of one. If not then I suggest you read up on Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and Civil War politics in Ireland.
The Irish Civil War was fought over the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. In the Dail records, partition is hardly mentioned.
 

holdini

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
35
BarryW said:
pfinnegan said:
and Fine Gael have always endorsed that position i.e pro-partition
Can you give me one example of where Fine Gael have endorsed Partition? Just one?
Deputy Kenny opposing speaking rights in the Dáil to MPs of all parties in the North.
 

Thar an Phail

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
17
The Civil War was fought over the stepping stone approach.

It was fought between those who correctly asserted that Collins stepping stone approach would lead to independence for the 26 and those who did not. Most debates were over the oath of allegence.

The civil war undermined Collins efforts to destabilise the sectarian gerrymandered statelet in the north.
 

pfinnegan

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
19
voiceofretribution said:
pfinnegan said:
voiceofretribution said:
'He continued to lead the Unionists but when the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was introduced, advised his party to work for the exemption of six Ulster counties from Home Rule as the best compromise (a compromise he had previously rejected). This proposal passed and as a result the Parliament of Northern Ireland was established. After the partition of Ireland, Carson repeatedly warned Ulster Unionist leaders not to alienate northern Catholics, as he accurately foresaw this would make Northern Ireland unstable. In 1921 he stated: "We used to say that we could not trust an Irish parliament in Dublin to do justice to the Protestant minority. Let us take care that that reproach can no longer be made against your parliament, and from the outset let them see that the Catholic minority have nothing to fear from a Protestant majority." His calls went unheeded.'

[edit]

He initially argued against partition of any kind, believing that one Iirsh state within the Union was the best way for the island of Ireland to Progress, but following the passing of the 3rd home rule bill, he had no option but to support a parliament for ulster.

And you might also like to note that not only do FG support partition as it stands, (the good friday agreement) so do FF, PD's Labour, Greens, Sinn Fein, the SDLP, the UUP and 70% of the people on this entire island.
Judge
Be careful about using wikipedia. It's not totally accurate. I prefer Hansard.

On JANUARY FIRST 1913 Carson proposed an amendment to the 1912 Home Rule Bill that proposed excluding the nine counties of Ulster.
Now repeat after me...

Carson initially opposed all forms of Home Rule until the Lords veto disappeared signalling the arrival of the 3rd home rule bill. He did so because he believed that an All Ireland within the Union was best for Ireland. He feared the repracussions of partition which might alienate certain societies. However at which juncture he had no choice but to chose a 9 county parliament of Ulster over a 32 county roman catholic statelet.

You do see the train of logic in Carsons developments
Wrong.

Carson supported partition because Ulster Protestants felt their privileged position would be taken away by a Dublin parliament. The Rome Rule argument is a furphy. In fact Ulster Protestants were and are some of the most conservative Christians on the planet, right up there with the Pope.
 

merle haggard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
5,434
voiceofretribution said:
merle haggard said:
voiceofretribution said:
I advise you to get the full transcript of such the speech.

What you will have noticed is that the reason for that day being so great in the eyes of John Bruton, was that it represented of two cultures coming together in a way that possibly had not been seen in hundrerds of years. The fact that an Irish elected leader can meet with the heir to the British throne and have cordial relations.

Now if you ask me, the symbolism surrounding the event, and what it transpires to in the general wasteland that was British -Irish history is pretty significant, although i do admit, JB might have used better means to portray his delight at this watershed.

Still regardless of how it looked, one look at the transcript will enable you to see that this was significant in JB's life not because oCharles Windsor was present, but because of what it represented. Now it may have looked terrible through green glasses, but i for one don't think that what the meeting represents is a bad thing.
the man used these exact words . Refferring to him as your highness he declared " you personally represent much of what we aspire to"

Tell us now what that was supposed to mean then . Spin John Brutons way out of that :lol: :lol:
As i said,

I don't necessarily agree with the way that he chose to signify such an event,

but if you want spin..

I presume he meant that the current British establishment can accomodate all creeds of religion and nationality such as Welsh speaking citizens, Scots and English races, while we in Ireland can't seem to accomodate two identities..
i said spin , not a complete lie . Bruton spoke to Prince Charles directly and said " you personally represent " not the British establishment . Big ears himself .
 

Alliance

Active member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
162
merle haggard said:
i said spin , not a complete lie . Bruton spoke to Prince Charles directly and said " you personally represent " not the British establishment . Big ears himself .
Maybe he meant his sex appeal? Camilla is a hottie you know...
 

DSCH

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
246
voiceofretribution said:
As i said,

I don't necessarily agree with the way that he chose to signify such an event,

but if you want spin..

I presume he meant that the current British establishment can accomodate all creeds of religion and nationality such as Welsh speaking citizens, Scots and English races, while we in Ireland can't seem to accomodate two identities..
The mask slipped and Bruton revealed himself to be a sycophantic apologist for a British Nationalist identity for Ireland. Hence his chorus of cheerleaders that included the usual suspects Cruiser, Harris etc

As for the Scots and the Welsh, they were happy to accept English psychological domination and control. The Scots in particular were happy to play the role of shock troops for the imperial cause, when the cause was that of a white protestant herrenvolk empire. As the state they believed in has disappeared they are finally beginning to wake up to the fact that Britain is at heart greater England, and they who were once enthusiastic imperialists, have taken on the role of dependent colonists. While Labour governs in Westminster, the National parties of Scotland and Wales are in power. The Tories however have become a permanent minority on the Celtic fringe, as they are fatally associated with an alien creed, Greater England nationalism. The return to power of the Tories in Britain should make for interesting times!
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
51,869
This is far and away the dumbest thread I've ever seen - I think its originator must be our good friend Cael "The Famine was genocide and Dr Joe Lee is a British puppet" on speed. :roll: I'd love to comment on it, but I just don't know where to begin deconstructing the lies dressed up as fact.

All I'll suggest is that we all club together and buy the author a fairly basic Irish history book - particularly as his assumptions seem to come from the school of "All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs. Therefore my dog is a cat".
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
DSCH said:
The return to power of the Tories in Britain should make for interesting times!
Stick to An Poblacht dude. If you think Cameron can get elected you know f#ck all about British politics.
 

DSCH

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
246
White Horse said:
DSCH said:
The return to power of the Tories in Britain should make for interesting times!
Stick to An Poblacht dude. If you think Cameron can get elected you know f#ck all about British politics.
Well the Tories outpolled Labour in England at the last British GE, so the worm has already turned.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
DSCH said:
White Horse said:
DSCH said:
The return to power of the Tories in Britain should make for interesting times!
Stick to An Poblacht dude. If you think Cameron can get elected you know f#ck all about British politics.
Well the Tories outpolled Labour in England at the last British GE, so the worm has already turned.
Popular vote in a first past the post system is not as crucial as under PR.

The last election was in the middle of the war in Iraq and the fall-out over WMD.

The next election will be fought on public services; the Tories don't win those elections.
 

BarryW

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
262
White Horse said:
The last election was in the middle of the war in Iraq and the fall-out over WMD.

The next election will be fought on public services; the Tories don't win those elections.
1) The British public's ire is now based on a hell of a lot more than Iraq and WMD

2) The British public is slowly learning that Labour just can't deliver on public services
 

Biffo

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
79
White Horse said:
The next election will be fought on public services; the Tories don't win those elections.
How do you know?

More generally why does this thread exist? Who cares what John Bruton is now or was in the past, he was a stop gap taoiseach who left no legacy, and will duly be air-brushed from history.
 

DSCH

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
246
White Horse said:
Popular vote in a first past the post system is not as crucial as under PR.
Well it's fair to say that the British system is totally dysfunctional and anachronistic. Another area where British exceptionalism is inferior.

My broader point is that a Tory victory, while being welcomed by Irish unionists, would be greeted with dismay in Scotland and Wales (though would be welcomed with glee by Scottish and Welsh nationalists, as they alone offer a permanent solution to the problem of rule by foreigners, i.e. Tories!)
 

pogo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
435
Website
stags.pl
DSCH said:
when the cause was that of a white protestant herrenvolk empire.
Are you ever going to shut the fvck up about the herrenvolk :?:

To mention it once may be mildly amusing to some, to use the term from time to time would indicate an idiosyncratic world-view, to place the word herrenfolk in every post you make is just fukcing tiresome.

Can't you obsess about a new word for a change :?:
 

DSCH

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
246
pogo said:
DSCH said:
when the cause was that of a white protestant herrenvolk empire.
Are you ever going to shut the fvck up about the herrenvolk :?:

To mention it once may be mildly amusing to some, to use the term from time to time would indicate an idiosyncratic world-view, to place the word herrenfolk in every post you make is just fukcing tiresome.

Can't you obsess about a new word for a change :?:
Can't a Polish based Brit find a new site to obsess on?

The word itself has a specific meaning in academic circles - and I use it in the correct context. It also has an ironic subtext, which I think youy've probably picked up on.
 

pogo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
435
Website
stags.pl
DSCH said:
The word itself has a specific meaning in academic circles - and I use it in the correct context. It also has an ironic subtext, which I think youy've probably picked up on.
But is it so absolutely fukcing fascinating that it has to be dragged into every post you happen to make :?:

And btw you're wrong. The British have never seen themselves as a master-race in the way that the Nazis did.

The British icon is John Bull, the fat middle-aged epitome of common-sense values, not some Nietzschean superman.
 

DSCH

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
246
pogo said:
And btw you're wrong. The British have never seen themselves as a master-race in the way that the Nazis did.

Just in a different way!
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom