John Bruton is a Carsonite.

pogo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
435
Website
stags.pl
DSCH said:
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!
If they saw themselves as a master-race in a different way, this makes the herrenvolk analogy inaccurate.
 


BarryW

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
262
shaneholden said:
Thats it Barry, ignore the point and resort to petty insults. Name one aspect of FG's policy regarding nothern Mo speaking rights that wasn't partitionist.
How on earth does opposing that idea make you pro-partition?

(Oh sorry - I just remembered. Disagree with anything that SF say and you're automaticall a Partitionist/Unionist/WestBrit/Securocrat etc etc :roll: )

Great to see Ogra FF thinkin for themselves. As usual....
 

DSCH

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
246
pogo said:
DSCH said:
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!
If they saw themselves as a master-race in a different way, this makes the herrenvolk analogy inaccurate.
It's just a word! And yet it's more than just a word! A German word, and we know how the British love all things German. Anyway think of British nationalism in Ireland, in Ulster, on the frontier. Think of big Ian. Think of how in this day and age his values are global! There's nothing more to be said really.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
Biffo said:
White Horse said:
The next election will be fought on public services; the Tories don't win those elections.
How do you know?
Through following opinion polls, talking to people, reading articles etc etc

Biffo said:
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.
No legacy! Our propersity? IRA decomissioning? The passing of the divorce referendum?

I sure the knuckle draggers in FF will try to re-write history. They're past masters at it. They might even try to portray blankcheque Bertie as something other than Haughey's gimp.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
shaneholden said:
Name one aspect of FG's policy regarding nothern Mo speaking rights that wasn't partitionist.
Recognising that Northern Ireland is not part of the Irish state is not "partitionist", it's just recognising the bleeding obvious.
 

holdini

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
35
White Horse said:
shaneholden said:
Name one aspect of FG's policy regarding nothern Mo speaking rights that wasn't partitionist.
Recognising that Northern Ireland is not part of the Irish state is not "partitionist", it's just recognising the bleeding obvious.
Not being willing to allow those Irish people in the 6 counties have a voice in Dáil Éireann would qualify as partitionist; it really boils down to wishing to include those in the 6 counties in southern affairs and eventually full integration, or ignoring them and excluding them. FG chose the later.
 

tonys

Active member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
195
White Horse said:
Biffo said:
[quote="White Horse":35vctdrp]The next election will be fought on public services; the Tories don't win those elections.
How do you know?
Through following opinion polls, talking to people, reading articles etc etc

Biffo said:
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.
No legacy! Our propersity? IRA decomissioning? The passing of the divorce referendum?

I sure the knuckle draggers in FF will try to re-write history. They're past masters at it. They might even try to portray blankcheque Bertie as something other than Haughey's gimp.[/quote:35vctdrp]Your superiority complex is showing. Try to hide it, it’s the most unpleasant side of FG’ers
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
shaneholden said:
Not being willing to allow those Irish people in the 6 counties have a voice in Dáil Éireann would qualify as partitionist; it really boils down to wishing to include those in the 6 counties in southern affairs and eventually full integration, or ignoring them and excluding them. FG chose the later.
The Dail is the parliament of the Irish state. It is a matter of fact that this does not inlcude the six counties of Northern Ireland. This was resolved upon the removal of articles 2 & 3 from our constitution.

The question then arises as to when we allow people who profess Irish ethnicity from territories outside the state to have a voice in Dail Eireann.

I oppose this on the principle that it dilutes the democratic principle that underlies parliamentary democracy.

I would have no problem with Northern Ireland politicians being invited to make submissions to committies in the Oireachtas, but the Dail is for elected deputies only.

I agree with you that we should be generous in listening to those outside the State, but speaking rights in the Dail is not the way.

I don't consider this view to be "partitionist".
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
tonys said:
White Horse said:
Biffo said:
[quote="White Horse":2sbnucgl]The next election will be fought on public services; the Tories don't win those elections.
How do you know?
Through following opinion polls, talking to people, reading articles etc etc

Biffo said:
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.
No legacy! Our propersity? IRA decomissioning? The passing of the divorce referendum?

I sure the knuckle draggers in FF will try to re-write history. They're past masters at it. They might even try to portray blankcheque Bertie as something other than Haughey's gimp.
Your superiority complex is showing. Try to hide it, it’s the most unpleasant side of FG’ers[/quote:2sbnucgl]

I take your point. I like to think of myself as recovering from the condition you describe. I fall off the wagon when someone like Biffo writes something so ridiculous that temptation overcomes restraint.
 

CrockerJarman

Active member
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
107
Quick question?

What's a Carsonite? Someone who follows the political beliefs of Sir Edward Carson?
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
51,869
shaneholden said:
Not being willing to allow those Irish people in the 6 counties have a voice in Dáil Éireann would qualify as partitionist;

No it wouldn't - its a very basic principle of parliamentary democracy. If you don't have to face the electorate that must live by the laws enacted by a parliament, then you cannot be allowed to seek to influence the decisions made in that parliament by speaking in it. If DUP MPs came down to Leinster House, and delivered such a passionate argument in favour of, say, closing pubs on Sundays, that a few Independents (or indeed anyone) saw the merit of their argument and voted accordingly, would you be happy about that? Likewise if SF MPs came down and passionately argued the case for, say, tax rises - those individual MPs wouldn't be accountable to the people affected by any such legislation passed. Its basic democracy.

[quote:x3qww2v2]it really boils down to wishing to include those in the 6 counties in southern affairs and eventually full integration, or ignoring them and excluding them. FG chose the later.
[/quote:x3qww2v2]

Yeah, by negotiating the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which gave the Republic a say in Northern affairs for the first time, they were really ignoring those in the North.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
51,869
tonys said:
White Horse said:
Biffo said:
[quote="White Horse":2ihvyeo6]The next election will be fought on public services; the Tories don't win those elections.
How do you know?
Through following opinion polls, talking to people, reading articles etc etc

Biffo said:
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.
No legacy! Our propersity? IRA decomissioning? The passing of the divorce referendum?

I sure the knuckle draggers in FF will try to re-write history. They're past masters at it. They might even try to portray blankcheque Bertie as something other than Haughey's gimp.
Your superiority complex is showing. Try to hide it, it’s the most unpleasant side of FG’ers[/quote:2ihvyeo6]


And Biffo's original remarks don't show a superiority complex as well? :roll:
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
CrockerJarman said:
Quick question?

What's a Carsonite? Someone who follows the political beliefs of Sir Edward Carson?
Not really.

Bruton is generally proclaimed to be a Redmondite. However, the original poster claimed that this is invalid as Redmond was opposed to partition, while Bruton apparently supports partition.

This is vehmently denies by non-republicans. Bruton sought to unify the Irish people.

The original poster then says that as Bruton is a "partitionist", he is more likely a follower of Carson. As Carson was a southerner from Dublin, and sought partition, Bruton is his disciple.

Sorry if the logic sounds ridulous. That is only because the proposition is ridiculous.
 

Sidewinder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
442
WH: your thesis that Bruton was seeking to unite the people of Ireland falls down a wee bit when you remember that Unionist politicians despised Bruton as a weak fool...and respected Albert...

Blueshirt craven grovelling is never going to unite anybody, except in contempt for youse.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
Sidewinder said:
WH: your thesis that Bruton was seeking to unite the people of Ireland falls down a wee bit when you remember that Unionist politicians despised Bruton as a weak fool...and respected Albert...

Blueshirt craven grovelling is never going to unite anybody, except in contempt for youse.
Unionists are much more comfortable with politicans like Albert Reynolds. They see him as the enemy, a person who wishes to conquer their land, and subject them to rule by the Roman Catholic Irish. Reynolds allows them to conjure up the spirit of the Somme etc. etc.

Bruton makes the uncomfortable with his ideas that a British identity is compatible with Irishness. He mades them feel less British and unable to react is their traditional "us and them" basis.

I don't know where you got the idea that they thought Bruton was a "weak fool". Perhaps your many unionist firends have told you this. I doubt it.

As for the contempt you have for FG, I guess it's a burden we'll have to carry.
 

CrockerJarman

Active member
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
107
White Horse said:
CrockerJarman said:
Quick question?

What's a Carsonite? Someone who follows the political beliefs of Sir Edward Carson?
Not really.

Bruton is generally proclaimed to be a Redmondite. However, the original poster claimed that this is invalid as Redmond was opposed to partition, while Bruton apparently supports partition.

This is vehmently denies by non-republicans. Bruton sought to unify the Irish people.

The original poster then says that as Bruton is a "partitionist", he is more likely a follower of Carson. As Carson was a southerner from Dublin, and sought partition, Bruton is his disciple.

Sorry if the logic sounds ridulous. That is only because the proposition is ridiculous.
I would have summed up "Carsonism" (whatever that is) by reference to the Third Home Rule Bill debate and not partition, per se. But anyhoo....

But you're right the proposition is ridiculous. Thats what you get when you mix pass Junior Cert History and begrudgery together I suppose.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,993
White Horse said:
Unionists are much more comfortable with politicans like Albert Reynolds.
Perhaps the unionists were far more perceptive than you give them credit for. Bruton was an accidental Taoiseach - an abberation. He had no popular support and was not there by the will of the people. Thus any agreement with a Brutonite government would not be worth the paper it was written on and could not have been relied upon to bring the Provos along towards a ceasefire. Reynolds on the other hand was more a mirror image of the unionists - someone whom they could understand and respect and more importantly, do business with.

Regards...jmcc
 

Sidewinder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
442
White Horse said:
Unionists are much more comfortable with politicans like Albert Reynolds. They see him as the enemy, a person who wishes to conquer their land, and subject them to rule by the Roman Catholic Irish. Reynolds allows them to conjure up the spirit of the Somme etc. etc.

Bruton makes the uncomfortable with his ideas that a British identity is compatible with Irishness. He mades them feel less British and unable to react is their traditional "us and them" basis.

I don't know where you got the idea that they thought Bruton was a "weak fool". Perhaps your many unionist firends have told you this. I doubt it.

As for the contempt you have for FG, I guess it's a burden we'll have to carry.
LOL, aye right son. You just keep telling yourself that.

Albert was a straight-talking man of business and they responded to that. They could do business with him and know that he'd make it stick. Bruton was a confused waffler with no proper mandate, who was all over the place on the north and handled the whole area disastrously. None of the northern politicians had the slightest respect for the man.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
jmcc said:
White Horse said:
Unionists are much more comfortable with politicans like Albert Reynolds.
Perhaps the unionists were far more perceptive than you give them credit for. Bruton was an accidental Taoiseach - an abberation. He had no popular support and was not there by the will of the people. Thus any agreement with a Brutonite government would not be worth the paper it was written on and could not have been relied upon to bring the Provos along towards a ceasefire. Reynolds on the other hand was more a mirror image of the unionists - someone whom they could understand and respect and more importantly, do business with.

Regards...jmcc
Bruton was elected to office by a majority of the Dail, who in turn were elected by a majority of voters.

His government had the same democratic madate as any other government.

I am not seeking to deride Reynolds and belittle the respect unionists may (or may not) have had for him a negotiating party.

I am countering the false proposition that unionists thought Bruton was a fool.

I have many unionist contacts and have never heard it said once.

I have heard awful things said about Ahearn, but nothing about Bruton.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
Sidewinder said:
Albert was a straight-talking man of business and they responded to that. They could do business with him and know that he'd make it stick. Bruton was a confused waffler with no proper mandate, who was all over the place on the north and handled the whole area disastrously. None of the northern politicians had the slightest respect for the man.
Your opinion on Bruton is clear and well established. So is mine.

Where did you get the unionist opinion of Bruton?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom