John Bruton is a Carsonite.

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
45,991
pfinnegan said:
With all due respect you are missing the point. Redmond would not accept partition and he did not believe in the principle of consent i.e. allowing Unionists to opt out. He fully expected that in the event of UDI the British Army would suppress the UVF.
Actually you are wrong about this. The Curragh Mutiny removed any doubts about the British Army forcing the unionists into a United Ireland. Your knowledge of the events of that time seems to be drawn from a single source rather than from a wide range of sources.


Acceptance of consent is support for partition.
No. That's a simplistic argument.

De Valera's reversal of the principle of consent realigned Irish Government policy with that of Redmond and the IPP.
You are ignoring that the situation had changed drastically - Ireland was independent. The Ireland of Redmond's time was not. You seem to ignore this fundamental point in order to float your thesis.

de Valera was a republican, Redmond was a monarchist but their position vis a vi partition was the same and this helps to explain why de Valera and the Fianna Fail party had so much electoral success in the Free State. Their "United Ireland" policies appealed to IPP(Home Rule) voters.
Hardly. To attribute the success of FF in the Free State to your single idea is foolish. Have you thought of writing for the Sindo?

Regards...jmcc
 


hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
51,859
In all this throwing around of names for philosophies, we're forgetting one thing - "Carsonism", such as it was, was based around preventing Home Rule within the UK anywhere in Ireland, while "Redmondism" such as it was, was based around seeking Home Rule within the UK for the whole of Ireland. As such neither philosophy has any current validity, as there's no longer any prospect of the conditions existing for either philosophy.


So there's no point in attaching such labels to people of the modern era. You can say that so-and-so admired one, or so-and-so-else admired another, but if a philosophy no longer exists then you can't ascribe it to people.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,012
pfinnegan said:
De Valera's reversal of the principle of consent realigned Irish Government policy with that of Redmond and the IPP. de Valera was a republican, Redmond was a monarchist but their position vis a vi partition was the same and this helps to explain why de Valera and the Fianna Fail party had so much electoral success in the Free State. Their "United Ireland" policies appealed to IPP(Home Rule) voters.
I don't know where you got this idea from. I thought that the National Centre Party was the successor to the old Irish Parliamentary Party. The merger with Cumann na nGaedheal and the National Guard to form Fine Gael represented the unification of the remnants of the IIP with the majority of the original Sinn Fein Party.
 

Smashey

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
12
Website
www.freewebs.com
ireland2004 said:
Ahh this auld shíte again. Given that people who are unelected in the 26 counties are already allowed to speak in the 26 county Dáil it doesn't say much for the "basic principles of democracy" in the 26 Counties.

That said, if the 26 County Dáil did pass legislation allowing six county reps to speak wouldn't that be in keeping with the "basic principle of democracy" given the parliament is voting for it to happen?
Ah here come on, the only unelected people from outside the Republic of Ireland that address the Dail are foreign heads of state invited to do so such as Clinton, Mandela, Mitterand etc. These are generally polite speeches made as a gesture not a policy driven attack on the Govt or indeed members of the opposition which would most likely be made by many MPs from the North!

This thread by the way is a joke, whoever initiated it as way too much time on their hands & very poor knowledge of Irish history
 

padraig

Active member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
208
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
White Horse said:
pfinnegan said:
De Valera's reversal of the principle of consent realigned Irish Government policy with that of Redmond and the IPP. de Valera was a republican, Redmond was a monarchist but their position vis a vi partition was the same and this helps to explain why de Valera and the Fianna Fail party had so much electoral success in the Free State. Their "United Ireland" policies appealed to IPP(Home Rule) voters.
I don't know where you got this idea from. I thought that the National Centre Party was the successor to the old Irish Parliamentary Party. The merger with Cumann na nGaedheal and the National Guard to form Fine Gael represented the unification of the remnants of the IIP with the majority of the original Sinn Fein Party.
The National Centre Party was formed in 1932, James Dillon the son of John Dillon the former leader of the IPP was a member of the party, but the NCP was not a successor to the IPP. The NCP was originally known as the National Farmers and Ratepayers League.
 

pfinnegan

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
19
CrockerJarman said:
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.
Debate on the Third Home Rule Bill of 1912 was dominated by the issue of partition and civil war not Home Rule itself which was inevitable after the Parliament Act 1911 guillotined the blocking power of the House of Lords. Carson realised this, changed strategy, espoused partition as the least worst scenario for Ulster, and campaigned for the right of Ulster Unionists to self determination. That's the definition of Carsonism.
 

pfinnegan

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
19
White Horse said:
pfinnegan said:
Fair enough but your reply is off topic. Redmond would not accept partition and he did not believe in the principle of consent i.e allowing Unionists to opt out. He fully expected that in the event of UDI the British Army would suppress the UVF. Therefore John Bruton and Fianna Gael cannot claim to be Redmondites.
I don't think they would claim to be Redmonites, but would express admiration for a man unfairly maligned by republicans.

However, I question what Redmond's philosphy would be in the modern context of a long established Northern Ireland state that has recently being reaffirmed in a referendum in both parts of Ireland.

I believe that Redmond would a closer in outlook to FG than to republicansim.
Redmond was not a republican, he was a monarchist. Who knows what political philosophy Redmond may have adopted in later years but at the time of his death he opposed partition. The two attempts to implement Home Rule after the Easter Rebellion failed because Redmond would not concede permanent exclusion of the six Ulster Counties. That's his political legacy.
 

pfinnegan

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
19
hiding behind a poster said:
In all this throwing around of names for philosophies, we're forgetting one thing - "Carsonism", such as it was, was based around preventing Home Rule within the UK anywhere in Ireland, while "Redmondism" such as it was, was based around seeking Home Rule within the UK for the whole of Ireland. As such neither philosophy has any current validity, as there's no longer any prospect of the conditions existing for either philosophy.


So there's no point in attaching such labels to people of the modern era. You can say that so-and-so admired one, or so-and-so-else admired another, but if a philosophy no longer exists then you can't ascribe it to people.
Debate on the Third Home Rule Bill of 1912 was dominated by the issue of partition and civil war not Home Rule itself which was inevitable after the Parliament Act 1911 guillotined the blocking power of the House of Lords. Carson realised this, changed strategy, espoused partition as the least worst scenario for Ulster, and campaigned for the right of Ulster Unionists to self determination. That's the definition of Carsonism.

Cultures, political parties and people define themselves through symbols of the past all the time. What do you think the Glorious 12th is about?
 

pfinnegan

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
19
hiding behind a poster said:
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".
If you really want to buy me a history book see if you can get your hands on this.

Carson: The Man Who Divided Ireland (Paperback)
ISBN: 1852855703
 

Alliance

Active member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
162
pfinnegan said:
If you really want to buy me a history book see if you can get your hands on this.

Carson: The Man Who Divided Ireland (Paperback)
ISBN: 1852855703
An excellent book. One which you obviously didn't read.
 

pfinnegan

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
19
Alliance said:
pfinnegan said:
If you really want to buy me a history book see if you can get your hands on this.

Carson: The Man Who Divided Ireland (Paperback)
ISBN: 1852855703
An excellent book. One which you obviously didn't read.
I think the title says it all.
 

An Gilladaker

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
4,296
Prince Charles is John Brutons hero ffs . He said so in a long embarassin speech and afterwrds maintained that meeting him was the proudest day of his life . Which means hes prouder to have met him than to have been made leader of Fine Gael , Taoiseach , the birth of his kids .
Has he changed his mind again:confused:
 

The Cat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
973
John Bruton and a large number of Fine Gaelers like to think they are Redmonites but in fact they are Carsonites i.e. Southerners who support partition. Redmond opposed partition, believed Ulster Unionists should be coerced by force into a United Ireland and endorsed the IVF, precursor to the IRA. His views on partition were similar to the ideas of de Valera and Adams.


Redmond - Limerick October 12th 1913.

What does it matter what Redmond said in 2013. That was 100 years ago. The world is a different place.

Nations are not sacred. It is people who matter. Nations are just ways for people to organise their affairs. This belief was one of the fundamental beliefs of Connolly that separated him from Sinn Fein. For Connolly getting the English out of Ireland was necessary as the English establishment was supporting the interests of the wealth against the ordinary people.

"Irish Nationalists can never be assenting parties to the mutilation of
the Irish nation; Ireland is a unit. It is true that within the bosom of
a nation there is room for diversities of the treatment of government
and of administration, but a unit Ireland is and Ireland must
remain.... The two-nation theory is to us an abomination and a
blasphemy."

Now you could cut and paste that straight into a Fianna Fail election manifesto.

<mod>Please do not spam the site with numerous versions of the same thread</mod>
 

Glanshanacuirp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,636
How many People in the Republic would vote for a United Ireland and be saddled with the £9 billion cost of balancing the Books in Northern Ireland plus the additional cost of bringing welfare levels up to that in the Republic?


Many might have an emotional pull to an United Ireland but who would pay for it?
 

An Gilladaker

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
4,296

Ren84

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
49,046
How many People in the Republic would vote for a United Ireland and be saddled with the £9 billion cost of balancing the Books in Northern Ireland plus the additional cost of bringing welfare levels up to that in the Republic?


Many might have an emotional pull to an United Ireland but who would pay for it?
A massive majority of Irish people would vote for a UI tomorrow if a poll was held. Small minded unionists like you are a minority viewpoint in Ireland.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom