Just one " failed political entity" ?

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,616
In the 1970's Brendan " Darkie " Hughes put on a Burtons suit ( don't wear it in the rain ! ) moved into the middle class Malone Road area of Belfast to continue his assault on the Northern statlet.
About the same time Charles J. Haughey , who a quarter of a century earlier had put on a Charvet shirt and moved into the middle class Malahide area of Dublin , declared the Northern statelet " a failed political entity ".
Aside from the cynical reflection that he had strained every fibre of his being not engaged in self- enrichment to ensuring that the north became a failed entity, do the events now overtaking the Republic mean that CJH was at least half right ? Did the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 create two failed political entities ?
 


consultant

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,010
Interesting post, fw.

I grew up in a family that idolised Dev, Frank Aiken and Sean Lemass, a sentiment that to this day CJH enjoys amongst many of my relations including my mother.

I, on the other hand, most certainly do not share this admiration for Charlie and equally abhor the FF party since his period of influence and leadership.

I would contend that while the Act created two entities, a single unified entity under FF control would also have failed.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,616
Interesting post, fw.

I grew up in a family that idolised Dev, Frank Aiken and Sean Lemass, a sentiment that to this day CJH enjoys amongst many of my relations including my mother.

I, on the other hand, most certainly do not share this admiration for Charlie and equally abhor the FF party since his period of influence and leadership.

I would contend that while the Act created two entities, a single unified entity under FF control would also have failed.
There's a certain amount of hubris involved, given what CJH had to come to the people with not so long after his assessment. But to pick him out was sarcasm on my part... he wasn't the only one who assumed that nothing could go wrong in the Republic while assuming that everything would fail in the North.
 

readytogo

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
346
The Government of Ireland Act was never implemented in the South. From the British perspective, it established the Home Rule state of Southern Ireland - which only southern unionists recognized. The Free State owes its origins to the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921.
 

Balatro

Active member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
113
I believe Ireland still ranks in the top 10 in overall level of human development. “Failed state” would anyway be a gross exaggeration.

The border between the two states was drawn incorrectly. In other words, it wasn't simply a matter of having created two states.

Also, the unionists probably would have been able to resist unification on their own.

A cultural of sectarianism would’ve been much more difficult to perpetuate in a Northern Ireland in which the power elites had been unable play on fears of eventual “domination” by the minority. Conversely, the south’s (supposed) unification goal would’ve foundered in the absence of a significant pro-unification element in Northern Ireland.
 
R

RepublicanSocialist1798

Did the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 create two failed political entities ?
I don't know whether you're mistaken or being deliberate here. The Irish Free State was born out of the Anglo-Irish Treaty with Britain and not by some act of Westminister.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,616
The Government of Ireland Act was never implemented in the South. From the British perspective, it established the Home Rule state of Southern Ireland - which only southern unionists recognized. The Free State owes its origins to the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921.
Yes I know... but the 1920 Act was the embryo of what was to follow as it established the concept of Partition.
Government of Ireland Act 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it's irrelevant to the argument that both states have now struggled at various times. Personally I don't think that the Republic is a failed entity, but you have to admit there's a lot of hysteria around at the moment.
 

SlabMurphy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
1,684
Website
www.dublin.ie
In the 1970's Brendan " Darkie " Hughes put on a Burtons suit ( don't wear it in the rain ! ) moved into the middle class Malone Road area of Belfast to continue his assault on the Northern statlet.
It was Brendan Hughes cover to pose as a middle class businesssman as he made the Brits and RUC gave their lives for queen and country.
 

SlabMurphy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
1,684
Website
www.dublin.ie
I believe Ireland still ranks in the top 10 in overall level of human development. “Failed state” would anyway be a gross exaggeration.
Ireland has been ranked as the fifth best place to live in a UN report on quality of life. Brits came in 26th.

UN Development Programme ranks Ireland fifth best place to live | Irish News | IrishCentral

Also, the unionists probably would have been able to resist unification on their own.
Yeah :rolleyes: and they weren't going to allow the disbandment of the B Specials, were against the Anglo Irish agreement, if they didn’t get down Garvagh Road, the Good Friday Agreemnet, if the RUC cap badge was changed blah, blah, blah

History actaully tells us the exact opposite. Their were no shortage of unionists in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan etc as well as even Dublin where Carson was from and elected several unionists in the 1918 election gobbing off how there would be a blood bath etc if Home Rule/Irish Independence came about. However history obvioulsy tells us that when the Brits said - We are going, if you want to fight to the last man etc, well you can do it without us. What happened the big, threatened violence on a massive scale ?

Carson and Donegal UVF “The Laggan and the Ulster Volunteers “
The Laggan and the Ulster Volunteers
 

Balatro

Active member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
113
History actaully tells us the exact opposite. Their were no shortage of unionists in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan etc as well as even Dublin where Carson was from and elected several unionists in the 1918 election gobbing off how there would be a blood bath etc if Home Rule/Irish Independence came about. However history obvioulsy tells us that when the Brits said - We are going, if you want to fight to the last man etc, well you can do it without us. What happened the big, threatened violence on a massive scale ?

History tells us the exact opposite regarding those peripheral areas. What would’ve developed in the core unionist region is a completely different topic.

Let’s set aside for the moment imperialist self-interest and treachery. Suppose that the whole issue had instead been dealt with by a completely neutral, disinterested party. Would those neutrals have likely dismissed the unionists’ threats of violence as quixotic gestures, given both the flow of British arms into Ulster and the somewhat comparable population with the south? Such a gamble would’ve been nothing less than criminal imbecility; thousands of lives would needlessly have been put at risk.

IMO, a neutral broker would’ve respected, for either abstract or practical reasons, the unionist right of self-determination. However, the neutral broker would also have rejected the “right” of the unionists to extend their territorial claims over majority nationalist areas (less isolated enclaves). Hence the deeply factionalized Northern Ireland of this time line would never have existed. Probably men like Paisley would’ve been unemployable in THAT Northern Ireland.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top