NI representatives to sit in Dail?

Dann McGinn reports that Northern Ireland’s MPs and MEPs may be allowed to attend the Dail twice a year as part of the new package. Though it is not clear to what extent they would be allowed to participate in Dail business.

  • George

    Davros,
    I don’t know why you think the RIC, who murdered the Lord Mayor of Cork, are considered differently to the other forces of occupation in Cork.

    That is, to use one of your words, twaddle.

    This part of the quote was also left out Davros.

    “You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man.”

    Is that something that offends your prejudices?

  • George

    Davros (and unionist observer)
    here is a short list of places that suffered official and unofficial RIC reprisals which went from murder to the normal torching and destruction of homes, property and factories.

    Bouladuff, Knocklong, Tuam, Balbriggan, Cork City, Galway City, Drumshambo, Kilcommon, Limerick, Bantry, Miltown-Malbay, Ennistymon, Lahinch, Midleton, Kilmallock, Clifden, Passage West, Rochestown, Carrowkennedy, Westport, Dungarvan.

    Eventually, the British authorities realized that the policy of official and unofficial reprisals wasn’t working because once the houses and other buildings were destroyed, they no longer possessed any leverage over people.

    But we still have people thinking the Big Houses got burnt in a vacuum.

  • Davros

    are considered

    George, don’t try to be clever , it doesn’t suit – you were talking about how they were regarded at the time 🙂 Not how they are regarded now.

    and some dishonest posting there George…

    This part of the quote was also left out Davros.
    “You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man.”

    That’s not on the source you provided, so how could I have quoted it ?

    This is what your source wrote:

    After 1919 he went to Staff College for a year, after which he arrived for duty with the Royal Irish Constabulary on 7th June 1920 at Cork, commanding the 12th Field Company as Brevet Lieutenant Colonel. Through his great knowledge and skill, Major General Tudor – 9th Division, made him Divisional Commissioner of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Munster, due to his short period of time in his job, he never received a police rank but remained with this army rank of Lt. Colonel. In the Listowel Barracks on 19th June 1920 he issued a speech possibly a government document, which read as follows. “I wish to make the present situation clear to all ranks. A policeman is perfectly justified in shooting any person seen with arms (guns) who does not immediately throw up his hands when ordered. A policeman is perfectly justified in shooting any man who he has good reason to believe is carrying arms (guns) and who does not immediately throw up his arms when ordered. Every proper precaution will be taken at police inquests that no information will be given to Sinn Fein as to the identity of any individual or the movements of the police. I wish to make it perfectly clear to all ranks that I will not tolerate reprisals. They bring discredit on the police and I will deal most severealy with any officer or man concerned in them.”
    🙂

    No mention of your little additions 🙂

  • Davros

    “>A Force Divided Policing Ireland 1900-60
    History Today, Oct, 1999 by Brian Griffin

    “>A Force Divided Policing Ireland 1900-60
    History Today, Oct, 1999 by Brian Griffin

    There were, however, some major differences between the two forces. The most important concerned their handling of sectarian issues. Throughout its history the RIC strove to avoid sectarianism within its ranks and partisanship towards any political or religious grouping. Members were forbidden to join any secret society, with the exception of the Freemasons, and were dismissed for using sectarian epithets. The RUC failed to follow the RIC’s example in this instance. In fact, as early as January 1923 an Orange Lodge, the Sir Robert Peel Memorial Loyal Orange Lodge, was established solely for RUC men.

  • Davros

    Whoops

    Article

    I don’t have anything to hide, here’s the source George.

  • George

    Davros,
    I’m sure you don’t have anything to hide and thanks for the link which makes interesting reading.

    I have no doubt the RIC were highly respected within the community until they decided to side against the legitimate parliament of Ireland in 1919.

    The day they decided to use force of arms to help the occupying powers against the democratic will of the people was the day they lost that respect and became occupiers and therefore the enemy.

    Even to this day, nobody is happy a proud force would be sullied by this but sullied they were by their behaviour 1919-1921, which was the behaviour of a terrorist grouping.

    “That’s not on the source you provided, so how could I have quoted it ? “
    I meant it was interesting that this link didn’t quote the bit I quoted.
    Here’s the full quote. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/black_and_tans.htm

  • George

    Davros,
    I think this
    article sums up quite well how the RIC went from being a police force in the community to an occupying military force often terrorising the local population and why they ended up being “regarded as active oppressors and received all the vituperation”.

  • Millie

    JEB

    ‘you surprised me there – first time I have heard a nationalist on Slugger talk like that. That’s the kind of thing I would say.’

    No not a nationalist John, socialist. Just to expand, partition was an equitable agreement between northern and southern capitalists, NOT the Irish working classes. The Irish capiatlists of north and south found partition to their liking, the south did hardly any trade with the six counties anyway since most of NI’s industry was export orientated. These Irish landowners, industrialists and capitalists made up a small minority of the population – as they do in any other country – so what common cause can workers possibly have with them? The answer is of course absolutely nothing. But in Ireland there was one crucial factor that could divide workers from effectively organising together: religion. So the Orange capitalist appealed to Protestants about high and lofty ideals like the King or Queen, the Empire, God, the Protestant way of life and religion – all impressive soundbites but ultimately meaningless. And more importantly he appealed to them directly on the basis of the rather tenuous connection of them sharing the same religion. Hell, he’d be their friend, even join their Orange lodge and march with them on the 12th just to show he was one of the boys. An all-class alliance, a capitalist’s dream!

    Partition made sense from the point of view of the Irish capitalist class north and south, but it condemned workers on both sides of the border to poverty, low wages, social conservatism, sectarianism and emigration. For the workers in NI it gave them sectarian strife and over 3,500 dead since 1969. Nice.

  • Davros

    I meant it was interesting that this link didn’t quote the bit I quoted.

    You phrased your post ( Is that something that offends your prejudices? ) as to imply that I had been selective in quoting from your reference.

    Re the History Learning site link – It’s opening words The Black and Tans as a subject still arouses controversy in Ireland. The Black and Tans were mostly former soldiers brought into Ireland by the government in London after 1918 to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RIC) in their work. destroys any credibility 🙂

  • Davros

    Thanks for the Lowe Link George. Neatly proves muy point when he writes “By 1919 the R.I.C. represented a century-old police tradition (2) that had recruited generations of young Irishmen to its ranks and had achieved substantial acceptance in Irish communities.” (in bold my emphasis ). There was a lot of emnity during the WOI. But it’s stretching it to pretend that the RIC themselves were universally viewed with the same loathing as Soldiers or auxiliaries. I’m afraid you are a victim of republican propaganda that wishes to malign a very fine body of men.

  • George

    Davros,
    this isn’t some Republican story, this is our history. I said they were a respected part of the community but when they were changed from a police force to a British military force there to put down the legitimate government of this country they were no longer part of the community.

    They became as Dev said “spies in our midst…. They are the eyes and ears of the enemy.”

    The Dail (the legitimate government of the Irish people) passed a resolution that the people of the state were to boycott the constabulary as traitors “unworthy to enjoy any of the privileges or comforts which arise from cordial relations with the public.”

    People who by force of arms try and suppress the democratically elected parliament of a country are terrorists.

    “Police are turned over to military work, their duty as policemen being largely changed, and the military, in full war equipment, are used to protect and assist the police in depriving the people of their constitutional rights.” Tipperary people

    “The Black and Tans were mostly former soldiers brought into Ireland by the government in London after 1918 to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RIC) in their work. destroys any credibility :)”

    “Plenty of the Black and Tans were Irish Catholics” Whose credibility? 🙂

  • Davros

    George- The claim that Plenty of the Black and Tans were Irish catholics is not mine, but was shown by the same WJ Lowe that you yourself quote. Sadly the article isn’t online, but appears in History Ireland Autumn 2004. But to show I’m not inventing this :

    Many Black and Tans ‘were Irish Catholics’

    By Valerie Robinson Southern Correspondent

    THE notorious Black and Tans are remembered as a lawless force of British mercenaries but a new study has revealed that a sizeable number were Irish-born Catholics. The study by US-based Prof-essor WC Lowe appears in the latest edition of History Ireland and reveals that while 78.6 per cent of the Black and Tans were British close to 19 per cent were born in Ireland.

    From 1920 the British government began to augment the number of the declining Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) by recruiting First World War veterans from throughout Britain and Ireland.

    The new recruits, numbering almost 14,000, earned their ‘Black and Tan’ tag because of their uniforms: a shortage of dark police uniforms led to the issuing of military khaki and a mixture of the two was initially used.

    Their experience of weapons and tactics gave them a tougher edge than their more traditional RIC colleagues.

    The IRA campaign also led to the formation of the Auxiliary Division, former officers who wore distinctive Tam oÂ’ Shanter caps and operated in counter-insurgency units independent of other RIC units.

    Prof Lowe wrote that “folk memory holds that the British administration was not very concerned about the backgrounds of the Black and Tan recruits, as long as they had military experience”.

    The force was almost overwhelmingly British. However, a sample study of the personnel register maintained in Dublin Castle revealed some surprising facts.

    “An unexpected finding that is at odds with popular memory is that nearly 19 per cent (514) of the sampled recruits were Irish-born. Many Irishmen joined the RIC in a role assumed by folk memory to be the exclusive preserve of British mercenaries,” said the historian.

    “Eighty two per cent of the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries sampled were Protestant, 17.4 per cent were Catholic and there were 10 English Jews.

    “The largest proportion of Catholics, not surprisingly, was found among the Irish recruits (59 per cent of the 478 sample). Fifty five per cent of the Irish recruits were Catholic, mostly concentrated among the Black and Tans,”

    he added.

    Members of the Black and Tans as well as the Auxiliaries born in Connacht and Munster were “overwhelmingly” Catholic (both 78 per cent), compared to 60 per cent of Leinster recruits.

    However, the Ulster-born Black and Tans were largely Protestant (72 per cent) while the 46 Irish Auxiliaries in the sample included 17 Catholics.

    Prof Lowe said the study pointed to unemployment as a major factor in IrishmenÂ’s decisions to join the reviled forces, with fewer than 40 per cent having previous military experience, compared to 70 per cent of the English and over 80 per cent of the Scottish recruits.

    The Black and Tans earned a questionable reputation, not just among civilians but also members of the existing police force.

    Prof Lowe wrote: “Members of the ‘old’ RIC had very mixed reactions to their presence and violent behaviour that not all officers were able to restrain. Black and Tans were thought of as ‘gun happy’ and the Auxiliaries’ ferocity was reputed to be fuelled by heavy drinking.”

    The RIC was disbanded after the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty but many of the recruits traced through the sample had already quit the force.

    Interestingly, Irish recruits were more likely to have remained (55 per cent), compared to 36 per cent of the English and 39 per cent of the Scottish.

    • WJ Lowe is Provost and Professor of History at Metropolitan State University, Saint Paul, Minnesota.

    Friday, August 27, 2004, the Irish News, page 21

  • George

    Davros,
    “But it’s stretching it to pretend that the RIC themselves were universally viewed with the same loathing as Soldiers or auxiliaries.”

    Not at all, the government issued what was virtually a directive to loathe. They were the enemy and treated as such.

    You also seem to be forgetting one very important fact: the Black and Tans were part of the RIC as were the auxiliaries so when you talk about the loathing for the auxilliaries you are talking about loathing of the RIC who were considered the occupying enemy once they took on the military role. They were no longer policemen.

    They were no longer, as you seem to think, a fine body of men and this is not Republican propaganda. They were loathed for a good reason.

    “An unexpected finding that is at odds with popular memory is that nearly 19 per cent (514) of the sampled recruits were Irish-born. Many Irishmen joined the RIC in a role assumed by folk memory to be the exclusive preserve of British mercenaries,” said the historian. “

    The figures you give say that 10% of the Black and Tans were Irish Catholics. A little bit higher than the RUC in its day.

  • Davros

    I disagree George – at the end of the War they were still regarded with respect by the IRA- in fact so much so that they modelled the Garda on the RIC.

    As the article you quoted stated :

    “By 1919 the R.I.C. represented a century-old police tradition (2) that had recruited generations of young Irishmen to its ranks and had achieved substantial acceptance in Irish communities.”

    and

    Yet even at the end the R.I.C. received tributes from its determined opponents. When handing over Naas station in 1922, an R.I.C. officer remarked to the I.R.A. commander that the Free State could have had almost the entire constabulary as its police force. The I.R.A. man replied: “But if we hadn’t dealt with the R.I.C., there would have been no Free State. We weren’t afraid of the army. We could always fool them, but your fellows had the most marvelous local knowledge, which was too much for us. Anyhow, we want to have our police modelled on your old lot.” (178) In 1921 the men of the “old” R.I.C. had had enough, and the respect of their enemies was cold comfort as they contemplated disbandment and life in a new Ireland.

    It’s hard to argue with your own quoted articles without looking foolish George 😉

  • George

    Davros,
    as we have both read the same article I assume you’ve also read the parts where it is clearly pointed out that the RIC became a military force in 1919 and was considered the enemy of the people and a collaborating force.

    I don’t disagree with the RIC pre 1919 being an integral part of the community although they started losing the support in certain parts as early as 1917.

    The RIC only became full blown enemies of the state in 1919 when they refused to recognise the Irish parliament. Over 1,500 left but the others stayed on to collaborate and were used as an army of occupation by the British. They were no longer a police force.

    The RIC’s motto was “Loyalty” but not loyalty to the people of Ireland.

    An Garda Síochána on the other hand achieved their authority not by force of arms or numbers, but by their moral authority as servants of the people.
    Note: servants of not loyal to

    An Garda Siochana was based more on the unarmed Dublin Metropolitan Police than the RIC by the way.

  • George

    Davros,
    those two quotes you cite fully back up my point so I’m a bit confused when you use them to say you disagree.

    Firstly,
    Anyhow, we want to have our police modelled on your old lot.

    Note the “old lot”, the RIC until 1919 was a police force. Post 1919 and its refusal to recognise Dail Eireann it was an army of occupation.

    “By 1919 the R.I.C. represented a century-old police tradition (2) that had recruited generations of young Irishmen to its ranks and had achieved substantial acceptance in Irish communities.”

    This I fully agree with. It is after 1919 that matters in the point.

    “Later on The militarization of the police role continued to fray the links between the R.I.C. and local communities.”

    When they became a military force of occupation they became British state-sponsored terrorists.

  • willowfield

    cg

    The problem I have is that soldiers involved in the murder and torture of innocent members of my own family and friends are remembered as well.

    Really? What soldiers were these?

    What annoys me most is that I have family members who fought in both wars and due to the association of other British soldiers I can’t remember their sacrifice, albeit misguided, for Ireland and freedom

    Maybe you should look at the bigger picture instead of looking at everything through ultra-nationalist glasses.

  • maca

    Willow
    IF in the event of their being some from of a “national” rememberance day in the North, some time in the future, where all “soldiers” are remembered including the IRA terrorists who attacked your community over the years, would you be happy to remember them? Would you be able to look at the bigger picture?

  • Davros

    That’s rubbish George – you are trying to taint the core body of the RIC who withstood tremendous pressure including attacks on wives and children with the behaviour of the Auxiliaries. As the quotes show, even after 1919 their enemies admired the RIC.

    The Boycott ? Imposed and enforced by terror tactics of the same kind as Adams and Co supported when used against members and ex-members of the RUC,so don’t pretend that the people of Ireland en masse except for Unionists turned against their own.

    I know you want to pretend those of 1916-1922 were some kind of morally superior force to the Provos, but the men who were responsible for attacks on women, threw a live human being into a furnace and were responsible for the dreadful crimes seen at Ballyseedy and Countess Bridge were no better than the Provos.

    “Mary Crean of Frenchpark, Co. Roscommon, was accused of supplying the police in the summer of 1920 and in reprisal had three pig rings fixed to her buttocks. (100) During a busy week in Kerry that same summer the McCarthy sisters of Portmagee had their hair shorn for being too friendly to the police, and the sister of an R.I.C. constable in Annagh suffered the same humiliation.”

    “District Inspector Regan reported that R.I.C.-sponsored dances in Limerick continued to be popular with local girls, even after a young woman was shot while walking with a constable.”

    The IRA then were no better than the Black and Tans.

  • George

    Davros,
    if you accept Dail Eireann as the legitimate Irish parliament, then the RIC were collaborators and tools of British terrorism of the Irish people. From Eoin McNeill speaking in the Dail in

    “The R.I.C., unlike any other police force in the world, is a military body armed with rifle and bayonet and revolver as well as baton. They are given full licence by their superiors to work their will upon an unarmed populace. The more brutal the commands given them by their superiors the more they seem to revel in carrying them out—against their own flesh and blood, be it remembered!

    Their history is a continuity of brutal treason against their own people. From their very foundation they have been the mainstay of the privileged ascendancy and the great obstacle to every movement for social as well as national liberty. I need not remind you of their record during the tithe and land wars or of their recent outrages at Ballybunion, for which not a man of them was punished. Punishment by their British masters—not likely! They are patted on the back, praised and encouraged. The British minister, Macpherson, to whom they are most directly responsible, speaks of their wonderful fidelity—there have been no Curragh Mutinies in the R.I.C.—and promises that he and his Government will back them up with all their resources in everything they do and in every action they take. Very well, they have undoubtedly merited the praise of their paymasters, but the Irish people have a duty to themselves….

    We know how our comrades are being treated in the jails—in Belfast and Mountjoy and elsewhere. We know their crime is simply that of loving their country, and of working to achieve her rightful freedom. We know that it was the direct activities of the R.I.C. that put them in jail. We know that it was the police who tore them from their homes, leaving their families dependent; that it was the police evidence—open, unabashed perjury as it often was—that has condemned our comrades to the loss of personal liberty and to the physical and mental tortures they are being compelled to endure; that it was such evidence and such information that led to the deaths of Ashe, of Coleman, and of McCann, and knowing this, in our eyes the pay these men receive from their paymasters is little if at all better than blood money. To freely associate with them is to prove false to those who are sacrificing themselves in the fight for National liberty.

    He concluded:
    “These are hard things I have said. The truth is very bitter sometimes. Hitherto, hoping for some change of heart, I have refrained from speaking about the police in the terms their conduct deserved….

    But whether Ireland’s cry for justice be attended to or not, there is one feature of our slavery we ourselves must endeavour to put an end to—this degrading police rule and the weak toleration that is but an inducement under the economic pressure to which our youth are subject to enter that detestable force and be trained in it to forget their nationality and their honour, and to become the ready tools of an unscrupulous foreign domination.”

    My parliament agreed. As a democrat, I accept the rulings of my legitimate, democratically elected parliament, which considered them a detestable force.

  • Davros

    Well, we’re not going to agree, so shall we agree to differ ?

  • davidbrew

    Dav-as usual your comment is well informed and reasoned- but if I recall it was two Auxiliary Cadets thrown alive into a furnace in Tralee by the brave heroes so admired by George who still pretends the IRA was a legitimate government despite almost 12 months of conclusive proof by us and others that they had no such mandate.

    He presumably has a justification for the murder of the two unarmed policemen at Soloheadbeg, the murder of an elderly magistrate on a bus in Dublin and others who stupidly hadn’t realised they were oppressing the irish people by doing their jobs-not to mention the notorious septuagenarian superspy Mrs Lindsay of Coachford and her sinister coach driver whose reign of terror still frighten small children. In fact except for that minority of the electorate (even of the voting electorate) who voted for SF and some Irish Americans, the vast majority of the world’s population then correctly regarded Dublin castle as the legitimate government

    Congratulations George-your mindset makes you perfect Provo fodder. Or is your warped morality so corrupt as to attempt to distinguish the IRA of 1919 from the 1970s? And no doubt the PIRA, CIRA or Real IRA’s next mad campaign will be ok too

  • willowfield

    maca

    IF in the event of their being some from of a “national” rememberance day in the North, some time in the future, where all “soldiers” are remembered including the IRA terrorists who attacked your community over the years, would you be happy to remember them? Would you be able to look at the bigger picture?

    Firstly, the word is “remembrance”. And, while I’m at it, the country where the Provos have gone AWOL is “Colombia”, with an “o”.

    Secondly, it is outrageous to suggest that terrorist murderers should be remembered by anyone, victim or otherwise.

    Thirdly, it is disingenuous to imply that there is an equivalence between legitimate soldiers of a legitimate army and illegal terrorist gangsters.

    George

    if you accept Dail Eireann as the legitimate Irish parliament, then the RIC were collaborators and tools of British terrorism of the Irish people.

    Don’t be ridiculous, George. It’s hardly as black-and-white as that. Catch yourself on. And shame on you for attempting to legitimise the murder of policemen.

    Move on. Grow up. Get some perspective.

  • Davros

    David I wouldn’t count George as a fellow-traveller of the current IRA, but It’s a worry that the Provos try and claim that electoral support for SF gives them the same retrospective mandate and legitemises their activities at La Mon and Claudy in the same way as some argue that SF’s electoral success in 1918 retrospectively mandated 1916.
    It’s often claimed that there will be blank cheques for Unionists in Nua Éire… one cheque that will have to be cashed is an honest reappraisal of the history of the Free State and the ROI. I don’t want to see Lenny Murphy honoured and I see no reason to tolerate his equivalents from some 80 years ago (eg Breen and Aiken ) being treated as heroes.

  • maca

    Willow
    “Firstly, the word is “remembrance”. And, while I’m at it, the country where the Provos have gone AWOL is “Colombia”, with an “o””

    Fantastic! I feel so enlightened!

    “Secondly, it is outrageous to suggest that terrorist murderers should be remembered by anyone, victim or otherwise.”

    Who has suggested this?

    “Thirdly, it is disingenuous to imply that there is an equivalence between legitimate soldiers of a legitimate army and illegal terrorist gangsters.”

    Perception is everything, as you know.

    The point is that to *some* people the British Army are no better than terrorists. Yet you can say to CG “Maybe you should look at the bigger picture instead of looking at everything through ultra-nationalist glasses.”

    Care to answer the question I put to you?

  • Davros

    BTW David – is it possible that an orange Lodge abroad ( Canada) could have the same Number as a Lodge that exists in NI ? LOL 518 was a Canadian Lodge, But according to George’s link above there was alsos a LOL 518 in Banbridge.

  • willowfield

    maca

    Who has suggested this?

    See your 5.54.

    Perception is everything, as you know.

    It’s not.

    The point is that to *some* people the British Army are no better than terrorists.

    Those people are wrong.

    Yet you can say to CG “Maybe you should look at the bigger picture instead of looking at everything through ultra-nationalist glasses.”

    Good advice.

    Care to answer the question I put to you?

    I already did.

  • maca

    Willow

    “See your 5.54.”

    Maybe you should re-see my 5.54 and quote where I suggested there should be a remembrance for these folks.

    “It’s not.”
    Of course it is.

    “Those people are wrong.”
    Irrelevant whether they are or not.

    “I already did.”
    No u didn’t. Scared to answer?

    IF there was such a remembrance would you have a problem remembering these people? If so, shouldn’t you take your own “good advice”?

  • willowfield

    maca

    Of course it is.

    Of course it’s not. Do you know what a mirage is, for example?

    Irrelevant whether they are or not.

    It’s not.

    No u didn’t. Scared to answer?

    The fact that I already answered should answer that.

    IF there was such a remembrance would you have a problem remembering these people? If so, shouldn’t you take your own “good advice”?

    If you are unable to ascertain the clear and obvious answer from my 6.57, then you must be stupid.

  • maca

    Willow
    “Clear and obvious answer” Is this a willowfieldism for dodge the question?
    Not only did you fail to answer but now you resort to insults. Pathetic!

  • willowfield

    You must be stupid, then.

    Which part of the answer do you not understand?

  • CavanMan

    i thought personal insults were not allowed on this website?

  • George

    Davros,
    let’s agree to differ. Thanks for engaging.

    Davidbrew,
    I consider the RIC and Provos as being in a similar position and having equally invalid mandates.

    Both ignored the democratic wishes of the Irish people and instead continued using force of arms.
    One for the army of British imperialism, the other for the army of Irish nationalism.

    The job of the RIC was loyalty to the crown not loyalty to the people of Ireland. The legitimate parliament of Ireland in 1919 was Dail Eireann and the legitimate army Oglaigh na hEireann.

    This is still the case, which is why the Provos are subversives. The provos were and are terrorists, the RIC and the British forces in 1919-1921 were terrorists. You only see one side of history. The democratic wishes of the Irish people don’t matter to you obviously. I suppose you think we should have all lined up in fields with pikes to be gunned down instead of fighting to win.

    I suppose you also think George Washington was a terrorist as was Ben Gurion and everyone else who represented his people first and foremost.

    I don’t really care you refuse to accept the legitimacy of Dail Eireann and try to denigrate it at every opportunity. After all, david brew you consider it an instutional supporter of terrorism and even Ian Paisley today doesn’t recognise it. The man won’t even shake the Taoiseach’s hand.

  • George

    Davidbrew,
    There is no honour in war, just victory. If you believe the Irish Republican Army perpetrated more “atrocities” 1919-1921 in winning the war with the British Army than your average army trying to win a war against vastly superior occupying forces you are mistaken.

    They did no more or less than Tito’s partizans fighting the Nazis or the sharpshooting Finns up against the Soviets or the French Resistance.

    Would you have had them fight like the 1916 signatories, who fought the good fight with the British forces, acknowledged by all combatants at the time as a “clean” fight. Read the court martial records.

    What did they get in return for an “honourable” fight? A bullet in the head and their bodies dissolved in quicklime.

  • Davros

    Cheers George-it was a good discussion 🙂

  • Davros

    What did they get in return for an “honourable” fight? A bullet in the head and their bodies dissolved in quicklime.

    From BBC website :
    “There can be no doubt that the response of the British government to the Rising contributed measurably to the further alienation of Irish public opinion. On 26th April 1916, it had introduced martial law and next day appointed Major-General Sir John Maxwell as Commander-in-Chief of troops, Ireland. He had full authority to restore order, put down the rebellion, and punish its participants. Maxwell never doubted that its leaders should be court-martialled and those most prominent executed. He was also determined that, in order to crush militant nationalism, those who had surrendered with them, and their suspected supporters, should be arrested and their arms seized in a nationwide sweep by soldiers, supported by police. In total, the security forces arrested 3,430 men and 79 women and of these 1,841 were sent to England and interned there. They were substantial figures in relation to the scale of the outbreak, though most (about 2,700) had been released by early August 1916. Meanwhile, those thought to have organised the insurrection had been held back in Ireland for trial – 190 men and 1 woman, Countess Markievicz. In 90 cases the courtÂ’s verdict was ‘Death by being shotÂ’. Maxwell confirmed this judgement on 15 defendants, and these were executed between 3-12 May 1916.”

    While it’s obvious now that it was a terrible mistake politically, at the time that only 15 were executed out of 90 condemned could have been argued as being lenient.

  • willowfield

    Good God, look what George has written:

    I consider the RIC and Provos as being in a similar position and having equally invalid mandates.

    So the official state police force had an “equally invalid mandate” as the Provisional IRA!

  • Davros

    To be fair WF, He is talking about the RIC after the establishment of the first Dáil. While I would accept that it is a reasonable claim, although not one with which I would agree, that the RIC had questionable mandate and legality I cannot accept that the RIC equate to the provos.

  • willowfield

    So a “mandate” from the lawful parliament of the United Kingdom was “equally invalid” to the non-existent “mandate” of the Provisional IRA?

    Hardly a reasonable claim!!

  • Dec

    WF

    After the elections of 1918, it was clear Republicans had a huge, overwhelming mandate. The forces of the British Crown were bestowed no corressponding mandate by the Irish people.

  • George

    Willowfield,
    “a “mandate” from the lawful parliament of the United Kingdom”

    It was not the lawful parliament of the Irish Republic in 1919, Dail Eireann was. Just as the Supreme Soviet was not the lawful parliament of Lithuania in 1990 once the people decided they weren’t Soviets. That is what democracy is about. We the people……

    Davros,
    maybe my equating the RIC to the Provos was inflammatory just for the sake of it so I retract it without reservation. It didn’t add to the debate.

    I was only continuing on the point that post 1919 the RIC were an army not a police force and they didn’t have the support of the Irish government (I know many unionists don’t accept it was the Irish government but I do and so do the overwhelming majority of the Irish people) but instead worked for what after 1919 became a foreign occupying power.

    Many unionists seem to be of the belief that an Irish parliament is only legitimate if it is approved by Westminster. An Irish parliament, police force and army is only legitimate if it is approved by the democratically elected representatives of the Irish people.

    In 1919 this was Dail Eireann, which made the RIC an occupying army for siding with the enemy. The Irish Republican Army was the legitimate army of the Irish state and won a war against vastly superior forces without inflicting mass civilian casualties.

    Some may resent them to this day for defeating the British and wish to tarnish their memory but I and my fellow citizens don’t.

  • Fraggle

    “What I don’t understand is how Ireland is so hooked into the EU dream and the eventual consequence of where that might lead but won’t throw their lot in with their nearest and closest neighbour.

    Quite frankly I consider the notion of an independent 32 county Ireland of 5 million people on the edge of Europe to be absurd – sorry.”

    I have to answer this. At the moment, Ireland two thirds of foreign investment coming into ireland (republic of) comes from the EU. Ireland has done better from EEC/EC/EU membership than it ever did from it’s relationship with our nearest ‘neighbour’.

    I also find the idea of a 32 county Ireland with a polulation of 5 million absurd. Imagine the massive economic collapse and emigration required to bring this about. The population of the republic is 4 million at the moment and is projected to reach 5 million by 2020.

    “However in a nut shell I am generally against convoluted forms of govt. Keep it simple – if there was a UI lets just have a central parliament in Dublin with all Ireland parties contesting elections on an all Ireland basis. Ireland is too small for anything else.”

    NI has been damned by history to have an extremely convoluted form of government with more layers than elsewhere. You have (or will soon have) a local assembly where proper politics is impossible due to tribal voting patterns. Above that, you have a national parliament in westminster controlled by parties none of us vote for. Above that, you have europe. In a UI, there would be the national parliament in Dublin and europe. Ireland’s PR would also ensure minority parties of a chance in government every so often. The small country bias of the EU makes it more attractive for small countries like ireland. ireland’s small size also means things like tax policy can be more flexible for the purpose of attracting industry and investment. I would dearly love Derry to be given the IDA treatment.

    Some people may want to argue about who was the biggest bastard in the 1920s but I live in the real world. I would like a good job and i would like to live near where I’m from. Under british government, that isn’t possible.

  • willowfield

    Dec

    After the elections of 1918, it was clear Republicans had a huge, overwhelming mandate.

    It wasn’t. Although they didn’t manage an overall majority of the vote, the fact that many seats were uncontested probably indicates that they had a majority, but it was hardly “huge” and “overwhelminh”.

    The forces of the British Crown were bestowed no corressponding mandate by the Irish people.

    Nobody said they were.

    George

    It was not the lawful parliament of the Irish Republic in 1919, Dail Eireann was.

    No. It was the lawful parliament until 1922. What do you think the negotiations were about in 1921-22?!

    I was only continuing on the point that post 1919 the RIC were an army not a police force

    They werenÂ’t: they were a police force.

  • willowfield

    Fraggle

    Above that, you have a national parliament in westminster controlled by parties none of us vote for.

    Parliament is only controlled by one party: Labour. Apparently many thousands of us voted for its “sister party”, the SDLP.

    I would like a good job and i would like to live near where I’m from. Under british government, that isn’t possible.

    What on earth does that mean?

  • Dec

    WF

    46.9% of the vote (despite the fact they did not contest 25 seats) is a huge and overwhelming majority over the pro-British (26.2).

  • davidbrew

    BTW David – is it possible that an orange Lodge abroad ( Canada) could have the same Number as a Lodge that exists in NI ? LOL 518 was a Canadian Lodge, But according to George’s link above there was alsos a LOL 518 in Banbridge.

    Dav-eacg Grand Lodge issues its own warrants, so there will be the same number in different jurisdictions. Confusingly, there are many duplicaste warrants in Ireland as warrants were handed in and reissued repeatedly in the early 19th century before the structures becamse formalised-thus there are 2 LOL 645s- each given the number over 150 years ago and each alowed to retain it for historical reasons

    George
    Interesting comparison -the IRA with Tito’s partisans. So the IRA were opposing a fascist military invader guilty of a racist and anti-Irish policy were they? All your fellow Shinner bloggers will be cooing in pleasure at your brilliant analogy, but nobody else who is objective or understands history.

    BTW, you attach great importance to the mandate of the 1918 election in this part of the Kingdom, but are noticably silent on the lack of any mandate for Pearse and his squalid bunch of terrorists. Where was their mandate to kill unarmed policemen and elderly army reservists? Oh I forgot, they were telepathically in tune with the soul of Ireland (funnily enough just like Gerry), so their unprovoked rebellion was retrospectively ratified.
    Or otherwise by your own logic it wasn’t a legitimate army until 1918, but …a bunch of terrorists! And since the George philospophy of politics is that pre 1918 there was no mandate for republicans and a country has to be run by someone then the legitimate government was the British, who were thus quite justified in crushing an act of rebellion ..oops, caught out there I’m afraid.

    Now all you have to do is find where and when the mandate for killing Protestants, RIC officers, ex-servicemen and anyone who might have had a different opinion from the gunmen was conferrd by the Irish people. perhaps we’ve all misunderstood senor de valera’s election slogan -maybe it was “put him in to get themmuns out”-= it would explain a lot.

    “I would like a good job and i would like to live near where I’m from. Under british government, that isn’t possible.”-

    Why not fraggle? Are you a detainee in Guantanamo bay?

  • George

    Davidbrew,
    “So the IRA were opposing a fascist military invader guilty of a racist and anti-Irish policy.”

    Many would believe the previous 3 centuries of British rule indeed were anti-Irish. Maybe you as a legal man can tell me what was the difference between Hitler’s anti-Jewish laws and the Penal Laws against the Irish. No blah, blah bluster just an answer telling me why the two types of legislation were different.

    “And since the George philospophy of politics is that pre 1918 there was no mandate for republicans and a country has to be run by someone then the legitimate government was the British, who were thus quite justified in crushing an act of rebellion ..oops, caught out there I’m afraid.”

    Not caught out at all Davidbrew, we have been talking the whole time about the RIC post 1919.

    I fully accept the Irish Rising had no democratic mandate and actually didn’t state that they were the legitimate army. Dail Eireann didn’t come into being until 1919. I only accept Dail Eireann as the legitimate parliament and Dail Eireann made the Irish Republican Army the legitimate army of the country 1919-1921.

    The RIC were an army within, collaborating with the enemy. They fought with the enemy and lost with the enemy. I am sorry it had to be that way but the democratic will of the people must be observed.

    By the way, for that reason I don’t accept Provisional Sinn Fein until such time as they accept Dail Eireann as the legitimate parliament of the Irish people and Mary McAleese as the head of Oglaigh na hEireann. Until then they are subservises.

    It’s quite simple really. It’s called democracy.

    You seem to only follow democratic values when they suit you which means you aren’t a democrat. But I told you that before.

  • Fraggle

    wf, i am from derry which is an economic disaster area. similar places over the border have so many jobs, many in my area, that they are having to import workers.

  • Fraggle

    and that SDLP sister-party stuff is just so much nonsense.

  • Ringo

    David Brew
    Or otherwise by your own logic it wasn’t a legitimate army until 1918, but …a bunch of terrorists!

    In fairness David I don’t think you can simply section all armed groups in the world into two categories – Terrorist and legitimate armies. By that logic there can be no armed insurrections/resistances/popular uprisings anywhere in the world that are not carried out by a terrorist organisations – and by doing so you are giving certain terrorist organisations a good name by standing them side by side with some of the more legitimate armed groupings.

    I have no regard for the 1916 Rising and in particular Pearse whose vanity finds more than an echo in Gerry Adams. But surely one of their greatest follies was that they tried to behave like a legitimate Army by taking the GPO when they hadn’t a hope of being able to withstand the British Army. On the other hand – the tactics employed in the later war of independence (and the civil war) – fit much easier with the notion of terrorism – but this would find little sympathy in the south as the end is seen to justify the means. And the Black’n’Tans while granted legitimacy by the British State at the very least terrorised the general population.

    And perhaps the worst terrorist atrocity that I am aware of in the south at that time was during the Civil War in Ballyseedy where the legitimate army -the Free State forces chained republicans POW’s together and blew them up in retaliation for an earlier incident.

  • willowfield

    Good grief, check this gem out from George:

    Maybe you as a legal man can tell me what was the difference between Hitler’s anti-Jewish laws and the Penal Laws against the Irish.

    Dec

    46.9% of the vote (despite the fact they did not contest 25 seats) is a huge and overwhelming majority over the pro-British (26.2).

    Interesting that you have to resort to air-brushing constitutional nationalists out of the picture in order to twist the facts to fit with your perverse claims.

    Fraggle

    wf, i am from derry which is an economic disaster area. similar places over the border have so many jobs, many in my area, that they are having to import workers.

    And what has this got to do with “under the British government”?

  • Ringo

    Fraggle
    similar places over the border have so many jobs, many in my area, that they are having to import workers.

    eh?? well you can’t be referring to Donegal because all we ever hear about down here is about how they are haemoraging jobs there -and in fairness just from hearing of closures on the news they do indeed seem to be hit worse than anywhere else.

  • Dec

    WF

    “Interesting that you have to resort to air-brushing constitutional nationalists out of the picture in order to twist the facts to fit with your perverse claims.”

    SF trumped everyone else at the 1918 election. If they had stood in all constituencies it has been projected that they would have won 53% of the vote. I didn’t reference the Nationalist vote (in what was a 2 line post after all) because I didnt think it was particularly relevant to the matter in hand ie whether or not their majority was huge or not.

    And yet this is a ‘perverse claim’? Now I know Unionists like yourself aren’t too fond of democracy when the vote goes against you but ‘perverse’ is a bit strong, is it not?

  • Fraggle

    ringo, donegal has suffered as much from the border as derry. it is cut off from the rest of the republic and is an undesireable investment location compared to the similar regional cities of galway, limerick and cork.

  • Fraggle

    derry’s problems stem from the fact that it has been under the control of governments who don’t give a shit about it.

    derry is comparable to cork and donegal to the cork hinterland which is full of pharmaceutical companies. these companies are there because the government put in places policies to ensure that they would come.

    sure, the troubles played a huge part but remember that before the troubles, derry had shanty towns due to the lack of decent housing. even the university which should have been set up in derry city was put in a field outside coleraine. contrast UCC and UCG. is it any wonder that nationalists want a united ireland?

  • Ringo

    Fraggle

    donegal has suffered as much from the border as derry
    Wexford is as far from the border as it gets and the southeast is significantly underperforming – it even has Rosslare Harbour – things are rarely as simple as blaming the border. Louth is on the border and it is booming.

    Donegal’s difficulties are have more to do with Spanish fishermen and Moroccan textile workers than British Parlimentarians.

    And UCC and UCG (NUIG or as its called now) were set up the same time as Queens Belfast by the same British state. You can be sure that if they hadn’t built the University in Galway that there wouldn’t have been one there in my time – I don’t think any Irish University was created between the foundation of the state and about 1990 (Maynooth maybe?). Limerick was without one until then for example.

  • Fraggle

    louth is a bad example. it’s close proximity to dublin is key to it’s success.

    magee college dates from 1845 which is, I believe, exactly the same as NUI Galway. it is subsequent development which counts, not the date of founding.

  • Davros

    Davros,
    maybe my equating the RIC to the Provos was inflammatory just for the sake of it so I retract it without reservation. It didn’t add to the debate.

    You are a gentleman of debate George.

  • Davros

    Thanks for the feedback DavidB. Is there an order of Seniority amongst lodges ?

  • Davros

    Many unionists seem to be of the belief that an Irish parliament is only legitimate if it is approved by Westminster.

    George, did you regard Ian Smith’s UDI as legitimate ?

  • Davros

    the difference between Hitler’s anti-Jewish laws and the Penal Laws against the Irish.

    Several Hundred years would be the obvious answer.

    The second and equally important difference would be that there wasn’t a religious war raging across Europe between Jewish and non-Jewish states. There had been no Jewish rebellions. I know it’s something that people prefer to to take into account, but there was no Jewish equivalent of The St Bartholomews day Massacre where Jews slaughtered German Christians in their thousands.

    Protestants in France had been made second class citizens by the Edict of Nantes (1598) which were an IMPROVEMENT in their status, then there was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes on 1685 and the edict of Fontainebleu of Louis XIV Â…

    So chaps, let’s not get too hung up on the Penal laws but let’s keep them in context.

  • Davros

    Whoops : I know it’s something that people prefer not to to take into account, but there was no Jewish equivalent of The St Bartholomews day Massacre where Jews slaughtered German Christians in their thousands.

  • willowfield

    Dec

    SF trumped everyone else at the 1918 election. If they had stood in all constituencies it has been projected that they would have won 53% of the vote.

    53%? Is that what you call a “huge and overwhelming” majority?? Most people would call it a bare majority. Why not just admit you were exaggerating?

  • Dec

    WF

    You’re right. To only win 73 seats out of 105 is scraping in.

  • willowfield

    More twisting. You’ve lost the argument, but rather than admit it, you change the goalposts and start talking about seats!

    We’re not stupid, you know!

  • Ringo

    louth is a bad example. it’s close proximity to dublin is key to it’s success.

    Absolutely. The point is that the border is not the ultimate determinator of regional development – it is merely one of many.

  • Ringo

    Fraggle –
    louth is a bad example. it’s close proximity to dublin is key to it’s success.

    Absolutely. The point is that the border is not the ultimate determinator of regional development – it is merely one of many.

  • Davros

    louth is a bad example

    Louth is bad full stop, or as Lou would say Louth is Louthy! 😉

  • Ringo

    Louth is Louthy!

    that was an offaly bad joke

  • Dec

    WF

    How did I lose the argument? The original point was that Republican’s won a huge and overwhelming majority in the 1918 general elections. You seem to be confusing a general election with a single issue referendum. 53% is pretty much a landslide in electoral terms. 73 seats out of 105 would tend to underline that point. However, with no real counter-argument, you come back with an accusation of ‘twisting’ and more pathetically a declaration that I lost the argument. You haven’t a leg to stand on here, so drop the issue and move on.

  • willowfield

    Dec

    How did I lose the argument?

    Er, you said republicans had a “huge and overwhelming” mandate, and then had to concede that it was actually less than 50% of the vote, and even taking into account uncontested seats, would only have been 53%!

    The original point was that Republican’s [sic] won a huge and overwhelming majority in the 1918 general elections.

    It wasn’t. You said they had a “huge and overwhelming mandate”.

  • Dec

    “It wasn’t. You said they had a “huge and overwhelming mandate”.

    Compared to combined Unionist mandate of 26.2, 46.9 is what I would call huge and overwhelming.
    But I’ve already said that so if it didn’t sink in yesterday, why expect it to sink in today.

  • willowfield

    Air-brushing again.

    Pathetic.

  • Davros

    Looked at another way, something like 30% of the irish Electorate voted for Independence.

  • Fraggle

    I don’t want to get into this pointless argument but following davros’ logic in his 11.22 post, if a border poll was held next year in NI, less than 50% of the electorate would vote for the union, (based on 55-45 pro-union majority and a 90% turnout).

  • eq2 gold

    Oh aye Patrick 🙂 Elizabeth and cronies pushed on.
    Us folks in the North were the last to be shired – County Coleraine where I now live :)The North was protected by the South Ulster Drumlin belt and bogs and forests.