Paisley for the Lords?

The Irish Times reports that Eileen Paisley could be on her way to the House of Lords while husband Ian is being tipped for elevation to Queen Elizabeth’s Privy Council, enabling him to go by the title “the right honourable member” for North Antrim. Eileen would become a Baroness or Lady, I assume.

  • Greenflag

    If this is true about Paisley then it’s an absolute disgrace . This is a politician who is on record as referring in public to the Pope as the ‘Whore of Babylon’ and who firmly believes that the 10% of Her Majesty’s subjects who happen to be RC’s are going to hell .

    Paisley is an unregenerate bigot with a long history of anti Catholic and anti Irish statements on the public record . As a Minister in his own backstreet Church he is entitled of course to hold whatever beliefs he wants but as a Privy Councillor what sort of advice will he be giving E2 ? Bring back the Penal Laws?

    Paisley has never crossed the threshold of any Catholic School or Institution in Northern Ireland nor so far as I know ever spoken face to face with any Catholic cleric despite the fact that RC’s make up almost 50% of Northern Ireland’s population . I have no hesitiation in saying that Paisley is unfit to be a Privy Councillor and even more unfit to ever be a First Minister in any NI Government !

    Baroness Paisley ? I suppose the poor woman deserves something for having had to listen to yer man for her whole life !

  • Lorre

    I see The Right Honorable Lord Paisley is getting his just reward for giving in to Tony Blair and the government’s concessions to SF over the disbanning of the RIR battalions.

  • Bill

    Quote “Baroness Paisley ? I suppose the poor woman deserves something for having had to listen to yer man for her whole life !”

    Reminds me of a joke I heard once…. Mrs. Paisley’s Doctor asks her at an appointment one morning “How’s the mouth today”.

    She replies “He’s still in bed at the moment”

  • Bill

    They’re going to be having wet dreams over at ATW about this anyway 😉

  • Jacko

    Greenflag

    You’re spot on – an absolute disgrace if any of those two twisted tossers get honoured.
    As well as everything else, they stand guilty of inflicting Baby Doc. on us.

  • Keith M

    This is not a surprise. With the DUP now occupying almost two thirds of the Nothern Ireland MPs sitting at Westminster, they are due several of the rewards that come with their electoral success.

    I’m no fan of Paisley, but there is no doubt that he deserves his place on the Privy Council. He has proved the power of democracy in recent years by leading the campaign that ended the Belfast Agreement after it was clear that the majority of unionists were not in favour of it.

    I just hope that having working so hard to become the leader of unionism in Northern Ireland, he does not squander the position. There are lessons to be learned from the eclipse of Trimble and the UUP, and these must not ever be forgotten.

  • glensman

    What can you say about a prospect like this? Paisley? He doesn’t represent me as an M.P or M.L.A even though I live in his constituency… Why on earth should he be elevated further, if that man makes it in to heaven us poor Catholics will look forward to hell…

  • suede

    Have any other privy councillors ever formed a paramilitary organisation ?

  • lib2016

    Bill Craig was head of Vanguard (containing both Trimble and Empey) while he was a member of something called the NI Privy Council because he had previously been NI Home Affairs Minister.

  • maca

    glensman
    “if that man makes it in to heaven us poor Catholics will look forward to hell”

    if that man makes it in to heaven i’ll be only too delighted to go to hell. (if it existed)

  • Keith M

    Suede “Have any other privy councillors ever formed a paramilitary organisation?”

    Republicans use the 1918 UK general election to justify the Anglo-Irish war which followed, despite the fact that they did not get a majority of the votes.

    Unionists opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement clearly formed a majority in Northern Ireland in 1985 (as the subsequent by-elections clearly demonstrated) so the same justification could be used for the formation of Ulster Resistance.

    Thankfully, unlike the Ango-Irish war, no one died due to the formation or activities of Ulster Resistance, and should this honour be given to Paisley, it will be a further vindication that he was right to oppose an agreement made over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland.

  • crat

    Looks like the Brits are playing games with the DUP. The bauble will have strings attached. I don’t think the Paisleys will get any gongs before a commitment to remove their 2 year ‘boycott’.

  • suede

    “Thankfully, unlike the Ango-Irish war, no one died due to the formation or activities of Ulster Resistance”

    Brian Nelson, the agent of the British army intelligence and the UDAs chief intelligence officer, was a key personality in this arms transaction. Another was Dick Wright, an employee of the South African arms company Armscor. Wright formerly of Portadown, Co. Armagh was an uncle of Alan Wright, leader of the Ulster Clubs and with Ian Paisley a co-founder of Ulster Resistance.

    I think the relatives of the hundreds of people murdered by weapons brought in to this country by ulster resistance might disagree with your last comment.

  • mickhall

    Have any other privy councillors ever formed a paramilitary organisation ?

    Posted by: suede at August 6, 2005 07:07 PM

    Did not F.E.Smith [Lord Birkenhead] play a role in the foundation of the UVF. There is a photo of him and Carson inspecting the UV in John Cambell’s biography of Smith.

  • Visioneer

    Wonder if Trimble will get to the Lords?

    I see this as Blair buying Paisley after a dramatic two weeks in N.I.’s history. He’s paying him to be quiet.

    Probably worse than the period after the Belfast Agreement, only this time Paisley is at the alter.

  • Greenflag

    ‘Republicans use the 1918 UK general election to justify the Anglo-Irish war which followed, despite the fact that they did not get a majority of the votes. ‘

    A complete lie . SF won 75% of the votes cast in the 1918 General Election and won majorities in 28 of 32 Counties . In 2005 had an All Ireland been held Irish Nationalists would have won majorities in 30 of the 32 counties . Only Antrim and Down would have Unionist majorities . And even there South Down is overwhelmingly Irish Nationalist and there is a small NAtionalist majority in North Antrim Moyle .

    ‘it will be a further vindication that he was right to oppose an agreement made over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland. ‘

    The GFA was accepted by &0% of the people of Northern Ireland . It was estimated as having 90% Irish support and slightly over 52% Unionist support . Paisley refused to take part in the GFA negotiations as it would have meant he would actually have had to talk directly to an Irish Catholic or even worse actually shake hands with an Irish Republican.

    Paisley has been a destructive and negative force in Northern Ireland politics for his entire career . His particular mix of religion and politics is not anywhere else in modern Europe and is seen only in the Middle East where the fashion is to elect Clerics as Government Ministers and even Presidents .

    Paisley’s Army of God has nee nothing less than an Army of the night and ignorance !!

  • Lorre

    “Looks like the Brits are playing games with the DUP. The bauble will have strings attached. I don’t think the Paisleys will get any gongs before a commitment to remove their 2 year ‘boycott’

    Peerages are only awarded to retired MP’s Therefore Dr Paisley could not accept a peerage and stay as leader of the DUP in the House of Commons..He would have to resign as a member of parliment, and I cant see that happening in the next 4 years.

  • IJP

    The very idea that somebody, or somebody linked to somebody, who has constantly abused ‘Britishness’ as an excuse for pursuing Protestant dominance in a region of the UK should be ‘elevated’ to anything is a very good argument for Lords reform and abolition of the Privy Council.

  • Lorre

    The Sunday Times – Ireland

    August 07, 2005
    Paisley’s negativity will get him thrown out of the driver’s seat
    LIAM CLARKE

    Ian Paisley is surrounded by clever and ambitious men and he would be well advised to listen to them. This week he faces the greatest challenge of his life, and it is one for which his three decades in politics have done little to equip him.

    Paisley can be charming, he has good people skills, he is often kind, but when the going gets difficult his first instinct is to lay down the law, throw a fit and say he won’t play. His years in opposition have taught him the politics of the spoilt child.

    Full article:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1724681,00.html

  • cladycowboy

    Keith M

    ‘Republicans use the 1918 UK general election to justify the Anglo-Irish war which followed, despite the fact that they did not get a majority of the votes.

    Unionists opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement clearly formed a majority in Northern Ireland in 1985 (as the subsequent by-elections clearly demonstrated) so the same justification could be used for the formation of Ulster Resistance. ‘

    Liberals use the support for pro-immigration parties to justify thier beliefs in the 1960’s.

    The majority of the BNP disagree with multi-culturalism.

    Your point is….?

  • cladycowboy

    Keith M

    ‘ despite the fact that they did not get a majority of the votes. ‘

    Liar, liar, pants on fire

  • finn69

    he’s 80 years old, he’ll never be held to account, if giving him a title moves things forward than do it, they’ll prob dilute it by giving out another 12 gongs to the alliance and UUP faithful. hopefully they’ll all move to london……….

  • Oilbhéar Chromaill

    Talk about keeping things in the family – is this the type of democracy that the D in DUP stands for. They should rename the party the NUP – the Nepotic Unionist Party. Luckily N could also stand for No or Never or somesuch.

  • Keith M

    cladycowboy the point I make is that for nationalists to criticise Paisley for the formation of Ulster Resistance is hypocritical when they were prepared to use armed resistance when the government ignored their wishes. The only people who can critise Paisley in this regard are those who would never support the use of armed resistance in any circumstances. There are few of those around, as I have heard very little condemnation of the republicans who instigated the Anglo-Irish war.

    “Liar, liar, pants on fire”. Those voting for SF in 1918, totalled less than 47% of the votes cast, that does not make a majority in my book. Perhaps the Chuckie dictionary has a different definition of “majority” like “murder” is not a “crime” and Back robbery” is defined as “fund raising”, but I’m talking about the real world.

  • George

    I find it interesting that Eileen Paisley is getting a seat in the House of Lords. Has she ever been involved in politics or anything else that would warrant this?

    Keithm,
    you are absolutely correct, SF didn’t get a majority of the votes but they did get 75 of the 106 seats.

    The main reason they didn’t get a majority of the votes was because they were unopposed in 25 of those seats so no votes were cast. It would be churlish of you or anyone else to argue that there was not a majority for Sinn Fein.

    If there wasn’t a majority, the British would have allowed the Irish people have a referendum on independence rather than attempting to crush their democratic will be military force.

  • Greenflag

    ‘The main reason they didn’t get a majority of the votes was because they were unopposed in 25 of those seats so no votes were cast. It would be churlish of you or anyone else to argue that there was not a majority for Sinn Fein.

    If there wasn’t a majority, the British would have allowed the Irish people have a referendum on independence rather than attempting to crush their democratic will be military force.’

    Exactly George . HMG knew the game was up in at least 28 of the 32 Counties .

    In 1918 approx 75% of the island’s total population of Ireland wanted to be free from British Government Rule . Today 85% of the island’s total population would prefer an end to any British Government rule in Ireland . In 15 years time given present economic and demographic trends both in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland that 85% will be 90% or even more .

    But for KeithM and those still trying to hang on to the vestiges of the Union it will not matter even if only 5% of the island’s total population wants to retain the political link with the UK .

    They ‘Unionists ‘ will still be the ‘majority’

    Call it Unionism or ostrichism or whatever you like it’s all about keeping your head in the sand and pretending it’s still 1899 or even 1690 !

  • Keith M

    George “The main reason they didn’t get a majority of the votes was because they were unopposed in 25 of those seats so no votes were cast. It would be churlish of you or anyone else to argue that there was not a majority for Sinn Fein.”

    This has already been debated at length on several other threads. Nobody can claim that SF would have achieved a majority in a full and fair election. You can say “what” if there had been votes in all constituencies. I can say “what if” Labour had not been “persuaded” not to run. The only thing we know for certain is that SF, did not receive a majority and that those votes they did receive cannot be directly converted into a vote for separation from the rest of the UK (again the Labour abstention factor).

    “If there wasn’t a majority, the British would have allowed the Irish people have a referendum on independence rather than attempting to crush their democratic will be military force.” Again not true. There was no propsal on the table that would have gained an all-island majority. Anything less than full independence would have seen elements within SF oppose it (as happened with the Treaty). Anything that proposed full independence would have seen the non SF majority reject it. What was agreed (partition and the IFS) did get support from the majority of people on the island.

    “In 1918 approx 75% of the island’s total population of Ireland wanted to be free from British Government Rule”. Complete an utter nonsense, and such rejection of the facts goes not deserve further comment.

    “Call it Unionism or ostrichism or whatever you like it’s all about keeping your head in the sand and pretending it’s still 1899 or even 1690!” This coming someone who supports a party supporting a 19th century vision of the nation state, has opposed every referendum on European unity and preaches a Markist doctrine rejected throughout the world. I think we have a new definition of “chutzpah”.

  • George

    Keithm,
    “Nobody can claim that SF would have achieved a majority in a full and fair election.”

    But you claim SF getting over two-thirds of the seats in the 1918 Westminster election isn’t a democratic mandate for independence and Britain’s attempt to violently crush the subsequent Irish parliament, Dail Eireann, wasn’t a declaration of war on the legitimate government of Ireland.

    I vehemently disagree with that claim. You can continue to consider the British state as the only organ capable of lending legitimacy to Irish democratic wishes, I shall continue to look to the Irish people.

    Others more knowledgeable than you on the subject have mused over the matter and came up with a different conclusion.

    The 25 constituencies not contested were mostly in Munster and the midlands and as SF got on average 72% of the vote in the adjacent constituencies. I, and academics who have actually studied the subject, are of the same view.

  • crat

    George,

    Nicholas Whyte has one of the most concise reviews of the subject.

  • Keith M

    George “But you claim SF getting over two-thirds of the seats in the 1918 Westminster election isn’t a democratic mandate for independence and Britain’s attempt to violently crush the subsequent Irish parliament, Dail Eireann, wasn’t a declaration of war on the legitimate government of Ireland.”

    George I am now and always have been opposed to FPTP, and this example is one of the reasons why. It is important that any electotal system reflects the will of the people and the 1918 election clearly didn’t. That is why PR was introduced shortly afterwards, and has been retained ever since, despite a couple of attempts to remove it. If you are in favour of FPTP and that the mandate of the majority achieved under such a system is absolute, then (unlike me) I assume you are opposed to any form of power-sharing in Northern Ireland.

    Again, this debate is not about “what might have been” in 1918, as I repeat, that had Labour been in the election, then there is no question of SF achiving a majority of the votes (and possibly not even of the seats). It appears that the Chuckie dictionary DOES have a different definition of the word “majority”.

  • Greenflag

    ‘That is why PR was introduced shortly afterwards, and has been retained ever since, despite a couple of attempts to remove it.’

    PR was retained in the Irish Free State and the Irish Republic . NO sooner did the UUP take over Government in Northern Ireland than they removed PR . PR was forced on the Unionists by the British Government . The UUP and DUP would never have accepted PR had they had the power .

  • George

    Keithm,
    can I assume by your logic that you believe Britain, which still practises FPTP, isn’t a democracy. Either is the United States, I assume.

    Simple question: Was there a democratic mandate for Irish independence or not?

    I say, while the election wasn’t perfect, which ones are, SF winning two thirds of the seats means yes, what do you say?

  • George

    Thanks for that Crat,
    very detailed. I’ll have to keep that for future reincarnations of this old chestnut.

    Keithm,
    democratic mandate – yes or no?

  • The Binlid

    “Paisley can be charming,”
    So can a bucket of sh*te, to a blue bottle.

  • beano; EverythingUlster.com

    “I find it interesting that Eileen Paisley is getting a seat in the House of Lords. Has she ever been involved in politics or anything else that would warrant this?”

    Ignoring who she is for a second, I’m not averse to being persuaded that there is some merit in giving such positions to people with no history in politics.

  • Dessertspoon

    Hatred and bigotry obviously pay and in Paisley’s case pay very well indeed. He has made a fortune out of the misery in this country so why not give him another reward. It’s all arse about face isn’t it. It’s the victims of men like Paisley that should get the rewards.

  • George

    I don’t mind either, I’d just like to know what she could have done in her life to warrant what I assume is considered by the British establishment to be an extremely high honour for service rendered to the state.

    Is this merely cronyism or is she a tireless worker in some honourable field I don’t know about?

  • IanK

    Eileen Paisley served as a member of Belfast City Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly during the 1970’s.

  • Ginfizz

    Dessertspoon

    “the victims of men like Paisley”. Who would they be now? The near quarter of a million people that voted for his party, or perhaps the thousands of constituents he has helped down through the years?

    Oh whoops, I realise what it is now. Its the PUP-interpretation of history – “I was a good boy until I heard a speech by Ian Paisley” – what a crock of sh*t!

    Ian Pailsey is the leader of the largest NI-party at Westminster – it is only right and proper that he should be made a Privy Councillor – don’t be such a mean-spirited old git!

  • George

    Iank,
    “Eileen Paisley served as a member of Belfast City Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly during the 1970’s”

    Thanks for the info. Would you say this warrants a seat in the House of Lords?

    A bit before my time so was she such a standout councillor. What did she do? Have any other Belfast councillors been made lords or ladies?

    It just smells of cronyism to me but I am open to hearing the facts that will show it isn’t.

  • Jo

    I think David Trimble was a Rt Hon. as well, was he not a Privy Councillor as well?

    It does seem appropriate the HM should be advised on NI by the leader of the largest NI party, which was presumably why DT did the job – until recently.

  • IanK

    Have no detail regarding Eileen Paisley’s record in politics as it was a bit before my time as well. As regards the award of peerages, the DUP are entitled to representation in the House of Lords and its up to them to decide who they should be represented by.

  • reality check

    expect the newsletter to crusade for ian paisley in his quest to be a privy councillor.they fabricate unbelieveable amount of anti-catholic,anti republican lies,ignoring the fact paisley incited the murders of catholics throughout the troubles by loyalists

  • George

    Iank,
    I’m not particularly bothered about entitlements to peerages, I’m just asking whether they are deserved.

    Is it up to the DUP to decide who gets the peerage? I’m not well up on the intricacies of who the Queen gives the nod to.

    Let’s say it is the DUP that decides, am I to believe that Eileen Paisley, who as far as I know, and nobody has shown otherwise, has done absolutely nothing of political consequence, is the most deserving DUP member?

    Is that not cronyism of the highest degree? Is there nobody more deserving than the leader’s wife?

    Either that, or it’s a damning indictment on the competence of the party’s members.

  • martin

    Keith M,

    the fact that Sinn Fein had so much support in 25 of those constituencies that no candidate from any other party stood would suggest almost overwhelming support for Sf
    .

    Labour did not contest the 1918 election because they fully supported the Sinn Fein stance on the national issue—-one of their members Countess Markeivitz was made minister for Labour in the first all Ireland Dail–Thomas Johnston was a leading player in drafting the constitution and democratic program—the Irish Citizen Army more or less amalgamated with the IRA during the war of independence.

    TO ALL NATIONALISTS,

    If Paisley does get to the Lords I recon that we should take the que from our Unionist brothers and sisters and go all paranoid about sell outs and conspiracys–even though we dont really care.
    we should do this because if we dont seem to be annoyed by this concession to–themuns–the Unionists will think they are getting nothing from this process.Just to keep them happy.

    2

  • Dessertspoon

    GinnFizz,

    I don’t buy the “I was a good boy until Paisley speech” thing either BUT the weak minded and those who already lean that way will have found it easy to take solace and comfort that they were doing the right thing when intimadating and attacking Catholics out of their homes. I’m sorry you think I’m being mean spirited but I don’t believe that Ian Paisley deserves to be rewarded in any way for blighting the present and future of the people he claims to represent keeping them mired in religious and sectarian conflict for his own self serving reasons. Whilst he may have helped some of his constituents it will never outweigh the overriding view of him as a Gob on a Stick spouting anger and hatred to the mob.

  • Dessertspoon

    GinnFizz – I’ve changed my mind.

    Link to Article

    Let’s get the old duffer off to the Lords ASAP!

  • Ginfizz

    “the overriding view of him as a Gob on a Stick spouting anger and hatred to the mob.”

    Thats your view of him. I have met him dozens of times and find him to be a kind, caring compassionate man. Just because he isn’t a touchy-feely, sandal-wearing liberal doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about ordinary people or their problems.

  • Greenflag

    ‘Is that not cronyism of the highest degree? Is there nobody more deserving than the leader’s wife?

    Either that, or it’s a damning indictment on the competence of the party’s members. ‘

    It’s both George . Wonder is Paisley Junior was not nominated ?

  • Barcas

    The British Government is currently busy designing legislation to enable the courts to deal with clerics who preach sedition and race hatred.

    It seems to me that Paisley would be a prime candidate to be prosecuted under the powers, given his long history of said preaching.

    The Brit establishment would be unwilling to take such measures as they threaten other such pesky clerics with and in the circumstances that the courts could not send him back from whence he came, he’s there already, maybe the House of Lords is the nearest substitute.

    At least he would be politically castrated by such banishment, although I imagine he would not see it that way.

    And Eileen could wet-nurse him and save others the bother.

  • darthrumsfeld

    Hmmm- so the old 1918 election bollix comes up again.
    On Saturday Kevin Pieterson was clearly outfirst ball, and it wasn’t given; later on he was given out when he wasn’t, and then finally on Sunday Kasprowicsz was given out two runs short of victory when he wasn’t.

    Guess what- the record books show England won, and will always show that.

    The 1918 election will always show that 47% voted for the Shinners. it wasn’t universal suffrage then anyway, and if they had really wanted a contest in every constituency they could have put up a dummy candidate like Unionists did in 1986. Anyway, the vote for an independent ireland was not a majority in the UK as a whole- about as binding on government as George Galloway’s victory in June.

    Extrapolate all the trends you want . The fact is the Shinner s had no mandate for their campaign of violence [and that’s without even assuming that many of their 1918 voters would have recoiled from the psychotic violence they saw being inflicted on fellow Irishmen]

    Peerages

    The UUP have seven- Lords Cooke, Molyneaux, Bargepole, D[r]um[gl]ass, Rogan, Brookeborough, and the ne plus ultra of Unionism ( has he been to a branch meeting yet, we wonder?)Lord Ballyedmund. They also had the late Lord McConnell
    The Alliance have Lord Balderdash.
    The DUP are obviously entitled to have whomsoever they choose to represent their position, and ordinarily the leader of the fourth largest party would be a member of the Privy Council.

    Nepotism-
    We the undersigned deplore this terrible thing being contemplated by the DUP. Political office should be gained on merit, not who your father, grandfather, husband or brother/sister is-

    Mary Banotti,Sile De Valera, Eamon O Cuiv, Harry Blaney, Pat the Cope, , Michael McDowell, three generations of Cosgroves, Dick Spring, Daphne Trimble, Richard and John Bruton, Sean Haughey, Conor Lenihan, Des O’Malley’s daughter whose name I can’t remember, Dermot, Noel, and Bertie Ahern, David Andrews and his anonymous brother -Niall?-, Barry McElduff (lovechild of Dustin the turkey).

    In fact tell me one Irish politician not from some dynasty connected to the 1918-21 insurrection or earlier nationalism. A whole political class of deadbeats selected and elected because their fathers were “Himself”.

    If Eileen gets a peerage, you should look on it as another example of cross border harmonisation. it would also be seen as a sign that Ian was losing it, as this would not be seen as consistent with his populist style, so I bet it won’t happen.

  • George

    Darth,
    actually you are wrong. History records that Sinn Fein won 75 out of 103 seats just like history will record that Tony Blair had a reduced majority of over 50 in 2005, the democratic mandate with which he now rules the country.

    If you took the trouble to read any history book on the time, all will mention that SF won over two-thirds of the seats. I would be astounded if you could name one that fails to mention that salient point when discussing the 1918 Westminster election in Ireland unless of course you wrote it yourself.

    Are you up to the task? I doubt it, if you can’t even get the name Cosgrave right.

    By the way, half those people you mentioned aren’t even in political office, you need to update your list.

    That reminds me:

    Keithm,
    I’m still waiting, democratic mandate or not? It’s a simple yes or no answer.

  • darthrumsfeld

    Actually George history – as opposed to nationalist revisionism- and indeed mathematics records that SF won 75 out of 650 seats. If you want to arbitrarily gerrymander sections of the election into irrelevance Unionism won the 1918 election with 100% of the seats ( if you limit those that count to South Antrim).

    How can you take votes in a United Kingdom election and then ignore part of the Kingdom? It’s like only counting the fourth innings at Edgbaston- thus also distorting the final result.

    Cosgrove/Cosgrave- are we down to criticising typos now? For all you know that could be the Ulser-Scots spelling and you’re sneering at my culture. Or are you just peeved cos your granddaddt was at home in 1916 and so you’ll never get to be taoiseach? :0)

    Tell us all about the Labour TD who recently decided to stand down , and whose offspring is already being earmarked for the seat. Some socialist principles there. Don’t thionk Euan Blair is quite ready to walk into his daddy’s seat.

    Of course I forgot to include the Hanafin woman and isn’t there a Coveney Mk 2 in Cork? Brian Lenihan’s sister is out of office but not for want of trying to get back in.

    And if it isn’t quite so obvious now then I bet the majority of politicians in RoI are still scions of some political dynasty that began with raggedy-arsed gunman in 1919. The sheep in the main parties who select such people clearly haven’t moved into the world of a modern European meritocracy.

  • George

    Darth,
    there is one fatal flaw in your logic, namely that a majority of the Irish people ever wanted to be in this union of yours and there was a democratic mandate for the union in the first place.

    There wasn’t and after the fight for Catholic Emmancipation came the Repeal Movement, followed by the Home Rule Movement, followed by the Nationalist Movement, followed by the Republican Movement, followed by the “actually, just f*ck off” movement, which sealed the deal.

    The “union” was in reality the formal annexation of Ireland, where the overwhelming majority were excluded from power and influence, so not only could they ignore it, they had a right to fight it.

    I’m surprised it took them so long myself but I suppose they were up against the greatest and most ruthless empire the world had ever seen.

    Back to 2005. While English, Scottish and Welsh people I talk to fully understand this and we are now developing a nice relationship, based on mutual respect, with each other, I have given up expecting “British” people like yourself to understand Ireland has a right to exist and the right to decide how.

    Cosgrave and Cosgrove are anglised spellings of an Irish name. I wouldn’t bother sneering about your purported Ulster-Scots culture because you wouldn’t get the nuances as I seem to know more about it than you do.

    You may be able to explain your ignorance of Irish politics by claiming you made a typo but how do you explain ignorance of your own purported culture?

    Ignorance perhaps?

  • Ringo

    Darth,

    And if it isn’t quite so obvious now then I bet the majority of politicians in RoI are still scions of some political dynasty that began with raggedy-arsed gunman in 1919. The sheep in the main parties who select such people clearly haven’t moved into the world of a modern European meritocracy.

    While there is more than a grain of truth in what you say regarding the prevalence of dynasties, it has to be remembered that meritocracy produced CJ Haughey while Garret Fitzgerald had the ‘pedigree’. It isn’t all one way traffic regarding the calibre of politician produced by either breeding or manufacturing. Many of the most able politicians of recent times, most notably David Andrews and Michael McDowell do have their roots in the foundation of the state.

  • George

    “We the undersigned deplore this terrible thing being contemplated by the DUP. Political office should be gained on merit, not who your father, grandfather, husband or brother/sister is-“

    One other thing, all the people from the Irish Republic you mention were elected to office in a democratic vote.

    True you can say they are creating dynasties but the difference with the House of Lords and a seat for Eileen Paisley is that she is not elected but rather selected.

    This is the cronyism I speak of. Is there no one more worthy of selection than the leader’s wife?

    Political dynasties are a different issue. Care to address that rather than muddying the waters?

  • Tochais Síoraí

    Paisley in the House of Lords? Great idea.

    With a bit of luck he’ll just fall asleep and dribble for Brittania with the rest of the pampered parasites that occupy the place.

  • Valenciano

    George: “Thanks for the info. Would you say this warrants a seat in the House of Lords? A bit before my time so was she such a standout councillor. What did she do? Have any other Belfast councillors been made lords or ladies?”

    She actually has a fairly decent electoral history although it’s all 3 decades back, being an Alderwoman for Pottinger ward on Belfast City Council until 1972 and being elected to the Assemblies/Conventions of 1973 and 1975. On the latter occasion she deprived her running mate, a certain P.Robinson of his big break. She was favourite for the DUP nomination for East Belfast in 1979 but declined to stand leaving Robinson to gain the seat.

    Cronyism? Yes probably so although it’s difficult to see who else the DUP could put forward for the peerage. So in all fairness yes I think she is no less worthy of the peerage than anyone else. John Alderdice for example had a fairly identical electoral history so if it’s good enough for him then why not her?

  • George

    Valeciano,
    I don’t mind, I just want to know what DUPers think of Eileen Paisley getting the selection when she hasn’t done anything in politics in 30 years.

    What does that say about the DUP if nobody else has done anything her equal in the last 3 decades?

    At least Alderdice was active at the time and the leader of a political party rather than a party drone, albeit a drone that was, to keep the bee analogy going, in service of the party Queen.

    Who selected Alderdice anyway?

  • darthrumsfeld

    oh george- in your bluster to justify the killers of 1919-21 you do get carried away a b it from reason don’t you?
    Firstly i’m sorry if humour has to be explained to you-it’s the sort of thing normal well-adjusted people use to prick pomposity-you, know, like yours for sneering at a typo.

    Secondly whatever about how the Union was created in 1801 ( and a far more recent Union was brought about by the lies of politicians in 1973 like the evil old blimp Ted Heath) by the 1880s there was a settled will of the irish people that there should be a constitutional relationship whereby Ireland was a part of the Union- though opinions differed violently from devolution to integration.

    Where was the mandate for Irish independence in any UK election before 1918? It didn’t exist. Even your beloved Sinn fein in the form of anti-semite Arthur Griffith- initially saw a dual monarchy as a solution. Yet you hang all the justification for all the unrest, the killings, the pogroms, on a very contentious and superficial selection of the number of seats.

    I understand that you don’t want to face up to the squalid birth pains of your state. it means recognising that the official history is a lie. Well don’t worry. Most official histories are lies. We know English hero Sir Francis Drake was a nasty piece of work who did for the people of rathlin. We know Parnell was a bicycle thief.

    Mature people- confident in their own identity- can say ” So what ? I yam what I yam”
    It’s only deeply insecure people who have to get so touchy about criticism of the obvious.

    You seem- if I may say so without knowing your religion or ethnicity, a bit like Martin Mansergh- the guilty prod virus having run rampant through his veins until it has completely taken over his brain.

    Oh, and before we get back to Strongbow, he was invited in by- !!!!! an Irishman having a barney with other Irishmen.

    And thirdly, when you talk about cronyism remind me who elected Seamus Mallon to your senate? What about gerrymandering the composition so that the Gaeltacht has its own representatives. Even Stormont senate never had the Grand Orange Lodge conduct an election for seats specifically reserved for that interest group!

    I’m sure many people here are deeply uneasy about the growth of the political families Robinson , Paisley and Dodds though it is true that no-one seriously doubt the abilities of Iris Robinson and Diane Dodds, and again both were elected against strong UUP challenges. I very much doubt if Paisley junior will have a coronation for the nomination when his dad goes to his eternal reward either.

    Oh and Ringo- David Andrews able? I never met a more supercilious disengaged patrician git. Give me Biffo any day- no phony airs and graces there and gets the job done.

  • IanK

    David Alderdice got his selection to the House of Lords proposed by the Liberal Democrats as far as I can remember.

  • George

    Darth,
    “Where was the mandate for Irish independence in any UK election before 1918?”

    I never mentioned a mandate for independence before 1918, so don’t try put words in my mouth.

    I said there was never a mandate for the union. When did the Irish people vote for the Union? The Unionist Party only got 36,000 votes outside Ulster in 1918, for example. How many did unionists get in the 1880s?

    Sinn Fein and the SDLP accept Home Rule for NI, does that make them unionists in your view?

    The mandate was 1918 when 75 out of 103 seats went to independence candidates and Dail Eireann, my parliament was set up in 1919. That’s a mandate to me, maybe not to you but to me.

    Once the British refused to accept the democratic wishes and leave and instead declared war on the legitimate parliament of Ireland, war is what they got.

    I’m sorry for their troubles but sometimes you have to fight for democracy and they finally got the message, freedom won and they went.

    By the way, the main pogrom was Belfast when 23,000 Catholics, a quarter of the population, were forced from their homes. Don’t forget to put that in that history book you are writing.

    Number of Protesants forced out of their homes in Dublin, where the majority lived? Zero.

    Yes, I am like Martin Mansergh, I’m Irish and proud. If you can’t live with that just because you have a crisis with your own identity, don’t take it out on me.

    Not all Irish Protestants are as confused about where they live as you.

    Explain how Cosgrove or Cosgrave are part of this Ulster-Scot culture? I’m fascinated to know.

    Do you or don’t you think it is cronyism to give the seat to Eileen Paisley?
    I don’t need other examples of cronyism, a simple answer would suffice.

  • darthrumsfeld

    Remind me again George. When exactly did the British declare war on the irish parliament? Was it at Soloheadbeg? Or Kilmichael? Or perhaps Dunmanway? When were ambassadors withdrawn ? The Geneva was convention entered into by the “Irish nation” on what date? How many nations recognised the irish Republic in 1919?

    Unfortunately for your charming thesis that when 47% of the voters (considerably less of the electorate as a whole) of 15% of the Kingdom decide to vote to seek to leave then, hey presto a fully formed legitimate country is formed with immediate international recognition and the right to execute without trial anyone not immediately committed to that project- the real world doesn’t work like that.

    If you would care to read my post properly, you would see that the point I was making was that there was clearly an acceptance of the British connection in terms of votes cast and seats in every election under the Union- the differences being over the nature of that relationship. This was not an oppressed people straining for independence against a foreign imperialist oppressor- no matter how much that might stick in your throat. Nor was it a colony. Irishmen were of course happily engaged in the frontline of the Empire, literlally and metaphorically. of the

    The mandate for the Union was provided by the then Irish Parliament – which was exactly like every other parliament in the world at that time in that it was entirely unrepresentative of the people as a whole, but noone in any country-even France- would have contemplated universal adult suffrage as a means of statecraft. Should we delcare the US Declaration of Independence to be null and void because women, blacks, and Red Indians were not permitted to vote on it? And yes, a large number of the then Irish MPs were corrupt and venal, but that no more renders their decision invalid than the presence of Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor, P Flynn, or C J Haughey in recent Dails makes their decisions void.

    And since you’re obviously so past a sense of humour Cosgrove/Cosgrave has nothing to do with Ulster Scots- I was merely pointing out that your sneering at my typo might have been an Ulster Scots spelling of the name- you know, like the well known Gaelic words “Lana Bus” might be mistaken for a typo of “Bus lane” (sigh). Please forget that I ever mentioned that bloody family if it will mean you can stop evading the issues.

    I don’t have any crisis with my identity. I live in the Irish part of the United Kingdom. It’s not me that needs to construct imaginary versions of history to get round unpleasant facts. If your are a Southern protestant who’s happy in your state good luck to you. But don’t pretend that history never happened. Accept the bloody birthpains of your state. The French can- while recognising the guillotine’s role: the Americans do, and know what they did to the Loyalists and Indians to create their state; and up here we’re quite proud of the Glorious revolution, even though more than a few heads were broken to achieve it. Only in Irish republican la la land do people persist with the notion of the good terrorist who fought a noble war against the saxon foe, and anyone who wasn’t foursquare with them was a traitor or a collaborator (What did your grandaddy do in the war George BTW?)

    If 300 murders of Roman catholics out of a total of 400,000 in NI is a pogrom then what is the murder of 100 Protestants out of a population of 300,000 in the Republic in your opinion? Of the 23,000 displaced persons you refer to, how many fled to the republic? Of the Protestants of the South, how many were forced to flee north of to England?In short- at what point can you say something is a pogrom and deplorable ( which without doubt is the case for events in Belfast in 1919-21)and distinguish it from something you deny? Perhaps if there had been 200 Protestant deaths it would have become a “bad thing”- or three, or four?

    If you need a sense of perspective from a Protestant nationalist why not read W B Yeats’ thoughts on the state which he was initially proud to endorse, and how they changed from experience.

    Eileen Paisley in the Lords would be a mistake, and I’ve already said I don’t think it will happen.

  • George

    Darth,
    if you don’t recognise Dail Eireann, which declared an independent Irish Republic on Jan. 21, 1919, as the legitimate parliament of the Irish people then that is your perogative.

    Don’t ask me to explain democracy to you. If you don’t understand it by now you never will. The PIRA don’t recognise it either. What was that my mother used to say about the company you keep?

    A pogrom doesn’t always involve mass murder, but does always involve mass persecution.

    By the way, it wasn’t a noble war, it was a horrible fight but as Tom Barry said, the British dragged us down into the mire in an effort to destroy us and down after them we had to go.

    For example, in the first 18 months of the conflict Crown forces carried out 38,720 raids on private homes, arrested 4,982 people, committed 1,604 armed assaults, looted, burnt and shot up 102 towns and killed 77 unarmed Irish people.

    Thousands upon thousands died or were executed in those years and nobody wants to glorify it but your view that it is for the British people to decide the future if the Irish nation is as repellant to me today is it was to my ancestors then.

    “How many nations recognised the irish Republic in 1919?”

    It is not for others to decide Ireland’s legitimate rights, it is for the people of Ireland.

    I have heard this so often. The idea that somehow the people of Ireland need others to legitimise their democratic rights. This shows how deeply ingrained this superiority complex of yours is.

    Maybe you should address that rather than deciding whether the Irish people should have the right to determine their own future.

    If you don’t agree with what I have to say, maybe you should ask your paymasters to invade once again and try destroy the Irish nation and its people, otherwise put a sock in it.

  • Monkey Boy

    Darth:

    What genius. I am in awe of you uber destruction of G’s pathetic nonsense.

  • Keith M

    martin “the fact that Sinn Fein had so much support in 25 of those constituencies that no candidate from any other party stood would suggest almost overwhelming support for Sf”.

    Nothing of the kind, it just means that SF were better at intimidation in certain areas (the non contested constituencies were mainly rural areas, which were more difficult to police) than others. In several of these constituences SF did not get a majority of the votes in the local elections that came just a year later.

    “Labour did not contest the 1918 election because they fully supported the Sinn Fein stance on the national issue—-one of their members Countess Markeivitz was made minister for Labour in the first all Ireland Dail–Thomas Johnston was a leading player in drafting the constitution and democratic program—the Irish Citizen Army more or less amalgamated with the IRA during the war of independence.”

    Again arrant nonsense, there were severe divisions within Labour. Some thought it best to stand aside as “normal” politics could not happen while the “national question” was unresolved. Some did support SF, especially after the execution of James Conolly, which other were so anti SF and against not standing and sttod anyway (as Labour Nationalists and in Ulster as Labour Unionists), some even managed to win seats. The split did huge damage to the whole Labour movement at a key period. After Larkin, the lockouts etc Labour was on the crest of a wave, and was progressing in parallel with its counterpart in the rest of the United Kingdom. However by standing aside they split the movement anf never regained the momentum they had before 1918.

    George “I’m still waiting, democratic mandate or not? It’s a simple yes or no answer.”. It was a UK general election, the people of the UK did not give SF a mandate. So no. If you want to do it on headcount, 47% is also not a mandate. The fact that it was not a full and free election in Ireland, does not give them a mandate.

    Four years later there was a full and free vote on the Treaty, when people in every constituency could vote for candidates who supported or opposed the Treaty and the clear majority of people voted in favour. That’s a mandate.

  • Biffo

    Darthrumsfeld

    “..Give me Biffo any day- no phony airs and graces there and gets the job done.”

    I agree.

    “…Nor was it a colony.”

    True, they acquired the land through a series of shrewd property deals.

  • Visioneer

    Think David Trimble deserves a peerage more than Eileen Paisley.

  • darthrumsfeld

    Methinks George has been poked enough.

    It’s clear that sometimes , faced with the choice of reality or one’s cherished beliefs, the easy option is to “print the legend”. George has decided that whatever happened in 1919-21 was “just one of those wars”. he’s not unique in that, on either side of the border. But it doesn’t mean he’s right, any more than a denier of the woes inflicted on the RC community in the 1919-21 period would be.

    It would be interesting though, b4 leaving this one to watch the test match, to establish whether George believed the declaration of Independence by that very dubious individual Patrick Pearse to be a terrorist act. Perhaps it was retrospectively ratified by the 1918 electorate. Not a great consolation at the time I might hazard, to those orphaned, maimed or put out of business.
    And I confess to my shame that I have never read the SF manifesto in 1918, but I guess it was full of piss and wind like all political party pap. But I guess it didn’t say “If we don’t get an independent Ireland tout de suite then we are going to start shooting peelers, Prods and ex-servicemen; destroy big houses ; and generally make the lives of everyone who doesn’t agree with us a living hell-and that’seven if we don’t have the majority of the Irish people supporting us “
    Cos if they had done, we’d all have known- and George would have had his mandate for the “war”

  • darthrumsfeld

    Ringo
    for completeness’ sake C J Haughey’s daddy was a leading IRA man in the north who murdered an RIC sergeant at Swatragh and fled south, where he became a leading officer in the Free State army. And didn’t Charlie marry into Republican royalty- or have I mixed him up ?

  • Keith M

    “Think David Trimble deserves a peerage more than Eileen Paisley.”

    For what exactly; providing proof that “all political carrers in in failure”? For turning the party that was the biggest in Northern Ireland for 80 years into the fourth biggest with little more clout than APNI?

    Trimble should be left in peace to do his gardening and listen to opera, and never make even the slightest move towards active politics ever again. No politician since Lloyd-George did a better job at demolishing the party he led.

  • George

    Darth,
    I have said on numerous occassions that there was no democratic mandate for the 1916 Rising. It was an insurrection and I don’t do retrospective mandates or retrospective justice.

    I only work on democratic mandates which is why I recognise Dail Eireann, founded January 21, 1919 as the legitimate parliament of the Irish Republic.

    It is also why I recognise the principle of consent regarding unification because it is the democratic wish of the Irish people as expressed in free and democratic elections north and south of the border.

    What I don’t recognise is the right of another nation to dictate whether the Irish people have a right to self-determination.

    I also don’t recognise the right of the British state to attempt to crush the legimate rights to independence of the Irish people by military force. The day the British army refused the wishes of the Irish people, as expressed in the ballot box, is the day it became an army of occupation.

    In other words, I recognise the right of the Irish people to fight that attempt to crush Irish democracy with whatever means are available.

    Simple question: What limits do you put on the defence of British democracy from attack by an outside foe?

    Or is British democracy the only democracy worth defending in your view.

    This is the ingrained supremacist attitude you appear to have. Why can Irish democracy only exist with the approval of the British state?

    Are the two not mutually exclusive?

  • George

    Keithm,
    why is 75 out of 103 seats won in the 1918 election not a democratic mandate for independence because in 25 seats candidates ran unopposed?

    I ask because you accept the mandate of the 1922 election as fully valid when a quarter of the candidates were elected unopposed, 37 out of 128?

    I would love to hear your logic on that. Why is one valid and not the other?

    I fear you are like Darth, you only accept Irish democratic wishes if they are validated by the British state. In other words, the Irish people don’t have a right to decide their own affairs. You are a democratic supremacist.

    Explain yourself Keithm.

    Darth,
    on terror, it was actually the British forces who the Irish people saw as doing the terrorising but don’t let that get in the way of your thought process.

    There were many, many more small Irish houses burnt to the ground by the British forces than big British ones, many of which were bases of operations, but all British force is legitimate and Irish defence isn’t

    There was plenty of time for the British to leave after Dail Eireann was founded and violence only erupted months later.

    Cork and Fermoy were both burnt and sacked by the British army months before a single RIC man was killed in Cork, for example.

    Back to democracy:
    In elections for city councils in January 1920, Sinn Fein wins control of 10 out of 12 cities (except Derry – home rulers – and Belfast – Unionist).

    Hardly the actions of a population terrorised by Sinn Fein.

    What happened next?
    Democratically elected mayors of Limerick and Cork murdered in their homes by the RIC.

    In April, Limerick gets the rampaging treatment with burning and looting by British auxilliaries. Next up is Nenagh.

    But don’t let history get in the way of you telling the Irish people what happened to them in this period.

    As I said, you have a flimsy grasp of democracy.

  • Keith M

    George;
    “why is 75 out of 103 seats won in the 1918 election not a democratic mandate for independence because in 25 seats candidates ran unopposed?”

    Firstly is was 75 seats out of 562. In 1918 Ireland had been part of the UK for almost 120 years. There was not a majority in the UK in favour of independence, no more than a majority of the people in Ireland were in favour of independence. Secondly “a democratic mandate” can not come through intimidation and threats.

    In recent times the whole idea of “power sharing” has come about because of Northern Ireland being part of the UK. If the people of NI were sovreign, then we would be back to Unionist rule.

    “I ask because you accept the mandate of the 1922 election as fully valid when a quarter of the candidates were elected unopposed, 37 out of 128?

    By 1922, the elections were full and fair as intimidation had all but disappeared, and there was a clear majority of the population in favour of the treaty.

  • Biffo

    Keith M & Darthrumsfeld

    “..1918 Ireland had been part of the UK for almost 120 years”

    You’ve actually completely failed to address George’s original point that there was never a mandate for Ireland being part the UK, it wasn’t something that Irish people chose.

    In fact it was a political development achieved by the use of violence and pacification measures against popular opposition.

    Are you arguing that only the British are entitled to enforce change or resist change through the use of violence?

  • George

    Keithm,
    funny how you said it was not a mandate because canditates ran unopposed. When I show the fallacy of that argument you move the goalposts to supposed intimidation. No mention of that until now. If it was such an issue why didn’t you bring it up initially?

    “By 1922, the elections were full and fair as intimidation had all but disappeared, and there was a clear majority of the population in favour of the treaty”

    What intimidation are you talking about? SF won 75 seats out of 103 with “intimidation” you say and 93 out of 128 without intimidation.

    So this intimidation actually resulted in same percentage of SF seats which to me would imply there was no intimidation and the Irish people simply reiterated their desire for independence.

    Or how do you explain this anomoly? Who was doing the intimidating then and how was there none in 1922, considering within a year 3,000 people were dead while there was no serious violence among the Irish people after the 1918 election?

    Firstly, when did Ireland vote in a full and free election to join the Union. Where was the mandate for that particular annexation?

    Also, don’t come to me with the derisable “UK” figure. This is Ireland we are talking about here. As I said if you don’t believe Ireland has the right to self-determination, that is your own affair, don’t expect many Irish people to agree with you.

    Anyway, even if it was for the UK to decide and not the Irish people, why did they accept the 1922 election figures for Ireland alone when making a decision on Ireland’s future. Explain that one to me. Surely the treaty should have been put to a UK vote?

    Darth,
    First meeting of British Cabinet with its new Irish officials in May 1920, resulting in the new policy of burning Irish creameries, bacon factories and mills. Hmm, is that terror or not?

  • George

    Still in May 1920 and the terror continues Darth,

    Dublin’s dockers vote not to handle ‘war materials’ coming in to fight the Irish government. The ITGWU joins them, as do the railway workers.

    Onwards to June 1920 and the local elections, where Sinn Fein wins all but four county councils (Armagh, Derry, Antrim and Down) and SF controlled councils give allegiance to Dail Eireann, the parliament of the Irish Republic.

    Still no democratic mandate for Irish independence? How many times do Irish people have to go to the ballot box? It doesn’t matter to you does it because you don’t believe in Ireland’s right to self determination.

    Should I go on about what was happening in Ireland at this time because you don’t seem to have heard about everything?

    June 1920.
    Bantry, man murdered by Crown forces, many houses burnt.
    Fermoy burnt and looted for the second time.
    First Battalion of the Connaught Rangers lay down their arms in protest in India. One executed, many of the 250 courtmartialled.

    July: Tuam Town hall and other buildings torched by British forces.
    18 killed in rioting in Derry.
    Catholics and trade union organisers purged from Belfast’s shipyards, 13 killed in riots.
    British forces carry out a series of reprisals against the Irish population in Thurles, Upperchurch and Nenagh.

    How many big houses burnt by July 1920 Darth?

  • George

    Most of this is from Townshend’s book Darth:

    September and October 1920:

    Over 50 houses as well as the ultimate insult, four pubs, and a factory burnt to the ground by British forces in Balbriggan.

    RIC go a little bit loco in the County Clare, murdering six people and destroying dozens of houses in Ennistymon, Lahinch and Miltown Malbay.

    Ennistymon and Lahinch Townhalls are also torched by the RIC. Is this protecting the local population from terror or is it terrorising the local population?

    You tell me, you’re the expert on peelers.

    Sir Henry Wilson, later a Unionist MP for North Down, admits he is horrified that Sinn Fein members are being executed without question or trial and looks for it to be made official.

    British PM Llyod George points out that, at the moment, HMG could not take responsibility for all the burnings, summary executions and lootings but still favoured continuing with the “gunning”.

    “Let us be fair to these gallant men who are doing their duty in Ireland,” said the leader of the British people.

    Is this the type of noble policing you favour? I suppose it is because they then formed loyal militias from the ranks of the UVF and Orange Order.

    “Where reprisals have taken place, the whole atmosphere of the surrounding district has changed from one of hostility to one of cringing submission.”

    Cringing submission? Hardly sounds like they are liberating the people, more like they are attempting to crush them. What do you understand by democracy again?

    Tubbercurry’s turn for the reprisals, followed by Boyle and Listowel.

    A week later and we are into November. RIC reprisals move to Ballymote and Granard, followed by Tipperary town.

    No one is safe. Priest murdered in Galway by the RIC and buried in a bog. Four men murdered in Mayo, three in Cork.

    A light in the deepening gloom. British forces step in to stop RIC summary execution of four men in Cork. Two men murdered by RIC in Limerick.

    Bloody Sunday.

    December and it is the turn of Cork City centre to be torched, which is where I am, typing this and probably a good point to stop.

    Did you know Cork City Hall, built 1926, was paid for by the British after the Treaty as a sort of “sorry about burning down the other one lads”.

    Well, I’d love to move on in to 1921 but let’s just say the first “Official Reprisals” by the British began on January 1st. New Year, new policy and all that.

    I have to go on holiday now.

  • Keith M

    George “Keithm,funny how you said it was not a mandate because canditates ran unopposed. When I show the fallacy of that argument you move the goalposts to supposed intimidation. No mention of that until now. If it was such an issue why didn’t you bring it up initially?”

    George I said it was not a mandate for several reason, one of the reasons was the 1918 election (at least in many part of southern Ireland) was neither full or fair. Intimidation caused seats to be uncontested.

    “What intimidation are you talking about? SF won 75 seats out of 103 with “intimidation” you say and 93 out of 128 without intimidation.”

    Try comparing apples with apples. The 1918 election was FPTP and the numbers you refer to are for the island of Ireland. The 1922 election was was PR and only covered the IFS. You are including the Total SF vote, when the party was actually teo distinct groups. The 1922 election was held in completly different circumstances, and was a virtual referendum on the treaty.

    “Firstly, when did Ireland vote in a full and free election to join the Union. Where was the mandate for that particular annexation?”

    The concept of full and free elections with a universal franchise is a 20th Century idea, you can not retrospectivly apply it to the the 18th Century.

    “Also, don’t come to me with the derisable “UK” figure. This is Ireland we are talking about here.”. You may chose to ignore 120 years of history, don’t expect anyone to humour you.

    “Anyway, even if it was for the UK to decide and not the Irish people, why did they accept the 1922 election figures for Ireland alone when making a decision on Ireland’s future.”. In 1922 the government of Ireland Act had been enacted, allowing the people of Southern and Northern Ireland to determine their their own future. They chose to vote for the Treaty, and for partition.

    Biffo “In fact it was a political development achieved by the use of violence and pacification measures against popular opposition.” Who’s denying that? Such was the way of the 18th Century. You cannot apply today’s standards retospectivly. Would you have preferred Ireland to remain a colony?

  • cladycowboy

    ‘Firstly, when did Ireland vote in a full and free election to join the Union. Where was the mandate for that particular annexation?”

    The concept of full and free elections with a universal franchise is a 20th Century idea, you can not retrospectivly apply it to the the 18th Century’

    Last time i checked 1801 was in the 19th Century, although it may be my chuckie dictionary mis-informing me.

    Whatever you say about democracy holds no credence, Ireland has never at any point voted to join the island of Britain. Its undemocratic. Ask the people of Ireland as one unit now if they want a 32 county republic, you know what has always been known, full independence would be delivered.

  • Keith M

    cladycowboy “Last time i checked 1801 was in the 19th Century, although it may be my chuckie dictionary mis-informing me.” I’m afraid it is. Ireland joined the UK on January 1st 1801, but the votes to make this possible happened in the summer of 1800, the last year of the 17th Century.

    “Whatever you say about democracy holds no credence, Ireland has never at any point voted to join the island of Britain.”. The island of Ireland as a single political entity was a British creation. The Irish Parliament did vote to join the UK. The idea of a referendum with a universal franchise is also a 20th Century one. There wasn’t one in this country until 1958, although the plebisite to introduce the constitution in 1937, was one in all but name. Again be wary of trying to retro fit today’s values and methods.

    “Ask the people of Ireland as one unit now if they want a 32 county republic, you know what has always been known, full independence would be delivered.” Why should I ask the people of one sovreign nation and only part of another? There are two sovreign states involved. The UK has always allowed the decision to be made by the people of Northern Ireland in isolation (as is their right), and since 1998, the Republic also recognise that it is up to the people of Nothern Ireland to decide their own future. Any other piece of conjecture falls into the “if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle” category.

  • Biffo

    “The island of Ireland as a single political entity was a British creation.”

    Ireland had a different but uniform political system that applied throughout the island for centuries, possibly millenia.

    What the British did was to bring that political system to an end. They eventually made it a part of a bigger political entity, the United Kingdom.

    The United Kingdom is the single political entity – not Ireland. Because Ireland can’t be a single political entity and part of the United Kingdom political entity at the same time. That’s contradictory.

    Ireland wasn’t thee United Kingdom, it was part of the United Kingdom, in which case it wasn’t a single political entity.

    What you said means the British created an independant Ireland.

    What you meant to say (or at least should have said for accuracy’s sake) was that “”The island of Ireland as a part of a larger single political entity was a British creation.”

    “..is was 75 seats out of 562..”

    Would you argue that if the SNP became the most popular party in Scotland at the next election, independance should be denied because people in England and Wales voted Labour and people in NI voted DUP?

    It’s your logic, but a perversion of democracy to me.

  • Denny Boy

    “1800, the last year of the 17th Century.”

    No more drink for Keith :0)

  • jim

    as an objective political observer here for almost a lifetime ihave never read such vitrolic
    bigoted comment as in th e current slugger o.tooles pages.

    yes dr. paisley does uncompromisingly hold to the reformed ethic—–but in his time in politics he has plouged a straight furrow—always managing to keep his religuous views seperate from those of hi politics

    ask any catholic, including several rc priests from n.antrim about his ability as an mp

    slugger, you have many quasi republican old fart contributors and a few of “the and the good” who think it cool to deride the big man

    they are behind the times—-itis no longer cool.

    jim
    loughgall

    jim@kjvmail.com

  • darthrumsfeld

    Memo to all sluggerettes on holiday in Ibiza next week: The weird guy wearing the same clothes all week is our mate George, who spent so much time scouting old Capuchin annuals for details of the nefarious British and their atrocities he had no time to pack before his flight. Say hello to his friends Zippy and Bungle BTW

    Mind you it’s just as well he did or we’d never hear the end of every pub burning that took place (perhaps George’s irritation with this particular type of attack gives us a clue as to his state of mind when posting?)

    Interesting how George points out all of the crimes- and yes they were crimes- carried out during this period EXCEPT for …er, crimes committed by the IRA. I’ve got all of Townshend’s book,not just the pages of allegations against Crown forces, and I could bore people with an equally long list of acts of human depradation.

    One small point- “reprisal” means something done in repsonse to something else. The mire may have been a place Tom Barry regretted going, but when they got there the IRA were quick to wallow in it. Just a couple of particularly sadistic instances to keep us going- a resident Magistrate buried up to his neck at low tide on the seashore and left to drown; and two police cadets thrown alive into a furnace in Tralee.
    And let’s not forget (or in George’s case-let’s!)the number of people murdered lying in unknown graves, at a time when a Christian burial was regarded as more important than we may do now.

    Yes George I know all about Cork City Hall and the generosity of the UK government in funding it. Perhaps in the same spirit your government will return the gesture and pay reparations for the arming of the Provisionals in 1969?

    BTW cladycowboy be careful when you think a referendum in 1800 may have produced a majority against the Union. Many Orangemen opposed it as ending the Protestant Ascendancy, and many RC churchmen welcomed it. Indeed, but for the Veto controversy, and the unwarranted delay in emancipation, the Roman Catholic church may have identified increasingly with Britain. But you would have stood up in public and voted the way your landlord wanted , or faced his wrath. And your wife would have stayed at home and not filled her head with nonsense like politics.
    Even in 1918, women aged under 28 were not given the vote, because they were not considered capable of making important decisions- I wonder how many thousands of soldiers’ wives, sisters and daughters – and thus disposed to be anti-SF were unable to vote in George’s mandate for terror. Might have pushed the Shinners down to 45% !!

    Biffo- I did specifically address the point about democracy in the 18th century @ 2.31 on the 10th. So far as the SNP winning a majority for independence in Scotland- first a majority of the electorate is virtually impossible to achieve, nevermind a majority of voters and there’s no likelihood of it happening now or ever; secondly the SNP isn’t for UDI- with a terrorist wing waging war to achieve it- it wants to negotiate, and in the amazing prospect of them having a mandate to do that they would first have to achieve consensus within Scotland- not just summons the Labour Tories etc to a self styled sovereign parliament and present them with a fait accompli.The mandate couldn’t be ignored though- and it was Carson’s Unionism which accepted that the demand for Home Rule could not be ignored.

    Let’s leave this thread with the comment of George which shows clearly that all his cant about terror and war is just whining about the State using force though “I recognise the right of the Irish people to fight that attempt to crush Irish democracy with whatever means are available”. Perhaps it should be the town motto for Dunmanway

  • suffolk_west_belfast

    glensman,

    Stop feeling sorry for yourself you pathetic mope…

  • martin

    Keith m,

    RE THE 1922 being a clear referendum on the treaty—where does Collins renaging on his deal with De valera 4 days before polling took place fit in here.

    most voters thought that they were voting for a pannel made up of pro and anti treaty candidates who were going to form a coalition of pro and anti treaty Sinn Fein—thus avoiding a split.=no referendum on treaty.

  • FARC U

    when new anti-terrorist laws are applied, where are they going to send Paisley? I dont think Bob Jones University will be allowed to accept him.
    Any ideas where he should go.? He would meet the criteria you know.

  • FARC U

    when new anti-terrorist laws are applied, where are they going to send Paisley? I dont think Bob Jones University will be allowed to accept him.
    Any ideas where he should go.? He would meet the criteria you know.

  • cladycowboy

    darthrumsfeld

    ‘Even in 1918, women aged under 28 were not given the vote, because they were not considered capable of making important decisions- I wonder how many thousands of soldiers’ wives, sisters and daughters – and thus disposed to be anti-SF were unable to vote in George’s mandate for terror. Might have pushed the Shinners down to 45% !! ‘

    Or alternatively giving the vote to women would have increased the Independence vote as wives, sisters and daughters of SF voting men followed their male relations lead.

    Fact is to this day 80% of the Irish voting public support parties that want Ireland to be independent and sovereign in these times of democratic openness and full suffrage. Where/when can supporters of the UK point to show this level of democratic endorsement within Ireland? Nowhere.

    UK democracy has been legitimised at the barrel of a gun and keeping the british public ignorant of what has happened here. You’ve stated that SF won 73 out of 562 seats in 1918 as you included Britain in the determination of Ireland’s sovereignty. I’d be interested to find out ( if you insist that East Anglians hold sway over the people of Irelands expressed wishes of independence) what would be the result of a referendum in Britain over the issue of ceding NI to the rest of Ireland, wouldn’t you?

  • darthrumsfeld

    Not really