Queen’s Visit: Time to move on but not to forget…

‘I have signed my own death warrant’; so (allegedly) did Michael Collins spake after he had signed The Treaty in London in 1921.

Collins’s support for the Anglo-Irish Treaty which both agreed to the partition of the country and required elected representatives in the new state to promise to be faithful to His Majesty King George V (the Queen’s grandfather) was to lead to civil war and Collins’s own untimely death on the 22 August 1922.

Irish attitudes to the Queen’s visit are largely supportive but also tempered with awareness of the often violent and destructive nature of our relationship with the British Crown.

The Queen visits Collins’s Rebel County on Friday and the ditty below arguably captures the Country’s mood. Perhaps it is time to move on from the past.  But not to forget it?

Click here for Her Majesty in Corcaigh.

, , , , , , , ,

  • Forget it, Sammy? I wish. The past is meat and drink to some. Collins was not killed by the Brits, when he signed the treaty those who later ordered his murder were well aware of what he was doing and why.

    The American side of my family say we are related to Collins I don’t know or care enough to find out even though they say they have the paper work to prove it, and I must admit Collins has always been my favourite republican.

    Its a bit like older members of my family saying they were in the IRA, sure hasn’t every republican got a member of the IRA in the family and didn’t we all make room for someone when he was on the run…

    In any case there are enough twists, turns and branches to our family tree to try the patience of all the saints. The constant harking back to the past is a bit like that, never ending and few definite conclusions. The ‘older’ members of my family are almost gone now and I would like it to stop with them, just like I would like the past to stay in the past now.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Pip

    “I must admit Collins has always been my favourite republican.”

    That’s interesting. Why Collins, Pip? He’s certainly one of the major figures, but why does he stand out above the others? Just curious / interested.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Not sure myself really. Perhaps its because he showed real ministerial promise and perhaps its because he died before he could fail. His legacy was the beginnings of the independence of Ireland and it irritates me that others got (took) the credit that I feel should have been his.

    He was right about the treaty it paved the way just as now Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are right about the GFA.

  • socialdemocrat

    Comparing Adams and McGuinness to Michael Collins?

    …. ok.

  • Blissett

    Have to say I have never understood the grá for collins. There is every chance collins would have been a salazar type figure – he didnt mind democracy, but I think he considered it something of a luxury.
    Had he lived longer I think his legacy might be different.

  • socialdemocrat

    I think you will find I compared treaties not men.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    pippakin,

    “Collins was not killed by the Brits, when he signed the treaty those who later ordered his murder were well aware of what he was doing and why. ”

    Signing the treaty required Collins to temper principle with pragmatism – something he knew many would not be able swallow. The oath to King George in the treaty illustrates both the importance of the symbol of the crown to – as the First Irish Lady remarked yesterday – the colonisers and the colonised.

    Socialdemocrat,

    “Comparing Adams and McGuinness to Michael Collins?”

    As you mention it…

    Leaving aside the issue of the (differing) moralities of both IRAs (from the early and later parts of the last century) there are similarities in that both IRAs fought and stopped fighting when they offered reasonable deals by the British. I emphaise ‘they’ as the Sunningdale deal was not an offer to violent Republicanism but an offer to Constitutional Nationalism.

    Blissett,

    “Have to say I have never understood the grá for collins.”

    Obviously he was central to the War of Independance…

    Or do you mean you dont understand why someone who signed the treaty should be afforded such acclaim?

  • Sammy

    The oath was and for some still is a fig leaf. A power struggle took place, Collins lost, but he should have been given full recognition for his efforts and I don’t believe he got that.

  • “Comparing Adams and McGuinness to Michael Collins?”

    I dont think that the Belfast Agreement was a “death warrant” for Adams and McGuiness.

  • Alf

    “I dont think that the Belfast Agreement was a “death warrant” for Adams and McGuiness”

    More like a meal ticket in fact.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    pippakin,

    “The oath was and for some still is a fig leaf.”

    Why would the British insist on a ‘fig leaf’ – this was about Britain trying to maintain its increasingly restless empire – the oath was a messsage and not just a message for Irish consumption.

    As predicted by Dev – the boul Mick has belatedly been given due credit.

    Seymour,

    “I dont think that the Belfast Agreement was a “death warrant” for Adams and McGuiness.”

    Well there was no oath for Stormo – and of course the Queen is a no show there – but more significantly no Republicans (dissers) have made Mc Guinness or Adams a target.

    Alf,

    re. meal tickets.

    It always is a good idea to try and learn from your political opponents – check out SF’s wage structure.

  • Sammy

    Give me a vreak the ‘boul’ and very devious Dev took every advantage and waited for others and posterity to give Collins the ‘credit’. The oath means nothing to me and it meant damn all to Dev!

  • Sammy

    Give me a break the ‘boul’ and very devious Dev took every advantage and waited for others and posterity to give Collins the ‘credit’. The oath means nothing to me and it meant damn all to Dev!

  • pippakin

    Sorry! A message appeared saying wait and try again, so I corrected an error and sent it twice! please delete one or all as you please.

  • Alf

    “It always is a good idea to try and learn from your political opponents – check out SF’s wage structure.”

    Largely consisting of the Queen’s shilling.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Alf,

    “Largely consisting of the Queen’s shilling”

    A guilty conscience goes a long way.

    pippakin,

    “The oath means nothing to me and it meant damn all to Dev”

    I really think you are understimating its significance – imagine what would happen in Westminster if the EU demanded all elected Westminster MPs had to swear allegiance to Brussels.

    Equally there would have been no IRA ceasefire/GFA if such an oath had been included in the Stormo protocol.

  • Alf

    “A guilty conscience goes a long way.”

    All the way to the bank apparently.

  • Sammy

    You mean they haven’t???

    Dev was every bit the pragmatist that Collins was, and more. I get tired of hearing about a meaningless form of words continually used as an excuse for murder. It is a means to an end and if its ok to kill for Ireland its ok to tell a lie.

    The idea of a comparison is a sick joke, told too often.

  • Hedley Lamarr

    In T. Ryle Dwyer’s book “Michael Collins-The Man Who Won the War” the author explains that two years before the Treaty was signed De Valera told a French journalist that Republicans would accept partition and an oath to the King. It wasn’t a premonition it was his position. He screwed Collins good. Not as much as Fine Gael screwed with his legacy though…

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    pippakin,

    “I get tired of hearing about a meaningless form of words continually used as an excuse for murder”

    The reason the British didnt have an oath this time round in Stormo is that they understand it is not how you make peace – with the Treaty they were more in the business of protecting their empire and threatned slaughter if Ireland didnt sign up.

    Not so much an (Irish) excuse for murder – more the (British ) threat of it.

  • Crubeen

    Pippakin,

    Like you I find Collins a most compelling figure. Unlike Dev he was a pragmatist and he was a brilliant leader. He found and militarily exploited the British weakness; impelled them to the negotiating table; took what he could get (on a sound assessment of the relative weakness of the IRA pre and especially post the Truce); had the long term vision to see the Treaty as part of a process; was not prepared (though he had) to shed blood; did not wage war on the civil population (tricked the British into their customary coercion); recognised and used the power of the press; was honest and upright in dealing with the finances of the nascent State (unlike Dev and his fund raising in the USA); was prepared to do business with Northern Ireland; was not in awe of the Catholic Church; perceived the need for economic development and would never have referred to “comely maidens.” Had he lived and been in power he would never have given condolences to the German Embassy on the death of Hitler and might well have entered the War in December 1941 as an ally of the USA – something that would have been of enormous benefit to Ireland in the post war period.

    In short, everything that Dev did to Ireland’s detriment Mick would have done the opposite.

  • Sammy

    These days there is debate about if and what form any oath should take in Westminster, never mind Stormont! some republicans need to get over their sense of self importance.

    Read Mr Lamarrs comment, its well known if not in Ireland then certainly elsewhere. Collins knew he was out manoeuvred when he went to London. A deal had to be done and he took responsibility for it.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Crubeen,

    Largely agree with that speculation – also Churchill offered Irish Unification in return for entering the war – the boul Mick would have surel gone with that one.

  • Crubeen Hedley Lamarr

    Michael Collins Irelands lost hero. He like so many was lost to the ambitions of others.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    pippakin,

    “These days there is debate about if and what form any oath should take in Westminster, never mind Stormont! some republicans need to get over their sense of self importance.”

    There is a simple principle here, minimise British involvment in Irish affairs, ignoring Westminster and speaking direclty to the Viceroy and/or Number 10 – if necessary.

    The SDLP need to get on board before they disappear completely.

    As Alf points out the British guilty conscience goes all the way to the (Irish) bank.

  • Sammy

    It may be slow but it is progress. If we want them out we must vote them out. Collins understood that so did Dev.

  • latcheeco

    Pip,
    I have to disagree. Call a spade a spade. Some of the idle worship of Collins among latter day revisionist saints borders on the absurd. Collins was a stone cold killer. He commanded stone cold killers, and the people he respected most were stone cold killers. They killed policemen and soldiers armed and unarmed. They killed civillians and he only stopped it when he thought they didn’t have enough gear to kill more. This nonsense reminds me of the time the Stoops claimed to be the true descendents of of Pearse.

  • latcheeco

    Yes he killed but it was part of a real war for independence. As soon as he felt he had gained sufficient ground to gain an independent Ireland democratically he agreed to the terms to make it happen. Arguably Dev needed Ireland barefoot and pregnant to maintain his grip. Collins would never have settled for that.

    Sammy

    Churchill did offer and Dev declined, I wonder why and I don’t want to hear that he didn’t trust the Brits. The Americans would have made sure the deal held.

    I seem to have stirred a bit of a hornets nest about Collins. He has always had his supporters me among them. Sorry if this thread has gone a bit awry.

  • joeCanuck

    latcheeco,

    Every nation/society has its iconic heroes. Collins was such a man to the majority of Irish people. The civil war was an ugly affair with the formerly closest of friends on opposite sides and killing each other. I believe your assessment is wrong and that Collins was a much better man than DeValera and would have made a great Taoiseach; but he died too early.

  • SK

    On the subject of “stone cold killers”- Churchill proclaimed after World War II that…

    “…we sleep soundly in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.”

    Well I sleep soundly in my Dublin bed because ‘stone cold killers’ like Michael Collins had the gumption to do what needed to be done.

  • latcheeco

    JoeCanuck,
    I made no comment on either his or Dev’s greatness, nor did I compare them. I was referring to the War of Independence and the airbrushing of ugly facts to suit some narratives because the facts sit uncomfortably. The truth is the South got the free state because Collins was a widow maker, not a peacemaker

  • joeCanuck

    latcheeco,

    Yes, sorry. Poor sentence construction on my part, conflating different things.

  • Crubeen

    Latcheeco,

    “Collins was a stone cold killer. He commanded stone cold killers, and the people he respected most were stone cold killers. They killed policemen and soldiers armed and unarmed. They killed civillians and he only stopped it when he thought they didn’t have enough gear to kill more”

    Collins was fighting a war – in war, one kills and one does not shrink from it where it is directed towards gaining the strategic objective, which, in turn has to be achievable. George Patton Jnr once said (and I paraphrase) that one never won a war by dying for one’s country – one won a war by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his.

    Collins’ ability as a war leader was that he identified the Achilles heel of British administration and ruthlessly took it out. Bloody Sunday proved just how much more effective his intelligence network was and made it well nigh impossible for the British to reconstruct what he had destroyed. He would never have mounted an assault on the GPO or the castle for he knew that in conventional warfare he was outnumbered and outgunned.

    Opposing him were the ragtag outfit of Auxiliaries and Black and Tans – ill-disciplined and working to an hypothesis that terror could be cancelled by counter terror. Where Collins was precise with his targeting, they were indiscriminate. Collins won the propaganda war – he knew that was at least as important as every agent of the Castle, or informer that he succeeded in eliminating.

    The people backed him – an essential element in the type of campaign he fought and something that PIRA in particular never had outside of the few areas they controlled at the peak of their success.

    He personally, seems not to have killed anybody but others did it on his command. He did not target civilians in the way that militant republicanism and militant loyalism did. He was charismatic – cycled around Dublin wearing a business suit and bluffed his way past military checkpoints. I think it is fair to say that he was a major factor in the development of urban asymmetric warfare. Most important of all he knew when to stop the killing and turn to the talking. The tragedy is that a lesser man was pulling the strings – one who did hesitate to precipitate a Civil War to achieve what he knew could not be achieved.

    I think you are demonising a great man. His last and fatal trip to Cork was an effort to try to stop the Civil War – only a desperate or a good man would have done that and, given that at that stage, the initiative lay with the Free State Pro-Treaty forces he was not at all desperate to stop the Civil War. He was just anxious to do it. That;s not the mark of a cold killer.

  • latcheeco

    Crubeen,
    Thanks for clearing all that GCSE/Leaving Cert. history stuff up for me. Who knew? I hope I didn’t overly offend your sensibilties but I wasn’t demonising him at all. It may not sit well with some people’s fairytale view of Irish history but St. Mick was most effective because he was a ruthless killer. And whether he pulled the trigger on an off duty policeman himself or got some wee lad like Vinnie Byrne to do what he planned is a subtle distiction probably lost on the dead.

    The people weren’t backing him when he was in the G.P.O shooting up Dublin without a mandate so at what point did he start to base his convictions on opinion polls do you think?.

    As for the man of peace spoof, he was in close contact with the IRA in the six counties when was killed, and it wasn’t to get them new slippers. He fired on the Four Courts to determine who was boss, not because he was a new convert to constitutional nationalism.

    Regarding popular support for guerrilla war, Collins’ IRA sustained their campaign for three years. Martin’s IRA sustained theirs for thirty odd. Do the math

  • Brian

    Latcheeco-You’re last paragraph is ridiculous.

  • latcheeco

    Brian,

    ” Latcheeco- You’re (sic) last paragraph is ridiculous”

    Hyperbole maybe, but not as ridiculous as implying that people in the South in the Tan War were wholeheartedly in favor of the IRA hence their success while nationalists in the North during the troubles were not.. after all the first chance they got they voted for the Treaty (and Collins admitted this was forced from a position of military weakness) which would defacto end the revolution without victory. And it didn’t take long thereafter to roll up the irregulars who were in fact the bulk of the IRA units that actually fought the 1918-21 war. Proportionally the later IRA were at least as well supported given their longevity. Not to mention the suggestion that Michael Collins was a man of peace.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    latcheeco,

    “Not to mention the suggestion that Michael Collins was a man of peace.”

    The fact is Mick had to swallow hard to make the peace when he thought it was the right time to do so even though the Treaty must have stuck in his craw.

  • Michael Gillespie

    It is the thesis of Federal Unionism-Early Sinn Fein that the British/Irish problem is constitutional and can only be resolved rationally. This present day problem began in the 18th century with the Patriots pressing for the Dublin Parliament to be separate from but co-equal to Westminster under the Crown. This moderate constitutional position was swept aside by the Republican extremists The United Irishmen who tried to overthrow the constitution by insurrection and with it the Crown. The 1801 Act of Union was put in place in reaction to ‘98 even though it was opposed by Grattan.

    This division between moderate constitutional nationalists who wanted a government for Ireland but under the Crown like O Connell Butt Parnell Griffiths and Redmond and constitutionally extreme Republicans like the Young Irelanders The Fenians Pearce and De Valera who followed a philosophy of violence to overthrow the constitution and the Crown, ran through the 19th century. It is against this thumbnail sketch of history the Civil war in the 20th century is best understood. It was a war fought over the constitution between those who would accept a relationship with the Crown in an Oath of Allegiance and those who wanted no such relationship. To look at an –If Only– of history if only the relationship with the Crown had been accepted by all as it was by Collins a rapprochement between Protestant Loyalists and Catholic Nationalists might have come about and Ireland might have emerged as Sovereign independent nation with the Crown as head of state similar to Australia and Canada. That didn’t happen and the last nail of Irish unity was driven into the coffin when the 26 counties were declared a Republic by extremists in 1949.

    The present day division the now exists here was painfully obvious in the coverage of the Royal visit. There were two contradictory national heads of state to be seen; two contradictory national flags flown; two contradictory national anthems being played along with two contradictory wreaths being laid. In all of that a sectarian border was being legitimised with the Royal Assent but as long as that crazy constitutional set-up exists for so long will there be the potential for violence and the border will remain a bone of contention.

    For unity stability and peace Ireland needs an agreed constitution with one Head of State for all; one national flag for all; one national anthem for all and a wreath acceptable to all. This is not pie in the sky but is feasible in The National Government of Ireland Act making a reformed elected Crown Head of State in an independent Ireland within a Federal Kingdom. It is now high time that Tricolour Republicanism and Union Jack Unionism are recognised as divisive failures in history and these need replacement in a Federal Union making Ireland a sovereign independent nation like Australia and Canada. There is more on this federal theme at http://www.authorhouse.co.uk by putting my name into the search engine

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Michael Gillespie

    Constitutional differences like cultural differences should not be seen as a threat.

    As the Queen remarked Ireland and Britain are “much more than just neighbours, that make us firm friends and equal partners”.

    Ireland no more needs to have any constitutional link with Britain than Britain needs to have any such link with France.

    The only constitutional issue which remains outstanding is Ulster which is jointly (politically) managed by both nation states.

    The political violence which has marked the relationship between the 2 countries has stemmed largely from Britain’s failure to recognise Ireland as an equal partner and the Monarchy has been the embodiment of that relationship – hence the need to assert domination by having an oath to King George V in the Anglo Irish Treaty.

    The Queen’s words simply reflect the post GFA political reality and as the Irish first Lady put it the past is a repository of sources of bitter division – for the colonisers and the colonised, but both countries have now clearly move on.

  • latcheeco

    Sammy,
    We both know that Collins was the fall guy for a treaty he didn’t want but was maneuvered into. When he came back from London he had no other choice ( and I would suggest his position was helped along in in no small way by personality clashes with people like Dev and Brugha and the inability to get more gear) but to own it.To suggest that this makes him a sainted visionary of peace who had some kind of damascene conversion to constitutional nationalism is to try and remould him into something he was not for no other reason than to suit a current narrative.

  • George

    Latcheeco,
    Collins was a stone cold killer. He commanded stone cold killers, and the people he respected most were stone cold killers.

    As Tom Barry said about the War of Independence:

    “The British dragged us down into the gutter in an effort to destroy us. And down after them into the gutter we had to go.”

    All those reprisal killings and town burnings by the British in Ireland during that period were ordered by some of Britain’s most respected military and political figures of the time. That’s the reality of war.

    Do you honestly believe that the Irish men and women who defeated the British Empire to win independence would have succeeded if they weren’t as ruthless as their opponents?

  • latcheeco

    George,
    You misunderstand my point. It’s not about the efficacy or necessity of their ruthlessness, it’s about the airbrushing out of that ruthlessness to suit a more recent narrative. If they were peacemakers there can be no denying their peace was made out of the barrel of a gun. Collins did not make a concious decision mid-war to change tack and become the Home Rule Party.

  • latcheeco

    oops “conscious decision”

  • Michael Gillespie

    Latcheeco

    I didn’t say that Collins made a conscious decision to become a Home Ruler or a constitutional nationalist; I examined the question if only he had what would have flowed from that? This has to be looked against the entire back drop of Irish history as there are two sides to that story not just the republican side.

    George

    I give little credence to the anti-British rhetoric of the Republican gunman Tom Barry.
    Irishmen and women didn’t defeat the British Empire Gandhi did and unlike Irish Republicans he did it without ruthlessly murdering people. The Irish only won partial independence of 26 counties. There are those of us who would prefer a 32 county independent nation. This is not achievable as republic but is in a new relation with the Crown. Like all other republicans you are amnesic when it comes to the over one million loyalists living on the island who are loyal to the Crown.

    It was Sammy Mc Nally

    Britain doesn’t need a constitutional link with France as there is no historic basis for that. There is an historic basis for Ireland having an historic link with the Crown and Britain just as there is an historic basis for Australia and Canada having historic links with the Crown and Britain and yet being sovereign independent nations. A 32 county independent nation constituted like Australia and Canada would be preferable to partition. In accepting the GFA you are accepting partition. There are many around who don’t.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    latcheeco

    “We both know that Collins was the fall guy for a treaty he didn’t want”

    Do we?

    Surely it would be more correct to say he was the fall guy for a treaty – that was the best of the available option – and that he should be commended for his pragmatism (peacemaking) in running with it.

    Michael Gillespie,

    “Britain doesn’t need a constitutional link with France as there is no historic basis for that.”

    The modern British state was set up by the French(Normans) and the similarities between both States and their colonial past is masked by different language but illustrated by their intense jealousy of each other and their constant warring with each other international sibling rivalrly.

    I think you might have a bit more success with that Anglo-France link – though admittedly you may have a few trickey moments with the Tory right.

  • latcheeco

    Sammy,
    Many in the six counties, especially the nationalist majorities in Fermanagh and Tyrone, might just as surely disagree with you that the treaty was the best option available; because it was the one accepted doesn’t make this so. I think arguments that a better fist could have been made of negotiations are just as valid.

    I don’t think being maneuvered, some might say bullied, into doing something means you should get praise for that decision and later be used as a paradigm for others.

    Republicans don’t seem to do well in negotiations with the British. I think people reflecting on it should be honest and instead of saying it was the best we could have gotten, tell the truth and say we might have gotten more but they bamboozled us again.

    People need to be honest about Collins. He was an effective killer but a poor negotiator, and his treaty didn’t bring Northern nationalists much peace, did it?

    Michael,
    Apologies, but I didn’t say you said anything. I was addressing George’s point. The vast majority of the Irish people have always been constitutional nationalists, but then its results that count.

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy Mc Nally

    “The Modern British state was set up by the French (Normans)”

    In my understanding of constitutional history modern British constitution came into existence in the reign of Queen Anne in the18th century and had nothing to do with the French. I wasn’t until the 18th century that these islands were constituted as British cf Pope’s Rape of the Lock.

    Dewi

    The only constitutional options that I know of in a modern European democracy are Republicanism or Constitutional Nationalism. If there is a third option I’d like you to tell me what it is.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein

  • Hedley Lamarr

    Michael Gillespie- Constitutional options in Europe- Have you looked at Belgium? I am sure it doesn’t fit neatly into either of your definitions.

    You want a Federal Kingdom? I would sarcastically say “good luck” but I would curse myself if it eventually came about. After the forelock tugging in the Rebel County it just goes to show that pigs can fly.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    latcheeco,

    “I think arguments that a better fist could have been made of negotiations are just as valid.”

    Apologies if I missed them above – but what is detail of those arguements? simply not liking parts of the treaty which Collins didnt either – is not a valid arguement for an alternative.

    Michael Gillespie

    “In my understanding of constitutional history modern British constitution came into existence in the reign of Queen Anne in the18th century and had nothing to do with the French.”

    from Wiki below – obviously best for the British to throw their lot in with French and leave us alone.

    “By bringing England under the control of rulers originating in France, the Norman conquest linked the country more closely with continental Europe, lessened Scandinavian influence, and also set the stage for a rivalry with France that would continue intermittently for many centuries. It also had important consequences for the rest of the British Isles, paving the way for further Norman conquests in Wales and Ireland, and the extensive penetration of the aristocracy of Scotland by Norman and other French-speaking families, with the accompanying spread of continental institutions and cultural influences.

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy Mc Nally

    I give little credence to Wikipedia. On examination of your quote the countries of England Ireland Scotland and Wales are mentioned. It was only in the18th century that these countries were constituted British The Normans were benign in Ireland in that they intermarried with the Irish and became more Irish than the Irish—Not British–. If you had used the word British to a Norman he wouldn’t have known what you were talking about.

    Hedley Lamarr

    My understanding of Belgium is that it is constituted as a monarchy so the country is constituted Constitutional Nationalist. As for the Walloons I don’t think they have a problem with the constitution but with identity.

    I note your rejection of a Federal Kingdom. Obviously you’re a person with a closed mind to new ideas who lives in the past with the failed notion of a Republic and with that failure the border.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Michael Gillespie,

    “If you had used the word British to a Norman he wouldn’t have known what you were talking about.”

    This is an arguement about the substance of the relationship between Britain and France (a realtionship which most British seem to be in denial of ) not a debate about the etymology of the word ‘British’.

    The British and French states are clearly 2 branches from the same tree, both are are large states who have historically pursued their interests at the expense of smaller states such as Ireland – whilst warring with just about everybody that they could find who would fight them – or of course with themselves – they have more in common with each other than either have with Ireland.

    As the Queens speech indicated we are separate and equal partners who have reached a compromise over Ulster which will continue to likley to continue to cause some diffiuclty for both our countries – but hopefully only in a non violent fashion.

  • Hedley Lamarr

    Michael Gillespie- You are right to a certain degree. On the one hand I want a United Ireland and I am unlikely to waver from that notion. On the other hand I am open to new ideas in other respects including the make-up of that desired Republic. I would like it to be secular and a warm, cosy place for unionists, nationalists, immigrants and everybody else.

    I can see the benefit of economies of scale that would come with a United Ireland, one administration, one tax system, one set of public services, one economy, etc.

    I can also see the benefit of the economies of scale of a United Kingdom of Ireland and Britain but I don’t like monarchies.

    I am in the Tony Benn camp when it comes to UK politics so I wouldn’t be happy with today’s coalition or a New Labour government. I wouldn’t be happy with much of the politics in the south either with the graft, the corruption etc. and would welcome any new ideas in that regard.

    Unionists would also be more likely than Sinn Fein to be accepted into government in a United Ireland as they hold similar ‘bread and butter’ policies to the established parties in the South and could take advantage of the PR elections.

  • Michael Gillespie

    Hedley Lamarr

    You say you want a desired Republic—that is a cosy place for unionists etc. That is a contradiction in terms. Unionists belong in the loyalist tradition in Ireland. You cannot fit loyalists into a Republic. To say that you can is plain nonsense. If you want a united Ireland as I do it will have to be a country in which Loyalists are free to express loyalty to the Crown as Orange men do. Try fitting the Orange Order and the Apprentice Boys of Derry into a Republic and loyalist Ulster will explode. In the 26 county Republic Loyalists were crushed out of existence. The same fate would await Loyalists in your desired Republic.

    I grew up with a protestant community in the heart of Tyrone. Catholics will affirm that you can’t find a better neighbour than a Protestant but they will also affirm that their protestant neighbours are loyalist with a deep lasting respect and commitment to the Crown. That is their heritage and their human right which cannot be suppressed in a Republic. It was known that in the border areas of Tyrone and Fermanagh attempts were made by the IRA to ethnically cleanse these areas of Loyalists. How does that square with your desired Republic?

    Federal Unionism-Early Sinn Fein proposes a realistic united 32 county Irish Nation with the Crown as head of state in which Loyalists are free to express their human right of loyalty. There are over a million Loyalists in Ireland and they won’t go away you know. IN such an Ireland with The National Government of Ireland Act as its written constitution making a reformed elected Crown as head of state such a constitution could be made as acceptable to the sensitivities of the Catholics of Kerry as to the Protestants of Derry. When it comes to your desired Republic you haven’t thought the matter through. Like all Republicans you are amnesic when it comes to Loyalist Ireland. TO help you with your thinking I suggest you read my trilogy on the British/ Irish Problem available at http://www.authorhouse.co.uk by typing my name into the search engine

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Michael,

    “You cannot fit loyalists into a Republic.”

    and equally “you cannot fit Nationalists into the UK”.

    Take your pick.

    Square pegs and round holes either way.

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy Mc Nally

    “This is an argument about the substance of the relation between Britain and France.”

    While it is indubitable that such a relation exists what relevance has it to Ireland? For centuries the Crown has been at the centre of the murderous British/ Irish problem, has the Crown been at the centre of your spurious British/French problem? There has been an historic rivalry between the English and the French but the relationship has never been murderous as the British/Irish relationship has been. The murderous British/Irish relationship has been and is a problem the British/French relationship isn’t.

    You write: –

    You write “ Britain and France are clearly 2 branches of the one tree”

    You could write that all European democracies are branches of the one tree with roots in ancient Greece but where does that lead to in Ireland with its historic murderous British/Irish problem?

    The thesis of Federal Unionism-Early Sinn Fein is that the murderous British /Irish problem is constitutional and can be resolved rationally. There is no comparable British/French problem that has caused murder mutilation and mayhem to ordinary citizens as the British/Irish problem has. This calamitous problem can’t be written off by saying the problem is solved in the GFA and that the 26 county statelet is equal to the British nation. That spin was written by British politicians to be read out in Dublin Castle by the Queen to appease southern Republicans. Northern Ireland has been left out of the spin. Federal Unionism-Early Sinn Fein is old fashioned enough to hold that only a 32 county Irish Nation can be declared equal to Great Britain.

    Federal Unionism/Early Sinn Fein contends that the British/ Irish problem that murdered Ronan Kerr can only be resolved in the Federal Kingdom of the Sovereign Nation of all Ireland and Great Britain or vice versa with a new written constitution for Ireland that can be made as acceptable to the sensitivities of the Catholics of Kerry as to the Protestants of Derry. I find the thinking in your comment muddled and confused. To help clarify you thinking I suggest you read my trilogy on the British Irish problem available at http://www.authorhouse.co.uk by typing my name into the search engine. Maybe that will help.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein.

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy Mc Nally

    “You can’t fit nationalists into the U.K.”

    Here in N. Ireland there is a sizeable nationalist community who are perfectly happy to live in the U.K. under the Crown and enjoy its benefits. You may say you can’t fit Sinn Fein into the U.K. but the hard facts have to be faced. Sinn Fein now sit happily at Stormont as crypto-unionists propping up a right wing unionist U.K. state while in the pay of the Crown’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. Martin Maguinness may say he isn’t loyal to the Crown and refuses to meet the Queen but he is loyal to her money with the Queen’s impression.

    How ever in your confusion you fail to grasp the central tenet of Federal Unionism-Early Sinn Fein which is that this new concept rejects both the U.K. and the Republic. It is the central tenet that sectarian Tricolour Republicanism and sectarian U.K. unionism are both historic failures in Ireland causing death pain and suffering and division down the centuries to the present time. Federal Unionism-Early Sinn Fein maintains that both U.K. constitution and Republican constitution need a new constitutional replacement in a new Federal Kingdom Constitution which respects the sensitivities of Loyalists and Nationalists alike. I can’t make myself any more simple than that. I hope this clarifies the matter and dispels your confusion.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Michael,

    “Here in N. Ireland there is a sizeable nationalist community who are perfectly happy to live in the U.K. under the Crown and enjoy its benefits. You may say you can’t fit Sinn Fein into the U.K. but the hard facts have to be faced.”.

    ..and there was a sizeable number of Unionists trapped on the other side of the border in the South.

    Your solution is akin to to a judge ordering two warring neigbours to buy a stake in each other properties and share accomodation rather than settling their boundary dispute in the usual fashon – ie coming to agreement.

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy Mc Nally

    What Unionists trapped on the other side of the border? These were suppressed and wiped in a 26 County statelet dominated by Republicans. Nationalists on the other hand in N. Ireland in the U.K. have increased and multiplied. I can’t wean you away from the two warring factions of Unionists and Republicans. IN a truly unified Ireland there would only be one property not two. You can’t get your head around that. In a boundary dispute you are talking about the Border no doubt. The imposed Government of Ireland put a sectarian border into place. Only a democratically agreed National Government of Ireland Act acceptable to all can remove the border. There is nothing I can do for you; you fail to get my message.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    “These were suppressed and wiped in a 26 County statelet dominated by Republicans.”

    Really? So there are no Protestants living in the South?

    I’m sure you didnt mean to use the term ‘wiped out’. I presume you will now wish to withdraw that remark?

    Creating articifical states to avoid dealing weith issues like Ulster or as you propose Ireland and Britian is simply a recipe for disaster.

    The joint political soverignity of Ulster as per the GFA is the way forward.

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy Mc Nally

    “Are there no Protestants in the South?”

    The number of Protestants in the 26 counties has decreased dramatically since partition. The handful left aren’t active unionists with a unionist party so it is accurate to say that unionism was suppressed and wiped out in the 26 counties by Republicans For you unionism is synonymous with Protestantism. That is sectarianism. Are you O K with sectarianism? You seem to be.

    So you are a devotee of the GFA and with that a sectarian border? The GFA does nothing to eradicate sectarianism and a sectarian border but institutionalises both. This was evident in the recent elections and the sectarian divisions of Ireland were painfully evident in the TV coverage of the Royal visit which gave the Royal Assent to the border and sectarian division.

    What is an artificial state? There are those who see the 26 county statelet and the 6 county statelet as artificial with sectarianism at their rotten core, why don’t you?

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Michael Gillespie,

    I use the terms interchangably – bad practice I agree.

    Unionism has largely died out as it seems silly (unless following your proposals) to wish for something unlikely to ever happen.

    They were certainly not wiped out as you suggest.

  • Hedley Lamarr

    Michael Gillespie- I would be more than happy if people were allowed to have the Queen as their Head of State in Northern Ireland after unification as long as the rest of Ireland including the rest of NI had the Irish President as theirs. I know this has no precedent in constitutional law but it is a unique situation which needs a unique solution. Perhaps akin to the dual sovereignty solution only with two heads of state, but not two governments.

  • Michael Gillespie

    Hedley Lamarr

    I thank you for your comment but my real concern is with sectarianism and its associated violence and its eradication. Your solution would continue with a sectarian Ireland.

    I don’t understand what you mean when you write:-

    “To have the queen as head of state in N. Ireland after reunification”

    If the Queen is head of state in N. Ireland there is no reunification but two heads of state in two jurisdictions with two constitutions one foreign to the other In such a constitutional set-up sectarianism will flourish as will the potential for violence.

    You mention a dual sovereignty. You can’t have a dual sovereignty with a Republican President on the one hand and a monarch on the other. That would be a constitutional muddle with sectarianism untouched. Have you Arthur Griffith’s dual monarchy in mind? There was good sense in this idea but Griffiths didn’t think the matter through. If he had he would have found that a dual monarchy requires a Federal Kingdom. I have examined that proposition in depth and I firmly believe that with a Federal Kingdom of the Sovereign Nation OF Ireland and Great Britain or vice versa democratically arrived at in The National Government of Ireland Act giving Ireland one head of state, the Crown, one National flag, a redesign of the Tricolour, one National Anthem A Nation Once Again, and one Irish Identity and one government a stable Ireland will emerge in which sectarianism will wither away. An imposed Government of Ireland Act partitioned the country only the National Government of Ireland Act can unite it.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein.

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy Mc Nally

    You didn’t answer my questions.

    Michael Gillespie

  • Hedley Lamarr

    Michael Gillespie- I agree that sectarianism has to be tackled. Any ideas should be welcomed as such.

    A Federal Kingdom however wouldn’t work. The rest of Ireland enjoy their sovereignty even through recent poor administrations and they would be opposed to give it up in any form whether that be having a monarch as head of state or sharing sovereignty with a more largely populated country such as the UK.

    British Rule doesn’t have a good track record in Ireland and the Irish people know this.

    I haven’t read any books dedicated to the Protestant population decline in the South but I am aware that the role of the Catholic Church in the state was disastrous. Not just for Protestants though. See the abuse cases.

    I am also aware that the numbers of Protestants at the foundation of the state was quite small and although it dropped it may be for a number of benign reasons.

    Mixed-marriages always have a declining effect on numbers of a small religion base. I am aware of the rule that Catholics who were in mixed marriages had to have a Catholic ceremony and bring their children up in that way. This was appalling and possibly violates a person’s right to freedom of religion and right to family life. But that was Church again, not state.

    As for my idea of joint sovereignty it has been mooted before only on different terms. Having two heads of state was seriously considered in the past.

    My idea would be the mirror opposite to NI remaining within the UK but allowing people here to have the Irish President as head of state. Instead NI would become part of an all-Ireland state with people here being allowed to have the Queen as head of state.

  • Michael Gillespie

    Hedley Lamarr

    You say a Federal Kingdom won’t work; how do you know if it hasn’t been tried? Republicanism has been tried for generations and the evidence is clear that it doesn’t work. Republicans have flogged the dead horse of an all Ireland Republic for over two hundred years, isn’t it time Republicans realized the horse is dead and bury the beast. To use another analogy. Suppose in a factory the management try a new idea and the idea doesn’t work the management will scrap the idea and try another and so on until an idea is found that will work. Republicans don’t operate rationally like that. They say – this idea of a united Ireland as a Republic hasn’t worked for generations but we’ll try it again, Lads, and put a bomb with it and that will make it work That is the crass stupidity of Republicans in Ireland. By the same token the U.K. idea hasn’t worked in Ireland but there are those who flog that dead horse as well.

    A Federal Kingdom is a new idea for Ireland. That presupposes that open minds can be found in Ireland receptive to new ideas. Your mind is shut to anything other than a Republic and a partitioned sectarian Ireland.

    You are mistaken if you think a Federal Kingdom is a return to British rule in Ireland. In a federal Kingdom with The Crown as head of state in Ireland, Ireland would be a Sovereign Independent nation like Australia and Canada that have the Crown as head of state but Australians are Australian Catholic and Protestant alike and Canadians are Canadian Catholic and Protestant alike and neither country is British and both countries rule themselves. As a point of interest Alex Salmond has stated categorically in a T V interview that he envisages an independent Scottish nation with the Crown as head of state like many other independent nations in the modern world with the Crown as head of state. Ireland should follow Scotland’s example. If Scotland can gain independence without anyone being murdered or the place being blown up so can Ireland. If you can open your mind and give a new idea a fair hearing you should read my full thinking on a Federal Kingdom at http://www.authorhouse.co.uk by typing my name into search.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist- Early Sinn Fein.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Michael Gillespie

    “What is an artificial state? There are those who see the 26 county statelet and the 6 county statelet as artificial with sectarianism at their rotten core, why don’t you?”

    (Is this the question you are referring to?)

    Yes, that’s colonialism for you – “sectarianism at their rotten core” – well I think we are moving past that and the Plain People of Ireland have given their verdict for both governments to politically control Ulster as set out in the GFA.

    “If Scotland can gain independence without anyone being murdered or the place being blown up so can Ireland”

    It is arguably the Scottish crown anyway so they have a different view on much matters – the crown in Ireland is synonymous with domination – we have an excellent head of state – highly educated, highly intelligent and elected by the people – the British on the other hand have an antiquated royal system and you get the luck of the draw – not a bad head of state – but obviously very poor by comparison to the Irish president.

    To employ your Factory analogy why would we ditch a modern piece of machinery which serves us well for an old machine that we happended to inherit when we moved into the building?

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy Mc Nally.

    “ I think we are moving past that and the plain people of Ireland have given their verdicts for both governments to politically control Ulster as set out in the GFA.”

    You conveniently ignore the sectarian nature of the political control of the Assembly at Stormont. We haven’t moved past sectarianism. Every election here has been a sectarian headcount since 1921. That holds for the recent election despite the hype about bread and butter issues. You seem O.K. with sectarianism You should free yourself from the sectarianism of the GFA and open your mind to non-sectarian Federal Unionism- Early Sinn Fein and a free thinking Federal Kingdom.

    “It is arguably a Scottish Crown anyway”

    Where did you get that from! The Crown is constituted British. For The Crown to be head of state in Scotland it would need to be constituted in The Scotland Constitution Act. For the Crown to be head of state in Ireland it would need to be constituted in The National Government of Ireland Act.

    “The Crown in Ireland synonymous with domination”

    You’re living in the past. Loyalists, constitutional nationalists, the plain people of Ireland who welcomed the Crown to Ireland and watched the Royal Wedding on R T E, the millions of Irish who live happily in the English realm and the people of Australia and Canada don’t see the Crown in your light. You belong to a handful of fanatics brainwashed with Republicanism who assault the Gardai and release black balloons. You should free yourself from the mental shackles of Republicanism and adopt a free thinking Federal Unionism- Early Sinn Fein and a liberated Federal Kingdom.

    “We have an excellent head of state.”

    Who are the “we”? Loyalists or Republicans?

    “Why ditch a modern piece of machinery which serves us well for an old machine that the happened to inherit when we moved into the building.”

    If the analogy is read intelligently it will de clear that the old machine is the dead horse of an all Ireland Republic and the new machine is a Federal Kingdom.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist- Early Sinn Fein

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Mickey, may I call you Mickey, we seem to be getting on so well.

    I will get on to the other bits later “It is arguably a Scottish Crown anyway” “Where did you get that from!”

    That would be from history – 1603 I believe.

    http://www.britroyals.com/scots.asp?id=james1

  • Drumlins Rock

    would it then not actually be an Irish Crown?

    http://www.britroyals.com/scots.asp?id=alpin

    with the North Coast being the oldest part of HM realm.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Drumlins Rock,

    re. Dalriada

    Perhaps this is actually what Mary Mac was referring to when she thus spake at Dublin Castle about the coloniser and the colonised .

  • Michael Gillespie

    Drumlins Rock

    “ Does that not actually make the Crown Irish?

    In The National Government of Ireland Act the Crown would be known as the Crown Irish when on Irish territory and as the British Crown when on British territory.

    To have the Crown known as the Irish Crown would require a throne in Ireland. That doesn’t exist so the only feasible way in which the Crown can be known in Ireland is the Crown Irish.

    The Crown in relation to Ireland is examined in full at http://www.authorhouse.co.uk and can be found by typing my name into search.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Michael,

    I’m not suggesting that support is a reliable indicator of the validity of an idea – but does anybody else share your views?

    What steps are you taking to gain political support? Standing in elections?

    Quick review of the past and pesent Britsh royal and constitutional position.

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy Mc Nally.

    I thank you for your reply. To answer your queries I’m in retirement and I now devote my time to writing. My writing interest is the British Irish problem and its solution. I’m in the happy position of being financially independent so I don’t write to make a living but out of that which interests me and which pleases me.

    I have looked at your video and it tells me nothing that I don’t already know. It describes the world as it is. While I live in the world as it is in my writing I explore a world as it ought to be. One of my trilogy of novels on the British/Irish problem has the title –The Way Ireland Ought To Be—.That is the metier of my writing While I live in an Ireland as it is, in my writing I explore an Ireland as it ought to be. It is an Ireland that shouldn’t just have a bit of it associated with the Crown but all of it. I published my version of the National Government of Ireland Act in a Republican magazine on the Internet call The Blanket. A reader wrote— Is Michael Saying that we republicans have been wrong for all these generations — That is precisely what I’m saying.

    You want to know if anyone else shares my view. My friends who have read my writing have done so with interest. Professor Walker Professor of Politics at Queens has read my writings with enthusiasm and encourages me to continue. I put my ideas to Sir Reg Empey and he received them with interest. I put my ideas to Lady Sylvia Hermon M P for N Down and she was wildly enthusiastic and said she would have my ideas discussed with her friends I put my ideas to Mark Durkan but got a luke- warm reception. The difficulty there is the SDLP have abandoned Constitutional Nationalism and are looking over their shoulders at the republicanism of Sinn Fein.

    I’m perfectly aware that my view of Irish history is a minority one but I’m not alone in that. Kevin Meyers who was instrumental in having Islandbridge rescued from dereliction brought on by Republicans and having it restored, is a journalist with a background in history. His view is that 1798 was a poison introduced into Ireland and I agree. He also holds that 1916 was a divisive disaster. I also agree with that as well and I have a letter with the Belfast Telegraph stating that the violence of 1916 and the ensuing brutality on both sides in the so called war of independence are morally indefensible. The history I treat with respect is Roy Foster’s revisionism but that also has a minority support. It doesn’t follow that a minority point of view shouldn’t be taken on board and listened to.

    You want to know if I intend to go political. That is not my intention. I’m a writer with new different ideas about Ireland but I’ve no intention of going to the hustings with myopic brain washed politicians flogging the dead horses of Tricolour Republicanism and Union Jack Unionism in a tribal frame of mind. Of course Federal Unionism- Early Sinn Fein deserves a new party on the ground but that is a chicken and the egg conundrum. As I see it the ideas come first and maybe a party will follow.

    Shaw wrote —Some see the world as it is and ask why I dream of a world that isn’t and ask why not—-. Out of asking why not of a non sectarian united Ireland that isn’t in a federal Kingdom that isn’t promoted by free thinking Federal Unionism-Early Sinn Fein that isn’t maybe in some future time a new Ireland will emerge. Who knows? Michael Gillespie Federal Unionism- Early Sinn Fein

  • JR

    Michael Gillespie

    “It was known that in the border areas of Tyrone and Fermanagh attempts were made by the IRA to ethnically cleanse these areas of Loyalists.”

    Nonsense.

    Also your Federal Ireland Idea is very condecending to the population of this Island. The Idea that an Irish person is not good enough to be head of state as a birthright is repulsive.

  • Michael Gillespie

    JR

    Nonsense! You should ask the loyalist people in these areas and see what they have to say.

    “Your idea that an Irish person isn’t good enough to be head of state by birth right is repulsive”
    These are your words not mine. The problem is that the Irish people can’t agree over a head of state and have murdered one another for generations over it. That is truly repulsive. The head of state for that reason needs new ideas. Your mind is shut to anything new.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein

  • tacapall

    Michael Gillespie

    The problem is that the Irish people can’t agree over a head of state and have murdered one another for generations over it.

    When was this ? There was me thinking and most other Irish people that those rebellions were about removing the crown from Ireland, having privledge as a birthright is repulsive especially forcing others less well off to pay for it. Your idea for a new Ireland would in all likelyhood appeal to the minority population in Ireland ie Unionist’s and Loyalists but will never be accepted by Irish people.

  • JR

    Nonsense! You should ask the loyalist people in these areas and see what they have to say????

    I am sure that if I drove about fermanagh and asked every Unionist arround I would eventually find somone who thought there had been an attempt at ethnic clensing there. I would probably get the same response from the odd Nationalist in West Belfast, Cork orDonegall. It dosent mean they are correct.

    Using that term puts the suffering of the loyalists in Fermanagh and Tyrone on a par with that of the Polish Jews during WW2 or the Muslims in srebrenica. It also puts the crimes of Repubilcans on a par with those of the Nazi’s. Do you honestly believe that ther was an attempt to kill the 60,000 protestants in Fermanagh and Tyrone?

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Michael Gillespie,

    I tend to agree with tapacall’s assessment that “Your idea for a new Ireland would in all likelyhood appeal to the minority population in Ireland ie Unionist’s and Loyalists but will never be accepted by Irish people.”

    However, I see a small glimmer of hope for your idea in the following scenario.

    It is year 2016.

    Ireland unable to pay its debts threatens to not repay the German and French banks that the Irish banks borrowed from. The EU calls Ireland’s bluff and Ireland defaults and is oxtered oot (expelled) from the EU and the Euro.

    Amercian multnationals declare they will be moving across the border to Ulster where the same corpo tax rate applies but is in the EU. Unemployment in Ireland reaches 30% and inflation reaches 50% as the re-launched punt bombs.

    Britian now swamped by thousands of (non EU )Irish emigrants theatens to stop the flow of emigrants unless Ireland returns to the British fold (ie under the British crown) . A short civil war goes the way of the FG led government who defeat the republican rump in the hills of Donegal and Gerry Adams is executed in Dublin castle.

    FG, accept Britiain’s terms and the queen opens the festivities to commemorate the 1916 centenary.

    …the Irish army moves into West Belfast to put down a serious outbreak of rioting and 13 Nationalsits are shot dead and martial law is declared.

  • Michael Gillespie

    Tacapall

    “ appeal to the minority population in Ireland i.e. unionists and loyalists but will never appeal to the Irish People”

    For a Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein the whole population of Ireland are Irish. You have a sectarian mentality about the Irish and non-Irish. It is such a mentality that keeps a border in place. Like all Conservatives you are not open to new ideas and like the Conservative Ian Paisley you should have written –Never—Never—Never.

    “ those rebellions were about removing the Crown from Ireland”

    But these rebellions didn’t. Like yourself a lot of people in Ireland are still flogging the dead horse of republican rebellions that only divided the people along sectarian lines. The 98 rebellion which was tainted with sectarianism only succeeded in putting the Act of Union into Ireland and didn’t remove the Crown. The 1916 Catholic rebellion put a sectarian border into Ireland and the Crown is still there.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionism-Early Sinn Fein

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy mc Nally

    Sarcasm is the basest form of wit and the lowest form of humour Michael Gillespie

  • Michael Gillespie

    J R

    At least you admit there was Loyalist suffering in Tyrone and Fermanagh.

    Michael Gillespie

  • JR

    Suffering, Yes. Sporadic sectarian murder, yes. Ethnic clensing No.

  • tacapall

    “For a Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein the whole population of Ireland are Irish. You have a sectarian mentality about the Irish and non-Irish. It is such a mentality that keeps a border in place. Like all Conservatives you are not open to new ideas and like the Conservative Ian Paisley you should have written –Never—Never—Never”.

    Are you serious – You dont even know me ! I dont give a fk who runs the country as long as EVERYONE is treated equal, no fkrs born with privledge that I have to pay money to who looks down on me as if Im nothing, equally I dont want to live under some type of society where people can go missing and turn up years layer in a shollow grave. It is you who is backward and shakespearean, I dont believe there is a border in Ireland just that I live in an area where there’s nothing but carpetbeggars running the services for someone else.

  • Michael Gillespie

    JR

    What’s the difference between Sectarian murder and ethnic cleansing? Who caused the suffering and the murder?

    Tacapall

    Keep your hair on. I can only go by what you write. I don’t care who runs the country either as long as is not sectarian. I don’t want a sectarian assembly and sectarian gunmen and bombers on the streets. How do you get rid of them? With new ideas.

    Michael Gillespie

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Michael Gillespie,

    re. “Sarcasm is the basest form of wit and the lowest form of humour ”

    A little flight of fancy there- perhaps, but remember many/most economists believe Ireland is effectively bankrupt and the country most likely to suffer any fallout from that (after Ireland of course) is the UK.

    A bankrupt Ireland may no longer be in the EU/Euro and will desperately be in need of friends…

    .

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy Mc Nally

    Your economic flight of fancy is well over the top. A Federal Kingdom is a more hopeful and realistic outcome than your economic doomsday scenario.

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Michael Gillespie,

    Many economists believe Ireland is bankrupt there is no way we can repay our debts – to turn the old adage on its head – Ireland’s difficulty is Britian’s opportunity.

    Ireland has arguably ceded soverignity to the EU without a whimper and if we are out of the EU and Britain is wiling to help who is to say what we would sign up for?

    This would have been an impossible scenario even 2 years ago but if the country faces economic meltdown – then all bets, historic and otherwise are off.

  • Michael Gillespie

    It was Sammy Mc Nally.

    Charlie Haughey has said that if he were to ask ten economists for an answer to an economic problem he would get ten different contradictory answers. As someone with a formal background in economics strangely enough I agree with Charlie.

    As I see it the Irish are a resilient people who have survived worse in the catastrophe of the famine and will survive the current economic catastrophe but it will take long term austerity to do so.

    To return to the British/Irish problem Churchill had this to say: –

    “But as the deluge subsides and the waters fall short we see the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone emerging once again. The integrity of their quarrel is one of the few institutions that have been unaltered in the cataclysm that has swept the world.”

    An economic deluge has currently swept the world but when it subsides and falls short the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone will emerge once again with the integrity of their quarrel unaltered. It’s the thesis of Federal Unionism-Early Sinn Fein that the quarrel is constitutional not economic or social and can only be settled with constitutional reform in a manner outlined in Slugger and set out in full at http://www.authorhouse.co.uk by typing my name into search

    Michael Gillespie Federal Unionist-Early Sinn Fein