From the RTE archives -for Easter Week

[Republic]

Wilderness I dont know if you have the wrong impression but it is taught widely in all our schools that the 1916 rebels had very little support. Anyone with even limited knowledge of Irish history is aware of this. And you are right about Pearse, it was intended to be a 'blood sacrifice' to rouse the Irish people.

Setanta as far as I know the third HR bill did not cut back on anything from the previous HR bills. By modern standards, the early HR bills were extremely limited anyway. I am not 100% but it would be likely that the final bill was progressive rather than regressive in its terms. At the very least, it would have been equal.

There was a Rebellion every 50 years after Plantation. That shows the will of the people.

This is not true. The proclamation refers to every generation rising up against Britain but this does not stand up to scrutiny.
From the 1690s through to 1798 there was no rebellion. 100 years is certainly one generation, perhaps two.

1603, 1641, 1690, 1798, 1848, 1867.

That is not a rebellion per generation.

I'm not really trying to make a political point here, but lets keep everything correct ;D

[collina]

bilk said:

As in the easter rising (Trying my best to stay on topic) that was because there wasn't enough of them. Had there been there would have been power enough in their hands to get what they wanted. Where does democracy begin and end? I think what you are trying to say is that only those directly affected at the time i.e. the Irish in the south had a say in the matter. A true democratic vote would be taken in the whole of the UK because Ireland as a whole was then an integeral part of that country. Taken to it's ultimate conclusion (ridiculous I know) your argument suggests that if I can get the majority in my street to vote for independence should they be allowed it. No one anywhere else should have a say? And if they did have a say, and I didn't like the outcome, would I be justified then in killing people in the name of democracy?

Bilk, in 1918 Republicans won 73 seats out of 105 on the whole Island. Thats a pretty sizable mandate.

If Ireland was an "integral part of the country", then why did Carson fear Rome Rule so much? Us being so integral and all??

[Blue Angel]

Republic -yeah the rising once every generation was a bit of of a poetic license especially as the 1848 was more along the lines of a fiasco organised by some well meaning (and mainly Protestant let us not forget...) guys who had the best of intentions but were hampered by the fact that that period was obviously not the best moment to start a rebellion.

I suppose one could say that there was an ongoing continuall rebellion though in small ways and in the view the Irish took of things but certainly only the first 3 of the cited examples were really militarily significant. Although you have forgotten Emmet's shortlived mini rebellion of 1803 there

[Bilk]

collina said:

bilk said:

As in the easter rising (Trying my best to stay on topic) that was because there wasn't enough of them. Had there been there would have been power enough in their hands to get what they wanted. Where does democracy begin and end? I think what you are trying to say is that only those directly affected at the time i.e. the Irish in the south had a say in the matter. A true democratic vote would be taken in the whole of the UK because Ireland as a whole was then an integeral part of that country. Taken to it's ultimate conclusion (ridiculous I know) your argument suggests that if I can get the majority in my street to vote for independence should they be allowed it. No one anywhere else should have a say? And if they did have a say, and I didn't like the outcome, would I be justified then in killing people in the name of democracy?

Bilk, in 1918 Republicans won 73 seats out of 105 on the whole Island. Thats a pretty sizable mandate.

If Ireland was an "integral part of the country", then why did Carson fear Rome Rule so much? Us being so integral and all??

You forget mate that the easter rising was in 1916 two years prior ro that. Many of the republicans were eleceted on the sympathy vote in the following election, much the same as today. I just wish SF would call for a vote on the border issue as they are entitled to but don't, and I think I know why, they would lose pretty heavily. Despite the fact that they trounced the SDLP in the last elections
Are you suggesting that Ireland was not an integral part of the UK during the easter rising?

[Blue Angel]

I would suggest that Ireland was never an integral part of the Uk as the way it was both governed (for example having the only armed police force in the whole british isles...) and adminstrated on a day to day basis.

[collina]

bilk said:

collina said:

Bilk, in 1918 Republicans won 73 seats out of 105 on the whole Island. Thats a pretty sizable mandate.

If Ireland was an "integral part of the country", then why did Carson fear Rome Rule so much? Us being so integral and all??

You forget mate that the easter rising was in 1916 two years prior ro that. Many of the republicans were eleceted on the sympathy vote in the following election, much the same as today. I just wish SF would call for a vote on the border issue as they are entitled to but don't, and I think I know why, they would lose pretty heavily. Despite the fact that they trounced the SDLP in the last elections
Are you suggesting that Ireland was not an integral part of the UK during the easter rising?

Really what I meant was that 73 0f the 105 seats were natural Nationalist seats. I was really speaking about the people from whom the mandate came from rather than the Republicans that filled the seats.

I really can't see how you can call Ireland an integral part of the UK, given the methods used by the British Government against its own (supposed) citizens on the Island.

I know you are referring to the constitutional state of the Union, which at the time claimed jurisdiction on the whole Island (circa 1916). By the same arguement, does this mean that Northern Ireland was an integral part of the Republic until the constitutional claim was removed when Articles 2&3 were amended?

[Republic]

blueangel said:

Although you have forgotten Emmet's shortlived mini rebellion of 1803 there

You put me to shame BA- only graduated a year ago and already I'm forgetting stuff

[Wasp]

It was so well supported that when pearse read out his procalmation he was hissed and booed and had rotten fruit and vegetables thrown at him, good job the british executed most of those invloved in the easter rising otherwise you republicans would have been really screwed since it was only after the executions that support swung behind the republican movement, but then i think pearse knew this when he staged his great drama the easter rising,

Although I find the subject boring wilderness you have made some good points.

of course its not the only example of the republicans movementbeing happy to let people sacrifice themselves in the name of a few votes, bet bobby sands is wishing he had that sausage supper after all

Had to pick myself up from the floor with that 'sausage supper' line. Absolutely hilarious mate. PMSL

[Bilk]

collina said:

bilk said:

You forget mate that the easter rising was in 1916 two years prior ro that. Many of the republicans were eleceted on the sympathy vote in the following election, much the same as today. I just wish SF would call for a vote on the border issue as they are entitled to but don't, and I think I know why, they would lose pretty heavily. Despite the fact that they trounced the SDLP in the last elections
Are you suggesting that Ireland was not an integral part of the UK during the easter rising?

Really what I meant was that 73 0f the 105 seats were natural Nationalist seats. I was really speaking about the people from whom the mandate came from rather than the Republicans that filled the seats.

I really can't see how you can call Ireland an integral part of the UK, given the methods used by the British Government against its own (supposed) citizens on the Island.

I know you are referring to the constitutional state of the Union, which at the time claimed jurisdiction on the whole Island (circa 1916). By the same arguement, does this mean that Northern Ireland was an integral part of the Republic until the constitutional claim was removed when Articles 2&3 were amended?

I knew what you meant about the 73 seats mate, just don't see any point in nit picking

In answer to your question about "Integeral" nope Northern Ireland was not an integeral part of the republic, because they were governed by the UK goverment in London. Remember Maggies (spit) declaration on the floor of the House of Commons? That the people of Northern Ireland were as British as those in Finchley (her constituency). By the same token Ireland as an island at the time of the Easter Rising was as British as thoose who lived in Finchley at that time. Pretty integral.

[earl]

All Ireland ever was to Britain was a source of cheap labour, cheap food and cheap meat for it's wars. Keep them agrarian, keep them ignorant and keep them poor. 40% of the British armed forces in the mid 1800's came from this island, and when we left, the Empire fell to pieces, partially due to the fall in numbers in the armed forces and partially because we showed everyone else how to kick imperialist butt!

[Wasp]

And look what happened to Ireland when the British let you run your own affairs.

[Jim]

What? Becoming one of the richest countries in Europe, not getting involved in illegal wars and not being used as cannon fodder?

Keep in mind Wasp that most countries when splitting off from a union start off badly, and that Britain was charging Ireland extra-ordinary amounts of money for its part in the empire.

[Wasp]

Err no Jim for fighting and killing eachother, killing those fellow Irishmen who were once your allies/friends, letting a church rule your people and systematically abuse the most vulnerable in Irish society where there were cover ups within and outside the church etc.

[Jim]

Killing each other is called a Civil War. I suppose you can use the same argument with the Americans then? Look at the state of that lot when the Brits fucked off.

As far as the church goes I would half heartidly agree as I'm no lover of the church, but lets be honest Britain has the church as an institution of the state too and a lot of legislation of the day was on moral reasons backed up by religious reasons. Look in the news today and you can even see the British government bowing to pressure from the Catholic Church, which isnt a state institution. So Ireland isnt unique in that respect.

So, what is your post about, what happened to Ireland once Britain left that wasn't a British problem in the first place? You're post was very unfair to imply that Ireland turned into a shit hole because the Brits left. It was a shit hole already.

[Wasp]

No it just turned into a bigger shithole before turning itself around to a prosperous country. Would it be unfair to say the British only wanted Ireland as a cheap source of labour etc? Would it be fair to say that many Irish people did prosper under the British instead of the usual tripe about everyone being the poor down trodden Irish.