# President of Ireland or President of the Republic of Ireland?



## Dave Vanian (17 Sep 2021)

Michael D Higgins has said _“I was also referred to as the President of the Republic of Ireland. I am the President of Ireland.”_

Jeffrey Donaldson said _“But it is evident from what he said that in fact that this is much more than that. He uses language that I think is unfortunately retrograde, he talks about being President of Ireland, not the President of the Republic of Ireland, despite the fact people voted to remove the territorial claim over Northern Ireland and there was recognition in the constitution of the Republic of Ireland of the existence of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.

“I think the language used by the President is not forward-looking. It does not recognise the reality that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

“It is back to the old days when the President believes that he is President of the whole island, which we all know he is not.”_

I would assume that one of them is simply wrong.  I'm not looking to start up a debate about the rights and wrongs of partition etc.  I'm just curious to see if there is a definitive answer to what Michael D Higgins' correct title is.  I would have thought that he would know his own correct title.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Sep 2021)

Wiki said:
			
		

> The *president of Ireland* (Irish: _Uachtarán na hÉireann_) is the head of state of the Republic of Ireland and the supreme commander of the Irish Defence Forces.


I think that is fairly clear.  Technically he appears 100% correct.
Was he right to make an issue of it?
Well this was not a slip of the pen from a lowly scribe.  This was almost certainly used, knowing it to be officially incorrect, so as not to offend the Donaldsons of this world.  So yes I think he was right to draw attention to it.
I would even guess that this has long roots.  During the negotiation of the GFA when it came to discussing RoI dropping its claim to NI the unionists must surely have asked for the President's official title to be changed and the nationalists clearly refused.
Micky claims this was a solo run.  Really hard to believe.  I would like to see his text messages with MM.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Sep 2021)

The Constitution Article 12 declares that the name of the State is Ireland. 
The President is the President of Ireland. 

There is the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, which declares that the State is called The Republic of Ireland. And that the President can exercise executive power in the State. 

Is the Republic of Ireland Act unconstitutional?


----------



## Baby boomer (18 Sep 2021)

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.  A *lot* more complicated.


The 1948 Act doesn't say the State is called the Republic of Ireland.  It says the _*description*_ of the State is the Republic of Ireland.  The name of the State is Ireland as per the Constitution - no ambiguity, end of story. 

The 1948 Act, as well as taking us out of the Commonwealth, was a constitutional tidying-up exercise.  The 1937 Constitution was (curiously) silent on the question of who was the Irish Head of State.  (It still is, by the way.)  It studiously avoids assigning that role to the President.  Prior to the enacting of the 1937 Constitution, the King of England was the Head of State, as in, for example, Canada today.  Dev's strategy was to ignore that by creating an office that had all the trappings of Head of State without actually declaring it to be so.  Presumably, he didn't want to offend British sensibilities, what with the Treaty Ports discussion to come, war clouds on the horizon in Europe and our cross-channel trade dependence.  When challenged, Dev could, and did, claim that his constitution did actually make us a Republic.  But, in fact, by virtue of the still existing External Relations Act of 1936, the King retained a residual formal role in Ireland's international affairs.  FG in opposition (presumably to annoy Dev and score political points) argued that that meant we didn't possess an essential component of being a Republic.   The 1948 Act was presented as them fixing what Dev had failed to do properly. 

But, back to the name.  In the 1948 Act, the purpose of the description of the State as a Republic was not to change the name of the State, but to definitively remove the King as an organ of the Irish Government.  It also took us out of the Commonwealth as a Republic couldn't then be a member - a provision soon to be changed to facilitate post-independence India.  It didn't actually declare the President as the Head of State but gave him the international duties formerly assigned to the King, thus de facto making him Head of State.

But the preferred name of the State stayed the same - Ireland. This was set in stone the next year when Britain passed the Ireland Act, 1949, which explicitly stated that the State formerly known as Eire (fada deliberately omitted) or Southern Ireland, would henceforth be known as the Republic of Ireland.  So there you have it.  If the Brits were going to call it the Republic of Ireland, then, by God, we were going to insist on Ireland. 

The Republic of Ireland is merely a soccer team.  Michael D Higgins is President of Ireland and Jeffrey Donaldson needs to learn some history.


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> The 1948 Act doesn't say the State is called the Republic of Ireland. It says the _*description*_ of the State is the Republic of Ireland. The name of the State is Ireland as per the Constitution - no ambiguity, end of story.



When you put it like that there is nothing complicated about it all!
It's straight forward.
MD is The President of Ireland.
Sin é.

Jeffrey tried to pull a stroke.

These things are planned a long time in advance, years in advance sometimes. I'd imagine this service, with the Queen in attendance was so. Perhaps the invitation to the President of the 'Republic of' Ireland was recent enough. Pre- or post the sausagegate/invisible sea border protocol? 

It would be interesting to know the timeline of preparation and invitation.


----------



## joe sod (18 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> It also took us out of the Commonwealth as a Republic couldn't then be a member - a provision soon to be changed to facilitate post-independence India. It didn't actually declare the President as the Head of State but gave him the international duties formerly assigned to the King


but the King was still head of state throughout these proceedings, all that happened was that the Republic came into existence and we declared our new head of state as our president taking the place of the last governor general but northern ireland also had its own governor general aswell therefore there was no question of the president accidently becoming head of state of the whole island even briefly because the king was head of state of both parts of the island up until 1948. It looks like that long forgotten figure Domhnall Ua Buachalla the last governor general might be getting some publicity now with all these new shenanigans


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Sep 2021)

joe sod said:


> because the king was head of state of both parts of the island up until 1948.



Interesting point. It goes a long way to explaining why we never celebrate our 'independence' from Britain. 

A federal union, between Britain and Ireland, a President of the All Irish Parliament and British monarch as head of State of the Federal Union. 

End of partition. 
Independence through parliamentary democracy. 

Worth the price of symbolic gestures, flags and anthems?


----------



## mathepac (18 Sep 2021)

Donaldson & Co are up to their usual stupid, divisive & potentially dangerous  games.

Very disappointed with the Church heads who have somehow been hoodwinked into participating in a blatantly political event and astounded at Martin's (not Meehole, the other one) response to Michael D's carefully considered decision not to attend. Why won't these eminent people stick to their knitting in relation to spiritual matters and leave the temporal dealings to the politicians/temporal leaders?

Well done Michael D, you're a true patriot and a wise man.


----------



## mathepac (18 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The Constitution Article 12 declares that the name of the State is Ireland.





Dave Vanian said:


> I'm just curious to see if there is a definitive answer to what Michael D Higgins' correct title is.



To quote* Bunracht na hÉireann, *a more authoritative source than either Wikipedia or Donaldson:

*"THE STATE

Article 4. 

The name of the State is Éire, or in the English language, Ireland."*


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Sep 2021)

mathepac said:


> To quote* Bunracht na hÉireann*



It's 'Bunr_*e*_acht na hÉireann'... one of a handful of grammatical exceptions in the Irish language of a slender or broad vowel not following a slender/broad vowel, 'Gaeltacht' is another. 

But hey, we are all prone to typo's every now and then. Article 4 it surely is. Article 12 is The President.


----------



## mathepac (18 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> But hey, we are all prone to *typo's* every now and then. Article 4 it surely is. Article 12 is The President.


Hey, what can I say, typos are a fact of life, innit, eh, eh!


----------



## Baby boomer (18 Sep 2021)

mathepac said:


> Hey, what can I say, typos are a fact of life, innit, eh, eh!


Ah, here now!  Typos are facts of life, eh? 

A typo is a fact of life.  Making typos is a fact of life.


----------



## joe sod (18 Sep 2021)

mathepac said:


> The name of the State is Éire, or in the English language, Ireland."


but  the Tories and unionists used to make a big point of referring to this country as "Eire" in their eyes that distinguished this country from the island of Ireland. During WW2 wasn't the words "Eire" written with big bold letters all along the west coast and in places like Bray to make sure that the german bombers did not mistake us for the North. In that case even De Valera accepted that Eire meant the 26 counties.  De Valera showed great skill in keeping us out of WW2, I dont think anyone else could have done it. Its amazing the British did not annex us even temporarily using the justification that the King was still the head of state. It must have been because of the huge profile De Valera had in the US and the Brits did not want to do anything to jeapordise getting the US to join the war,
Another often forgotten fact is that because the British had the NI ports and NI was in the war it just about was enough for them, therefore the existence of Northern Ireland as a seperate entity paradoxically preserved this country's independence


----------



## Baby boomer (18 Sep 2021)

joe sod said:


> but the King was still head of state throughout these proceedings, all that happened was that the Republic came into existence and we declared our new head of state as our president taking the place of the last governor general....


Not quite.  When Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, Ireland passed an Act to recognize the abdication and his successor (in opaque language which didn't actually name the new monarch - see a pattern here?) Dev seized the opportunity to push through another Act on the same day to abolish the position of Governor General. 

Except the hastily drafted Act didn't quite do that and Dev was subsequently advised by the Attorney-General that it had only removed the GG from the Free State Constitution but the position remained in existence due to legislation, statutory instruments and other legal devices.   Worse still, by the time this was noticed, new Judges had been appointed, including the Chief Justice, without being sworn in by the (still existing) Governor General!  They were therefore invalidly appointed and their decisions were null and void.  An appalling vista loomed.  How embarrassing for poor Dev.  But not to worry - a new Act was drafted to retrospectively abolish the GG and legitimate the appointments and other acts of government that were on shaky ground.  To distract from his major blunder, he also included a provision to grant a pension to the outgoing GG.  The opposition went for the bait and the row became all about the pension, cronyism, looking after a government friend, etc etc.  Exactly as Dev knew it would.  Nobody focussed an the actual abolition of a post that was supposed to be already abolished.  A major government disaster was turned into a minor (but publicly entertaining) row about politicians jobs and pensions.

Plus ca change, eh?


----------



## odyssey06 (18 Sep 2021)

Serious answer.... MD is no more the President of Ireland than I am, in legal reality no matter what is written on worthless paper (worthless in the 6 counties).

Non serious answer... MD can be President of Ireland and the Queen can be Queen of Ireland and you are free to choose between republican and monarchy.


----------



## Leo (20 Sep 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> Serious answer.... MD is no more the President of Ireland than I am, in legal reality no matter what is written on worthless paper (worthless in the 6 counties).


The officially recognised title of the 26 counties is Ireland though, so unless you're pulling a Trump, MD is the president of Ireland. 

Anyway, MD has since corrected himself...much of the fuss here was of his own creation as he has now admitted the invite did in fact address him as:  "The President of Ireland, Áras an Uachtaráin".


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Sep 2021)

Leo said:


> The officially recognised title of the 26 counties is Ireland though, so unless you're pulling a Trump, MD is the president of Ireland.
> 
> Anyway, MD has since corrected himself...much of the fuss here was of his own creation as he has now admitted the invite did in fact address him as:  "The President of Ireland, Áras an Uachtaráin".


Well, there you go.  It was the DUP who called him the President of ROI.  MD let himself down reacting directly to what the DUP say.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> MD let himself down reacting directly to what the DUP say



Yes. I read the letter and I could not find fault with it. There was no reference to 'President of the Republic of Ireland' and the occasion was to 'mark' the coming into existence of NI.
It was also cognisant of and made reference to, the difficulties endured since the foundation of NI with the underlying aspiration of a peaceful future ahead.

In that light, I would like take this opportunity and mark this moment by reflecting on my agreement with the Duke on this occasion.
I won't go as far as aspiring to peaceful relations though , where is the fun in that?


----------



## SGWidow (20 Sep 2021)

This is all fine to a point, WolfeTone but please, please don't you boys become the chuckle brothers


----------



## Purple (21 Sep 2021)

mathepac said:


> Donaldson & Co are up to their usual stupid, divisive & potentially dangerous  games.
> 
> Very disappointed with the Church heads who have somehow been hoodwinked into participating in a blatantly political event and astounded at Martin's (not Meehole, the other one) response to Michael D's carefully considered decision not to attend. Why won't these eminent people stick to their knitting in relation to spiritual matters and leave the temporal dealings to the politicians/temporal leaders?


I was going to like this post as I agree with that bit but then you said this bit;


mathepac said:


> Well done Michael D, you're a true patriot and a wise man.


Now Michael D is in full agreement with you, if anything he's consider that an under statement, but I find his narcissism a bit off putting.


----------



## Baby boomer (21 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> Now Michael D is in full agreement with you, if anything he's consider that an under statement, but I find his narcissism a bit off putting.


Yes, he has a great welcome for himself.  And an enthusiastic set of cheerleaders in RTE who are intent on turning him (and his dogs) into an Official National Treasure.  The reality is he's an over-the-hill politician who fell into a handy and *extremely* well paid job which isn't too difficult or demanding and which he mostly manages to do passably well.


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Yes, he has a great welcome for himself.  And an enthusiastic set of cheerleaders in RTE who are intent on turning him (and his dogs) into an Official National Treasure.  The reality is he's an over-the-hill politician who fell into a handy and *extremely* well paid job which isn't too difficult or demanding and which he mostly manages to do passably well.


I think he does an okay job as President. In my opinion he strays into the political far too often. His two predecessors' were much better.
I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a person with a higher opinion of themselves. 

RTE should be fans of his since they put him there, ably assisted by Sinn Fein.


----------



## SGWidow (22 Sep 2021)

Let's face it, Purple, he probably has too much integrity to be popular in these here parts.

I am/was not mad about his two predecessors..........._there is something about Mary _(1 and 2) that grates


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> RTE should be fans of his since they put him there, ably assisted by Sinn Fein.



Strange perspective. As far as I recall it was SF putting forward a candidate for election to President that other parties to put forward candidates who were otherwise content to give MDH a free pass into a second term.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Strange perspective. As far as I recall it was SF putting forward a candidate for election to President that other parties to put forward candidates who were otherwise content to give MDH a free pass into a second term.


I presume @Purple is referring to the RTÉ/SF sting that shafted Gallagher in 2011.


----------



## SGWidow (22 Sep 2021)

It's true that Gallagher got _rightly_ shafted by RTE.............I haven't once quibbled about the licence fee since then


----------



## Peanuts20 (22 Sep 2021)

Whilst I agree that he was right not to go, there is a devilish part of me that wonders should he have gone up and called out for a rememberence of all those who died in the troubles, recall the blatent discremination that existed in NI for decades against the Nationalist community and call out how much NI has grown up now?. Point out that Unionists can and are happily applying for Republic passports post Brexit after the majority of people in NI voted to stay in the EU. he could really have poked the DUP bear here.


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I presume @Purple is referring to the RTÉ/SF sting that shafted Gallagher in 2011.


Yep, that's the one.


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2021)

SGWidow said:


> It's true that Gallagher got _rightly_ shafted by RTE.............I haven't once quibbled about the licence fee since then


I thought you didn't like corruption and cronyism. 
I have to admit my intense dislike of Micky-D does colour by views on the issue. Gallagher would have been fine at the job. Nothing special but fine. He wouldn't have been like a narcissistic spoiled child wrapping himself in a cloak of self congratulatory bombast so that would be an improvement on the little fella.


----------



## SGWidow (22 Sep 2021)

Not following you there, Purple?!


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I presume @Purple is referring to the RTÉ/SF sting that shafted Gallagher in 2011.



Perhaps he was referring to that. But I don't think that affair was about putting MDH in as much as it was about taking out the defacto FF candidate trying to get in through the back door as an 'independent'.
That was another political theatre masterclass by SF who had MMcG as candidate. Revered in their circles, MMcG was not put forward as a token candidate. SF had real intent in taking the office of President in their own right. 

There has been another election since then and at the very least it is good to know that there are some in the political arena still not prepared to turn a blind eye to cosy, free pass, nod and wink appointments to public office.
Then, or now.


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Perhaps he was referring to that. But I don't think that affair was about putting MDH in as much as it was about taking out the defacto FF candidate trying to get in through the back door as an 'independent'.
> That was another political theatre masterclass by SF who had MMcG as candidate. Revered in their circles, MMcG was not put forward as a token candidate. SF had real intent in taking the office of President.
> 
> There has been another election since then and at the very least it is good to know that there are some in the political arena still not prepared to turn a blind eye to cosy, free pass, nod and wink appointments to public office.
> Then, or now.


It is also good to know that there are some in the political arena still prepared to lie and cheat and smear the integrity of their opponents for their own political ends. At least they aren't shooting them any more so that's a positive.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> to lie and cheat and smear the integrity of their opponents for their own political ends.



I don't recall any lies or cheating in that affair. I recall an accusation, that was allowed to air without being substantiated, in which the accused was unable to handle because there was more than a whiff of truth behind it. 
As such his whole campaign came crumbling down around him. The subsequent outrage of unfair treatment only further exposed the extent of political and media backing that was behind this 'independent'. 
As I said, it was a political masterclass performance by MMcG and SF in taking out the de facto FF candidate.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Sep 2021)

Does anybody in the land actually celebrate partition?  Ok, unionists may thank their lucky stars for being saved from an RC theocracy but partition was clearly a second best to the Union of Great Britain and Ireland.
Partition is the very undesirable result of our divisions not their cause as some like to argue.  I cannot see why anybody would want to celebrate/commemorate/recognise its centenary.


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't recall any lies or cheating in that affair. I recall an accusation,


I do recall lies or cheating in that affair. I recall an accusation, which was a lie, which the Shinners used to remove a candidate from the election. 
At least they didn't shoot him, so that's an improvement on their previous behaviour.

I do agree that it was a political masterclass, right out of the 70's gombeen FF playbook. That's what the Shiners are; FF from the 70's.


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Does anybody in the land actually celebrate partition?  Ok, unionists may thank their lucky stars for being saved from an RC theocracy but partition was clearly a second best to the Union of Great Britain and Ireland.
> Partition is the very undesirable result of our divisions not their cause as some like to argue.  I cannot see why anybody would want to celebrate/commemorate/recognise its centenary.


Unionism is defined by what it isn't, not what it is, and this is a celebration of not being part of a united Ireland run by the papists (now the godless sodomites).


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2021)

SGWidow said:


> Let's face it, Purple, he probably has too much integrity to be popular in these here parts.


All those pensions and a landlord as well? Well, according to the great man himself he's been on the right side of every social issue in this country in his lifetime.


SGWidow said:


> I am/was not mad about his two predecessors..........._there is something about Mary _(1 and 2) that grates


I liked them both, for different reasons.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> I recall an accusation, which was a lie, which the Shinners used to remove a candidate from the election.



I think you protesteth too much.

No candidate was removed from the election, let alone by SF.



Purple said:


> I do agree that it was a political masterclass, right out of the 70's gombeen FF playbook.



Sometimes you got to meet fire with fire. FF was engaged in trying to get their candidate into an Áras at a time when they knew the electorate would dump on the brand FF. The brass neck of their own narcissism and their allies in the media (Eoghan 'Barbara J Pym' Harris being to the forefront of this campaign) ensured that they would not stop for anyone or anything to get their man into the Áras.
The were engaged in trying to pull another stroke over the publics eye by putting Gallagher up as an 'independent'.
They were rumbled, and once so, the public gave their verdict.
The subsequent whinging for years afterwards by Gallagher and Harris was nothing more than the sound of self-anointed, righteous air being squeezed out of them.


----------



## Purple (22 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Sometimes you got to meet fire with fire. FF was engaged in trying to get their candidate into an Áras at a time when they knew the electorate would dump on the brand FF. The brass neck of their own narcissism and their allies in the media (Eoghan 'Barbara J Pym' Harris being to the forefront of this campaign) ensured that they would not stop for anyone or anything to get their man into the Áras.
> The were engaged in trying to pull another stroke over the publics eye by putting Gallagher up as an 'independent'.
> They were rumbled, and once so, the public gave their verdict.
> The subsequent whinging for years afterwards by Gallagher was nothing more than the sound of self-anointed, righteous air being squeezed out of him.


I'll have to learn that off so I have the right answer when your guys get into office.
It'll be in the green version of the 'Little Red Book'.


----------



## gianni (24 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't recall any lies or cheating in that affair. I recall an accusation, that was allowed to air without being substantiated, in which the accused was unable to handle because there was more than a whiff of truth behind it.
> As such his whole campaign came crumbling down around him. The subsequent outrage of unfair treatment only further exposed the extent of political and media backing that was behind this 'independent'.
> As I said, it was a political masterclass performance by MMcG and SF in taking out the de facto FF candidate.


SF are proven liars. But Gallagher not being sure about receiving money in envelopes was what done him in. "I have no recollection" is too weak a response. It suggests that it may have happened but he doesn't remember. Which in itself suggests he was embroiled in this practice at some stage. This practice, if done correctly, is perfectly fine. But the optics weren't great.

Excerpts from broadsheet.ie:

Pat Kenny: “A development which I want to put to Sean Gallagher. On the Martin McGuinness for president Twitter account, Sinn Fein are saying they are going to produce the man who gave you the cheque for five grand. Now, do you want to change what you said or are you still saying that it simply didn’t happen? Are they up to dirty tricks or what?”
Gallagher: “Well, you know I’ve always tried to stay above any negative
campaigning and I understand from a query during the week in one of the newspapers and when my campaign team sent back the information on the said character, I don’t want to cast any aspersions on him….”
Kenny: “So you know who he is?”
Gallagher: “He’s a convicted criminal, a fuel smuggler, investigated by the Criminal Assets Bureau and rented the office out to Gerry Adams, Martin’s colleague, in the last general election. I don’t want to get involved in this, I don’t believe….”
(Audience noise and cheers)
Kenny: “Can we put this to rest now. Did you get a cheque from this guy or not?”
Gallagher: “I have no recollection of getting a cheque from this guy…”
(Audience boo and hiss – someone shouts “Liar!”)
Gallagher: “I can tell you, let me explain this very simply.”
McGuinness: “The man said you went to his house Sean.”
Gallagher: “I explained that they’re were two or three people that I asked….invited, I don’t know the man very well that’s in question…”
Kenny: “Hang on a second, you’re saying you went around to a fuel smuggler and all sorts of things and invited him to a Fianna Fail do?”
Gallagher: “I’ll tell you quite simply Pat, I was asked…”

.....

McGuinness: I think Sean should answer the question. And the question is, did he go to a man’s house, a man who spoke to me on the telephone several hours ago, and collect a cheque for €5,000 euro?”
Gallagher: “What Martin has said is that I drove to the man’s house to deliver a photograph of the event and that he gave me a cheque. I may well have delivered the photograph if he gave me an envelope…I…”
(Audience laughs)
Gallagher: “The point is, if he gave me the cheque, it was made out to Fianna
Fail headquarters and it was delivered, and that was that. It had nothing to do with me.”


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Sep 2021)

Classic stuff alright!


----------



## cremeegg (25 Sep 2021)

gianni said:


> SF are proven liars.


What ?

What on earth has this to do with an otherwise good post.

Are you so steeped in anti-Sinn Fein sentiment that you cannot contribute to the discussion without prefacing your remarks with this almost like a disclaimer.

Who do you think this impresses?

This knee jerk condemnation of SF by some people every time they are mentioned makes no converts. There are many who agree with your perspective, equally there are many who are put off by this unthinking anti-SF bias. 

At least Purple usually backs up his anti_SF comments.

Most you us can easily point to clear untruths for each political party.


----------



## Baby boomer (25 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> What ?
> 
> What on earth has this to do with an otherwise good post.
> 
> ...


Ok, you're quite correct, and all political parties tell lies some or all of the time, but.......

Sinn Féin is *not* just another political party.  For most of its existence, it was the political wing of a unified movement that also had a private army.   (Some claim they still haven't gone away you know!) There was overlapping membership and some of its present politicians are quite open about and proud of their erstwhile 'military' career.  

Now some of the electorate is ok with all this.  After all, FF and FG had not totally dissimilar foundation stories, albeit a century ago.  And some of the electorate aren't old enough to remember the troubles.  But some are very uneasy about SF and the prospect of an SF government.  Taken to extremes, suppose you were an upstanding citizen who had given certain confidential information about, say, diesel laundering to the Gardaí back in the day.  How would you feel about an SF Minister for Justice appointing a Garda Commissioner with power to access Special Branch files?  You might not sleep easily, I'd guess.


----------



## kinnjohn (25 Sep 2021)

SF is Inching closer to power thanks to the granni of this World, If they don't cop themselves on we could see  SF with enough seats to form a Government on their own,


----------



## kinnjohn (25 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> What ?
> 
> What on earth has this to do with an otherwise good post.
> 
> ...


I am not so sure about the no converts, FF and Labour are committing suicide attacking SF to the point no one knows what FF/LAB stands for anymore, FG use FF/Lab as a mudguard to stay in power indefinitely,


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Sinn Féin is *not* just another political party.



It is actually. Its just another political party.



Baby boomer said:


> For most of its existence, it was the political wing of a unified movement that also had a private army. (Some claim they still haven't gone away you know!)



True. But hardly unique for 20th century Ireland. In fact, for the most part of the 20th century in Ireland there was little establishing a real political party if you didn't have linkage or lineage to a private army.

*_They havent gone away you know! _

This quote, attributable to Grisly, was battered and tattooed into the public physche as a forewarning of the dangers of a politically resurgent SF.
So much so that it still gets the occasional airing today, some 25yrs later. 
Not so much with the resolve of a complicit and  determined political and media agenda in times gone by (after all Adams is long retired) but more so in the guise of a puff of smoke, like a cartoon version of a baby Godzilla.

That's because the rise of SF in the political arena has actually coincided with the demise of its paramilitary wing, not strengthened it.
The 20th century provides ample evidence of similar occurrences.

Critically however, and it really is a pity in my opinion, is that the significance of that rally in Belfast City Centre in August 1995 was lost on everyone, and all because of a concerted political and media hysteria over a flippant remark prompted by a shout in the crowd.

Perhaps, one day, take some time to understand the significance of that rally on that day and what it represented in the six county statlet.



Baby boomer said:


> After all, FF and FG had not totally dissimilar foundation stories, albeit a century ago.



Hardly a century ago. Check out the arms trials of the 1970's and the subsequent election to office of those involved to the highest political office in the State through the 1980's.



Baby boomer said:


> suppose you were an upstanding citizen who had given certain confidential information about, say, diesel laundering to the Gardaí back in the day. How would you feel about an SF Minister for Justice appointing a Garda Commissioner with power to access Special Branch files? You might not sleep easily, I'd guess.



With respect, this is the Gotham city version of how government and ministeries work.
It is the reasoning of those who still puff away at "_they haven't gone away you know" _


----------



## Baby boomer (25 Sep 2021)

Less than two decades ago SF was a political party with a private army attached.  That army has apparently disarmed and may well have disbanded, even if no-one is quite sure about the whys and whens of all that.  Or it may still exist in a quiescent form - nobody outside "the movement" really knows.  

Trying to be fair here, I can accept there was _*some*_ legitimacy to armed struggle - even if not to everything encompassed by that expression - and a political solution was necessary to being it to an end.  That political solution was the Good Friday Agreement.  That's now over twenty years in the rearview mirror and that's plenty of time for SF to have jettisoned its paramilitary baggage and become just another political party.  If it really, really wanted to do that, you'd think it would lose no opportunity to put clear blue water between its past and present.  But it doesn't.  Time and time again, the mask slips.  Perhaps the most recent example was the Bobby Storey funeral featuring a cast of thousands in identical dress that paid homage to paramilitary style uniform and discipline.  *NO* other political party behaves like this.  Nor would it even occur to any other party to behave like this.  SF is different.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Sep 2021)

@WolfeTone
The really disgusting thing about the "haven't gone away you know" episode was how the crowd loved it.  I know your innocent view of this is that the nationalist population were living in fear of a pogrom by forces of the Protestant state and that their only defenders were The Boys.  Sorry to disillusion you but this was naked sectarian triumphalism.


----------



## joe sod (26 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> There was overlapping membership and some of its present politicians are quite open about and proud of their erstwhile 'military' career.


www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/anti-gay-ex-ira-man-gerry-mcgeough-punched-at-pride-parade-to-protest-at-new-lgbtq-event-in-omagh-40879939.html

Gerry Mcgeough while no longer a member of SF illustrates the problem SF will have if they ever get to power, while the party hierarchy is all liberal and socialist alot of its membership is not. Gerry Mcgeough was of the old Nationalist Catholic wing of the party that did alot of the "fighting" during the troubles and are not too impressed with the direction of the party. He said the hunger strikers would be turning in their graves at the modern SF.
However I think this "macho" element of the IRA explains alot of the attraction to SF by young males who are not well versed on SF policies but this element of cordite and danger is the attraction, So SF is the ultimate catch all party like FF was


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The really disgusting thing about the "haven't gone away you know" episode was how the crowd loved it.



I understand the media and political backlash at the time. Even for years after as the negotiations for a political agreement and ending of armed groupings continued. It was an insensitive offensive remark. But it was an off-the-cuff remark. At the very same time Adams was publicly announcing that he wanted to see an end to all armed groups (if I'm not mistaken this was part of his actual speech that day) 

But some 25yrs later it still gets the occasional airing coupled with ominous cartoon sounding vibes of SF ministers getting their hands on secret state files - _que evil laughter of SF minister with fangs, long sharp fingernails, blood shot eyes etc. _

It really is the stuff of minds influenced by the goings on in Gotham city. An Eoghan Harris type paranoia. 

Gerry Adams in 1995 "they haven't gone away you know" 
Gerry Adams in 2015 "the IRA have left the stage, they are no more" 

Which holds true? 

The British military and security apparatus has been dismantled, at least visibly so. Is it because thd IRA haven't gone away, ye know? 
Or because they are no more a threat? 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I know your innocent view of this is that the nationalist population were living in fear of a pogrom by forces of the Protestant state and that their only defenders were The Boys.



Well, that is your innocent view of what you think my views are. But I think the threats of pogroms were long past. There was plenty of other grievances to be aired. 
It is a pity that the significance of that rally that day in Belfast has been lost.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I understand the media and political backlash at the time. Even for years after as the negotiations for a political agreement and ending of armed groupings continued. It was an insensitive offensive remark. But it was an off-the-cuff remark.


Good we agree, maybe raise a small chuckle.


WolfeTone said:


> At the very same time Adams was publicly announcing that he wanted to see an end to all armed groups (if I'm not mistaken this was part of his actual speech that day)


That was/is the mantra, IRA and BA were equal protagonists in the "conflict".  To this day this is the central SF/IRA narrative.


WolfeTone said:


> Gerry Adams in 1995 "they haven't gone away you know"
> Gerry Adams in 2015 "the IRA have left the stage, they are no more"
> Which holds true?



Gerry knew in 1994, and indeed long before that, that the heady "Tiocfaidh ar la" days of 1971 were long gone.  The IRA had become a dirty sectarian murder gang.  John Hume persuaded Grisly that Sunningdale would now be a far different proposition for himself and Marty et al. Problem was how would he sell it to his IRA supporters.  "They haven't gone away you know" did the trick as the sectarian mob howled in approval.  But Gerry knew that they had effectively gone away, just not quite the time to tell the masses.
But have the Danny Morrisons gone away?  I believe the PSNI when they say that they have gone political these days but they haven't gone away, you know.
It is of course common for background elitist forces to have strong influence in our democratic parties. For Labour it is the Unions.  For FG/FF possibly senior business/farming interests and in former times the Church.  For SF it is the IRA Army Council, so again we are reminded that "they haven't gone away, you know".  Do you accept that this linkage exists?


WolfeTone said:


> Well, that is your innocent view of what you think my views are. But I think the threats of pogroms were long past. There was plenty of other grievances to be aired.


Glad you have eased back on your "PIRA defenders against pogroms" motif.  Just for the record, there was a threat of pogrom, and indeed there was a minor pogrom, for about 24 hours in August '69 until the BA arrived.
What were these plenty of other grievances that  convinced the catholic mob that they needed the sectarian terrorist threat to be kept alive and well?


WolfeTone said:


> It is a pity that the significance of that rally that day in Belfast has been lost.


Help me find it.


----------



## Baby boomer (26 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Glad you have eased back on your "PIRA defenders against pogroms" motif.  Just for the record, there was a threat of pogrom, and indeed there was a minor pogrom, for about 24 hours in August '69 until the BA arrived. What were these plenty of other grievances that convinced the catholic mob that they needed the sectarian terrorist threat to be kept alive and well?


In fairness, the British Army were responsible for worse pogroms (by body count) in Ballymurphy and the Bogside.  Then there was collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries and overlapping membership between the UDR and UVF/LVF.  Not to mention internment and brutal treatment of detainees that really amounted to torture.  Then you had countless convictions in Diplock courts after suspects had confessions beaten out of them. It wasn't just the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 you know.  

Now, to point out these incidents is not the same as saying that the existence - and certainly the actions - of the IRA was justified.  Much of it is unjustifiable in any terms just as many British Army actions were also unjustifiable.  

Both sides are reluctant to face up to the harsh reality of what they've done.  There's denial, obfuscation, lies and blanket glorification of military actions.  But that leaves SF with a bad look in terms of its apparent wish to be just another political party.   Elements within the party give the strong impression that they're more comfortable being at war than at peace.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> In fairness, the British Army were responsible for worse pogroms (by body count) in Ballymurphy and the Bogside.  Then there was collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries and overlapping membership between the UDR and UVF/LVF.  Not to mention internment and brutal treatment of detainees that really amounted to torture.  Then you had countless convictions in Diplock courts after suspects had confessions beaten out of them. It wasn't just the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 you know.
> 
> Now, to point out these incidents is not the same as saying that the existence - and certainly the actions - of the IRA was justified.  Much of it is unjustifiable in any terms just as many British Army actions were also unjustifiable.
> 
> Both sides are reluctant to face up to the harsh reality of what they've done.  There's denial, obfuscation, lies and blanket glorification of military actions.  But that leaves SF with a bad look in terms of its apparent wish to be just another political party.   Elements within the party give the strong impression that they're more comfortable being at war than at peace.


Ahh!  I fully applaud your pursuit of "fairness" but we could disappear down the rabbit hole of the wickedness of British forces in the Troubles; myself and @WolfeTone have been there many times.
What I was particularly querying in this instance was why was the catholic mob so enthusiastic about the assurance that the PIRA hadn't gone away you know.  @WolfeTone had earlier argued that the reason the catholic population supported the PIRA in the first place was as their only defence against pogrom by British and Loyalist forces.  I had earlier argued that this didn't stack up as from on the ground experience it was clear to me (and Garret Fitzgerald) that there was no realistic threat of the BA running rampage in catholic areas and if there was the PIRA would be hopelessly inadequate to defend against it.  @WolfeTone has confirmed that the "defence against pogrom"  reason for supporting PIRA had long since vanished in 1995; IMHO it ceased to exist on August 16th 1969 when British troops arrived to impose order.  He has instead suggested that many other grievances had taken the place of this justification.  I await clarification from him of what those grievances were in 1995.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That was/is the mantra, IRA and BA were equal protagonists in the "conflict". To this day this is the central SF/IRA narrative.



Regardless. It is not the point here. The point here that at the time "they haven't gone away, ye know", Adams and Co were actively working towards making the IRA go away - 25yrs ago!



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But *Gerry knew that they had effectively gone away*, just not quite the time to tell the masses.
> But have the Danny Morrisons gone away? I believe the PSNI when they say that they have gone political these days but they haven't gone away, you know.



The huff and puff of reminders of that quote still prevails. It is the preserve of hard-line anti-Irish Republicans.
Good luck to them I say, as the sands are shifting below their feet.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> For SF it is the IRA Army Council, so again we are reminded that "they haven't gone away, you know".



Well have they or haven't they? In my view the IRA is gone.
If they haven't what evidence of this do you have? Because from every PSNI/Garda report there is no physical, military threat.
If the 'threat' is a political ideology, then I would respectfully remind you that is the very essence of a parliamentary democracy.
If you find the assembly of political ideology through a democratically elected parliament a threat then I dare say, subversive ideology is abound and a lot closer to home.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> What were these plenty of other grievances that convinced the catholic mob that they needed the sectarian terrorist threat to be kept alive and well?



Ah jeez Duke, let's not be infantile about this. I have already acknowledged the demands of civil rights movement were broadly acquised to, on paper at least.
That those rights were obtained on the blood of innocent civilians whose lives were considered fodder for 40yrs is one of those other such grievances.

Your repeated referral to the Kingsmill massacre in these exchanges is evidence of your own persistent grievance against SF. It really is becoming tiresome that you cannot acknowledge the legitimate grievances of British State forces and authorities over the period. The 40/50yr cover ups and proposed amnesty point to something far more sinister and deeply embedded other  than the 'few bad apples' excuse that you have propagated before.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Help me find it.



You have already identified the 'other grievances' that you seek.

Here is one simple grievance, the public display of the Irish tricolour in public met with the baton charge of the police.

By itself, hardly a revolutionary cause. It does however offer a snapshot into the prevailing sectarian mindset that prevailed through the political and state institutions.

Here is another snapshot.
The expression of the political ideology of an independent Irish Republic alá 1916 Proclaimation was effectively deemed illegal throughout the existence of the NI.

When the great and good of Irish political society were gorging on 50th year celebrations of 1916 in Dublin in 1966, oblivious (apparently) to the plight of their brothers and sisters in NI,
it took until 1995 for a public rally  designated as a march for an Irish Republic/United Ireland to be permitted by the British State authorities to march in the centre of Belfast.

That's right, it took 74yrs for the NI state authorities to permit a peaceful public expression by its own people for an All Irish Republic in their own city centre.


----------



## Baby boomer (26 Sep 2021)

A wiser man than me (can't remember exactly who) said that the problem with the peace process in the nineties, was that the republican rank and file thought they had won when they'd actually lost. Meanwhile the unionist rank and file thought they'd lost when they'd actually won.  

Both sides needed to be slowly cajoled into accepting realities.  Thus IRA rhetoric like "not an ounce; not a bullet" and "haven't gone away you know".  Equally, unionist paranoia about "IRA in government" etc.  

By and large, the SF leadership have done a better job than the unionist parties in bringing their constituency with them.  But the very characteristics that enabled them to do so are precisely what marks them out as different from other parties.  SF have ended the war and largely avoided splits in the republican movement.  That took skill and courage and for that they deserve credit.  That does NOT equate to welcoming them as a regular party of government.  That's a whole different standard entirely.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Sep 2021)

@WolfeTone I asked why the catholic mob were so enraptured by the assurance that the IRA hadn't gone away you know in 1995 and you cite the "many grievances".  It transpires that the grievances you referred to were at the time historic and the continued existence of the IRA could not be justified by said grievances.  The fact is that the sit-yee-ation had transformed from a MOPE feeling of injustice in the '60s to a Tiochaid ar la triumphalism in the '90s.  The assurance of the continued existence of the sectarian murder machine was central to that triumphalism.
But heck Mickey D is the President of Ireland and it is above the dignity of his office to engage in mudslinging with Paisleyites.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> A wiser man than me (can't remember exactly who) said that the problem with the peace process in the nineties, was that the republican rank and file thought they had won when they'd actually lost. Meanwhile the unionist rank and file thought they'd lost when they'd actually won.


+1


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Both sides needed to be slowly cajoled into accepting realities. Thus IRA rhetoric like "not an ounce; not a bullet" and "haven't gone away you know". Equally, unionist paranoia about "IRA in government" etc.



Fair point. The IRA weapons have been decommissioned. The IRA have effectively gone away (as a physical threat). 
The Unionist paranoia sadly has not. The prospect of a SF First Minister, democratically elected by the people, is already calling for boycott by Unionists of nominating a deputy First Minister. 
Why? Because the democratically elected government of the UK has negotiated a pear-shaped Brexit deal for NI (from their perspective of course) and that is enough for them to threaten to take down political institutions because they are not getting their way. 



Baby boomer said:


> That does NOT equate to welcoming them as a regular party of government. That's a whole



With respect, and recognising your right to your own political ideology, I have spent 20+ years not welcoming the so-called 'regular' parties into government. 

I would more than welcome a turning of the tables.


----------



## gianni (26 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> What ?
> 
> What on earth has this to do with an otherwise good post.
> 
> ...


Why do you think I'm trying to impress anyone? Let alone random, anonymous, strangers on the internet.

It was pertinent to my point about the fake/unsubstantiated tweet. 

It was from a 'fake', unknown account:

"The man that Gallagher took the cheque from will be at a press conference tomorrow. #aras11"

SF deny the account had anything to do with them. But somehow McGuinness was able to run with this 'new' information during the debate:

McGuinness: I think Sean should answer the question. And the question is, did he go to a man’s house, a man who spoke to me on the telephone several hours ago, and collect a cheque for €5,000 euro?”

Such serendipity...


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I asked why the catholic mob were so enraptured by the assurance that the IRA hadn't gone away you know in 1995 and you cite the "many grievances".



With respect Duke, I was citing the worn and withered, the huff and puff, of "they haven't gone away you know" as a bankrupt argument in the face of the political reality of 2021. 

Just as your old comrades in Official IRA found out, they huffed and puffed for decades after their obselence, until eventually they just retired and died. 
The militarists of PIRA are in the same boat. 
The SF today under MLM is vibrant, rejuvenated and never more confident.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The SF today under MLM is vibrant, rejuvenated and never more confident.





			
				wolfie said:
			
		

> If the 'threat' is a political ideology, then I would respectfully remind you that is the very essence of a parliamentary democracy.


I take it from this that you accept that the PIRA Army council are to SF what Union apparatchiks are to Labour.  Yes it is allowed within our democracy but it should rule them out as acceptable partners in government for any "constitutional" party.  MLM should make it clear who is really pulling the strings in her movement.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I take it from this that you accept that the IRA Army council are to SF what Union apparatchiks are to Labour.



No. I don't think that at all. 

Trade union influence is very much alive in the Labour movement (is there any other way?) 
As Keir Stamer is finding out in Britain. 

I'm saying that the principle of achieving a united Irish Republic, alá 1916, through military force is dead. 

As I have mentioned before, ALL attempts to obtain an Irish Republic through military force have failed. They have ALL been an abject failure - best effort Treaty of 1921. Yet that led to civil war, partition, and a 25yr sectarian conflict. 
The pursuit of an All Ireland Republic through military force has been a calamitous failure for over 300yrs. 

In 1998, the seeds of a peaceful path to realise that ambition was borne, and critically it was endorsed by the people overwhelming throughout the island. 

The military wing of SF is an old man's drinking club. 
Of course SF will pay homage to the volunteers, Thomas Begley and Thomas Clarke, as they always do. 

The cause of the use of military force has been nullified. We should rejoice.


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm saying that the principle of achieving a united Irish Republic, alá 1916, through military force is dead.


I think the IRA accepted that 35 years ago. They have successfully morphed their organisation into a political party. What concerns me is the number of times the phrase IRA comes up when I'm talking to friends who are in areas awash with drugs and criminality. The only way to think that's gone away is to be wilfully ignorant. 
I fear SF/IRA in office. I fear their links to criminality, not at the top level but at the rank and file level. 
I fear their populist pseudo-socialist economic policies. 
I fear their upper hypocrisy on social issues when their rank and file consistently display racist and homophobic views while their leadership gives lip service to liberal and inclusive policies.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> I fear their links to criminality, not at the top level but at the rank and file level.



So they are not being directed by an Army Council out of West Belfast? Its now down to the rank and file that, by the sounds of your reasoning are involved in criminality, in particular the drugs trade?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Sep 2021)

To be fair (see I am learning from @Baby boomer)  SF is genuinely to be commended on its leadership in social policy.  And it is leadership (and not I think hypocrisy) for as @Purple observes this is not the natural instinct of their support base.  Is there any similar populist group in Europe with these views (including not being anti immigrant)?  Certainly not the DUP.


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> So they are not being directed by an Army Council out of West Belfast? Its now down to the rank and file that, by the sounds of your reasoning are involved in criminality, in particular the drugs trade?


In my opinion there is a high likelihood that the Army Council of the IRA is the real leadership of SF.
The is evidenced in the attendance at the funerals of terrorists by SF leadership and their unwillingness to commemorate or condemn the murder of Gardaí by IRA terrorists.


----------



## cremeegg (27 Sep 2021)

joe sod said:


> www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/anti-gay-ex-ira-man-gerry-mcgeough-punched-at-pride-parade-to-protest-at-new-lgbtq-event-in-omagh-40879939.html
> 
> Gerry Mcgeough while no longer a member of SF illustrates the problem SF will have if they ever get to power, while the party hierarchy is all liberal and socialist alot of its membership is not. Gerry Mcgeough was of the old Nationalist Catholic wing of the party that did alot of the "fighting" during the troubles and are not too impressed with the direction of the party. He said the hunger strikers would be turning in their graves at the modern SF.
> However I think this "macho" element of the IRA explains alot of the attraction to SF by young males who are not well versed on SF policies but this element of cordite and danger is the attraction, So SF is the ultimate catch all party like FF was.


I think the idea that today's SF grassroots are rosary clutching anti-gay antediluvians is a complete misconception. Gerry McGeough as you say is no longer a member of SF.

The typical SF supporter is young and as 'woke' as their counterparts anywhere else, Imperialism may loom larger relatively speaking in their consciousness than in similar groups elsewhere but they are as idealistic and internationalist as any.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> The is evidenced in the attendance at the funerals of terrorists by SF leadership and their unwillingness to commemorate or condemn the murder of Gardaí by IRA terrorists.



But why would you think SF leadership would be willing to condemn the murder of Gardai during the conflict? 
They stand full square behind the IRA campaign. They believe it was a legitimate war albeit they have acknowledged that some atrocities were wrong and should never have happened, such as the murder of Gerry McCabe. 
Such things happen in war. Take the tragic drone attack on a young family in Afghanistan for instance. 
Should US political leaders turn their back on the military personnel that executed this atrocity, under the sanction of their political masters? 
Ideally they should, but it's not going to happen. 

So this notion that SF leadership should turn their backs on PIRA now is about as likely as thinking the rest of political establishment will turn their backs on the memory 1916, the GOIRA, and whatever shape or form of IRA you are having yourself over the last century.


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2021)

Your justification is based on whataboutery and historical references and is just silly. I'm not going down that rabbit hole again.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> But why would you think SF leadership would be willing to condemn the murder of Gardai during the conflict?
> They stand full square behind the IRA campaign. They believe it was a legitimate war albeit they have acknowledged that some atrocities were wrong and should never have happened, such as the murder of Gerry McCabe.


You're not following the plot, _Wolfie_.  Gerry McCabe was not murdered, it was manslaughter, a botched robbery gone horribly wrong, it certainly did not serve SF/IRA purposes. 
I presume @Purple is referring to the recent refusal of a SF councillor to commemorate the political murder by the IRA in 1941 of servants of this state.  What is particularly ominous about that refusal by the SF councillor is that neither he nor SF have admitted that the reason for the abstention is that was required by the IRA theology, as Michael McDowell reminds us, that the IRA are the legitimate army of Ireland and Gardai etc. are traitors.  I don't think MLM or Fierce Doherty believes that theology but they have to pay lip service to it.  David "up the 'RA" Cullinane is a true believer.
@Purple was referring to this episode as very strong circumstantial evidence that sinister forces are pulling MLM's strings.
For me this is a good thing as it is the biggest hindrance to SF being accepted as a partner by constitutional parties.  If it were not for this sinister connection surely SF/FF and a few Indos would now be in power.  The more David Cullinane and that SF councillor keep letting the veil slip the longer we will be spared sinister forces in West Belfast having access to the strings of power in this country.


----------



## joe sod (27 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> The typical SF supporter is young and as 'woke' as their counterparts anywhere else, Imperialism may loom larger relatively speaking in their consciousness than in similar groups elsewhere but they are as idealistic and internationalist as any.


Many of their supporters are young and 'woke' , many more though are hard core nationalists especially some of its tds who love all the "tiocaidh ar la" stuff, many of its supporters are attracted by that hard core macho image which the violent campaign gives them. But that's the problem SF will have in the future they can't keep all these different elements on board,


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2021)

joe sod said:


> many of its supporters are attracted by that hard core macho image which the violent campaign gives them.


I think that's a very good point. There is a cohort of under educated young men from what is erroneously referred to as 'working class' areas who feel disenfranchised. The hard-man image of the Shinner grass roots is very attractive to them.


----------



## cremeegg (27 Sep 2021)

joe sod said:


> many of its supporters are attracted by that hard core macho image which the violent campaign gives them.





Purple said:


> There is a cohort of under educated young men from what is erroneously referred to as 'working class' areas who feel disenfranchised. The hard-man image of the Shinner grass roots is very attractive to them.



Well I can only comment from my own experience, and while that is not extensive, I did have a drink a few weeks ago with a group of young people all politically involved and if they were not all SF supporters it was because SF was not edgy enough for them.

There was absolutely no macho hard man attitude from these people, strongly feminist, pro-LGBTI+, and the organising male of the group was an artist very into creative expression.

It's no coincidence that the top leadership of SF is female. Of course some of you will think that is just a pretence too. A female leadership is the image SF seeks to portray and it is the image it believes will attract and hold its support.


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Well I can only comment from my own experience, and while that is not extensive, I did have a drink a few weeks ago with a group of young people all politically involved and if they were not all SF supporters it was because SF was not edgy enough for them.
> 
> There was absolutely no macho hard man attitude from these people, strongly feminist, pro-LGBTI+, and the organising male of the group was an artist very into creative expression.


That's not my experience.


cremeegg said:


> It's no coincidence that the top leadership of SF is female. Of course some of you will think that is just a pretence too. A female leadership is the image SF seeks to portray and it is the image it believes will attract and hold its support.


There is a disconnect between the upper echelons of the Shinners elected representatives and the grass roots (and the puppet masters) but I'm a big fan of their social agenda. It's their unapologetic links to child killers and their crazy populist economic policies that I have a big problem with.


----------



## cremeegg (27 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> There is a disconnect between the upper echelons of the Shinners elected representatives and the grass roots (and the puppet masters) but I'm a big fan of their social agenda.


Interesting


Purple said:


> It's their unapologetic links to child killers


We will have to agree to be in possession of different historical facts here 

and their crazy populist economic policies that I have a big problem with.

I agree with you here, yet I do think that if SF were in power there would be a fairly rapid dose of reality and I do not doubt that SF would adjust.


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> We will have to agree to be in possession of different historical facts here


Oh, I thought that killed children. Am I wrong? Johnathan Ball and Tim Parry must have blown themselves up. How careless of them.


cremeegg said:


> I agree with you here, yet I do think that if SF were in power there would be a fairly rapid dose of reality and I do not doubt that SF would adjust.


The Shinners have the same populist policies as FF in the 70's. It took decades to recover from that lot.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> Your justification is based on whataboutery and historical references and is just silly. I'm not going down that rabbit hole again.



I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm simply bemused at why you would think SF would now turn their back on their comrades? It's no different to the office of President of Ireland being used to euligise Thomas Clarke and his merry band of indiscriminate child killing bombers applauded across the political spectrum. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> as Michael McDowell reminds us, that the IRA are the legitimate army of Ireland and Gardai etc. are traitors.



And as I keep trying to remind you, the IRA have been stood down. There is no IRA in the military sense. 
SF have signed up to the Policing Board of NI. They advocate for people to report criminal behaviour to the Gardaí. 
The recognise the legal authority of the 26 county Parliament and the Court system. 
They seek to change this of course, but through peaceful political argument. 

McDowell is just part of the residue of a by-gone era. Stuck in 20th century Irish politics. He can huff and puff all he wants but he cannot accept the reality that the sands have shifted under his feet.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> And as I keep trying to remind you, the IRA have been stood down. There is no IRA in the military sense.
> SF have signed up to the Policing Board of NI. They advocate for people to report criminal behaviour to the Gardaí.
> The recognise the legal authority of the 26 county Parliament and the Court system.
> They seek to change this of course, but through peaceful political argument.
> ...


That is not what the current discussion is about. 
I accept that SF/IRA have decided that their aim of overthrowing the Irish state by force was a failed one and that as a matter of tactics they are now pursuing the democratic route - the Armalite has been released from one hand so that both hands can hold the ballot box.
The current discussion is about whether senior elements of their military wing are still calling the shots.  I think you have stated that you do not believe that to be the case; what gives you that confidence?  Or maybe a more pertinent question, would it bother you if they did?
@Purple admits to not knowing for sure but cites some powerful circumstantial evidence that it is the case; like the suspicious absence of the SF councillor from the commemoration of Gardai assassinated by the IRA in 1941, would attendance have offended the puppet masters? 
Also could MLM, or indeed MON have declined to attend the Bobby Storey funeral, say on the grounds of Covid compliance?  One suspects very strongly that they would have fallen foul of their masters in West Belfast.
The assertion by the PSNI that the erstwhile PIRA leadership have given up the violent approach and now follow a political path does nothing to assuage my fears that indeed the "hard men" still pull the strings in SF/IRA.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The current discussion is about whether senior elements of their military wing



And as I'm at pains to point out at this stage, there is no military wing. 
A retirement cumann, perhaps. But there is no military capability of the IRA. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> like the suspicious absence of the SF councillor from the commemoration of Gardai assassinated by the IRA in 1941, would attendance have offended the puppet masters?



I don't know. Perhaps the individual concerned chose not to attend out of his own volition? 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Also could MLM, or indeed MON have declined to attend the Bobby Storey funeral, say on the grounds of Covid compliance?



Why on earth would MLM want to decline to attend the Bobby Storey funeral?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Why on earth would MLM want to decline to attend the Bobby Storey funeral?


Ah dear!  You are worse than @tecate, remember her.
As a hypothetical I posited what *if *she had declined.  A sort of thought experiment to tease out that it would not go down at all well with her masters in West Belfast.  Just as in days of old one might ask what would happen if a Taoiseach didn't go to Mass on Sunday.  
But as with all thought experiments maybe the reality would have been different than one might think and her absence would have raised no fuss at all with the retirement cumann - what do *you *think?
You didn't answer my question.  Would it bother you if MLM was in any way answerable to the retirement cumann?


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A sort of thought experiment to tease out that it would not go down at all well with her masters in West Belfast.



The premise here is your belief that MLM has 'masters' in West Belfast. 
There is no doubt that WB represents hallowed turf for SF. But the idea that MLM is being directed is simply farcical at this point. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But as with all thought experiments maybe the reality would have been different than one might think and her absence would have raised no fuss at all with the retirement cumann - what do *you *think?



If she had declined to attend then for sure it would cause a fuss. No different I'm sure if the current manager of any organisation declined to attend the funeral of highly respected and revered member of that organisation. 
If Bertie popped his clogs would it cause a fuss in FF if MM declined to attend his funeral. 
Ditto Leo and Enda. 
Of course it would. 
Obviously Storey was not leader of SF but he was a leader of the IRA. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> You didn't answer my question. Would it bother you if MLM was in any way answerable to the retirement cumann?



Yes it would. But she is not, so it's all moot. 
She is answerable to the SF Ard Comhairle. It is normal party practice. FG, FF, Labour et al have all got their party structures too. 

Don't you think the members of the Ard Chomhairle, experienced and committed Republicans in their own right, would feel a bit put out if MLM had to confer with the retirement cumann on policy direction also? 

I mean, what would be the point, they all more or less agree the same fundamental principles ending British rule in Ireland. 

Do tell, what do you think would happen to MLM, leader of the largest political organisation in Ireland, if she fell foul of the aging talking shop that is the retirement cumman?


----------



## Baby boomer (27 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The premise here is your belief that MLM has 'masters' in West Belfast.
> There is no doubt that WB represents hallowed turf for SF. But the idea that MLM is being directed is simply farcical at this point.
> 
> Do tell, what do you think would happen to MLM, leader of the largest political organisation in Ireland, if she fell foul of the aging talking shop that is the retirement cumman?



Well, it is beyond doubt that Mairtin O Muilleoir, SF Minister for Finance believed he had 'masters' in West Belfast.  His 2017 email to Ted Howell seeking approval to sign off on the RHI scheme is on the record.  Howell is the very epitome of the "shadowy figure" in the SF background.


----------



## cremeegg (27 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> Oh, I thought that killed children. Am I wrong? Johnathan Ball and Tim Parry


Yes the IRA killed children

Yes the British killed children. Julie Livingstone and Paul Whitters to name two. 

They have both stopped that now in NI. You continued harking back to those times is at best a distraction from a discussion of the current situation.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Well, it is beyond doubt that Mairtin O Muilleoir, SF Minister for Finance believed he had 'masters' in West Belfast.  His 2017 email to Ted Howell seeking approval to sign off on the RHI scheme is on the record.  Howell is the very epitome of the "shadowy figure" in the SF background.



Granted, I will concede the point of appearance here. It does not look good. 

But the substance of the matter? That is another thing. What Ó Múilleoir was doing was nothing worse than a Minister asking a hired political advisor for advice before signing off on a public policy document. 
Of course Howell was not registered as a political advisor. Given his association with IRA leadership I can hear the tremors of indignation if he were formally registered as an official advisor. 
Given his track record as a trusted go-between between IRA and British government his standing in Republican circles as a political strategist is clearly regarded highly. 

But I concede the optics are not great. No more than say the leadership of the DUP meeting with proscribed loyalist gangs for 'discussions' on the NI Protocol. 

I digress, back to Howell and Ó Múilleoir. The scandal as I recall was over advice on whether to sign off on a public policy scheme in a power-sharing arrangement with DUP. 
As it transpired the scheme was fundamentally flawed. 
A political scandal, yes. But this is a far cry from the sinister and subversive threat that some would like to portray. In essence it was (unarmed) IRA man advises SF Minister to sign off on a public policy document administered by the DUP. 

I've seen GP medical contracts being leaked to rival organisations and cabinet leaks of makey-up jobs that can cause as much political scandal. 
Subversive and a threat to the institutions of the State? I don't think so.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes it would. But she is not, so it's all moot.
> She is answerable to the SF Ard Comhairle. It is normal party practice. FG, FF, Labour et al have all got their party structures too.


I am glad that you would have a difficulty with MLM being answerable to WB hard men.  I think she is to an extent but I also think that in the 26 counties at least she could get away with confronting them.  It is hard to believe that a Rathgar girl really empathises with some of the deplorable acts sanctioned by those said WB hard men.  Anyway as I said, whilst the whiff of Kingsmills type massacres attaches to her it is our greatest safeguard against her getting into government, which I agree on the democratic arithmetic she should be - God help us if she got rid of that whiff she would be Teashop or whatever the Gaelic feminine of that is.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think she is to an extent but I also think that in the 26 counties at least she could get away with confronting them.



With respect, confront them over what? 

Let's take a step back. The notion of hard WB men pulling the strings of SF leadership needs to be taken in context. 
All political parties listen to their base, or risk losing it. 
The critical element is the substance of any influence on MLM leadership. 
If the WB are advocating to MLM to implement policies that they believe will eventually drive a collapse of NI and into a UI then I don't think there is anything radical about it that. I think SF are quite open and public about wanting to see a UI. 
So if, for instance the IRA hardmen are agitating MLM to push for a University in Derry, a joining of motorway between Dublin and Belfast. High speed rail between Dublin and Belfast, joined up health services, promoting Irish language in NI etc, etc, then what is the problem with that? 

The only problem I would forsee is agitating to undermine the security of State through the threat of military force. 
There is no evidence of this. There is no need for this. A political path to achieve the aims of Irish Republicans exist. Only the undermining of that path through subversive means threatens a return to violence.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Yes the IRA killed children
> 
> Yes the British killed children. Julie Livingstone and Paul Whitters to name two.
> 
> They have both stopped that now in NI. You continued harking back to those times is at best a distraction from a discussion of the current situation.


The British, child killers or otherwise, aren’t seeking to run this country. Therefore I am less concerned about their credentials.

You said that we must be in possession of different historical facts when I said that SF/IRA killed children. Those same people are now running SF and the rest of SF are unapologetic supporters of the ones who shot and blew up children.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> The British, child killers or otherwise, aren’t seeking to run this country. Therefore I am less concerned about their credentials.
> 
> You said that we must be in possession of different historical facts when I said that SF/IRA killed children. Those same people are now running SF and the rest of SF are unapologetic supporters of the ones who shot and blew up children.



The British do run this country, or part of. In case you hadn't noticed its called NI. A place that was nowhere in the minds of the revolutionarys from 1798 to 1916, it wasn't even in the small print.
And the people who do run this part of the country are unapologetic for the children killed by their own particular brand of hero's. As in 2016 the President of Ireland naming (yet another) public landmark after Thomas Clarke, who along with his merry band of indiscriminate bombers murdered a 14yr old school boy in England.
You know this but you cannot reconcile it with your views today so you do what the rest of the political establishment and complying media do, you ignore it.
Just as they hone in on Brian Stanley for his 'outrageous' remarks on Warrenpoint but ignore the brutal savagery and butchering of Kilmichael.
Just as they hone in on the brutality of Kingsmill but like to brush Dunmanway under the carpet. 
Just as they offer up Jean McConville as the depths of viciousness that PIRA stooped to they cover up for 50yrs the viciousness of the British Army, its media, our media, when it came to the murder of Joan Connolly.

It's what Fintan O'Toole was referring to last week about FG. They place themselves up front and centre as the good guys, as the party of law and order. So when they do wrong, well, it's not really them doing it.
It's the same approach applied today with regard to our troubled past. 
That 1916 and the subsequent war for partition was heroic. And questioning the lack of a mandate, the legitimacy of war, the butchery of Kilmichael, Dunmanway, the rejection of the Dáil of a declaration to go to war etc, etc, it is just ignored.

It is ignored because it exposes the reality of the very means used to establish this State.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

@WolfeTone, the British run part of this Island, as is the wish of the majority of the people who live there, but this country, Ireland, is not ruled by them
The rest is just more of the usual whataboutery. 
Do you really think Fintan O'School is going to write anything good about parties of the centre in this country? 
We're just lucky he waves down from above the clouds at us scum the odd time.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

@Purple your disdain for SF and IRA and its responsibility for the deaths of innocent children is laudable. 
Pity you don't hold that same disdain for ALL child killers and not just selective child killers. 
But I suspect you know it will blow a hole in your core belief system. 

You and Mary Lou McDonald, honestly I cannot tell the difference.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Sep 2021)

@WolfeTone I see you have “taken a step back” from your earlier expressed discomfort at the possibility of the retirement cumman calling any shots with MLM.  On reflection and “in context“ you now see that you would be entirely happy with the “substance“ of that influence.
I hope you would at least welcome full transparency on that score.  At the very least a credit upfront in their manifesto stating “All aspects of this manifesto have been submitted for approval to the PIRA Army Council.”


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> You and Mary Lou McDonald, honestly I cannot tell the difference.


 
Touché


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @Purple your disdain for SF and IRA and its responsibility for the deaths of innocent children is laudable.
> Pity you don't hold that same disdain for ALL child killers and not just selective child killers.
> But I suspect you know it will blow a hole in your core belief system.
> 
> You and Mary Lou McDonald, honestly I cannot tell the difference.


None of the other child killers are seeking to run this country.
I remember being at FF's WolfTone commemoration in Bodenstown as a child (my father was a rabid FF'er, still is really). I was on the cover of The Phoenix, behind CJH. Even then, as a 9 year old, I found the hypocrisy of condemning the IRA while glorifying our bloody past distasteful. That said it was and is different since the IRA is nothing more than a criminal gang and was just that, even when I was a child.

If the people who killed prisoners to artillery shells and blew them up were still alive and running for office, or if those now running for office glorified those people and their actions, I would have the same problem with them that I do with SF/IRA.


----------



## Baby boomer (28 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Granted, I will concede the point of appearance here. It does not look good.
> 
> But the substance of the matter? That is another thing. What Ó Múilleoir was doing was nothing worse than a Minister asking a hired political advisor for advice before signing off on a public policy document.


It doesn't look good because it isn't good!  And he wasn't asking for advice - he was asking for approval.  Different thing entirely.  If you read the email, there's an unmistakable tone of deference that is truly remarkable coming from a Minister for Finance to a mere advisor - unless of course he was more boss than advisor. 



WolfeTone said:


> But I concede the optics are not great. No more than say the leadership of the DUP meeting with proscribed loyalist gangs for 'discussions' on the NI Protocol.


The DUP action is also wrong, both "optically" and in reality.  It's also classic whataboutery and spin-doctor speak to try and use it to justify or contextualise the SF stuff.  


WolfeTone said:


> I digress, back to Howell and Ó Múilleoir. The scandal as I recall was over advice on whether to sign off on a public policy scheme in a power-sharing arrangement with DUP.
> As it transpired the scheme was fundamentally flawed.
> A political scandal, yes. But this is a far cry from the sinister and subversive threat that some would like to portray. In essence it was (unarmed) IRA man advises SF Minister to sign off on a public policy document administered by the DUP.
> 
> I've seen GP medical contracts being leaked to rival organisations and cabinet leaks of makey-up jobs that can cause as much political scandal.


More spin, whataboutery and distraction.  I have to admit - you're good at this! 


WolfeTone said:


> Subversive and a threat to the institutions of the State? I don't think so.


Unelected (unarmed) IRA man with rights of approval and veto on Government policy.  And you think that's ok?????


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Unelected (unarmed) IRA man with rights of approval and veto on Government policy.  And you think that's ok?????


But don't you know that that's exactly the same as giving a meaningless cushy UN job to a former colleague. Get with it!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Sep 2021)

@WolfeTone I think you should back off the "no harm in SF taking advice from the retirement cumman" motif.  @Baby boomer has certainly destroyed you on that one.  I think that even your hero, FOT, from time to time bashes the unholy SF/IRA alliance.
You are on safer ground with your argument "we are all bad eggs, why pick on SF?"


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> It doesn't look good because it isn't good! And he wasn't asking for advice - he was asking for approval.



Yes, so here is the 'offending' text of the email. 
"_Would you be content if I were to sign off the business plan on Wednesday afternoon?”_
Ó Múilleoir contends it was the" Wednesday afternoon" that he sought approval for ie - "is there anything else that needs to be considered before I sign off on this document?" 
An inquiry into the matter found different, that there was at the minimum deference to an unelected authority. 

Either way, what are we talking about here? This is the type of dialogue and communication that occurs regularly and routinely between government ministers and their paid political advisors. It is commonplace. 

What it is not, is some subverted effort by SF and IRA to undermine and overthrow the political institutions through violent means. That is what the Michael McDowells would like you to believe when in the cold light of day this was SF signing off on a public policy document administered by the DUP. So unless you want accuse the DUP of being in situ with the IRA to overthrow NI then you should accept it for what it is. A storm in teacup, alá GP medical contracts leaked to a competing party or cosy, makey-up public appointments offered to friends. 
All of which are wrong, but in the context of the propaganda of the IRA bogey men coming to get you, as Michael McDowell and others here  would have you believe, it is not.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> What it is not, is some subverted effort by SF and IRA to undermine and overthrow the political institutions through violent means.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that they will do that. The concern is that the Shinners answer to what is in effect a criminal gang and they will have undue influence on the levels of power when the Shinners are running things. 

Asking for approval from paid political advisor with a background in politics is a concern. Asking for approval from a paid advisor with direct connections to a criminal gang with a proud history of killing children and ignoring the democratic will of the people, which is headquartered in a different country, is a much bigger concern.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> in effect a criminal gang



I would hazard that in order to be a criminal gang you need to be engaged in criminality. 
Do you accept the assessments of Gardai and PSNI that PIRA members are engaged in democratic programs of a peaceful nature?


----------



## Baby boomer (28 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Either way, what are we talking about here? This is the type of dialogue and communication that occurs regularly and routinely between government ministers and their paid political advisors. It is commonplace.


Commonplace?  Hardly!  In a normal party, advisors advise and Ministers decide.  That's not what's going on here.  The man who needed to be made content is calling the shots (if you pardon the expression, ahem.)

Now, if this were an isolated incident, yeah, you could write it off as unfortunate.  Poor choice of words, under time pressure, that sort of thing.  But put it beside, just to take a few examples:

- the Bobby Storey funeral, at the height of Covid restrictions, with paramilitary homage style dress and behaviour.  

- Mary Lou and Conor Murphy at odds over the Paul Quinn murder, with the former wearing her best deer in headlights look when confronted with Murphy's words on live TV.

- David "tiocfaidh ar lá" Cullinane

- the Kingsmills bread stunt.

- more allegations of bullying than every other party put together.

- Brian Stanley's tweet

- the treatment of Maria Cahill

- the unique level of personal abuse coming from SF supporters on social media.

and you've got a pattern.  You will of course say that every single one of the above can be explained away, nothing to see here, all parties do stuff, etc etc.  

But when you put it all together, it's a compelling basis to say SF is different.  It's not just another party.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Do you accept the assessments of Gardai and PSNI that PIRA members are engaged in democratic programs of a peaceful nature?


They said that they are not engaged in paramilitary/terrorist activates. Who do you think is laundering the Diesel, smuggling the cigarettes and running the protection rackets?


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

Mick Clifford writes well on this topic.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> Mick Clifford writes well on this topic.



He writes poorly on the topic.
He claims GOIRA had a democratic mandate to wage against Britain. It did not. It could not. Nowhere in the SF Manifesto for 1918 election was a declaration of war against Britain made. It made reference to, and danced around the prospect of using "_every means necessary" _to establish a Republic and it invoked the Proclaimation and the principle of inalienable rights of the Irish people and Irish sovereignty. 
But ultimately however it concluded that "Sinn Féin will *oppose at the Polls* every individual candidate who does not accept this principle." 

There was no declaration of war, there was no mandate for war. In fact it was January 1920 that the Dáil first debated the motion of formally declaring war against Britain. That motion was defeated.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> He writes poorly on the topic.
> He claims GOIRA had a democratic mandate to wage against Britain. It did not. It could not. Nowhere in the SF Manifesto for 1918 election was a declaration of war against Britain made. It made reference to, and danced around the prospect of using "_every means necessary" _to establish a Republic and it invoked the Proclaimation and the principle of inalienable rights of the Irish people and Irish sovereignty.
> But ultimately however it concluded that "Sinn Féin will *oppose at the Polls* every individual candidate who does not accept this principle."
> 
> There was no declaration of war, there was no mandate for war. In fact it was January 1920 that the Dáil first debated the motion of formally declaring war against Britain. That motion was defeated.


I'm not going down that rabbit hole again either. You drank the Shinner Koolaid. It's like arguing evolution with a creationist.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> Mick Clifford writes well on this topic.


A brilliant piece.  His closing paragraph sums it up very well.





			
				Mick Clifford said:
			
		

> One day, perhaps when those who ran the IRA no longer have influence, the Shinners will accept the wrongs committed and leave the past alone.
> 
> So far, in that respect, they are, as Deputy Stanley might put it, slow learners.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

@Baby boomer with respect, you have just exemplified the hyperbolic paranoia to the Eoghan Harris proportions. 

Some points you raise deserve consideration, but conflating slogans such "Tiocfaidh ár lá" with the SF parliamentary party being in hock to what PIRA AC tell them to do or say in simply preposterous. 
Here is a few other slogans
"No Surrender" 
"Rule Brittania" 
"A Nation Once Again" 
"Come on Ye Boys in Green" 
"Up The Dubs" 

- Kingsmill 'bread stunt' - are you suggesting permission was sought from AC for that? Please! 
-bullying allegations, in other parties. Is there Army Councils running the other parties too? 
- Brian Stanleys tweet. Done to death at this stage. But in the context of discussing who is in charge of SF are you seriously suggesting Brian Stanley sought authorisation for that? Please! 

- the treatment of Maria Cahill was despicable and the events surrounding her ordeal occurred when PIRA was still active. This is 2021. My point throughout all this is that PIRA is gone and what remains of it is akin to an old man's drinking club. 

- social media abuse. No doubt it goes on. It goes on here too sometimes. It should stop but if this is what the AC are engaged in, which I doubt, then we really are scraping the barrel.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> I'm not going down that rabbit hole again either. You drank the Shinner Koolaid. It's like arguing evolution with a creationist.



Except what I'm pointing is contrary to SF views on 1919-21 war.
They too, like you and Clifford, are all agreed that GOIRA had a moral authority by way of a mandate to conduct sectarian massacres, murder children, disappear bodies and butcher the dead bodies of British soldiers.

I'm simply pointing out to you that they had no such mandate.
Like I said, you and Mary Lou, and Brian Stanley too, it's impossible to tell the difference.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Commonplace?  Hardly!  In a normal party, advisors advise and Ministers decide.  That's not what's going on here.  The man who needed to be made content is calling the shots (if you pardon the expression, ahem.)
> 
> Now, if this were an isolated incident, yeah, you could write it off as unfortunate.  Poor choice of words, under time pressure, that sort of thing.  But put it beside, just to take a few examples:
> 
> ...


A neat little summary - an object lesson in fairness.
You omitted the recent boycott by SF councillor MacDonncha of the commemoration of two murdered Gardai.


			
				Irish Times said:
			
		

> He (MacDonncha) said he and Sinn Féin had not snubbed the event. “There is no question of a boycott here. That is just not the case, and I wouldn’t like to see anyone making mischief out of this.”


Liar!  I suppose we should be thankful.  Not thankful to them of course but thankful that they see a need to keep their dogma as far from view as possible from a gullible millennial electorate.


			
				Irish Times said:
			
		

> MaccDonncha added “Two gardaí died in the course of their duties. Two republicans were also executed and we would pay tribute to them.


  This is the shocker.  For a start it lays bare the lie that he has just given that he didn't boycott the event.  Much more sinister we see here the McDowell syndrome.  Who could possibly see an equivalence in that incident between the murder of two guardians of the State and the execution of their murderers?  Only those who have to recite each day on bended knees before a framed copy of The Proclamation the republican Credo "I believe in the 32 county socialist republic, I believe in Bobby Sands, I believe in Bobby Storey etc. etc."


			
				Wolfe Tone said:
			
		

> Kingsmill 'bread stunt' - are you suggesting permission was sought from AC for that? Please!


Of course he wouldn't need permission for that.  Probably got a few congratulatory texts from AC for his initiative.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is the shocker.



And yet this country cannot bring itself to commemorate the lives of RIC officers. Irish men with families, who for the most part just went about their business of guardians of the State.
Unable to move on, unable to draw a line in the sand.
What a shocker indeed!


----------



## Firefly (28 Sep 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Commonplace?  Hardly!  In a normal party, advisors advise and Ministers decide.  That's not what's going on here.  The man who needed to be made content is calling the shots (if you pardon the expression, ahem.)
> 
> Now, if this were an isolated incident, yeah, you could write it off as unfortunate.  Poor choice of words, under time pressure, that sort of thing.  But put it beside, just to take a few examples:
> 
> ...


A great post


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> And yet this country cannot bring itself to commemorate the lives of RIC officers. Irish men with families, who for the most part just went about their business of guardians of the State.
> Unable to move on, unable to draw a line in the sand.
> What a shocker indeed!


I am pinching myself.  So you agree with MacDonncha that the commemoration should have included a balanced reference to the injustice of executing their IRA murderers?  I have given some respect to your provocative (I mean that as a compliment) challenge of the more conventional viewpoint but please say it isn't so that you agree with MacDonncha on that.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> So you agree with MacDonncha that the commemoration should have included a balanced reference to the injustice of executing their murderers?



Where did I say that? But for what it is worth if the underlying premise of 21st Ireland is resolve all our quarrels through peaceful and democratic forums in the absence of the gun then some time and space must be afforded to all protagonists of the conflicts that littered Ireland with violence in the 20th so that the sleeping dog does not lie, it rests in peace. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I have given some respect to your provocative (I mean that as a compliment) challenge of the more conventional viewpoint but please say it isn't so that you agree with MacDonncha on that.



It is the conventional viewpoint that is provocative. The white-washing of hideous crimes by our Republican forefathers and the transformation into gallant hero's. 

This discussion has continued over several threads now. There can be no more a galling hypocrisy of watching the sheep happy-clapping the President of Ireland euligising the memory of Thomas Clarke as he cuts a ribbon to name (yet another) landmark, bridges and train stations, of someone who was engaged in the indiscriminate bombing of bridges and train stations leading to the murder of a 14yr school boy. 
Simultaneously they propel themselves into the high moral ground and condemn the terrorists who indiscriminately bomb bridges and train stations, and shopping arenas murdering innocent boys in Warrington. 

Let it be known, that Fenian Brotherhood of Clarke and Co was everybit as popular in 1880's for its bombing campaign as the PIRA was in 1990's. 

Can you explain that? Can anyone explain why the office of President of Ireland is used, and endorsed by the political establishment across the floor, to commemorate and glorify Thomas Clarke? 

My whole position in this is that in 1998 the people of All Ireland decided that from here on in whatever our differences the gun needs to be taken out of Irish politics, permanently. 

Two ways perhaps to do that. Either condemn all of those who embarked on the futile task of freedom through violent means throughout the ages, or, 
allow everybody, all protagonists, time and space to commemorate their dead and in turn aspire to a future without violence. 

Some acknowledgement that our trouble past is more complex than the black and white good v bad guys would help. 

It was Her Majesty QE2 who said, in one of the finest speeches I have ever heard, 

"_Indeed, so much of this visit reminds us of the complexity of our history, its many layers and traditions, but also the importance of forbearance and conciliation. Of being able to bow to the past, but not be bound by it...

To all those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past I extend my sincere thoughts and deep sympathy. With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all."_

Whatever the political differences. Whether decommissioned IRA men are giving the go ahead for Renewal Heat Incentive Schemes or lobbyists for private medical organisations are getting ahead in contract negotiations, or cosy public appointments for close friends and associates, it is a far cry from the bloodshed that has riddled this country in the 20th century. 
I'm mindful of the hyperbolic paranoia being peddled and whipped up by media and political cronies for their own selfish political interests as opposed to moving to a future without paramilitaries. 

The Bobby Storey funeral arrangements were sanctioned by the PSNI. 
The Pat Howell email was about endorsing DUP public policy.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Sep 2021)

@WolfeTone so you do see the gardai that were murdered and their IRA assassins that were executed as equal victims of our troubled past and MacDonncha was right to boycott the event.  I won't debate that point with you any more, so.
But consider this.  Maybe MacDonncha and his buddies do not share your enlightened balanced view of history - that everybody was equally bad.  Maybe they really believe that in fact the IRA assassins were the heroes of that incident.  Be not fooled by their more recent endorsement of continuity RUC.  The leopard has not changed its spots.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> so you do see the gardai that were murdered and the execution of their IRA assassins as equal victims of our troubled past.



Where did I say that?

Duke, I'm not interested in propelling the men and women of violence as gallant hero's. I'm interested in promoting the futility of raising arms against each other.
I cannot change the past. Pitting one side against another is futile in my opinion.
Her Majesty thd Queen showed some level of contrition in Dublin for past deeds of her nation.
I'm suggesting that our President show some contrition for the past deeds of people in this country to her nation.

We could start by not naming bridges in 2016  after those who were intent on blowing up bridges in 1880's in England.

Regrettably, no one will answer my question on Thomas Clarke.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Sep 2021)

The topic is about what we should call our Presie.  As there seemed to be absolute agreement on that it pivoted onto more familiar boxing arenas.  One of which is your hobby horse of the hypocrisy of venerating Fenian, Easter Rising or WoI "heroes".  I am completely with you on that.
Latterly in the thread my own pivot was to the MacDonncha boycott.  I reckon about 30,000 people died in the 26 counties in 1941, most by natural causes but some not so natural.  So singling out the murder of two Gardai is certainly a heavily weighted political event.  I don't know whether it is an annual affair or an every 80 years affair but I have no doubt that it was seen by some as a way to expose SF mixed standards on the matter.  Opportunistic or not, SF were duly exposed and almost certainly due to the implicit or explicit command from the retirement cumman decided that to attend would be against the faith.
As David Trimble (you know the Nobel Peace Prize winner) so aptly observed: "SF just ain't house trained".  Not quite on the Mallon scale of witticism but not bad.
But somehow our millennials have been persuaded that this is all so last millennium.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

@WolfeTone, if the Shinners agreed with you they'd have turned up at the commemoration of the two Gardaí murdered by the IRA that they claim lineage with.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> SF were duly exposed and almost certainly due to the implicit or explicit command from the retirement cumman decided that to attend would be against the faith.



I would respectfully disagree Duke. I'm quite used to seeing SF reps at senior level attend commemorations British War dead. 

Michelle O Néill lays wreath. 

It doesn't real sit well with the narrative that the AC are instructing boycotts of Garda commemorations but permitting attendance at British War commemorations, does it? 

My gut instinct is that Mc Donncha did a solo run on this. 
Perhaps he is not prepared to move on? Perhaps he has not grasped the shifting sands under his feet? 
There is plenty of that, particularly in this jurisdiction.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> @WolfeTone, if the Shinners agreed with you they'd have turned up at the commemoration of the two Gardaí murdered by the IRA that they claim lineage with.



If you were right about AC directing SF then Michelle O Néill would hardly be attending a British War commemoration.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Michelle O Néill lays wreath.


I'm no student of history but as far as I recall the IRA weren't killing people in Belgium in 1916.


WolfeTone said:


> It doesn't real sit well with the narrative that the AC are instructing boycotts of Garda commemorations but permitting attendance at British War commemorations, does it?


See above.


WolfeTone said:


> There is plenty of that, particularly in this jurisdiction.


In this country and in Northern Ireland


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> If you were right about AC directing SF then Michelle O Néill would hardly be attending a British War commemoration.


See above


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> I'm no student of history but as far as I recall the IRA weren't killing people in Belgium in 1916.



True, but they were killing British soldiers in Ireland.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I would respectfully disagree Duke. I'm quite used to seeing SF reps at senior level attend commemorations British War dead.
> 
> Michelle O Néill lays wreath.
> 
> ...


 Very good point.  I think I'll give you that one.  Possibly the local FF/FG councillors saw it as a way to get at him, knowing his ultra orthodox views and he fell for it.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I have no doubt that it was seen by some as a way to expose SF mixed standards on the matter.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> Possibly the local FF/FG councillors saw it as a way to get at him, knowing his ultra orthodox views and he fell for it. Opportunistic or not



If it was opportunistic, you really have to question the mindset of such people to use the memory of fallen Gardai for this purpose. 
Let's hope it was just McDonncha being himself rather than some sick and perverse manipulation for political ends.


----------



## cremeegg (29 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> If the people who killed prisoners to artillery shells and blew them up were still alive and running for office, or if those now running for office glorified those people and their actions, I would have the same problem with them that I do with SF/IRA.


I said previously that you and I seemed to be in possession of different facts or something to that effect, I can’t check back on this device. 

My facts suggest that FG is in fact in government, yours seem to be different.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

cremeegg said:


> My facts suggest that FG is in fact in government, yours seem to be different.


FG didn't exist back then and nobody in office is over 120 years old. 

Am I missing something?


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> Am I missing something?



The office of the President of Ireland, sanctioned and endorsed by those sitting in government, still glorifys one of the perpetrators of an indiscriminate bombing campaigns in England that murdered a 14yr school boy.
The people you fear getting into office are already in office.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The office of the President of Ireland, sanctioned and endorsed by those sitting in government, still glorifys one of the perpetrators of an indiscriminate bombing campaigns in England that murdered a 14yr school boy.
> The people you fear getting into office are already in office.


No, that's not it.


----------



## kinnjohn (30 Sep 2021)

I don't want to get involved in any of this except maybe to broaden the mind of some of you
Some don't seem to know much about the History of Ireland in the last 100 years,
At present, I am re-reading a book I came on when I was clearing out the attic,

The book is by  Dr. Noel Browne who resigned from the inter-party government because of the resistance of all the main parties to the Mother and Child scheme,
The name of the book is
( Against The Tide,)
after reading it you would change your mind on who the real child killers in Ireland were for the last 100 years,

I am going to post an extract from page no 7, Childhood in Athlone, He also lived in Derry covered on page 1  I think,
The extract,
Much later in a diary kept by Pader Cowan an officer in the Free State army in Custom Barracks,
I read the blindingly whimsical system whereby the victims were chosen for death.
It was a simple process of taking a group of prisoners from each County, Between November 1922 and May 1923
seventy-seven Republican prisoners in all were to be executed without trial,
since these men had all being in custody at the time of the shooting of Hales and were known to be innocent of the assassination for which the reprisals were being carried out, their killing was indefensible,
The most stunning experience for me was to read how Peadar a parliamentary colleague of mine in later life
recounted the incident of the mass executions without showing any sense of horror shock, guilt, or concern whatever for the whole process or his own part in it, Yet Peadar was what is known in Ireland as 'a devoutly religious man,


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> No, that's not it.



You have no issue with those in high office glorifiying child killers.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> I don't want to get involved in any of this except maybe to broaden the mind of some of you
> Some don't seem to know much about the History of Ireland in the last 100 years,
> At present, I am re-reading a book I came on when I was clearing out the attic,
> 
> ...


There was plenty of evil done in this country by 'devoutly religious men', much of it to women and children.
Nobody comes out of the civil war looking good, particularly the Free State side. The deification of Collins and the demonisation of Dev is one of the strangest things that has happened in the last 30 years. Collins did the best thing anyone can to to protect their legacy and died young and then there was that awful film...


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> You have no issue with those in high office glorifiying child killers.


Yea I do. 
I have a bigger problem with child killers giving orders to those in power.


----------



## kinnjohn (30 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> There was plenty of evil done in this country by 'devoutly religious men', much of it to women and children.
> Nobody comes out of the civil war looking good, particularly the Free State side. The deification of Collins and the demonisation of Dev is one of the strangest things that has happened in the last 30 years. Collins did the best thing anyone can to to protect their legacy and died young and then there was that awful film...


The Catholic Church forbid a church service to the seventy-seven Executed their argument at the time is very close to yours today,
 I am of an age to have had friends in my late childhood years and early teen and into adulthood who suffered because all the main political parties benefited and turned a blind eye, some have Issued statements apoligising for the state,

It is not the state that needs to apologise FF/FG/Labour need to Issue an apology to all their victims,


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> The Catholic Church forbid a church service to the seventy-seven Executed their argument at the time is very close to yours today,


As in?


----------



## kinnjohn (30 Sep 2021)

pick one a group to Demonize and ignore the real issues involved,


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> It is not the state that needs to apologise FF/FG/Labour need to Issue an apology to all their victims,


What did Labour do?


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> pick one a group to Demonize and ignore the real issues involved,


I don't understand your point.
Can you be specific?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> I don't want to get involved in any of this except maybe to broaden the mind of some of you
> Some don't seem to know much about the History of Ireland in the last 100 years,


I decided to broaden my mind and so I consulted Wiki on Free State executions.  It is indeed as Browne described.  80 IRA prisoners were executed "legally" for offences like possession of arms.  Many more were executed extra judicially.  These were pure and simple random reprisals for IRA activity making no pretence to link those murdered with the crimes for which they were executed.  This level of executions hugely exceeded the executions by the British following the Easter Rising and during the WoI.  And of course nothing of this scale can be levelled against the British during the 30 years of the Troubles.  (Not that the British on the world stage were always choir boys, but that is a different rabbit hole.)
Which only goes to show everything has a historical context.  The Irish civil war was relatively short.  If the Free State had followed Queensberry rules the conflict would have lasted at least 30 years.  I think if I was around at the time I would have been with the RC church and the democratic majority wish that State forces should do whatever it was needed to do to impose the will of the people.
The context today is of a still vivid in living memory needless campaign of sectarian terrorism in NI which achieved nothing other than misery.  As John Hume and Seamus Mallon observed the injustices suffered by Catholics in the six counties did not warrant even a single death.
Whataboutery such as Free State murder in the civil war or Fenian atrocities in the 19th century can never exonerate in today's context the "Up the 'Ra" mentality of those aspiring to power in this State.


----------



## Deiseblue (30 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> I don't want to get involved in any of this except maybe to broaden the mind of some of you
> Some don't seem to know much about the History of Ireland in the last 100 years,
> At present, I am re-reading a book I came on when I was clearing out the attic,
> 
> ...


Doctor Noel Browne , A truly great man who endeavoured to bring in a mother and baby scheme in the late '40s which would have provided free medicine which foundered after opposition from private practice doctors and the Catholic Church who opposed " socialised medicine "
Born in Bath Street , Waterford.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

Deiseblue said:


> Born in Bath Street , Waterford.


It's amazing what people can overcome in life.


----------



## kinnjohn (30 Sep 2021)

Deiseblue said:


> Doctor Noel Browne , A truly great man who endeavoured to bring in a mother and baby scheme in the late '40s which would have provided free medicine which foundered after opposition from private practice doctors and the Catholic Church who opposed " socialised medicine "
> Born in Bath Street , Waterford.


The blame needs to be laid at the door of the main political parties FF/FG/LAB and the need to apologize for all the people who lost their lives as a result of their closeness to vested interests,

Sean Lemass used to refer to the late  Dr. Noel Browne and Jack McQuillan as the real opposition which speaks for itself, He has more respect  for them than all of the rest of the opposition put together,


Purple said:


> What did Labour do?


They spent most of the last 100 years looking after vested interest and still do to this day to this very day,
It should not be that hard to spot,


----------



## kinnjohn (30 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> Purple said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing what people can overcome in life.
> ...


The old Labour at its best, Jeffery correct not to be taken in by anything a former Irish labour party member still taking sups from FF/FG to get elected with a short spoon,


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> The old Labour at its best,


He was in 5 political parties. He also grew up in Derry so the Labour man from Waterford label doesn't really stick.


----------



## kinnjohn (30 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> He was in 5 political parties. He also grew up in Derry so the Labour man from Waterford label doesn't really stick.


That says it all you know nothing about the man,
What age was he when he left Derry,,
Then again you could be in your 40 and still be growing up


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> That says it all you know nothing about the man,
> What age was he when he left Derry,,


He left Derry when he was 5 or 6. He was in England after that, where he want to school. He was there until he want to Trinity to study medicine. His formative years were spent in England, then Dublin. His early childhood was spend in Derry. 


kinnjohn said:


> Then again you could be in your 40 and still be growing up


I have tried hard all my life never to fully grow up. So far so good.


----------



## kinnjohn (30 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> He left Derry when he was 5 or 6. He was in England after that, where he want to school. He was there until he want to Trinity to study medicine. His formative years were spent in England, then Dublin. His early childhood was spend in Derry.
> 
> I have tried hard all my life never to fully grow up. So far so good.


You like leaving gaps I see he went from Waterford to Derry to Athlone to Ballinrobe and then to London when he was 14 years old,


----------



## kinnjohn (30 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> I have tried hard all my life never to fully grow up. So far so good.


Once you keep voting the way you do,
 Working the way you do until you are at 70 or more,
 Keep paying high taxes to keep retirees like me humming along,
so far so good,
all happy,


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> You like leaving gaps I see he went from Waterford to Derry to Athlone to Ballinrobe and then to London when he was 14 years old,


Yes, but he left Waterford as a baby, spent his early childhood in Derry and his teenaged years in England, before moving to Dublin. 
I'm aware that the family spent some time in Athlone and Mato but you asked what age is was when he left Derry. You didn't ask for a biography. If you did I'd have recommended Against the Tide.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> Once you keep voting the way you do,
> Working the way you do until you are at 70 or more,
> Keep paying high taxes to keep retirees like me humming along,
> so far so good,
> all happy,


There'll always be freeloaders, it's just one of those costs of civilisation.


----------



## kinnjohn (30 Sep 2021)

Purple said:


> There'll always be freeloaders, it's just one of those costs of civilisation.


You do know This Government wants you to go Green,


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Sep 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I decided to broaden my mind



Interesting!   



Duke of Marmalade said:


> 80 IRA prisoners were executed "legally" for offences like possession of arms. Many more were executed extra judicially. These were pure and simple random reprisals for IRA activity making no pretence to link those murdered with the crimes for which they were executed.



And at the time, I imagine, it was an attempt by the new fledgling Free State to lay down a marker, a political decision - the war is over, partition is here to stay, get used to it.

Of course, regardless of how hard the struggle the GOIRA military effort was against the British Empire, the prospect that the 'Irregulars' found themselves in a minority amongst their own people must have sapped the will out of so many.

And as you point out, the non-application of 'Queensbury rules' was surely the quick and decivise way to deal with those not ready to toe the line.

It's an interesting choice of words I have to say. The concept of playing dirty when needed, especially when its the 'good guys' doing it, and all the more so if you can get away with it.

It is this whitewashing of 'good guy' terrorism in order to direct all attention guilt, blame and shame onto 'bad guy' terrorism that is the perpetual flaw that hinders all peaceful progress.

As Hume and Mallon observed not one injustice against Catholics warranted one death. They would of course include the 14 victims of Bloody Sunday who set out to protest peacefully against those injustices.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Sep 2021)

@WolfeTone I am saying that the morality of any violation of the fifth commandment should be seen in context.  Was the atomic bombing of 80,000 civilians in Hiroshima the biggest terrorist act in human history?  Arguably so and also the most successful.  Was it more immoral than lining up 10 innocent Protestants and mowing them to death?  I won't go down that rabbit hole. 
So this is a matter of personal moral compass and for me "Up the 'Ra" triumphalism, and having regard to what the 'Ra have done in my living memory, make them morally unfit for government in this State.  That's beside Bertie's argument that their policies make them unfit for government in any case.  
Their attempts to justify this Up the 'Ra stance and to glorify their terrorist campaign should be seen as repugnant irrespective of any whataboutery.


----------



## Peanuts20 (1 Oct 2021)

I've heard the Ra's bombs go off in London so when I heard Martin Ferris telling us all earlier in the week that the guys who did that were not criminals, it makes my blood boil. SF can't have it both ways, they need to own up and come clean. Cold day in hell before I'd vote for them


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am saying that the morality of any violation of the fifth commandment should be seen in context.



I agree.

But allow me to close shut that most probable provocative rabbit hole you casually toss out there in case there be any ambiguity in its inference.
That Hiroshima and Kingsmill can been seen in any comparative context is an absurdity of gigantic proportions.
Kingsmill should of course be seen in the context of a sectarian reprisal for the slaughter of six Catholics in the days before, and not in the context of WWII.

I think it was Stalin who said (and admittedly Im paraphrasing here) , "_Killing ten Protestant workmen is a tragedy. 
Killing 80,000 Japanese civilians is a strategical strike statistically likley to successfully disable the enemy." _

That said, the personal moral compass is after all a fundamental entitlement to every human conscience without prejudice.
I'm sure you will agree?

If you do agree, then as you point the Provo triumphalism is clearly repugnant to you.
I don't contest that from you or anyone else.
And without equivocation I say now, as before, the existence of paramilitaries on this island is a cancer.

Nowadays, the indiscriminate bombers of bridges and child killers is a cause for Presidential gushing and bridge naming.
Sure why not? It was afterall '_a different time_', and the Irish Labour Party (in power at time and sanctioning the Presidents speech about Clarke's life) had this to say to say about the blatant and extensive indiscriminate bombing campaign of public bridges and train stations.

_ "_he was arrested in London in 1883". _

Sin é.

No reason given why. Just a glorification of his exploits before and after that time.

Surely that must make some people's blood boil?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Oct 2021)

@WolfeTone We agree that Kingsmills was about sectarian revenge and Hiroshima was about ending a world war, so that rabbit hole is firmly closed.
Leaving aside all the whataboutery and the ridiculous invoking of Hiroshima (was that me?) would you be comfortable voting for a person or party that celebrates its victory with shouts of "Up the 'Ra"?


----------



## Purple (1 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> _ "_he was arrested in London in 1883". _
> 
> Sin é.
> 
> ...


I would have concerns about a leader being elected in Serbia who glorified the war there in the 90's.
I'd be less concerned about a leader in Mongolia who glorified their former Empire when though, by any measure, the Mongol empire did more harm than, well, anyone ever.
Time diminishes the crimes of history. Like gravity it is based on size and proximity. The actions of Clarke are historical. The actions of the IRA are political. They will, if the Shinners let them, become historical.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Time diminishes the crimes of history



No it doesn't. This is the attempted whitewashing. Time diminishes the hurt of the crime for sure, but it does not diminish the crime.
By this reasoning, there is some opaque timeline where a future President of Ireland will be able to gush the praises of those IRA volunteers who killed Johnathon Ball and Tim Parry.

I hope to God there will not ever be. 

The indiscriminate bombing of public landmarks was as wrong in 1880's as it is today. 
Higgins speech was repulsive. Completely omitting and by-passing the actions of Clarke and IRB by simply saying he was arrested in London in 1883 without stating for what. Lest anyone be wondering what for here is a sample list from Wiki of the gallant activities of the IRB that Clarke was a proud member of.

1881

14 Jan 1881: A bomb exploded at a military barracks in Salford, Lancashire.[1] A young boy was killed[2]
16 Mar 1881: A bomb was found and defused in the Mansion House, London.[1]
5 May 1881: Bomb explodes at Chester Barracks, Chester.[3]
16 May 1881: Bomb attack at Liverpool police barracks.
10 June 1881: Bomb planted at Liverpool Town Hall,[1]
30 June 1881: Disguised explosives found aboard SS Malta at Liverpool.[3]
2 July 1881: Disguised explosives found aboard SS Bavaria in Liverpool.[3]
1882

12 May 1882: A bomb exploded at the Mansion House, London.[1]
1883

20 January 1883: In Glasgow, bombs exploded at Tradeston Gasworks, Possil Road Bridge and Buchanan Street Station. About a dozen people were injured.[1][3]
15 Mar 1883: In London, bombs exploded at government buildings at Whitehall and at the offices of _The Times_ newspaper. There were no injuries.[1]
29 March 1883: Fenians Denis Deasy, Timothy Featherstone and Patsy Flanagan are arrested while police in County Cork raid the homes and businesses of associates of Deasy and Flanagan.[3]
28 May 1883: Future Easter Rising leader Tom Clarke is sentenced to penal servitude for life.[3]



Purple said:


> The actions of Clarke are historical. The actions of the IRA are political. They will, if the Shinners let them, become historical.



It is time the office of the President of Ireland is no longer used by the political class to uphold and affirm the perpetrators of violent actions as a means to achieve _their_ political aims. 
Until such time, then all and every political opponent can seek to justify and seek refuge through the gun.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> would you be comfortable voting for a person or party that celebrates its victory with shouts of "Up the 'Ra"?



No I am not comfortable with it, but neither am I comfortable with the whitewashing of violent actions across the political board.

As I have mentioned before, I witnessed my son take part in mock demonstration of the 1916 rebellion at school. They had one lad read out the Proclamation and a bunch of other kids standing in military poses etc while the baying sheep of parents gushed at the sight of their little ones being bred into the spin of the gallantry of armed rebellion.

I'm saying all of this needs to stop. Ireland needs to recognise that while the principles of pursuing an independent Irish Republic is legitimate, that 1916 was an abject failure, it had no mandate, it led to war, civil war the partition of the country and in no small part is the inspiration of PIRA generation to rise up and use arms.

The people endorsed, overwhelmingly, in 1998, that our political divisions be resolved through peaceful and democratic programs. The 26 county political establishment needs to cop itself on and move into the 21st century leaving the baggage of militarism behind.


----------



## Deiseblue (1 Oct 2021)

I have never and will never vote SF but the beauty of their popularity is that they have driven the other major political parties increasingly to the left and given the fact that SF post the next election are likely to be the largest political party in the State it will be brilliant armchair viewing to see which party pre election will endeavour to match SF promises - perhaps they all will ?
I believe that post the next election we will be the most left leaning country in Europe.


----------



## kinnjohn (1 Oct 2021)

Deiseblue said:


> I have never and will never vote SF but the beauty of their popularity is that they have driven the other major political parties increasingly to the left and given the fact that SF post the next election are likely to be the largest political party in the State it will be brilliant armchair viewing to see which party pre election will endeavour to match SF promises - perhaps they all will ?
> I believe that post the next election we will be the most left leaning country in Europe.


The country moving left has nothing to do with SF, more got to do with the main political parties failed to reform
They have taxed direct work to feather the nest of other groups, to the point the direct working population no longer have any respect for them,
 on one hand, they are losing the support  of the direct workers they now have to start taxing  the only group of supporters they have left it is not going to be a pretty sight watching their supporters adjust to the new reality,

The longer it takes the main political parties to reform the further left the country will go,


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am saying that the morality of any violation of the fifth commandment should be seen in context.  Was the atomic bombing of 80,000 civilians in Hiroshima the biggest terrorist act in human history?  Arguably so and also the most successful.  Was it more immoral than lining up 10 innocent Protestants and mowing them to death?  I won't go down that rabbit hole.
> So this is a matter of personal moral compass and for me "Up the 'Ra" triumphalism, and having regard to what the 'Ra have done in my living memory, make them morally unfit for government in this State.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> 80 IRA prisoners were executed "legally" for offences like possession of arms.  Many more were executed extra judicially.  These were pure and simple random reprisals for IRA activity making no pretence to link those murdered with the crimes for which they were executed. ...
> Which only goes to show everything has a historical context.  The Irish civil war was relatively short.  If the Free State had followed Queensberry rules the conflict would have lasted at least 30 years.



It seems to me Duke that what you are saying about the IRA campaign is that you condemn it because it didn't succeed.

If they had just tied enough people to landmines (As the Free State forces did at Ballyseedy the single largest extrajudicial killing in the Civil War) that the Brits let them have their way you would be supportive of that.

From Wikipedia,
That night, 6/7 March, nine Republican prisoners who had previously been tortured, with bones broken with hammers, were taken from Ballymullen Barracks in Tralee to Ballyseedy crossroads and tied to a land mine which was detonated, after which the survivors were machine-gunned.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> It seems to me Duke that what you are saying about the IRA campaign is that you condemn it because it didn't succeed.


I don't really know what I am saying.  It's just that any criticism against SF/IRA gets deflected by _Wolfie _with whatabout the Fenians, whatabout the GOIRA.
Despite the pragmatic compromise of the GFA, NI is still a very divided society.  "Up the 'Ra" would be typical banter in  republican heartlands, say if Celtic were to score a goal against Rangers.
But there is something very disturbing about "Up the 'Ra" being a shout of triumphalism in a Southern Irish election.  In this case it is not a sectarian slogan, which ironically would be less disturbing.  It is much worse - it is a subversive fingers to this State.  If a FF politician had made such a similar cry of triumph, she would have been fired on the spot. 
Of course shouting "Up the 'Ra" is not on the same scale as strapping guys to landmines.  That is not the point.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I don't really know what I am saying.



I will try help.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But there is something very disturbing about "Up the 'Ra" being a shout of triumphalism in a Southern Irish election.



As is the office of the President of Ireland in 2016 being used to glorify the deeds of a participant in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in England.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of course shouting "Up the 'Ra" is not on the same scale as strapping guys to landmines. That is not the point.



What is your point?


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is much worse - it is a subversive fingers to this State.



Traditionally Republicans did not accept the 26 county state. They did not agree with the compromises in the Treaty. That feeling more or less keenly felt is widespread.

There is also a socialist tradition that does not accept the state as they feel it falls short of the ideals of the proclamation.

The really surprising one, surprising to me at least, is that tradition in Fine Gael that doe not really recognise the state. When Alan Shatter retroactively pardoned the soldiers of the 'Free State' army who deserted to join the British Army in WW2. That really is, subversive fingers to this state, as you so neatly put it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Oct 2021)

@cremeegg not sure about the last point but I see you accept that SF/IRA are by their DNA subversive to this State.  The one consolation that gives me is that it has delayed and will delay, hopefully forever, their being accepted as coalition partners by parties loyal to this State.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The one consolation that gives me is that it has delayed and will delay, _hopefully forever, _their being accepted as coalition partners by parties loyal to this State.



It is _wishful thinking _I would suggest. 
Far from being subversive SF have taken the political route through the institutions of this State and it would appear their raison d'etre of a United Ireland is a concept that resonates profoundly with the vast majority of people of this island. 
Of course, the manner of what a UI would look like is a Brexit-esque conundrum. 
But the only real subversion is the willful sustaining of partition in its current form, contrary to the Constitution of the State.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @cremeegg not sure about the last point



The last point is that FG don't really believe in the 26 county state anymore than SF do.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> It is _wishful thinking _I would suggest.


Well historically my wishes have come true.  In any other country in Europe MLM would now be Teashop, SF clearly were the moral winners of the last election.
Going forward will FF crack and do a deal with a subversive party?  Yes it is my wish that it won't happen.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> The last point is that FG don't really believe in the 26 county state anymore than SF do.


I'm sorry @cremeegg but whatever Jesuitical point you are making goes way over my head.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I'm sorry @cremeegg but whatever Jesuitical point you are making goes way over my head.


Nothing Jesuitical about it.

During WW2 over 4,000 members of the Irish army deserted to join the British army. Although they were not individually court martialled at the time they were deprived of their pensions etc.

Fast forward to 2013 and a FG government under Alan Shatter as minister gave them an amnesty.

That seems to me to suggest that FG see deserting the Irish army to join the British army as a reasonable thing to do. That service in the armed forces of the 26 county state is not a serious matter. That soldiers who choose to serve the British were doing right. There is a streak in FG that sees the 26 county state as a bit of a joke and we are really British.

When SF disrespect the 36 county state FG are all indignant but some of them really have no great respect for it either.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Nothing Jesuitical about it.
> 
> During WW2 over 4,000 members of the Irish army deserted to join the British army. Although they were not individually court martialled at the time they were deprived of their pensions etc.
> 
> ...


I am unaware of any instance where a FG successful TD has shouted Up the Brits in celebration.  I think even the Jesuits would struggle to argue that FG are more subversive than SF/IRA.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Oct 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade it was not so much as shouting "Up the Brits" as John Brutals grovelling "_this is the greatest day of my life_", at the reception of Prince Charles was enough for all to see.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Oct 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade you set your sights too high for SF. All they need is to get into government, not necessarily obtain the Taoiseach position.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @Duke of Marmalade you set your sights too high for SF. All they need is to get into government, not necessarily obtain the Taoiseach position.


And there I see another safeguard.  The only realistic prospect of SF/IRA getting into government here is via a FF coalition.  On current arithmetic that would have to mean MLM being Teashop.  In a way SF are being too successful for their own good.  A close second fiddle to FF in the polls would be the perfect stepping stone - an immediate jump to Teashop would surely be too much for the FF faithful.
I am also greatly comforted by @cremeegg's assertion that FG are thinly veiled Brit lovers as surely they will never facilitate SF/IRA getting into power.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The only realistic prospect of SF/IRA getting into government here is via a FF coalition.


The Eamonn Ó Cuív wing of Republican FF would probably be happier in SF than they are in FF.


----------



## Betsy Og (4 Oct 2021)

Other that John "I'm personally responsible for 72% of soup consumption in the State" Bruton, I don't see that FG are some sort of quasi unionist party. It's just something thrown at them by haters who like throwing left wing shapes. They claim their lineage from Michael Collins - hardly a unionist.....

PSF have long droned on about being the keepers of the 2nd Dáil and other related fairytales, Cullinane gave us "Well, do you know what? We broke the bastards.

“We broke the Free State and this country will never be the same again - because the people are after taking their voice and it’s up to us now to deliver."

I laugh at the last bit, "up to us now to deliver" - that will being their undoing. Barstool falls up 4,000% as PSF fail to deliver......


Put them in power, hang onto your hat, batten down the hatches, and when we get to the election after that we'll see some rebalancing.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Oct 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Put them in power, hang onto your hat, batten down the hatches,



I don't see that at all. Just look at their performance up North. Hardly radical. 
I think when they get into power they will be as every bit (in)competent at resolving the social and economic issues of the day as any other party. 
They will just become part of the parliamentary furniture with the added caveat that they are active on a 32 county basis and not just paying lip-service to the Constitution.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't see that at all. Just look at their performance up North. Hardly radical.


They are a minority in a glorified County Council up North. They'd be running a country is they were in power here. They could do waaaayyyy more damage.


WolfeTone said:


> I think when they get into power they will be as every bit (in)competent at resolving the social and economic issues of the day as any other party.


I don't think they'll achieve anything as the Public Service and Healthcare vested interests are stronger than any government, but it will be very hard to undo their populist tax and spending spree which will damage the productive section of the economy but do nothing to improve public services since the problem there isn't resources but rather the squandering of those resources. 


WolfeTone said:


> They will just become part of the parliamentary furniture with the added caveat that they are active on a 32 county basis and not just paying lip-service to the Constitution.


Every government respects that aspiration in the constitution.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Every government respects that aspiration in the constitution.



Of course, they just pay lip service to it mostly. 
In fairness to FG they did a good job in preventing the return of physical infrastructure on the border. They just need to get over the psychological border between North and South. 
Just like loyalism and the Irish Sea border, its just a state of mind.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> its just a state of mind.


Aren't most things.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't see that at all. Just look at their performance up North. Hardly radical.


I like to think there are checks and balances in our modern society which would prevent looney tunes who seize democratic power doing too much damage.  The experience in the North is an example, but only because they have very limited powers and in any case completely cancel each other out.  Another great example is The Donald.  Now there was one looney tune but in the end he was more or less kept in check.
The last big test in these parts was the financial crisis.  Fierce Doherty was all for burning the bondholders and of course their DNA would reject entirely the idea of ceding sovereignty to the Troika.   I shudder to think where we would be today if SF were in power during that crisis.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Fierce Doherty was all for burning the bondholders and of course their DNA would reject entirely the idea of ceding sovereignty to the Troika.



Oh yeah, but you have to look beyond the theatrical hysterics of the Dáil.
The devil is in the detail

Devil in the detail

In fact I think it was the Labour Party that were the ones who refused the bank bailout... and then they were voted into power!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Oh yeah, but you have to look beyond the theatrical hysterics of the Dáil.
> The devil is in the detail
> 
> Devil in the detail
> ...


Let's close off this rabbit hole quick!
SF played the populist line all the way through that period, for the depositors, against the banks, against the bondholders, against austerity, against the Troika.
But possibly if in power they would sing a different tune.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am unaware of any instance where a FG successful TD has shouted Up the Brits in celebration.  I think even the Jesuits would struggle to argue that FG are more subversive than SF/IRA.



Not more subversive, but subversive from a completely different direction.

SF played the populist line all the way through that period, for the depositors, against the banks, against the bondholders, against austerity, against the Troika.

Actually it is not all that long ago that SF were trying desperately for respectability. Remember the water charges, they were in favour before they were opposed.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But possibly if in power they would sing a different tune.



Now you are getting it. 
It's one thing to beat the drum over what the government is doing (that's what opposition is supposed to do) , it's a different matter being in government. 
And the track record, if NI is anything to go by, is pretty standard stuff. 
Throw in the vote for the bank guarantee and you get a glimpse of the real politik at play. 
Like I've highlighted before, Bob Storeys funeral was not an orchestration of PIRA Army Council but a gathering officially approved and sanctioned by the PSNI. 
RHI was a SF minister endorsing a DUP public policy scheme. 

"_The_ _times they are a-changing." _


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Actually it is not all that long ago that SF were trying desperately for respectability. Remember the water charges, they were in favour before they were opposed.


There you go.  But in fai


WolfeTone said:


> Now you are getting it.
> It's one thing to beat the drum over what the government is doing (that's what opposition is supposed to do) , it's a different matter being in government.
> And the track record, if NI is anything to go by, is pretty standard stuff.
> Throw in the vote for the bank guarantee and you get a glimpse of the real politik at play.
> ...


No credit for supporting the bank guarantee.  David McWilliams' "best initiative ever" was very popular.
Still, I don't want my TDs shouting "Up the 'Ra" even if they are tired and emotional.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2021)

Colm Tóbín writes on Northern Ireland in the Irish Times today.


----------



## Baby boomer (5 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Colm Tóbín writes on Northern Ireland in the Irish Times today.


Good piece, although I wouldn't agree 100% with him.  Incidentally, it was published in the Guardian a few days ago.  This seems to be an increasing trend at the Irish Times - sourcing material from such as the Guardian and the New York Times - the big problem with this is that it's often the best material in the paper and its self-produced content is declining in quality.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> This seems to be an increasing trend at the Irish Times - sourcing material from such as the Guardian and the New York Times - the big problem with this is that it's often the best material in the paper and its self-produced content is declining in quality.


The Independent seems to be a scrap book of yesterdays newspapers peppered with local opinion pieces.
The Irish Times is increasingly using the same model. That's what happens when newsrooms are operating on a shoe-string because Facebook and other social media outlets have cannibalised their revenue.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Colm Tóbín writes on Northern Ireland in the Irish Times today.



Interesting piece no doubt. But it reverts, once again, to the comforts of the partitionist mindset - '_talk of united Ireland is dangerous' , 'who will pay for health service', 'we don't want their sectarian down here keep it up there where us Southerners are comfortable with it' _

In 1990's Germany began a process of reunification that was broadly welcomed across the globe.
West Germany, being an economic powerhouse, was landed with an economic basket case, East Germany.
I'm sure there were some in Germany who feared who will pay for it all?
It didn't stop them from realising their ambition of a United Germany. As I recall, the cost of German reunification was a distant second to the realisation of the German people's political aspiration.

The first thing that needs to be established is the principle of the people of Ireland, North and South, wanting reunification. We are still a long way from that, there is no date set for a border poll.
Although a border poll is the subject of much discussion and the notion of a UI has some impetus behind it, by virtue of Brexit and nothing else. 

The second thing that needs to be established is what a UI would look like. Its one thing to vote for a UI, but pulling an article 50 Brexit style deadline for reunification would be disastrous. 

My best bet would be, in the event of a Yes North and South, would be, along with British government, EU and US a sustained investment programme over a decade or so in preparation for a UI. 
Identity issues, individuals sovereignty matters will need to be caressed into a UI. In other words it has to be shown that in a UI the sky does not fall in, Britishness and cultural identity are front and centre protected. 
The social and economic issues of health, education, employment, housing etc will be the social and economic issues till the end of time. Identifying a more accessible health service in one jurisdiction while ignoring better incomes in the other is just political musical chairs. If life was so much better than in either jurisdiction it would be evident by people moving into the jurisdiction. I don't think this is the case?


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm sure there were some in Germany who feared who will pay for it all?
> It didn't stop them from realising their ambition of a United Germany. As I recall, the cost of German reunification was a distant second to the realisation of the German people's political aspiration.


At the time of re-unification the population of West Germany was 66.5 million. The East had a little over 16 million. 
Economic, social and political conditions in West Germany were vastly superior. 
Germany had been a united country in the modern era. It was re-unification rather than unification.
There was broad support from a clear majority for re-unification on both sides of the border.

Basically it is meaningless to compare the situation in Ireland and Northern Ireland to West and East Germany.


----------



## Baby boomer (5 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> The Independent seems to be a scrap book of yesterdays newspapers peppered with local opinion pieces.
> The Irish Times is increasingly using the same model. That's what happens when newsrooms are operating on a shoe-string because Facebook and other social media outlets have cannibalised their revenue.


I quite agree.  So much of the news is just press releases topped and tailed by jack-of-all-trades (and pretty poorly paid) journalists.  There's no value in the "quality" broadsheets doing this - it's freely available online and nobody's going to pay for it.  Neither is the click bait advertising model sustainable when so many outlets are doing it, and doing it better. 

Where the broadsheets could add value - and create a product worth paying for - is through detailed analysis pieces, written by correspondents who know their topic, who can take the international stories of the day, and put them in an Irish context.  To take an example, how will the looming Chinese property market crisis impact on the Irish economy, trade, employment, pensions and so on? 

The other option to add value is through well-written, thought-provoking, opinion pieces.  Again, the Irish Times fails to hit the mark and is disimproving rapidly. And the independent was never great to begin with.  Actually, the opinion section of the Irish Examiner is simultaneously coming on in leaps and bounds, so it can be done. 

But quality broadsheets are on life support and going downmarket will do nothing except buy a little time.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Basically it is meaningless to compare the situation in Ireland and Northern Ireland to West and East Germany.


Absolutely meaningless.  The partition of Germany was done by the super powers, the wishes of the people were totally irrelevant.
A more relevant comparison is the partition of the Indian sub continent.  Pakistan welcomed partition as Muslims were a minority in the sub continent as a whole.  The Hindus were against it.  This exactly mirrors the attitude of Protestants and Catholics respectively to the partition of our island.
I wonder will we see a poll in those parts about ending the partition.
Though _Wolfie _is right that for many the economics of the issue are very secondary.  I am sure independence in 1921 was not the smartest thing from an economic perspective.  Similarly the Celtic Tiger years, when RoI was the poster boy of the EU, didn't persuade Unionists to want to climb aboard.


----------



## cremeegg (5 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A more relevant comparison is the partition of the Indian sub continent.  Pakistan welcomed partition as Muslims were a minority in the sub continent as a whole.  The Hindus were against it.



And what a stunning success that was. Approx. 10 million people displaced, nearly 1 million killed and continuing violence in Kashmir.

The Brits make as big a mess on the way out as on the way in.


----------



## cremeegg (5 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Colm Tóbín writes on Northern Ireland in the Irish Times today.



A remarkable piece, 'the spectre of Sinn Féin'.

Colm has his own ideas about Ireland and what it is to be Irish, the amazing thing is that he seems not to recognise that there are other visions.

In my view he demonstrates a classic example of what Edward Said  calls the colonised mind.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> And what a stunning success that was. Approx. 10 million people displaced, nearly 1 million killed and continuing violence in Kashmir.


Are you arguing that without the partition of the sub continent they would have lived happily ever after?  That seems to be the _Wolfie_ stance - all our problems are the fault of partition.


cremeegg said:


> The Brits make as big a mess on the way out as on the way in.


You are sounding like Greta Thunberg.  Did you know she blames the Brits on climate change because they invented the industrial revolution.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Oct 2021)

@Purple I wasn't making a direct comparison between Germany and Ireland, that would be futile. 
Merely making the point, as @Duke of Marmalade acknowledges, that the economic considerations often play second fiddle to nationalistic aspirations. 
In Tóibíns case, trotting out the "_who will pay for the health service?" _is irrelevant unless you take the entire package of what a UI may look like and the overall standard of living.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That seems to be the _Wolfie_ stance



Please!! Don't try put words into my mouth. 

Comparing the partition of India as a direct comparison to Ireland is also futile as the direct comparison of Germany. 
While the Duke can make a reasonable reference on the religious grounds there is simply, like Germany, an innumerable amount of other variables to consider.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Please!! Don't try put words into my mouth.
> 
> Comparing the partition of India as a direct comparison to Ireland is also futile as the direct comparison of Germany.
> While the Duke can make a reasonable reference on the religious grounds there is simply, like Germany, an innumerable amount of other variables to consider.


I suppose there is no romantic appeal to uniting the sub continent, I doubt whether even Hindus yearn for the possibility.  
It seems that just because when you look at Ireland on the map it looks like this cuddly teddy bear with a horribly red head that folk get sentimental for a green UI.  But there also those who want to "Up the 'Ra" to the unionist majority who live in that red head.


----------



## cremeegg (5 Oct 2021)

Article on the costs/economic implications of a United Ireland









						Northern Ireland’s £9.4bn subvention and the cost of Irish unity
					

The North was one of nine UK regions to run a fiscal deficit in 2019




					www.irishtimes.com
				




It makes the point that the standstill costs would be €2-3bn a year, but of course there would not be a standstill, the evolving economic situation would be key.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But there also those who want to "Up the 'Ra" to the unionist majority who live in that red head.



Imagine Duke, there wouldnt even be a Ra if the Unionist minority had shown their subservient allegiance to the Crown and not betrayed the democratic will of His Majestys Parliament by threatening civil war in the United Kingdom.
Loyalists? Traitors to the Crown, traitors to Ireland.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Oct 2021)

@cremeegg that is very good considered article. Refreshing from the standard "we can't afford it!" nonsense that is most ofted peddled in Irish media.


----------



## mathepac (5 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> So much of the news is just press releases topped and tailed by jack-of-all-trades (and pretty poorly paid) journalists.


These "copy and paste" so-called journalists are so poor I am surprised they are paid at all.


----------



## Purple (6 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @cremeegg that is very good considered article. Refreshing from the standard "we can't afford it!" nonsense that is most ofted peddled in Irish media.


Yea, but it was just him reading the DCU paper, though it was well written.
I do agree that the subvention is a red herring, the real cost will be the wave of public sector bodies, healthcare systems and services that won't be properly integrated. It'll make the HSE look good, okay, maybe that's an exaggeration; nothing could make the HSE look good.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Article on the costs/economic implications of a United Ireland
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A bad article.  The bit that I am not sure of is the share of National Debt.  Nearly all modern societies have public capital and infrastructure assets funded by national debt.  Until relatively recently NI had a motorway infrastructure that put us to shame.  I don't get the bit that says that NI has not availed of UK national debt for  decades.  What, has there been no public capital spend in NI?  Though it is a very interesting precedent that the Free State was given a clean slate.


----------



## Purple (6 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Though it is a very interesting precedent that the Free State was given a clean slate.


Government spending as a proportion of the national economy was much smaller in the 1920's. Public Healthcare and Social Welfare hardly existed back then. It's a different story now.


----------



## Baby boomer (6 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A good article.  The bit that I am not sure of is the share of National Debt.  Nearly all modern societies have public capital and infrastructure assets funded by national debt.  Though it is a very interesting precedent that the Free State was given a clean slate.


I think the clean slate was a pragmatic solution.  If you allocate the debt, then you have to allocate the assets in a similar proportion.  I'm sure the UK didn't fancy handing over a share of its nice London based assets to the Free State.  Nor would it do likewise for any future Northern Ireland.

But one issue we would need to come to terms with is the different spending levels North and South.  Ireland pays *a lot* more generous social welfare benefits, and public service pay than the UK does.    Hard to imagine either side of the political divide in Northern Ireland being happy with that!  The clamour for "equality" "fairness" and all the rest would be hard to ignore and impossible to resist.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Oct 2021)

Actually on reflection that report is seriously in error on at least two fronts.


			
				Doyle of DCU said:
			
		

> The UK currently pays pensions to a number of people in the Republic who have previously worked in the UK. It also signed up to pay its share of liabilities for the pensions of EU civil servants as part of the recent Brexit negotiations.
> 
> So while a new all-island administration would be liable for pensions going forward, it wouldn’t necessarily be liable for existing ones, Doyle’s study contends.


The Brexit comparison actually points in the other direction.  The UK left the EU and has agreed to carry its accrued pension liabilities with it.  NI would be leaving the UK and should by this precedent bring its pension liabilities with it.  Pensions are deferred remuneration.  In the case of NI public servants they represent deferred remuneration for service done to NI and should therefore be a liability of NI.



			
				Doyle of DCU said:
			
		

> National debt
> 
> Another sizeable component of the subvention relates to the North’s share of the UK’s national debt and the annual repayments arising from it. This was put at £2.4 billion in 2019. But this is largely an accounting exercise as the North hasn’t contributed to the UK’s debt liability for decades.



For an academic this displays a breathtaking ignorance of the national finances.  The National Debt arises from fiscal deficits, state expenditure exceeding state revenue.  This has always been the case in NI and in fact NI should have a disproportionate share of the UK's National Debt.  One might question whether its populace were willing contributors to for example its war effort.  A majority certainly were so the most that could be argued for here is a discount for nationalist dissaproval.  On the other hand the huge deficits arising from the Troubles should largely be debited to the nationalist side - I'd say it evens out.
I hope this piece of nonsense was trashed when it had its academic outing.  It seems that it had for its rather eye watering conclusions have not really grabbed even the SF/IRA propaganda machine.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @cremeegg that is very good considered article. Refreshing from the standard "we can't afford it!" nonsense that is most ofted peddled in Irish media.


That was my initial reaction.  I hope I have persuaded you that the report itself was really very bad.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That was my initial reaction.  I hope I have persuaded you that the report itself was really very bad.



On the contrary.
What you have shown, in part, is the other side of the debate.
In the event of a Yes, North and South, all of the above and more will form the basis of negotiation in preparation for a UI.

Critically, in the event of their being a Yes vote, it will be in everyone's interest to make it work as smoothly as possible.
I don't think it would be in Britains interest to lumber New Ireland with unpayable debt?
Why have maurandering gangs of unemployed youth ripe for paramilitary pickings when with some investment and debt write downs you could offer them a future, an education, and perhaps banish the spectre of paramilitaries forever?

The UK can push the EU for support also. Our friends in America will want to rally behind the UI also.

A UI would could potentially be the greatest economic expansion this tiny island has ever seen.
We should go for it!


----------



## Purple (6 Oct 2021)

@WolfeTone, I don't think even you are that blindly optimistic about what a united Ireland look like.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> On the contrary.


You have misinterpreted me.  I am not arguing that financial considerations are a serious impediment to a UI.  I agree with the reasons you give, that with the US and the UK and the EU behind such a move, the relatively trivial amounts involved will be addressed.
I am saying that the report was seriously flawed on at least two counts.
(1) They argued that following Brexit precedent NI should not be liable for accrued pensions.  That is exactly the opposite.  The UK are liable for past EU pensions accrued on their behalf.
(2) They argued that NI has not contributed to the UK National Debt for decades.  But even by his own calculations NI has been sub-vented by €3bn p.a.  Maybe he believes in the magic money tree but serious economists have no difficulty in understanding that that is an accrual of the National Debt.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> @WolfeTone, I don't think even you are that blindly optimistic about what a united Ireland look like.



Perhaps not, but it's good to give some balance against those who are blindly and perpetually pessimistic. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am saying that the report was seriously flawed on at least two counts.



Perhaps it is, I won't disagree. As will the numerous other thoughts, views and studies will be considered flawed in the discourse of what a UI would/should look like.

I'm guessing there are as many reports arguing the benefits of Brexit as there are the deficiencies of Brexit? 

For a UI it will be the same. 
In my personal opinion, assuming a Yes vote achieved through exclusively peaceful and democratic means, then the positives of a UI will far outweigh negatives.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Perhaps it is, I won't disagree. As will the numerous other thoughts, views and studies will be considered flawed in the discourse of what a UI would/should look like.


You are slippery.  "Whatabout" (your only club it seems) the numerous other thoughts, views and studies that will be considered flawed.
This is not a matter of opinion.  The UK is inheriting its pension liabilities when it leaves the EU.  The equivalent would be that NI would inherit its pension liabilities when it leaves the UK.  I am not expressing a view as to whether such an equivalence is relevant. I am pointing out that John Doyle in an academic paper draws the exact opposite equivalence.  Rather reminiscent of Brian Lucey's deposit selling moment.
Even more stark is his assertion that NI has not contributed to the UK National Debt for decades when even he can only talk down that contribution to €3bn per annum.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Oct 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade if you say the report is fundamentally flawed on two counts I will take your word for it.
It matters not a jot. Nothing slippery about it. 
No matter who produces what report and offers whatever conclusions there will be someone on the other side of that conclusion to argue it down, based on fact or based on their own perspective.

It's why headlines of "who will pay for the health service" are nothing but drivvel propagated by partitionists to try maintain the status quo and perpetuate the deep divisions in NI.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @Duke of Marmalade if you say the report is fundamentally flawed on two counts I will take your word for it.


I decided not to let this one go.  Professor Doyle's assertion that the NI has not contributed to the UK national debt for decades is really bewildering.  What can he mean?  All I can think of is that he is referring to the physical process of issuing debt.  This in the UK is done by the Bank of England/Treasury so does he mean that no bond sales have been done in Belfast for decades?  I trust that even you, my dear _Wolfie_, can see that this is nonsense.
So I googled this Prof Doyle.  It turns out he is Professor of Conflict Resolution  Now that is even more makey uppey than Envoy for Freedom of Expression.  Also of interest is the following retweet in recent days:


			
				Retweet of Niall O'Doherty said:
			
		

> The claim here that Irish govt figures are “stirring up emotion on the subject of a united Ireland in order to hold back the tide of Sinn Féin” is flat out wrong. Its deeply disappointing to see such an unhelpful contribution from such a thoughtful writer. (Colm Toibin's recent article as posted by Purple.)


I have learnt from The Donald to judge a man by his retweets.
Prof Doyle should have included the following disclaimers in his report.
_Although I am a Prof I know nuffin about economics or finance.
Although I do conflict resolution I do not believe the Irish conflict is resolved whilst we have partition._


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Prof Doyle should have included the following disclaimers in his report.
> _Although I am a Prof I know nuffin about economics or finance.
> Although I do conflict resolution I do not believe the Irish conflict is resolved whilst we have partition._


He seems to be to conflict resolution what Lorcan Sirr is to Housing.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Professor Doyle's assertion that the NI has not contributed to the UK national debt for decades is really bewildering.  What can he mean?


Does he mean it is a "net" drain on the UK? - by all accounts it is. Or should there be some NI budgetary element of paying cash to help manage the UK national debt - but it never happens. It was interesting to read Buckland about the formation of NI - from the get go it was determined to leech the UK treasury. Sure fair enough, wouldn't you, but it just goes to show it was a basket case from start to finish.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Oct 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Does he mean it is a "net" drain on the UK? - by all accounts it is.


This is what he said


			
				Prof Doyle said:
			
		

> Another sizeable component of the subvention relates to the North’s share of the UK’s national debt and the annual repayments arising from it. This was put at £2.4 billion in 2019. But this is largely an accounting exercise as *the North hasn’t contributed to the UK’s debt liability for decades.*


It is the bit that I have highlighted in bold that really defies comprehension.  What do the words mean?  Does "contributed to" mean pay over hard cash?  Does it mean "increased"?  The former is true but meaningless.  The latter is clearly untrue as Prof Doyle's own assertion that NI is living at €3bn p.a. beyond its means, and that is after he has ditched a lot of the true subvention on the grounds that it is accounting waffle.  Where does he think the €3bn comes from?


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I trust that even you, my dear _Wolfie_, can see that this is nonsense.



I'm not sure why you are asking me as I thought I was clear in ceding that if you had found fundamental flaws in his report that I would accept that?

The article was well written but the report is a near irrelevance to me. As will be the plethora of any number of reports that will emerge if the prospect of a UI really gets going. That is not to dismiss every and all reports rather to say, as I have said before, there will always be someone on the other side of the conclusions of any report that is published.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is the bit that I have highlighted in bold that really defies comprehension. What do the words mean? Does "contributed to" mean pay over hard cash? Does it mean "increased"? The former is true but meaningless. The latter is clearly untrue as Prof Doyle's own assertion that NI is living at €3bn p.a. beyond its means, and that is after he has ditched a lot of the true subvention on the grounds that it is accounting waffle. Where does he think the €3bn comes from?



This is how I understand what he means.

The UK national debt stands at £xxxbn. Interest is payable on that debt. The debt _liability _is the amount of interest due on the debt. 
The NI portion due on the interest is calculated at £2.4bn pa. 
But seeing as NI runs a deficit each year of some £3bn, NI never actually contributes it share of the UK's debt liability. So regarding the £9bn subvention, which includes the debt liability figure of £2.4bn, then you can take that £2.4bn away because NI never pays it anyway.


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> In 1990's Germany began a process of reunification that was broadly welcomed across the globe.
> West Germany, being an economic powerhouse, was landed with an economic basket case, East Germany.
> I'm sure there were some in Germany who feared who will pay for it all?
> It didn't stop them from realising their ambition of a United Germany. As I recall, the cost of German reunification was a distant second to the realisation of the German people's political aspiration.


On that point, the fact that CH Haughey, as President of the European Council in 1990, did everything he could to facilitate the reunification of Germany, over the strong objections of Thatcher, was key to the success of the project. Chancellor Kohl acknowledged as much in his speech to the Dáil a few years later. Maybe a European Statesman (or woman) or Haughey's calibre is what's needed now.


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2021)

So will the Blue Shirts attend the Prayers for Partition Nordie-knees-up?  
I don't think they should, mainly because it would damage them electorally. 

From a personal perspective I'm happy enough to leave the god-botherers of all hews up there where they belong. When they stop with all the marching and praying and tribalism they can be part of our country. It's a bit like taking off your manure covered boots before you come inside.


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2021)

The Shinners are at 32% in the latest poll. 
It's hard to see them not running things after the next election.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> This is how I understand what he means.
> 
> The UK national debt stands at £xxxbn. Interest is payable on that debt. The debt _liability _is the amount of interest due on the debt.
> The NI portion due on the interest is calculated at £2.4bn pa.
> But seeing as NI runs a deficit each year of some £3bn, NI never actually contributes it share of the UK's debt liability. So regarding the £9bn subvention, which includes the debt liability figure of £2.4bn, then you can take that £2.4bn away because NI never pays it anyway.


My gosh _Wolfie _that is an explanation of the words.  Putting it more succinctly:  "NI has debts for sure but since it never pays its debts we can forget about them". 
But even that bizarre reasoning is flawed.  By that reasoning we haven't paid our debts for many years.  But we have. It's just that we borrow more to pay off old debt and finance the deficit.  On a look through NI is doing the exact same thing.
I could give Prof Doyle the benefit of the doubt and say that he just doesn't understand these things.  Unfortunately, taken with other stark non sequiturs and his retweets it his hard to escape the suspicion that the good Prof is simply peddling a SF agenda.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But even that bizarre reasoning is flawed.



I never said it wasn't bizarre reasoning, I was just pointing out what I understood Prof Doyle to be saying.

As bizarre as it is, there is actually some method within the madness.

You see the debt is UK debt, not NI debt. The £2.4bn liability attributable to NI is just as what the Prof says it is, an accounting exercise. 

Here is the bit you are not catching onto - in the event of UI, the £2.4bn liability (attributable to NI via the accounting exercise) does not follow NI onto Irish debt liability, it stays where it belongs - in the UK, because it is UK debt not Irish debt.
So you can knock £2.4bn off the £9bn subvention.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> My gosh _Wolfie _that is an explanation of the words.  Putting it more succinctly:  "NI has debts for sure but since it never pays its debts we can forget about them".
> But even that bizarre reasoning is flawed.  By that reasoning we haven't paid our debts for many years.  But we have. It's just that we borrow more to pay off old debt and finance the deficit.  On a look through NI is doing the exact same thing.
> I could give Prof Doyle the benefit of the doubt and say that he just doesn't understand these things.  Unfortunately, taken with other stark non sequiturs and his retweets it his hard to escape the suspicion that the good Prof is simply peddling a SF agenda.


Would you lend to NI?. the place that may or may not have a government depending on the day of the week. Is a 32 country Ireland going to be handed NI's proportionate part of the UK national debt?, I doubt it. If that is the case then lets forget about the UK national debt, and focus on managing the annual deficit NI will bring.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Oct 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> and focus on managing the annual deficit NI will bring.



Will it be any greater than the deficit spends for Connacht and the other three Ulster counties already in our jurisdiction?


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Will it be any greater than the deficit spends for Connacht and the other three Ulster counties already in our jurisdiction?


I guess we'll be hoping to spread the free state gravy making machine into the 6...... For starters need to slash public sector there, seems to be out of kilter for the population. Anyway, never mind the quality (cost), feel the width (vision)., we paid for the banks through gritted teeth, we'll do the same for Norn Iron - it's the tyranny of the will of the people innit.......


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Oct 2021)

@Betsy Og @WolfeTone
RoI debt/GNI ratio is 109%.
NI GNI is €60bn
If we get NI without any debt we should therefore be able to borrow another c.€70bn day 1 and that is without building in the wonderful UI economic dividend.
Let's have a UI party.  Share that out between the Nordies  and it is about 40 grand each.  Is this the way to unionist hearts and minds?  Oh I hear them moaning that the taigs will get more coz they have bigger families.
This is a Prof we are talking about.  It's okay for _Wolfie _et al to say "hey those are UK pensions, those are UK debts built up in establishing NI's infrastructure and indeed in social transfers from the mainland" but we expect people who flout titles of Prof (even if of makey uppey disciplines) to talk sense.
The ESRI has rubbished the good Prof's findings and I go with them any day.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> If we get NI without any debt we should therefore be able to borrow another c.€70bn day 1



What are you talking about? Who mentioned getting NI 'without any debt'?

We were talking about how the 9bn subvention was calculated. It is used by the partitionists to scare off thoughts of a UI.
The Prof is just dismantling project fear which you are now clearly trying to side-step by making new assumptions that nobody has offered rather than acknowledge the good Profs findings. 

As I have said before, all these reports are basically meaningless until the entire package, via a negotiation, is trashed out.

But to entertain your assumption for a moment let me offer a more probable scenario. In return for NI GNI of €60bn, we will accept UK liabilities to the tune of €60bn also. Fair deal?

What would that mean in reality? I have heard somewhere that the RoI economy is three times that of NI, using your figures above it puts GNI in RoI at €180bn. Sounds reasonable?
That would mean our Debt at 109% is €196bn or so.

But what would happen if we unite the RoI and NI figures. Our total GNI would rise to €240bn and our debt (including the fair-deal €60bn trade) would be €256bn. 

That would make the overall United Ireland debt/GNI ratio at 106.6%

My goodness, not only are we jumping up the charts in the economy size rankings but we have also started to reducing the debt ratio of the nation. And all this before we benefit from the UI economic dividend too.

You see Duke, it doesn't matter what is thrown out there in reports and conclusions. There is always somebody on the other side of those conclusions to argue otherwise.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> What are you talking about? Who mentioned getting NI 'without any debt'?


Are you paying attention at all?  The Prof argues that the service of the National Debt is merely an accounting illusion and he therefore says it should be lopped off any subvention in the context of UI.  That's where he got his 2-3bn figure from, didn't you follow?
You only lop the subvention off if the debt doesn't travel.  For avoidance of doubt he reminds us of precedent:


			
				Prof Doyle said:
			
		

> The Republic was allowed to exit the UK to form the Irish Free State in the 1920s debt free.


I repeat that I agree with you that the economic dimension can be overplayed, witness the reunification of the Fatherland.  If unionists voted for a UI the US/UK/EU would be falling over themselves to make it work and the financials will not be a problem.
But this current rabbit hole that I have dug arises from comments such as this


			
				Wolfie said:
			
		

> that is a very good considered article. Refreshing from the standard "we can't afford it!" nonsense that is most ofted peddled in Irish media.


The report (as opposed to the article) is pure SF/IRA propaganda fodder.  I presume Fierce Doherty has it pinned to his wall beside a copy of the Proclamation.  I see this DCU chair in Conflict Resolution was sponsored by none other than Hilary Clinton.  I hope that none of my taxpayer money is propping it up.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Oct 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade I am not advocating the report, nor dismissing it. My point is as I have stated before



WolfeTone said:


> It matters not a jot.





WolfeTone said:


> The article was well written but the report is a near irrelevance to me. As will be the plethora of any number of reports that will emerge if the prospect of a UI really gets going.



Why do I think this? 

Because until the time comes to negotiate what a UI will look like we will never know. Take 4 scenarios;

1) The UK cedes NI GNI economy of €60bn debt free. There is precedent. Albeit I think it is unlikely. In such a scenario the Prof is absolutely spot on to lop off the 2-3bn of the subvention.

2) The UK says "_we are off, delighted to get shot of the place....don't come running to us for favours and handouts, it's your baby now!..._._buhahaha!!_" In which case the Prof has got it completely wrong and you have correctly exposed the fundamental flaw in his thinking. Also unlikely in my opinion.

3) The UK agrees, recognising it is in her interest that the unification of Ireland works as smoothly as possible and in consideration of our intractable social and culture ties and...._blah, blah, blah (political speel_), that for the first 3yrs of unification UK will honour liabilities arising out of unification equal to the sum of the current subvention pa. It further agrees that this amount will begin to reduce over the subsequent decade following reunification. The debt being gradually subsumed into the balance sheet of the Irish economy. The EU also agrees that it will provide a significant fund over this period for the purposes of supporting social, cultural integration and...._blah, blah, blah (political speel_). The USA commits to Ireland...._blah, blah, blah (political speel_)....

4) No of the above, instead the Russians invade Ukraine and WW3 breaks out.


----------



## Baby boomer (7 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> 4) No of the above, instead the Russians invade Ukraine and WW3 breaks out.


 Ahem, they already did invade Ukraine.  WW3 is notable by its absence.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @Duke of Marmalade
> 
> 1) The UK cedes NI GNI economy of €60bn debt free. There is precedent. Albeit I think it is unlikely. In such a scenario *the Prof is absolutely spot on to l*op off the 2-3bn of the subvention.


The Prof was totally wrong in his argument that NI has not "contributed to" the UK National Debt.  This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.  For an academic paper, which I suspect my taxes partly subsidised,  to be so badly wrong on this and other facts is not acceptable.
Of course in the unlikely (according to you and me) event that the UK waives this obligation then of course he is right to lop it off.  But he actually did lop it off in his headline press release - either for sensation grabbing purposes or from a personal political agenda or both.
In any case I am getting weary of stating the obvious of how flawed the Prof's report was and since we are actually on the same page as regards the relevance of economics to the UI debate, I think we should park it at that.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> either for sensation grabbing purposes or from a personal political agenda or both.



Yes. Ditto "_how will we pay for the health service"_ agenda. 

Parked.


----------



## cremeegg (7 Oct 2021)

As to the ad hominem arguments




Duke of Marmalade said:


> So I googled this Prof Doyle.  It turns out he is Professor of Conflict Resolution





Duke of Marmalade said:


> the good Prof is simply peddling a SF agenda.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see this DCU chair in Conflict Resolution was sponsored by none other than Hilary Clinton.



All I will say is that you have actually missed the strongest one of all, you would love it, but I will let you to find it yourself.

The two important substantive points are

1. Pensions, who will pay the pensions of NI public servants, retired PSNI sergeants, and maths teachers gone to grass. His suggestion is that the UK govt will as it was to the UK govt they payed Tax and NI during their working lives. Not an unreasonable view.

2 Debt, the regularly quoted figure of £9bn UK govt subvention to NI annually includes £2.4bn debt servicing costs. This is the share of UK debt service costs attributed to NI. This will obviously disappear, a UI will not be paying interest on UK govt debt.

A UI may have to take on part of the capital balance of UK public debt, if that were to happen there would of course be a financing cost involved, although as the Irish govt can currently raise money at negative rates that might even  reduce the annual costs.


Here is a link to a response by Alan Barrett of the ERSI to Doyle's article.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> As to the ad hominem arguments
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’m intrigued by Prof Doyle’s other secret, please tell me.
NI would be leaving the UK.  You seem to be arguing that all NI liabilities for e.g. unfunded pensions and national debt spent on infrastructure etc. should  then fall to the rest of the UK and NI should be spared its share. Sorry but that is just nonsense but yes it is what Prof Doyle is saying.  Of course NI would be entitled to its share of any funding from insurance stamps.  Note that the UK is leaving the EU but accepts that it should be liable for its share of unfunded pensions.  Bizarrely the Prof argues that this implies the exact opposite in the case of NI leaving the UK.
Alan Barrett clearly disagrees but has gone easy on his academic peer.
On the point about taking on the share of public debt, that would include the associated interest payments.  These are not negative, they are 2.4bn p.a.  The fact that we can currently borrow at negative interest rates is irrelevant. Let me explain.  Say you had a deposit earning 2.4% for the next 10 years.  Would you accept your money back knowing you can only invest it at negative interest?  Or to explain still further.  Ireland is currently paying 1.5% p.a. on average on its national debt.  By your reasoning they should replace that immediately at negative rates.


----------



## Purple (8 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes. Ditto "_how will we pay for the health service"_ agenda.
> 
> Parked.


And will their vast hoards of State Employees have their pay raised to Irish levels?
Will their rates of Welfare also be raised to our levels?
Stick that in the mix and see what it'll cost.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> And will their vast hoards of State Employees have their pay raised to Irish levels?
> Will their rates of Welfare also be raised to our levels?
> Stick that in the mix and see what it'll cost.



This is all part of the mix for sure. But I dont subscribe to the view that raising incomes of working people, including public servants, is necessarily a bad thing. 

Taking public service numbers for a start. I don't have the figures to hand but I understand RoI workforce of 2m people is roughly 16% (320,000) public servants. 
NI workforce of 700,000 is roughly 30% public servants, or 210,000. 
At a very basic calculating level then a UI workforce would inherent a workforce of 2.7m with 530,000 public servants, or 19.2%. 

Of course there will be overlap, there will be duplication there will be mismanagement at times. But following unification, if there is planning and financial support, alot of these issues will be resolved over the following decade or so.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Oct 2021)

The following is a breakdown of NI's public service, the % is the per capital ratio compared to RoI.
Civil service  26k  175%
Health  68k 160%
Education 66k  168%
Local Government 12k  111%
Justice and defence 11k  125%

The biggies are health and education.  Given the level of moaning about the HSE maybe they get value for the NHS.  On the other hand they say the South are better educated so that looks like bad value.


----------



## cremeegg (8 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I’m intrigued by Prof Doyle’s other secret, please tell me.


Well I am sure it is no secret, but I imagine you will be delighted to meet his little sister









						Dawn Doyle - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




and before you fall off your stool she has nothing to do with the substance of the arguments.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> NI would be leaving the UK.  You seem to be arguing that all NI liabilities for e.g. unfunded pensions and national debt spent on infrastructure etc. should  then fall to the rest of the UK and NI should be spared its share.


While it would all be subject to a political negotiation I would imagine that the political representatives of retired PSNI sergeants will be demanding that their pensions be guaranteed by the UK government. Unless of course Brexit gets really bad. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> On the point about taking on the share of public debt, that would include the associated interest payments.  These are not negative, they are 2.4bn p.a.  The fact that we can currently borrow at negative interest rates is irrelevant. Let me explain.  Say you had a deposit earning 2.4% for the next 10 years.  Would you accept your money back knowing you can only invest it at negative interest?  Or to explain still further.  Ireland is currently paying 1.5% p.a. on average on its national debt.  By your reasoning they should replace that immediately at negative rates.



This is weak Duke, and I suspect you know it. All governments are continually refinancing their debt.

The UK public debt is a liability of the UK government, in the event of NI joining a UI a portion of that debt might well be taken on by the Irish Government. The financing costs of such a debt by the Irish government would be wholly unconnected to the existing financing costs of UK debt. If such a thing were to happen today, the financing costs of this debt taken over by the Irish government would possibly be negative. Who knows what rates will prevail at some unspecified point in the future.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> This is weak Duke, and I suspect you know it. All governments are continually refinancing their debt.


No! No! No!  I know what I am talking about.  The National Debt consists mainly of bonds, that is for example a commitment to pay 1bn in 2040 and 4% p.a. until then.  UI would inherit its share of that.  Yes of course when the bond matures it can be refinanced at then interest rates.  Currently the coupon payments on NI share of National Debt is £2.4bn per annum.  All else equal UI would inherit that.  Of course as the bonds mature the interest rate will come into line with then current interest rates.  So I will agree that the initial interest cost would be £2.4bn p.a. but at current interest rates this will slowly decline (presuming interest rates don't go up) as the debt matures and gets rolled over.  But no escaping that the initial cost is £2.4bn p.a.

The point is that refinancing debt means paying off debt *as it matures* with new debt, but *you have to wait till it matures*.  That is why the current interest on RoI debt is 1.5% even though it’s current borrowing costs are negative.  It is a reflection of historic borrowing rates.  Yes it is falling as it matures and is refinanced.

I note that Prof Doyle needs another disclaimer, besides that he knows nuffin about economics and finance; he should also disclose that his sister (and it seems himself) is a SF/IRA propagandist.  Really it is of concern that SF/IRA are infiltrating our academia in this way.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Oct 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade @cremeegg you are dangerously close to entering into negotiations for a situation that is written in the stars but far from reality on the ground. 

That said, the pros and cons of a UI need to be trashed out. But a UI is not a formula of interest rates, liabilities, accounting and finances. 

It is a consequence of human emotion, passion, identity and sovereignty. 
Balance sheets are a distant second, albeit a useful tool in short-sighted persuasion. 

So I haven't been around for 400yrs plus, but one thing I have picked up on is the seemingly never ending division on religious grounds (perpetuated by violence on both sides). 

There is one common denominator throughout this period. I define it simply as the interests of Ireland being a distant second to the interests of Britain under the realm. 
Brexit the latest example. 

I propose a solution. A United Ireland with constitutional guarantees of sovereignty and subservience for those who identify as British to their Crown, within a Republic that is focused on the future and providing opportunity and hope to all people of all creeds, colours, races etc. 

As Ian Paisley Snr said to Martin McGuinness, "we don't need London to govern us, we can govern ourselves." 

Who will be the first Unionist leader to cross the rubicon, with all the confidence  in his/her identity, and genuinely embrace the reality of All Ireland?


----------



## cremeegg (8 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note that Prof Doyle needs another disclaimer, besides that he knows nuffin about economics and finance; he should also disclose that his sister (and it seems himself) is a SF/IRA propagandist.  Really it is of concern that SF/IRA are infiltrating our academia in this way.


His sister has been General Secetary of SF for the last 12 years. So much for the hard men from the north pulling the strings in the background. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The point is that refinancing debt means paying off debt *as it matures* with new debt, but *you have to wait till it matures*.  That is why the current interest on RoI debt is 1.5% even though it’s current borrowing costs are negative.  It is a reflection of historic borrowing rates.  Yes it is falling as it matures and is refinanced.


The idea that outstanding debt obligations would be divvied up, one for me one for you, is a little naive. The existing bonds are liabilities of the UK government. If a portion of the liability were to be transferred to a UI it would have to be refinanced.

If you got divorced you could not tell the bank, ' although only my name has been on the mortgage up to now we are divorcing and we have decided to split up the mortgage, I owe X amount and the Duchess owes Y amount. You would continue to owe the entire amount to the bank unless the Duchess took out a loan in her name and paid off a portion. That would be refinanced at prevailing rates.



WolfeTone said:


> That said, the pros and cons of a UI need to be trashed out. But a UI is not a formula of interest rates, liabilities, accounting and finances.


People don't get divorced for financial reasons, but they often run into trouble if they don't sort the finances.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> The idea that outstanding debt obligations would be divvied up, one for me one for you, is a little naive. The existing bonds are liabilities of the UK government.


Please! this is just silliness.  You might as well argue that the existing public service were recruited by Her Majesty’s government and therefore it is contractually bound to continue paying their salaries.  Prof Doyle does not go quite this far but he does say they have to continue paying their pensions.  Cue congratulatory texts from big sis‘ and Grisly.


cremeegg said:


> If a portion of the liability were to be transferred to a UI it would have to be refinanced.
> 
> If you got divorced you could not tell the bank, ' although only my name has been on the mortgage up to now we are divorcing and we have decided to split up the mortgage, I owe X amount and the Duchess owes Y amount. You would continue to owe the entire amount to the bank unless the Duchess took out a loan in her name and paid off a portion. That would be refinanced at prevailing rates.


And I thought Prof Doyle was out of his depth.  I took out a Fixed Rate mortgage.  The Duchess is in for a big surprise if she thinks she can refinance this and that this means replacing the same loan amount at today’s lower interest rates.
Let me draw diagrams. A typical element of the UK National Debt is the gilt “UK Treasury 2034 4.5%”.  That is currently yielding  1.29% p.a. to give a price of 138%. So yes the UK can currently raise 2034 borrowings at 1.29% p.a. but it would involve a 38% penalty to get out of past obligations.

The fact is that NI’s current share of past accrued debt costs 2.4bn p.a.  and no amount of refinancing at today’s interest rates can change that liability.

Please do not continue to display Prof Doyle’s level of ignorance in these matters.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> So I haven't been around for 400yrs plus, but one thing I have picked up on is the seemingly never ending division on religious grounds (perpetuated by violence on both sides)


Well you were around in 1798, banging on about uniting Irishmen, Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter.  I hope you realise how much your honeyed words have contributed to that violence.


----------



## Baby boomer (9 Oct 2021)

When the USSR was dissolved, Russia "inherited" the entire national debt, plus its international assets such as embassies, its military assets including (most of) its nuclear deterrent and its permanent seat at the UN security council.

If the UK, wants to share those sovereign assets with a UI, well, we can negotiate.  But I don't think it'll happen.  The default position is that the national debt stays with the UK.  Interestingly, this came up during the Scottish IndyRef debate.  At the time, Scotland's pro-independence side wanted to keep the Pound (yeah, I know...me neither) and Westminster made it clear that the price for that would be an independent Scotland taking on a share of the debt.  They could have the Pound and the debt, or neither.  Obviously in a UI, it'd be neither.

As for pensions, public servants in NI would be changing employer.  This is a perfectly normal event and it is perfectly normal for the old employer (UK) to be liable for pensionable service in its employment with the new employer (UI) taking on responsibility for subsequent pensionable service.

And state pensions - consider a UK resident who leaves the UK to go live in a third country.  They will get a UK pension based on their National Insurance record while a UK resident.  They will, depending on age, etc, qualify for a pension based on their social security record in the third country.   There is no question of the third country taking on responsibility for their UK state pension unless there is a specific international agreement to this effect. 

So in any UI, we shouldn't expect to take on UK national debt or responsibility for accrued state or public service pensions.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> When the USSR was dissolved, Russia "inherited" the entire national debt, plus its international assets such as embassies, its military assets including (most of) its nuclear deterrent and its permanent seat at the UN security council.
> 
> If the UK, wants to share those sovereign assets with a UI, well, we can negotiate.  But I don't think it'll happen.  The default position is that the national debt stays with the UK.  Interestingly, this came up during the Scottish IndyRef debate.  At the time, Scotland's pro-independence side wanted to keep the Pound (yeah, I know...me neither) and Westminster made it clear that the price for that would be an independent Scotland taking on a share of the debt.  They could have the Pound and the debt, or neither.  Obviously in a UI, it'd be neither.
> 
> ...


I will attempt to explain how your points are fundamentally flawed.  This is a surprise to me as your posts are usually very well informed.  This post will address the pension issue, a later one will address the more complicated issue of National Debt.
Pensions are deferred remuneration.  When someone moves jobs there is clearly no question of the new employer taking on the pension responsibilities of the older employer, the services were not enjoyed by the new employer.
If NI leaves the UK and joins a UI then who is responsible for those pensions?  Who enjoyed the services for which those pensions are deferred remuneration?  In the broadest sense it was the people of NI themselves who enjoyed the services.  But even in the narrow legal sense it will have been entities like the Housing Executive which will be NI legal entities.  It would be entirely similar to one group of companies transferring a subsidiary to another group.  
I am absolutely gobsmacked that Prof Doyle does not see this (or indeed your good self) but to compound his ignorance his argument that the UK taking over the pensions of its EU reps supports his case is mind boggling.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> The default position is that the national debt stays with the UK.


In the contractual paperwork of course the debt stays with the UK.  It would be impossibly messy to ask bondholders to split their bonds into Tartan Bonds (as they were called in Indyref) and HM Bonds.  But even the Indies recognised that Scotland would have to bear its fair share of the National Debt by way of a legacy debt from independent Scotland to the UK which would wither with time (lots of debate about what the fair share would be e.g. the role of Scotland's oil revenues).


Baby boomer said:


> Interestingly, this came up during the Scottish IndyRef debate.  At the time, Scotland's pro-independence side wanted to keep the Pound (yeah, I know...me neither) and Westminster made it clear that the price for that would be an independent Scotland taking on a share of the debt.  They could have the Pound and the debt, or neither.  Obviously in a UI, it'd be neither.


Sorry, but a total misunderstanding (giving you the benefit of the doubt.) of what this debate was all about.  The Indies wanted to be able to borrow in sterling post independence.  (I hope you understand that this is quite different from borrowing in a currency pegged to the pound as happened with the Irish Free State.)  It is a bit like the issue over Eurobonds.  The UK Treasury said they would not allow this just as Germany were against Eurobonds.  The Indies retorted by saying you can stuff your National Debt then.  It was purely an outrageous negotiating position as they accepted the validity of taking on a share of legacy National Debt.  The idea of a modern state starting with a clean slate on National Debt would be like all your Christmases come together, unionists in Scotland or NI would be mad to turn it down.  It will never be on the table.

I haven't researched the situation with the break up of the USSR but I suspect that just like your bogus Indyref statements your claims that the satellite states all started with a clean slate and no legacy liability back to Russia will not stack up.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> As for pensions, public servants in NI would be changing employer.  This is a perfectly normal event and it is perfectly normal for the old employer (UK) to be liable for pensionable service in its employment with the new employer (UI) taking on responsibility for subsequent pensionable service.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> Pensions are deferred remuneration.  When someone moves jobs there is clearly no question of the new employer taking on the pension responsibilities of the older employer, the services were not enjoyed by the new employer.


OK I am clear on pensions, I am satisfied which of the above I expect would be relevant (and who is stretching their analogy to support a prejudice) in the case of NI leaving UK and joining a UI.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> In the contractual paperwork of course the debt stays with the UK.  It would be impossibly messy to ask bondholders to split their bonds into Tartan Bonds (as they were called in Indyref) and HM Bonds.


Now where I have I heard that before? Oh yes here


cremeegg said:


> The idea that outstanding debt obligations would be divvied up, one for me one for you, is a little naive. The existing bonds are liabilities of the UK government.



Any NI share of UK national debt would come with a claim on UK assets, how many ships of the British navy would we get for taking on a share of the debt? In the real world it is difficult to see how a UI could be forced to accept a share of the UK debt, while of course some portion might be adopted as part of a political settlement, a share that would reflect no navy ships I hope.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> OK I am clear on pensions, I am satisfied which of the above I expect would be relevant (and who is stretching their analogy to support a prejudice) in the case of NI leaving UK and joining a UI.


Since Scottish Indyref has been raised here there was no question in that debate but that public service pensions incurred in Scotland whilst in the UK would travel to an independent Scotland.  I am unsure from your cryptic post if you are entirely clear on this.
On your other point, yes NI would be entitled to a share of UK assets.  I presume the allocation of NI National Debt has been largely determined by capital expenditure and fiscal deficits incurred in NI.  But yes to the extent that NI was allocated a share of the spend on defence materiel, that would be an area of intense negotiation.


----------



## Baby boomer (9 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Since Scottish Indyref has been raised here there was no question in that debate but that public service pensions incurred in Scotland whilst in the UK would travel to an independent Scotland.


Very difficult to do, though.  What precisely is a "public service pension incurred in Scotland" anyway?  How do you deal with, say, a Scottish member of the armed forces or diplomatic service?  Or their English equivalent who retires to Scotland.  Or somebody who works for NHS Scotland and retires to Wales?  Are records even kept that would allow it all to be disentangled?  


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am unsure from your cryptic post if you are entirely clear on this.
> On your other point, yes NI would be entitled to a share of UK assets.  I presume the allocation of NI National Debt has been largely determined by capital expenditure and fiscal deficits incurred in NI.  But yes to the extent that NI was allocated a share of the spend on defence materiel, that would be an area of intense negotiation.


And the nuclear deterrent?  And the permanent seat on the UNSC?  I think you'll find Britain will settle for a clean slate.  It is the default position.  The UK as a  sovereign state incurred the debt.  The UK will remain a sovereign state if NI secedes and joins a UI.  That remaining UK sovereign state will still owe the entire national debt.


----------



## Baby boomer (9 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Since Scottish Indyref has been raised here there was no question in that debate but that public service pensions incurred in Scotland whilst in the UK would travel to an independent Scotland.


Very difficult to do, though.  What precisely is a "public service pension incurred in Scotland" anyway?  How do you deal with, say, a Scottish member of the armed forces or diplomatic service?  Or their English equivalent who retires to Scotland.  Or somebody who works for NHS Scotland and retires to Wales?  Are records even kept that would allow it all to be disentangled? 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am unsure from your cryptic post if you are entirely clear on this.
> On your other point, yes NI would be entitled to a share of UK assets.  I presume the allocation of NI National Debt has been largely determined by capital expenditure and fiscal deficits incurred in NI.  But yes to the extent that NI was allocated a share of the spend on defence materiel, that would be an area of intense negotiation.


And the nuclear deterrent?  And the permanent seat on the UNSC?  I think you'll find Britain will settle for a clean slate.  It is the default position.  The UK as a  sovereign state incurred the debt.  The UK will remain a sovereign state if NI secedes and joins a UI.  That remaining UK sovereign state will still owe the entire national debt


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Very difficult to do, though.  What precisely is a "public service pension incurred in Scotland" anyway?  How do you deal with, say, a Scottish member of the armed forces or diplomatic service?  Or their English equivalent who retires to Scotland.  Or somebody who works for NHS Scotland and retires to Wales?  Are records even kept that would allow it all to be disentangled?


You’re rambling.  No difficulty at all.  If Edinburgh is paying the pensions now it will continue to pay the pensions.


Baby boomer said:


> And the nuclear deterrent?  And the permanent seat on the UNSC?  I think you'll find Britain will settle for a clean slate.  It is the default position.  The UK as a  sovereign state incurred the debt.  The UK will remain a sovereign state if NI secedes and joins a UI.  That remaining UK sovereign state will still owe the entire national debt


You don’t climb down, do you?  I accepted that there will be aspects of what the National Debt was spent on that will be disputed, an obvious one being any assets or infrastructure involved in maintaining the UK’s lead role as a super power.  I am sure the furnishings at the UN are of a most luxurious kind but I can’t see the value of the UK’s permanent seat being a deal breaker.
You raised Indyref.  The Indies were preparing to fight over how much of the National Debt truly belonged to Scotland.  Nobody was suggesting that the UK would throw their hat at it.

Are you going to give us a source for your ludicrous claim that Westminster offered Scotland the option of being free of any liability for the National Debt if they adopted their own currency?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Oct 2021)

@Baby boomer @cremeegg @WolfeTone
The Scottish Indyref discussions are of course relevant to Prof Doyle's ill informed economic doodles.  On public service pensions this was the formal position agreed:


			
				House of Commons record said:
			
		

> For current UK-wide public service pension schemes, the Scottish Government proposes taking its fair share of commitments based on meeting the pension entitlements of pensioners who live in Scotland.
> Although the Scottish Government has set out a clear and unambiguous commitment on the pension responsibilities it will take on under independence, it also recognises that there would be a need for negotiation with the UK Government as part of the associated transfer of assets and liabilities.


"UK- wide schemes" include the biggies, Health and Education.  Things like the civil service are already paid by the Scottish Government.  The above statement is clear and common sense.  Prof Doyle, I think alone amongst academic contributors, suggests that the responsibilities should remain with HM Government.  His reasoning includes that the UK under Brexit agreed to take on the pensions of their EU representatives.  Can anybody explain the contorted logic here?  All I can think of is that Prof Doyle sees a precedent "Brits always pay for pensions in a divorce".


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Oct 2021)

I'm not sure why I'm being dragged back into this? This is like preliminary talks about talks for negotiation on an event that remains some distance over the horizon. 

It is reasonable to assume, in my opinion, that if UI inherits the value of NI economy that it will also inherit some of the debt behind that value. 
This will include in part, or all, pension rights and liabilities amongst other matters. 
The UI will after all benefit from tax revenues when those pensions are spent into the UI economy. 

But to what extent UI will inherit British liabilities is not clear.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm not sure why I'm being dragged back into this? This is like preliminary talks about talks for negotiation on an event that remains some distance over the horizon.


The main purpose in digging this rabbit hole was to discredit Prof SF Doyle or rather to give him his correct level of credit which is zero.  It's just that you seemed initially impressed by the good Prof.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It's just that you seemed initially impressed by the good Prof.



I was impressed with the article that was written about the professors report.



WolfeTone said:


> that is very good considered article.



I didn't read the report. I gave reasoning for this 


WolfeTone said:


> As will the numerous other thoughts, views and studies will be considered flawed in the discourse of what a UI would/should look like.





WolfeTone said:


> if you say the report is fundamentally flawed on two counts I will take your word for it.
> It matters not a jot.



And to reinforce that thinking 



WolfeTone said:


> The article was well written but the report is a near irrelevance to me.





WolfeTone said:


> it doesn't matter what is thrown out there in reports and conclusions. There is always somebody on the other side of those conclusions to argue otherwise.



Then you said 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> since we are actually on the same page as regards the relevance of economics to the UI debate, I think we should park it at that.





WolfeTone said:


> Parked


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Oct 2021)

@WolfeTone Yep, parked.  Shouldn't have included you in last post.


----------



## Purple (11 Oct 2021)

On pensions, for clarity, in the event of a United Ireland a new 'owner' would take over the NI Public Service, NI Public Servants would not be moving to a new employer. It would be a TUPE type scenario.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> On pensions, for clarity, in the event of a United Ireland a new 'owner' would take over the NI Public Service, NI Public Servants would not be moving to a new employer. It would be a TUPE type scenario.


My understanding is that TUPE applies to existing employees and not retired employees.  But your use of the word "owner" is very interesting.  The comparison between Scottish IndyRef and NI joining a UI highlights some misconceptions.  In the case of Scottish IndyRef there is no analogy to some corporate transaction.  Scotland is up and leaving, it therefore takes with it its accrued unfunded pension liabilities and its share of the UK National Debt irrespective of their legal form.  No one seriously debates this though they do debate what the share of National Debt should be. (see next post)
When it comes to NI joining a UI Prof SF Doyle seems to think along M&A lines.  If NI has legacy obligations then these should either stay with the "seller" or the "buyer" should be compensated for them.  If NI was simply going out on its own like Scotland there would seem to be no question that it should be stuck (as a starting point to negotiations) with its accrued responsibilities including unfunded liabilities for public service pensions.


----------



## Purple (11 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> My understanding is that TUPE applies to existing employees and not retired employees.  But your use of the word "owner" is very interesting.  The comparison between Scottish IndyRef and NI joining a UI highlights some misconceptions.  In the case of Scottish IndyRef there is no analogy to some corporate transaction.  Scotland is up and leaving, it therefore takes with it its accrued unfunded pension liabilities and its share of the UK National Debt irrespective of their legal form.  No one seriously debates this though they do debate what the share of National Debt should be.
> When it comes to NI joining a UI Prof SF Doyle seems to think along M&A lines.  If NI has legacy obligations then these should either stay with the "seller" or the "buyer" should be compensated for them.  If NI was simply going out on its own like Scotland there would seem to be no question that it should be stuck (as a starting point to negotiations) with its accrued responsibilities including unfunded liabilities for public service pensions.


We'd have to work on the basis that the Brits would have to pay us handsomely to take the Nordies off their hands.
In my view they'd have to agree to keep the National Debt, keep subsidising the massive over-staffing of the public sector there, agree to take anyone who wants to leave and pay us €10-15 billion a year for the next 20 years just to get us to the negotiating table.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Oct 2021)

I have been researching further this question of the NI share of the UK's National Debt.  It really only shows up in the calculation of the subvention and is the allocated share of interest payments on the debt.  UK pays about £100bn interest p.a. on its National Debt and NI is allocated £2.4bn of that.  Although I can't source the actual calculation anywhere this would seem to be precisely in the same proportion as GDP.
So it is not as if NI has a separate National Debt account which is debited and credited with its revenue and expenditure.  In this regard Prof SF Doyle is correct.  NI has never actually paid this amount not even in terms of accumulating it as part of its share of the National Debt.  But his conclusion that therefore NI's share of the UK National Debt is an illusion is entirely wrong as we can see from the Scottish IndyRef debate.
I have read an article by a supporter of Scottish independence which debates what would be the fair share of the National Debt to be owed by an independent Scotland to Westminster.  He starts by considering by proportion to population and correctly dismisses this as unsatisfactory.  More satisfactory he suggests is in relation to income tax take as this would reflect a progressive allocation amongst the populace - the richer would own proportionately more.
But as an advocate of independence he argues that we should actually look back historically and work out how much Scotland actually spent more than it received in taxes.  And this is where oil comes in.  He argues that the North Sea oil tax revenues were not properly allocated to Scotland and if they had been Scotland would in fact have no National Debt, surprise, surprise!
Now cross from Stranraer to Larne and let's work out historically how much more has been spent on NI than has been taken in taxes.  No oil complication here; instead a basket case economy and society which has been a constant drain on Westminster.
Split the National Debt in proportion to population. Please!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> We'd have to work on the basis that the Brits would have to pay us handsomely to take the Nordies off their hands.
> In my view they'd have to agree to keep the National Debt, keep subsidising the massive over-staffing of the public sector there, agree to take anyone who wants to leave and pay us €10-15 billion a year for the next 20 years just to get us to the negotiating table.


Agreed.  If this was a corporate M&A the shareholders of the acquiring company would demand no less.  But everybody seems to believe, as I do, that if there was a border poll in the morning with none of this on the table the "shareholders", being the people of these 26 counties, would blindly give the go ahead.


----------



## Baby boomer (11 Oct 2021)

Once more I must point out that it is far from a "given" that NI or Scotland departing the UK would take its share of the National debt with it.  Again I must point to the example of Russia taking the entire debt of the former USSR when that entity collapsed.  (In fairness, a counter example is the former Yugoslavia, where Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and North Macedonia mutually *agreed* to carve up the debt.)  In fact, not alone did Russia take on the entire debt, it additionally honoured the outstanding debt from the Tsarist era that had been repudiated by Lenin.  But that's a different story....

In a future UI scenario, the remaining British state will be the internationally recognised successor state to the present UK.  Creditors will look to the successor state rather than the seceeding bit for debt repayment.  Perhaps, it might be *agreed* that a UI would take on some of that debt.   But that's optional and a matter for negotiation.  Anyway, the default position is no debt assumption without agreement.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Once more I must point out that it is far from a "given" that NI or Scotland departing the UK would take its share of the National debt with it.  Again I must point to the example of Russia taking the entire debt of the former USSR when that entity collapsed.  (In fairness, a counter example is the former Yugoslavia, where Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and North Macedonia mutually *agreed* to carve up the debt.)  In fact, not alone did Russia take on the entire debt, it additionally honoured the outstanding debt from the Tsarist era that had been repudiated by Lenin.  But that's a different story....
> 
> In a future UI scenario, the remaining British state will be the internationally recognised successor state to the present UK.  Creditors will look to the successor state rather than the seceeding bit for debt repayment.  Perhaps, it might be *agreed* that a UI would take on some of that debt.   But that's optional and a matter for negotiation.  Anyway, the default position is no debt assumption without agreement.


Nobody is denying that the UK will remain the legal owner of the full National Debt.  The idea of negotiating with bondholders to switch some of its debt for Tartan Bonds or Paddy Bonds is just not on.  Scottish Indies (whom you brought into the discussion) accepted that they would owe to Westminster their fair share of the legacy National Debt, albeit some argued that if proper recognition of oil tax revenues were brought into account their share would be nil!  The Scottish Government did not argue that and accepted they would owe a proper fair share  The default position by any process of international arbitration is that the seceding entity would owe that part of the National Debt that was spent on it.  Of course negotiation could lead to a completely different arrangement.  Mind you if the 26 counties had overwhelming voted in a Border poll to take on NI debts and all, the negotiating position would be weak.
As for the Soviet Union, can you show me that any country was allowed to leave with Russia having spent lots of money on it historically without owing that back?  Note that these countries were nominally sovereign entities and probably raised their own debt.  I am sure you are right that the Soviet bonds reverted to Russia as would be the case with UK bonds; anything else would be extremely messy and probably regarded internationally as a default by Russia.  Taking East Germany as an example. historically the Soviet Union had extracted massive amounts by way of war reparations; hard to see them arguing that East Germany owed them anything, or East Germany agreeing that they did.
Anyway I am still waiting for that source that Westminster offered Scotland the option of using its own currency and therefore being absolved of any share of National Debt.  Or will you admit that you misinterpreted that?


----------



## Baby boomer (11 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Nobody is denying that the UK will remain the legal owner of the full National Debt.  The idea of negotiating with bondholders to switch some of its debt for Tartan Bonds or Paddy Bonds is just not on.


Good.  At least we agree on that.  Now, just go the little step further and recognise that it stays with the UK *unless a different arrangement is agreed.*



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Scottish Indies (whom you brought into the discussion) accepted that they would owe to Westminster their fair share of the legacy National Debt, albeit some argued that if proper recognition of oil tax revenues were brought into account their share would be nil!  The Scottish Government did not argue that and accepted they would owe a proper fair share


There were many negotiating positions adopted on all sides.  Personally, I got the distinct impression that the Indies thought their fair share would be nil, or even negative! 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The default position by any process of international arbitration is that the seceding entity would owe that part of the National Debt that was spent on it.


Really?  So why didn't Russia pursue arbitration cases against the former constituent SSRs? 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of course negotiation could lead to a completely different arrangement.  Mind you if the 26 counties had overwhelming voted in a Border poll to take on NI debts and all, the negotiating position would be weak.


I suspect that position won't make it to a ballot paper......



Duke of Marmalade said:


> As for the Soviet Union, can you show me that any country was allowed to leave with Russia having spent lots of money on it historically without owing that back?


You're shifting the goalposts now.  ALL the constituent SSRs left without owing Russia any share of the USSR debt.  Whether "Russia" (which was merely just another SSR within the USSR) spent lots of money on them is an interesting but irrelevant point.  Based on Soviet ideology, I suspect they actually did.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Note that these countries were nominally sovereign entities and probably raised their own debt.


Huh?  Nominally sovereign entities?  You appear to be a bit conflabulated here.  The USSR was a single sovereign entity consisting of the so-called Soviet Socialist Republics of Russia, Belarus, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Central Asian Stans and so on.  None of these had any individual national sovereignty, nominal or otherwise.  The Soviet Bloc, (aka Warsaw Pact) countries, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and so on were indeed independent sovereign nations although de facto under the Soviet thumb. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am sure you are right that the Soviet bonds reverted to Russia...


I am.  Although in an earlier post you thought I wasn't! 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> ...as would be the case with UK bonds; anything else would be extremely messy and probably regarded internationally as a default by Russia.  Taking East Germany as an example. historically the Soviet Union had extracted massive amounts by way of war reparations; hard to see them arguing that East Germany owed them anything, or East Germany agreeing that they did.


There was never any question of East Germany owing any of USSRs debt.  They were completely separate entities, recognized as such by the UN and virtually every other nation.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Anyway I am still waiting for that source that Westminster offered Scotland the option of using its own currency and therefore being absolved of any share of National Debt.  Or will you admit that you misinterpreted that?


Keep waiting.  You are twisting what I said and then demanding a source for *YOUR* interpretation of *MY* words!  Nice try, but I'm not diving down that rabbit hole.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Good.  At least we agree on that.  Now, just go the little step further and recognise that it stays with the UK *unless a different arrangement is agreed.*


Agreed and as per Indyref the Scottish Government accepted it would owe its "fair" share of the National Debt even though legally it could walk away from it.


Baby boomer said:


> There were many negotiating positions adopted on all sides.  Personally, I got the distinct impression that the Indies thought their fair share would be nil, or even negative!


The point is they accepted the concept of a "fair" share.  They did not argue that because Her Majesty had signed all the bond contracts she was stuck with them.


Baby boomer said:


> Really?  So why didn't Russia pursue arbitration cases against the former constituent SSRs?


I misinterpreted your point.  I thought you were referring to the break up of the Soviet "empire".  Obviously you meant the Soviet Union itself.  Of which say Ukraine is an example.  Russia could have argued that Ukraine owed its "fair" share of any Soviet debt incurred on its behalf as per Scottish IndyRef.  Did Russia waive Ukraine's fair share?  Very generous given the animosity between the two nations.  I suspect Russia spent precious little on Ukraine during the Soviet set up except maybe on nuclear capability which was dismantled.


Baby boomer said:


> I suspect that position won't make it to a ballot paper......


Of course you are right on this.


Baby boomer said:


> You're shifting the goalposts now.  ALL the constituent SSRs left without owing Russia any share of the USSR debt.  Whether "Russia" (which was merely just another SSR within the USSR) spent lots of money on them is an interesting but irrelevant point.  Based on Soviet ideology, I suspect they actually did.
> 
> 
> Huh?  Nominally sovereign entities?  You appear to be a bit conflabulated here.  The USSR was a single sovereign entity consisting of the so-called Soviet Socialist Republics of Russia, Belarus, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Central Asian Stans and so on.  None of these had any individual national sovereignty, nominal or otherwise.  The Soviet Bloc, (aka Warsaw Pact) countries, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and so on were indeed independent sovereign nations although de facto under the Soviet thumb.


I have admitted I misinterpreted your point in this regard.


Baby boomer said:


> I am.  Although in an earlier post you thought I wasn't!


Don't recall, but must be a misinterpretation.  Of course the legal contracts reverted to the Russian Federation.


Baby boomer said:


> There was never any question of East Germany owing any of USSRs debt.  They were completely separate entities, recognized as such by the UN and virtually every other nation.


The misinterpretation again.


Baby boomer said:


> Keep waiting.  You are twisting what I said and then demanding a source for *YOUR* interpretation of *MY* words!  Nice try, but I'm not diving down that rabbit hole.


Can you please clarify what you meant by this:


			
				Baby Boomer said:
			
		

> Interestingly, this came up during the Scottish IndyRef debate. At the time, Scotland's pro-independence side wanted to keep the Pound (yeah, I know...me neither) and *Westminster made it clear *that the price for that would be an independent Scotland taking on a share of the debt. They could have the Pound and the debt*, or neither. *Obviously in a UI, it'd be neither.


Anyway I take it that you now accept that such an offer was not on the table.


----------



## Baby boomer (11 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Agreed and as per Indyref the Scottish Government accepted it would owe its "fair" share of the National Debt even though legally it could walk away from it.


The key point is that legally they *could* walk away from it.  As could a UI.  For their own reasons, they appeared willing not to.  Although, as I said, I suspect that might be somewhat illusory.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The point is they accepted the concept of a "fair" share.  They did not argue that because Her Majesty had signed all the bond contracts she was stuck with them.


Well, Her Maj *would* be stuck with them.  The Scots Indies were of course willing to horsetrade and voluntarily assume a "fair" share, no doubt in return for a suitable quid pro quo.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I misinterpreted your point.  I thought you were referring to the break up of the Soviet "empire".  Obviously you meant the Soviet Union itself.


Why on Earth did you think that?  I never gave the slightest hint that I meant the Soviet Empire rather than the Soviet Union.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of which say Ukraine is an example.  Russia could have argued that Ukraine owed its "fair" share of any Soviet debt incurred on its behalf as per Scottish IndyRef.  Did Russia waive Ukraine's fair share?


You accept that legally the debt would remain with Indy Scotland.  Likewise Ukraine.  There was nothing to "waive."



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Very generous given the animosity between the two nations.  I suspect Russia spent precious little on Ukraine during the Soviet set up except maybe on nuclear capability which was dismantled.


True enough, Ukraine being one of the richer SSRs.  Might be different for some of the Stans. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Anyway I take it that you now accept that such an offer was not on the table.


Formally, nothing was on the table.  As London didn't want indyref to succeed, they weren't going to tee up a concession like that in advance.    Given that the very existence of certain "discussions" at Bank of England level was controversial, and denied by Westminster, it's hardly surprising that matters are murky.  However, we can say that in the event of Independence, Scotland wanted to keep Sterling, London didn't.  By default, London gets that one.  And London wanted to offload a significant chunk of debt, Scotland didn't.  (Or was ambivalent, at best, while publicly seeming otherwise.)  By default, Scotland gets that one.   The default position, therefore, denies both sides something they want. 

The potential for mutual horsetrading is obvious!


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> The potential for mutual horsetrading is obvious!


That's what it comes down to. In that scenario the Nodries, and us in Ireland/ Doyn Soyth/this Joyer-y-stick-shun, are much more reliant on the Brits for trade than they are on us. In any negotiation, even with the EU on our side, the Brits will have a much better hand to play. The hope is that they will want the metaphorical turd off their lawn and be generous (that's also my fear).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Well,
> 
> Formally, nothing was on the table.  As London didn't want indyref to succeed, they weren't going to tee up a concession like that in advance.    Given that the very existence of certain "discussions" at Bank of England level was controversial, and denied by Westminster, it's hardly surprising that matters are murky.  However, we can say that in the event of Independence, Scotland wanted to keep Sterling, London didn't.  By default, London gets that one.  And London wanted to offload a significant chunk of debt, Scotland didn't.  (Or was ambivalent, at best, while publicly seeming otherwise.)  By default, Scotland gets that one.   The default position, therefore, denies both sides something they want.


Your original post was categorical that Westminster had stated that a condition of Scotland having the Pound would be it taking its share of the National Debt.  There was nothing nuanced about your conclusion that since NI would be adopting the Euro Westminster would not be looking for it to take any share of the debt.  I take it from that very contorted reply that you have back pedalled from that position.
Your basic premise is that the default position is the status quo.  But the whole point is that the status quo is about to have a huge change.  By your argument Her Majesty would by default still be responsible for the salaries of the public servants she recruited.  Moreover the default position would be that NI taxes are sent to Westminster.  This is all patent nonsense. Even Prof SF Doyle didn’t go that far.

You raised the precedent of the Soviet Union.  I googled the following:


			
				“LA Times 1992” said:
			
		

> The debt-sharing agreement among the 11 Commonwealth members allocates 61.34% to Russia and 16.37% to Ukraine, its largest members, but makes all responsible for total repayment. The former Soviet Bank for Foreign Economic Affairs, Vneshekonombank, will handle the repayments.


Admittedly Ukraine tried to welch but from pressure from the international community it caved in rather than see itself denied international credit.  Your original post was very selective and misleading in citing the Soviet precedent.  Russia was merely remaining as the administrator of the collective debt.  Given your undoubted knowledge of these factors the mind boggles that your conclusion was that Prof Doyle was right and in a UI NI would be free of legacy debt and would not be responsible for existing public service pensions.


----------



## Baby boomer (12 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Your original post was categorical that Westminster had stated that a condition of Scotland having the Pound would be it taking its share of the National Debt.  There was nothing nuanced about your conclusion that since NI would be adopting the Euro Westminster would not be looking for it to take any share of the debt.  I take it from that very contorted reply that you have back pedalled from that position.
> Your basic premise is that the default position is the status quo.  But the whole point is that the status quo is about to have a huge change.  By your argument Her Majesty would by default still be responsible for the salaries of the public servants she recruited.  Even Prof SF Doyle didn’t go that far.
> You raised the precedent of the Soviet Union.  I googled the following:
> 
> Admittedly Ukraine tried to welch but from pressure from the international community it caved in rather than see itself denied international credit.  Your original post was very selective in citing the Soviet precedent.  Given your undoubted knowledge of these factors the mind boggles that your conclusion was that Prof Doyle was right and in a UI NI would be free of legacy debt and would not be responsible for existing public service pensions.


As I'm sure you well know, that 1992 agreement was an agreement in principle only.  Ukraine never ponied up.  It was superceded in 1993 when Russia agreed to take on the whole lot.  If you're going to clutch on straws you should really find stronger ones! 

As to the possible outcome in NI, the absence of any wish to use sterling removes a negotiating lever that might otherwise have led to an assumption of national debt.  And a pretty big lever at that.

BTW it is normal in a debate for subsequent statements to clarify initial ones, to explore related issues, to provide more detail, nuance and explanation.   It is facile to equate nuance with backpedaling.  My basic premise remains that a UI doesn't have to, and almost certainly won't, assume a share of UK national debt.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> As I'm sure you well know, that 1992 agreement was an agreement in principle only.  Ukraine never ponied up.  It was superceded in 1993 when Russia agreed to take on the whole lot.  If you're going to clutch on straws you should really find stronger ones!


I am completely new to the Soviet precedent.  I accept your word that Russia took on the lot in the end.  A very different situation with huge geopolitical ramifications.
The point is that it is clear that the "moral" default position is that a seceding country should bear its "fair" share of the debt that was accrued partly on its behalf.  The legal position is irrelevant as is most obvious in the case of current public service pay.  By definition a completely new legal order is being established.
Maybe if NI was a complete stand alone and given its very complicated history, the Brits might as a compromise or even as an act of compensation for past failures (not that they need to so compensate IMHO) make big concessions on the National Debt but the implications for Scottish independence would be an inhibiting factor.
But no way can it be argued as Prof Doyle, and apparently yourself, does that a clean slate on debt is the "natural" finishing place.  For a modern state with its huge infrastructure to find itself with no national debt and no liability for accrued unfunded pensions would be an enormous bonanza; I think only Norway is anywhere near that position.


Baby boomer said:


> As to the possible outcome in NI, the absence of any wish to use sterling removes a negotiating lever that might otherwise have led to an assumption of national debt.  And a pretty big lever at that.


I am sure you are fully familiar with what this actually means but then again you thought I was fully familiar with the Soviet precedent.  But for the clarity of our listeners what the Indies wanted was to avail of London's credit rating post independence.  There was never any problem in having a Scottish Pound pegged to sterling as with the Free State.  The Taliban could peg their currency to sterling if they wanted, doesn't need London's consent.


Baby boomer said:


> BTW it is normal in a debate for subsequent statements to clarify initial ones, to explore related issues, to provide more detail, nuance and explanation.   It is facile to equate nuance with backpedaling.


Agreed, I have "backpedalled" myself whilst digging this rabbit hole.


Baby boomer said:


> My basic premise remains that a UI doesn't have to,


Agreed, though if you mean that it can dig in on the legals of the matter that would very seriously backfire as per Ukraine in 1992, not least with the US who would be expecting a negotiation based on common sense and fairness.


Baby boomer said:


> and almost certainly won't,


Disagree, but clearly a matter of very subjective opinion.

The bottom line is that of course all these matters will be up for negotiation and even very generous concessions.  But to argue that as a matter of entitlement (coz we have Her signature, gotcha!), NI should bear no legacy share of the National Debt and that accrued unfunded public service pensions are the responsibility of HM government will convince no neutral observer (thinking US here) and will be counter productive.


----------



## Baby boomer (12 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But no way can it be argued as Prof Doyle, and apparently yourself, does that a clean slate on debt is the "natural" finishing place.  For a modern state with its huge infrastructure to find itself with no national debt and no liability for accrued unfunded pensions would be an enormous bonanza; I think only Norway is anywhere near that position.
> 
> I am sure you are fully familiar with what this actually means....


Yes, I am, no need for snark.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> but then again you thought I was fully familiar with the Soviet precedent.


Well, you did speak authoritatively about it. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But for the clarity of our listeners what the Indies wanted was to avail of London's credit rating post independence.


Indeed, and they also wanted a share in the governance of the Bank of England.  Not surprisingly, England baulked! 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Agreed, though if you mean that it can dig in on the legals of the matter that would very seriously backfire as per Ukraine in 1992, not least with the US who would be expecting a negotiation based on common sense and fairness.


Hmmm, you mean like the Brexit negotiations?  It's not really going to comedown to fairness or "moral" duty.  Both sides will hardball, as happens in most international negotiations.  As happened in Brexit. As happened post USSR.  As happened in post former Yugoslavia.  As happened in the recent corporation tax row.   If we are heading for a UI, it behoves us to start from a high opening position, and disclaim the debt.  A bit like our stance on the 12.5% thing.  We may eventually horsetrade and cut a deal, but it would be negotiating folly to offer it up gratis in the first place. 

Of course, if one is implacably opposed to a UI in the first place, one would seize on any opportunity to argue that it's unaffordable, eh?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Hmmm, you mean like the Brexit negotiations?  It's not really going to comedown to fairness or "moral" duty.  Both sides will hardball, as happens in most international negotiations.  As happened in Brexit. As happened post USSR.  As happened in post former Yugoslavia.  As happened in the recent corporation tax row.   If we are heading for a UI, it behoves us to start from a high opening position, and disclaim the debt.  A bit like our stance on the 12.5% thing.  We may eventually horsetrade and cut a deal, but it would be negotiating folly to offer it up gratis in the first place.
> 
> Of course, if one is implacably opposed to a UI in the first place, one would seize on any opportunity to argue that it's unaffordable, eh?


As explained before, the purpose of this rabbit hole is to expose Prof SF Doyle's argument that the "rational" position was that NI would be free of legacy debt and that HM government would continue to pay unfunded public service pensions.  I think I am with the vast majority of the academic and diplomatic community in rejecting that.
But of course it now transpires that Prof Doyle's supposedly academic piece was in fact, as you say, "a high opening negotiating position" in line with SF orthodoxy.
I was just surprised that you, and I mean this, a very well informed commentator, found it necessary to also adopt a negotiating position on AAM.  Who are you negotiating with? surely not me!  For avoidance of doubt if NI was offered in the morning free of legacy debt and with public service pensions paid by a foreign country, from a purely selfish financial perspective I'd bite your hand off.


----------



## Baby boomer (12 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> For avoidance of doubt if NI was offered in the morning free of legacy debt and with public service pensions paid by a foreign country, from a purely selfish financial perspective I'd bite your hand off.


Fair enough.  I think the negotiations will end up with no legacy debt and a complicated fudge on public service pensions.  Hard to see a UI paying UDR pensions, for instance!  

Now, to matters more directly affecting individual taxpayers up there.  Would there be an equalisation of taxes?  How would they (of Unionist or Republican persuasion both) feel about paying an extra 20 to 30% for their cars.  Or doubling the cost of a bottle of sparkling wine.  Or paying the high rate of tax at €35k rather than €60k.  Any takers for USC I wonder?   Or a far more punitive CAT regime?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Fair enough.  I think the negotiations will end up with no legacy debt and a complicated fudge on public service pensions.  Hard to see a UI paying UDR pensions, for instance!
> 
> Now, to matters more directly affecting individual taxpayers up there.  Would there be an equalisation of taxes?  How would they (of Unionist or Republican persuasion both) feel about paying an extra 20 to 30% for their cars.  Or doubling the cost of a bottle of sparkling wine.  Or paying the high rate of tax at €35k rather than €60k.  Any takers for USC I wonder?   Or a far more punitive CAT regime?


Yes given the day that is in it, those are very valid questions.  We note that this didn't arise at the formation of the Free State and wouldn't arise in Scottish Independence.  I presume similar issues arose in the uniting of the Fatherland and I presume it was mostly one way traffic with the East coming to more favourable West arrangements.  I think for example the government guaranteed parity of the Ostmark with the D-mark, effectively overnight quadrupling the value of East Germans' deposits.


----------



## Baby boomer (12 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes given the day that is in it, those are very valid questions.  We note that this didn't arise at the formation of the Free State and wouldn't arise in Scottish Independence.  I presume similar issues arose in the uniting of the Fatherland and I presume it was mostly one way traffic with the East coming to more favourable West arrangements.  I think for example the government guaranteed parity of the Ostmark with the D-mark, effectively overnight quadrupling the value of East Germans' deposits.


Yes, the Ossies did well out of that.  But there were swings and roundabouts.  All in all, it was a difficult economic transition and cost West Germany a fortune. 

The Free State and Indy Scotland are quite different as prior to those events, taxes, wages, pensions etc, were harmonised.  Between North and South here, though, they're radically different.  I've never seen any studies of how (or even whether) they would be aligned.  It would be interested to get the SF / Prof Doyle take on it.  Personally, I think there would have to be some kind of federal arrangement will be needed to make it work.  Bit like the United States where there are State taxes as well as federal taxes.  Also the US States have different arrangements on public pay, health and social welfare.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Bit like the United States where there are State taxes as well as federal taxes.  Also the US States have different arrangements on public pay, health and social welfare.


Yep, I was thinking along those lines.  And currency would be an issue even for Taigs.
By the way, I don't think I was being snarky on the currency issue on IndyRef.  I know you understand it completely but our listeners, if we still have any, might think that what was at stake was Scots being able to use pounds.  The Indies were really on a bit of a try on if they thought they could be independent and still have London stand behind their currency, not even Michael Collins tried that one on.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Fair enough.  I think the negotiations will end up with no legacy debt and a complicated fudge on public service pensions.  Hard to see a UI paying UDR pensions, for instance!
> 
> Now, to matters more directly affecting individual taxpayers up there.  Would there be an equalisation of taxes?  How would they (of Unionist or Republican persuasion both) feel about paying an extra 20 to 30% for their cars.  Or doubling the cost of a bottle of sparkling wine.  Or paying the high rate of tax at €35k rather than €60k.  Any takers for USC I wonder?   Or a far more punitive CAT regime?


It'll be interesting to see if people Doyn Soyth will be willing to subsidise better services and lower taxes for the Nordies while the UVF is bombing Dublin.


----------



## Peanuts20 (13 Oct 2021)

Would we end up on both sides with a "solidarity tax" like they did in Germany?. That was 5.5% on income


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Oct 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> Would we end up on both sides with a "solidarity tax" like they did in Germany?. That was 5.5% on income


I think what @Baby boomer is highlighting is that we almost have two different systems.  We are a high wage/high tax/high social welfare economy whereas the North is Low/Low/Low which doesn't necessarily mean that we are better off (except for those on social welfare and low incomes).  It would be one heck of a challenge to merge the two systems.


----------



## Baby boomer (13 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think what @Baby boomer is highlighting is that we almost have two different systems.  We are a high wage/high tax/high social welfare economy whereas the North is Low/Low/Low which doesn't necessarily mean that we are better off (except for those on social welfare and low incomes).  It would be one heck of a challenge to merge the two systems.


That's it in a nutshell.  Ironic, in a way, when you consider that poor, working class loyalists, who have most to gain from the Southern high social welfare rates are the very people most vociferously opposed to a UI.  On the other hand, well-off Nationalists would have a lot to lose under a Southern tax regime.   Perverse incentives, indeed!


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> Would we end up on both sides with a "solidarity tax" like they did in Germany?. That was 5.5% on income


Again, the North is a much bigger entity relative to this country than East Germany was relative to West Germany.


----------



## cremeegg (13 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> It'll be interesting to see if people Doyn Soyth will be willing to subsidise better services and lower taxes for the Nordies while the UVF is bombing Dublin.


That ridiculous habit of the Duke of deliberately misspelling words and names has nothing to recommend it.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> That ridiculous habit of the Duke of deliberately misspelling words and names has nothing to recommend it.


I like accents but 'soyth' and 'doyne' are mispronunciations, not an accent.  

I used to spend a lot of time in Aberdeen. I was sharing a taxi with an American once. As we passed a row of very run down houses the taxi driver said "I dinna kin hoi e abide eair"
My fellow passenger looked as me and asked me in a quiet voice what language the driver was speaking. I explained that it was English and he'd said that he didn't understand how anyone could live in those houses. 
The Nordies aren't far off that. On the other hand we Dub's speak perfect English, ye know wha' I'm sayin' loik?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> That ridiculous habit of the Duke of deliberately misspelling words and names has nothing to recommend it.


Which reminds me, Simon Varadkar should really stay out of the EU/Brit bun fight on the NI protocol.  Are they trying to out-Green Fierce Doherty?  Imagine if the Italian prime minister, for example, were to make cheap jibes about how can you trust the Brits on free trade deals, that would lead to one hell of an international incident.  At least our Teashop hasn't been so nigh eve to descend to citing Dominic Cummins in a Green anti Brit slanging match.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade , also know as Lord Preserve-us.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Which reminds me, Simon Varadkar should really stay out of the EU/Brit bun fight on the NI protocol



Ok, I'm back in.

Personally I think Coveney and Vradakar have played a blinder in this whole affair. Unexpectedly I have to say, but most welcome.
Coveney in particular has read the mood music. The sea border is a stroke of diplomatic genius.
The border is always going to be a contentious issue in Ireland, but the least contentious is the sea border.
I was listening to Bertie on Radio 1 and he complimenting how NI business people were very clever people. Clearly playing on the emerging sentiment, backed by trade figures, that NI is gaining a boost from the NI Protocol.
And why wouldn't it? 
If you want the NI Protocol to work (as do the EU and Irish government) then why not put the energy and resources into directing increased north/south trade?
On the other hand if you don't want NIP to work (Loyalism) , or have no plan to make NIP work (British government) then you may be inclined to indulge the flag-waving, sovereignty battle cry as it becomes apparent there is no Brexit plan.
As John Hume said "you can't eat a flag". 

Why not offer solutions, as Bertie asked?
They have none.

British government is using NI every bit as the pawn in the overall Brexit shambles. It is a useful distraction from all the other issues arising in England with HGV drivers and energy price increases.

The Tories blamed the EU for so much that was wrong when they were in the EU.
Now they are out of it, who is to blame? The EU.
 NIP is just a convenient distraction.

NI is being played, once again.
Time to rid Ireland of Tories once and for all. There are too many good English people to allow them any further influence.
Border poll now!


----------



## Baby boomer (14 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Personally I think Coveney and Vradakar have played a blinder in this whole affair.


Agree entirely.  Bertie spot on too.



WolfeTone said:


> ......Time to rid Ireland of Tories once and for all.
> Border poll now!


I'd be interested in your views on how we integrate our high wage, high tax, high prices, high welfare economic system with the low wage, low tax, low prices, low welfare system north of the border.  Which bits do we level up / level down?  Or do we maintain separate (maybe federal) systems?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Oct 2021)

@WolfeTone for senior members of our government to make cheap shots about you can’t trust the Brits on trade deals, the sort of cheap shots that might be typical on AAM, is not helpful.  It does not help resolve the dispute.  It does not help relations between ourselves and the UK.  It is also blatantly a domestic electioneering stunt (successfully) out playing SF on their home turf - heck they even have you on board.
I suppose that most things in NI become sectarian like the name of their second city or the name of their so called peace accord but Coveney in particular has played a big cynical part in making the NI protocol a totally sectarian issue.


----------



## Purple (14 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Ok, I'm back in.
> 
> Personally I think Coveney and Vradakar have played a blinder in this whole affair. Unexpectedly I have to say, but most welcome.
> Coveney in particular has read the mood music. The sea border is a stroke of diplomatic genius.
> ...


I agree with all of that.


WolfeTone said:


> NI is being played, once again.
> Time to rid Ireland of Tories once and for all. There are too many good English people to allow them any further influence.


And that.


WolfeTone said:


> Border poll now!


But not that.


----------



## Purple (14 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Ok, I'm back in.


Were you ever really gone?


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> you can’t trust the Brits on trade deals,



It's not a cheap shot, it's just saying the obvious!









						Covid news:  Omicron subvariant spreads as UK cases surge - as it happened
					

Scotland covid cases are rising ahead of final restrictions being eased




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Oct 2021)

Trust. 

Ian Paisley says BJ promised to tear up NIP


----------



## cremeegg (15 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @WolfeTone for senior members of our government to make cheap shots about you can’t trust the Brits on trade deals, the sort of cheap shots that might be typical on AAM, is not helpful.


Do you not think that the behaviour of the British government has been untrustworthy. Signing up to an agreement then immediately seeking to renegotiate it. Openly admitting an intention to break international law.

Or do you just think it is unhelpful to say so.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> is not helpful.  It does not help resolve the dispute.  It does not help relations between ourselves and the UK.



Surely on something so basic as this and something so contrary to the image as a reliable partner that Britain used to project an image that was largely recognised by many countries in Europe, it is the role of a friend to point out behaviour which is eroding trust in Britain internationally.

Surely the biggest advance in relations between Britain and Ireland, and between Britain and Europe would for Britain to recognise its untrustworthy behaviour and the damage it is doing.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Do you not think that the behaviour of the British government has been untrustworthy. Signing up to an agreement then immediately seeking to renegotiate it. Openly admitting an intention to break international law.


Isn't that what Dev did?


----------



## cremeegg (15 Oct 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> Isn't that what Dev did?


It may have been what Ireland did, although Dev never signed, and 100 years later some people are still not over it. 

In fairness the treaty negotiators were told that if they didn't sign there would be 'total and terrible war' or something to that effect. Britain was hardly threatened with war if it didn't sign up to Brexit.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Do you not think that the behaviour of the British government has been untrustworthy. Signing up to an agreement then immediately seeking to renegotiate it. Openly admitting an intention to break international law.


I agree with Frostie that the EU did not want Brexit to work (neither do I).  The EU had them over a barrel, they thought imposing ridiculous NI protocol requirements might reverse engines. Article 16 was built in as a clear sign that the Brits would renegotiate when they were not over that barrel.


cremeegg said:


> Or do you just think it is unhelpful to say so.


Very much so.  Is Italy saying you can't trust the Brits?  Is Estonia?  It's none of our business, except maybe to side with NI who we claim to want to join with us.  It is cheap anti Brit rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience.  Only good thing is they stole the ground from SF.


----------



## cremeegg (15 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I agree with Frostie that the EU did not want Brexit to work (neither do I).  The EU had them over a barrel, they thought imposing ridiculous NI protocol requirements might reverse engines. Article 16 was built in as a clear sign that the Brits would renegotiate when they were not over that barrel.
> 
> Very much so.  Is Italy saying you can't trust the Brits?  Is Estonia?  It's none of our business, except maybe to side with NI who we claim to want to join with us.  It is cheap anti Brit rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience.  Only good thing is they stole the ground from SF.


I think the French are certainly saying it. 

The EU didn’t want the Protocol, they wanted the Theresa May deal. It was the DUP who sank that.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Oct 2021)

cremeegg said:


> I think the French are certainly saying it.


”think” and “certainly” in same sentence are a bit contradictory.
Possibly the French have got involved, the negotiations cannot be left to faceless Eurocrats, but I think I can be certain that they didn’t engage in schoolboy jibes about how can anybody trust them on free trade deals.




cremeegg said:


> The EU didn’t want the Protocol, they wanted the Theresa May deal. It was the DUP who sank that.


We know.  Frostie was arguing that’s why they were playing such hard ball on it.


----------



## cremeegg (16 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> ”think” and “certainly” in same sentence are a bit contradictory


It makes perfect sense in French


----------



## Baby boomer (16 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I agree with Frostie that the EU did not want Brexit to work (neither do I).


Not quite.  The Brexiteers thought they could enjoy the benefits of EU membership without the obligations - the cakeism option.  But the EU can't (for obvious existential reasons) tolerate a situation whereby a non-member state has a more advantageous package of trading and other terms outside the bloc than within it.  Otherwise, member states would depart to enjoy those terms and the EU breaks up.  In their wildest fantasies, the hardcore Brexiteers really quite fancied this outcome and some even openly admitted it.  But it was never an option.  Nothing personal against the Brits - just business. 




Duke of Marmalade said:


> The EU had them over a barrel


But, but, but, what about the "easiest trade deal ever" that was going to be negotiated by a UK government that "held all the cards" post the Leave vote?!   Surely you're not suggesting that the Brexiteers were spectacularly deluded?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> they thought imposing ridiculous NI protocol requirements might reverse engines.


Again, that's not a fair characterisation.    If the UK is not in the Single Market, then there has to be a border *somewhere* along the route from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to 26 County Ireland to mainland Europe.  There are only three options:
1.  Sea border between GB and NI
2.  Land border between Northern Ireland and the South.
3.  Sea border between Ireland and Europe.

Option 3 destroys the EU Single Market principle and isn't a runner.
Option 2 is so unpalatable to Ireland and the EU that it was ruled out as a essential prerequisite for a UK-EU trade deal. 
That leaves option 1.  If the UK refuses to implement it (which they can do) then we default back to Option 2 but with no UK-EU trade deal.  Again, nothing personal - just business. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is cheap anti Brit rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience.  Only good thing is they stole the ground from SF.


The main retailers of cheap rhetoric are the Brits who made cheap anti-EU jibes their main stock in trade and a potent political tool.  One Boris Johnson being a leading historical exponent who rode the anti-EU train all the way to Number 10.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Oct 2021)

French-British trust
6 Times Irish learned not to trust British government

All that aside, the customs checks imposed on goods between NI and GB are nothing more than an administrative overhang of the Brexit debacle. 
It is not to be unexpected when the existing rules of engagement are to be overhauled by virtue of the Brexit referendum and with successive British administrations lacking of planning and foresight that teething problems in the implementation of the new arrangements would arise. 

Such teething problems are the apparent excessive amount of checks between NI & GB. 
Other teething problems include scarcity of HGV drivers in Britain. 
The EU has now offered to remove 80% of checks with further reductions over time. 
The UK is offering HGV drivers from Europe easier access. 

These are reasonable and practical measures. They are not matters of sovereignty. 

It is useful to remind ourselves, away from the din of table-thumping Unionists, what the NIP actually has to say on NI's place within the UK. 

_"NOTING that nothing in this Protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom's internal market," 
"RECALLING that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom and will benefit from participation in the United Kingdom's independent trade policy
"HAVING REGARD to the importance of maintaining the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom's internal market,_

The customs checks imposed on goods between NI and GB are not part of the NIP they are simply a consequence of no planning and foresight by the British who did not consider Ireland, not once, in their drive for Brexit. 

Now British government has jumped on the sovereignty issue as a measure to gain leverage. It is completely disengenuous and Frost is playing Unionists for fools. 

The British will have a plethora of fish to fry with the EU over the coming decade(s), fishing rights being one. 
It is simply incongruous that Britain thought it could switch off, not just 40yrs of trade agreements, rights, customs, but practically 400yrs of established customs and trade between it and its European neighbours and think it could have its cake and eat it. 

The British government is using the Irish Unionist sovereignty battle-cry as a means to gain further concessions elsewhere. 
This is known because there is no sovereignty issue in the NIP, there is just an administrative issue which will be resolved over time. 

They cannot be trusted and Coveney is right to call them out on it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Not quite.  The Brexiteers thought they could enjoy the benefits of EU membership without the obligations - the cakeism option.  But the EU can't (for obvious existential reasons) tolerate a situation whereby a non-member state has a more advantageous package of trading and other terms outside the bloc than within it.  Otherwise, member states would depart to enjoy those terms and the EU breaks up.  In their wildest fantasies, the hardcore Brexiteers really quite fancied this outcome and some even openly admitted it.  But it was never an option.  Nothing personal against the Brits - just business.


Gosh, I am not going to find myself supporting the Brexiteers.  I think you are just reinforcing Frostie's point - the EU do not want Brexit to be a success.


Baby boomer said:


> But, but, but, what about the "easiest trade deal ever" that was going to be negotiated by a UK government that "held all the cards" post the Leave vote?!   Surely you're not suggesting that the Brexiteers were spectacularly deluded?


They were spectacularly deluded. They thought that since they already had a FTA and alignment on regulations it would be a breeze.  But they underestimated the above point of the EU's desire to see it fail.  And they completely missed that Varadkar would play "the IRA will bomb your border posts" card.


Baby boomer said:


> Again, that's not a fair characterisation.    If the UK is not in the Single Market, then there has to be a border *somewhere* along the route from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to 26 County Ireland to mainland Euro


The EU claims to have announced an 80% relaxation in the Protocol.  How is it that only a few months ago when Boris had his back to the wall the EU requirements were 5 times tougher than they now need?  Who is being disingenuous here?


Baby boomer said:


> The main retailers of cheap rhetoric are the Brits who made cheap anti-EU jibes their main stock in trade and a potent political tool.  One Boris Johnson being a leading historical exponent who rode the anti-EU train all the way to Number 10.


No supporter of Bojo but it seems to me that Simon Varadkar are taking a leaf from his copy book and trying to out point SF with their cheap anti Brit rhetoric.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> 6 Times Irish learned not to trust British government


After every atrocity by the IRA against the Brits/Protestants in the Troubles I assuaged any guilt I might feel by recalling the Betrayal of Clannabuidhe.
Similarly I don't touch anything Norwegian on principle after the appalling massacre of Dunmore Cave in 928 in which 1,000 innocent Irish people were slaughtered.


			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> A massacre by Vikings, led by Godfrey of the Uí Ímair; recorded in the Annals of the Four Masters. A large quantity of human bones was found in the cave in 1869.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Similarly I don't touch anything Norwegian on principle after the appalling massacre of Dunmore Cave in 928 in which 1,000 innocent Irish people were slaughtered.



Really?
It still gives me trouble sleeping at night!


----------



## Baby boomer (16 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think you are just reinforcing Frostie's point - the EU do not want Brexit to be a success.


"....a success"?  If you think about it, it's actually impossible for Brexit to be a success.  At least in the sense of resulting in a more advantageous economic outcome for Britain than remaining an EU member state.  Just about every economist in the world agrees that free trade agreements are a good thing for both sides.  Britain had the ultimate, 100% frictionless, free trade agreement as part of its EU membership.  Any replacement, *by definition*, had to be an inferior arrangement.  That's down to the UK not the EU. 

Of course, if you define Brexit "success" as reverting to Blue UK passports (manufactured in the EU!!) and the reintroduction of imperial weights and measures, then the EU has no problem with that kind of success.  Likewise, eliminating freedom of movement for EU workers while unpicked crops rot, ports jam up and the financial services industry shrinks operations in the City of London.  They've taken back control, after all.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> They were spectacularly deluded. They thought that since they already had a FTA and alignment on regulations it would be a breeze.  But they underestimated theabove bee point of the EU's desire to see it fail.


No, they completely underestimated the EU's aversion to throwing a small member state under the bus.  They just didn't expect the EU to make the absence of an economic border on the island of Ireland a red line issue. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> And they completely missed that Varadkar would play "the IRA will bomb your border posts" card.


A contemptible distortion of a legitimate Irish concern.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> The EU claims to have announced an 80% relaxation in the Protocol.  How is it that only a few months ago when Boris had his back to the wall the EU requirements were 5 times tougher than they now need?  Who is being disingenuous here?


The EU has a legitimate interest, a vital interest even, in protecting the single market of its 27 member states and ensuring no leakage into it from the UK/NI channel.  It's entitled to take a hardball negotiating stance to do so.  The Protocol, even as originally envisaged, was still a considerable concession to the UK, and was a brave venture into the unknown by the EU.  I don't see any great problem in tweaking it in light of practical experience and offering further operational relief to the UK in return for the UK fully implementing its side of the bargain - which it has egregiously failed to do so far.    That's the very essence of reasonableness and good faith by the EU.  To paint it as disingenuous is, well, disingenuous!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Oct 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> "....a success"?  If you think about it, it's actually impossible for Brexit to be a success.  At least in the sense of resulting in a more advantageous economic outcome for Britain than remaining an EU member state.  Just about every economist in the world agrees that free trade agreements are a good thing for both sides.  Britain had the ultimate, 100% frictionless, free trade agreement as part of its EU membership.  Any replacement, *by definition*, had to be an inferior arrangement.  That's down to the UK not the EU.
> 
> Of course, if you define Brexit "success" as reverting to Blue UK passports (manufactured in the EU!!) and the reintroduction of imperial weights and measures, then the EU has no problem with that kind of success.  Likewise, eliminating freedom of movement for EU workers while unpicked crops rot, ports jam up and the financial services industry shrinks operations in the City of London.  They've taken back control, after all.
> 
> ...


In contemplating a reply I find myself in the ridiculous position of almost defending Brexit.  I was disgusted by the Brexit vote.  I hope it goes wrong for them and best of all that they come back begging.
But I don't know if you read Eilis O'Hanlon in last week's _Sindo.  _She highlights the misplaced gloating of us Paddies at what we see as Brexit payback - petrol queues, empty surpermarket shelves etc.  It's all small beer, teething problems.  The markets know that, as sterling has had a very strong run from over 90p/€ to 84p/€ since Brexit finally happened.

Anyway my main gripe on this occasion is Varadkar in particular playing to this gloating gallery and asking how can future trade partners trust the Brits?  @WolfeTone posted an interesting Guardian link describing the current parlous state of Anglo French relations, citing Le Monde which I do myself read on occasion (see not just a provider of Preserve).  I would be extremely surprised if Macro descended to the very childish cheap shot of warning off future trade partners of the UK.
 And whilst I am on Varadkar, he did show his EU colleagues footage of IRA destroying border posts.  He played the IRA card.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> on Varadkar, he did show his EU colleagues footage of IRA destroying border posts.



And just on that. Considering the response of loyalists to an invisible sea border, what do you think yourself the reaction of Republican communities in  border areas to any type of visible physical infrastructure?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> And just on that. Considering the response of loyalists to an invisible sea border, what do you think yourself the reaction of Republican communities in  border areas to any type of visible physical infrastructure?


Well given the winding up they were getting I guess they would feel they would have to deliver a violent response.  I am old enough to recall pre Troubles a very physical border infrastructure, entirely implemented by the basket case Southern State.  The locals did not then see it as a proportionate response to go bombing these Southern posts.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am old enough to recall pre Troubles a very physical border infrastructure, entirely implemented by the basket case Southern State. The locals did not then see it as a proportionate response to go bombing these Southern posts.



This would be the physical border infrastructure that followed a bloody period of guerrilla, sectarian and civil war? When the IRA had effectively been stood due to splits, arrests, and heavy clampdown on remaining members by the new Free State?

Still it managed to rear its head again in late 1950's to commence a 'border campaign' targeting British military and infrastructure installations.

All that aside, my own view is that the implementation of physical customs posts in Ireland would provoke ire of Republican communities but by themselves would not instigate a full return to hostilities or anything like it.
Rather, customs posts would be subject to frequent agitation by militant Republicans trying to disrupt the operation of such posts.
That would, most likely be the height of it - an unpleasant place for customs officers to work in.
A bit like what any other security officers have to put up with in Dublin City centre late at night. 

However what if, as in the 1950's, some took the agitation to another level? What if they took one opportune moment 5yrs from now, or 10yrs or whenever, and destroyed a customs post (with the workers in it)?

This is all speculative of course but the salient point is why even contemplate the prospect of something like that happening by providing ready made target's when there is absolutely no need to so or no desire by the people of Ireland on all sides of the political divide to see a return to customs posts?

An invisible border at sea is the best option by far. Administrative checks at customs post can, and will, be resolved in due course.
With the EU offering to scrap 80% of checks and more in due course the fuss over the invisible sea border is looking very watery.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Oct 2021)

@WolfeTone There was never going to be a need for physical infrastructure at the border.  I see you make a big play of the "invisibility" of the sea border between NI and GB.  Do you think it all happens on a ship out of sight of the populace?
What do you think of @Baby boomer's option 3, a sea border between Ireland and the EU?


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There was never going to be a need for physical infrastructure at the border.



Yes, I've heard this many times from the British side, particularly during the negotiations. They were clear, under no circumstances would they place physical border posts on the island of Ireland. 
Aside from the obvious contradiction of the Brexit objective 'take back control of our borders', the question was put to them on a multitude of occasions - where would the border checks take place? 

Perhaps you can reveal all now?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Perhaps you can reveal all now?


Invisibly just as now.  Possibly in a ship anchored 20 miles outside Dublin bay unseen by the citizenry.
Apologies for the silly riposte, but can you please explain how the current sea border is invisible?
There seems to be a narrative that the EU are totally reasonable adults dealing with Brit juvenile delinquents.  That myth was exploded when Ursula Underlying tried to play the NI card over vaccines or sumfin'.  To be fair to our government we called her on that.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Apologies for the silly riposte, but can you please explain how the current sea border is invisible?



I didn't think it would be necessary to rewind the clocks but, sadly so, it appears to be the case. 

The Brexit gig was predominantly sold to the good people of _Britain _as "take back control"...borders and sovereignty being right up to the fore. 

And the Brexiteers won. Congratulations to them. 

And then, as an after thought, it turns out that the British government has  responsibility for the interests of the people of N Ireland. 
Those interests being a distant second to the interests of Britain, once again. 

At which point everyone, from the Shinners to the DUP, from Dublin to London, all agreed.... that "under _*no circumstances*_ will we place a border in Ireland" (British PM). 

The absolute contradiction of the UK leaving the EU to "take back control of our borders" while simultaneously, "under no circumstances" the UK placing any controls on its only land border with the EU is classic political farce. 

But hang on! 
It wasn't called "Ukexit" was it? 
It was called "Brexit!" 

What they meant was Britain leaving the EU, thinking Britain and UK was one and same. 

It reminds me of that relentless, incessant, table-thumping mantra that I recognised since the age of 8 yrs "Ulster is British!" 

Of course, in the absence of conflict it has become clear, Ulster is Irish. 

Is it possible that the architects and cheerleaders of UK leaving the EU were actually just focused in Britain leaving the EU and didn't give pause, for a nanosecond, the people of Ireland? 

Maybe I'm wrong, I just struggle to recall Nigel Farage parading the streets of Belfast to cheering Brexiteers. 

Perhaps Northern Ireland is different? 

Different Sterling, different laws on women's bodily rights, different Sunday trading laws, different political institutions, different demographic, different laws on language rights, different views on border controls with EU etc

The DUP thump the table "we are NOT different!" 

I'm in danger of ranting if not already. 

So again I ask you... for second time today and four years, what alternative arrangements for the land border between EU and UK that would preferentially agreeable?


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Apologies for the silly riposte, but can you please explain how the current sea border is invisible?



Apologies, I realised I didn't answer the question direct. 
I travelled over the Irish sea to Britain last month, there were no checkpoints over the Irish sea for in-full-flight aeroplanes.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Oct 2021)

@WolfeTone I didn’t want to dig up the whole Brexit thing.  In common with nearly everybody else I am against Brexit, I hope it backfires and yes I am enjoying the DUP getting roasted by a Protocol of their own making.
Winding back to the start of this rabbit hole, do you agree with me that the Tanaiste of this country warning future putative trade partners of the UK that you can’t trust them is childish and unhelpful?


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> do you agree with me that the Tanaiste of this country warning future putative trade partners of the UK that you can’t trust them is childish and unhelpful



No I do not agree. I think the Tánaiste is being helpful to future putative trade partners to the UK under its current administration.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> No I do not agree. I think the Tánaiste is being helpful to future putative trade partners to the UK under its current administration.


You are being disingenuous in claiming the likes of the US need a warning from our Leo and for sure that is not why he said those things.  It is a naked play to the domestic gallery and to the extent that it steals SF clothes I suppose that is one good thing.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I don't think the US needs any help from our Leo and for sure that is not why he said those things.  It is a naked play to the domestic gallery and to the extent that it steals SF clothes I suppose that is one good thing.



Perhaps. That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that FG see SF eating up greater ground and need to react. The increase in support for SF has ended the phony supply and confidence deal and forced FG and FF into coalition.


----------



## mathepac (20 Oct 2021)

Stop the presses. The High Queen of the Six Counties will not attend Mass tomorrow to celebrate the perfidy of her ancestor and his government.   Taking a leaf out of Mickey D's book she has cried off, pulling a reluctant sickie "on medical advice".


----------



## Firefly (20 Oct 2021)

mathepac said:


> Stop the presses. The High Queen of the Six Counties will not attend Mass tomorrow to celebrate the perfidy of her ancestor and his government.   Taking a leaf out of Mickey D's book she has cried off, pulling a reluctant sickie "on medical advice".


Lizzie pulls a sickie


----------



## Purple (20 Oct 2021)

Firefly said:


> Lizzie pulls a sickie


Can you blame her, like wouldn't we all?
She's too old to listen to all that claptrap.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Oct 2021)

The doctor's cert says she "needs a rest".  Would an ordinary Josephine get sick pay on foot of such a flimsy excuse?  And this posing with walking sticks all looks a bit like malingering to me.


----------



## Purple (20 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The doctor's cert says she "needs a rest".  Would an ordinary Josephine get sick pay on foot of such a flimsy excuse?  And this posing with walking sticks all looks a bit like malingering to me.


Sure she must get the pension, though she only started paying tax a few years back and she's fail the means test so maybe not.
If she holds out another few years she can write herself a cheque.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> 6 Times Irish learned not to trust British government


You can now add a 7th - the Partition Party Perfidy when QEII broke her promise to attend a partition celebration bash on the limp excuse of needing a rest.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Oct 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You can now add a 7th - the Partition Party Perfidy when QEII broke her promise to attend a partition celebration bash on the limp excuse of needing a rest.



It's not my list, it's Naomi O'Learys list. 

Still waiting on your alternative suggestion to Irish Sea border? Any day now, and 5yrs.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Still waiting on your alternative suggestion to Irish Sea border? Any day now, and 5yrs.


Didn't know you were waiting or what point you are making.
Of @Baby boomer 's 3 options the Irish Sea border is the best but it is now clear that, whilst not invisible, its visibility is an extremely flexible attribute.
The EU are now proposing only 20% of the visibility that they wanted a few months ago.  You will note that there was no violent reaction when the Protocol was announced in the first place but the reaction was when it came visible.  It may now be too late to correct the damage done by the EU in insisting on 5 times the visibility that they required and of course from the awful blunder of Ursula Underlying.
Varadkar's comments are particularly unhelpful in this context.  At least Coveney is going to the Partition celebration bash, that no Head of State will touch with a barge pole.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Oct 2021)

As mentioned before, the issues surrounding checks emanating from the NIP are administrative teething problems, not issues of sovereignty.
Jeffrey Donaldson agrees

Customs checks do not change the constitutional status of NI



Duke of Marmalade said:


> You will note that there was no violent reaction when the Protocol was announced in the first place but the reaction was when it came visible.



That's because it's not a constitutional issue. Instead what has happened is that heartland loyalism has conflated the importation of British sausages with sovereignty.
The EU never insisted on the checks, they are simply an administrative consequence of the agreement between EU and UK until such time as other measures, and actual planning, can be introduced to relieve the administrative burden. This is currently being offered at 80% reduction with more to come.

What will loyalism do then? Is their sovereignty so fragile as to not to be able withstand customs checks on exotic aubergines?


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Oct 2021)

Is that the finish of the centenary then?, fairly damp squib. There'll not be another one.....


----------



## Baby boomer (23 Oct 2021)

Betsy Og said:


> Is that the finish of the centenary then?, fairly damp squib. There'll not be another one.....


Nope.  Civil war centenaries to come.  Atrocities, executions, lots of bad things to dredge up......

Still a very touchy subject between FG / FF / SF.


----------



## Betsy Og (25 Oct 2021)

Centenary* of NI I meant. 

(*for the pedants I really mean it won't make it to bi-centennial "celebrations")


----------



## PMU (1 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.  A *lot* more complicated.
> 
> The 1948 Act doesn't say the State is called the Republic of Ireland.  It says the _*description*_ of the State is the Republic of Ireland.  The name of the State is Ireland as per the Constitution - no ambiguity, end of story.
> 
> The Republic of Ireland is merely a soccer team.


Correct. And I made similar points in a previous post on AAM on the name of the state.  Art 4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann clearly states that "The name of the State is _Éire_, or, in the English language, _Ireland_."  No ifs, no buts.  So today I get a form from a state body, the CSO, asking me to participate in the household budget survey on "trips taken in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland".  It's really unfair to criticise Jeffrey Donaldson for using the term 'Republic of Ireland', if a major state body uses the same term to refer to the state, and not use the name of the state as specified in the Constitution.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Nov 2021)

PMU said:


> Correct. And I made similar points in a previous post on AAM on the name of the state.  Art 4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann clearly states that "The name of the State is _Éire_, or, in the English language, _Ireland_."  No ifs, no buts.  So today I get a form from a state body, the CSO, asking me to participate in the household budget survey on "trips taken in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland".  It's really unfair to criticise Jeffrey Donaldson for using the term 'Republic of Ireland', if a major state body uses the same term to refer to the state, and not use the name of the state as specified in the Constitution.


The issue here is when does one use the "name" and when does one use the "description".  Clearly in terms of the topic of this thread it is the "name" as set out in the Constitution that counts.  However, when discussing it in a non constitutional or non legal context it would seem that the "description" as set by the 1948 Act would be more appropriate.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The issue here is when does one use the "name" and when does one use the "description".  Clearly in terms of the topic of this thread it is the "name" as set out in the Constitution that counts.  However, when discussing it in a non constitutional or non legal context it would seem that the "description" as set by the 1948 Act would be more appropriate.


The name of the country is 'Ireland' and the description of the country is 'Ireland'. 'The Republic of Ireland' is the name of a football team. If/when the Island of Ireland is united the name of the country will still be 'Ireland'. 
If the Germans took Alsace from France, France wouldn't have to change its name. It would still be France. When the British took/kept the 6 counties of Northern Ireland they didn't get to take the name of the rest of the place.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> The name of the country is 'Ireland' and the description of the country is 'Ireland'.


That is *not *the official position as @Baby boomer advised us some time ago.


			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> Since 1949, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 has provided that the _Republic of Ireland_ (or _Poblacht na hÉireann_ in Irish) is the *official *_description_ for the state.[10] However, _Ireland_ remains the constitutional _name_ of the state.
> 
> The constitutional name _Ireland_ is normally used. However, the official description _Republic of Ireland_ is sometimes used when disambiguation is desired between the state and the island of Ireland. In colloquial use this is often shortened to 'the Republic'.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Nov 2021)

@PMU @Purple
Just to be clear.
Donaldson was wrong to use ROI in naming the President as clearly this was a Constitutional use of the ”name”.  Moreover, he knew it was wrong and was being provocative.
The CSO were right to use ROI in differentiating between here and NI as this is the official “description“ of the 26 counties as per the 1948 Act.
As for sports teams clearly it is the description that counts.  The soccer team is Republic of Ireland.  The rugby team is Ireland.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That is *not *the official position as @Baby boomer advised us some time ago.


Wikipedia is someone's opinion. It's often shortened to 'Doyn Soyth' as well. That is equally incorrect. 
My name and my description are not the same thing. I would expect that people who know my name would use it and not my description when referring to me.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Wikipedia is someone's opinion.


The Wiki quote was stated as facts.  They stated that:
The Constitution states that the “name” is Ireland.
The 1948 Act states that the “description” is Republic of Ireland.
These are *not* opinions.  The further elaboration was in the nature of an opinion but was not central to my point.
Of course Wiki can get its facts wrong.  Are you claiming that either of these stated facts is wrong?
I am discussing here the official position in our legislature.  Of course I agree with you on the more general colloquial use of the terms “name” and “description“.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Wiki quote was stated as facts.  They stated that:
> The Constitution states that the “name” is Ireland.
> The 1948 Act states that the “description” is Republic of Ireland.
> These are *not* opinions.  The further elaboration was in the nature of an opinion but was not central to my point.
> ...


So we agree that the name of the country is Ireland. When in conversation one wishes to distinguish this country from Northern Ireland it is easy to use the correct names; Ireland and Northern Ireland. Quite clear, and correct.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> So we agree that the name of the country is Ireland. When in conversation one wishes to distinguish this country from Northern Ireland it is easy to use the correct names; Ireland and Northern Ireland. Quite clear, and correct.


Sorry, but this rabbit hole did not originate in a discussion about conversation.  @PMU drew our attention to the CSO describing its survey as about "trips taken in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland".   Not only is this officially correct but IMHO your choice of "trips taken in Ireland or Northern Ireland" would be both officially incorrect and confusing.
@PMU 's main point was that if the CSO can use RoI then why beat up Jefferson for doing so.  I hope I have explained the error of this argument.  I think you agree that Donaldson was wrong since he clearly was not referring to the RoI soccer team, which according to yourself is the correct context for the term.  I also believe that he was being deliberately provocative but again that is IMHO.
As for conversation that is a fairly broad church; personally I refer to the 26 counties and the 6 counties.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Not only is this officially correct but IMHO your choice of "trips taken in Ireland or Northern Ireland" would be both officially incorrect and confusing.


It's not officially correct. When naming something you use it's name, not it's description. If there is a lion standing beside a tiger and you want to talk about the former with someone who doesn't know the difference between the two then you'd talk about the large cat with the big mane and the other big cat with the stripes. You'd probably then tell your intellectually challenged companion that one was called a lion and the other a tiger. 

You'd then continue the conversation using their respective names.

The 26 Counties isn't a place. It's a vague description of a place. The place in question is called Ireland.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> It's not officially correct. When naming something you use it's name, not it's description. If there is a lion standing beside a tiger and you want to talk about the former with someone who doesn't know the difference between the two then you'd talk about the large cat with the big mane and the other big cat with the stripes. You'd probably then tell your intellectually challenged companion that one was called a lion and the other a tiger.
> 
> You'd then continue the conversation using their respective names.


I can see there will be no budge.
You stated quite clearly in an earlier post that "Ireland" *is *the description of our state. You are sticking to this so I take it that your answer (not yet provided) to an earlier question is that you believe that Wiki and @Baby boomer have mistakenly referenced the 1948 Act.
So just to be clear and following your "like" for @PMU 's post, do you believe that the CSO were in error in using "Republic of Ireland" in describing their survey and, more importantly, in making this "error" they clear Donaldson of any criticism for making his error*? In fact, in your view they were both referring to the RoI soccer team.


Purple said:


> The 26 Counties isn't a place. It's a vague description of a place. The place in question is called Ireland.


I was giving examples of other uses in conversation.  Wiki also cites The Free State.  Hitler I believe called it a Cabbage Patch.  One hears references to the Black North.
.
_* The one thing that we do agree on, I think, is that Donaldson was certainly in error, though for different reasons.  To me in referring to our president we are definitely in the constitutional space and the "name" in that space is very clearly Ireland.  You take a less constitutional view and simply observe that he was referring to our soccer team, but let's not spoil this point of agreement._


----------



## Leo (2 Nov 2021)

For the avoidance of doubt, the full text of the 1948 Act is here. 

There is no reference to any amendment to Article 4 of the constitution: 


> The name of the State is _Éire_, or, in the English language, _Ireland_.


It's standard practice when changing the name of a state to officially notify the UN, just as when Macedonia added the 'North' in resolution of the long-running dispute with Greece. The official name in UN records remains "Ireland".


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I was giving examples of other uses in conversation. Wiki also cites The Free State. Hitler I believe called it a Cabbage Patch. One hears references to the Black North


All equally as invalid as The Republic of Ireland and the 26 Counties. 

I'm not overly upset by the CSO using a description of this country rather than the name of this country, though I would expect a State Body to use the correct name. I'm just pointing out that this country is Ireland, not 'Doyn Soyth' or 'The Republic' or 'The Republic of Ireland' or 'The 26 Counties' or 'This Jyry-stychion' or 'A Cabbage Patch' or 'Eiry' or anything else.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> All equally as invalid as The Republic of Ireland and the 26 Counties.
> 
> I'm not overly upset by the CSO using a description of this country rather than the name of this country, though I would expect a State Body to use the correct name. I'm just pointing out that this country is Ireland, not 'Doyn Soyth' or 'The Republic' or 'The Republic of Ireland' or 'The 26 Counties' or 'This Jyry-stychion' or 'A Cabbage Patch' or 'Eiry' or anything else.


Ok, I want to close this off.  Hopefully, the following summarises your position.

"The CSO were incorrect in using RoI but it does not upset you but you do agree that it 'excuses' Donaldson for making what in your view was the same error."


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ok, I want to close this off.  Hopefully, the following summarises your position.
> 
> "The CSO were incorrect is using RoI but it does not upset you but you do agree that it 'excuses' Donaldson for making what in your view was the same error."


Yes, because I agree with you that Donaldson did so knowingly whereas I believe that the CSE were just incorrect due to ignorance/oversight.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> For the avoidance of doubt, the full text of the 1948 Act is here.


And right up front it states:


			
				1948 Act said:
			
		

> AN ACT TO REPEAL THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY (EXTERNAL RELATIONS) ACT, 1936 , TO DECLARE THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE SHALL BE THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND


My understanding is that legislation cannot change the Constitution without a referendum, so the official name of the country remains "Ireland".
What is at stake in this rabbit hole is when is it appropriate to use the "description"  which the 1948 Act decrees is the "The Republic of Ireland".
@Purple in #337 outright rejects the legitimacy of the 1948 Act in describing the state as anything other than Ireland and that the role of the RoI caption is reserved for such things as the national soccer team.  So for avoidance of going down a tributary to this rabbit hole can we accept for sake of argument that the 1948 Act is a legitimate piece of our legislation.
Getting to the nub of the issue as @PMU has argued, does the use by the CSO of RoI neutralise any criticisms of Donaldson for doing so?  We all are in agreement that Donaldson was wrong and there seems to be agreement that he was knowingly wrong.  So the argument boils down to were the CSO wrong to use RoI in their context?  For absolute clarity should the CSO have described their survey as concerning "trips taken in Ireland and Northern Ireland"?  What is your view on these latter points?


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> For absolute clarity should the CSO have described their survey as concerning "trips taken in Ireland and Northern Ireland"?


Yes.
The official description of something is not the same as the name of something. When referring to something it is normal to do so using its name. 
My friends refer to me by my name. My ex wife used a non-official description.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Nov 2021)

What hope for a UI if we cannot even get past the name of the current country?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So the argument boils down to were the CSO wrong to use RoI in their context?



No, I don't believe so.

The description of 'The Republic of Ireland' was to replace the previous description of 'Saorstát Éireann'. 

Article 2 of the Constitution recognises Ireland as the entire territory of the island, its islands and seas.
The 26 county state is also called Ireland but for descriptive purposes of distinguishing it from the Ireland under another jurisdiction it can be described as 'The Republic of Ireland'.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Yes.
> The official description of something is not the same as the name of something. When referring to something it is normal to do so using its name.
> My friends refer to me by my name. My ex wife used a non-official description.


I know where you stand, your view is that the 1948 Act was anticipating the country's soccer team.  I would be interested in @Leo 's view.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> What hope for a UI if we cannot even get past the name of the current country?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with you though possibly the referendum subsequent to the GFA has changed that.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I agree with you though possibly the referendum subsequent to the GFA has changed that.



It has changed the claim by the Irish State to have legal jurisdiction over NI for sure, but it still identifies the territory of Ireland to be the entire island its island and seas.

A Bertie master-stoke, all things to all people.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I know where you stand, your view is that the 1948 Act was anticipating the country's soccer team.


No, it was describing the country. The name remained the same.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> What hope for a UI if we cannot even get past the name of the current country?


Interestingly Mary Lou won't use the name of this country. When she's runnin' things will she change the name to 'The 26 Counties', 'This Jurisdiction' or 'Doyn Soyth'? It's appalling that she want's to run a country that she won't even use the name of.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> No, it was describing the country. The name remained the same.


Do a search for “Republic of Ireland” in irishstatutebook.ie.  You will get numerous hits of which the following is a recent  example:


			
				“Irish Statute Book” said:
			
		

> The sector comprises: English Language Schools in the Republic of Ireland which provide education and training in English as a foreign language and other English language related training courses.


Are you still sticking by your claim that the CSO were wrong?  Is the Irish Statute Book riddled with this error?


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Do a search for “Republic of Ireland” in irishstatutebook.ie.  You will get numerous hits of which the following is a recent  example:
> 
> Are you still sticking by your claim that the CSO were wrong?  Is the Irish Statute Book riddled with this error?


I'm just going by the Constitution of this Jyr-e-stiction.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> I'm just going by the Constitution of this Jyr-e-stiction.


I take it that you still agree with @PMU 's central point that the CSO usage minimises any criticism that can be levied at Donaldson.  I also note that you believe that multiple tracts of our legislation are ignoring the Constitution.

By way of summary, I hope I have persuaded most other listeners that:
(1) Donaldson was knowingly and provocatively calling Michael D the incorrect title of the President of the Republic of Ireland just as he refuses to call our Taoiseach and Tanaiste by their official titles.
(2)  The CSO are both in letter and in spirit absolutely correct to describe their survey as covering "trips in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" rather than saying "trips in Ireland and Northern Ireland".
(3) For most people then, the CSO usage should not in any way minimise criticism of Donaldson in this context.  Though I accept there will be a minority like @Purple and @PMU who believe that it does so minimise that criticism.


----------



## Leo (3 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And right up front it states:


Yes, the 1948 act provides a description, just like a description for me could well be Bill's son, or the grumpy moderator from AAM, but descriptions do not change names. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> My understanding is that legislation cannot change the Constitution without a referendum, so the official name of the country remains "Ireland".


Correct, a referendum must proceed any change in the official name of the state. Were such a referendum to be passed, then an Act would be required to be passed by the Oireachtas to affect the change. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Getting to the nub of the issue as @PMU has argued, does the use by the CSO of RoI neutralise any criticisms of Donaldson for doing so? We all are in agreement that Donaldson was wrong and there seems to be agreement that he was knowingly wrong. So the argument boils down to were the CSO wrong to use RoI in their context? For absolute clarity should the CSO have described their survey as concerning "trips taken in Ireland and Northern Ireland"? What is your view on these latter points?


I've no issue with the CSO or anyone else using the informal description in most circumstances. 

Much as I love a bit of pedantry, I just can't get upset about someone trying to insult us by using ROI.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> Yes, the 1948 act provides a description, just like a description for me could well be Bill's son, or the grumpy moderator from AAM, but descriptions do not change names.


Leo, as I said in an earlier post, if you search "Republic of Ireland" in irishstatutebook.ie you will get numerous hits.  Nobody is arguing that descriptions change names or that the official name of Michael D is not the President of Ireland.  But clearly from all those references in the statute book the "description" as set out in the 1948 Act can be used as a noun and formally so at that.


Leo said:


> I've no issue with the CSO or anyone else using the *informal *description in most circumstances.


Sorry but it can't get much more formal than this:


			
				1948 Act said:
			
		

> AN ACT TO REPEAL THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY (EXTERNAL RELATIONS) ACT, 1936 , TO DECLARE THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE SHALL BE THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND


@Purple has given us examples of some informal names/descriptions and personally I do not think the CSO should call our country "down here" for example.



Leo said:


> Much as I love a bit of pedantry, I just can't get upset about someone trying to insult us by using ROI.


@PMU has rightly identified that there are many who, unlike you but like me and like our president, do object to Donaldson's typically provocative terminology.  Whilst it might be difficult to put yourself in our shoes do you think the CSO example should detract us from those objections?  I most certainly don't.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @Purple has given us examples of some informal names/descriptions and personally I do not think the CSO should call our country "down here" for example.


I'd happily change the name to 'LGBTQ+ Central, Pink Unicorns and Atheism' if it kept the God-botherer's out.


----------



## Leo (3 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But clearly from all those references in the statute book the "description" as set out in the 1948 Act can be used as a noun.


repeated use of a description does not mean it becomes a noun, let alone a formal title. Call me what you like for as long as you like, my name is still Leo. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Sorry but it can't get much more formal than this:


No, I mean informally use a description in place of a more formal use of the proper name



Duke of Marmalade said:


> @Purple has given us examples of some informal names/description and personally I do not think the CSO should call our country "down here" for example.


I'd agree, 'down here' is a poor descriptor in the absence of further clarification. Republic of Ireland needs no such clarification. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> @PMU has rightly identified that there are many who, unlike you but like me and like our president, do object to Donaldson's typically provocative terminology. Whilst it might be difficult to put yourself in our shoes do you think the CSO example detracts from those objections?


I think those getting upset by this just add fuel to the fire and give him exactly what he's looking for. It seems to be a common political strategy now, distract from the substantive issues, sow discontent and have your opponents bickering over the inconsequential.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> repeated use of a description does not mean it becomes a noun, let alone a formal title. Call me what you like for as long as you like, my name is still Leo.
> 
> 
> No, I mean informally use a description in place of a more formal use of the proper name
> ...


Jayz, I am tearing what little is left of my hair out
I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE NAME IS THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.

What I am saying is that Donaldson made a deliberately provocative and INCORRECT use of "Republic of Ireland".  It is not just me that has made that assessment.  Our President took particular hump at it.
The CSO made a CORRECT use of "Republic of Ireland" in the same way that it is used umpteen times in our legislation.  The logic of some posters seems to be that the President should be issuing a formal rebuke to the CSO to be consistent.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Jayz, I am tearing what little is left of my hair out
> I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE NAME IS THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.
> 
> What I am saying is that Donaldson made a deliberately provocative and INCORRECT use of "Republic of Ireland".  It is not just me that has made that assessment.  Our President took particular hump at it.


Agreed, though Micky D is particularly good at taking the hump. 
Maybe it's the burden of being the greatest living Irishman. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The CSO made a CORRECT use of "Republic of Ireland" in the same way that it is used umpteen times in our legislation.


Kind of, they should really refer to this country by its name but it's no big deal.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The logic of some posters seems to be that the President should be issuing a formal rebuke to the CSO to be consistent.


I don't see that.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2021)

The weather has turned bad here in South of France so AAM great for passing the time.


Purple said:


> Agreed, though Micky D is particularly good at taking the hump.
> Maybe it's the burden of being the greatest living Irishman.


Agreed.  Not a great fan of Mickey D.


Purple said:


> Kind of, they should really refer to this country by its name but it's no big deal.


Have to agree to disagree.  Clearly it is legitimate to refer to the state by its official "description" and often it is preferable to using its official "name" as we see numerous times in our legislation.  The context of a survey of trips within the two states on this island would indicate for me that the description is the much more appropriate for disambiguation  alone.


Purple said:


> I don't see that.


I am not too proud to admit that I got that one wrong.  Donaldson was attacking Michael D's office and deserved a response from Him.  The CSO instance is not in the same space.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The weather has turned bad here in South of France so AAM great for passing the time.


I'm sure you'll struggle through it


----------



## Firefly (3 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The weather has turned bad here in South of France so AAM great for passing the time.


I'll see your "_South of France_" and raise you to the "_People's Republic of Cork_"


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2021)

Firefly said:


> I'll see your "_South of France_" and raise you to the "_People's Republic of Cork_"
> 
> View attachment 5858


That's just a description.  the official name is The Rebel County.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Interestingly Mary Lou won't use the name of this country. When she's runnin' things will she change the name to 'The 26 Counties', 'This Jurisdiction' or 'Doyn Soyth'? It's appalling that she want's to run a country that she won't even use the name of.



I thought the name of the country was Ireland? Im pretty sure she uses that name? Maybe I'm wrong?


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Nov 2021)

The 'Republic of Ireland' is not an informal description, it is an official, legal description. Its in the 1948 Act, legislated by the Oireachtas, the body that is constitutionally permitted to legislate for the State.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I thought the name of the country was Ireland? Im pretty sure she uses that name? Maybe I'm wrong?


No, not when she's talking about this country. She uses it when talking about the island of Ireland.


----------



## Baby boomer (3 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The 'Republic of Ireland' is not an informal description, it is an official, legal description. Its in the 1948 Act, legislated by the Oireachtas, the body that is constitutionally permitted to legislate for the State.


True, but (along with others!) you're spectacularly missing the point.  The main purpose of the 1948 Act was not to change nomenclature, or the name of the State, or even what people call it informally, but *to declare that we were a Republic.*  This was done by repealing the the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936 which granted the King certain powers in terms of accreditation of diplomatic representatives, signing of international treaties and so on.  As the defining characteristic of a Republic was thought to be the absence of a monarch, this was the reason the State was officially, by law, described as a Republic at the same time as the last vestige of a constitutional role for the King was removed from the Irish legal order.   The Act goes on to allow the powers formally exercised by the King to be exercised by the President on the advice of the Government.

It's significant that the repeal of the 1936 Act is in Section 1 of the 1948 Act as well as being the first thing mentioned in the preamble to the Act.

"_AN ACT TO REPEAL THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY (EXTERNAL RELATIONS) ACT, 1936 , TO DECLARE THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE SHALL BE THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND, AND TO ENABLE THE PRESIDENT TO EXERCISE THE EXECUTIVE POWER OR ANY EXECUTIVE FUNCTION OF THE STATE IN OR IN CONNECTION WITH ITS EXTERNAL RELATIONS."_

And of course, the more petty political reason that motivated the Inter-Party government of the day, was to embarrass Dev, who had often declared that he would make us a Republic, and even claimed de facto to have done so, but never quite pulled the trigger (as it were) to make it happen.

It's really got sweet FA to do with defining the actual name of the State, which was, ever since the 1937 Constitution was adopted, and remains, Ireland.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The 'Republic of Ireland' is not an informal description, it is an official, legal description. Its in the 1948 Act, legislated by the Oireachtas, the body that is constitutionally permitted to legislate for the State.


Correct; it is the official description of the country of Ireland.
When referring to something it is normal to use its name rather than its description.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2021)

well said @Baby boomer


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> True, but (along with others!) you're spectacularly missing the point.  The main purpose of the 1948 Act was not to change nomenclature, or the name of the State, or even what people call it informally, but *to declare that we were a Republic.*  This was done by repealing the the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936 which granted the King certain powers in terms of accreditation of diplomatic representatives, signing of international treaties and so on.  As the defining characteristic of a Republic was thought to be the absence of a monarch, this was the reason the State was officially, by law, described as a Republic at the same time as the last vestige of a constitutional role for the King was removed from the Irish legal order.   The Act goes on to allow the powers formally exercised by the King to be exercised by the President on the advice of the Government.
> 
> It's significant that the repeal of the 1936 Act is in Section 1 of the 1948 Act as well as being the first thing mentioned in the preamble to the Act.
> 
> ...


No argument with that.  But just to be clear it wasn't just a case of "we are a Republic, end of".  Otherwise why bother introducing this contortion of a description.   The fact is that the "description" has been very much part of our legislation ever since, appearing many, many times.
Of course you apprised us of this situation a long time ago (#4 18th September*) and I would be interested in your thoughts on the following question. (Note that we all agree that Donaldson was wrong and most of us suspect that he was being deliberately provocative.  We also all agree that the name of the state is "Ireland".)
*Q.* Were the CSO similarly incorrect in using "trips in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" rather than "trips in Ireland and Northern Ireland" to describe their survey?
This is key to the central point, for if the CSO have been sloppily incorrect it does rather take the wind from the sails of any criticism of Donaldson even though his "mistake" most likely had more malice in it.

As a supplementary, if you think the CSO were incorrect, have you any views as to when it would be appropriate for a state body to use the 1948 description rather than the constitutional name?  Or do you think that technically a state body should always use the constitutional name and not the legislated description?

* I re-read that very informative post again.  Interestingly you assert, and are probably right, that the Brits called us the Republic of Ireland and therefore we dug in our heels and insisted on Ireland.  I suspect that discussions along these lines occurred during the GFA negotiations (especially in the context of us retracting those Articles), of which I think I recall Donaldson was a leading Unionist participant. I think there can be little doubt that Donaldson's "mistake" had malice in it.

Wiki, and @Purple reminds me that this is only their opinion, have the following take.


			
				wiki said:
			
		

> The constitutional name _Ireland_ is normally used. However, the official description _Republic of Ireland_ is sometimes used when disambiguation is desired between the state and the island of Ireland.


I think the CSO survey intro is a clear case where disambiguation is desired
Interestingly, we also have from Wiki:


			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> "Republic of Ireland" was used on the state's version of the 2021 EU Digital COVID Certificate, which a Department of Health official said was an "oversight" that would be "corrected going forward".


So I do agree that the default should be Ireland but that Republic of Ireland can be correct in the right context.  That context apparently occurs many times in our legislation and IMHO was present in the case of the CSO survey.  Now the _faux pas_ on the COVID certificate would let Donaldson off the hook if we thought his was a similar slip.  I have already opined on that.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> The main purpose of the 1948 Act was not to change nomenclature, or the name of the State, or even what people call it informally, but *to declare that we were a Republic.*



I'm not disputing that. I'm not disputing anything in fact. The question was put, was a State body like CSO wrong to use the term 'Republic of Ireland' in context of its objectives in gathering census information? 
I do not believe that it was as the term 'Ireland' is both the name of the 26 county State and the name of the territorial space of the entire island as recognised by the Constitution.
So for the avoidance of doubt the CSO was perfectly correct in using 'Republic of Ireland' as it was information from that area of Ireland it was seeking rather than the entire island.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> So for the avoidance of doubt the CSO was perfectly correct in using 'Republic of Ireland' as it was information from that area of Ireland it was seeking rather than the entire island.


I think that's what educated folk call "disambiguation".  It wasn't quite a census but a survey on "trips in (...) and Northern Ireland".
Anyway, we keep being in danger of missing the main point which to me is that Donaldson was being provocative and the CSO instance does not in any way absolve him.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm not disputing that. I'm not disputing anything in fact. The question was put, was a State body like CSO wrong to use the term 'Republic of Ireland' in context of its objectives in gathering census information?
> I do not believe that it was as the term 'Ireland' is both the name of the 26 county State and the name of the territorial space of the entire island as recognised by the Constitution.
> So for the avoidance of doubt the CSO was perfectly correct in using 'Republic of Ireland' as it was information from that area of Ireland it was seeking rather than the entire island.


But it is the Central Statistics Office of this country. You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think they were asking for date about a different country twice.


----------



## Baby boomer (3 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of course you apprised us of this situation a long time ago (#4 18th September*) and I would be interested in your thoughts on the following question. (Note that we all agree that Donaldson was wrong and most of us suspect that he was being deliberately provocative.  We also all agree that the name of the state is "Ireland".)
> *Q.* Were the CSO similarly incorrect in using "trips in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" rather than "trips in Ireland and Northern Ireland" to describe their survey?
> This is key to the central point, for if the CSO have been sloppily incorrect it does rather take the wind from the sails of any criticism of Donaldson even though his "mistake" most likely had more malice in it.


Good question.   I think the key is to separate the formal from the colloquial.  There is a spectrum from:

A) ultra formal on the one hand (eg diplomatic or international legal documents, passports, visas, etc) IIRC, a British extradition request was once refused by the Irish Courts because it was addressed to the Republic of Ireland.

B) Other legal documents.  "Ireland" should be used but isn't always.   I've seen many legal contracts that state words such as "this contract shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of Ireland." Technically, this is erroneous and lawyers should really know better!  Is any offence meant?  Generally, no.  Are there any practical consequences? Generally, no, and if push came to shove, the Courts would normally uphold the contract on the basis that the parties knew exactly what the term meant.

 C) Formal, but not legal, usage where protocol is expected to be followed.  Eg invitation addressed to the President.  Care should be taken to get this right.  It is insulting not to.  I remember in the 1980s the then Telecom Eireann phone book listed the Iraqi embassy  as the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iraq.  This was a grave insult to the (nominally) secular regime in Iraq who were at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran at the time!  Great umbrage was taken and grovelling apologies had to be issued.   

D) Public discourse.  Here it gets murkier.  We don't, for example refer to Greece, Latvia or Italy as the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Latvia or the Italian Republic.  Yet, these are their official names used when, for example, acceding to EU treaties.  Is it wrong or incorrect not to use the full official name?  Technically, yes, but generally no offence is, or should be, taken by using the more informal name *UNLESS* it is done deliberately to insult.  (Donaldson's comment falls into this category.)

E) Private discourse.  Here, colloquial or shorthand or even informal uses are fine, unless deliberately designed to insult.  Eg, "how was your Kiwi holiday?" is unlikely to be problematic, ( unlike a letter addressed to the "Kiwi ambassador.")

So, context is everything.  I'd put the CSO thing in or around D on the above scale.  Technically incorrect, no intention to cause offence, avoidance of ambiguity is a mitigating factor.  Sometimes, it's just difficult to get the balance right.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> As a supplementary, if you think the CSO were incorrect, have you any views as to when it would be appropriate for a state body to use the 1948 description rather than the constitutional name?  Or do you think that technically a state body should always use the constitutional name and not the legislated description?


It's a balancing act.  You weigh up constitutional accuracy against ease of comprehension and avoidance of ambiguity.  (Yeah, a cop-out answer, I know!)



Duke of Marmalade said:


> * I re-read that very informative post again.  Interestingly you assert, and are probably right, that the Brits called us the Republic of Ireland and therefore we dug in our heels and insisted on Ireland.  I suspect that discussions along these lines occurred during the GFA negotiations (especially in the context of us retracting those Articles), of which I think I recall Donaldson was a leading Unionist participant. I think there can be little doubt that Donaldson's "mistake" had malice in it.


Absolutely! 


BTW, here's the preamble to the Lisbon treaty, interesting reading....:

PREAMBLE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC,

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA,

THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC,

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SPAIN,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA,

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUKE OF LUXEMBOURG,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY,

THE PRESIDENT OF MALTA,

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,

THE FEDERAL PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC,

THE PRESIDENT OF ROMANIA,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND,

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN,

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND,

DESIRING to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam and by the Treaty of Nice with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action,

HAVE RESOLVED to amend the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty establishing the European Community....... Yadda, yadda, etc etc.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2021)

Wow!  You know your stuff.  I've a feeling we are in violent agreement but I don't want to push my luck


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> * I re-read that very informative post again. Interestingly you assert, and are probably right, that the Brits called us the Republic of Ireland and therefore we dug in our heels and insisted on Ireland. I suspect that discussions along these lines occurred during the GFA negotiations (especially in the context of us retracting those Articles), of which I think I recall Donaldson was a leading Unionist participant. I think there can be little doubt that Donaldson's "mistake" had malice in it.


That's probably why I get a bit hung up on it. 
I also correct UK suppliers who refer to the Island of Britain as 'The Mainland'. I feign confusion and tell them I though they were based in Britain, not the mainland. 
What really gets to me is someone calling this country Eire is a flat English accent instead of Ireland. If they were talking about Germany they wouldn't call it _Deutschland._

It's one of many things that bothers me more than it should. Then again there's lots of things that bother me far less than they should.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Nov 2021)

PMU said:


> the CSO, asking me to participate in the household budget survey on "trips taken in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland"


So, this was the question. 



Purple said:


> You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think they were asking for date about a different country twice.



You suggest the question should read 


-  "trips taken in Ireland or Northern Ireland"? 

Noting that a simple "trips taken in Ireland?" would, constitutionally, cover the both the entire island, its islands and seas. 
That said, some people might think just politically it only refers to 26 Counties. 
This would put the validity and accuracy of the data in jeopardy. 

So the good people at the CSO saw a resolution to any possible confusion or misunderstanding and used, quite correctly, the official and legitimate description of 'Republic of Ireland' and the disputed (or at least not constitutionally recognised) but accepted, description of 'Northern Ireland'.


----------



## Baby boomer (3 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> So, this was the question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps _*"trips taken in Ireland (including Northern Ireland)"*_ better fits the bill?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2021)

The point is that the terminology used by the CSO is perfectly legitimate, perfectly correct, perfectly without ambiguity and devoid of any political undertones.
It in no way excuses, as @PMU suggests, the mean spirited politically motivated insult given to our President by the leader of unionists in the six counties.

Heck, I'm sounding like Mary Lou and @WolfeTone rolled together ( sorry for the graphic image, _Wolfie_)


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Perhaps _*"trips taken in Ireland (including Northern Ireland)"*_ better fits the bill?



Perhaps, but if the purpose is to distinguish the data between the two jurisdictions then this only causes confusion as it clearly includes trips in both jurisdictions.

Call me old fashioned if you will, but I don't think this matter is going to get resolved without a bottle of Brandy and a packet of Hamlet cigars.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Heck, I'm sounding like Mary Lou and @WolfeTone rolled together ( sorry for the graphic image, _Wolfie_)



No worries, Im more traumatised by the series of recent 'Likes' you have given me. 

My self-belief is being shattered!


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Perhaps, but if the purpose is to distinguish the data between the two jurisdictions then this only causes confusion as it clearly includes trips in both jurisdictions.


See that's Sinner speak, that 'jurisdictions' thing. This is a country, not a province or a protectorate or a jurisdiction. Why won't you guys refer to this country as a country? 


WolfeTone said:


> Call me old fashioned if you will, but I don't think this matter is going to get resolved without a bottle of Brandy and a packet of Hamlet cigars.


I only smoke Cohiba's and Brandy gives me heartburn. I'm more of a Bourbon man myself.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> See that's Sinner speak, that 'jurisdictions' thing. This is a country, not a province or a protectorate or a jurisdiction. Why won't you guys refer to this country as a country?



Oh dear! Time to open the Brandy!  
I've never referred to the Republic of Ireland as anything but a country. 



Purple said:


> that 'jurisdictions' thing



Yeh you're right. Silly thing that 'jurisdictions' thing. Let's do away with it and bring the political sphere into line with the Constitution and just call the whole country and island, Ireland. 
After all, 'Northern Ireland' is just the name of a football team.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Oh dear! Time to open the Brandy!
> I've never referred to the Republic of Ireland as anything but a country.


So you still won't use the name of this country, as per your Party policy. Thanks for the clarification.


WolfeTone said:


> Yeh you're right. Silly thing that 'jurisdictions' thing. Let's do away with it and bring the political sphere into line with the Constitution and just call the whole country and island, Ireland.
> After all, 'Northern Ireland' is just the name of a football team.


Call it a country. That's what it is.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2021)

@Purple I was brought up to believe that we are all sinners
I think you are being a bit harsh on _Wolfie_ but you are dead right on SF/IRA.  I wasn’t actually aware that this was their official policy but I Googled this.


			
				“Irish Times” said:
			
		

> What’s in a name? Quite a lot if you are engaged in the linguistic contortions Sinn Féin use to avoid calling the two political administrations on this island by their officially-recognised names.
> 
> “The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland,” declares Article 4 of the Irish Constitution though not for Sinn Féin for which Ireland is the politically divided island and not the State.
> 
> ...


So much for the GFA. They don’t believe a word of it.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @Purple I was brought up to believe that we are all sinners
> I think you are being a bit harsh on _Wolfie_ but you are dead right on SF/IRA.  I wasn’t actually aware that this was their official policy but I Googled this.
> 
> So much for the GFA. They don’t believe a word of it.


Wolfie, for all his linguistic ability, toes his Party's line. 
Deep down they refuse to recognise the legitimacy of this country, a country they want to ruin, sorry, run.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2021)

I re-read this line from our Constitution.



			
				Article 4 of the Constitution said:
			
		

> “The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland,”


The interesting thing about this sentence is that it is written in English.  If it were merely a translation of the Gaelic version "Éire" would be out of place.  This suggests to me that "Éire" is a valid name *in English *but also with the alternative "Ireland" - the key word being "or".
So the Brits were not a million miles away in calling us Eire though the absence of the accent is unforgiveable.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The interesting thing about this sentence is that it is written in English. This suggests to me that "Éire" is a valid name *in English *but also with the alternative "Ireland" - key word being "or".


To me the wording is clear, and the comma is key. If you are speaking in Irish the name of the country is Éire. If you are speaking in English the name of the country is Ireland. If you were talking about Germany in English you wouldn't call it Deutschland.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> So the Brits were not a million miles away in calling us Eire though the absence of the accent is unforgiveable.


They are calling it 'Air-ey' in order to distinguish it from Ireland. That is unforgivable.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> So you still won't use the name of this country, as per your Party policy.



Im not a member of any party, anymore than you a FG'er.

The official name of the State is Ireland. The official name of the country is Ireland. The official descript of the country is the Republic of Ireland.

Its not me who has difficulty accepting the official descript of the country to be 'The Republic of Ireland', its you.



Purple said:


> 'The Republic of Ireland' is the name of a football team





Duke of Marmalade said:


> I wasn’t actually aware that this was their official policy



I think you will find that that is the Irish Times interpretation of their official policy. Either that, or you have uncovered a deep dark secret within SF - the end of Ireland as a partitioned state! 
This exclusive will surely reverberate around the world once it is revealed to the public? 



Purple said:


> Deep down they refuse to recognise the legitimacy of this country, a country they want to ruin



Speaking for myself, I accept the legitimacy of this state but I refuse to agree that this 26 county state, Ireland, RoI , Éire, call it what you will, is what the vast majority of the people living on this island ever wanted. That is my belief, my entitlement to hold that belief whether you or anyone agrees with it. You have your own beliefs.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The interesting thing about this sentence is that it is written in English.



_An Stát 

Airteagal 4 

Éire is ainm don stát nó, sa sacs-Bhéarla, Ireland _

I think you may have hit upon an inconvenient truth Duke!

The name of State is Éire, both in the Irish language version of the constitution _and _the English language version. Of course, the English _translation _of Éire is Ireland, but Éire is the official name.

Can we now have some respect from those who find SF description of the 26 counties so offensive? Can they live up to their own demands in wanting the country to be called by its official name and call it Éire?


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Im not a member of any party, anymore than you a FG'er.


Really? Your ideologically identical twins, you support all their policies and defend all their actions. 



WolfeTone said:


> The official name of the State is Ireland. The official name of the country is Ireland. The official descript of the country is the Republic of Ireland.


Correct.


WolfeTone said:


> Its not me who has difficulty accepting the official descript of the country to be 'The Republic of Ireland', its you.


I have no difficulty with Ireland being described as The Republic of Ireland. It is a republic. 


WolfeTone said:


> I think you will find that that is the Irish Times interpretation of their official policy. Either that, or you have uncovered a deep dark secret within SF - the end of Ireland as a partitioned state!
> This exclusive will surely reverberate around the world once it is revealed to the public?


I'm not sure what you're talking about there.



WolfeTone said:


> Speaking for myself, I accept the legitimacy of this state but I refuse to agree that this 26 county state, Ireland, RoI , Éire, call it what you will, is what the vast majority of the people living on this island ever wanted. That is my belief, my entitlement to hold that belief whether you or anyone agrees with it. You have your own beliefs.


You are absolutely entitled to your own beliefs and opinions but not your own facts. The fact is that the name of this country is Ireland. It is not called The Republic of Ireland. Calling is that is factually incorrect, just as calling is 'The Soyth', 'Doyne there', 'The 26 Coynties' or 'Air-ey' is equally incorrect.  


WolfeTone said:


> _An Stát
> 
> Airteagal 4
> 
> ...


No, the Constitution is quite clear that the name of the Country is Éire in Irish and Ireland in English. 


WolfeTone said:


> Can we now have some respect from those who find SF description of the 26 counties so offensive?


No.


WolfeTone said:


> Can they live up to their own demands in wanting the country to be called by its official name and call it Éire?


... or Ireland if they are speaking in English. Absolutely.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I think you will find that that is the Irish Times interpretation of their official policy. Either that, or you have uncovered a deep dark secret within SF - the end of Ireland as a partitioned state!
> This exclusive will surely reverberate around the world once it is revealed to the public?


As you have observed I have been generally holding your hand in this rabbit hole and giving you lots of "likes".  You have been speaking a lot of common sense which I know is a new experience for you and I wanted to give you encouragement.

But I have to pull you up on this dismissal of the IT article.  Maybe my use of "official" line was incorrect but I don't think you can argue with the broad thrust of that article even if it was written from an anti SF bias.  What struck me was that I was unaware that the very topic we are discussing got so close to the bone of the SF/IRA credo.  And I am close to this space in many ways.  What chance have millennials got to recognise that SF are essentially a subversive party who respect neither our Constitution nor the GFA.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> repeated use of a description does not mean it becomes a noun, let alone a formal title. Call me what you like for as long as you like, my name is still Leo.


Coming back to you on the point of grammar.  The description is a qualified noun.  The noun is "Republic" and it is qualified by the preposition "of" in conjunction with the proper noun (or name if you like) of "Ireland".  Many descriptions are qualified nouns e.g. The White House.  But a description can be a stand alone noun such as the "darkness".

As another example consider the Central Statistics Office or "The office in charge of central statistics".  Both are qualified nouns though the former has been officially "baptised" with its name, the latter is not a name.
The Republic of Ireland is not a name, I never said it was, but it is an official description used as a noun on numerous occasions in our legislation.


----------



## Leo (5 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Coming back to you on the point of grammar. The description is a qualified noun. The noun is "Republic" and it is qualified by the preposition "of" in conjunction with the pronoun (or name if you like) of "Ireland".


Prepositions in and of themselves are not qualifiers. 'Ireland' or other names are not pronouns, they're proper nouns.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> Prepositions in and of themselves are not qualifiers.


I didn't say they were.  I said that the preposition in conjunction with... was the qualifier.


Leo said:


> 'Ireland' or other names are not pronouns, they're proper nouns.


Oops!  Meant proper nouns.  Post corrected.

I possibly misinterpreted your first post which seemed to say that a description can't become a noun, as if they were distinct figures of speech.

Perhaps the more correct term is noun phrase.


			
				BBC said:
			
		

> A *noun phrase* is a group of words, often adjectives and determiners, based around a noun


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Really? Your ideologically identical twins, you support all their policies and defend all their actions.



Yes really. I didn't know I supported all their policies? This is new to me, and I don't recall defending any of their actions.

I do recall highlighting the hypocrisy of some moralising SF about violent actions taken in the name of Irish Republicanism while simultaneously lauding the violent actions taken in the name of Irish Republicanism.



Purple said:


> The fact is that the name of this country is Ireland.



Has anyone ever disputed this?



Purple said:


> It is not called The Republic of Ireland. Calling is that is factually incorrect, just as calling is 'The Soyth', 'Doyne there', 'The 26 Coynties' or 'Air-ey' is equally incorrect.



But it can be described as The Republic of Ireland. It is actually a convenience when you consider that, and as much as you disregard this, there are two jurisdictions. So for organisations like the CSO, going about their business, it is a useful and recognised and accepted descript.

As for the informal names, such as '26 counties', this is also useful. There are many other informal names for Ireland, "The Emerald Isle", "The Land of Saints and Scholars", "The Auld Sod".

Are we not to use these informal descriptions anymore?? 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Maybe my use of "official" line was incorrect but I don't think you can argue with the broad thrust of that article even if it was written from an anti SF bias.



Let's go to the horses mouth. I don't have the official policy doctrine to hand (not being a member and all that) but I attach a link to a SF policy document entitled "Inclusion and Reconciliation in a New Ireland". 

Inclusion and Reconcilliation

Surely such a document, some 19pages long, will shed light on the true attitude of SF to the name of this country? In some 19 pages I searched for the titles:

Ireland                                           -   68 times
Republic of Ireland                        -   0
Down South                                   -  0
Southern State                               -  1
26 Counties                                    -  0
The 26                                            - 0
Northern Ireland                            - 1
north of Ireland                              - 0
northern state                                - 0
the 6                                               - 0
the six counties                              - 0
orange state                                   - 0
British Statelet                                - 0

I have to say, for an official policy document it does not really chime with the IT perspective.

Of course informal references of "north of Ireland", "six counties" "26 counties" are abound in SF lexicon. But so what? They are accurate, if informal, descripts of a political reality. A political reality which they are fundamentally opposed which is their absolute legitimate entitlement. 

But this discussion is really about the southern state 26 county state the auld sod the emerald isle Irelands own institutions like the CSO use the descript of the Republic of Ireland to go about their business in collecting data, and more so, the apparent offence that some seem to take that they should use such a descript.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> It is actually a convenience when you consider that, and as much as you disregard this, there are two jurisdictions.


There are hundreds of jurisdictions all over the world. When talking about a specific country it is good manners, at the very least, to refer to it by its name and not imply that it is less than a country be referring to it as merely a jurisdiction.


WolfeTone said:


> Are we not to use these informal descriptions anymore??


Of course we are.


WolfeTone said:


> Let's go to the horses mouth. I don't have the official policy doctrine to hand (not being a member and all that) but I attach a link to a SF policy document entitled "Inclusion and Reconciliation in a New Ireland".
> 
> Inclusion and Reconcilliation
> 
> Surely such a document, some 19pages long, will shed light on the true attitude of SF to the name of this country? In some 19 pages I searched for the titles:


I had a quick look at your link. I can't find a single sentence where they refer to this country as Ireland. In their opening paragraph they imply that it's not a real republic.


WolfeTone said:


> But so what? They are accurate, if informal, descripts of a political reality. A political reality which they are fundamentally opposed which is their absolute legitimate entitlement.


Yes, they are opposed to the existence of this country. They want a 32 county Socialist Republic. That's why they won't use the name of the country they want to rule.


WolfeTone said:


> But this discussion is really about the southern state 26 county state the auld sod the emerald isle Irelands own institutions like the CSO use the descript of the Republic of Ireland to go about their business in collecting data, and more so, the apparent offence that some seem to take that they should use such a descript.


No, it's moved on. It's now about a political party that is so opposed to the existence of this country that they can't even call it by its correct name.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Surely such a document, some 19pages long, will shed light on the true attitude of SF to the name of this country? In some 19 pages I searched for the titles:
> 
> Ireland                                           -   68 times
> Republic of Ireland                        -   0
> ...


Fair kop.  Yet the IT article is not a complete fabrication, but yes it does seem to have unwarranted bias on the point.

Corrected following @Purple's  clarification.  Unfair kop.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> In their opening paragraph they imply that it's not a real republic.



Yes, that is their view. In the context of what Wolfe Tone set out to achieve and what was written in the 1916 Proclaimation they have a point.
Simply describing something as a Republic does not necessarily make it a Republic. 
For instance, not all citizens of Ireland over age 18 can vote for who should be President of Ireland. It is restricted to every citizen "_who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann_". This has the effect of disenfranchising tens of thousands of citizens who live abroad. 

In other countries, such as Poland for example, their citizens living abroad can vote. 




Purple said:


> It's now about a political party that is so opposed to the existence of this country



They are opposed to existence of the political construct that partitions this country. They want to dismantle the 26 county state and the 6 county State. 
Good luck to them I say. I hope they succeed. Don't you?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> I had a quick look at your link. I can't find a single sentence where they refer to this country as Ireland. In their opening paragraph they imply that it's not a real republic.


_Wolfie _had me tricked there for a while.  They are talking about the whole island which I think even unionists would call Ireland.  So the criticisms raised in the IT Article and of which you were already very aware stand .


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, that is their view. In the context of what Wolfe Tone set out to achieve and what was written in the 1916 Proclaimation they have a point.


Yes, but they don't have a point in the context of the Constitution of this country. 


WolfeTone said:


> Simply describing something as a Republic does not necessarily make it a Republic.


Republic: _a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch._
We're a republic.


WolfeTone said:


> For instance, not all citizens of Ireland over age 18 can vote for who should be President of Ireland. It is restricted to every citizen "_who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann_". This has the effect of disenfranchising tens of thousands of citizens who live abroad.


And rightly so. 


WolfeTone said:


> They are opposed to existence of the political construct that partitions this country.


This country is not partitioned. This island is partitioned. 


WolfeTone said:


> They want to dismantle the 26 county state and the 6 county State.


There is no 6 county State. The 6 counties of Northern Ireland is a province of the UK.
Do you consider Northern Ireland to be a State? 


WolfeTone said:


> Good luck to them I say. I hope they succeed. Don't you?


No, I don't. 
I'd be in favour of the UK's province of Northern Ireland joining this country, as long as they agreed not to bring their tribalism, religious extremism, racism, homophobia and general culture of having the hand out and whinging with them. They'd also have to agree to stop murdering people who disagree with them politically. 
I certainly don't want a Republic as envisioned by the 1916 leaders. I think Pearse was a nutter and Connolly should have stayed at home in Britain.


----------



## Baby boomer (5 Nov 2021)

I just want to draw your attention to Article 5 of the Constitution.  It short and sweet, and declares that: *"Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state."*

Not terribly noteworthy, you might say, but the interesting bit is what it doesn't say.  It doesn't say Ireland is a Republic.  This goes right back to Dev in 1937 making a judgement call as to how far out he could push the boat.  At that time, as I've pointed out earlier, the King was still part of the Irish political order.  Dev, in order to placate (or not unduly provoke!) the Brits, or perhaps thinking he could still cajole unionism into a UI, wasn't ready to go as far as ditching the link with the Crown.  But he was adamant that the link was merely a form of External Association (a concept he had been pushing since before the Treaty negotiations) to which Ireland voluntarily assented as a matter almost of convenience, and which we could end at will.  Hence the use of words like Independent and Sovereign.  Dev was giving us all the essential characteristics of a Republic (bar ditching the King!) but without frightening the horses by actually using the R-word. 

Point is, once you see and interpret the 1948 Act through the lens of political discourse in the early decades of the State, it becomes absurd to think of it as granting some legitimacy to calling the State the Republic of Ireland.  It was clearly intended to fill the omission deliberately left by Dev in Article 5, and of course to embarrass him by doing so. 

I can happily accept that it is a convenient descriptor, or as the Duke put it, a disambiguation.  But this is no more than an artifact of language that can be useful in certain less formal settings.  The 1948 Act does *not* give it a quasi official blessing as a second or alternative name for the State.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Point is, once you see and interpret the 1948 Act through the lens of political discourse in the early decades of the State, it becomes absurd to think of it as granting some legitimacy to *calling *the State the Republic of Ireland.
> 
> The 1948 Act does *not* give it a quasi official blessing as a second or alternative name for the State.


We all agree on these points.  And going right back to OP I think we are agreed from Page 1 that Donaldson was wrong to refer to the President of the Republic of Ireland, and he knew it.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> I just want to draw your attention to Article 5 of the Constitution.  It short and sweet, and declares that: *"Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state."*
> 
> Not terribly noteworthy, you might say, but the interesting bit is what it doesn't say.  It doesn't say Ireland is a Republic.  This goes right back to Dev in 1937 making a judgement call as to how far out he could push the boat.  At that time, as I've pointed out earlier, the King was still part of the Irish political order.  Dev, in order to placate (or not unduly provoke!) the Brits, or perhaps thinking he could still cajole unionism into a UI, wasn't ready to go as far as ditching the link with the Crown.  But he was adamant that the link was merely a form of External Association (a concept he had been pushing since before the Treaty negotiations) to which Ireland voluntarily assented as a matter almost of convenience, and which we could end at will.  Hence the use of words like Independent and Sovereign.  Dev was giving us all the essential characteristics of a Republic (bar ditching the King!) but without frightening the horses by actually using the R-word.
> 
> ...


We also left the Commonwealth in 1948. I think  John A. Costello was trying to our Green Dev but in doing so slammed the door shut on any slim hope of a united Ireland. Dev has been vilified by history but for all his faults he was more of a Statesman than most of them.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Yes, but they don't have a point in the context of the Constitution of this country.



Of course they have a point. They are democratically elected to the Parliament of the State which derives its authority from the Constitution.



Purple said:


> We're a republic.



I didn't say we were not. I was inferring that we are not a Republic as envisaged by the violent extremists of the past (of all generations).



Purple said:


> And rightly so.



That is an opinion that I suggest is repugnant to Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution. But then again, that is just my opinion.


Purple said:


> This country is not partitioned. This island is partitioned.



You are splitting hairs here. You are limiting the definition of 'country' to the political construct that exists currently. I include it to mean all the citizens of the State, or the Nation if you will. 

Realistically the island is not partitioned either.




Purple said:


> I certainly don't want a Republic as envisioned by the 1916 leaders



Regardless of your perception of the authors of the Proclaimation, the crux of what it sets out to achieve is this,


"_The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past." _

Of course all of that is open to interpretation and is wholly aspirational. My interpretation is that it has not been achieved and that the island, country, nation etc would be better served if the political partitions were dismantled and a new unified political construct in its place that serves all the people of this island in one country.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Wolfie _had me tricked there for a while.



Oh dear, I feel I have to dig deeper into the rabbit hole.

So I attach an official policy document on

Driver Tests and Lessons 

Surely such a topic will not cause offence?
I couldnt even be bothered to do all the searches, except for 'Ireland' of course. And there it is, twice. Not only that, but the document goes on to list all the driving test centres in Ireland (as in the 26 county Ireland, lest there be any doubt this time).

Surely this inoffensive document lays it out plain and clear that when SF are talking about driving tests and lessons there are only talking about the driving tests and lessons in this State, and that State is being named as 'Ireland'.

Bobby Sands must be rolling in his grave!


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Of course they have a point. They are democratically elected to the Parliament of the State which derives its authority from the Constitution.


You said;


WolfeTone said:


> In the context of what Wolfe Tone set out to achieve and what was written in the 1916 Proclaimation they have a point.


I agreed but pointed out that in the context of the Constitution of this country they don't have a point. Their status as members democratically elected to the Parliament of the State which derives its authority from the Constitution does not validate their opinion one way or the other. 



WolfeTone said:


> I didn't say we were not. I was inferring that we are not a Republic as envisaged by the violent extremists of the past (of all generations).


Or the violent extremists that set Shinner policy and really run the party. Again, within the confines of the Constitution, international law and the commonly understood definition of the word this is a real Republic. 


WolfeTone said:


> That is an opinion that I suggest is repugnant to Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution. But then again, that is just my opinion.


And we're all entitled to those, for the moment anyway. I'm getting as much free speech spoken as I can before your lot get in. 


WolfeTone said:


> You are splitting hairs here. You are limiting the definition of 'country' to the political construct that exists currently.


I'm most certainly not splitting hairs. This goes to the heart of the issue. This country, called Ireland, is a republic and is made up of 26 counties (Fingal etc aren't real counties). Sinn Fein's refusal to accept that this is a country is despicable.  



WolfeTone said:


> I include it to mean all the citizens of the State, or the Nation if you will.


You can include you're aunts house in Boston if you like but that doesn't make it so.


WolfeTone said:


> Realistically the island is not partitioned either.


Politically it is. Within this island there is territory belonging to two different countries. 



WolfeTone said:


> Regardless of your perception of the authors of the Proclaimation, the crux of what it sets out to achieve is this,
> 
> 
> "_The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past." _
> ...


Yes, it is an aspirational document which suited the political aims of a group of people over 100 years ago. Ireland is a modern liberal European democratic country. We have moved on.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Oh dear, I feel I have to dig deeper into the rabbit hole.
> 
> So I attach an official policy document on
> 
> ...


I read the document you linked. I can't see a single incident were they referred to this country as Ireland. 
Bobby's still resting in peace.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Oh dear, I feel I have to dig deeper into the rabbit hole.
> 
> So I attach an official policy document on
> 
> ...


Now, now, _Wolfie _you will need to do better than that.  The two references to Ireland in that document are to "rural Ireland" and to Insurance Ireland (the insurance body).  I don't think that even Declan Kearney or the censors in West Belfast HQ would have insisted on "rural Southern State" or Insurance Southern State.
We're just scoring points at this stage.  Step back _Wolfie _and admit that @Purple and that IT article are substantially correct,  SF make a very big deal about using these terms even though they are supported by our Constitution.  I think you object to their usage yourself as "copperfastening partition" to quote CJH.  Why else would you have let your portrait adorn that SF policy document?


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> This country, called Ireland, is a republic and is made up of 26 counties (Fingal etc aren't real counties). Sinn Fein's refusal to accept that this is a country is despicable.



But they do accept that. They might not _agree _that it is the Republic that Irish people fought and died for and they are open in bringing in their aims to bring about an end to the 26 county Ireland and replace it with a 32 county All Ireland Republic. That is consistent with the constitution which itself, endorsing the legitmacy of the two jurisdictions, aspires to bring an end to the two jurisidictions  *"*i_t is the firm will of the irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to *unite all the people who share the territory of the island of ireland*, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, *recognising that a united ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this constitution* shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this constitution"_

It is clear, the Constitution has a self-destruct mechanism within it for the 26 county Ireland. It clearly identifies two jurisdictions, and aspires to unite all the people on the island into one jurisdiction. And it is clear that, 'until then' we all accept the laws as currently enacted.

But there is no doubt. When the constitution talks of uniting all the people it is talking about having one jurisdiction

Our elected representatives to the Oireachtas are duty bound to work towards a united Ireland and it is despicable of any elected representative to seek to maintain the political partition on anon-going basis.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I don't think that even Declan Kearney or the censors in West Belfast HQ would have insisted on "rural Southern State" or Insurance Southern State.



I give you that, I didnt read the doc just searched the word 'Ireland'. 

I am not avoiding SF use of the terms '26 county', 'six county', 'north _of _Ireland' etc. I just dont take issue with it. I want to see an end to the 26 county state. I accept it is a reality, but I do not agree with it. 

SF share that sentiment. It is simply a tool SF use to keep that distinction in the minds of the electorate. This is not unusual. Unionists beat the drum "Ulster is British!" for decades. The purpose was the same.

However, officially SF do of course recognise the 26 county 'Ireland'....they sit in its parliament, they accept the authority of Gardai, they support the courts, etc.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> But they do accept that. They might not _agree _that it is the Republic that Irish people fought and died for and they are open in bringing in their aims to bring about an end to the 26 county Ireland and replace it with a 32 county All Ireland Republic. That is consistent with the constitution which itself, endorsing the legitmacy of the two jurisdictions, aspires to bring an end to the two jurisidictions  *"*i_t is the firm will of the irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to *unite all the people who share the territory of the island of ireland*, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, *recognising that a united ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this constitution* shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this constitution"_
> 
> It is clear, the Constitution has a self-destruct mechanism within it for the 26 county Ireland. It clearly identifies two jurisdictions, and aspires to unite all the people on the island into one jurisdiction. And it is clear that, 'until then' we all accept the laws as currently enacted.


That's not clear at all. There  is an aspiration to unite all of the people on the island. That's all. The form that will take is not outlined. Given SF/IRA's long history of destroying things it is understandable that you/their supporters view change as destruction but it doesn't have to be that way.


WolfeTone said:


> But there is no doubt. When the constitution talks of uniting all the people it is talking about having one jurisdiction


It clearly states that aspiration.


WolfeTone said:


> Our elected representatives to the Oireachtas are duty bound to work towards a united Ireland and it is despicable of any elected representative to seek to maintain the political partition on anon-going basis.


Why do you think that?
The GFA is clear that when the majority of people in this country and in Northern Ireland want Irish Unity we should accommodate it. Politicians are duty bound to follow the will of the people, not to steer the people in a particular direction. 


WolfeTone said:


> I give you that, I didnt read the doc just searched the word 'Ireland'.
> 
> I am not avoiding SF use of the terms '26 county', 'six county', 'north _of _Ireland' etc. I just dont take issue with it. I want to see an end to the 26 county state. I accept it is a reality, but I do not agree with it.
> 
> SF share that sentiment. It is simply a tool SF use to keep that distinction in the minds of the electorate. This is not unusual. Unionists beat the drum "Ulster is British!" for decades. The purpose was the same.


Agreed.


WolfeTone said:


> However, officially SF do of course recognise the 26 county 'Ireland'


Do they? Where's that written down, officially? 'Cuse they didn't used to so it's important that if they do now they've actually said so. Officially. 


WolfeTone said:


> ....they sit in its parliament, they accept the authority of Gardai, they support the courts, etc.


As above. Not so long ago all those lads were legitimate targets.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> There is an aspiration to unite all of the people on the island. That's all.



No it is more than that. The constitution clearly references the two jurisdictions and 'the laws enacted by Parliament' and the extent of their application conditioned by an undefined period time 'until then'. In short, the constitution facilitates the prospect of establishing one jurisdiction, one country, one state, on the entire territory universally recognised as Ireland.



Purple said:


> Do they? Where's that written down, officially?



Probably the same place FF have theirs written down!

Im pretty sure that when entering the Dáil or endorsing the GFA they would have had a party Ard Fheis and passed motions to that effect by party membership.
In fact I think there was a motion to accept the legitmacy of the Special Criminal Court which was passed recently. So there you have it, its official, SF accept the 26 county state and its institutions as the legitimate authority but they do not agree that it should be this way.




Purple said:


> Not so long ago all those lads were legitimate targets.



And now they are not legitimate targets (legitimate in SF eyes, not mine).

That is the point.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> No it is more than that. The constitution clearly references the two jurisdictions and 'the laws enacted by Parliament' and the extent of their application conditioned by an undefined period time 'until then'. In short, the constitution facilitates the prospect of establishing one jurisdiction, one country, one state, on the entire territory universally recognised as Ireland.


I don't remember any reference to 'jurisdictions' in the Constitution.


WolfeTone said:


> Im pretty sure that when entering the Dáil or endorsing the GFA they would have had a party Ard Fheis and passed motions to that effect by party membership.


Great, I don't remember that.


WolfeTone said:


> In fact I think there was a motion to accept the legitmacy of the Special Criminal Court which was passed recently. So there you have it, its official, SF accept the 26 county state and its institutions as the legitimate authority but they do not agree that it should be this way.


That would be significant alright.
Will they start referring to this country by its name any time soon?


WolfeTone said:


> And now they are not legitimate targets (legitimate in SF eyes, not mine).
> 
> That is the point.


Wonderful. I presume they think we should leave all those priests alone that used to rape kids but don't anymore, since changing you mind about something means you don't have to take responsibility or apologise for your previous actions.


----------



## Baby boomer (8 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> ....
> In fact I think there was a motion to accept the legitmacy of the Special Criminal Court which was passed recently.....


No, that was the spin.  The reality was that the motion rejected the Special Criminal Court as currently constituted while (somewhat weaselly) suggesting that there might, someday, in some vague undefined circumstances, possibly be some sort of a role for non-jury courts.  (Perhaps when SF take over and there's a few extra-judicial matters that need to be entrusted to a safe pair of hands.)

Not quite the same thing.

More remarkable was how the entire media bought the spin and ran with it.  Assuming they possess the most basic level of intelligence and street smarts, I can only conclude that a chilling compliance has already descended on the journalistic establishment, and they are terrified of offending the soon-to-be ruling junta.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> More remarkable was how the entire media bought the spin and ran with it. Assuming they possess the most basic level of intelligence and street smarts, I can only conclude that a chilling compliance has already descended on the journalistic establishment, and they are terrified of offending the soon-to-be ruling junta.


I an genuinely worried about that. If the Shinners were just a populist reincarnation of Jack Lynch's FF I'd be concerned for the economy but I do not consider them to be a constitutional political party with a genuine commitment to democracy. They are another manifestation of that anti-centralist swing to populism that's given us Orbán in Hungary, Duda in Poland, Trump in America and Johnson in the UK. The one thing they all have in common is a disregard for democracy, the separation of powers and the rule of law.
I think the people who vote for them either share their disregard for those structures, principles and institutions or are too stupid to understand what they are unleashing on us all.


----------



## Baby boomer (8 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> I an genuinely worried about that.


So am I.  


Purple said:


> If the Shinners were just a populist reincarnation of Jack Lynch's FF I'd be concerned for the economy but I do not consider them to be a constitutional political party with a genuine commitment to democracy.


They are trying hard to look like like a normal constitutional party.  Usually that involves sending Eoin O Broin out to defend the indefensible whenever the mask slips. (Cullinane up-the-Ra, Kingsmills bread stunt, Storey funeral, etc, the mask slips quite a bit!)   Does the poor lad never tire of it?



Purple said:


> They are another manifestation of that anti-centralist swing to populism that's given us Orbán in Hungary, Duda in Poland, Trump in America and Johnson in the UK. The one thing they all have in common is a disregard for democracy, the separation of powers and the rule of law.


Hard to disagree.




Purple said:


> I think the people who vote for them either share their disregard for those structures, principles and institutions or are too stupid to understand what they are unleashing on us all.


A bit of both.  The Shinners are masters at cultivating a them-and-us mentality.   Democracy, separation of powers and rule of law are presented as the preserve of "them" and if we are against "them" then, well, such niceties are dispensable to ensure the well-being of "us".  Sure, what could go wrong?


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Sure, what could go wrong?


Germany, Rwanda, Serbia... yep, always works out just fine.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Let's go to the horses mouth. I don't have the official policy doctrine to hand (not being a member and all that) but I attach a link to a SF policy document entitled "Inclusion and Reconciliation in a New Ireland".
> 
> Inclusion and Reconcilliation
> 
> ...


As you know, you had me initially fooled by this.  In fact that document underscores @Purple 's point about how SF refer to our country and how sensitive it is to their credo.
The 1 reference to Northern Ireland was in fact a quotation from the GFA.
There was 1 reference to the "northern state" on page 14.
But the dog that didn't bark was that, despite 68 references to the 32 county Ireland, there was not 1 reference to our country/state/jurisdiction.  As it was constructed they avoided having to give this country a name/description - that was some feat in linguistic juggling.  Can there be any doubt that the West Belfast mullahs went through this document with a fine tooth comb to ensure it was compliant with the SF/IRA Quran?

And now we see you peddle a false narrative on the Special Criminal Court as pointed out by @Baby boomer.  Far from being in favour of this court which was set up partly to protect us from SF/IRA and their fellow travellers they reject this version but do not rule out their own version in the future.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> The reality was that the motion rejected the Special Criminal Court as currently constituted



As yes indeed, you are correct. Safe to say it is a political distraction to disarm their opponents during the election hustings.
No doubt the heavy hitters of yore like McDowell will be wheeled out to remind the public of the ensuing armageddon of a SF led government.

Of course, what all this means is that there is at least one political party uncomfortable with the practice of non-jury courts in a supposed civilised democratic society.
For the record I'm totally opposed to such courts and opposed to the SF about-turn.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Of course, what all this means is that there is at least one political party uncomfortable with the practice of non-jury courts


Especially when they are used to put their mates, an indeed their bosses, in prison.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As you know, you had me initially fooled by this



I wasn't intending to try fool you. I didn't read the document just did the search. 
But I will concede that it is obvious that SF when talking about Ireland are talking in an All Ireland context. Some people take offence to that. Personally I think it chimes with their objectives and is totally compatible with the constitution.
It is the thinking along partitionist lines that is offensive to me.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Especially when they are used to put their mates, an indeed their bosses, in prison.



Absolutely, as you know that prior to 1998 the legality of 26 county State, and as such it's authority, was disputed.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Absolutely, as you know that prior to 1998 the legality of 26 county State, and as such it's authority, was disputed.


What?


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> What?



The legality of the 26 county state was disputed by SF and the IRA, prior to 1998.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The legality of the 26 county state was disputed by SF and the IRA, prior to 1998.


Do you mean Ireland?


----------



## cremeegg (8 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> No, that was the spin.  The reality was that the motion rejected the Special Criminal Court as currently constituted while (somewhat weaselly) suggesting that there might, someday, in some vague undefined circumstances, possibly be some sort of a role for non-jury courts.  (Perhaps when SF take over and there's a few extra-judicial matters that need to be entrusted to a safe pair of hands.)
> 
> Not quite the same thing.
> 
> *More remarkable was how the entire media bought the spin and ran with it. * Assuming they possess the most basic level of intelligence and street smarts, I can only conclude that a chilling compliance has already descended on the journalistic establishment, and they are terrified of offending the soon-to-be ruling junta.


I don't know what media you consume, but the only thing I read about it was Michael McDowell in the IT and he certainly didn't accept the SF spin. 

Actually I couldn't understand what he was banging on about, it struck me as slagging off SF for the sake of it. 

Your outline above makes much more sense. I have no idea wether your view is reasonable or not, I'm not that interested, but you make a straight forward intelligible point which is more than McDowell managed.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I wasn't intending to try fool you. I didn't read the document just did the search.
> But I will concede that it is obvious that SF when talking about Ireland are talking in an All Ireland context.


I was just  noting that a document which mentioned "Ireland" (the 32 county version) 68 times and "partition" 12 times studiously avoided having to mention our country/state/jurisdiction at all.  It's as if to call our country "Ireland" or even the "Republic of Ireland" would grate with them the way using the "N" word grates with us all.  It is clear that they respect neither our Constitution nor the 1948 Act.  This was official policy pre the GFA and in substance nothing has changed since then.  Another taboo seems to be the War of Independence, which they call the Tan War in that link you provided.
I did a similar exercise on the Belfast Agreement.  Lots and lots and lots of references to Northern Ireland.  Quite a few references to Ireland, the 32 county version.  Ireland the 26 county version appears in references to the Government of Ireland.  No reference to the Republic of Ireland.  1 reference to the South and 1 reference to the jurisdiction (of the Government of Ireland).


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is clear that they respect neither our Constitution



I'm not seeing this at all. Referencing Ireland in a 32 county is wholly and absolutely consistent with the Constitution.
In fact the Constitution is silent on this 26 county thingy save to describe it as a jurisdiction, and not the State.
Interestingly is has this to say about the two jurisdictions

- "_Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and *may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island."*_

It is clear, the Constitution  does not define 'The State' as the 26 Counties and it certainly does not limit itself to the 26 Counties.
The Constitution permits the establishment of institutions on a shared All Ireland basis with the right to exercise powers.
Is it fair to say that it is the function of the State to administer these shared institutions?
I would say so.
So 'The State' is Ireland. All Ireland. It has absolute jurisdiction in the 26 counties and shared jurisdiction in those institutions established with executive powers.

Sinn Féin are absolutely right to talk of Ireland on an All Ireland basis. Those who talk of Ireland in the sense of 26 counties alone are betraying the Constitution and are of the old partitionist mindset. They need to move aside, their day is done and cooked.

"Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland" are just two football teams.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Sinn Féin are absolutely right to talk of Ireland on an All Ireland basis. Those who talk of Ireland in the sense of 26 counties alone are betraying the Constitution and are of the old partitionist mindset. They need to move aside, their day is done and cooked


Wow, that blind adherence to Shinner dogma is frightening. 
Bottom line; The Shinners won't use the name of this country and, despite not being a member of the party, you are, as usual, 100% in agreement with them.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> The Shinners won't use the name of this country and, despite not being a member of the party, you are, as usual, 100% in agreement with them.



They use the name of the country ALL the time. They use it in the context of a 32 county, islands and seas, which is wholly compatible with the Constitution of this country.
One which I am in total agreement.
It's the attempted limitations of the partitionists to fix the boundary of the nation to some 26 county jurisdiction that is a betrayal of the country and the Constitution.



Purple said:


> despite not being a member of the party, you are, as usual, 100% in agreement with them.



Is there a reason why I cannot be in agreement with them? After all, it's the reason I offer my vote to them. That makes sense does it not?
But I don't agree with them on everything if that is what you are inferring?



WolfeTone said:


> For the record I'm totally opposed to such courts and opposed to the SF about-turn.



How to square that circle of "as usual, 100% agreement"?


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> They use the name of the country ALL the time. They use it in the context of a 32 county, islands and seas, which is wholly compatible with the Constitution of this country.
> One which I am in total agreement.
> It's the attempted limitations of the partitionists to fix the boundary of the nation to some 26 county jurisdiction that is a betrayal of the country and the Constitution.


Now you seem to be denying the existence of this country. It's worryingly Orwellian. I hope it's not a sign of things to come when you guys get into power.


WolfeTone said:


> Is there a reason why I cannot be in agreement with them? After all, it's the reason I offer my vote to them. That makes sense does it not?
> But I don't agree with them on everything if that is what you are inferring?


I haven't seen you disagree with them.


WolfeTone said:


> How to square that circle of "as usual, 100% agreement"?


More double speak; they are still 100% opposed to the Special Criminal Court, a court that was set up in the face of their intimidation, terrorism and murder.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Now you seem to be denying the existence of this country. It's worryingly Orwellian. I hope it's not a sign of things to come when you guys get into power.



I could same the same about you. You are fixated on the 26 counties as being 'the country'. It is not, it is a jurisdiction, one of two, as recognised by the Constitution and as being as such, and described as the "Republic of Ireland" in the 1948 Act.
The Republic of Ireland has limited jurisdiction to the 26 county state.
The Constitution has no such limitations. It is clear, the Constitution facilitates the jurisdiction of the State beyond the 26 county 'Republic of Ireland'.

When you are talking about the limitations of the 26 county jurisdiction you should use its correct, official and legislated descript - The Republic of Ireland.
When talking about Ireland, you are talking about 'The State' as set out in the Constitution which goes way beyond the partitionists mindset.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I could same the same about you. You are fixated on the 26 counties as being 'the country'. It is not, it is a jurisdiction, one of two, as recognised by the Constitution and as being as such, and described as the "Republic of Ireland" in the 1948 Act.
> The Republic of Ireland has limited jurisdiction to the 26 county state.
> The Constitution has no such limitations. It is clear, the Constitution facilitates the jurisdiction of the State beyond the 26 county 'Republic of Ireland'.
> 
> ...


Okay, that's all I need to know. Not only will you and your Party not use the name of this country, you deny it even exists.
No wonder it was okay until recently to murder members of it's police, armed forces and judiciary. It's now politically expedient not to do so but if this isn't a country then there's no real moral issue with it.

You guys want to run a country that you don't consider to exist.

Why were you posting links to Shinner press releases earlier in this thread claiming that they showed SF referencing this country by its correct name? Is it only now that you realise that your party won't use the correct name that you have realised that it shouldn't be used? That also seems very Orwellian.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Not only will you and your Party not use the name of this country, you deny it even exists.



Purple, you are blathering. The name of the country is Ireland. The name of the State is Ireland. 

I use it all the time, as do SF. 

You are in denial at what the Constitution says. It is clear it identifies two jurisdictions. It is clear it names 'The State' as 'Ireland' . It is clear it wants to unite the two jurisdictions - aka the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. 

It is clear that the Constitution extends the jurisdiction of the State beyond the limitations of the 26 county state, identified as a jurisdiction by the Constitution and described, officially through legislation, as the Republic of Ireland. 
Your descript of Ireland applying to the 26 counties is a misinterpretation of what the Constitution says. 
When referring to the 26 county jurisdiction, the 26 county state, you should use the official descript of Republic of Ireland. 

After all, this is what the President of Ireland took offence too. He is the President of Ireland, a nation of people that extends to the entire island, its islands and seas. He is not the President of a limited 26 county jurisdiction. 

If you have respect for our Constitution and for Ireland, please use the correct titles - RoI for 26 counties, and Ireland for the entire nation of people born on the island of Ireland.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Purple, you are blathering. The name of the country is Ireland. The name of the State is Ireland.
> 
> I use it all the time, as do SF.
> 
> ...


More Orwellian double speak. The 1948 Republic of Ireland Act declares that the name of this State is Ireland and that the description of this State is the Republic of Ireland. It also clarified that the State comprises the 26 counties. That's the legal position. That's the internationally recognised position. Them's the facts.


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> When referring to the 26 county jurisdiction, the 26 county state, you should use the official descript of Republic of Ireland.


Why defer to a description when you can use it's official name?


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> The 1948 Republic of Ireland Act declares that the name of this State is Ireland



I don't think so.



Purple said:


> and that the description of this State is the Republic of Ireland.



'_this_ State' being the salient point - the 26 county State, which the Constitution is silent on save the recognition of two jurisdictions. Which I'm sure we can reasonably agree those two jurisdictions are the 26 county jurisdiction and the 6 county jurisdiction.

The Constitution does not define the boundaries or limitations of 'The State' rather it extends them to the nation of people born on the island of Ireland as an entitlement and it facilitates the The State, Ireland, to exercise powers and functions in institutions established on a shared basis in any part of the island. 

This is 'the State', Ireland, as recognised in the Constitution. 

The 26 county State (as that is what it is, a State) is the Republic of Ireland. 
Michael McDowell once accused SF as trying to establish a State within a State. Ironically, it is the partitionists, through the limitation of referring to the 26 county state as 'Ireland' rather than its correct descript "Republic of Ireland" that have created a state within The State of Ireland (as recognised by the Constitution). 



Purple said:


> It also clarified that the State comprises the 26 counties



Yes, the 26 county state - to be described as the Republic of Ireland. 
That is the entitlement of the legislature. 
The legislature is subservient to the Constitution and the Constitution calls the The State, Ireland, which under the Constitution extends beyond the limitations of the partitionist mindset.


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The 26 county State (as that is what it is, a State) is the Republic of Ireland.


And the state is a country, and that country is made up of the 26 counties, as they chose to register it with the UN.   



WolfeTone said:


> The Constitution does not define the boundaries or limitations of 'The State' rather it extends them to the nation of people born on the island of Ireland as an entitlement and it facilitates the The State, Ireland, to exercise powers and functions in institutions established on a shared basis in any part of the island.


Remember, the term nation also refers to a people, including the diaspora. Note the use of 'nation' and 'Nation' in the text. 

Article 3 acknowledge that the Irish Nation (country) does not include all the territory of the island.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> And the state is a country, and that country is made up of the 26 counties, as they chose to register it with the UN.



Yes, the 26 county state, as officially described as the Republic of Ireland under the 1948 Act. 
That State, recognised under the Irish Constitution as one of two jurisdictions has but absolute executive authority to exercise laws but limited to the 26 county State. 

The Constitution recognises two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland. It is the firm will to unite the two into one, and the Constitution extends the entitlement to be part of the Irish nation to everyone born anywhere on the island. 
It also extends the powers of the State (Ireland) to exercise functions in institutions established on a shared basis beyond the limitations of the 26 county State (RoI). 

This is what the President of Ireland objected to. Being described as the president of the Republic of Ireland, which is the 26 county State, described as such under the RoI Act. 

The State, Ireland, as referred to under the Constitution extends beyond that limitation. 
Michael Higgins is the President of Ireland, under the Constitution.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The State, Ireland, as referred to under the Constitution extends beyond that limitation.
> Michael Higgins is the President of Ireland, under the Constitution.


This is absurd. 

Michael Higgins is the President of Ireland, under the Constitution, and that State, called Ireland, is comprised of 26 counties. 
The Island of Ireland has 32 counties.
The country called Ireland has 26 counties.
Arguing otherwise is just silly.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Arguing otherwise is just silly.



I think you will find that the argument has been going for 100yrs!

We obviously have different interpretations of what is, and is not 'Ireland'.

I see it as the entire island, and its people born anywhere on the island. Currently under two jurisdictions that the Constitution itself willfully wants to unite.

You appear to think 'Ireland' is a country that is established under a piece of legislation called the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, which you incorrectly claimed it declares the name of the State to be Ireland.

It's clear, you have based your assumption on your own misinterpretation the RoI Act, 1948.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I think you will find that the argument has been going for 100yrs!


Yes, by the wilfully ignorant. 


WolfeTone said:


> We obviously have different interpretations of what is, and is not 'Ireland'.


But there's only one set of facts and the fact is that this country is called Ireland and it is made up of 26 counties.


WolfeTone said:


> I see it as the entire island, and its people born anywhere on the island. Currently under two jurisdictions that the Constitution itself willfully wants to unite.


Yes, that aspiration is there but until it is realised the country of Ireland is made up of 26 counties.


WolfeTone said:


> You appear to think 'Ireland' is a country that is established under a piece of legislation called the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, which you incorrectly claimed it declares the name of the State to be Ireland.


No, the 1948 act clarified the official description of the country of Ireland.


WolfeTone said:


> It's clear, you have based your assumption on your own misinterpretation the RoI Act, 1948.


Nonsense.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Yes, by the wilfully ignorant.



Perhaps, but that is why the willfully ignorant thought a partition of the island would resolve the political differences. Instead it just compounded them starting with a civil war. 



Purple said:


> But there's only one set of facts and the fact is that this country is called Ireland



Yes, it is called Ireland, nobody is disputing that. 



Purple said:


> and it is made up of 26 counties.



No, that State is called The Republic of Ireland, its in the The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948. Why do keep ignoring that? 



Purple said:


> Yes, that aspiration is there but until it is realised the country of Ireland is made up of 26 counties.



It is not. It is an absurdity that Ireland is made up of 26 counties when clearly, at any given time, the county count is 32. 
The Republic of Ireland, is made up of 26 counties. Northern Ireland is made up of 6.

The Constitution recognises that the 26 county state is one, of two jurisdictions, on the entire island of Ireland.
The Constitution gives absolute authority for the State to govern the jurisdiction of the 26 counties. 
But the Constitution does not limit the State to the jurisdiction of the 26 counties. It clearly permits The State to exercise powers and functions in institutions shared in the second of the two jurisdictions. 
The Constitution calls this State, Ireland. 




Purple said:


> No, the 1948 act clarified the official description of the country of Ireland.



Can you quote the section? 

It clarified the official description of the State with absolute authority in the 26 counties - Republic of Ireland. 

But as I have said, the Constitution recognises that the State has the authority to exercise power and functions beyond the descripted 26 county state. 
That State is called Ireland.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Perhaps, but that is why the willfully ignorant thought a partition of the island would resolve the political differences. Instead it just compounded them starting with a civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that "[t]he name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Hence, the Irish state has two official names, Éire (in Irish) and Ireland (in English).
The 1948 Act clarified that the description of the State is The Republic of Ireland.
So, the constitution clarified the name of the country and the 1948 Act clarifies the description. 
You have no problem accepting that the state described as the Republic of Ireland comprises 26 counties. The constitution clarifies that the State is called Ireland. 

We have no territorial claim to Northern Ireland, though we do have a clear though very ambiguous aspiration for them to join us in an all Island State. 

Back to you for Shinner double speak from that boundless reserve of wilful self delusion. 
I'd say that there's no harm acknowledging reality but this is SF/IRA we are talking about so that may not be the case.


----------



## Firefly (9 Nov 2021)

OK, here's my take...geographically, Ireland is the island but _geopolitically _(and legally) Ireland is the 26 counties.

No wonder it's confusing, but to be honest I don't really care as long as a possible UI stays out of the news.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Nov 2021)

I don't want to stir it up any more but do folk think that Mickey D has any authority over these places?


			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> Other places​
> Ireland Island, Bermuda, Bermuda
> Ireland, Nova Scotia, Canada
> New Ireland Province, Papua New Guinea
> ...


----------



## Firefly (9 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I don't want to stir it up any more but do folk think that Mickey D has any authority over these places?


Jaysus, don't give him ideas!!!!


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, the 26 county state, as officially described as the Republic of Ireland under the 1948 Act.
> That State, recognised under the Irish Constitution as one of two jurisdictions has but absolute executive authority to exercise laws but limited to the 26 county State.


You're just making stuff up now. The 1948 Act makes no reference to 26 counties. 

Can you point me to where the constitution claims that Ireland consists of all 32 counties?



WolfeTone said:


> The Constitution recognises two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland. It is the firm will to unite the two into one, and the Constitution extends the entitlement to be part of the Irish nation to everyone born anywhere on the island.


Yes, two jurisdictions as there are two countries present on the island. 

Irish Nation or Irish nation? As above, they are two distinct things.



WolfeTone said:


> No, that State is called The Republic of Ireland, its in the The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948. Why do keep ignoring that?


It isn't, the act makes clear that the 'Republic of Ireland' is a description, not the title or name. 

If the government wanted the state as it stands to be officially recognised as The Republic of Ireland, they would be required to register that with the UN just like North Macedonia did when they changed their official name.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> You're just making stuff up now. The 1948 Act makes no reference to 26 counties.
> 
> Can you point me to where the constitution claims that Ireland consists of all 32 counties?
> 
> ...


You name's now on the list too.


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> You name's now on the list too.


I'll ask my local shops to keep an eye out for people bulk buying bleach.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

Dear @Purple you are getting into a bit of a spin.

Let's take a step back.

Art 2&3 of the Constitution, for so long the bug bear of unionists had this to say in 1937.

"_The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas" _

and

"_without prejudice to the right of the parliament and government established by this constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole territory...."_

It is clear that the 1937 Constitution considered the whole country as Ireland and the State to be Ireland, save for the acceptance that any laws enacted by the Parliament established under the 1937 Constitution would only be applicable to area of the Irish Free State despite having the authority to apply to the whole country.

Fast forward to 1998 and the explicit claim of physical territory over all Ireland and the right to enact laws has been ceded to institutions established on a shared basis by their respective authorities, Government of Ireland and Government of GB & NI.

In 1937 Ireland had a territorial claim that was in reality an empty jesture and purely aspirational.

In 1998 (and 1985 AIA before it) the Irish State has a real definitive say in the affairs, in part, of the affairs of NI through an international agreement between Ireland and UK.

In case you hadn't noticed, between the UK and EU this real definitive say in the affairs of NI, on a shared basis, has caused a bit of a scuffle over sovereignty, trade etc.
If the Irish State were merely the 26 Republic of Ireland that you claim it to be, then Dublin would have no business sticking its nose in. The EU would have no business standing by Irelands wishes for a sea border.
But the EU has stood steadfast behind Ireland, so far. It can only do this if it has something tangible to hold up. Its called the GFA and the real and effective foothold the Irish State has in (some) affairs of NI through institutions established on a shared basis between Britain and Ireland.
But don't ask me, or SF for that matter, ask the FG'ers and the FF'ers who are pushing this stuff to Europe and to the British Government. In fact, all across the Irish political spectrum, with the exception of Irish Unionists and partitionists, that is the broad concensus.

Ergo, the Irish State as established and recognised by the Constitution is not limited to the 26 county state ( also described as The Republic of Ireland), it does in fact extend beyond the 26 county limitation that partitionists like your goodself and others here (who are popping out of the woodwork!) 

Speaking of the EU, does the Irish State extend itself to European Institutions as well? I mean, how else are EU laws derived on Ireland without the authority of the Irish State sanctioning such laws? Isn't this the Brexit blackhole that Britain and EU have found themselves in Ireland?


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> You're just making stuff up now. The 1948 Act makes no reference to 26 counties.
> 
> Can you point me to where the constitution claims that Ireland consists of all 32 counties?



Well if its not referencing the 26 counties, then is it referencing the 32 counties? 
Dont tell Purple, he will have a conniption.
Unless it is of course referring to a different number of counties that has yet to be revealed?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> If the Irish State were merely the 26 Republic of Ireland that you claim it to be, then Dublin would have no business sticking its nose in. The EU would have no business standing by Irelands wishes for a sea border.


I'm getting a bit muddled in the linguistic debate but you seem to be holding your own.  I would rephrase this particular statement thus:
_The EU like everybody else in the international community see Ireland, qua the current player in the international arena, as the 26 county state.  But they are fully aware of the aspiration of a majority on the island to wish that to change to the 32 county state.  Recognising then the huge sensitivity of a land border between the 26 and the 6, as forcefully expressed by Ireland, the EU have instead insisted on a sea border within the UK.  For avoidance of doubt the sea border was not a specific wish of Ireland but the necessary backstop to protect the single market._

On a slightly separate point what do you call the bunfight between Sinn Fein and, amongst others, the Black and Tans that took place in 1919-21?
It is only fair to warn you that if you have any ambitions for yourself in today's SF the credo answer is the Tan War and not what partitionists call the War of Independence.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

@Duke of Marmalade yes, you could read it like that, if you want. But personally I don't think the EU would survive as entity to the extent that it is has if it were derived on such woolly sentiment. What sort of precedent would that set for any future border disputes? 

Rather its substantive legal frameworks, treaties and agreements which it is derives its authority. 
So the GFA, an internationally registered agreement at the UN, the British Irish Agreement Act, 1999, the recognition of the European Convention on Human Rights, the amendment of Articles 2 & 3 by the Irish State in return for substantive political oversight and influence in NI affairs. 
All of these things, are the interest of the Irish State. As so, they are of the interest of the EU as the Irish State being a member. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> if you have any ambitions for yourself in today's SF the credo answer is the Tan War and not what partitionists call the War of Independence.



I have no ambition in that regard. Bobby Sands, Michael Collins, James Connolly, Thomas Clarke et al... they all took up the gun with no authority from anyone but through their own self anointing. 

I have no interest in lauding over sectarian murder campaigns, indiscriminate bombing, disappearing bodies, be it in 1888, 1920 or 1976. 

I'm not sure how that view will chime with SF? 

I stand over the ideals of 1916 Proclaimation but I reject the methods in achieving them. 
We have been through this before, 1998 saw the ascendency of politics over militancy win through. That is what I stand over. SF ascendency is good for those ideals. If they continue it will force an end to the partitionist thinking within FF/FG and SDLP as they merge into an alternative All Ireland party (taking a lot of SF vote also) . 

One that Unionism will no longer be able ignore or hide behind the threat of militant Republicanism.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Nov 2021)

Tan War or War of Independence?


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

So Wolfie, given that you now accept that the correct description of this country is the Republic of Ireland, what’s this country called? Officially like?


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> So the good people at the CSO saw a resolution to any possible confusion or misunderstanding and used, quite correctly, the official and legitimate description of 'Republic of Ireland'





WolfeTone said:


> The official name of the State is Ireland. The official name of the country is Ireland.





Purple said:


> So Wolfie, given that you now accept that the correct description of this country is the Republic of Ireland, what’s this country called? Officially like?







nation
[ˈneɪʃ(ə)n]

NOUN



- a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular *country or territory*.
"the world's leading industrialized nations"
synonyms:
*country* · *state* · land · *sovereign state* · nation state · kingdom · empire · republic · confederation · federation · commonwealth · power · superpower · polity · domain ·
[more]



Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the *Irish Nation*.

Article 3

It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the *territory* of the *island of Ireland*

Article 1

The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form of Government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions.

(In other words Purple, its not down to either you or me)


- The only thing that was ceded in the GFA was the absolute authority of the Irish _parliament and government_ to exercise jurisdiction over the whole country

"_the right of the parliament and government established by this constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole territory" _



- replaced by

"_Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island." _

The country is the whole island, Ireland. The State is called Ireland, there are two jurisdictions, 26 country jurisdiction and 6 county jurisdiction. The 26 county jurisdiction is officially described as "The Republic of Ireland", under the 1948 Act.

There is no 26 county Irish State in legislation or in the Constitution.

There is the Government of Ireland representing the Irish State, or the State that is officially called Ireland, that has absolute authority to govern over the 26 county jurisdiction and may exercise powers and functions in institutions that are shared between the two jurisdictions on the island, country of Ireland.


----------



## Purple (10 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> nation
> [ˈneɪʃ(ə)n]
> 
> NOUN
> ...


Ok, so the answer is no. You still don't accept that this country is called Ireland. Weird.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Nov 2021)

Will someone kindly put @Purple out of his misery?


----------



## Purple (10 Nov 2021)

The Supreme Court has clarified the constitutional position.
In 1989 Judge Niall McCarthy rejected a British extradition warrant which referred to this country as Éire and not Ireland. He said;
_"In the English language the name of this State is "Ireland" and is so prescribed by Article 4 of the Constitution. Of course if the courts of the United Kingdom or of other States choose to issue warrants in the Irish language then they are at liberty to use the Irish language name of the State ... However, they are not at liberty to attribute to this State a name which is not its correct name ... If there is any confusion in the United Kingdom courts possibly it is due to the terms of the United Kingdom statute named the Ireland Act, 1949 ... That enactment purported to provide that this State should be "referred to ... by the name attributed to it by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland" (emphasis supplied). That of course is an erroneous statement of the law of Ireland. Historically it is even more difficult to explain. There is only one State in the world named Ireland since it was so provided by Article 4 of the Constitution in 1937 and that name was recognised by a communiqué from No. 10 Downing Street, London in 1937."_
The UK doesn't need to extradite people from Northern Ireland since Northern Ireland is part of the UK.


----------



## Purple (10 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Will someone kindly put @Purple out of his misery?


I'm aware that I am like someone arguing evolution with a Creationist in that no amount of facts or logic will dissuade you from your ideological position but it's a bit of fun scoring into an open goal.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Nov 2021)

@WolfeTone I see you will not answer "Tan War or War of Independence".  But do you not concede that the use of the term "Tan War" in that link is very weird indeed?  I never heard it called that.  This was an important "official" document ex cathedra from West Belfast HQ no less and their Quran dictates that they call the WoI the Tan War (presumably because in the view of the mullahs Independence never actually resulted from that conflict) and of course on no account whatsoever should an epistle addressing partition ever call the southern part of that partition by any of its official names or descriptions, if necessary by the the contortion of not referring to it all.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> The UK doesn't need to extradite people from Northern Ireland since Northern Ireland is part of the UK.



Yes. I know. What is your point? We are talking about Ireland here. The official name of the State, the official name of the country, which despite spelling it out to you in black & white, it is Ireland, you seem to think that I



Purple said:


> don't accept that this country is called Ireland



Weird


----------



## Leo (10 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Well if its not referencing the 26 counties, then is it referencing the 32 counties?


You can't back up the claim you made?


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see you will not answer "Tan War or War of Independence".



It's not that I won't answer it's because I have given my opinion on these matters before. I call it the Irish Junta War. 

The sole purpose is to pidgeon hole me into some rabid Shinner, as Purple is trying to do in order to avoid facing the reality that the "territorial claim" that we dropped was not actually what he thinks it is.
The "territorial claim" dropped, was with regard to the prescribed constitutional right of the parliament and government to make laws in the 6 county jurisdiction in exchange for institutional powers and functions on a shared basis. 
Somehow, Purple has translated that into meaning that the 6 counties is a foreign country where the Irish State has no say at all, ergo, it must be a 'different country'. 

But if he were to take his head of out these pages and look around him he will see that in the world of Brexit between UK and EU it is our country, in its entirety, north and south that has tied the UK and EU up in knots.

As I have explained to you, but clearly Purple chooses to ignore, it is not because of some teary-eyed sentiment for leprachauns and Guinness that the good people of Brussels have found themselves in this quagmire. It is because of a recognition of the official status of the Irish State regarding the position of Northern Ireland, underpinned by international agreement and legislation that the Irish State has, and does, exercise power and functions in shared institutions in the six county jurisdiction.

The official name of the country is Ireland
The official name of the State is Ireland
The official description of the 26 county state is "The Republic of Ireland"
The constitution recognises that there are two jurisdictions in the country. It used to afford absolute authority to the parliament and government to exercise laws over the whole territory, now it restricts it the 26 county jurisdiction and permits shared authority in the 6 county jurisdiction.

It is FG that is exerting the rights of the Irish State.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> You can't back up the claim you made?



Remind me? I'm pretty sure I dealt with it before.


----------



## Leo (10 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Remind me? I'm pretty sure I dealt with it before.


You've ignored it multiple times...



Leo said:


> Can you point me to where the constitution claims that Ireland consists of all 32 counties?


----------



## Purple (10 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The official name of the country is Ireland
> The official name of the State is Ireland
> The official description of the 26 county state is "The Republic of Ireland"


Exactly. Our country, Ireland, comprises 26 counties.
Northern Ireland is part of the UK. It is subject to UK law and not Irish law. It is not part of the country called Ireland. For someone who is so interested in the place it seems you've never been there or else you'd know that. They use UK Pounds. They have UK road signs. It's part of a different country. You mightn't like that but them's the facts.  No amount of wishful thinking or Orwellian New-Speak from your Party will change that.

You definitely drank the Shinner Kool-Aid. They, along with the Tories in England and the Rabid Unionists in Northern Ireland, insult this country and every Irish Citizen when they demean it by referring to it as merely a Jurisdiction. Maybe if the Shinners acknowledged reality they'd also have to acknowledge that they are run from a foreign country by a terrorist organisation. That reality really would hurt, like punishment beating sore.


----------



## Sunny (10 Nov 2021)

24 pages on AAM about the name??

To think Nationalists, Unionists and two Governments came up with the Good Friday Agreement and it was only about 30 pages.....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> It's not that I won't answer it's because I have given my opinion on these matters before. I call it the Irish Junta War.


Jayz, so saying War of *Independence *is the equivalent of cartoons of the Prophet to the Republican Faithful.  You don't mind me calling you a member of the RF, do you?


WolfeTone said:


> Somehow, Purple has translated that into meaning that the 6 counties is a foreign country where the Irish State has no say at all, ergo, it must be a 'different country'.


I haven't heard him argue that we have no say.  Lithuania is a foreign country in which we have a say (per EU institutions).  In some ways NI is more foreign than Lithuania, as @Purple has pointed out, NI uses a different currency and different measures of distance/speed on its road signs.


WolfeTone said:


> It is because of a recognition of the official status of the Irish State regarding the position of Northern Ireland, underpinned by international agreement and legislation that the Irish State has, and does, exercise power and functions in shared institutions in the six county jurisdiction.


That is not the reason at all.  It is that they have been persuaded that the "peace" brought about by the GFA would be jeopardised by a hard border.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Nov 2021)

Sunny said:


> 24 pages on AAM about the name??
> 
> To think Nationalists, Unionists and two Governments came up with the Good Friday Agreement and it was only about 30 pages.....


Now if you really want a bunfight open a thread (probably already done) on whether it is called the Good Friday Agreement or the Belfast Agreement.


----------



## Purple (10 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Now if you really want a bunfight open a thread (probably already done) on whether it is called the Good Friday Agreement or the Belfast Agreement.


It'll be like the Airport in Derry, called "City of Derry Londonderry Airport" by the cabin crew as you land there.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> It'll be like the Airport in Derry, called "City of Derry Londonderry Airport" by the cabin crew as you land there.


I feel sorry for BBC news editors.  They seem to have to go out of their way to refer to it an even number of times in news bulletins changing name each time.  I suppose they alternate which comes first between bulletins.
No such qualms with RTÉ,  they refuse to use the official name.  We know they are stuffed with SF/RF.


----------



## Leo (10 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I feel sorry for BBC news editors.  They seem to have to go out of their way to refer to it an even number of times in news bulletins changing name each time.  I suppose they alternate which comes first between bulletins.
> No such qualms with RTÉ,  they refuse to use the official name.  We know they are stuffed with SF/RF.


If they refer to it by anything other than City of Derry Airport they are wrong.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> If they refer to it by anything other than City of Derry Airport they are wrong.


Good point. I am aware  that Derry is the official name sometimes, I think maybe for the city whilst Londonderry is the county.  Though that can't be right coz the road signs all indicate Londonderry.
@Purple are you sure that they refer to it as City of Derry Londonderry Airport?


----------



## Leo (10 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Good point. I am aware  that Derry is the official name sometimes, I think maybe for the city whilst Londonderry is the county.  Though that can't be right coz the road signs all indicate Londonderry.
> @Purple are you sure that they refer to it as City of Derry Londonderry Airport?


Yeah, I believe the legal name for both city and county is Londonderry (not that I ever heard it referred to that growing up), though the local council decided to call themselves Derry city council or something like that a few years back 

The company that own the airport of course can call that whatever they like.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> Yeah, I believe the legal name for both city and county is Londonderry (not that I ever heard it referred to that growing up), though the local council decided to call themselves Derry city council or something like that a few years back
> 
> The company that own the airport of course can call that whatever they like.


I suppose then Ryanair are like saying we are now coming into Heathrow London airport.

As an aside I wonder whether in the bars on the Waterside they actually call it Londonderry.  It feels so unnatural.


----------



## Purple (10 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> If they refer to it by anything other than City of Derry Airport they are wrong.


I think the full sentence is "Welcome to City of Derry, Londonderry, please don't shoot me, airport".


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2021)

A [broken link removed]found that;

Regarding constitutional preference, 58.6% of respondents support remaining in the UK compared to 29.8% who would vote tomorrow for a United Ireland (Table 4).
*When removing those who do not know or who would not vote in a border poll, the share who wish to remain in the UK rises to 66.2%.*
The highest share of support for remaining in the UK sits among those aged 60+ (74.6%)
That figure will rise when the Shinners get into power as Unionists won't want to be ruled by child killers and middle class Nationalists won't want to pay their crazy taxes.


----------



## time to plan (11 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> A [broken link removed]found that;
> 
> Regarding constitutional preference, 58.6% of respondents support remaining in the UK compared to 29.8% who would vote tomorrow for a United Ireland (Table 4).
> *When removing those who do not know or who would not vote in a border poll, the share who wish to remain in the UK rises to 66.2%.*
> ...


Given the UK's recent record in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say the Unionists are perfectly happy being ruled by killers of foreign children, just not by killers of British children.


----------



## Baby boomer (11 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> Yeah, I believe the legal name for both city and county is Londonderry (not that I ever heard it referred to that growing up), though the local council decided to call themselves Derry city council or something like that a few years back
> 
> The company that own the airport of course can call that whatever they like.


As far as I know (but I'm well open to correction on this) it's the other way around.  The legal (per UK law) names are Londonderry for the city and Derry for the County. 

For years the city council was gerrymandered to give a unionist majority and matters remained unchanged.  When nationalists got the majority that rightly reflected demography, they naturally wanted to change the name of the city.  Changing the council's name was under their own control, so easily done.  Derry City Council it is.  Changing the city's name is more complicated and requires a petition addressed to some woman who lives in Buckingham Palace.  Apparently, she wouldn't have a problem, and would do so on demand if asked.  But, of course, asking her would be a problem, as it would be a formal and public recognition of Crown Sovereignty.  Which Republican theology absolutely forbids. 

Outcome: the place remains officially Londonderry.  But we all call it Derry.  An Irish solution to an Irish problem!


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2021)

time to plan said:


> Given the UK's recent record in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say the Unionists are perfectly happy being ruled by killers of foreign children, just not by killers of British children.


That's about right. Nothing spreads democracy and makes people respect you and your values like blowing the legs off children.


----------



## time to plan (11 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> That's about right. Nothing spreads democracy and makes people respect you and your values like blowing the legs off children.


It got Henry Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## time to plan (11 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> As far as I know (but I'm well open to correction on this) it's the other way around.  The legal (per UK law) names are Londonderry for the city and Derry for the County.


Which law is this?


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2021)

time to plan said:


> Which law is this?


The UK law, since Northern Ireland is part of the UK.


----------



## time to plan (11 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> The UK law, since Northern Ireland is part of the UK.


Any specific Act or legal ruling? Or do you mean it's the official name, as opposed to 'legal' name.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> A [broken link removed]found that;
> 
> Regarding constitutional preference, 58.6% of respondents support remaining in the UK compared to 29.8% who would vote tomorrow for a United Ireland (Table 4).
> *When removing those who do not know or who would not vote in a border poll, the share who wish to remain in the UK rises to 66.2%.*
> ...


I see Newton Emerson covers this in today's IT. 
I can readily identify with the findings.  All my friends and relations in NI are Nationalists (heck they're RC, that's what growing up there is like).  The majority are either employed by or retired from the public service.  Their voting preferences are about evenly split between SF, SDLP and Alliance.  But I know a good many of the non shinners would be very nervous of a UI (not now, maybe in the future), especially those on PS pensions.  Then there is the additional fear that a narrow Yes could well bring back a bout of the Troubles and would in any case be highly disruptive.  The "neither Nationalist nor Unionist" community would be even more afraid of the economic and societal repercussions of a Yes vote.

Consider Scotland.  My guess is that if you asked the question "are you Scottish or British?" (both not allowed), a great majority would say Scottish.  And yet they voted by a comfortable majority to stay in the union.  And they only have the economic uncertainties to worry about.  

IMHO there will be a second centenary of partition. (_Wolfie _you've been waiting more than 200 years, be patient for another 200  )


----------



## Baby boomer (11 Nov 2021)

time to plan said:


> Which law is this?


AFAIK, that would be the Royal Charter that originally granted the name way, waaaaay back.  That's why a petition to the sovereign is required to change it.  

As for the County, I presume there's a Local Government Act or somesuch that specifies names of counties.  Again, going waaaaay back, these things probably originated in deeds granting land in County X.


----------



## Baby boomer (11 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> That's about right. Nothing spreads democracy and makes people respect you and your values like blowing the legs off children.


Logically, therefore, the Allies in WW2 should have scrupulously refrained from ANY action where there was an appreciable risk of blowing the legs off children.  Except, that would have lengthened the war, probably increasing the overall death toll, not to mention delaying the liberation of the death camps and resulting in even more children ultimately being killed.  
Ethics is such a messy subject, rarely black or white.


----------



## time to plan (11 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Logically, therefore, the Allies in WW2 should have scrupulously refrained from ANY action where there was an appreciable risk of blowing the legs off children.  Except, that would have lengthened the war, probably increasing the overall death toll, not to mention delaying the liberation of the death camps and resulting in even more children ultimately being killed.
> Ethics is such a messy subject, rarely black or white.


The best framework I've seen for understanding this is wrapped up in the concept of the crime of Aggression and this description by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.



> War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Logically, therefore, the Allies in WW2 should have scrupulously refrained from ANY action where there was an appreciable risk of blowing the legs off children.  Except, that would have lengthened the war, probably increasing the overall death toll, not to mention delaying the liberation of the death camps and resulting in even more children ultimately being killed.


Yea, we know why the Second World war started. Why did Afghanistan start again? (Please don't say 9/11)


Baby boomer said:


> Ethics is such a messy subject, rarely black or white.


T'is indeed.


----------



## Baby boomer (11 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Yea, we know why the Second World war started. Why did Afghanistan start again? (Please don't say 9/11)


For that to be a relevant question, you have to posit that the reason for starting a war is determinative, at least in part,  of whether or not it's ok to blow the legs off children while engaging in that war!

Which is a rather tricky little proposition.


----------



## Baby boomer (11 Nov 2021)

time to plan said:


> The best framework I've seen for understanding this is wrapped up in the concept of the crime of Aggression and this description by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.


That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the question as to whether it's ok to blow childrens' legs off if you're responding to an act of Aggressive War waged against you.


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> For that to be a relevant question, you have to posit that the reason for starting a war is determinative, at least in part,  of whether or not it's ok to blow the legs off children while engaging in that war!
> 
> Which is a rather tricky little proposition.


I think as long as the children don't look like us, preferably if they are black or brown and not Christian. If they are dark skinned and Muslim they are fair game for just about anything. Those seem to be the rules.
Just imagine the outcry of 2250 white kids were dying every day from not having clean water. Start there and the rest makes sense.


----------



## time to plan (11 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the question as to whether it's ok to blow childrens' legs off if you're responding to an act of Aggressive War waged against you.


Have a read up on customary international law, war and civilians, if you are struggling to work it out on your own.


----------



## Leo (11 Nov 2021)

time to plan said:


> Any specific Act or legal ruling? Or do you mean it's the official name, as opposed to 'legal' name.


Name was changed by Royal Charter in 1613, up until then the county name was Coleraine.


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the question as to whether it's ok to blow childrens' legs off if you're responding to an act of Aggressive War waged against you.


The Allies dropped 7 times as much tonnage of bombs on France during the Second World War than the Germans dropped on Britain. They killed about 57,000 French civilians and injured more than 100,000. That's quite a few legs blown off.


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> Name was changed by Royal Charter in 1613, up until then the county name was Coleraine.


Wasn't it the London Guilds that paid for the walls or some such thing?


----------



## Leo (11 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Wasn't it the London Guilds that paid for the walls or some such thing?


Yep. Interesting that the longer name fell out of use for quite some time.


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> Yep. Interesting that the longer name fell out of use for quite some time.


It is interesting that, as noted in your link, The Apprentice Boys of Derry, as Proddie and Unionist an organisation as there is on God's Green and Orange Earth, didn't use the 'London' prefix. What were they thinking!

The one thing we can all agree on is while Derry/Londonderry is on the island of Ireland it is not in the country of Ireland and while we may think it should be called Derry we do have to respect the wished of the British Citizens/Subjects that decide these things for themselves.


----------



## Firefly (11 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> The Allies dropped 7 times as much tonnage of bombs on France during the Second World War than the Germans dropped on Britain. They killed about 57,000 French civilians and injured more than 100,000. That's quite a few legs blown off.


Frog's legs they were too!


----------



## Leo (11 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> It is interesting that, as noted in your link, The Apprentice Boys of Derry, as Proddie and Unionist an organisation as there is on God's Green and Orange Earth, didn't use the 'London' prefix. What were they thinking!


I'd say they'd appreciate a reminder of that


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> I'd say they'd appreciate a reminder of that


I don't think they'd like me, they take all that stuff waaayyyy too seriously.


----------



## time to plan (11 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> I don't think they'd like me, they take all that stuff waaayyyy too seriously.


I always wondered if they had an LGBT+ wing where they sing The 'Tash my Father Wore.


----------



## cremeegg (11 Nov 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The majority are either employed by or retired from the public service.  Their voting preferences are about evenly split between SF, SDLP and Alliance.


Says it all.

The public service the only option a generation ago. And now they have a cautious civil service mentality.


----------



## cremeegg (11 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> The one thing we can all agree on is while Derry/Londonderry is on the island of Ireland it is not in the country of Ireland


What ?

I understand the controversy surrounding the name Derry/Londonderry but surely there can be no controversy about the city, whatever you may wish to call it, being in Ireland.


----------



## Sunny (11 Nov 2021)

cremeegg said:


> What ?
> 
> I understand the controversy surrounding the name Derry/Londonderry but surely there can be no controversy about the city, whatever you may wish to call it, being in Ireland.



Back to the start of this thread for you. You are not allowed to post again until you have read all 26 pages......


----------



## time to plan (11 Nov 2021)

Sunny said:


> Back to the start of this thread for you. You are not allowed to post again until you have read all 26 pages......


Odd number pages forwards, followed by even numbers in the order of your choice.


----------



## Baby boomer (11 Nov 2021)

time to plan said:


> Have a read up on customary international law, war and civilians, if you are struggling to work it out on your own.


Ah, I see.  It's all clear-cut then, no grey areas, and the question (the morality of blowing childrens legs off) has a simple answer, eh? 

You might find it's a bit more complicated than that......

And the answer has changed over the past century.  Might even change again, who knows?


----------



## time to plan (11 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Ah, I see.  It's all clear-cut then, no grey areas, and the question (the morality of blowing childrens legs off) has a simple answer, eh?
> 
> You might find it's a bit more complicated than that......
> 
> And the answer has changed over the past century.  Might even change again, who knows?


That was quite some logical non sequitur there.


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2021)

cremeegg said:


> What ?
> 
> I understand the controversy surrounding the name Derry/Londonderry but surely there can be no controversy about the city, whatever you may wish to call it, being in Ireland.


It's in the Island of Ireland but not the Country called Ireland. It's in the Country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's easy to know that when you're there, they have their Queen all over their money.


----------



## Firefly (12 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> It's in the Island of Ireland but not the Country called Ireland. It's in the Country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. _It's easy to know that when you're there, they have their Queen all over their money._


And it's the least she should expect, given how much of it she has to send over there every year.


----------



## time to plan (12 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Logically, therefore, the Allies in WW2 should have scrupulously refrained from ANY action where there was an appreciable risk of blowing the legs off children.  Except, that would have lengthened the war, probably increasing the overall death toll, not to mention delaying the liberation of the death camps and resulting in even more children ultimately being killed.
> Ethics is such a messy subject, rarely black or white.


Ethics is very simple to understand. It's an English county between London, Cambridgeshire and Thufflolk.


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2021)

time to plan said:


> I always wondered if they had an LGBT+ wing where they sing The 'Tash my Father Wore.


While dresses as the Village People, dressed as Orange Men.
A Sash and a pair of assless-chaps. Now that'd make the marching season interesting (I nearly said great crack). It might even get Micky-D up for a visit.


----------



## Baby boomer (12 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> It's in the Island of Ireland but not the Country called Ireland. It's in the Country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. *It's easy to know that when you're there,* they have their Queen all over their money.


Actually, it's anything but easy to know when you're there.  Case in point: I was at a National League game in Derry's Celtic Park a few years ago.  The Irish tricolour was flying over the ground, the Irish National Anthem was played before the game, public address announcements were in Irish and English, Sterling and Euros were freely accepted at the gate and the shop inside the ground.  

If a Martian landed and was asked to guess what country he was in, he would most likely look around and say Ireland.  

And, while this is a whimsical example, it does illustrate the point that Northern Ireland is more than just another part of the UK.  Constitutionally, it's different; there's an element of shared sovereignty via the GFA, much as unionism might pretend otherwise.  The UK has already conceded it will legislate for it leaving if a minority vote to make it so - a concession extended to no other part of the UK despite clamour from Scotland from for similar    treatment.  And of course it's in a customs union and single market with the EU, while having trade barriers (albeit small ones) with the rest of the UK.  

So while it's technically correct to say it's in the UK, you must concede that it lacks many of the hallmarks that would normally indicate this.


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Actually, it's anything but easy to know when you're there.  Case in point: I was at a National League game in Derry's Celtic Park a few years ago.  The Irish tricolour was flying over the ground, the Irish National Anthem was played before the game, public address announcements were in Irish and English, Sterling and Euros were freely accepted at the gate and the shop inside the ground.
> 
> If a Martian landed and was asked to guess what country he was in, he would most likely look around and say Ireland.


If he was a little green man it would depend on what part of the town, sorry, city, he landed in.


Baby boomer said:


> And, while this is a whimsical example, it does illustrate the point that Northern Ireland is more than just another part of the UK.  Constitutionally, it's different; there's an element of shared sovereignty via the GFA, much as unionism might pretend otherwise.  The UK has already conceded it will legislate for it leaving if a minority vote to make it so - a concession extended to no other part of the UK despite clamour from Scotland from for similar    treatment.  And of course it's in a customs union and single market with the EU, while having trade barriers (albeit small ones) with the rest of the UK.


No, there's no shared sovereignty. The UK government has agreed an element of input from the Irish government but that's not the same thing as shared sovereignty.


Baby boomer said:


> So while it's technically correct to say it's in the UK, you must concede that it lacks many of the hallmarks that would normally indicate this.


Absolutely, but where's the fun in that and, like, is there's anything funnier than an *ira*te Shinner?


----------



## time to plan (12 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> While dresses as the Village People, dressed as Orange Men.
> A Sash and a paid of assless-chaps. Now that'd make the marching season interesting (I nearly said great crack). It might even get Micky-D up for a visit.


They could have the London Derririère as their marching tune.


----------



## Baby boomer (12 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> If he was a little green man it would depend on what part of the town, sorry, city, he landed in.


Or whether he was a Catholic Martian or a Protestant Martian.



Purple said:


> No, there's no shared sovereignty. The UK government has agreed an element of input from the Irish government but that's not the same thing as shared sovereignty.


Hmmm.  At the very least, it's a diminution of absolute UK sovereignty, underpinned by an international agreement.  You can call that "shared" or not as you see fit.  I'll stick with "an element of shared sovereignty." 



Purple said:


> Absolutely, but where's the fun in that and, like, is there's anything funnier than an *ira*te Shinner?


An irate Shinner turning cartwheels to avoid certain linguistic formulations perhaps?  Matched only by an irate Unionist doing likewise.


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Or whether he was a Catholic Martian or a Protestant Martian.


Yes, maybe they are visiting to see where the whole Jasus thing happened because, like, if there's one true God and he's it then he hardly sent the young fella traipsing around the Universe to get himself nailed up on every inhabited planet.



Baby boomer said:


> Hmmm.  At the very least, it's a diminution of absolute UK sovereignty, underpinned by an international agreement.  You can call that "shared" or not as you see fit.  I'll stick with "an element of shared sovereignty."


Sure what's in a name?



Baby boomer said:


> An irate Shinner turning cartwheels to avoid certain linguistic formulations perhaps?  Matched only by an irate Unionist doing likewise.


Indeed, and the urge to wind them up is almost impossible to resist.


----------



## Baby boomer (12 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> ....like, if there's one true God and he's it then he hardly sent the young fella traipsing around the Universe to get himself nailed up on every inhabited planet....


Changing topics somewhat, Arthur C. Clarke wrote some very good short stories on the intersection of science and religion that dealt with that very topic.  Read them in an anthology years ago and thoroughly enjoyed them. Highly recommended if you can get your hands on it.


----------

