2016 Commemoration - how was it for you?

Sorry Betsy, but the 1973 Sunningdale Agreement delivered everything that eventually SF/IRA signed up to in 1998. But back in 1973 it was way short of their objectives which were for an all Ireland socialist republic. The bulk of the deaths in NI were as a pursuit of a 32 county North Korea rather than any equality agenda - which had effectively been addressed by Sunningdale. The United Ireland motif and its threat of a catholic theocracy have been the elephant in the room for the last 100 years. I accept that there is a difference between Ireland and the protestant "colonies" of 1916 but I was addressing Purple's rather ludicrous proposition that we are "far better off today" than if we had not had the Rising. I suspect that Purple, for all his atheistic machismo, is a closet RC
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
Sorry Betsy, but the 1973 Sunningdale Agreement delivered everything that eventually SF/IRA signed up to in 1998. But back in 1973 it was way short of their objectives which were for an all Ireland socialist republic.
Click to expand...

Yes, the GF Agreement famously being referred to as Sunningdale for slow learners . But wasn't it the Ulster Workers strike that broke it?, not saying SF/IRA would have necessarily have gone for it, but the blame wasnt mainly laid at their door for it failing. Plus by that stage you were well into the "My Seamus/Declan/Paddy didn't die for this....", so maybe Sunningdale came too soon at/after the height of the troubles. While of course every death was tragic and unnecessary, I'd agree that the 'long war' (pursuit of 32 county North Korea) was a totally pointless waste of life.
 
Betsy, you have a good grasp of this, and I don't mean that patronisingly. Yes, ostensibly the loyalists brought down Sunningdale but that was because of its utter failure to appease the IRA, the next step in appeasement as far as the protestants of Ulster were concerned was North Korea, catholic style. The IRA intensified their vile campaign after Sunningdale as they saw that it completely threatened them, they had absolutely no electoral mandate in those days, they were oblivion in this fair constitutional settlement.

Getting back on topic, I think the violent legacy of 1916 has a lot to do with the Northern troubles. With hindsight and now seeing the complete disintegration of the British Empire surely a peaceful approach to independence would have been much less painful and possibly even have avoided partition.
 

Britain is run for the benefit of the south of England as that’s the engine of the British economy.

By any economic measure we are better off than Wales or the North of England and, despite all their oil, we are better off than Scotland.

All that aside, we are free. That’s what matters most.

And yes, I'm a closet RC, as well as believing in pixies and the Easter Bunny



Nobody here will mount any defence of the IRA but they are not Ireland or our vision of what Ireland should be. The same was the case in the 70’s.


The British giving up Kenya and the British giving up Ireland would have been two completely different propositions.
 
Last edited:
Purple the people of Scotland do not agree with your analysis. Some would argue that whatever wealth the figures demonstrate it is mainly still enjoyed by an elite, albeit more Irish than in 1916.

The first 70 years of independence were an economic and social desert. Two things have transformed the economic situation. Firstly and ironically on joining the EU we were such a basket case that huge funds were lavished on us. Secondly we had the 12.5% CT rate. Neither of these would have been available except for independence, I agree.
On the social front several developments blew away the cobwebs. One was the invasion by foreign culture wrought by modern mass media and another was the RC church seriously shooting itself in the foot.
Back to topic, the legacy of violence through the next 6 years across the country and during the long war in the North was IMHO and with hindsight entirely unnecessary and alternative routes could have seen us as a unified and prosperous country ala Canada or Oz
 
[QUOTE="
Back to topic, the legacy of violence through the next 6 years across the country and during the long war in the North was IMHO and with hindsight entirely unnecessary and alternative routes could have seen us as a unified and prosperous country ala Canada or Oz[/QUOTE]

I just dont see how a united ireland could satisfy both communities, then or now. Where we are now is probably as good as its going to get (or was ever going to get) - arguably we might have gotten there with less violence (particularly in the 6 county occupied area ). So I think its far from clear that the 26 counties would have shortly after 1916, or even yet would have, the level of autonomy it now has. Put it this way, Baroness Thatcher explained that NI was a boil on the ass of the UK (using different words), even the 32 counties would have been a backwater for London. So 100% I think the fight was right (1916-1922), the notion that we would get handed something acceptable and within an acceptable timeframe, in the context of the Ulster Volunteers and their breakaway and the resistance to which the fight was in fact met, does not hold water IMHO. There's a bit of Aunt > 00 > Uncle about the whole revisionist thing, there's no point looking at Britain today and how we're all buddies and applying that to 1916 - back then the empire ruled, we were just bog wogs compared to those superior beings....
 
Betsy, I respectfully disagree. In the context of 1916 the very minimum that was on the cards was a partitionist Home Rule solution, no way was anything less than that going to be delivered and mighty soon. In fact a primary motivation for the Rising, and which ultimately led to civil war, is that the likes of Pearse saw very clearly that with Ulster's resistance, a watered down version of HR was looming. The partition that eventually was imposed was even more of a kick in the teeth to republicans than they feared (they thought only four counties would escape). I really can't see how anyone can view the Rising as a success unless of course you are an Armagh/Fermanagh unionist who should be eternally grateful for the 1916 escapades.
 
Home Rule was the child of John Redmond. He was a loyal subject of the Empire and neither wanted or expected an independent Ireland. For him Home Rule was an end in itself. The most we would have ended up with was a Welsh style assembly.
 
Purple, the Free State was little more than HR for the 26 counties, far less than what was almost certain by peaceful means in 1916. The Rising achieved nothing and actually ensured that 6 counties would be exempted.
 
No-one is saying the rising, as an event, was a success. My view is that partition was either inevitable or what we'd have to accept to stay in a united Ireland would not be acceptable to nationalists, or maybe we would have had the more obvious civil war (sectarian slaughter).

Anyway, isnt it better for us to have earned our freedom rather than get patted on the head with some watery regional assembly - why do we have to nearly apologise for our existence???, we were a shining light when most of Europe was in the dark ages, why should we accept anything less than being our own nation?? Ok it was a slow road for a long time, but lots of countries had a slow start and/or are far worse that we are.
 
Betsy the Free State was a watery National Assembly. That's why there was a civil war. Republicans couldn't accept a setup which they knew was less than would have been available about four years earlier and without all the blood sacrifice.
True that in time Dev and finally Costello unilaterally welched on the Treaty so that we have the independent 26 counties of today.
Whether a 32 county "watery assembly" would have had the same consensus in tearing up the Treaty is moot.
 
Do you really honestly think the Ulster Volunteers/solemn covenantors were going to join a 32 county Home Rule arrangement? - "the Home Rule egg, laid in Westminster, wont hatch in Ulster", and if they did then do you think it would have been plain sailing to ignore/dismantle the Treaty as happened in the 26?

Apart from the academic stuff (oaths, foreign embassies, lame duck Westminster guy - Viceroy General or whatever they called him), the Free State arrangement gave us control of our own affairs in all meaningful respects - sure declaring the Republic was more or less meaningless when it happened because it had been de-facto so for so long (& ok that was a good bit later on). If Dev hadnt thrown Collins under the bus and then go playing the big man we wouldn't have had half the bother with the civil war (Dev quashed the republican rump nice and fast when it suited him), the irony being the Dev carried out what he initially rejected (the freedom to achieve freedom).

So I'm afraid you have to square the northern circle to convince me that it was all a bun fight over nothing - isnt it just as likely Westminster would have kicked to touch with no home rule for anyone rather that trying to get unionists into as 32 county arrangement or go setting up 2 parliaments - I know if I was them that's what I would have done, citing lack of consensus as an excuse for doing nowt - we had to give them some incentive to get the hell out.
 
Betsy Og said:
No-one is saying the rising, as an event, was a success.
Click to expand...

Well if no one is saying that, some one should, so I will say that the 1916 rising was a an enormous success. A success in terms of the dreams its organisers.

It was never expected that the rising would result in a military victory. The objective was to state to the world that Ireland was a separate country from Britain and that it did not accept British rule.

It is difficult for us to see now but the concept of Ireland as a separate country was slipping away in the late 19th century. There was a cultural revival, the Gaelic League, the GAA etc. but politically well there was John Redmond, who was less advanced a nationalist than Parnell a generation earlier.

Pearse was a poet and his rising was a piece of theatre intended to inspire. That in lead to a war of independence within 2 years was its success.

Judging it by events more that 50 years later is a nonsense.
 
cremeegg success depends on who's making the judgement, a 26 county theocracy you judge to be a success, I don't. But I suppose what matters is whether those who died 'for' Ireland would think it a success. I am sure James Connolly for one would have seen it is a complete failure of his aim for a 32 county socialist republic.
Let me remind you of a gem from Costello as late as 1950. "I am second an Irishman, but first I am a catholic, I accept without reservation everything that the Catholic hierarchy dictates." Charming I'm sure.
 
Last edited:
Duke, as we know, the leaders of the Rising were not strong on realism. Just because James Connolly wanted a socialist republic does not mean it was ever on, or even wanted by the people. Plus, as I said in an early post on this thread, I'm not too fussed what the leaders of the rising would think of Ireland today, for all our faults its still the best small country to .......... (or at least its a fairly good small country to.......). Re Catholic Church domination, a dark chapter but its over now so what's your point exactly?
 
In the context of the Home Rule bill the first threat of violence was from the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF). Armed with German rifles they were primed to engage in armed resistance against any form of Home Rule. There is no way a government in Westminster was ever going to send British troops to fight protestant loyalists in Belfast in order to support a devolved government in Dublin.

Home Rule is a historical red herring; it was never going to happen.


The argument about what happened next; Dev and Collins, the catholic Church etc is a different argument. Those were our issues for us to sort out.

I don’t buy into the cartoon caricature of Dev from that dreadful film by Neil Jordan. I don’t think the country would have been much different if Collins or anyone else was in charge. Collins did the best thing anyone can do to secure their legacy; he died young. He probably would have been a better leader but he certainly wouldn’t have created a liberal utopia.


I also don’t buy into the idea that the Catholic Church would not have had a dominant role in Ireland for most of the last century if we had remained under British rule. They have always sided with the establishment and would have continued to do so with the Brits running things, simply being one of their instruments of control.
 
Purple, I agree with yourself and Betsy that the fierce (albeit understandable, esp with hindsight) resistance of Ulster prods to Rome Rule was making a 32 county HR very unlikely. In fact the possibility of a lesser HR was a prime motivator for the Rising. The 26 county version was the minimum that could be expected at the end of the WW1. The Rising delayed this minimalist settlement by four years and much bloodshed. Just as I concede that the originally promised 32 county HR wasn't on surely you concede that a continuation of the status quo and completely defaulting on the HR promise was equally unlikely.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think so. Nothing feeds the weed that is jingoism like a war. The 1916 Rising was beyond criticism for decades. The First World War would also have rendered Home Rule and talk of a free Ireland moot for the same reason. It becomes unpatriotic to question the motives or actions of those who give a blood sacrifice.

Just look at the resurrection of the profile and career of a bigoted imperialist like Rudyard Kipling; a joke and embarrassment in 1913, a leader of opinion and shining light in 1915 (before his son was killed in action and he changed his mind about the whole thing).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register