Martin McGuinness RIP

cremeegg said:
The "Republic of Ireland" is the "Irish Free State", the name was changed in the 1940s but there was no refounding of the state.
Click to expand...
This is totally incorrect. The Irish Free State / Saorstát Éireann was established on 6 December 1922 by the Irish Free State Constitution Act of 1922 (UK) and the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act 1922 (Dáil Éireann), subsequent to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921. Following its adoption by referendum in July 1937 the new constitution Bunreacht na hÉireann came into force in December of that year. Under art 4 of the Constitution "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.". The Irish Free State came to an end with the coming into force of the new constitution which also repealed the constitution of the Irish Free State. The constitution did 'refound' the state as "a sovereign, independent, democratic state.", whereas under the previous constitution it was "a co-equal member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.".

The 'Republic of Ireland' is a football team. However, when Ireland left the British Commonwealth, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 provided that "Ireland may be officially described as the Republic of Ireland", but it didn't change the name of the State from Éire / Ireland. So Republic of Ireland is a descriptor but not the name of the State in Irish law.
 
I like making that point to English people. I also point out that the country is not called Eire unless you are speaking in Irish.
 
Reactions: PMU
Purple said:
I also point out that the country is not called Eire unless you are speaking in Irish.
Click to expand...
I don't want to get too technical but you really should put the accent over the first 'e' in Éire; otherwise it means a heavy weight or a burden.
 
PMU said:
I don't want to get too technical but you really should put the accent over the first 'e' in Éire; otherwise it means a heavy weight or a burden.
Click to expand...

Or something before the words "..yeah boy" in Cork to announce one's feelings of incredulity
 
How about this one; the UK sets its border as the island of Britain. Easy to police, flights & ferries only. Norn Iron remains part of the UK but not for immigration or customs purposes (albeit genuinely Nordie goods of course don't pay duty, so that's beef, pork, chicken, Bushmills &.........(help me out here...) & as citizens they just show the passport no more than an Irish person coming into an Irish airport. I'm sure no-one would abuse it by making the North a clearing house for Britain.... far too upstanding for that sort of thing....

The UK is used to this stuff, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, all 1 foot in for this reason and 1 foot out for the other.

Maybe the EU hordes from Romania or whoever was "spoiling" Britain will flock to the North for contentment.... have me doubts..... but anyway when there's a United Ireland (gulp) they'll all be legal.

So problem solved...until Scotland leaves...

I know you think its a barmy suggestion, but there's going to have to be some version of it. What's to stop those dreadful EU citizens coming to Ireland (as is their right), getting on a bus or train to Belfast, then getting a flight or ferry to UK. De facto either a) Britain isnt bothered or b) they check people leaving the North to go to "the mainland" and turn them back. Do they then bother to drop them over the border - so they can come back to have another cut at it?, I doubt it. So de facto the hard border is the island of Britain. You heard it here first....
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Ahh we obviously come from similar backgrounds. In my youth I was foolishly a stickie. I wonder does Purple know what we are talking about
Click to expand...
I'm aware of them and the broad details but it is something I am interested in learning more about.
 
Betsy Og said:
You heard it here first....
Click to expand...
For people movement this has already been mooted and will probably be the ultimate solution. Goods are a different matter. The EU will want to impose tariffs on Brit goods. Would they trust the Brits to impose these internally? Would NI folk want tariffs on mainland imports? In effect NI would be in EU and subject to EU Court. Hard to see unionist acceptance of that.
 
Last edited:
Purple said:
I'm aware of them and the broad details but it is something I am interested in learning more about.
Click to expand...
By the 1960s the IRA had gone all leftie. Like most young folk I was leftie too and had sneaking sympathy. They were wholesome terrorists confining themselves to electricity pylons and stuff.

They were perceived to have let down the Mope community when the RUC ran amok in 1969. In any case folk like CJH had no time for the leftie "official" IRA. The Provos were born with their much more traditional nationalist views and with less fussiness about playing by Queensbury rules in their activities. The Official IRA quickly called a permanent ceasefire and produced such luminaries as Pronsius and Gilmore (I think).

Strangely somewhere along the way the Provos themselves lurched leftwards, possibly Grisly and Martin had something to do with that.

The Official IRA stuck their Easter lilies to their lapels with gum. The Provos used pins. Never wore an Easter lily myself though.

Reminiscence:

I remember being questioned by the Brits around the time of internment. They asked me did I sympathise with the IRA. I was in a room with no windows facing two uniformed soldiers and a bare electric light bulb (I kid you not). This was difficult to answer. A straight denial would have no credibility coming from a young male mope and would probably lead straight to the waterboard. So I said I had sympathy with the Official IRA's objectives. Clever what! Not sympathy with their methods just their objectives. It also greatly helped that the Stickies had recently announced their ceasefire and were clearly not enemy No 1 of the Brits.
 
Last edited:
That phrase is burnt into my brain from the time of the GFA negotiation (when I had a more intense interest in the sit-ye-ation)... "the reality of the sit-ye-ation" was another one, as was "walking the Queens highway"... n'er a mention of a 'cudgel' anymore either.....
 
Martin had a choice in the 70,s to go peaceful civil rights ,ie John Hume route , he chose another path .
Ian Paisley had a choice in the 70,s to accept civil rights or Rabble rouse with NO Surrender .

It took both 30 + years and 3000 + deaths to realise that their ways were wrong and to come to friendship.
I am happy they both became peace givers , but its a pity they didn,t mature earlier.
 
Its a tidy and a decent thought Gerry, but it wasn't John Hume that brought about the Good Friday Agreement. If Martin McGuinness became a capable and dedicated no 2 to John Hume in the 70s, other forces would have lead the Republican movement. Who knows to what end. Indeed their public rewarded SF in the recent elections for a perceived hardening in their attitude to the DUP.
 
cremeegg said:
If Martin McGuinness became a capable and dedicated no 2 to John Hume in the 70s, other forces would have lead the Republican movement. Who knows to what end.
Click to expand...
"I was acting under orders" was a stock Nuremberg defence. I don't know if anyone tried "if it wasn't me someone else would have done it".

Gerry I admire your applying parity of esteem (or disteem) but I am not sure there really is parity. For sure, Republicans and Loyalists share parity in wrecking GFA 1 but consider the respective motives:

Republicans had no electoral mandate and power sharing held no benefits for them. They reasoned that if violence can get us this far let's push on for a United Ireland.

Loyalists also had no electoral mandate. They reasoned that if IRA violence can get this far, it's continuation could well lead to a United Ireland. Time to call halt.

So who is mainly to blame for the pointless extenuation of the conflict which caused the lion's share of the deaths and maiming in the so called Troubles?
 
On a related theme, what do people make of this Brexit "hard border could lead to a return to the troubles" suggestion/innuendo. Seems to me to be total nonsense, fair enough try it on if it gets us/UK a better deal but I don't seriously see it as a risk.

I acknowledge it will be a pain, and maybe it kinda felt like a united Ireland when you had to notice the road signs or your mobile reception to notice the change, and there could be traffic delays, & occasionally opening your boot and what not might be some 'nostalgia' you'd rather not experience, but that still seems an awful long way from taking up a gun and firing it at ....who?
 
Betsy-og I have been making that point and concluded along with Purple that it was a bluff by Henda to increase Ireland's leverage. So far it seems to be working.

creme-egg that is a truly astonishing piece from Howard. I feel fairly certain now that this Brexit thing will cut up ruff, very ruff

The historical fact is that GB has no friends, rather it inspires lots of resentment with its arrogance, of which Brexit is the latest illustration. Let's look around and see this resentment, some more veiled than others.

France: okay allies in WWI and II but the rivalry of centuries simmers beneath the surface and France really resents that the English language has left French for dead in terms of universal usage.

Germany: how can they possibly forget the drubbing of above mentioned wars.

Southern Europe: the animosity dates back to the Reformation. Spain has this special issue with Gibraltar and Italy supported (possibly not officially) Argentina over the Malvinas.

Poland: here could have been a grateful friend from WWII but since it is precisely to keep out Poles that the divorce is being sought, Poland and other Eastern European states will have the least goodwill of all towards GB.

Then there's lil' old Ireland. The head says we should want our neighbour to get a good deal, but the heart and 800 years of mopery trumps that. Brits will be watching carefully for a stab in the back from this quarter.

Did I say no friends? Well that's wrong. GB has one very dear friend and that is its WASP offshoot, the US and especially US Trump.

The US is not going to allow GB have its nose rubbed in it by France and Germany. Wait and see that €350bn back bill for German defence coming back on the table in a soft repeat of just how the US bailed out GB at the last minute in the two wars.

But surely despite Howard's amazing comments this will not lead to physical war

All the same GB will be at the table with a gun in its pocket in the shape of its nuclear weapons. How right the French were to barge themselves into the nuclear club.

The big winner in all this is Putin's Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register