I didn't say they were. I said that the preposition in conjunction with... was the qualifier.Prepositions in and of themselves are not qualifiers.
Oops! Meant proper nouns. Post corrected.'Ireland' or other names are not pronouns, they're proper nouns.
BBC said:A noun phrase is a group of words, often adjectives and determiners, based around a noun
Really? Your ideologically identical twins, you support all their policies and defend all their actions.
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.
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.
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.It is actually a convenience when you consider that, and as much as you disregard this, there are two jurisdictions.
Of course we are.Are we not to use these informal descriptions anymore??
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.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:
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.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.
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.But this discussion is really aboutthe southern state26 county statethe auld sodthe emerald isleIrelands 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.
Fair kop. Yet the IT article is not a complete fabrication, but yes it does seem to have unwarranted bias on the point.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.
In their opening paragraph they imply that it's not a real republic.
It's now about a political party that is so opposed to the existence of this country
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 .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.
Yes, but they don't have a point in the context of the Constitution of this country.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.
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.Simply describing something as a Republic does not necessarily make it a Republic.
And rightly so.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.
This country is not partitioned. This island is partitioned.They are opposed to existence of the political construct that partitions this country.
There is no 6 county State. The 6 counties of Northern Ireland is a province of the UK.They want to dismantle the 26 county state and the 6 county State.
No, I don't.Good luck to them I say. I hope they succeed. Don't you?
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.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 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.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.
Yes, but they don't have a point in the context of the Constitution of this country.
We're a republic.
And rightly so.
This country is not partitioned. This island is partitioned.
I certainly don't want a Republic as envisioned by the 1916 leaders
Wolfie had me tricked there for a while.
You said;Of course they have a point. They are democratically elected to the Parliament of the State which derives its authority from the Constitution.
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.In the context of what Wolfe Tone set out to achieve and what was written in the 1916 Proclaimation they have a point.
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.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).
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.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.
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.You are splitting hairs here. You are limiting the definition of 'country' to the political construct that exists currently.
You can include you're aunts house in Boston if you like but that doesn't make it so.I include it to mean all the citizens of the State, or the Nation if you will.
Politically it is. Within this island there is territory belonging to two different countries.Realistically the island is not partitioned either.
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.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.
I read the document you linked. I can't see a single incident were they referred to this country as Ireland.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!
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.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!
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.
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.
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.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 "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, 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.
It clearly states that aspiration.But there is no doubt. When the constitution talks of uniting all the people it is talking about having one jurisdiction
Why do you think that?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.
Agreed.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.
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.However, officially SF do of course recognise the 26 county 'Ireland'
As above. Not so long ago all those lads were legitimate targets.....they sit in its parliament, they accept the authority of Gardai, they support the courts, etc.
There is an aspiration to unite all of the people on the island. That's all.
Do they? Where's that written down, officially?
Not so long ago all those lads were legitimate targets.
I don't remember any reference to 'jurisdictions' in the Constitution.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.
Great, I don't remember that.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.
That would be significant alright.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.
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.And now they are not legitimate targets (legitimate in SF eyes, not mine).
That is the point.
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.)....
In fact I think there was a motion to accept the legitmacy of the Special Criminal Court which was passed recently.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?