Jim Carroll - 27 May 16 - 12:41 PM

More simply put Keith
If you have two diametrically opposed vies on the questuiion of partition and if the enactment of the Treaty depended on both sides reaching agreement on this question, how on earth could it possibly have been enacted?

Simple Jim, as things were going, from the proposed Amending Bill that was agreed to by both Redmond AND Carson by the 8th July 1914, had the Great War not started then the Government of Ireland Act 1914 would have been enacted on the 18th September 1914 when it received Royal Assent Ireland would have got Home Rule and for a temporary period of six years Ulster would have been excluded from rule from Dublin and both sides would have a grace period of six years to convince each other that Home Rule from Dublin could work for both parties. That autonomy would have been granted as Dominion Status and come 1931 with the Statute of Westminster Ireland would have become a sovereign independent nation.

But the War did come along and to save their secret and sordid little clique Pearse, Connelly and Co., had to have an armed rising, and they jumped at the chance the war gave them.

I rather think that the agreement reached by Carson, the Lords and the Liberal Government on the 8th July 1914 could not have been reached without the consent and approval of the Ulster Unionists, unlike the IVF they did not have a secret council who had high-jacked the organisation as the IRB had high-jacked the Irish Volunteers.

Tell me apart from drilling and holding the odd parade what violence was ever perpetrated by the UVF between their formation in 1913 and them going off to join the British Army to fight the Germans in 1914.

Easter Rising 24th April 1916, which was defeated. Attempt made by the British Government to enact the 1914 Act in July 1916, now the Unionists want Permanent Partition on the agenda - You tell me Jim what was it that caused that shift in stance from the 8th July 1914?

You've got the links, you've got the sources.

On artillery - Go back and look at your own post - your contention was that it was the heavy artillery used by the British that started the fires in Dublin - simply put it wasn't - and I have proved that, the researchers from RTE and Boston College have proved that - fires started on Sackville Street on the evening of the 24th April 1916 when there were no British Troops anywhere near Sackville Street and no British Artillery in Dublin. The only people in Sackville Street on the evening of the 24th April 1916 were the Irish Volunteers and civilian looters - OK Sherlock you tell me which of the three groups mentioned could not have possibly started those fires.

Ah so it is now a British shell damaging a water main that caused the damage - it had nothing to do with the Dublin Fire Brigade not being willing to fight the fires they being quite rightly scared of getting themselves shot by the Volunteers who incidentally had already shot at and killed unarmed policemen in Sackville Street. The other thing we have also clearly established is that from the fires being started it was almost 40 hours before any British Artillery fire was directed at Sackville Street - fire if left unchecked can build and do quite a bit of damage in 40 hours.

As for the rest of your incoherent rant I'll wait for a translation from somebody - it like your thinking is all over the place and totally lacking in logic or reason.