So Sinn Fein win the popular vote in the Irish elections.

This should be quite amusing. :hehe:

And if that doesn't get the mad dog Oranje in the North kicking off then nothing will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herbert Augustus Chapman

And if that doesn't get the mad dog Oranje in the North kicking off then nothing will.

---

Ironically, of course, it makes a united Ireland less rather than more likely in the short to medium term. It's one thing asking moderate protestants in the north if they want to join a united Ireland run by an Indian shirtlifter. It's quite another to ask them if they want to join one where the Provos who murdered relatives of theirs have won the majority vote and there are actual murderers sitting in the Dáil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Ironically, of course, it makes a united Ireland less rather than more likely in the short to medium term. It's one thing asking moderate protestants in the north if they want to join a united Ireland run by an Indian shirtlifter. It's quite another to ask them if they want to join one where the Provos who murdered relatives of theirs have won the majority vote and there are actual murderers sitting in the Dáil.

---

Did you really say that the only difference between the two normal parties was whether they supported partition in 1922 or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Did you really say that the only difference between the two normal parties was whether they supported partition in 1922 or something?

---

That is the reason for the existence of the two parties, yes. Of course, that does mean there are other differences: FG traditonally tend to do better in middle-class areas like South Dublin; while FF is traditionally more nationalist and the party of culchies and chaps with the arse out of their trousers who live in bogs and craggy outcrops. However, there is little or no ideological difference between them in terms of economic or social policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

That is the reason for the existence of the two parties, yes. Of course, that does mean there are other differences: FG traditonally tend to do better in middle-class areas like South Dublin; while FF is traditionally more nationalist and the party of culchies and chaps with the arse out of their trousers who live in bogs and craggy outcrops. However, there is little or no ideological difference between them in terms of economic or social policy.

---

Cheers. Which one did what in 1922? And if FF's more nationalist, does this mean they'd be more likely to get into bed with the Provos?

And which one is the Indian shirtlifter from? I know sod all about Oirish politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Cheers. Which one did what in 1922? And if FF's more nationalist, does this mean they'd be more likely to get into bed with the Provos?

And which one is the Indian shirtlifter from? I know sod all about Oirish politics.

---

Fine Gael were pro-Treaty (Michael Collins, etc), while Fianna Fail were anti-Treaty (DeValera). They were the sides in the Civil War, basically. And yes, FF are more likely to get into bed with SF - almost certainly will, in fact (despite saying they wouldn't) because they're lying, crooked, devious, culchie scum.

Varadkar was FG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

This should be quite amusing. :hehe:

---

:music: come out ye black and tans :music:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Fine Gael were pro-Treaty (Michael Collins, etc), while Fianna Fail were anti-Treaty (DeValera). They were the sides in the Civil War, basically. And yes, FF are more likely to get into bed with SF - almost certainly will, in fact (despite saying they wouldn't) because they're lying, crooked, devious, culchie scum.

Varadkar was FG.

---

Cheers. So Gael - go on with the treaty. Fail - foil partition. So basically, after partition, they all just started killing each other in the South? What did FF want to do? Take control of the South and then start a war with the UK for control of the North?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Cheers. So Gael - go on with the treaty. Fail - foil partition. So basically, after partition, they all just started killing each other in the South? What did FF want to do? Take control of the South and then start a war with the UK for control of the North?

---

Essentially, yes. The anti-Treaty forces wanted to continue the war until all war aims (ie a united, independent Ireland) were met. The war took the form of skirmishes, assassinations and ambushes (in one of which Collins was killed in West Cork). There was one instance of a rising in Dublin, where the Anti-Treaty forces seized the Four Courts. Amusingly, the British Army had to lend the Pro-Treaty government artillery in order to put this down.
Ultimately, it was a war between pragmatic compromise and impossible, die-hard idealism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Essentially, yes. The anti-Treaty forces wanted to continue the war until all war aims (ie a united, independent Ireland) were met. The war took the form of skirmishes, assassinations and ambushes (in one of which Collins was killed in West Cork). There was one instance of a rising in Dublin, where the Anti-Treaty forces seized the Four Courts. Amusingly, the British Army had to lend the Pro-Treaty government artillery in order to put this down.
Ultimately, it was a war between pragmatic compromise and impossible, die-hard idealism

---

But if the anti-treaty lot had got control of the south, and then fought for the north, they'd have been at war with the UK. Which had a huge number of battle hardened men, a RN that done for the Krauts, more heavy artillery that you could shake a stick at and planes.

Don't fancy their chances.