Conference tallis::celt

    >people who live there.  The only political party in the island
    >of Ireland that perceives the situation as a "British occupation"
    >is Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army.
    
    Funny, but I'm sure if you took an official poll in the island
    of Ireland, you would find a majority of people who view the
    situation as British occupation.
    
    Likewise, you would find a majority of people against violence
    such as promulgated by the IRA, the Loyalist para-militaries,
    and the British Army.
    
    I think P.M. Innes needs a good lesson on Irish history.
    
    /g
                      

    
    I'm confused. I guess you could view the presence of troops as an
    occupation if you deny sovereignty of the 6 counties to Britain, but do
    most people in the Republic view the presence of the Protestant
    majority in the North as occupation?
    

    I'm not even talking about sovereignty of the 6 counties.  My own
    opinion is that they should be under joint British/Irish/European
    sovereignty, but that is another topic altogether.
    
    The issue is that the 6 counties *are* occupied militarily.  You cannot
    deny that.  The bulk of the military (not the police force) are
    British, from mainland Britain, not Ireland, not Northern Ireland.
    As an analogy, America occupies Iceland, Greenland, and a host of other
    places...

    
    Well I think my point was that the six counties are only occupied
    militarily if the British government has falsely claimed sovereignty.
    The issues are inextricably linked, a priori.
    

    >The issues are inextricably linked, a priori.
    
    NI is occupied in the sense that the military force defending it is not
    composed of its residents.  It is an external military force (would that
    be a better word?) that is managing its defense (both external and
    internal interestingly enough).  The military is not an Irish one.  And
    the continued presence of this sole "external" force prolongs the
    conflict.                                
    
    A better solution would be, as I've called for many times, a joint
    Irish/British/Northern Irish military force in NI, one that would be
    considered less sectarian and more broad based.
    
    An interesting aside to this is that as the Nationalists begin to
    assume more power throughout the province through demographics, it will
    be ironically the Loyalist paramilitaries that will be fighting the
    British.  So I would argue that it is in Britain's best interest now,
    to take the lead and begin serious power sharing agreements with all
    parties in Northern Ireland and Ireland and begin withdrawing their
    military from NI.

    And don't get me wrong.  From an American standpoint, I have
    utmost respect for the British military.  They have been our
    good friends for many, many years.  And I for one appreciate
    that.
    
    But the situation in Northern Ireland has an Irish dimension
    that the British, for whatever reasons, fail to recognize.  We
    all want peace in Northern Ireland, and that will only come when
    the British sit down in earnest and negotiate a lasting settlement
    with all parties.
    
    Slan,
    /George

    
    Hmm, I'm not sure you can make the ethnic constitution of the army 
    grounds for occcupation status. That imbalance would occur by necessity
    unless they made a point of recruiting Irish born troops for service in
    NI. Even playing devil's advocate, if the majority of a state invite in
    a third party's army, is that army an army of occupation? Not by
    definition although it tends to become that with the usual disaffection
    that results from putting up with their presence.
    
    In any event, I don't see joint sovereignty as a solution and the UN
    will make a mess of it anyway. 
    

    I'm not making ethnicity grounds for occupation status.  The British
    soldiers in Ireland are from Britain, not from Ireland!  This is fact.
    Prove me wrong.
    
    Why don't you see join sovereignty as a solution. Any reasons there???

    RE: .3  by TALLIS::DARCY 
    
    >As an analogy, America occupies Iceland, Greenland, and a host of other
    >places...
    
    Used to occupy Berlin too, but that wall came down.
    

    
    You miss my point. It matters nothing where the soldiers originated as
    long as there is no sovereignty claim. There are Scots soldiers
    'defending' various parts of England, but they're not occupying it.
    Anyway, this is neither here nor there. I simply took exception to your
    use of the word occupation as a necessary and separate construct from
    that of sovereignty. As for joint sovereignty i thought I covered that
    elsewhere when I said the British government should divest compeletely
    if it plans to divest at all, rather than continue to get shot at from
    both sides. Any possible unification solution will needs involve a
    wooing of the Protestants by the republic and the appropiate reponse
    by a Protestant majority who thinks the status quo cannot endure. I
    don't think you can shoot them to the table. 
    

    RE: .8
    
    See .10, and additionally, NI is part of Britain. Right or wrong, it's
    a fact. 
    
    Laurie.

    In keeping with tradition, this request has nothing to do with the
    original topic. Would someone please post the results of the vote of
    confidence in Mr. Major/treaty today.
    
    Appreciated I'm sure!
                            
    

    >See .10, and additionally, NI is part of Britain. Right or wrong, it's
    >a fact. 
    
    Politically, NI is part of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain
    and Northern Ireland).  Geographically, NI is part of Ireland.
    NI is not part of Britain.
    
    Georgie.

    
    
    I seem to remember having this discussion with Frank Chaplain.
    Portugal and Spain both reside in the Iberian peninsula. Other examples
    abound. 
    

    Republican and Loyalist alike will tell you NI is not part
    of Britain.  It never was, it never will be. If NI were
    part of Britain then the official name would not be the
    United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland.  Residents
    in NI have British citizenship, but they are not living in
    Britain. They live in Ireland (or otherwise known NI). Ask
    them yourself. It's not hard to understand.
    
    /George

    
    This is truly splitting hairs to the point where it is indeed hard to
    understand what your point is. 
    

    No not at all, Laurie stated NI is part of Britain.  I don't
    agree with him and have stated reasons thereof.

    I remain unconvinced.
    
    Laurie.

    Folks
    
    I think that the thing that truly shows whether or not NI is part of
    Britian is the Barring order. Someone living in Northern Ireland can be
    prevented form entering Britian by the issuing of a barring order.
    
    Could someone living in London be prevented from entering say Cardiff?
    
    Rgds.......Gerry 

>    Could someone living in London be prevented from entering say Cardiff?

I think a restraining order can be granted to bar anyone from any area
of the UK... I'm not absolutely certain though, perhaps someone with
more legal knowledge could confirm (or deny!) this.

Chris.

    .20 is my understanding too. Some people on a housing estate in London
    have had this very thing happen to them, barring them from certain
    parts of their own residential area. The reason was that they were
    known to be criminals, but there was insufficient evidence for a court
    of law. And no, they weren't Irish!
    
    Laurie.

    
    What happened to David Mathews was not a restraining order. It was a
    DEPORTATION order. 
    
    Denis.