Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?

Fratton Fred

I really, really fail to see the connection between being insular and speaking English or Irish.

Is Killarney any more or less insular than Killiney?

If anything, it is the level of immigration that made Ireland insular as opposed to the language spoken.

Consistently high levels of emmigration, with no one coming in the opposite direction, isn't going to produce a population with a global view of the world.

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

What is the world's most widely spoken second language? Are all those people stuck in the Anglo-sphere? Get real.

The various Spanish speaking countries of South America all neighbour each other. Who is our only neighbour and who dominates trade in our region? What language does that country speak?

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The various Spanish speaking countries of South America all neighbour each other. Who is our only neighbour and who dominates trade in our region? What language does that country speak?

How the hell could we be "stuck in the curse of the anglosphere" if our native language was Irish. That makes no sense since we wouldn't even be in the anglo-s, get it?

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

How the hell could we be "stuck in the curse of the anglosphere" if our native language was Irish. That makes no sense since we wouldn't even be in the anglo-s, get it?

You're not thinking this through. If we spoke Irish the vast majority of bilingual people (of whom would comprise the majority of the population) would speak English. So we'd still be stuck well within the Anglosphere.

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're not thinking this through. If we spoke Irish the only vast vast majority of bilingual people (of whom would comprise the majority of the population) would speak English. So we'd still be stuck well within the Anglosphere.

This is my last post on this OT business.
The anglosphere is the native English speaking world, Irish is not English, if we spoke Irish we would not be part of the native English speaking world, just like Denmark, and even though most Danes speak English the country is not part of the Anglosphere.
Good bye.

.jacksparrow.

This thread has strayed way of the original topic.

LordSutch

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

This thread has strayed way of the original topic.

Well said.

This thread is meant to be about two psychotic terrorist/nutter drug taking groups who should belong to the history books, instead of which we have these gun touting IRA dregs of society boyhos actually being defended (in some cases) and given love hate type of 'gansta' status.

Both groups should all be rounded up and put into an unoccupied ghost estate in the middle of nowhere for a little inter gang weekend war, armed to the teeth with as many guns and sticks of semtex that they can carry . . .

That should do the trick.

Crooked Jack

LordSutch wrote: »

Well said.

This thread is meant to be about two psychotic terrorist/nutter drug taking groups who should belong to the history books, instead of which we have these gun touting IRA dregs of society boyhos actually being defended (in some cases) and given love hate type of 'gansta' status.

Both groups should all be rounded up and put into an unoccupied ghost estate in the middle of nowhere for a little inter gang weekend war, armed to the teeth with as many guns and sticks of semtex that they can carry . . .

That should do the trick.

I am totally opposed to murder and terrorism. What we need is a good bout of murder and terrorism to sort it out.

SoulandForm

What other groups do you want to re-establish gladitorial combat as a punishment for?

LordSutch wrote: »

Well said.

This thread is meant to be about two psychotic terrorist/nutter drug taking groups who should belong to the history books, instead of which we have these gun touting IRA dregs of society boyhos actually being defended (in some cases) and given love hate type of 'gansta' status.

Both groups should all be rounded up and put into an unoccupied ghost estate in the middle of nowhere for a little inter gang weekend war, armed to the teeth with as many guns and sticks of semtex that they can carry . . .

That should do the trick.

LordSutch

SoulandForm wrote: »

What other groups do you want to re-establish gladitorial combat as a punishment for?

Just the two mentioned in the thread title.

Crooked Jack

LordSutch wrote: »

Just the two mentioned in the thread title.

Might make for boring viewing, I doubt they'd actually fight each other. Didnt this new RIRA amalgamation group say that they'll happily work with other dissident groups?

SoulandForm

LordSutch wrote: »

Just the two mentioned in the thread title.

So you wouldnt be so hard on the OnH?

Okiedokie.

BuilderPlumber

It is hard to know who is who when it comes to any of these groups. There are in theory 5 IRAs: Official, Provisional, Continuity, Real and New Real. The INLA are also another group of IRA in all but name.

Are all these separate or the same is anyone's guess. My guess is they are different when it suits them and all side with each other too when it suits them. I bet they'd all go into coalition together in a Sinn Fein government!

An Coilean

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

It is hard to know who is who when it comes to any of these groups. There are in theory 5 IRAs: Official, Provisional, Continuity, Real and New Real. The INLA are also another group of IRA in all but name.

Are all these separate or the same is anyone's guess. My guess is they are different when it suits them and all side with each other too when it suits them. I bet they'd all go into coalition together in a Sinn Fein government!

?
Official IRA are long gone, Continuity, Real and various other splinter groupings hate SF with a passion at this stage.

SoulandForm

An Coilean wrote: »

?
Official IRA are long gone, Continuity, Real and various other splinter groupings hate SF with a passion at this stage.

The Official IRA are NOT long gone.

The "Official IRA" who decommissoned around the same time that the INLA were a splinter group based around Newry.

The Official IRA are heavily armed.

BuilderPlumber

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Official IRA are NOT long gone.

The "Official IRA" who decommissoned around the same time that the INLA were a splinter group based around Newry.

The Official IRA are heavily armed.

This is true. Most people think that the Official IRA just died out. They still remain and have avoided all decommissioning as they were not overly involved in the Troubles like the Provos.

The Official IRA's political wing is very interesting. First, they were a communist style party called Sinn Fein, The Worker's Party (shortened later to The Worker's Party). After this, they became Democratic Left and entered government in the 1990s. Then, DL merged with Labour and such high profile Labour politicians as Eamonn Gilmore and Pat Rabbitte are both originally from DL/WP/OIRA.

SoulandForm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

This is true. Most people think that the Official IRA just died out. They still remain and have avoided all decommissioning as they were not overly involved in the Troubles like the Provos.

The Official IRA's political wing is very interesting. First, they were a communist style party called Sinn Fein, The Worker's Party (shortened later to The Worker's Party). After this, they became Democratic Left and entered government in the 1990s. Then, DL merged with Labour and such high profile Labour politicians as Eamonn Gilmore and Pat Rabbitte are both originally from DL/WP/OIRA.

"Group B"/Official IRA however remained with the Workers Party and anyone siding with Democratic was expelled. In the conference to change the party line fundamentally the majority of the members voted against it- however the majority of TDs were for it and so they split and carried the day. I seriously thought about joining the Workers Party at one time-Im glad I didnt.

tdv123

You'd think these splinter groups would just piss of & realize their actions are counter-productive.

The only 2 legitimate IRA's were the old IRA & the PIRA, who actually achieved something.

How in gods name is shooting Catholic police officers going to bring about a UI?

SoulandForm

tdv123 wrote: »

You'd think these splinter groups would just piss of & realize their actions are counter-productive.

The only 2 legitimate IRA's were the old IRA & the PIRA, who actually achieved something.

How in gods name is shooting Catholic police officers going to bring about a UI?

Are you suggesting that killing Protestant PSNI officers would some how be better?

To these people a PSNI officer is a PSNI officer is a PSNI officer; he can speak fluent Irish, play hurling and be a member of the Legion of Mary and it wouldnt matter a damn to them. They are many things but they are not sectarian.

The Fenians and the United Irishmen could be said to have achieved hardly anything.

I would go so far to say that their tactics are immoral and amount to murder- but I understand why they do what they do and respect them for that.

alastair

tdv123 wrote: »

You'd think these splinter groups would just piss of & realize their actions are counter-productive.

The only 2 legitimate IRA's were the old IRA & the PIRA, who actually achieved something.

How in gods name is shooting Catholic police officers going to bring about a UI?

There's sod all to distinguish the actions of the provos from the current bunch. Both lacked any legitimacy, and were only too happy to shoot Catholic police officers dead - North and South.

tdv123

SoulandForm wrote: »

Are you suggesting that killing Protestant PSNI officers would some how be better?

No were did you get that from? Shooting any police officer is counter-productive. I was mention Catholic PSNI officers as they are their main target.

To these people a PSNI officer is a PSNI officer is a PSNI officer; he can speak fluent Irish, play hurling and be a member of the Legion of Mary and it wouldnt matter a damn to them. They are many things but they are not sectarian.

The Fenians and the United Irishmen could be said to have achieved hardly anything.

I would go so far to say that their tactics are immoral and amount to murder- but I understand why they do what they do and respect them for that.

I agree with most of the rest but the United irishmen gave rise to the Fenian Republican Brotherhood & IRB who launched the 1916 rising which gave rise to the old IRA.

tdv123

alastair wrote: »

There's sod all to distinguish the actions of the provos from the current bunch. Both lacked any legitimacy, and were only too happy to shoot Catholic police officers dead - North and South.

But the PIRA had a lot of support in their communities. They were seen as defenders of the community. A lot of those RUC they killed were colluding with Loyalist death squads.

CIRA & RIRA have no support & as result launch about 10 significant atttacks a year. Even towards the of the conflict the PIRA launched around 425 attacks on British forces in 1992.

.jacksparrow.

tdv123 wrote: »

But the PIRA had a lot of support in their communities. They were seen as defenders of the community. A lot of those RUC they killed were colluding with Loyalist death squads.

CIRA & RIRA have no support & as result launch about 10 significant atttacks a year. Even towards the of the conflict the PIRA launched around 425 attacks on British forces in 1992.

Doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

They both have beliefs and ideals and are using the same methods to try achieve them.

There is no difference in the ira of today to the one 200 years ago or 30 years ago.

SoulandForm

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

They both have beliefs and ideals and are using the same methods to try achieve them.

There is no difference in the ira of today to the one 200 years ago or 30 years ago.

There are though- IRA of the 20s had massive support and huge democratic mandate. The Provos came out of the suppression both legal and extra-legal of the civil rights movement and whatever anyone says about it here stopped once they had won the Mc Bride principles.

If I had been born an RC instead of Protestant in Northern Ireland I would probably support the OnH and the CIRA- but I wasnt.

.jacksparrow.

SoulandForm wrote: »

There are though- IRA of the 20s had massive support and huge democratic mandate. The Provos came out of the suppression both legal and extra-legal of the civil rights movement and whatever anyone says about it here stopped once they had won the Mc Bride principles.

If I had been born an RC instead of Protestant in Northern Ireland I would probably support the OnH and the CIRA- but I wasnt.

But it doesn't matter if they have or had support or not.

I'm talking about the beliefs and methods.

SoulandForm

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

But it doesn't matter if they have or had support or not.

I'm talking about the beliefs and methods.

Fair enough- but mass movements that come about after seeing other methods trampled upon are different from those who use adventurist tactics that end up with people dead in a social void.

I empathize even though I completely dont sympathize with the current physical force Republicans.

alastair

tdv123 wrote: »

But the PIRA had a lot of support in their communities. They were seen as defenders of the community. A lot of those RUC they killed were colluding with Loyalist death squads.

A lot of supposition there. Were the Guards they killed also colluding with death squads? SF never managed to pull an electoral majority of 'their community' while the IRA was busy killing people, so this notion that they had 'a lot of support' is rather over-stated. The current crowd have some support as well - neither have legitimacy.

alastair

SoulandForm wrote: »

There are though- IRA of the 20s had massive support and huge democratic mandate. The Provos came out of the suppression both legal and extra-legal of the civil rights movement and whatever anyone says about it here stopped once they had won the Mc Bride principles.

The Provos had nothing to do with the McBride principles.

SoulandForm

alastair wrote: »

A lot of supposition there. Were the Guards they killed also colluding with death squads? SF never managed to pull an electoral majority of 'their community' while the IRA was busy killing people, so this notion that they had 'a lot of support' is rather over-stated. The current crowd have some support as well - neither have legitimacy.

The Garda torture of Republicans- and Im not talking about Volunteers at the moment left them open for revenge attacks, the fact that was few were killed given the situation is to the credit of the Provos. Not that killing Garda would be morally right in my opinion-just that a lot of them were morally evil.

alastair

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Garda torture of Republicans- and Im not talking about Volunteers at the moment left them open for revenge attacks, the fact that was few were killed given the situation is to the credit of the Provos. Not that killing Garda would be morally right in my opinion-just that a lot of them were morally evil.

That's quite the twisted position you've managed to find for yourself. Like I say - they had no legitimacy.

SoulandForm

alastair wrote: »

That's quite the twisted position you've managed to find for yourself. Like I say - they had no legitimacy.

No its not.

They had the legitimacy of responding to real oppression in what they believed was the only route- they decommissoned for so little showing that...But I suspect the reason you hate the Provies so much is that the idea of Irish proles with guns sends shivers down your spine, am I right?

alastair

SoulandForm wrote: »

No its not.

They had the legitimacy of responding to real oppression in what they believed was the only route- they decommissoned for so little showing that...But I suspect the reason you hate the Provies so much is that the idea of Irish proles with guns sends shivers down your spine, am I right?

Complete rubbish. The IRA didn't murder guards because of 'revenge' - they murdered them because they interfered with their criminality. The current bunch of idiots could make exactly the same claims as the Provos, and have about as much legitimacy - ie: none. The IRA decommissioned because they finally copped on to the futility of their strategy - that's all that differentiates them from CIRA etc.

Your suspicions are about as on target as your half-baked attempt to justify a campaign of murder. As in not at all. But thanks for them anyway.

BuilderPlumber

I think that all these groups started out as protectors of their own communities be they nationalist or loyalist. But as the years passed, al lot of the groups turned out more as rival drug gangs than anything else.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The current bunch of idiots could make exactly the same claims as the Provos, and have about as much legitimacy - ie: none.

Just for clarity, could you tell us how you test your local freedom fighters/revolutionaries for 'legitimacy'? And could you point to a similar situation where 'legitimacy' of an organisation like the IRA can be shown.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just for clarity, could you tell us how you test your local freedom fighters/revolutionaries for 'legitimacy'? And could you point to a similar situation where 'legitimacy' of an organisation like the IRA can be shown.

Just for clarity, if it hasn't got a popular mandate, then it's not legitimate. The electoral process is the mechanism that lends legitimacy to any insurrectionists. The vast majority of voters, north and south, opted to support those who opposed a campaign of violence.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Just for clarity, if it hasn't got a popular mandate, then it's not legitimate.

And who decides this?
If for instance I say 'The IRA had a popular mandate and you say 'The IRA didn't have a popular mandate' how do we decide?

The electoral process is the mechanism that lends legitimacy to any insurrectionists. The vast majority of voters, north and south, opted to support those who opposed a campaign of violence.

The vast majority of people in Cavan/Monaghan don't vote for Labour, does that mean Labour have 'no legitimacy' there?

Still waiting for those examples of a place where a group like the IRA proved their 'legitimacy'.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

And who decides this?
If for instance I say 'The IRA had a popular mandate and you say 'The IRA didn't have a popular mandate' how do we decide?

Try the electorate - that well established measure of popular support for political movements?

Happyman42 wrote: »

The vast majority of people in Cavan/Monaghan don't vote for Labour, does that mean Labour have 'no legitimacy' there?

Still waiting for those examples of a place where a group like the IRA proved their 'legitimacy'.

Labour have legitimacy on the basis of their national vote - in a national election and context. If they don't manage to poll enough for a council seat, in Cavan/monaghan then they've no claim to represent the people within the constituency on a local level.

I don't recall the IRA claiming legitimacy on the basis of anything other than ideology and some dodgy claims to provenance. They knew better than to pretend a popular mandate.

What exactly is a 'group like the IRA' supposed to mean?

SoulandForm

Happyman42 wrote: »

And who decides this?
If for instance I say 'The IRA had a popular mandate and you say 'The IRA didn't have a popular mandate' how do we decide?



The vast majority of people in Cavan/Monaghan don't vote for Labour, does that mean Labour have 'no legitimacy' there?

Still waiting for those examples of a place where a group like the IRA proved their 'legitimacy'.

There are strong arguments in favour of the legitimacy of the Provo's and there are strong arguments against it-people need to understand though that the Provos's belong to history. Northern Ireland has many problems and the Provos are not one of them.

alastair

SoulandForm wrote: »

There are strong arguments in favour of the legitimacy of the Provo's and there are strong arguments against it-people need to understand though that the Provos's belong to history. Northern Ireland has many problems and the Provos are not one of them.

The 'strong arguments in favour of the legitimacy of the Provos' never managed to find expression in the electoral will of the people though, so the only other measure that could be applied, was how okay those within the IRA felt about their actions themselves. Not particularly useful. The propagandist revisionism relating to the IRA should also be consigned to history too.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Try the electorate - that well established measure of popular support for political movements?

Maybe if you can point to other instances of revolutionaries and freedom fighters standing in elections organised by those they were fighting against or who banned and proscribed them, you might have the semblance of an intelligent point there.

Labour have legitimacy on the basis of their national vote - in a national election and context. If they don't manage to poll enough for a council seat, in Cavan/monaghan then they've no claim to represent the people within the constituency on a local level.

Labour have seats on a local level, but the 'vast majority' don't vote for them. You said the 'vast majority' opted to vote for those who opposed violence hence removing 'legitimacy' from the IRA.
How come Labour in Cavan/Monaghan have 'legitimacy' and the IRA have it removed?

I don't recall the IRA claiming legitimacy on the basis of anything other than ideology and some dodgy claims to provenance. They knew better than to pretend a popular mandate.

Yes, I think that is your requirement for them to be 'legitimate'.

Isn't the truth of the situation (and kinda obvious too) that it doesn't matter a dam if they can be proven to be 'legitimate' or not, they exist?

It's a bit like saying rain isn't legitimate therefore rain shouldn't exist.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe if you can point to other instances of revolutionaries and freedom fighters standing in elections organised by those they were fighting against or who banned and proscribed them, you might have the semblance of an intelligent point there.

The Provos were formed on the basis of testing their mandate in the electoral process. The ballot was always available to PSF. I really don't care if there were scores of other groups in a similar position, or none - it has no bearing on my argument.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Labour have seats on a local level, but the 'vast majority' don't vote for them. You said the 'vast majority' opted to vote for those who opposed violence hence removing 'legitimacy' from the IRA.
How come Labour in Cavan/Monaghan have 'legitimacy' and the IRA have it removed?

I've already said that Labour have legitimacy on the basis of their electoral support - and that alone - they are constrained by their popular mandate, and can only lay claim to the support evident in their polling. I wouldn't expect Labour to claim that they could impose their will on the basis of a minority support. If they tried to, they would lose legitimacy - because it wouldn't be supported by a popular mandate.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, I think that is your requirement for them to be 'legitimate'.

I'm glad we've nailed that down at least

Happyman42 wrote: »

Isn't the truth of the situation (and kinda obvious too) that it doesn't matter a dam if they can be proven to be 'legitimate' or not, they exist?

It's a bit like saying rain isn't legitimate therefore rain shouldn't exist.

Rain doesn't claim to act on my behalf. I'm not even sure the concept of legitimacy plays any role in nature. It's a social construct. In the big picture it's not so important that the IRA claimed legitimacy, but it's important for those that they proported to derive legitimacy from, to be very clear that this wasn't the case. The people of Ireland rejected their campaign after all.

SoulandForm

Im never going to agree with either you Happyman or you alastair about the Provos' campaign; but it would be interesting to hear how both of you think any repeat of the troubles can be prevented.

tdv123

alastair wrote: »

A lot of supposition there. Were the Guards they killed also colluding with death squads? SF never managed to pull an electoral majority of 'their community' while the IRA was busy killing people, so this notion that they had 'a lot of support' is rather over-stated. The current crowd have some support as well - neither have legitimacy.

Well when the Provos was formed they were very distrusting of political parties including SF. Then after the hunger strikes you had the rise of SF & then you had the sleaze ball tactic of blocking the rise of SF. Hate Gerry or love him but he was the elected representative of West Belfast. Banning elected SF members from the airwaves was like telling the communties that voted for them that they & their votes didn't matter.

So after the ban was lifted on them on in 93/94 there vote started to go up gradually.


Irish Republican Legitimatize

Republican legitimatists adopt a traditional Irish republican analysis that views the Irish Republic as proclaimed "in arms" during the 1916 Easter Rising as the sole legitimate authority on the island of Ireland. This view is partly shared by all political parties in the present-day Republic of Ireland, who believe the secessionist and abstentionist First Dáil, which "ratified" the Republic proclaimed in 1916, is a predecessor to the current, internationally recognised, Dáil.
It is on the issue of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty that republican legitimatism departs from mainstream constitutional understanding. It views the Anglo-Irish Treaty as incompatible with the Irish Republic and thus null and void. Although the Treaty was endorsed by the majority of TDs of the Second Dáil, republican legitimatists argue that the vote was invalid as all TDs had, prior to their election, taken a solemn oath to defend the Irish Republic, and that people could not possibly express their true desires on the treaty, as the British had threatened a massive escalation, "immediate and terrible war" as they phrased it, if it was not accepted.
On the basis of these views, republican legitimatism argued that:

• all Irish parliaments convened since the Second Dáil in 1921 are illegitimate as they were established by a piece of British legislation, the Government of Ireland Act 1920;I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disputed_statement"]dubious[/URL] – [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Irish_republican_legitimatism#Dubious"]discuss[/URL][/I
• the 64 TDs who voted for the Treaty in 1922 had violated their oath to the Irish Republic and abdicated their legitimacy;
• The Second Dáil had never formally dissolved itself.

The pro- and anti-treaty factions of Sinn Féin attempted to present a united block of candidates for the 1922 general election in the 26 counties for the Third Dáil; 58 pro-treaty Sinn Féin members were re-elected compared with 36 anti-treaty members. Of these, 17 of the 58 and 16 of the 36 were returned unopposed. Following the outbreak of the Irish Civil War, the Second Dáil was never dissolved and the (All Ireland) Third Dáil never convened. Led by Éamon de Valera and others, the Second Dáil TDs who had voted against the Treaty abstained from the (26 county) Provisional Parliament of the Free State and the subsequent Oireachtas of the Irish Free State. They and their opponents engaged in the Irish civil war in 1922-23.
Although de Valera had resigned as President of the Republic on 7 January 1922, and had not been re-elected on a very close Dáil vote two days later, a meeting of the IRA Army Executive at Poulatar, Ballybacon on 17 October 1922 adopted a proclamation "reinstating" de Valera as "President of the Republic" and "Chief Executive of the State". The "Emergency Government," as de Valera called it in his autobiography, was established on 25 October 1922.[1][2][3]
Members of this Republican government were:

• Éamon de Valera - "President of the Republic" (after his arrest in 1923, substituted by Patrick J. Ruttledge)[2]
• Patrick J. Ruttledge - "Minister of Home Affairs"
• Austin Stack - "Minister of Finance"

De Valera also appointed twelve members of the Second Dáil to act as a Council of State.[1] They were:

• Austin Stack
• Robert Barton
• Count Plunkett
• Seán Ó Ceallaigh (John J. O'Kelly)
• Laurence Ginnell
• Seán T. O'Kelly
• Kathleen O'Callaghan
• Mary MacSwiney
• P. J. Ruttledge
• Seán Moylan
• Michael Colivet
• Seán O'Μahony

This "Government of the Republic", however, was unable to assert the authority it claimed to possess. Effectively an internal government-in-exile, one of its first acts was to rescind the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. It continued to meet even after subsequent elections had been held in jurisdiction of the Free State. Styling themselves Comhairle na dTeachtaí, the members of the rump Second Dáil were joined by anti-Treaty republican TDs elected at subsequent elections. The IRA initially recognised the authority of the rump Second Dáil but increased distrust between the two bodies led the IRA to withdraw its support in 1925.
At the 1926 Sinn Féin ard fheis, Éamon de Valera (then president of the party) effectively called for the abandonment of the legitimatist argument by proposing that the party accept the Free State constitution and return to electoral politics contingent on the abolition of the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Opponents of the proposal, led by Father Michael O’Flanagan and Mary McSweeney defeated his motion by a vote of 223 to 218. De Valera subsequently resigned as Sinn Féin president to form a new party, Fiana Fail , which entered the Dáil of the Irish Free State in 1927, reducing the ranks of this rump Second Dáil even further. From this point onwards, de Valera and his followers were seen as having departed from the principles of republicanism by republican legitimatists, who set up Comhairle na Poblachta as a body to popularize its claims.

alastair

SoulandForm wrote: »

Im never going to agree with either you Happyman or you alastair about the Provos' campaign; but it would be interesting to hear how both of you think any repeat of the troubles can be prevented.

The troubles are not going to be repeated, because there are not enough players outside the consensus of parliamentary democracy. Even if those inside that consensus retain sectarian suspicion (and they do, in the main), it will contain any possibility of social breakdown. That, combined with the general clarity on what the reality of extra-political 'activism' actually means, is the insurance against anything of substance kicking off again.

alastair

tdv123 wrote: »

Irish Republican Legitimatize

Notable that the logic for that claim to legitimacy by the Provos is equally applicable to the CIRA and RIRA. Their provenance is just as easily tracked backwards, just add in another split to the mix. The truth is that it offers no legitimacy to any of them post 1922.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The Provos were formed on the basis of testing their mandate in the electoral process. The ballot was always available to PSF. I really don't care if there were scores of other groups in a similar position, or none - it has no bearing on my argument.

And at what point where they allowed to have full and equal electoral rights and the right to aspire to a UI?
The stark reality of NI and the conflict was we had to get to that point by violence.
Unionists simply, where not and never would have been ready to share power equally where it not for an armed campaign. (you can witter on about Sunningdale until the cows come home, but it never was a realistic solution) That is the horrible reality of it all, and it has been the same throughout history around the world where one side suppresses and subjugates another. Here we had the added fireworks that the subjugating side where religious supremacists.

I've already said that Labour have legitimacy on the basis of their electoral support - and that alone - they are constrained by their popular mandate, and can only lay claim to the support evident in their polling. I wouldn't expect Labour to claim that they could impose their will on the basis of a minority support. If they tried to, they would lose legitimacy - because it wouldn't be supported by a popular mandate.

The point is that Labour have a voice and are listened to as part of a democracy.

I'm glad we've nailed that down at least

Yes, like other threads it is begining to become evident that the issue of 'legitimacy' is dictated by you alone and your personal opinion.

Rain doesn't claim to act on my behalf. I'm not even sure the concept of legitimacy plays any role in nature. It's a social construct. In the big picture it's not so important that the IRA claimed legitimacy, but it's important for those that they proported to derive legitimacy from, to be very clear that this wasn't the case. The people of Ireland rejected their campaign after all.

The IRA never claimed to act on your behalf or mine for that matter, they claimed to speak for all true republicans of which there where many.
The IRA decided that a deal could be done and did the deal, the people of Ireland agreed with them. I have a measure of respect for those who recognised that violence was no longer necessary.

Happyman42

SoulandForm wrote: »

Im never going to agree with either you Happyman or you alastair about the Provos' campaign; but it would be interesting to hear how both of you think any repeat of the troubles can be prevented.

Violence in Ireland has always been cyclical and that cycle has a root cause, the British presence here.
I can see the rise of the dissidents (those who legitimately think that the GFA was a sellout) stopping them will be as intractable and as impossible as stopping the rise of the IRA.
I have no truck with those who think that these groups are just criminals or drug dealers (what crim is going to bring an extra heat on themselves by engaging in a quasi political struggle) and that we are being sold a pup on this by the combined forces of the media and the established parties (I include SF in that)
These groups represent (to me) a real threat to the peace process and what they are looking for (just as Adams and McGuinness did) are events to radicalise a whole new generation or generations of republicans.
To me, the only way to stop this inevitable cycle of violence is to remove the primary cause and begin the experiment of a united Ireland.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

And at what point where they allowed to have full and equal electoral rights and the right to aspire to a UI?
The stark reality of NI and the conflict was we had to get to that point by violence.

Rubbish. SF were never excluded from the electoral processes that would have any bearing on lobbying for a united Ireland - north or south. They had equal rights in that regard from the get-go.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Violence in Ireland has always been cyclical and that cycle has a root cause, the British presence here.
I can see the rise of the dissidents (those who legitimately think that the GFA was a sellout) stopping them will be as intractable and as impossible as stopping the rise of the IRA.
I have no truck with those who think that these groups are just criminals or drug dealers (what crim is going to bring an extra heat on themselves by engaging in a quasi political struggle) and that we are being sold a pup on this by the combined forces of the media and the established parties (I include SF in that)
These groups represent (to me) a real threat to the peace process and what they are looking for (just as Adams and McGuinness did) are events to radicalise a whole new generation or generations of republicans.
To me, the only way to stop this inevitable cycle of violence is to remove the primary cause and begin the experiment of a united Ireland.

The British 'presence' is in actuality, the will of the majority of those in NI. I don't ever see the will of the majority being 'removed' by violence. The notion that you can pin a root cause for violence on the British is farcical. A minority of Scottish voters support independence from Britain too, but I don't see anyone claim that it should lead to an inevitable cycle of violence as a consequence.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Rubbish. SF were never excluded from the electoral processes that would have any bearing on lobbying for a united Ireland - north or south. They had equal rights in that regard from the get-go.

Yes, that is true, but we are talking about the IRA.

alastair wrote:

The British 'presence' is in actuality, the will of the majority of those in NI. I don't ever see the will of the majority being 'removed' by violence. The notion that you can pin a root cause for violence on the British is farcical.

What would you say the 'root' cause is

A minority of Scottish voters support independence from Britain too, but I don't see anyone claim that it should lead to an inevitable cycle of violence as a consequence.

Which is a fine and upstanding opinion to have, if you are in denial that violence is actually happening.