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

.jacksparrow.

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. 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.

The majority voted that a united Ireland be brought about by a majority.

Which means they the majority are happy for the status to change.

So where you're getting the majority wants to remain part of the UK is beyond me.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

And if Unionism becomes the new Republicanism? Do we switch back to appease the terrorists?

.jacksparrow.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

And if Unionism becomes the new Republicanism? Do we switch back to appease the terrorists?

So because of a fear of violence from unionists we should never change the status?

Black Swan

MOD NOTICE:
This thread moved to Northern Ireland. Please read new Northern Ireland charter before posting.

.jacksparrow.

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

So because of a fear of violence from unionists we should never change the status?

So because of a fear of violence from Republicans we should change the status?

.jacksparrow.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

So because of a fear of violence from Republicans we should change the status?

Em no, we have the gfa to change the status, which will be voted on hopefully in the not too distant future.

So my question again is, should we not change the status because of fear on unionist violence?

SoulandForm

alastair wrote: »

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.

You must have missed the leader of the Police Federation saying that the UVF are basically not on cease fire while the Orange Order and DUP have being pals with them in north Belfast. The "consensus" as you put it is extremely brittle.

Happyman42

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

And if Unionism becomes the new Republicanism? Do we switch back to appease the terrorists?

Unionists signed up to the GFA as well, there is an onus on everybody...EVERYBODY to find a way forward that accomodates everybody and removes the causes of violence.

tdv123

Happyman42 wrote: »

Unionists signed up to the GFA as well, there is an onus on everybody...EVERYBODY to find a way forward that accomodates everybody and removes the causes of violence.

A good way of doing that would be letting Counties with nationalists majorities be handed to the Republic. Fermanagh, South Armagh, Tyrone, Derry City & notable places with nationalist majorities. This would enable the PSNI & Gardai to work together much better & put a stop to paramilitary activity once & for all.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

Actually, we are talking about the political wing of the IRA - which would be SF. My point stands.

Happyman42 wrote: »

What would you say the 'root' cause is

Sectarianism, cyclical dynamics, gangsterism, localism, siege mentality, distorted ideology - a messy cocktail of causes.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

Care to point toward the equivalent of the troubles in Scotland?

alastair

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

The majority voted that a united Ireland be brought about by a majority.

Which means they the majority are happy for the status to change.

So where you're getting the majority wants to remain part of the UK is beyond me.

A majority voted for the possibility of change, and then continued to vote for the status quo. A majority do not want a 32 county republic currently, and possibly may never want it, while allowing for that possibility. A majority of the electorate would be in favour of allowing the Green Party compete in elections, but does that imply they want a Green-led government tomorrow, next year, or ever?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Actually, we are talking about the political wing of the IRA - which would be SF. My point stands.

No it doesn't actually, SF never sought a mandate for the IRA at the polls. But go ahead and shift the goalposts when it suits.

Sectarianism, cyclical dynamics, gangsterism, localism, siege mentality, distorted ideology - a messy cocktail of causes.

Most of the above caused by the presence of the British and their support for a supremacist regime and subsequent breakdown of society.

Care to point toward the equivalent of the troubles in Scotland?

There isn't any, because the British are not there to enforce the rule of a supremacist regime. That is why there is no comparison between Scotland and Ireland.

But that is all neither here nor there...violence has happened and is still happening and will continue to happen in Ireland and it is up to us to accept that and deal with it's causes.

alastair

SoulandForm wrote: »

You must have missed the leader of the Police Federation saying that the UVF are basically not on cease fire while the Orange Order and DUP have being pals with them in north Belfast. The "consensus" as you put it is extremely brittle.

There's quite a difference between the current state of affairs (UVF, fleg violence, Dissident activities, etc) and a return to how things were. There's no stomach for that - that's where the consensus lies - and it's not brittle - it's pretty emphatic.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

No it doesn't actually, SF never sought a mandate for the IRA at the polls. But go ahead and shift the goalposts when it suits.

Ballot box and armalite ring any bells? No need to shift any goalposts.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Most of the above caused by the presence of the British and their support for a supremacist regime and subsequent breakdown of society.

No it's not. What 'supremacist regime' are you referring to?

Happyman42 wrote: »

There isn't any, because the British are not there to enforce the rule of a supremacist regime. That is why there is no comparison between Scotland and Ireland.

Again with the 'supremacist regime'? The British army are certainly present in Scotland - with the same role and duty to enforce as they have in the rest of the UK. The comparison is quite clear once you shed yourself this nonsense of 'supremacist regimes' - there's a minority who favour a different sovereign arrangement, and a majority who favour the status quo (or slower political change).

Happyman42 wrote: »

But that is all neither here nor there...violence has happened and is still happening and will continue to happen in Ireland and it is up to us to accept that and deal with it's causes.

Which have sod all to do with the British at this stage.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Ballot box and armalite ring any bells? No need to shift any goalposts.

SF convinced the IRA to end the violence, remember an IRA spokesman issuing a statement at a moment of crisis in the process
'If that is what the British want, we will give them another 25 years of war?'
It was SF who intervened and convinced them that the process was the right way to go.
The IRA and SF where always autonomous to one another. Don't be fooled by vested interests in the media and look at the cold hard facts.

No it's not. What 'supremacist regime' are you referring to?

If you are still in denial about that then there is not much I can do.

Again with the 'supremacist regime'? The British army are certainly present in Scotland - with the same role and duty to enforce as they have in the rest of the UK. The comparison is quite clear once you shed yourself this nonsense of 'supremacist regimes' - there's a minority who favour a different sovereign arrangement, and a majority who favour the status quo (or slower political change).

The situation in Scotland is entirely different, please stop with the non-relevant comparisons.

Which have sod all to do with the British at this stage.

It doesn't to those signed up to the GFA, but as always it is those around the fringes on both sides who have the potential to derail the process and bring us very quickly back to a situation where the British presence is the primary battleground. It has everything to do with 'The British' for those two sides.
My hope and indeed expectation is that the British will underscore their dis-interest (stated clearly, but not taken on board by Unionism in the GFA) and overtly lobby for the practicality of a unification. That statement in the GFA has silenced the IRA guns and they need to spell it out now for the die hards in Loyalism and Republicanism before we begin to take steps backward.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The IRA and SF where always autonomous to one another. Don't be fooled by vested interests in the media and look at the cold hard facts.

Danny Morrison was trying to fool me?

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you are still in denial about that then there is not much I can do.

Heh. Right.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The situation in Scotland is entirely different, please stop with the non-relevant comparisons.

I'm simply responding to your baseless claim that the cause of violence was the role that Britain plays in the question of national sovereignty. Same scenario applies there.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It doesn't to those signed up to the GFA, but as always it is those around the fringes on both sides who have the potential to derail the process and bring us very quickly back to a situation where the British presence is the primary battleground. It has everything to do with 'The British' for those two sides.
My hope and indeed expectation is that the British will underscore their dis-interest (stated clearly, but not taken on board by Unionism in the GFA) and overtly lobby for the practicality of a unification. That statement in the GFA has silenced the IRA guns and they need to spell it out now for the die hards in Loyalism and Republicanism before we begin to take steps backward.

The British will never lobby for unification - why would you expect that they should? They have a duty to their citizens, to continue to re-affirm their rights - until their citizenry tell them otherwise. I don't lose any sleep over the dissident's attitude to the legitimacy of 'British rule' - how are they getting with recognising the legitimacy of the Irish state after all?

.jacksparrow.

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Em no, we have the gfa to change the status, which will be voted on hopefully in the not too distant future.

So my question again is, should we not change the status because of fear on unionist violence?

It was you who used the qualifier of republican violence as reasoning for the creation of a UI. Now, what is the difference between republicanism and unionism that allows violence for one group to be somehow different than violence from another? The victims are still the same group - i.e. people who want nothing to do with either.

tdv123

alastair wrote: »

I'm simply responding to your baseless claim that the cause of violence was the role that Britain plays in the question of national sovereignty. Same scenario applies there.

There was no party in Scotland who stood on a manifesto of independence & setting up a Republic.

There was a party in Ireland who stood on that manifesto & won a landslide victory.

If the Scottish people vote for independence (which I don't think is there best interest) that will have to be respected. But it was not respected here & in that lies the underlining problem. When the unit of decision went against them the ruling class changed the unit of decision to suit their own agenda.

So it's really that not difficult when people playing by the rules get cheated & turn to revolutionary organizations & reject constitutionalism as their way of voicing opinion. It's really not that difficult to understand & candidly I don't believe you can't understand it the truth is you can't accept it.

DEFTLEFTHAND

CIRA are living in a timewarp, nobody supports them any more. Take a look at this clip featuring a CIRA member shortly after the death of Ronan Kerr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsA0JvtdhMs

.jacksparrow.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

CIRA are living in a timewarp, nobody supports them any more. Take a look at this clip featuring a CIRA member shortly after the death of Ronan Kerr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsA0JvtdhMs

Wasn't this video discredited by the organisation as nothing to do with them?

Think it was someone just told to put a balaclava on and waffle for a few minutes.

alastair

tdv123 wrote: »

There was no party in Scotland who stood on a manifesto of independence & setting up a Republic.

There was a party in Ireland who stood on that manifesto & won a landslide victory.

If the Scottish people vote for independence (which I don't think is there best interest) that will have to be respected. But it was not respected here & in that lies the underlining problem. When the unit of decision went against them the ruling class changed the unit of decision to suit their own agenda.

So it's really that not difficult when people playing by the rules get cheated & turn to revolutionary organizations & reject constitutionalism as their way of voicing opinion. It's really not that difficult to understand & candidly I don't believe you can't understand it the truth is you can't accept it.

There certainly is a party in Scotland that has an unambiguous policy of independence - it doesn't really matter that it's not an overtly republican party, it's an independent party. It's won a majority through constitutional means, but there's significant opposition within Scotland to independence. The 'ruling class agenda' in this case is to let the Scottish make up their own minds on what they want to do. The historic reality in Ireland is that this was the case too -1914, 1920, 1922 all have one thing in common - a requirement for the Irish electorate to determine the issue of partition amongst themselves. That's about the best expression of 'respect' for the Irish from Britain, and undermines the notion that some devious agenda was at play.

Tramps Like Us

alastair wrote: »

There certainly is a party in Scotland that has an unambiguous policy of independence - it doesn't really matter that it's not an overtly republican party, it's an independent party. It's won a majority through constitutional means, but there's significant opposition within Scotland to independence. The 'ruling class agenda' in this case is to let the Scottish make up their own minds on what they want to do. The historic reality in Ireland is that this was the case too -1914, 1920, 1922 all have one thing in common - a requirement for the Irish electorate to determine the issue of partition amongst themselves. That's about the best expression of 'respect' for the Irish from Britain, and undermines the notion that some devious agenda was at play.

Pleas learn some history. Ireland was not allowed to democratically determine anything, hence the tan war.

alastair

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Pleas learn some history. Ireland was not allowed to democratically determine anything, hence the tan war.

If by not being allowed to determine anything, you mean recognise the legitimacy of a self-appointed 1918 Dail ahead of any political dialogue, and an armed insurrection without any electoral mandate, well, yes - that's true. But like I said - Ireland voted for the arrangements of 1914, 1920, and 1922. Britain didn't interfere.

tdv123

alastair wrote: »

There certainly is a party in Scotland that has an unambiguous policy of independence - it doesn't really matter that it's not an overtly republican party, it's an independent party. It's won a majority through constitutional means, but there's significant opposition within Scotland to independence. The 'ruling class agenda' in this case is to let the Scottish make up their own minds on what they want to do. The historic reality in Ireland is that this was the case too -1914, 1920, 1922 all have one thing in common - a requirement for the Irish electorate to determine the issue of partition amongst themselves. That's about the best expression of 'respect' for the Irish from Britain, and undermines the notion that some devious agenda was at play.

1914 the year the Carsonites armed themselves with guns, bombs & generades & declared their intentions to have an armed military revolt if Ireland was granted Home Rule? When the leaders of the newly found terrorist group looked for & more than likely would have got the mutiny of British battalions stationed in the North if not for the outbreak of WW1.
This was the 3rd Home rule to be quashed by the British (the first 2 being vetoed in the House of Lords so military action was not needed). I don't remember any crisis like the Curragh incident happening in Scotland when Home Rule in the 70's went of peacefully their. So nobody should think that the 1918 general election results being ignored where anything exclusive in Ireland. The IPP was being ignored for over 30 years & when it looked like democracy might triumph in Ireland the British Government capitulated to the threat of the Ulster Volunteers & gave the green light for the gun to rule & cloud Irish politics for the rest of the century. What a strange year to be boasting about.

1920 is the year official reprisals are granted to British military personnel in Ireland because (not that unofficial reprisals were out of the ordinary at the time) they believe everyone in Ireland to be a "shinner". And to add insult to injury blamed locals in the aftermath of the burning down of Cork City (one of the many crimes committed against the civilian population that year.

1922 again another strange year to boast about. If the British were so concerned about letting democracy rain in Ireland why are they so determined to keep Ireland within in the empire? A decision which plunges the country into civil war? It took another 27 years for the south to be recognized as a Republic & officially no longer part of the empire, one can only draw the conclusion that Britain did not intend to let Ireland go anywhere without some sort of war taking place.

1993 with the Downing Street declaration or 98 with the GFA might have been more productive years to boast about.

Rubeter

alastair wrote: »

If by not being allowed to determine anything, you mean recognise the legitimacy of a self-appointed 1918 Dail ahead of any political dialogue, and an armed insurrection without any electoral mandate, well, yes - that's true. But like I said - Ireland voted for the arrangements of 1914, 1920, and 1922. Britain didn't interfere.

Are you honestly trying to say Britain wasn't "interfering" with the wishes of the majority of the people of this island between 1914 and 1922?
Also how is it possible for Britain not to interfere regarding the issue of Partition when it was they that did the partitioning?

alastair

tdv123 wrote: »

1914 the year the Carsonites armed themselves with guns, bombs & generades & declared their intentions to have an armed military revolt if Ireland was granted Home Rule? When the leaders of the newly found terrorist group looked for & more than likely would have got the mutiny of British battalions stationed in the North if not for the outbreak of WW1.
This was the 3rd Home rule to be quashed by the British (the first 2 being vetoed in the House of Lords so military action was not needed). I don't remember any crisis like the Curragh incident happening in Scotland when Home Rule in the 70's went of peacefully their. So nobody should think that the 1918 general election results being ignored where anything exclusive in Ireland. The IPP was being ignored for over 30 years & when it looked like democracy might triumph in Ireland the British Government capitulated to the threat of the Ulster Volunteers & gave the green light for the gun to rule & cloud Irish politics for the rest of the century. What a strange year to be boasting about.

1920 is the year official reprisals are granted to British military personnel in Ireland because (not that unofficial reprisals were out of the ordinary at the time) they believe everyone in Ireland to be a "shinner". And to add insult to injury blamed locals in the aftermath of the burning down of Cork City (one of the many crimes committed against the civilian population that year.

1922 again another strange year to boast about. If the British were so concerned about letting democracy rain in Ireland why are they so determined to keep Ireland within in the empire? A decision which plunges the country into civil war? It took another 27 years for the south to be recognized as a Republic & officially no longer part of the empire, one can only draw the conclusion that Britain did not intend to let Ireland go anywhere without some sort of war taking place.

1993 with the Downing Street declaration or 98 with the GFA might have been more productive years to boast about.

Irish people were the ones who voted for the political arrangements of 1914, 1920, and 1922. Irish people were the ones who lobbied and voted for partition in Ulster - the British didn't initiate or promote that particular idea. Partition was always seen and framed as a temporary measure by the legislators, with a permanent arrangement to be negotiated between the two Irish sides. The British didn't 'cheat' the electoral demands of the Irish people for constitutional change - they were responding to two contradictory electoral demands, and the clear probability of a war if they gave either side everything they demanded. Whatever your feelings about the nature of the British military response to insurgency within what was still the UK, or the vulnerability of particular Irish garrisons to mutiny, the policy of the British state was essentially hands-off when it came to the issue of Irish self-governance.

Oh, and no-one is 'boasting' about any year.

alastair

Rubeter wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to say Britain wasn't "interfering" with the wishes of the majority of the people of this island between 1914 and 1922?
Also how is it possible for Britain not to interfere regarding the issue of Partition when it was they that did the partitioning?

They didn't 'do' partition, any more than they 'did' Irish self-governance. They provided what was being asked of them by two different groups of Irish lobbyists. Partition was an Irish demand.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

They didn't 'do' partition, any more than they 'did' Irish self-governance. They provided what was being asked of them by two different groups of Irish lobbyists.

Yes they did. The Government of Ireland Act began to be enacted in the British Parliament during 1919 without reference to the wishes of the majority of the Irish people as expressed in the recent November 1918 election.

Partition was an Irish demand.

It was a demand of a minority of the people on the island.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes they did. The Government of Ireland Act began to be enacted in the British Parliament during 1919 without reference to the wishes of the majority of the Irish people as expressed in the recent November 1918 election.

It began to be enacted on the basis of the electoral will of the Irish people. The constitutional will of the Irish people in 1918 was anything but clear, as there was no attempt to formalise it on the back of dialogue between the elected SF MP's and parliament. The Irish people also did not vote for a war against the British.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

It was a demand of a minority of the people on the island.

That's correct. Just as the demand for independence was from a minority of the people of the UK.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

It began to be enacted on the basis of the electoral will of the Irish people.

As interpreted by the British government themselves. The Government of Ireland Act of 1920 came into law before the war of 1919-1921 ended in July 1921. There was no input by the majority's representatives during it's creation.

The constitutional will of the Irish people in 1918 was anything but clear, as there was no attempt to formalise it on the back of dialogue between the elected SF MP's and parliament.

The result of the 1918 election would suggest otherwise.

The Irish people also did not vote for a war against the British.

Based on the version of the Sinn Fein manifesto of 1918 which was censored by the British before release.

That's correct. Just as the demand for independence was from a minority of the people of the UK

A minority if one believed that Ireland was part of the UK.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

As interpreted by the British government themselves. The Government of Ireland Act of 1920 came into law before the war of 1919-1921 ended in July 1921. There was no input by the majority's representatives during it's creation.

Who was supposed to interpret it? They were the governing authority. There was ample input by the majority's elected representatives during it's drafting.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

The result of the 1918 election would suggest otherwise.

Why would it? SF simply took their ball away and wouldn't talk, while the IRA started a campaign of insurgency without any democratic mandate. No-one actually attempted dialogue with the British.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Based on the version of the Sinn Fein manifesto of 1918 which was censored by the British before release.

Neither the censored, or original wording of the election manifesto reference , or seek support for, a military campaign against British rule.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

A minority if one believed that Ireland was part of the UK.

It was (and is, in the case of NI).

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

Who was supposed to interpret it?

Yes, who I wonder?

They were the governing authority.

So you keep saying.......

There was ample input by the majority's elected representatives during it's drafting.

By the SF reps?

SF simply took their ball away and wouldn't talk

The election result gave them impetus to do so.

No-one actually attempted dialogue with the British.

Shouldn't it have been the other way round?

Neither the censored, or original wording of the election manifesto reference , or seek support for, a military campaign against British rule.

You can't take that definitve interpetation from the original wording. Look at section 2.

It was

According to you.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes, who I wonder?.

Any determination from those musings?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So you keep saying........

Because it's true.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

By the SF reps?.

SF didn't have MP's or any electoral mandate when it was being drafted.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

The election result gave them impetus to do so..

That's debatable, and not terribly useful when a constitutional change requires dialogue.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Shouldn't it have been the other way round?.

Why would it have been? And why would it be once the IRA started killing people?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

You can't take that definitve interpetation from the original wording. Look at section 2..

Nothing about any military campaign in there. It refers to the British use of military force.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

According to you.

Yes - because it's a fact.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

Any determination from those musings?

As opposed to your own? That Britain could have recognised the outcome of the 1918 election and subsequently acted upon it like the democrats they claimed to have been?

Because it's true.

As you say yourself, thats debatable.

SF didn't have MP's or any electoral mandate when it was being drafted.

What? SF had 73 MP's elected in November 1918. The Government of Ireland Act didn't begin drafting until 1919.

That's debatable, and not terribly useful when a constitutional change requires dialogue.

Yes, dialogue recogising what the majority wanted.

Why would it have been?

You tell me.

Nothing about any military campaign in there. It refers to the British use of military force.

Section 2 says 'by any means'. It doesn't say exclusively electoral means.

Yes - because it's a fact.

As regards to a physical presence here. Nothing more, nothing less.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

As opposed to your own? That Britain could have recognised the outcome of the 1918 election and subsequently acted upon it like the democrats they claimed to have been?

To act upon it they needed dialogue with those who proposed that change.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

What? SF had 73 MP's elected in November 1918. The Government of Ireland Act didn't begin drafting until 1919.

... on the basis of the constitutional demands of the Irish people in 1912. SF chose not to engage with the drafting of the act, just as they chose not to engage with any other aspect of the UK authority until 1922.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes, dialogue recogising what the majority wanted.

Precisely. Something SF refused to do, until '22.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

You tell me.

It wouldn't. Any progress on a change of constitutional change required those who are lobbying for that change to engage in dialogue. It took them six years to do so.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Section 2 says 'by any means'. It doesn't say exclusively electoral means.

It says nothing about an armed campaign. As I keep repeating.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

As regards to a physical presence here. Nothing more, nothing less.

Rubbish. Try telling that to any unionist.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

To act upon it they needed dialogue with those who proposed that change.

Then why didn't the British start the dialogue?

... on the basis of the constitutional demands of the Irish people in 1912.

No. You keep forgetting the outcome of the 1918 election result that followed it.

SF chose not to engage with the drafting of the act

They made a declaration of independence instead.

just as they chose not to engage with any other aspect of the UK authority until 1922. Precisely. Something SF refused to do, until '22.

As was their right.

It wouldn't. Any progress on a change of constitutional change required those who are lobbying for that change to engage in dialogue. It took them six years to do so.

Off you go again with 'the Irish had to' line.............

Rubbish. Try telling that to any unionist.

They had a major problem accepting democracy in 1918 didn't they alastair........

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Then why didn't the British start the dialogue?

Because SF didn't talk to them, but chose instead to start killing them?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

No. You keep forgetting the outcome of the 1918 election result that followed it.

I don't - SF chose not to engage. The act was brought about as a consequence of Irish demands from 1912, and SF chose not to engage with that process. It was their right of course, but you can't complain that the British didn't take their input, when they didn't actually offer any.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

They made a declaration of independence instead.

Not much use in practical terms, regarding the continued drafting of an act demanded by the Irish people then, was it?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

As was their right.

Of course.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Off you go again with 'the Irish had to' line..............

Because SF had to. Head-in-the-sand politics lasted all of four years. That a section of the IRA went on to stick their head in the sand regarding the legitimacy of both the UK and Irish governments up until recent times is just more evidence of the futility of that strategy.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

They had a major problem accepting democracy in 1918 didn't they alastair........

They had a major problem accepting the goals of a minority within the UK being imposed on them - sure. Is that undemocratic? Not particularly.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

Because SF didn't talk to them, but chose instead to start killing them?

SF started killing people?

.......regarding the continued drafting of an act demanded by the Irish people

No. Only 6 Nationalist MP's remained out of 105 Irish MP's. Even some of them, such as Joe Devlin voted against the Gov of Ire Act. I'm baffled that you continue to insist that the passage of this act was 'demanded' by the Irish people.

accepting the goals of a minority within the UK being imposed on them

Only if one believed that Nationalists were that 'minority' within such an entity that many rejected had the right to govern them.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

SF started killing people?

SF supported the IRB/A in their armed campaign.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

No. Only 6 Nationalist MP's remained out of 105 Irish MP's. Even some of them, such as Joe Devlin voted against the Gov of Ire Act. I'm baffled that you continue to insist that the passage of this act was 'demanded' by the Irish people.

Of course it was - where do you suggest the impetus would have come from otherwise?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Only if one believed that Nationalists were that 'minority' within such an entity that many rejected had the right to govern them.

The UK had been a reality for a long time, British dominion for longer than that. The nationalist movement was in a minority within the UK - which was the structure of electoral and parliamentary representation. Unionists had every right to oppose that minority nationalist movement, and do so within the bounds of democracy.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

Of course it was - where do you suggest the impetus would have come from otherwise?

Er, no. How can you interpret the 1918 election result as an impetus from the Irish people to get the Gov of Ire Act passed?

The UK had been a reality for a long time, British dominion for longer than that. The nationalist movement was in a minority within the UK - which was the structure of electoral and parliamentary representation. Unionists had every right to oppose that minority nationalist movement, and do so within the bounds of democracy.

The 'reality' of one entity governing another plus the length it's governed for it for, can't singularly be used as proof on moral and/or legal grounds to define a 'minority' as you want to do here.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Er, no. How can you interpret the 1918 election result as an impetus from the Irish people to get the Gov of Ire Act passed?

The impetus predated the 1918 election - and was Irish in origin. The majority of 1918 Irish MP's chose not to participate in parliamentary politics, so had no input into the act.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

The 'reality' of one entity governing another plus the length it's governed for it for, can't singularly be used as proof on moral and/or legal grounds to define a 'minority' as you want to do here.

Morality isn't the issue. Legality, and democratically - of course it can. Irish nationalism was a minority cause within the UK, and one that Irish unionists did not subscribe to. There was no nationalist democratic majority for unionism to 'accept'.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

The impetus predated the 1918 election - and was Irish in origin. The majority of 1918 Irish MP's chose not to participate in parliamentary politics, so had no input into the act.

An impetus defined by the results of earlier elections surely? The 1918 election outcome demonstrated a major shift in opinion by the majority, ignored by the British. Plus it was the first election held under universal suffrage giving a more accurate barometer of opinion than before.

Irish nationalism was a minority cause within the UK, and one that Irish unionists did not subscribe to. There was no nationalist democratic majority for unionism to 'accept'.

Only if one starts from the basic idea accepting the existence of a UK of GB & I pre-independence as the default entity. You seem to have a difficulty in recognising that others may reject this interpretation of Irish history as offered by yourself.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

An impetus defined by the results of earlier elections surely? The 1918 election outcome demonstrated a major shift in opinion by the majority, ignored by the British. Plus it was the first election held under universal suffrage giving a more accurate barometer of opinion than before.

Of course defined by the earlier election. And by the mandated Irish representatives. If few representatives from a subsequent election choose to engage with the ratification of that demand, then that's no reason to halt ratification. Perhaps if they had, as suggested, engaged in dialogue, they might have been able to present a new set of demands.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Only if one starts from the basic idea accepting the existence of a UK of GB & I pre-independence as the default entity. You seem to have a difficulty in recognising that others may reject this interpretation of Irish history as offered by yourself.

The existence of the UK is not in question. It's a matter of historic fact - not an issue of 'interpretation', and remains so with regard to NI. It was (and in the case of NI, remains) the default 'entity'. If you refuse to accept reality, that's a matter for you, but denial of reality rarely helps matters.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

Of course defined by the earlier election. And by the mandated Irish representatives. If few representatives from a subsequent election choose to engage with the ratification of that demand, then that's no reason to halt ratification. Perhaps if they had, as suggested, engaged in dialogue, they might have been able to present a new set of demands.

And hence ignoring subsequent election results? Your interpretation of how democracy should function is interesting to say the least......

The existence of the UK is not in question.

Just the extent of it.

It's a matter of historic fact - not an issue of 'interpretation'

Now would that be fact or dogma? Repeat something often enough and it must be fact........

and remains so with regard to NI. It was (and in the case of NI, remains) the default 'entity'.

Why the switch to NI? We weren't discussing that.

If you refuse to accept reality, that's a matter for you, but denial of reality rarely helps matters.

No, that's just your take on it.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

And hence ignoring subsequent election results? Your interpretation of how democracy should function is interesting to say the least......

The only ignoring that was going on, was from the SF MP's. I've no difficulty understanding how the democratic process works. If you choose not to participate, you're obviously not going to have input into any given process.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Just the extent of it.

Nope. Ireland was part of the UK.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Now would that be fact or dogma? Repeat something often enough and it must be fact........

It's a fact. It really doesn't require repeating.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Why the switch to NI? We weren't discussing that.

No switch at all. You had difficulty in recognising that Unionist opposition to the nationalist project within the UK wasn't actually undemocratic. NI is the consequence of that opposition.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

No, that's just your take on it.

Not at all.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

The only ignoring that was going on, was from the SF MP's. I've no difficulty understanding how the democratic process works.

If its ok with Unionism it seems.

Nope. Ireland was part of the UK.
It's a fact. It really doesn't require repeating.

Whatever you say alastair.

Unionist opposition to the nationalist project within the UK wasn't actually undemocratic.

If the UK was defined as encompassing both islands. Many didn't accept this.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

If its ok with Unionism it seems.

The Irish nationalist movement was a minority one within the UK. Unionists were not being anti-democratic in refusing to be forced into it.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Whatever you say alastair.

Nothing to do with me, I'm afraid - just the reality of the situation.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

If the UK was defined as encompassing both islands. Many didn't accept this.

Again - denial of reality isn't particularly useful. Ireland was a part of the UK. NI still is.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

The Irish nationalist movement was a minority one within the UK.

You keep calling Irish nationalism 'a minority in the UK'. How did they get to become that minority within it in your view?

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

You keep calling Irish nationalism 'a minority in the UK'. How did they get to become that minority within it in your view?

The same way any minority within the UK found themselves in that situation. The UK was the historic consequence of rationalisation of various competing fifedoms across the islands. But the unambiguous outcome was a UK that encompassed GB and Ireland - a factual and existent reality that simply can't be swept under the carpet.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

The same way any minority within the UK found themselves in that situation. The UK was the historic consequence of rationalisation of various competing fifedoms across the islands. But the unambiguous outcome was a UK that encompassed GB and Ireland - a factual and existent reality that simply can't be swept under the carpet.

So it wasn't a democratic process then as to how Irish nationalism became a 'minority in the UK'? But at the same time you would use the selective application of the democratic process to attempt to show that it was a 'minority', once this 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' was complete as you so diplomatically put it.