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

alastair

K-9 wrote: »

Because the game had changed by 1918, Home Rule was no longer the option wanted by the majority of people on the island of Ireland as proven by democratic elections.

It might have well been the case, but since no elected representatives engaged with the state to make that case, how would you expect the democratically elected government of the day to respond?

It's also worth pointing out that the Scottish have elected a majority of SNP representatives, but that doesn't necessarily equate with a majority demand for independence. The same may well have been the case in Ireland in 1918 (aside from the obvious opposition of the unionist community).

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I think not.

Clearly.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Theres nothing contradictory when I said: 'I accept the 'legitimacy of the democratic process'. It's how the British state have selectively applied it to their own advantage that I have problems with.' .

Of course there's a contradiction in what you say. You can't deny the legitimacy of the parliamentary democracy, while claiming that it had no legitimacy to govern because of it's pre-democratic heritage. You're denying that Irish republicans had no democratic mandate for their actions.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So ignore the outcome of an election? How bizarre. It's you who has problems with democracy alastair............

They were not ignoring anyone - why does this need repeating? They can't ignore a lobby that's not been presented to them. The policy of ignoring (it's written on the label!) was SF's - not the UK government's.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

You can't deny the legitimacy of the parliamentary democracy, while claiming that it had no legitimacy to govern because of it's pre-democratic heritage.

Yes you can. I'm linking it to the past behaviour of the state. Otherwise any sort of past actions could be excused because of this.

You're denying that Irish republicans had no democratic mandate for their actions.

73 SF MP's elected in 1918, a majority?

They were not ignoring anyone - why does this need repeating? They can't ignore a lobby that's not been presented to them. The policy of ignoring (it's written on the label!) was SF's - not the UK government's.

Alastair, how can you negotiate with representatives with a mandate from a previous election (December 1910)?

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes you can. I'm linking it to the past behaviour of the state. Otherwise any sort of past actions could be excused because of this.

It doesn't matter what you decide you're linking it to. You either recognise the legitimacy of the democratic parliament, or you don't - you clearly don't - despite claiming otherwise.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

73 SF MP's elected in 1918, a majority?

No a minority. 73 in a 707 seat parliament does not a majority make.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Alastair, how can you negotiate with representatives with a mandate from a previous election (December 1910)?

Who said they should, or did?

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

you clearly don't - despite claiming otherwise.

Nope. How can the emergence of democracy in a territory with disputed boundaries be used as a way of retrospectively justifying those disputed boundaries based on election results that occur within it?

No a minority. 73 in a 707 seat parliament does not a majority make.

Only if you believed those 73 and the people that voted for them were considered as a part of the UK. Alastair, do you acknowledge that there are differing interpretations of Irish history on offer?

Who said they should, or did?

Then who?

tdv123

alastair wrote: »

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.

In 1922 people were terrorized into voting for partition by the threats of "immediate & terrible war" I think it was Churchill (not 100% sure on it) who said the British Army could place a solider for every man, woman & child living in Ireland twice over. Whether those threats were genuine or not that is British interference in Ireland. Another example is the Larne gunrunning, which was the biggest challenge to the British governments power faced since 1798, yet the government did nothing. But when the Irish Volunteers try the same trick later they were confronted. That's a clear double standard.

And if partition was the only way to go why not let people who wanted a Republic (a Republic was what people wanted otherwise Dev wouldn't have dominated Irish politics for the next 40 years) have one & insist on keeping the South in the Empire, why did they want Irish TD's have to swear an oath to the King & why did Britain want to keep hold of certain ports? Because they had selfish strategic & economic interest in Ireland & were afraid of a domino effect happening around the Empire They didn't give the Free State limited independence because of a war with the IRA, they gave it because of public pressure being put on the them by the English & American public other than that fact they would have kept on fighting until the IRA & shinners were wiped out no matter how long it took, this is a government who just watched millions & millions of people die in the biggest war known to man at that stage what makes you think they would care about a few dead Irish people?

on the river

tdv123 wrote: »

In 1922 people were terrorized into voting for partition by the threats of "immediate & terrible war" I think it was Churchill (not 100% sure on it) who said the British Army could place a solider for every man, woman & child living in Ireland twice over. Whether those threats were genuine or not that is British interference in Ireland. Another example is the Larne gunrunning, which was the biggest challenge to the British governments power faced since 1798, yet the government did nothing. But when the Irish Volunteers try the same trick later they were confronted. That's a clear double standard.

And if partition was the only way to go why not let people who wanted a Republic (a Republic was what people wanted otherwise Dev wouldn't have dominated Irish politics for the next 40 years) have one & insist on keeping the South in the Empire, why did they want Irish TD's have to swear an oath to the King & why did Britain want to keep hold of certain ports? Because they had selfish strategic & economic interest in Ireland & were afraid of a domino effect happening around the Empire They didn't give the Free State limited independence because of a war with the IRA, they gave it because of public pressure being put on the them by the English & American public other than that fact they would have kept on fighting until the IRA & shinners were wiped out no matter how long it took, this is a government who just watched millions & millions of people die in the biggest war known to man at that stage what makes you think they would care about a few dead Irish people?

Basically your direspecting all of the men women and children did to gain our independece. And you are suggesting they should have doing nothing and just do everything britsh told them. Have you any pride in Irelands Flag ?

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Nope. How can the emergence of democracy in a territory with disputed boundaries be used as a way of retrospectively justifying those disputed boundaries based on election results that occur within it?

So you do dispute the legitimacy of the UK's parliamentary democracy. Why pretend you don't then?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Only if you believed those 73 and the people that voted for them were considered as a part of the UK. Alastair, do you acknowledge that there are differing interpretations of Irish history on offer?

They were part of the UK though. The electoral process and parliament they were elected to was that of the UK - nowhere else. There's no different way to interpret the reality of their position a minority in the election, parliament, and the nature and extent of the state of the day. You can't pretend it away.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Then who?

What are you on about?

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

So you do dispute the legitimacy of the UK's parliamentary democracy. Why pretend you don't then?

Sorry alastair, I didn't say that. I said 'disputed boundaries'. Nothing to do with the concept of the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy itself, be it the UK's or anywhere else.

They were part of the UK though. The electoral process and parliament they were elected to was that of the UK

Does the UK in 1801 after Ireland was joined to it through the Act of Union, have a disputed boundary because this act 'predates any real democratic process'?

There's no different way to interpret the reality of their position a minority in the election, parliament, and the nature and extent of the state of the day. You can't pretend it away.

You can't pretend away that the British administration here was an actual physical presence on the island. But if one believes history to be a subjective process, then the differing view can be put forward that one had the right to object to that presence here and how it came to be here, plus describe it as an occupying force if they want to.

tdv123

on the river wrote: »

Basically your direspecting all of the men women and children did to gain our independece. And you are suggesting they should have doing nothing and just do everything britsh told them. Have you any pride in Irelands Flag ?

The IRA campaign was definitely a factor but it didn't alone bring independence and wasn't the deceive factor. We seen that during the troubles, the PIRA was one of the most effective guerrilla groups of all time in terms of military capability but still weren't able to achieve their main goal because the political climate was not favorable to them. If the goal of the revolutionaries was a United Republic it clearly failed in doing so.

I don't know how I'm disrespecting the people who fought for an Irish Republic for stating facts. Clearly the people who took up arms & challenged the largest Empire ever were extremely brave people but I'm pretty sure Lloyd George or Churchill didn't say oh well that's it 17 men dead we beaten better give them a Republic after Kilmichael.

But you have to wonder if we tried a passive resistance approach if it would have worked better. If Dan Breen & Sean Hogan didn't shoot dead 2 RIC Irish Catholics maybe we would have a United Republic.

BuilderPlumber

tdv123 wrote: »

The IRA campaign was definitely a factor but it didn't alone bring independence and wasn't the deceive factor. We seen that during the troubles, the PIRA was one of the most effective guerrilla groups of all time in terms of military capability but still weren't able to achieve their main goal because the political climate was not favorable to them. If the goal of the revolutionaries was a United Republic it clearly failed in doing so.

I don't know how I'm disrespecting the people who fought for an Irish Republic for stating facts. Clearly the people who took up arms & challenged the largest Empire ever were extremely brave people but I'm pretty sure Lloyd George or Churchill didn't say oh well that's it 17 men dead we beaten better give them a Republic after Kilmichael.

But you have to wonder if we tried a passive resistance approach if it would have worked better. If Dan Breen & Sean Hogan didn't shoot dead 2 RIC Irish Catholics maybe we would have a United Republic.

True. Ireland circa 1916 was a country where differing opinions were the order of the day. Some wanted to remain British, others wanted a totally independent republic but most seemed to favour something in between like Home Rule or Commonwealth status.

British governments wanted to forge a solution to keep everyone happy and thus came up with the 26 and 6 county divide - with a commonwealth status for the 26 counties. It was and is probably the best solution to the issue. However, the fanatic republicans took British compromise as a que to press for a full republic and de Valera launched a civil war and then pronounced a republic when he was in power with scant opposition from the British.

Whether the republic was a good or bad thing we will never know. What would Ireland have been like as part of a modern UK or if it remained in the commonwealth? Still, we remain more like the British than unlike them to this day! Just ask yourself this: who do you support in soccer? Shamrock rovers or similar? I thought not. Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal? Or similar? I thought so!

el pasco

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. Partition was an Irish demand.

Do you have any evidence that partition was an Irish demand??
As from my reading of the situation the home rule bill 1912 was for the whole Ireland not part if it the British government should of had the bill into law instead of giving in to the unionist demand

The Irish nationalist went about it the legal and democratic way the held the balance of power in the British parliament and for going into power they wanted Home Rule simple

Secondly the Irish convention 1-4 very nearly reached a deal for an all Ireland parliament with full domination powers the only problem was customs and excise duty powers and some extra powers to protect unionist so I don't know where you are getting the ideas that the Irish wanted partition

Indeed many nationalist unionist especially southern unionist and even Edward Carson was against it and tried to stop it
The Catholic Church was against partition
Edward Carson called partition "The saddest day in Irish history"
He was a MP for the Stormount parliament and refused to become PM of Northern Ireland

el pasco

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

True. Ireland circa 1916 was a country where differing opinions were the order of the day. Some wanted to remain British, others wanted a totally independent republic but most seemed to favour something in between like Home Rule or Commonwealth status.

British governments wanted to forge a solution to keep everyone happy and thus came up with the 26 and 6 county divide - with a commonwealth status for the 26 counties. It was and is probably the best solution to the issue. However, the fanatic republicans took British compromise as a que to press for a full republic and de Valera launched a civil war and then pronounced a republic when he was in power with scant opposition from the British.

Whether the republic was a good or bad thing we will never know. What would Ireland have been like as part of a modern UK or if it remained in the commonwealth? Still, we remain more like the British than unlike them to this day! Just ask yourself this: who do you support in soccer? Shamrock rovers or similar? I thought not. Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal? Or similar? I thought so!

The British were quite frankly sick and tired of the whole "Irish question" by this stage and just wanted Ireland out of their hair so to speak so it suited everyone to have a semi independent Ireland

Imagine if Ireland had of being part of UK think of the troubles that it would of caused like the North costs them £12B deficit and during the troubles they had nearly 30k troops there
Imagine what that would if being for a whole Ireland!!

Imagine about how the power we would if had in Westminster elections when the result was close the Irish parties could get what they wanted from Britian and many close calls in Britains political life could of turned out to be a lot different

el pasco

tdv123 wrote: »

The IRA campaign was definitely a factor but it didn't alone bring independence and wasn't the deceive factor. We seen that during the troubles, the PIRA was one of the most effective guerrilla groups of all time in terms of military capability but still weren't able to achieve their main goal because the political climate was not favorable to them. If the goal of the revolutionaries was a United Republic it clearly failed in doing so.

I don't know how I'm disrespecting the people who fought for an Irish Republic for stating facts. Clearly the people who took up arms & challenged the largest Empire ever were extremely brave people but I'm pretty sure Lloyd George or Churchill didn't say oh well that's it 17 men dead we beaten better give them a Republic after Kilmichael.

But you have to wonder if we tried a passive resistance approach if it would have worked better. If Dan Breen & Sean Hogan didn't shoot dead 2 RIC Irish Catholics maybe we would have a United Republic.

I'm not sure if the IRA campign was necessary but it came about because the Loyalist were armed so the had to arm themselves the revolutionary spirit from Europe after WW1 and the fact that you had some many young men trained and fought in warfare who saw war and what they fought for was for nothing so hated the system so I speak
Ireland would of got it's Dominin rule regardless of the IRA campign indeed the place was talked about in the House if Commons after the 1916 rising by the British PM

BuilderPlumber

el pasco wrote: »

The British were quite frankly sick and tired of the whole "Irish question" by this stage and just wanted Ireland out of their hair so to speak so it suited everyone to have a semi independent Ireland

Imagine if Ireland had of being part of UK think of the troubles that it would of caused like the North costs them £12B deficit and during the troubles they had nearly 30k troops there
Imagine what that would if being for a whole Ireland!!

Imagine about how the power we would if had in Westminster elections when the result was close the Irish parties could get what they wanted from Britian and many close calls in Britains political life could of turned out to be a lot different

The main issue of course was religious with protestants feeling uneasy in a predominantly catholic republic. Hence the 26 and 6 county entities. The British indeed were sick of the whole issue and wanted out. They wanted an autonomous or even independent Ireland but one that was not a dangerous enemy or a lawless warzone next to them. So, the 26 and 6 county was the best solution available. And it probably was: suppose:

1. Britain gave Ireland Home Rule for a 32 county state (autonomous but still part of the UK): Unionists would uprise en masse and a major civil war would develop. Ultimately, the Catholic Irish authorities would arrange a meeting in London for help and the British army would have to come in to calm things down. Meanwhile, republicans would press on to fight for a republic and I think the civil war would have happened much as it actually did. Eventually, things would calm but the question of total independence would arise again perhaps at WW2 time.
2. Britain remained ruler of Ireland without Home Rule: We will say that 1916, 1921 and other uprisings were all successfully put down. An anti-British element would continue and pose terrorist threats to British interests. Britain would have to win the hearts and minds of the ordinary Irish people and give them the benefits of a rapidly changing, more caring and more humane state. Perhaps, we could have benefited very much but we also would have had to endure WW2. And the omnipresent threat of and actual occurrence of violent rebellions every few decades. In other words, a 32 county version of Northern Ireland.
3. Ireland becomes a 32 county independent republic lead by moderates. Initially, there would be strong opposition probably leading to violence from unionists and republicans. The state would have to win over diverse groups and admittedly this could take decades. Warm relations with the British would ensure help and guidance and perhaps the recognition of autonomy for protestant counties and a complete separation of church and state would win over unionists but of course would enrage republicans. Eventually, things would work out. Again, I can see the civil war happen. And a call for help to the British.
4. Ireland becomes a 32 county independent republic lead by fanatics. Protestants and people with British leanings are killed, told to leave, treated as second class citizens, etc. All political opponents are executed and imprisoned. A one party dictatorship emerges. A civil war again happens with British aided rebels. The British would want the regime gone and eventually would probably intervene and team up with more moderate rebels to bring the regime down. If the regime lasted until the WW2 era, of course they would be very very big allies of Hitler.
5. Ireland becomes a 26 county independent state ruled by fanatics. Again, the same as 4 only the regime may also attemp an invasion of Northern Ireland.
6. Ireland becomes a protestant run republic. This could end up akin to Apartheid South Africa, with the minority controlling the majority by giving them less rights. It would of course lead to war and change.
7. Ireland becomes a 26 county monarchy. Ditto for what we have in reality only we have a king or queen as head of state. Apparently, this was the plan but the person who was asked to be king did not want it!

el pasco

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The main issue of course was religious with protestants feeling uneasy in a predominantly catholic republic. Hence the 26 and 6 county entities. The British indeed were sick of the whole issue and wanted out. They wanted an autonomous or even independent Ireland but one that was not a dangerous enemy or a lawless warzone next to them. So, the 26 and 6 county was the best solution available. And it probably was: suppose:

1. Britain gave Ireland Home Rule for a 32 county state (autonomous but still part of the UK): Unionists would uprise en masse and a major civil war would develop. Ultimately, the Catholic Irish authorities would arrange a meeting in London for help and the British army would have to come in to calm things down. Meanwhile, republicans would press on to fight for a republic and I think the civil war would have happened much as it actually did. Eventually, things would calm but the question of total independence would arise again perhaps at WW2 time.
2. Britain remained ruler of Ireland without Home Rule: We will say that 1916, 1921 and other uprisings were all successfully put down. An anti-British element would continue and pose terrorist threats to British interests. Britain would have to win the hearts and minds of the ordinary Irish people and give them the benefits of a rapidly changing, more caring and more humane state. Perhaps, we could have benefited very much but we also would have had to endure WW2. And the omnipresent threat of and actual occurrence of violent rebellions every few decades. In other words, a 32 county version of Northern Ireland.
3. Ireland becomes a 32 county independent republic lead by moderates. Initially, there would be strong opposition probably leading to violence from unionists and republicans. The state would have to win over diverse groups and admittedly this could take decades. Warm relations with the British would ensure help and guidance and perhaps the recognition of autonomy for protestant counties and a complete separation of church and state would win over unionists but of course would enrage republicans. Eventually, things would work out. Again, I can see the civil war happen. And a call for help to the British.
4. Ireland becomes a 32 county independent republic lead by fanatics. Protestants and people with British leanings are killed, told to leave, treated as second class citizens, etc. All political opponents are executed and imprisoned. A one party dictatorship emerges. A civil war again happens with British aided rebels. The British would want the regime gone and eventually would probably intervene and team up with more moderate rebels to bring the regime down. If the regime lasted until the WW2 era, of course they would be very very big allies of Hitler.
5. Ireland becomes a 26 county independent state ruled by fanatics. Again, the same as 4 only the regime may also attemp an invasion of Northern Ireland.
6. Ireland becomes a protestant run republic. This could end up akin to Apartheid South Africa, with the minority controlling the majority by giving them less rights. It would of course lead to war and change.
7. Ireland becomes a 26 county monarchy. Ditto for what we have in reality only we have a king or queen as head of state. Apparently, this was the plan but the person who was asked to be king did not want it!

But basically Ireland would be pretty much in the same position today regardless of which outcome happened with maybe the option of us being in NATO Commonwealth and maybe fought in WW2

Republicism in Ireland by and large was with a small r as they couldn't have a monarchy so they had to have a republic but the most conservative version possible with the Catholic Church to keep things in check with the Anglo Irish running the show basically the same as before Indepenance but with a new face and green post boxes

BuilderPlumber

el pasco wrote: »

But basically Ireland would be pretty much in the same position today regardless of which outcome happened with maybe the option of us being in NATO Commonwealth and maybe fought in WW2

Republicism in Ireland by and large was with a small r as they couldn't have a monarchy so they had to have a republic but the most conservative version possible

That is true.

tdv123

el pasco wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that partition was an Irish demand??
As from my reading of the situation the home rule bill 1912 was for the whole Ireland not part if it the British government should of had the bill into law instead of giving in to the unionist demand

The Irish nationalist went about it the legal and democratic way the held the balance of power in the British parliament and for going into power they wanted Home Rule simple

Secondly the Irish convention 1-4 very nearly reached a deal for an all Ireland parliament with full domination powers the only problem was customs and excise duty powers and some extra powers to protect unionist so I don't know where you are getting the ideas that the Irish wanted partition

Indeed many nationalist unionist especially southern unionist and even Edward Carson was against it and tried to stop it
The Catholic Church was against partition
Edward Carson called partition "The saddest day in Irish history"
He was a MP for the Stormount parliament and refused to become PM of Northern Ireland

James Craig was delighted with partition, he was glad he got.his "protestant Parliament for a protestant people"

What did Carson do to stop partition? Your not talking about forming the UVF which was the first chain of events that led to the divvied of Ireland for the first time.

tdv123

el pasco wrote: »

I'm not sure if the IRA campign was necessary but it came about because the Loyalist were armed so the had to arm themselves the revolutionary spirit from Europe after WW1 and the fact that you had some many young men trained and fought in warfare who saw war and what they fought for was for nothing so hated the system so I speak
Ireland would of got it's Dominin rule regardless of the IRA campign indeed the place was talked about in the House if Commons after the 1916 rising by the British PM

So your saying a 5 day rising which had no support did more than the elected government's army (The Irish Volunteers) 2 & a half year guerrilla war which had much more support than the rising? I find that hard to believe. I think it was a combination of British, American public opinion & the IRA war which brought them to the negotiating table.

el pasco

tdv123 wrote: »

So your saying a 5 day rising which had no support did more than the elected government's army (The Irish Volunteers) 2 & a half year guerrilla war which had much more support than the rising? I find that hard to believe. I think it was a combination of British, American public opinion & the IRA war which brought them to the negotiating table.

The whole independence movement was all about the interlinking stages which one lead to another which finally lead to independence
Yes Irish indepenance could of happened without the IRA campign but I believe this to be highly unlikely as both sides (republicans and loyalist) were armed to the teeth and after so many young men fought in WW1 and had war experience and Europe was on fire with revolutionary spirit and new ideas as empires fell and new countries created and communism governments sprang up around Europe and workers movements gained real power and everyone got the right to vote in most countries

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Convention

tdv123

el pasco wrote: »

The whole independence movement was all about the interlinking stages which one lead to another which finally lead to independence
Yes Irish indepenance could of happened without the IRA campign but I believe this to be highly unlikely as both sides (republicans and loyalist) were armed to the teeth and after so many young men fought in WW1 and had war experience and Europe was on fire with revolutionary spirit and new ideas as empires fell and new countries created and communism governments sprang up around Europe and workers movements gained real power and everyone got the right to vote in most countries

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Convention

We didn't really get independence tho. We got a Free State that was under the thumb of the British.

I think we could of got the full Republic the masses voted for by passive resistance.

Carson basically ruined Ireland. If it wasn't for him there would be no rising in which 100's were killed withing 6 days. Of course there's other reasons but he holds a lot of blame for partition. There would not have been 1000's of refugees flooding from the North into the Free State to escape the pogroms.

Add to the fact that the conservatives sympathized with his cause & the fact he sought the mutiny of the British battalions stationed in the North & probably would have got it. And also the fact government turned a blind eye to his gun-running which inspired the Irish Volunteers to do the same.

More that the British government capitulated to his threats to have an armed rebellion if Ireland was granted Home Rule. He basically the first modern day terrorist in Ireland, who set the stage for decades of violence in the North to come.

getzls

tdv123 wrote: »

James Craig was delighted with partition, he was glad he got.his "protestant Parliament for a protestant people"

He said this in response to Dev the Yank stating that Ireland was a Catholic Country.;)

tdv123

getzls wrote: »

He said this in response to Dev the Yank stating that Ireland was a Catholic Country.;)

It's irrelevant.