Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

They may have a sympathy base but it will be a constrained and hemmed in one.
I cannot see where they will be supplied from and logisticaly how they will get a secure supply in. My eyes are wide open, the world is a changed place, if you are moving large volume of armaments then you are going to attract attention, a group like the IRA would find it difficult in today's climate.

You cannot really be that naive. If it is so difficult to get bombing equipment (let us leave aside fertiliser bombs for a minute) how come Islamic terrorists in a small cell set off the Tube bombings? This is not the 1970s or before. Fairy tales about smuggling arms into Dingle Bay with safe houses etc. is not needed today.

twowheelsgood

Godge wrote: »

You cannot really be that naive. If it is so difficult to get bombing equipment (let us leave aside fertiliser bombs for a minute) how come Islamic terrorists in a small cell set off the Tube bombings? This is not the 1970s or before. Fairy tales about smuggling arms into Dingle Bay with safe houses etc. is not needed today.

Part of the difficulty here is that republicans believe their own propaganda; specifically, that loyalists were incompetent, half-wits who couldn’t organise a panic without help from the British. They insist for example that the British had a hand in the Dublin & Monaghan bombings cheerfully ignoring the Barron report that made it clear that loyalists had the capability of carrying our those atrocities without any help.

Even a cursory glance at organised criminal gangs should convince anyone that there is no major difficulty in acquiring “hardware”, nor do you need the wide support of the community (or any support for that matter) to stay in business.

There are already ghetto-like environments for young and not so young loyalists. The inevitable collapse in living standards that a united Ireland will bring will only make this immeasurably worse. And you don’t have to look too hard at history to see instances where exactly these sorts of circumstances played a role in unleashing some very sinister strains of nationalism.

The republicans will no doubt persist with their “sure till be all grand, somehow” line but anyone who takes a reasoned look will appreciate that a violent loyalist reaction to a united Ireland any time in the near future is almost a certainly and a sustained campaign is a real possibility.

ChicagoJoe

alastair wrote: »

Last year's NI annual deficit was €11.6 billion - Ireland's deficit for 2013 was €11.5 billion. Perhaps it's escaped your notice that our current deficit isn't sustainable as it stands, and in order to borrow, we've committed to reducing it to about half of those 2013 figures. That's an obligation to half our deficit, not double it.

Those figures are gross misrepresentation because the fact is that the British government refuses to layout exactly what it raises taxes from the north. If those figures were made available it could be seen how much could be saved on duplication and red tape on an all Ireland basis through streamlining and amalgamating services etc If anything you seem to be saying that partition is an economic drain on Britain and will never be economically viable, therefore the sooner partition ends the better.

ChicagoJoe

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Expected by who?

Why should the British tax payer pay for Irish unity.

Although I'm sure they will.

In fairness I’d say the vast majority of English people would happily pay to get rid of the unionists in the morning, they think they are even bigger rabble than Irish people do !!! And they have no real loyalty to Britain, as the saying goes, unionists are only faithful to the British so long as the British are only faithful to them

So wouldn’t an English man like yourself not agree

alastair

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Those figures are gross misrepresentation because the fact is that the British government refuses to layout exactly what it raises taxes from the north. If those figures were made available it could be seen how much could be saved on duplication and red tape on an all Ireland basis through streamlining and amalgamating services etc If anything you seem to be saying that partition is an economic drain on Britain and will never be economically viable, therefore the sooner partition ends the better.

Come on now - you're seriously claiming that they can't work out deficit figures for NI? Nonsense - the figure I quoted is the official, and accurate figure. As to the mystery of where they raise taxes - well here's a nice breakdown: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6881

NI is indeed an 'economic drain' and has been for a long time. Within the overall UK economy however, it's rather more affordable than it would be under a 32 county economic scenario.

ChicagoJoe

Godge wrote: »

Which is why everyone is now happy with the current status quo which is unlikely to change in my lifetime (other than a few cosmetic changes of more North/South quangos and some infrastructure projects).

You must have a short lifetime. The six county state has little more than maybe a decade left, even Peter Robinson is starting to show the daunting signs of partition remaining -

" Mr Robinson said demographic changes could not be wished away and ignoring them would be, what he termed, "constitutionally dangerous". The DUP leader said the test of success for unionist parties would be in stopping to look for Lundies and starting to look for converts. "
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-27001074g

The poor unionists will get plenty of nationalist converts in the coming months thanks to the ' fleg ' protests and the upcoming orange marching season eh ?

alastair

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

You must have a short lifetime. The six county state has little more than maybe a decade left, even Peter Robinson is starting to show the daunting signs of partition remaining -

" Mr Robinson said demographic changes could not be wished away and ignoring them would be, what he termed, "constitutionally dangerous". The DUP leader said the test of success for unionist parties would be in stopping to look for Lundies and starting to look for converts. "
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-27001074g

The poor unionists will get plenty of nationalist converts in the coming months thanks to the ' fleg ' protests and the upcoming orange marching season eh ?

They don't need to convert nationalists. they just need to convince the 30% that are floating voters on the issue. And Peter Robinson was well aware that the fleg protests harmed their case on parity of esteem - and articulated it last year. You're kinda lumping all strands of unionism and loyalism into the one camp aren't you? Most people are able to differentiate.

ChicagoJoe

alastair wrote: »

Come on now - you're seriously claiming that they can't work out deficit figures for NI? Nonsense - the figure I quoted is the official, and accurate figure. As to the mystery of where they raise taxes - well here's a nice breakdown: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6881

NI is indeed an 'economic drain' and has been for a long time. Within the overall UK economy however, it's rather more affordable than it would be under a 32 county economic scenario.

Your link is from the neo liberal Institute for Fiscal Studies and not official figures from the British govt, you may as well quote figures from Wiki or the Socialist Workers party And even by it's own admittance it only covers some of the alleged revenue. As pointed out the six county state's economy is practically similar to the rest of the Ireland rather than the south east of England of which the UK economy is built around. And if we had the streamlining of business and less red tape etc were done away with on an all Ireland basis it would indeed prove to be the feasible alternative.

twowheelsgood

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The six county state has little more than maybe a decade left

Must be something in the water in Chicago!

10 years you think? I doubt if you could find 10 people on the planet (ok, outside Chicago!) who think that.

ChicagoJoe

alastair wrote: »

They don't need to convert nationalists. they just need to convince the 30% that are floating voters on the issue. And Peter Robinson was well aware that the fleg protests harmed their case on parity of esteem - and articulated it last year. You're kinda lumping all strands of unionism and loyalism into the one camp aren't you? Most people are able to differentiate.

Just as nationalists only need to convince the 30% that are floating voters on the issue

alastair

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Your link is from the neo liberal Institute for Fiscal Studies and not official figures from the British govt, you may as well quote figures from Wiki or the Socialist Workers party And even by it's own admittance it only covers some of the alleged revenue. As pointed out the six county state's economy is practically similar to the rest of the Ireland rather than the south east of England of which the UK economy is built around. And if we had the streamlining of business and less red tape etc were done away with on an all Ireland basis it would indeed prove to be the feasible alternative.

Ehh - they reference where the figures come from, right at the top - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hm-revenue-customs-receipts

Your thesis is that there's a significant divergence in local authority charges and motor tax in NI that would skew the figures?

and more info on the NI deficit figures: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2012/finance_personnel/19712.pdf

alastair

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Just as nationalists only need to convince the 30% that are floating voters on the issue

No evidence that that's been working out so far.

ChicagoJoe

alastair wrote: »

Ehh - they reference where the figures come from, right at the top - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hm-revenue-customs-receipts

Your thesis is that there's a significant divergence in local authority charges and motor tax in NI that would skew the figures?

and more info on the NI deficit figures: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2012/finance_personnel/19712.pdf

According to the site itself "Source: Authors’ calculations using HMRC statistics and 2012 population totals from the Office for National Statistics ". You may as well quote Wiki or the DUP for that matter.

alastair wrote: »

No evidence that that's been working out so far.

Convincing 30% of floating voters - ditto for unionists as for nationalists Still unionists must be doing a great job convincing the floating immigrant vote as can been seen in their approach to Polish, Chinese, African people living in their areas eh ??

alastair

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

According to the site itself "Source: Authors’ calculations using HMRC statistics and 2012 population totals from the Office for National Statistics ". You may as well quote Wiki or the DUP for that matter.

Not quite - the figures are calculated on (linked and referenced) info provided by Revenue. They're simply clarifying that they've collated the govt data into those bar graphs. Let me know if you can spot any inconsistency between the Revenue stats and the bar graphs, eh?

http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/publications-foi/publications-browse/publication-scheme-what-we-spend-how-we-spend-it/publication-scheme-what-we-spend-financial-statements/northern-ireland-net-fiscal-balance-report.htm

.jacksparrow.

So people wouldnt give in to the iras demands because of the violence but we should somehow not do certain things because of the loyalists violent threats.

Some logic there.

alastair

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

So people wouldnt give in to the iras demands because of the violence but we should somehow not do certain things because of the loyalists violent threats.

Some logic there.

I think you're having difficulty with logic. The issue is whether those without any ideological stake in the game (a constantly increasing percentage of the NI population) would be likely to provoke violence by opting to change the status quo. Its rather more likely that they would continue the status quo until that risk receded. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is one argument, but that it's going to be factored into their decision-making is unarguable.

The argument against giving in to the IRA's demands were nothing to do with the violence, it's that they simply weren't reasoned or achievable demands. The demand for retention of the status quo is a far easier sell.

twowheelsgood

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

So people wouldnt give in to the iras demands because of the violence but we should somehow not do certain things because of the loyalists violent threats.

Some logic there.

Giving in to loyalists doesn't arise. The argument being put here is that there won't be any loyalists violence and even if there is, it will be quickly dealt with by the security forces.

ChicagoJoe

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Giving in to loyalists doesn't arise. The argument being put here is that there won't be any loyalists violence and even if there is, it will be quickly dealt with by the security forces.

We all better live in fear then so !!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-1KUTH4MsA

alastair

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Still unionists must be doing a great job convincing the floating immigrant vote as can been seen in their approach to Polish, Chinese, African people living in their areas eh ??

The floating vote isn't the immigrant vote, that's just a small portion of it. The vast majority of the floating vote on the union is comprised of Northern Irish people - who have no ideological allegiance to the union or a 32 county republic. See the figures here: http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2012/Political_Attitudes/UNINATID.html

Godge

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Those figures are gross misrepresentation because the fact is that the British government refuses to layout exactly what it raises taxes from the north. If those figures were made available it could be seen how much could be saved on duplication and red tape on an all Ireland basis through streamlining and amalgamating services etc If anything you seem to be saying that partition is an economic drain on Britain and will never be economically viable, therefore the sooner partition ends the better.

And we could also calculate how much extra it will cost to bring NI social security payments up to the level in the South. We could also calculate how much extra Happyman's tight security on loyalists to prevent violence will cost.

There is not and has never been any independent study (i.e. non SF sponsored) that has shown that a united Ireland will result in lower taxes for all because of streamlining. In fact, all studies have demonstrated to a greater or lesser extent that a united Ireland will result in increased taxes North and South.

Godge

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

So people wouldnt give in to the iras demands because of the violence but we should somehow not do certain things because of the loyalists violent threats.

Some logic there.

Not at all. There is no threat of violence, there is a risk of violence. Similarly, there is no threat of violence if the North/South bodies were eliminated and direct rule from London re-established but many have suggested on these boards that were such events to happen there would be a return by the IRA, so a change in that direction also poses a risk of violence.

It would be most accurate to say that the current status quo has provided the longest period of peacetime without any serious terrorist activity and that any political change to the status quo in either direction poses a risk to that peace. Why do you think that opinion polls show that only around 2% of people in Northern Ireland want a united Ireland tomorrow. Even those on the nationalist side are prepared to wait until the signs are better.

Happyman42

There isn't any actual evidence that a huge amount of Loyalists/Unionists will react violently anyhow.
All they have managed to do collectively for years is throw a few missiles and cause local upset, despite spokespeople promising armageddon again and again.

Chicago Joe is right, until all the economic information is out there and a proper debate is held on the pros and cons we don't have a clue how the vote will go.
That floating vote (where are you getting that figure from Alastair?) might not even be bothered one way or another, a fair percentage of the electorate haven't bothered on fairly momentous decisions in the past. 20% in NI didn't bother to vote in the GFA referendums.
71% per cent of them voted for something that was better for them, despite the howls of sellout. So we don't know really how people will vote, if a case for a better society for all is made.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Part of the difficulty here is that republicans believe their own propaganda; specifically, that loyalists were incompetent, half-wits who couldn’t organise a panic without help from the British. They insist for example that the British had a hand in the Dublin & Monaghan bombings cheerfully ignoring the Barron report that made it clear that loyalists had the capability of carrying our those atrocities without any help.

There has long been allegations of collusion in the Dublin - Monaghan bombings. The British refuse to release their files on it and quell the allegations.

Even a cursory glance at organised criminal gangs should convince anyone that there is no major difficulty in acquiring “hardware”, nor do you need the wide support of the community (or any support for that matter) to stay in business.

The reason organised gangs have not gotten into the use of explosives is because they can't get their hands on it.
LOOK at the map, look at how geographically Loyalists are isolated, that represents huge problems for anybody looking for a steady supply of illegal armaments.
Then read about the lengths the IRA had to go to in getting a steady supply...it is not as simple as clicking a link on Amazon or ebay. :rolleyes: You may get some but you won't get what it takes for a sustained campaign.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The reason organised gangs have not gotten into the use of explosives is because they can't get their hands on it.

Ehh;

Bomb disposal teams had record 250 call-outs in 2013

Team found 80 viable devices, including one in Tallaght yesterday

Army bomb disposal teams have been called out to deal with more explosive or suspect devices than ever this year, though the numbers found to be viable bombs dropped from the record figures of last year.

While the number of call- outs so far this year relating to viable devices dropped to 80 from the record 96 cases last year, the rate at which explosive devices are being found remains at levels not seen since the height of the Troubles.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/bomb-disposal-teams-had-record-250-call-outs-in-2013-1.1636835

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Ehh;


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/bomb-disposal-teams-had-record-250-call-outs-in-2013-1.1636835

Mostly small amounts of commercial explosives. I was talking about semtex.
And again you are missing the point about geographical isolation. :rolleyes:

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

There isn't any actual evidence that a huge amount of Loyalists/Unionists will react violently anyhow.
All they have managed to do collectively for years is throw a few missiles and cause local upset, despite spokespeople promising armageddon again and again.

There isn't any reason for them to cause any violence. The current status quo maintains the Union, why would any unionists, no matter how radical resort to violence in the current situation to change the political status quo?

It is a bit like saying that Liverpool fans are happy that their team are unbeaten in competitive games for three months after one drawn game in August - they haven't played since May and there isn't any reason for fans to get upset over one drawn game!!!!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Chicago Joe is right, until all the economic information is out there and a proper debate is held on the pros and cons we don't have a clue how the vote will go.
That floating vote (where are you getting that figure from Alastair?) might not even be bothered one way or another, a fair percentage of the electorate haven't bothered on fairly momentous decisions in the past. 20% in NI didn't bother to vote in the GFA referendums.
71% per cent of them voted for something that was better for them, despite the howls of sellout. So we don't know really how people will vote, if a case for a better society for all is made.

Yes, we do have a clue.

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2012/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

For a start, only 16% in that comprehensive survey saw the long-term future of Northern Ireland in a united Ireland. Considerably less would see that future in the short-term.

This article has some good points on the economic stuff - €8 billion per year seems like a good calculation of the bill for the Southern taxpayer. Imagine telling the electorate that another €8 billion in austerity/higher taxes is required for a united Ireland. 99% or 99.9% No, would be the result.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/united-ireland-978055-Jul2013/

What I liked most about the article was the following quote:

"The old republican strategy of ‘It doesn’t matter whether you win or lose but how you’ve played the game’ is precisely why we have achieved next to no success in ending partition. Instead of coming up with common sense proposals and some new thinking on what a united Ireland would look like, we hark back to events that happened over a century ago."

It sums up this thread and other debates on this board brilliantly. If I hear one more time about how partition happened or why the British were the cause of the IRA and how this means something today, I will go mad as it doesn't really matter how we got to where we are today, what matters is how we are going to move forward.

http://www.thejournal.ie/nearly-four-fifths-of-ni-voters-would-choose-to-stay-in-uk-784853-Feb2013/

Here is another poll from February which shows 79% in favour of keeping the Union.

Ridiculous to say we don't know how people will vote. All of the opinion polls show very clear majority for the status quo.

Happyman42 wrote: »

There has long been allegations of collusion in the Dublin - Monaghan bombings. The British refuse to release their files on it and quell the allegations.

This doesn't matter, it was 40 years ago, how it happened is irrelevant to today's Ireland and has no bearing on how you would bomb today.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The reason organised gangs have not gotten into the use of explosives is because they can't get their hands on it.
LOOK at the map, look at how geographically Loyalists are isolated, that represents huge problems for anybody looking for a steady supply of illegal armaments.
Then read about the lengths the IRA had to go to in getting a steady supply...it is not as simple as clicking a link on Amazon or ebay. :rolleyes: You may get some but you won't get what it takes for a sustained campaign.

Wrong again, who would the criminal gangs want to bomb? They need civilians to sell drugs and cigarettes to, they don't need them bombed out of the ghettos. The criminal gangs in Dublin and Limerick get all of the weapons they need very easily. Limerick is much more geographically isolated and has much less trade than Belfast. As I have told you again and again, we are not living in the days of the old songs when the IRA had to import arms and land them on remote beaches. Even Martin Ferris (convicted terrorist) and the Marita Ann happened 30 years ago, far cry from the communications and trade of today.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Mostly small amounts of commercial explosives. I was talking about semtex.
And again you are missing the point about geographical isolation. :rolleyes:

Your point about geographic isolation is a nothing more than a joke. Record levels of explosive devices being used by criminals, an hour and a half down the road suggests that the 'isolation factor' is somewhat nonsensical. And I wasn't talking about semtex - I was talking about a campaign of bombs - probably mostly fertilizer-based, given that this formed the basis for most of the bombs in the troubles. You'll just have to reconcile yourself with the reality that it doesn't take much in the way of effort to collect the materials to make bombs, that loyalists are well capable of doing so, if they decided to do so, and that they have done so in the past. Move on.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

There isn't any reason for them to cause any violence. The current status quo maintains the Union, why would any unionists, no matter how radical resort to violence in the current situation to change the political status quo?

:D

Yes, we do have a clue.

How can we know when the debate hasn't happened? Did you read what I said at all?

This doesn't matter, it was 40 years ago, how it happened is irrelevant to today's Ireland and has no bearing on how you would bomb today.

If I said that about Jean McConville you would be spitting blood. :rolleyes:

Wrong again, who would the criminal gangs want to bomb? They need civilians to sell drugs and cigarettes to, they don't need them bombed out of the ghettos. The criminal gangs in Dublin and Limerick get all of the weapons they need very easily. Limerick is much more geographically isolated and has much less trade than Belfast. As I have told you again and again, we are not living in the days of the old songs when the IRA had to import arms and land them on remote beaches. Even Martin Ferris (convicted terrorist) and the Marita Ann happened 30 years ago, far cry from the communications and trade of today.

We aren't gonna agree on this, all we can do is wait and see. As, I say, I can't see, given that Britain will clearly withdraw and support the new arrangement, a huge appetite when there would be no achievable goal.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

There has long been allegations of collusion in the Dublin - Monaghan bombings. The British refuse to release their files on it and quell the allegations.

Whether the British were involved or not is beside the point I am making. The loyalists could have done that without any help.

And just as the IRA were able to drive a truck load of fertilizer in to London in 1996 so too could the loyalists do something similar in Dublin. OR can you explain why they could not?

If your utopia of a united Ireland presumes that loyalists won’t be able to, rather than have no desire to, resist it forcefully then I’m afraid you might be in for a bit of surprise.

Happily, both you and I will have long since turned up our toes before that day comes so at least you won’t have me saying I told you so.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

How can we know when the debate hasn't happened? Did you read what I said at all?

Of course we cannot know, however, at the moment the opinion polls show 79:21. In my opinion, once the debate starts, the final result will end up 85:15 against a united Ireland. SF know this too, which is why there is no real pressure for a vote.

Happyman42 wrote: »

If I said that about Jean McConville you would be spitting blood. :rolleyes:

Typical misdirection or is it inability to understand the point?

I am happy to discuss the rights and wrongs about both incidents, however the methods are not relevant to today. For example, kidnapping, torturing and killing Jean McConville would require different methods today.

Happyman42 wrote: »

We aren't gonna agree on this, all we can do is wait and see. As, I say, I can't see, given that Britain will clearly withdraw and support the new arrangement, a huge appetite when there would be no achievable goal.

Will Britain clearly withdraw? In 100 years time, will the price of a united Ireland be a British military presence on this island, for example? Who knows? It is not possible to predict the shape of a united Ireland because it is too far from reality.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Whether the British were involved or not is beside the point I am making. The loyalists could have done that without any help.

And just as the IRA were able to drive a truck load of fertilizer in to London in 1996 so too could the loyalists do something similar in Dublin. OR can you explain why they could not?

What you are saying here is that there can't even be a vote on it for fear of violence. From whom? The wider Unionist family?
I don't think so, the wouldn't have an ethical leg to stand on, their leader have committed to this process. Deny it and you are asking for violence from the other side, it is a catch 22.
So a vote has to happen at some point and a debate and therefore within that is the chance that the Union will be lost.
In that event, what do Unionist do...suddenly say, 'we were only codding' and join the belligerents?

What you will get is an isolated rump of opinion agitating and attempting to stop it, an ISOLATED rump, without the wider Unionist community in tow. Violence will be contained and will have no effect.

Karl Stein

twowheelsgood wrote: »

The loyalists could have done that without any help.

Says who? You? Who made you an authority on the subject? To paraphrase one British Army expert, loyalists were little more than a collection of gangsters.

The PIRA lost quite a lot of operatives developing the capability to produce explosives and an extensive network of sympathises to deliver their them and get away.

Loyalists were primarily in the business of shooting innocent civilians in bookies, bars and on their way to work.

The document, obtained by the Pat Finucane Centre, points to a number of mistakes, including internment and highlights what lessons have been learnt.

It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6276416.stm

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

What you are saying here is that there can't even be a vote on it for fear of violence.
From whom? The wider Unionist family?
I don't think so, the wouldn't have an ethical leg to stand on, their leader have committed to this process. Deny it and you are asking for violence from the other side, it is a catch 22.
So a vote has to happen at some point and a debate and therefore within that is the chance that the Union will be lost.
In that event, what do Unionist do...suddenly say, 'we were only codding' and join the belligerents?
What you will get is an isolated rump of opinion agitating and attempting to stop it, an ISOLATED rump, without the wider Unionist community in tow. Violence will be contained and will have no effect.

Unionism is now in effect represented by the DUP and they did not support GFA, so I don’t know who the leader of which you speak that has committed to the process?

And I am somewhat amused that unionism would be bound to behave ethically! It is not something they exactly have a long tradition of!

On top of this they might well take a cue from PIRA in 1996, happy to embrace the political process, provided it delivers for them. But once the wheels of progress seize up, well we know what happened next.

There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, amongst loyalist that violence delivered for republicans. It is almost inevitable that they would try the same tact in the event of a united Ireland in the short /medium term future. To think that it will quickly fizzle out, or be extinguished, is more a hope that a realistic expectation on your part.

Karl Stein wrote: »

Says who?

Mr Justice Henry Barron wrote: »

The loyalist groups who carried out the bombings in Dublin were capable of doing so without help from any section of the security forces in Northern Ireland, though this does not rule out the involvement of individual RUC, UDR or British Army members.

Karl Stein

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Barron

Weir said that explosives for all four bombs were supplied by a named UDR officer.

In his report, Mr Justice Barron commented on John Weir's evidence: "The Inquiry agrees with the view of An Garda Siochana that Weir's allegations regarding the Dublin and Monaghan bombings must be treated with the utmost seriousness"

wikipedia.org

The UDR was a regiment of the British Army. That's the British Army. It'd be interesting to know who his handlers were and how much assistance they provided. Loyalists didn't have an engineering department analogous to the PIRA.

Colin Wallace was a civil servant engaged in propaganda and psychological operations work for
the security forces between 1972 and 1975 [he] believed then and now that some of those involved had links with either the RUC Special Branch, military intelligence or MI5.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/dublin/barron03.pdf

The British could clear all this up overnight by releasing all the documents they have on th D&M bombings but they refuse to. It can be inferred that this refusal to do so is because there is information that would be embarrassing to the British i.e. it cannot be ruled out that they helped in this attack.

Edit. Just reading the Barron Report and it seems bizarre that he'd make the statement that loyalists were capable of doing it alone when this is considered:

Weir stated that whenever bombs were used by the group, the explosives for them were supplied by a named UDR officer. Weir claims to have seen him bringing explosives to the Glenanne farm on a number of occasions. He told journalist Liam Clarke:

“[He] would have brought the explosives. Where did [he] get them from? Nobody asked that. Nobody wanted to know where he was getting such large amounts of explosives… He had gelignite, fertiliser, detonators, the whole lot. Fertiliser-based explosive with a gelignite detonator.”

cain.ulst.ac.uk

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Unionism is now in effect represented by the DUP and they did not support GFA, so I don’t know who the leader of which you speak that has committed to the process?

And I am somewhat amused that unionism would be bound to behave ethically! It is not something they exactly have a long tradition of!

On top of this they might well take a cue from PIRA in 1996, happy to embrace the political process, provided it delivers for them. But once the wheels of progress seize up, well we know what happened next.

There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, amongst loyalist that violence delivered for republicans. It is almost inevitable that they would try the same tact in the event of a united Ireland in the short /medium term future. To think that it will quickly fizzle out, or be extinguished, is more a hope that a realistic expectation on your part.

Apologies, that was mean't to read 'leaders'

There has to be a debate and vote on this, the agreement is partly based on that.
Stall the vote or deny it and the agreement will crumble. So you have the ame possibility facing the electorate, a re-emergence of militants.

They all (the British, Irish, SF, SDLP, DUP UUP etc) have to face up to the fact that to stall, what is a process, will create a space for one side to resort back to violence and to go ahead will create space for the other side. It is they who must take responsibility. Not facing up to that responsibility of governance is what caused the lid to come off before.

They cannot allow the threat of violence to deter them from enacting the GFA, they have to stand up and fight their corner and accept the outcomes...and I mean all sides.

Not if they have lasting peace as their priority anyway.

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

The British could clear all this up overnight by releasing all the documents they have on th D&M bombings but they refuse to. It can be inferred that this refusal to do so is because there is information that would be embarrassing to the British i.e. it cannot be ruled out that they helped in this attack.

None of this is relevant to my point, also asserted by Justice Barron, that loyalists did have and would have lethal capability without collusion. But even if you continue to dispute this and insist they needed help, well in a post UI there will very likely be some, and maybe many people who are sympathetic to loyalists within the ranks of whatever police force will operate in the North. Do you presume they wouldn’t stoop to help them out again?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Stall the vote or deny it and the agreement will crumble. So you have the same possibility facing the electorate, a re-emergence of militants.

The GFA was basically a con job perpetrated by Blair & Bertie, we just don’t yet know who is being conned. The gunmen on both sides were persuaded to desist by being told that the agreement would deliver / preserve their constitutional ambitions, which of course was impossible. The status quo favours unionists but this border poll was the deal maker for nationalists.

It is within the gift of the NI sec. of state to decide when this poll will be taken but he can defer this while there is no reasonable prospect of it being passed.

And as it is plausible that it will be a very long time, if ever, before there is a prospect of it being passed, it can be deferred indefinitely.
It won’t appear to be stalled, simply that the timing is not right yet (or ever!).

For the British to agree to a poll anytime soon would simply be to open a can of worms that I think they have no interest in opening.

There is a requirement (I think) that a poll be held every 7 years after the first one but I don’t think there is any stipulation as to when the first should happen. My guess is possibly never.

Karl Stein

twowheelsgood wrote: »

loyalists did have and would have lethal capability without collusion.

Oh I know they were able to kill people (primarily Catholic civilians) it's just that I, among many, simply don't believe they were capable without outside expertise of carrying out the D&M bombings.

in a post UI there will very likely be some, and maybe many people who are sympathetic to loyalists within the ranks of whatever police force will operate in the North. Do you presume they wouldn’t stoop to help them out again?

Even if we ignore the constant use of the 'parade of horribles' fallacy beloved of you and others because of your anti-UI mania it still doesn't answer the primary question 'to what ends would a murder campaign by so-called loyalists in opposition to the British and Irish be'?

It's a dead end loyalism, in its current guise, is facing UI or not. They're going to be living under a Nationalist controlled north. In the event of a UI loyalists would be a severely fractured minority concentrated in small islands peppered around the north East of the island.

vipmonty

it dosnt matter if she was a mother a 50 if she was guilty she should had been left in the street having alot of kids dosnt make me less culpable

gallag

Karl Stein wrote: »

Oh I know they were able to kill people (primarily Catholic civilians) it's just that I, among many, simply don't believe they were capable without outside expertise of carrying out the D&M bombings.



Even if we ignore the constant use of the 'parade of horribles' fallacy beloved of you and others because of your anti-UI mania it still doesn't answer the primary question 'to what ends would a murder campaign by so-called loyalists in opposition to the British and Irish be'?

It's a dead end loyalism, in its current guise, is facing UI or not. They're going to be living under a Nationalist controlled north. In the event of a UI loyalists would be a severely fractured minority concentrated in small islands peppered around the north East of the island.

Again, one of the largest employers of the unionist community has been the british army, with thousands of trained, battle hardened solders in the ranks of unionism do you really think they would be unable to cause serious trouble? And again, you are assuming the Irish government will not mess up and have its own bloody Sunday, what happens when the first loyalist protesters are killed by a guard? You are missing the point that the unionists did not have a hunger to attack the Irish government, they had what they wanted! No hunger strikers! No bloody Sunday! No lack of civil/equal rights! The unionists considered themselves to have a defensive role. And again in the event of a UI the unionist campaign would be to destabilise the government and force an independent N.I.

gallag

vipmonty wrote: »

it dosnt matter if she was a mother a 50 if she was guilty she should had been left in the street having alot of kids dosnt make me less culpable

You sir are a disgusting human being.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Again, one of the largest employers of the unionist community has been the british army, with thousands of trained, battle hardened solders in the ranks of unionism do you really think they would be unable to cause serious trouble? And again, you are assuming the Irish government will not mess up and have its own bloody Sunday, what happens when the first loyalist protesters are killed by a guard? You are missing the point that the unionists did not have a hunger to attack the Irish government, they had what they wanted! No hunger strikers! No bloody Sunday! No lack of civil/equal rights! The unionists considered themselves to have a defensive role. And again in the event of a UI the unionist campaign would be to destabilise the government and force an independent N.I.

You are just ignoring the point made. Unionism/Loyalism will have no credible goal bar belligerence and diehard stubborness and we have already seen that and it is not something that will threaten or destroy progress or should threaten it.
I cannot see either encouragement or support for that coming from mainstream Unionism which reality says (their behaviour in the last 20-25 year) has a pragmatic/ get on with it mindset.
Forcing an independent N.I. without the support of the British or indeed Europe and the Americans would be even more ludicrious than trying to bomb your way back into the affections of the British.

I get the point that nobody in the NI Ireland office and Unionism will want to bring this to a vote,(it would only be natural that Unionism is afraid of it) but SF's political survival depends on it and as they grow in power in the south I cannot see them turning their backs on it. Sooner or later it will be part of the price for entering a coalition government or they will grow enough to force the agenda. Time is all it requires.
Violence beckons either way here, so it would be irresponsible to just hope it will go away.
I said it before and I'll say again, Jim Molyneaux was right when he said, 'This is the worst thing that ever happened to us'.

Unionism got itself snookered, the orange ball is in behind the green ball.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are just ignoring the point made. Unionism/Loyalism will have no credible goal bar belligerence and diehard stubborness and we have already seen that and it is not something that will threaten or destroy progress or should threaten it.

Having a credible goal isn't exactly the benchmark of terrorism in NI. Not one paramilitary organisation has seen their aims fulfilled. Why would you expect a different dynamic for any new 'campaign'?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I cannot see either encouragement or support for that coming from mainstream Unionism which reality says (their behaviour in the last 20-25 year) has a pragmatic/ get on with it mindset.

Well, that's a new pitch.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Forcing an independent N.I. without the support of the British or indeed Europe and the Americans would be even more ludicrious than trying to bomb your way back into the affections of the British.

Which of the previous campaigns of violence had any such support?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I get the point that nobody in the NI Ireland office and Unionism will want to bring this to a vote,(it would only be natural that Unionism is afraid of it) but SF's political survival depends on it and as they grow in power in the south I cannot see them turning their backs on it. Sooner or later it will be part of the price for entering a coalition government or they will grow enough to force the agenda. Time is all it requires.

You're missing the point entirely. The vote will happen as soon as there's any prospect of it having some merit. Everyone is clear at the moment that it doesn't stand any chance of doing anything but reaffirming the massive majority opposed to change. The day will come where that's not so clear, and there will be a referendum. At that point the majority of voters, with no ideological stake in the issue, will decide whether to break with the union or not. They will undoubtedly make a judgement call as to whether that would provoke a violent response. It's political outsiders will make the call, not SF, or nationalists, or unionists, or loyalists.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Violence beckons either way here, so it would be irresponsible to just hope it will go away.

It's the prospective scale of violence will be a key determinant for those floating voters, alongside the main issue - economic and social protection.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I said it before and I'll say again, Jim Molyneaux was right when he said, 'This is the worst thing that ever happened to us'.

Unionism got itself snookered, the orange ball is in behind the green ball.

Or quite possibly SF snookered itself with over-promising the prospects for a united Ireland in anything other than the long term?

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

Even if we ignore the constant use of the 'parade of horribles' fallacy beloved of you and others …

There are two substantial points that make up your imagined 'parade of horribles'. One is the economic argument – a total deficit (never mind debt) of 24 billion. Per annum!!!! Do a quick calculation and see how much that works out at per private sector work on the island. You only need to be numerate, not economically numerate to see such a prospect would indeed be horrible but is far from a fallacy.

Karl Stein wrote: »

because of your anti-UI mania …

Not anti-UI, anti-stupidity. And a UI any time in the foreseeable future would be stupid on a heroic scale. If circumstances change and a UI becomes a good idea I will change my mind.

Karl Stein wrote: »

it still doesn't answer the primary question 'to what ends would a murder campaign by so-called loyalists in opposition to the British and Irish be'?

First you assume loyalists would have a well thought out plan with means and ends. Tell me, what exactly was their end when the murdered random Catholics in the past?

Second, your comrade here Happyman argues “violence beckons either way here” so you would appear to be alone in your belief that this is a component in your 'parade of horribles'.

At the core of nationalism of any kind is irrationality. A substantial loyalists underclass could easily be persuaded that an independent NI would be better that a UI. Given what a ludicrous notion a UI would be, that might not necessarily be wrong!

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Forcing an independent N.I. without the support of the British or indeed Europe and the Americans would be even more ludicrious than trying to bomb your way back into the affections of the British.

Have you told the Basque separatist movement this?
Or the Scottish or Catalan independence movements?

This thread presents plenty of examples of when nationalism or independence movements are involved, rational and logical thinking goes out the window and wishful dreamy romanticism takes over.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I get the point that nobody in the NI Ireland office and Unionism will want to bring this to a vote,(it would only be natural that Unionism is afraid of it) but SF's political survival depends on it and as they grow in power in the south I cannot see them turning their backs on it. Sooner or later it will be part of the price for entering a coalition government or they will grow enough to force the agenda. Time is all it requires.

Time, do you mean 50 years? If so, we are in agreement.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Violence beckons either way here, so it would be irresponsible to just hope it will go away.
I said it before and I'll say again, Jim Molyneaux was right when he said, 'This is the worst thing that ever happened to us'.

Unionism got itself snookered, the orange ball is in behind the green ball.

Violence beckons if we move from the current status quo, again we are agreed.

Godge

Karl Stein wrote: »

Oh I know they were able to kill people (primarily Catholic civilians) it's just that I, among many, simply don't believe they were capable without outside expertise of carrying out the D&M bombings.
.

The logistics of carrying out a bombing 40 years ago are irrelevant to the logistics of doing so today.

40 years ago, no Muslim terrorist group was capable of 9/11 or the Tube bombings. The IRA weren't capable of it either, neither were loyalists, no matter how much assistance and collusion they could have got.

The argument that because loyalists terrorists couldn't do something 40 years ago means they are not capable of it tomorrow is the ultimate example of how nationalists are ignorantly living in the past.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Having a credible goal isn't exactly the benchmark of terrorism in NI. Not one paramilitary organisation has seen their aims fulfilled. Why would you expect a different dynamic for any new 'campaign'?

That is a matter of dispute, and is just your opinion. Insurrection has forced the withdrawal of foreign forces before, to have the self belief that you can force that withdrawal is credible.
You are confusing your personal opinion on the possibility of doing it with the fact the fact that the IRA clearly believed they could do it. And you are ignoring the fact that the British most certainly considered withdrawal in the face of the campaign.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/30/thatcher-cabinet-hunger-strike-national-archives
"further thought would need to be given to all possible courses of action in regard to Northern Ireland, however difficult or unpalatable". Margaret Thatcher.
Merlyn Rees also certainly considered it and influential media in Britain has advocated it from time to time.
Look at opinion polls too from 1969 and it i clear that opinion in Britain favoured a withdrawal.
IRA leaders have also often cited Aden as an example of what could be achieved, the British withdrew from there in 1967.

On the other hand forcing your way back into a 'union'?...where has that been done, what support would it have among the British public never mind the political class? It's a Unionist 'Lassie Come Home' fantasy.
Neither could forcing a majority into an independent state be looked on as feasible, that i a recipe for all out civil war and would be suicidal for a what n essence would be a Unionist minority.

You are quite simply wrong here.

Well, that's a new pitch.

Hardly, it has been said for a number of pages now.

Which of the previous campaigns of violence had any such support?

Irish nationalism has always had the upperhand in terms of support in America, both in government and among the public.

You're missing the point entirely. The vote will happen as soon as there's any prospect of it having some merit. Everyone is clear at the moment that it doesn't stand any chance of doing anything but reaffirming the massive majority opposed to change. The day will come where that's not so clear, and there will be a referendum. At that point the majority of voters, with no ideological stake in the issue, will decide whether to break with the union or not. They will undoubtedly make a judgement call as to whether that would provoke a violent response. It's political outsiders will make the call, not SF, or nationalists, or unionists, or loyalists.

And you are missing the point about the responsibilities of power.

It's the prospective scale of violence will be a key determinant for those floating voters, alongside the main issue - economic and social protection.

And what you are ignoring again is that there is the prospect of renewed violence no matter which path is chosen.
The decision has to be based on which path represents the best option to end violence for good.
The cause of violence in Ireland has always been the presence of the Britissh...go figure what the answer is.

Or quite possibly SF snookered itself with over-promising the prospects for a united Ireland in anything other than the long term?

The prospect of a United Ireland is very much still on the agenda. Unionists can run but cannot hide from that.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is a matter of dispute, and is just your opinion. Insurrection has forced the withdrawal of foreign forces before, to have the self belief that you can force that withdrawal is credible.
You are confusing your personal opinion on the possibility of doing it with the fact the fact that the IRA clearly believed they could do it. .

And you are confusing your personal opinion on the possibility of a united Ireland falling apart with the fact that a future unionist terrorist organisation would believe it could do it.

Really, one rule for the IRA, a different rule for other terrorist organisations.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

And what you are ignoring again is that there is the prospect of renewed violence no matter which path is chosen.
The decision has to be based on which path represents the best option to end violence for good.

Yes, most rational people accept that there is the prospect of renewed violence no matter which direction right or left we travel from here. But we are at a crossroads, there is a road straight ahead which continues with the current status quo but builds understanding North and South so that in the long-term (50-100 years) a united Ireland becomes a possibility.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

And you are confusing your personal opinion on the possibility of a united Ireland falling apart with the fact that a future unionist terrorist organisation would believe it could do it.

Really, one rule for the IRA, a different rule for other terrorist organisations.

If a referendum takes place (which it has to, sooner or later) it will be with the blessing of Unionists, who will have accepted the possibility of losing it, any violent reaction to the result will be from an isolated rump (that still exists, granted) of belligerents.
There will be no credibility in Unionists en masse joining them. And certainly not after having listened to their moralising for the last 40 years.

The snooker will still be in play. And I, for one cannot see a way out of it for them, only making the best of it and contributing to the new arrangement.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

If a referendum takes place (which it has to, sooner or later) it will be with the blessing of Unionists, who will have accepted the possibility of losing it, any violent reaction to the result will be from an isolated rump (that still exists, granted) of belligerents.
There will be no credibility in Unionists en masse joining them. And certainly not after having listened to their moralising for the last 40 years.

The snooker will still be in play. And I, for one cannot see a way out of it for them, only making the best of it and contributing to the new arrangement.

Again - you're presenting unionism as some sort of homogenous bloc. Loyalist paramilitarism hasn't been aligned with mainstream unionist party politics for anything but a fleeting period, a long time ago. Paramilitary activity has always sprung from a belligerent minority. Did nationalist en masse support the IRA, or did they vote for constitutional politics year after year? Did that stop the IRA's campaign of violence? How many in that isolated rump - the RIRA were required to kill 29 people in Omagh? Do you honestly believe that there's not a potential for greater numbers of discontented and belligerent loyalists compared to the RIRA base? Mainstream Unionism isn't going to be the determinant of a break from union - it's not their, or republican's game of 'snooker' - it's the non-ideologically inclined voters of NI.