General Irish politics discussion thread

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120383831#Comment_120383831

If FF+SF is the only possible government on the numbers it will have to happen, even it means Martin has to quit as FF leader or whatever. The one eventuality the political system cannot contemplate is going back to the people again straight away...

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120383868#Comment_120383868

oh i wouldnt write off anything at this stage, forming governments and maintaining them from here on in, will be tricky....

oh we ve done that one before, going back to the people.....

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120383672#Comment_120383672

Interesting definition.

I would note that it excludes actions by the British army and the security forces in the North that were legitimate and lawful. Those legitimate and lawful actions are frequently misrepresented as terrorism on here by many posters.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120383868#Comment_120383868

Politicians can and do go back to the people. In the eighties here in Ireland, there were three General Elections in the space of 18 months. Of course SF may not remember that, they were not doing too well in politics at the time / were not really a player.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384003#Comment_120384003

In both of those cases though governments were formed. They weren't particularly stable governments, which is why they both collapsed so quickly, but they were governments nonetheless - Fitzgerald and Haughey were elected Taoiseach respectively

There is no precedent for an immediate re-election after failure to elect a Taoiseach since that office was created in the 1937 constitution.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120383764#Comment_120383764

Nothing 'false' about it.

MM is doing some 'painting' of his own. Those he celebrates were as ruthless as those he criticises.

https://www.ucc.ie/en/theirishrevolution/feature-articles/disappeared-but-still-remembered-unearthing-the-iras-lost-victims.html

Nobody is suggesting 'forgetting' what happened BTW.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120383926#Comment_120383926

It certainly does not, Blanch. Without even touching the argument of whether they were legitimate and lawful on an organisational level, many acts that they carried out were certainly not. Did they pursue actions and plans from an organisational perspective that were unlawful? Certainly plenty of room for discussion on that point, let alone the indisputably unlawful acts carried out by many individual members of the organisation.

The organisation being legitimate and lawful does not exclude their non lawful or legitimate actions from being acts of terrorism no matter what way you try to twist those definitions.

Even if we ignore the systemic cover up of many of those unlawful incidents, as several convictions will confirm, even the British Government don't think ALL of their actions were lawful.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384172#Comment_120384172

Of course, there will have been individual actions which were unlawful, but that only meets the first test of the definition. And there will have been orders given that were unlawful - Bloody Sunday being one clear example.

However, the constant portrayal of the generality of British acts of security in Northern Ireland as being terrorism is certainly false, based on your definition.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384135#Comment_120384135

You have not answered the question ( post 1015).

"So if you condone one type of IRA violence and condemn another type of IRA violence you are a hypocrite, is that what you are admitting?"

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384263#Comment_120384263

Interesting point.

MLMD recently condemned the terrorist actions of the New Ira when they shot a police officer in the North. Does that make her a hypocrite?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384263#Comment_120384263

Here is the 'hypocrisy' I outlined:

Pretending you would never condone violence when you in fact celebrate what was achieved by violence is hypocrisy. Classic hypocrisy in fact.

Martin as is usual with FF and FG was being selective and hypocritical about violence.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384302#Comment_120384302

You say "Martin as is usual with FF and FG was being selective and hypocritical about violence".

The Real IRA would say " Michelle (as she condemns the latest Real IRA action etc ) and SF are being being selective and hypocritical about violence".

That is why is is dangerous to glorify IRA violence. As MM said " "Today they sell T-shirts and mugs with 'IRA undefeated army' on them. They glorify the Provisional's campaign, including some of the worst atrocities. They are trying to have it both ways of demanding to be treated just like any party but refusing to be open about their past or apologise for it.

"What is actively dangerous about this is what it says to others that might be foolish enough to want to keep their tradition going. How can they stand against the Real IRA and other groups if they keep asserting the legitimacy of the Provisional's campaign?

"How can they condemn those who present themselves as inheritors of the mantle of revolutionary republicanism if they honour a group which was rejected time and again by the Irish people?" he said.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384422#Comment_120384422

MoN condemned the violence now because she said there was an agreement in place. I.E. she gave a reason for no violence.

What MM did was pretend that there was something different to the Old IRA violence or the violence of 1916, (both were 'revolutions or insurgencies with no electoral mandate and were against the law of the land at that time.) and the violence of the IRA since 1969.

There isn't any difference (bar how some of it was carried out) in essence. He celebrates one and criticises the other = hypocrisy.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384464#Comment_120384464

All of the various IRA acts ( including those of the PIRA and New IRA) had and have no electoral mandate and were against the law of the land at that time. Why are some Republicans so hypocritical? The New IRA do not care about any agreement others have made, or obey the law of the land, just as the PIRA did not care about agreements or obey the law of the land. That is why they were terrorists.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384422#Comment_120384422

You are absolutely correct.

Anybody who is calling MM a hypocrite and absolving MLMD and MON is engaging in revisionist history.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384575#Comment_120384575

As were the people MM celebrates every year. He is being hypocritical. Which was my point.

MoN was not making a point about violence itself (I believe she believes that was neccessary at the time) she was making a point about the need for violence at this time.

If you want to argue the rights and wrongs of the conflict/war this isn't the thread for it. Or rather, I am not being drawn into a debate on it, on this thread.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384614#Comment_120384614

There is no need for violence now, nor was there in the past. India got its independence without violence.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384655#Comment_120384655

India got its independence without violence.

Not remotely true and the kind of trite simplification of history that MM indulges to score a point.

https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-violence-that-helped-india-break-free-from-colonial-rule-57904

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384575#Comment_120384575

So do you condemn MM and FF and LV and FG for commemorating 1916, the war of Independence etc?

Or are you only on another anti SF rant?

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384212#Comment_120384212

I'd take anyone making such claims with a great big pinch of salt myself, Blanch. Probably wouldn't get too bogged down in a conversation with them.

In purely semantic terms, the definition previously given of, 'terrorist' as one who engages in terrorism could be applied to the British security forces in NI, but obviously this tries to render a much more complicated situation as very simple.

There were a whole lot of grey areas during that time, and anyone who tries to paint a fairytale picture of, 'goodies and baddies' from either perspective is usually so filled with propaganda from, 'their' side, or has no actual lived knowledge of it in reality that their opinions aren't worth taking terribly seriously.

The one thing you always seem to struggle with is understanding why people like me condemn the British security forces sometimes more overtly than the Provos, and this little sideline should explain that quite well; the Provos were a proscribed terrorist organisation, the British security forces were not.

We expect (or at least should be able to expect) state forces to hold themselves to higher standards than a bunch of terrorists. When legitimate state forces engage in terrorism, they reduce themselves to no better than the very people they claim to be trying to stop. When the state itself gets involved in attempts to cover up said acts of terrorism by their forces, or even decades down the line tries to push through legislation to protect those individuals who committed heinous crimes, that is more significant news than, 'terrorist engaged in terrorism thirty to forty years ago'.

Probably getting a bit off topic for this thread in continuing down this route, beyond stating that now they're effectively instruments of the state, North and South, SF should be held to the same standards that I expected from the British government during the bad times, but I do understand people criticising the hypocrisy of MM calling out SF memorialising former Provos while on a state level, we engage in the same memorialising for a different terrorist organisation, living in a state essentially founded by acts of terrorism.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120386250#Comment_120386250

I do not want to drag the thread off topic, but I will leave you to reflect on the words of the Catholic bishop Buckley, who said on this very topic in early 2016

There is "a thin line between celebration and commemoration” and he stressed it was important that the 1916 commemoration “does not glorify violence retrospectively” as there was always a danger that anniversaries have the potential to influence people negatively.

"Sadly, the threat of violence has not completely disappeared. There is no moral legitimacy whatsoever for violence today ...... The Good Friday Agreement democratically and peacefully removed any remaining cause of conflict," he said.

“We should be extremely careful in case the celebrations would, in any way, contribute to an increased tension in Northern Ireland. It has been said that aspects of the 1966 commemoration were subsequently used to justify violence. Our aim should be to promote friendship and harmony.”

Bishop Buckley said his church, the official Catholic Church of the time condemned the Rising. He said  "We will also remember the five hundred and eighty Irish soldiers who died on the Western Front in the First World War during that week. “Indeed, some of those who survived received a very cold reception when they returned home."

I tend to agree with the above words of bishop Buckley of Cork. Important to remember there were many thousands of innocent victims of the rising in 1916 - many were burnt out, had to go to England, were disappeared etc. SF glorifying the PIRA but condemning the New IRA is no different to anyone glorifying the rebels of 1916 but condemning the PIRA.

If the IRA is glorified to a generation of people, as witnessed by the Irish ladies football team chanting Uh Ah Up the RA, then it is not surprising to get acts like the bombing in Omagh and the more recent shooting in Omagh.

I'm not posting about this topic on this thread again. Enough said.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120386954#Comment_120386954

 The Good Friday Agreement democratically and peacefully removed any remaining cause of conflict,"

MoN re-iterated these words when condemning violence in the current climate. You refuse to accept that. MM refuses to accept that by all IMC reports the IRA as a violent entity are gone and are engaging in what was agreed in the GFA. He hypocritically reserves the right to criticise past violence while condoning other past violence. And he does it to keep toxicity in Irish politics for his own party's political gain.

Not very successfully, mind you but it is what he is doing.

Francis McM

Not the point. Besides, MoN can say all the words she wants, there was full democracy in N.Ireland before the GFA was signed so there was no "remaining cause of conflict" or justification for violence.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120387202#Comment_120387202

So the bishop you were agreeing with a while ago was wrong too.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120387256#Comment_120387256

To clarify "Conflict" is defined by the Collins dictionary a conflict as a " serious disagreement and argument about something important. If two people or groups are in conflict, they have had a serious disagreement or argument and have not yet reached agreement."

Nitpick all of the Bishops paragraphs and points if you want, but nowhere was there a justification for violence. Bishop Buckley also said his church, the official Catholic Church of the time condemned the Rising.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120387410#Comment_120387410

I didn't claim the bishop 'justified violence'.

You claim there was no basis for the conflict because democracy already existed.

The bishop disagrees with you,

'The Good Friday Agreement democratically and peacefully removed any remaining cause of conflict,'

as do the 2 governments who drew up the GFA with provisions and safeguards that were not in place beforehand.

BTW Michael Martin has already vowed to ensure that the British cannot re-instate Direct Rule in the abscence of powersharing:

“And the Government will fully pursue its consultative role under the Good Friday Agreement, that is the position that we will exhaust every possibility within that framework if there is a sustained period of absence of the executive or the assembly.

He also accused the DUP of 'denial of democracy'. That thing you said existed before the GFA. So you are also at loggerheads with Michael.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120387525#Comment_120387525

You are trying to put words in my mouth and those of the Bishop again. Democracy did exist in N. Ireland before the GFA was signed. There was full voting rights for everyone, full and fair elections etc. No restrictions on travel. Legislation to prevent discrimination on religous and other grounds. As fair as any elections anywhere in the world. However in all countries in the world, even western countries, there can be "confllcts." I saw a conflict in the chipper once between a drunk and the management. "Conflict" is defined by the Collins dictionary a conflict as a " serious disagreement and argument about something important. If two people or groups are in conflict, they have had a serious disagreement or argument and have not yet reached agreement.". On a bigger scale, there were / are a conflict in for example in Spain between Catalonia and the Spanish government. But it does not justify terrorism or violence.

Nowhere was there a justification for violence. Conflicts do not justify the use of violence or terrorism. You forget that. Bishop Buckley also said his church, the official Catholic Church of the time condemned the Rising. You also forget that. He also highlighted the view that aspects of the 1966 commemoration were subsequently used to justify violence.  He thought instead "our aim should be to promote friendship and harmony.”

And I never claimed I agreed or disagreed with everything Michael Martin ever said. Nor would I agree with the Bishops opinion on everything, I am sure. Few people would agree with anyone on everything. Stop going off on tangents.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120387698#Comment_120387698

I am not putting 'words in your mouth' I am pointing out the illogical thinking you are posting

If somebody believes the GFA(see the provisions and clauses to fix the 'causes') removed the 'causes' of the conflict/war then it is logical to assume they believe there were causes.

You are trying to say there was no cause for the conflict/war as democracy already existed.

You say this when even Michael Martin believes Unionism is engaged in the 'denial of democracy' to this very day.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120387776#Comment_120387776

Now you are changing the goalposts again. You are also using the term "conflict / war" instead of just the conflict. There are always causes of conflict : it does not matter if that conflict is between two farmers over a field or a fence, or if the conflict is something bigger. And yes, democracy did exist in N.I before the GFA was signed, there were full and free elections etc.

As regards your point about MM, Michael Martin can complain about present Unionist politician reactions to Brexit etc but some of his Republican predecessors like Bertie Ahern found the Unionists democratic to deal with.

The Bishop of Cork pointed out one of the causes of the "subsequent violence" were the "aspects of the 1966 commemoration". He pointed out how dangerous it is to glorify violence. He pointed out his church, the official Catholic Church of the time condemned the Rising. I think every government around the world condemned the pira too, certainly after the Enniskillen bombing anyway.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120384263#Comment_120384263

Was this question ever answered?

I think it got lost in all the goalpost moving and shifting of position that we saw.