gaaboard.com

The Boys of Kilmichael

Whilst we honour in song and in story
The memory of Pearse and MacBride,
Whose names are illumined in glory
With martyrs who long since have died.
Forget not the boys of Kilmichael
Those brave lads so gallant and true
Who fought 'neath the green flag of Erin
And conquered the Red, White and Blue.

Chorus:
Then here's to the boys of Kilmichael
Who feared not the might of the foe.
The day that they marched into battle
They laid all the Black-and-Tans low.

On the twenty-eighth day of November
The Tans left the town of Macroom,
They were seated in two Crossley tenders
Which led them right into their doom;
They were on the road to Kilmichael
And never expected to stall,
They there met the boys of the column
Who made a clear sweep of them all.

Chorus:

The sun in the west it was sinking,
'Twas the eve of a cold winter's day;
When the Tans we were eagerly waiting
Sailed into the spot where we lay;
And over the hills went the echo
The peal of the rifle and gun;
And the flames from their lorries gave tidings
That the boys of the column had won.

Chorus:

The lorries were ours before twilight,
And high over Dunmanway town
Our banners in triumph were waving
To show that the Tans had gone down.
We gathered out rifles and bayonets,
And soon left the glens so obscure,
And never drew rein 'til we halted
At the faraway camp of Granure.

The truth about the boys of Kilmichael

SBP, Sunday, November 26, 2000
Pat Butler

On November 28, 1920 a bloody event in Cork changed the course of Irish history. As dusk fell between 4.05 and 4.20 on November 28, 1920 on a desolate roadside at Dus a' Bharraigh in the townland of Shanacashel, Kilmichael Parish, near Macroom, an event occurred that changed the face of the Anglo-Irish War.

One legend fell, another was born. The grey establishment men on both sides of the Irish Sea -- the one comfortable in their starched collars, the other not yet so and until recently more accustomed to the rough feel of khaki and the whiff of cordite -- both sets of grey men privately recognised it was time to look towards a fuller solution.

Whereas the `Black and Tans' were an uncommissioned rabble, the Auxiliary Division of the RIC was drawn entirely from the British officer class -- a special unit task force recruited through the `old boy' network to face down armed insurrection and lawlessness by whatever means they chose to employ. Their official rank of Temporary Cadet is a gross misnomer, a mere administrative convenience. The 'Auxies', as they came to be spoken of in folk culture, were a battle-hardened elite tempered in the fire of the Great War.

These were professional fighting men. Terror was their chosen, officially sanctioned and rarely concealed trade.

In the three months since their formation the Auxiliary Division had rampaged unchallenged from Balbriggan to Bandon, creating their own particular legend of ruthless invincibility.

Until, on that broken hillside, 18 Officers of `C' Company Auxiliary Division RIC were wiped out in the bloodiest engagement of the War of Independence.

With just one week's training behind them, 36 IRA Volunteers shot their way into history, led by a 22-year-old ex-British Army soldier in his first action as Commander of the Third West Cork Brigade Flying Column.

After the ambush the British military and political establishment, shaken to the core, knew it was time to reassess.

No longer could they boast `they had terror by the throat in Ireland'. Nor that the IRA was `a civilian rabble of low-level miscreants'.

Such an interpretation was now inconceivable -- the cream of England's military elite had been vanquished in hand-to-hand combat.

Thus on that bitter roadway another legend was born.

Tom Barry did not just defeat the Auxiliaries at Kilmichael. He destroyed them. Eighteen Auxies left Macroom Castle that Sunday morning on routine patrol. Sixteen lay dead on the roadside. One, HF Ford, survived, brain-damaged and paralysed. Ford seemed to be dead. Ironically, the severity of his injuries saved his life.

The driver of the second Crossley tender made good his escape from the ambush site, only to be captured nearby by a separate group of IRA Volunteers. After his execution, Cecil Guthrie's body was dumped in Annahala Bog.

Broken in spirit, 'C' Company of the Auxiliary Division stationed at Macroom never recovered. Disbanded shortly after, their commanding officer, Colonel Buxton Smith, committed suicide in London in January 1922.

Professor John A Murphy is unequivocal in his assessment of the significance of Kilmichael and the ensuing engagement at Crossbarry. In the Le(argas documentary on RTE 1 (Tuesday, 7pm) "Kilmichael -- gaisce no( slad?" he says. "There's no doubt, whether we like it or not, it was guerrilla warfare prosecuted by the Volunteers which finally brought the British to the negotiating table."

So what really happened on that windswept November roadside? Why to this day does Kilmichael evoke feelings of heroism in some and revulsion in others? How come it is so easy to view this particular military action from both ends of the same telescope?

The answer lies in the fact that wounded Auxiliaries were executed, on Barry's orders, after their resistance had ceased. The nature and intention of that cessation lies at the heart of the Kilmichael dilemma.

Up to the late 1960s the traditional view of the ambush was shaped by the writings and personality of Thomas Bernadine Barry, IRA commander at Kilmichael.

Barry had served for four years with the British Army on various fronts, including the slaughterhouse of Mesopotamia. It is believed it was he who raised the Union flag on Armistice Day in Bandon in 1919. Within a few months, for whatever reason, Barry changed sides. The established IRA Brigade leadership mistrusted this tainted Johnny-come-lately. But they needed his expertise.

Kilmichael was Barry's first command. Aware of what he had to do to earn his IRA stripes, Tom Barry never informed the Brigade leadership he was planning a `spectacular'. Whatever doubts existed before 4.05 on the afternoon of November 28 they were dramatically dispelled by 4.20. Barry created a legend which he happily lived out for the remainder of his life.

He was ruthless, arrogant, self-assured, heroic, brave, cruel -- a professional soldier honed in his trade by the very class of man about to face him on that bleak hillside at Shanacashel. The contradictions at the centre of Tom Barry make him a figure of controversy to this day. Feared and adored in equal measure by a majority of his men, Barry made lifelong enemies and contemptuously cultivated them with abandon.

This is the central tenet of Barry's account of Kilmichael. Having disposed of all the Auxiliaries at the first lorry, he and three of his men went to engage the decorated war veterans fighting for their lives at the second lorry.

The Auxies, according to Barry, uttered a `false surrender' and threw down their rifles. Members of Barry's Second Section stood to take the surrender. The Auxiliaries, again according to Barry, whipped out their revolvers and killed two of his men. Upon which Barry ordered his troops to "keep firing and not to stop until I tell ye".

There may well have been a genuine surrender after that. But Barry wasn't listening. The rest is disputed history.

Folklore has it that Barry, when asked by an American research student why the Auxiliaries didn't run away, replied: "Because we plugged them till they couldn't."

Dr Peter Hart is a Canadian who lectures at Queen's University Belfast. In his seminal work The IRA and Its Enemies (1998) Hart dispatches Barry's account with the following summary: "Barry's `history' of Kilmichael is riddled with lies and evasions. There was no false surrender, as he described it. The surviving Auxiliaries were simply `exterminated'."

Dr Peter Murphy of Glenstal Abbey takes the opposite view. "Peter Hart says that Barry's account of Kilmichael is riddled with lies and evasions. Peter Hart's account, on the other hand, is riddled with contradictions and question marks."

While these two heavyweights slug it out in the arena of academic infighting, the people of Kilmichael, Inchigeelagh and Cu(il Aodha are, by and large, content with the old certainties. While Kevin Myers of the Irish Times railed against folk-singer Jimmy Crowley's decision to record The Boys of Kilmichael in 1998, the song has never caused much difficulty in that place which poet Liam O( Muirthile rather elegantly describes as `na(isiu( n na mbailte fearainn' -- `the nation of the townlands'.

Rarely a wedding or a wake takes place without either `a lash' at the song, in the case of the latter, or in the case of the former, a drum-kit old-time-waltz treatment, with or without the bride!

In a moment of delicious irony, local-born Bishop of Cork and Ross Most Rev Dr John Buckley admires the song: "it's a wonderful song, it's part of our history", deeply conscious that his predecessor Daniel Coholan -- a man from the parish of Kilmichael -- excommunicated the IRA a fortnight after the ambush.

But Coholan's was not the first decisive move in response to the overwhelming and inescapable reality of Kilmichael. Two days earlier the Viceroy Lord French declared martial law in South Tipperary, Limerick City and Cork City and County.

The following night under the protection of `law' drunken bands of Auxiliaries and others, in an act of vengeance, burned the heart of Cork City to the ground.

Peter Hart cites a command report, unsigned but allegedly written by Barry in the aftermath of Kilmichael, in which the false surrender is not mentioned, and also the 1932 article he wrote for the Irish Press, again without the false surrender.

Liam Deasy's 1974 account -- Deasy was not involved at Kilmichael -- neither mentions nor denies the surrender. But this must be balanced against Barry's 1941 An Cosanto(ir article, his seminal Guerrilla Days in Ireland (1949) and innumerable radio and television interviews.

Neither is Barry without independent support. Piaras Beasla in his book on Collins (1926) mentions the false surrender; Stephen O'Neill, Section Three Commander at Kilmichael, does also in the Kerryman (1938).

But it is difficult not to be impressed with an account of Kilmichael given in the 1932 opus Ireland For Ever, written by no less a personage than Brigadier-General FP Crozier, Commander of the Auxiliary Forces in Ireland. Crozier personally investigated Kilmichael in response to the loss of 18 of his men. He concluded as follows: "Arms were supposed to have been surrendered, but a wounded Auxiliary whipped out a revolver while lying on the ground and shot a `Shinner', with the result that all his comrades were put to death along with him, the rebels `seeing red', a condition akin to `going mad'."

And what of Cecil Guthrie, whose body lay in Annahala Bog? In 1926, on behalf of the Guthrie family, Kevin O'Higgins, Free State Minister for Home Affairs, interceded with the local IRA. Guthrie's remains were disinterred and handed over to the Church of Ireland authorities at Macroom. At last Cecil Guthrie lies in hallowed ground, embraced by the soil of Uibh Laoghaire at Inchigeelagh Churchyard, there finding sanctuary among the ancestral clans of Uibh Laoghaire -- the only Auxiliary grave in Ireland.

The only absolute certainty about Kilmichael is that the last word has yet to be written.

The embers of the fire lit by Tom Barry at blood-soaked Dus a' Bharraigh still redden, fanned by the winds of heated debate.

I'm shocked that Hill is Blue, a blue shirt, has started this thread.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 28, 2007, 12:39:21 PM
I'm shocked that Hill is Blue, a blue shirt, has started this thread.

Sure that's not Sky Blue you are thinking off?

Nah, hil is blue as well.

I seem to recall me and hill is blue disagreeing on several issues. 

QuoteI seem to recall me and hill is blue disagreeing on several issues. 

Oh he must be wrong so!  :P

I believe Peter Hart. :D

Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 28, 2007, 12:39:21 PM
I'm shocked that Hill is Blue, a blue shirt, has started this thread.

What's a blue shirt (other than the obvious item of clothing)?
What makes you categorise Hill is Blue as a blue shirt, or should I infer from your clarification (i.e. that you and he disagreed) that a blue shirt is the opposite of whatever you are?
What are you?
Why would it be shocking for a blue shirt (however you define one) to start a thread like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshirts

It's also slang for fine gael supporter

Is it?

Quote from: Hardy on November 28, 2007, 03:19:29 PM
Is it?

Think ur missing this at the end Hardy... (http://shared.live.com/QGncRMHLLpIcOfCh--4aMA/emoticons/smile_sarcastic.gif)

 :)

Quote from: Hardy on November 28, 2007, 02:19:28 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 28, 2007, 12:39:21 PM
I'm shocked that Hill is Blue, a blue shirt, has started this thread.

What's a blue shirt (other than the obvious item of clothing)?
What makes you categorise Hill is Blue as a blue shirt, or should I infer from your clarification (i.e. that you and he disagreed) that a blue shirt is the opposite of whatever you are?
What are you?
Why would it be shocking for a blue shirt (however you define one) to start a thread like this?

I think you know hardy.
It would be shocking that a blue shirt has the brass neck to start a thread like this but foam at the mouth at the very mention of the IRA in the recent troubles.

QuoteOh he must be wrong so!

Obviously

Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 28, 2007, 05:49:08 PM
I think you know hardy.

I don't. At least I don't know what you think a "blue shirt" is.

Quote
It would be shocking that a blue shirt has the brass neck to start a thread like this but foam at the mouth at the very mention of the IRA in the recent troubles.

Why? Who owns the legacy of 1920-22? And who foamed at the mouth?

What about the other questions:
What makes you categorise Hill is Blue as a blue shirt, or should I infer from your clarification (i.e. that you and he disagreed) that a blue shirt is the opposite of whatever you are?
What are you?

QuoteWhy? Who owns the legacy of 1920-22? And who foamed at the mouth?

No one one's that legacy Hardy but I just I think everyone can see the hypocrisy. 
I seem to recall Hill is blue as being critcal of republicans in the most recent troubles - apologies if I am incorrect.


As for a Blue shirt
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/5/50/180px-BrutonJohn.png)

Quote from: Hardy on November 28, 2007, 03:19:29 PM
Is it?

yes it is hardy, fine gael are fascists. did you not know that? cant remember but some other shower of fascists on the continent were known as the brown shirts cause thats want they wore (think thats why they get so thick when us fianna failers used to get brown envelopes!). our boys marched in blue shirts here, caused some havoc down in kerry too in the earky 1920s. cnuts ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 28, 2007, 06:22:27 PM

QuoteWhy? Who owns the legacy of 1920-22? And who foamed at the mouth?

No one one's that legacy Hardy but I just I think everyone can see the hypocrisy. 
I seem to recall Hill is blue as being critcal of republicans in the most recent troubles - apologies if I am incorrect.

I'm sure Hill is Blue IS a republican, like myself. As for the people he criticised, calling themselves "republicans" doesn't make them so. 

Quote from: magickingdom on November 28, 2007, 07:00:27 PM

fine gael are fascists. did you not know that?

I didn't. I thought that was the PDs, in popular estimation. But they don't really matter anymore, I suppose.

But you may be right for all I know. Though I don't recall anybody from Fine Gael kneecapping people or dumping people in a ditch with a bullet in their heads or beating people to death with iron bars because they disagreed with them. So if FG are fascists based on the activities of the blueshirts seventy years ago, there are much more prominent fascists among us these days.

Lads all us Dubs wear blue tops, didnt you hear?  ;)

Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 28, 2007, 06:22:27 PM

I seem to recall Hill is blue as being critcal of republicans in the most recent troubles - apologies if I am incorrect.

Your recall is absolutely correct.....

Now what's that got to do with remembering the men of Kilmichael?

Remember that was a time when other notable "Blueshirts" like Michael Collins and Sean Hales were part of the same movement as Tom Barry.

BTW: I would have thought that a thread remembering the men of Kilmichael on the anniversary of the ambush would have been left as that. Surely there's enough bitching elsewhere on the board.

Well there you go. On the one hand we have a bunch of men with weapons, lying in wait to ambush a police patrol. They open up on the police and afterwards go around and execute the presumably unarmed wounded as they lie helpless on the ground. Before they've even finished for the day, they kidnap another, shoot him dead and 'disappear' his body into a bog for years to come, leaving the family without a grave to visit. Then we have the brutal IRA murderers from 50 years later and well dare they claim the republican mantel without first gaining approval from our great moral Blueshirt (or is it Sky Blue, Hill is Blue, Hardy) majority as they sit it out and pass judgement on their countrymen from the safety of their Free State.

Quote from: Donagh on November 29, 2007, 11:17:27 AMour great moral Blueshirt (or is it Sky Blue, Hill is Blue, Hardy) majority as they sit it out and pass judgement on their countrymen from the safety of their Free State.

I can't see, by any stretch of mathematics, how three people can form a majority against the legions of the provo propaganda machine on this board. However, if you meant that your provos* were opposed by the great majority of people, both in what you are pleased to call the Free State, and in the six counties, then you are indeed 100% correct, though we don't often see you admit it.

(*Yes - I'm as capable as the next man of indulging in tit-for-tat namecalling).

Quote from: Hardy on November 29, 2007, 11:34:22 AM
I can't see, by any stretch of mathematics, how three people can form a majority against the legions of the provo propaganda machine on this board.

Jaysus Hardy, thats a pretty small legion, I count about 4!

Quote from: Hardy on November 29, 2007, 11:34:22 AM
I can't see, by any stretch of mathematics, how three people can form a majority against the legions of the provo propaganda machine on this board. However, if you meant that your provos* were opposed by the great majority of people, both in what you are pleased to call the Free State, and in the six counties, then you are indeed 100% correct, though we don't often see you admit it.

If we're talking occupied territories, then I'd say both incarnations of the IRA had a very similar level of support.

OK - I'll bite. How do you explain the electoral performance of SF in the six counties pre-ceasefire, then? Unless you redefine occupied territories as necessary to fit your statement.

(Apologies HIB for doing this to your thread).

Quote from: Hardy on November 29, 2007, 12:10:11 PM
OK - I'll bite. How do you explain the electoral performance of SF in the six counties pre-ceasefire, then? Unless you redefine occupied territories as necessary to fit your statement.

(Apologies HIB for doing this to your thread).

Different times and circumstances but even though the IRA didn't stand for election the indicators would be about half the nationalist community in the six counties would have been sympathetic. You think this is radically different from 1919-22?

Quote from: Donagh on November 29, 2007, 12:17:25 PM
the IRA didn't stand for election

Oh right - I forgot that. They didn't in 1918 either, of course, but SF were less reticent about their identity then.

Quote
the indicators would be about half the nationalist community in the six counties would have been sympathetic.

That's about as weak an argument as I've ever seen to attempt to make the case for popular support for the prov. IRA.  "Indicators"; "about half"; "sympathetic".

To flog a political cliche, the only "indicator" that counts is the election poll.

Quote from: Hardy on November 29, 2007, 12:26:45 PM

Oh right - I forgot that. They didn't in 1918 either, of course, but SF were less reticent about their identity then.

So are you telling me all those people that voted SF in 1919 supported Dan Breen at Soloheadbeg? Aye dead on Hardy...

Quote from: Hardy on November 29, 2007, 12:26:45 PM

That's about as weak an argument as I've ever seen to attempt to make the case for popular support for the prov. IRA.  "Indicators"; "about half"; "sympathetic".

Not that I was the one making a case for popular support, but it's about as weak as your's Hardy

Quote from: Donagh on November 29, 2007, 11:17:27 AM
Well there you go. On the one hand we have a bunch of men with weapons, lying in wait to ambush a police patrol. They open up on the police and afterwards go around and execute the presumably unarmed wounded as they lie helpless on the ground. Before they've even finished for the day, they kidnap another, shoot him dead and 'disappear' his body into a bog for years to come, leaving the family without a grave to visit. Then we have the brutal IRA murderers from 50 years later and well dare they claim the republican mantel without first gaining approval from our great moral Blueshirt (or is it Sky Blue, Hill is Blue, Hardy) majority as they sit it out and pass judgement on their countrymen from the safety of their Free State.

What he said ^


I'm alright jack.

Quote from: Donagh on November 29, 2007, 12:30:37 PM

So are you telling me all those people that voted SF in 1919 supported Dan Breen at Soloheadbeg? Aye dead on Hardy...

I have no way of knowing what was in their individual heads when they voted. But I don't know any sensible commentator who would disagree that the best (often the only) measure of support for a group is their performance at the polls. On that basis, there's no comparison between SF's support in 1918 (without any equivocation or pretence about their relationship with the IRA, btw) and that of Provisional SF during the troubles. And that's even allowing your suggestion that the test be confined to a subset of the population, which of course disenfranchises the rest of us.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 29, 2007, 12:35:05 PM
I'm alright jack.

I'm delighted for you.

If you were being ironic, and really meant that you're not alright, what's wrong with you?

Quote from: Hardy on November 29, 2007, 12:46:51 PM
I have no way of knowing what was in their individual heads when they voted. But I don't know any sensible commentator who would disagree that the best (often the only) measure of support for a group is their performance at the polls. On that basis, there's no comparison between SF's support in 1918 (without any equivocation or pretence about their relationship with the IRA, btw) and that of Provisional SF during the troubles. And that's even allowing your suggestion that the test be confined to a subset of the population, which of course disenfranchises the rest of us.

That's grand Hardy, but you're missing one crucial fact, that 99% of the population had never heard of the IRA when they went to the polls in 1918, so obviously it cannot be used to as indicator as to the popular support for their campaign. All you have to do is read the memoirs of the protagonists to see what support they had at the time.

hardy, where you sitting to close to sammy g?

In January 1919 Dáil Éireann, representing a clear majority of the Irish people, adopted a Declaration of Independence. That Declaration gave clear democratic legitimacy to the War of Independence.

Armed action in this country after that period has never had democratic legitimacy.

An interesting footnote: In the 1918 General Election when Sinn Féin swept the boards in most of the country, Belfast Falls returned Wee Joe Devlin (Nationalist) as their MP ahead of Éamon de Valera (Sinn Féin).

The Declaration of Indepdance also ratified the Republic, stating;

"..we, the elected Representatives of the ancient Irish people in National Parliament assembled, do, in the name of the Irish nation, ratify the establishment of the Irish Republic and pledge ourselves and our people to make this declaration effective by every means at our command"

"We solemnly declare foreign government in Ireland to be an invasion of our national right which we will never tolerate, and we demand the evacuation of our country by the English Garrison."

When did this change?

Quote from: scalder on November 29, 2007, 02:03:59 PM
The Declaration of Indepdance also ratified the Republic, stating;

"..we, the elected Representatives of the ancient Irish people in National Parliament assembled, do, in the name of the Irish nation, ratify the establishment of the Irish Republic and pledge ourselves and our people to make this declaration effective by every means at our command"

"We solemnly declare foreign government in Ireland to be an invasion of our national right which we will never tolerate, and we demand the evacuation of our country by the English Garrison."

When did this change?

Following the Good Friday Agreement, when the Dail recognised British Rule in NI, dropped their "demand" and agreed to amend the Constitution to make Irish Unity a mere aspiration.

Oh, and the Shinners in the North [sic] finally recognised and accepted Partition, by agreeing to participate in the (British administered) Government of Northern Ireland, located in the "English Garrison" at Stormont.

Eighty-odd years and some thousands of lives late, but "better late than never", as the saying goes.  :(

Donagh - nothing to add to HIB's post. Except that 99% of the population that went to the polls in 1918 might not have known the IRA as the IRA, but they were well aware of the then "armed wing of Republicanism". I'm sure a full 100% of them had, for instance, heard of the Easter Rising.

POG - if you want to debate with me, make a point and stop the childish catcalling.

Scalder - I suggest that the democratic vote of the 1921 Dáil that endorsed the treaty with the Brits formally ended the declared hostilities.

Quote from: Evil Genius on November 29, 2007, 02:25:29 PM
Following the Good Friday Agreement, when the Dail recognised British Rule in NI, dropped their "demand" and agreed to amend the Constitution to make Irish Unity a mere aspiration.

Oh, and the Shinners in the North [sic] finally recognised and accepted Partition, by agreeing to participate in the (British administered) Government of Northern Ireland, located in the "English Garrison" at Stormont.

Eighty-odd years and some thousands of lives late, but "better late than never", as the saying goes.  :(

EG, you would almost convince someone that SF have given up their goals of a united ireland  :D :D :D

Quote from: Hardy on November 29, 2007, 02:29:05 PM
Donagh - nothing to add to HIB's post. Except that 99% of the population that went to the polls in 1918 might not have known the IRA as the IRA, but they were well aware of the then "armed wing of Republicanism". I'm sure a full 100% of them had, for instance, heard of the Easter Rising.

So what are you saying - that Dan Breen and his comrades had widespread popular support for the campaign they launched, that the Irish people who voted for SF in 1918 knew what was coming? On what do you base this and how do you explain both Breen and Barry's conflicting assertion that they did not have overwhelming support? Probably irrelevant anyway as there was not an election in of middle of that campaign so you cannot emphatically say one way or the other whether their support within the community came anywhere near that enjoyed by the 'bad' IRA '69 onwards or vice-versa.

As I said, I have no way of knowing what individual voters were thinking. All I and you know are the documented facts. One of those is that the war of independence was waged by the democratically elected government of Ireland, which had a massive mandate from the people. Another fact (and, as as you remind me, there were several elections, North and South, throughout the period) is that Provisional SF had no mandate of any kind whatsoever for their "armed struggle", much less for their criminal activities. No matter how you squirm and waffle about pockets of support lending some sort of legitimacy to the provo campaign, them's the only documented facts.

Quote from: Hardy on November 29, 2007, 03:13:12 PM
As I said, I have no way of knowing what individual voters were thinking. All I and you know are the documented facts. One of those is that the war of independence was waged by the democratically elected government of Ireland, which had a massive mandate from the people. Another fact (and, as as you remind me, there were several elections, North and South, throughout the period) is that Provisional SF had no mandate of any kind whatsoever for their "armed struggle", much less for their criminal activities. No matter how you squirm and waffle about pockets of support lending some sort of legitimacy to the provo campaign, them's the only documented facts.

Hardy re you comments about the legions of pro provo propaganda type people. Seriously, where did you get that?

Ah you know - I must have just imagined that any time the provos were criticised here there was a mass denunciation of the critic, mostly in the most crude, derogatory and uncouth way. I must have been dreaming about the slinging about of the standard provo vocabulary of abuse - "blueshirt", "West Brit", etc., at anyone who dared to question the balaclava brigade.

Interestingly, they seem to have changed tactics now and they only appear in ones and twos. There must have been an edict to stop making it so obvious.

Anyway, you said you could only count four. OK - there's you, Donagh - who else?  ;D

Quote from: Hardy on November 29, 2007, 03:13:12 PM
As I said, I have no way of knowing what individual voters were thinking. All I and you know are the documented facts. One of those is that the war of independence was waged by the democratically elected government of Ireland, which had a massive mandate from the people. Another fact (and, as as you remind me, there were several elections, North and South, throughout the period) is that Provisional SF had no mandate of any kind whatsoever for their "armed struggle", much less for their criminal activities. No matter how you squirm and waffle about pockets of support lending some sort of legitimacy to the provo campaign, them's the only documented facts.

You're obviously the one doing the waffling here Hardy, I have said nothing of the sort, but go and read Dan Breen's book and you'll learn all about this elusive "massive mandate from the people". Oh and take the chip of your shoulder it doesn't suit you.

If you're happy to let that be your last word, I have nothing to add. Let the people decide this one too, including who is the bearer of the chip.

(Dubnut - I was only joking, in case you've taken the hump).

Quote from: Donagh on November 29, 2007, 03:31:32 PM

You're obviously the one doing the waffling here Hardy, I have said nothing of the sort, but go and read Dan Breen's book and you'll learn all about this elusive "massive mandate from the people". Oh and take the chip of your shoulder it doesn't suit you.

As Hardy has pointed out there is no way of knowing what support the war had at any particular time during its course – and I guess that goes for all wars (you rarely have opinion polls during wars!). However (and this is a key point), the War of Independence had the backing of our democratically elected government. None of our later "wars" have had that backing.

Quote from: The Hill is Blue on November 29, 2007, 03:49:28 PM
As Hardy has pointed out there is no way of knowing what support the war had at any particular time during its course – and I guess that goes for all wars (you rarely have opinion polls during wars!). However (and this is a key point), the War of Independence had the backing of our democratically elected government. None of our later "wars" have had that backing.

See scalder's point. The First Dáil ratified the Republic as declared in 1916 which again had no democratic mandate, so don't give me your Blueshirt bollicks about legitimate wars and democratic mandates.

Quote from: Donagh on November 29, 2007, 03:58:50 PM

The First Dáil ratified the Republic as declared in 1916 which again had no democratic mandate, so don't give me your Blueshirt bollicks about legitimate wars and democratic mandates.

The first Dáil had a democratic mandate (or is that just Blueshirt bollicks   ::) ).  It gave democratic legitimacy to the War of Independence and retrospectively to the 1916 Rising. No other "war" since then has had that legitimacy.

Quote from: The Hill is Blue on November 29, 2007, 04:23:51 PM

Quote from: Donagh on November 29, 2007, 03:58:50 PM

The First Dáil ratified the Republic as declared in 1916 which again had no democratic mandate, so don't give me your Blueshirt bollicks about legitimate wars and democratic mandates.

The first Dáil had a democratic mandate (or is that just Blueshirt bollicks   ::) ).  It gave democratic legitimacy to the War of Independence and retrospectively to the 1916 Rising. No other "war" since then has had that legitimacy.

Listen to yourself man ffs - the 1916 Rising was honoured by having retrospective legitimacy bestowed on it at a later date.  Aye, that's a load of Blueshirt bollox, designed simply to reconcile modern liberal conscience and values with an unseemly violent past. Well if that's what's needed to hold your head high around polite West Brit dinner parties these days I'm glad of the unbroken northern lineage that tells us that the legitimacy of the 1916 Rising was based on foreign occupation and nothing else. James Connolly would have laughed you out of the GPO.

Well done, Donagh. You managed to get both stock provo insults into that little tirade.

The incidence of "blueshirt" and "West Brit" in provo rants is always inversely proportional to how well the argument is going.

QuoteIn January 1919 Dáil Éireann, representing a clear majority of the Irish people, adopted a Declaration of Independence. That Declaration gave clear democratic legitimacy to the War of Independence.

Armed action in this country after that period has never had democratic legitimacy.

Or before it. 

Take it down from the mast...

Quote from: Hardy on November 29, 2007, 05:59:02 PM
Well done, Donagh. You managed to get both stock provo insults into that little tirade.

The incidence of "blueshirt" and "West Brit" in provo rants is always inversely proportional to how well the argument is going.

And directly proportional to Hardyarse's appearances on a thread. I thought you had said your last already?

I changed my mind. Now I've changed it again. You're doing fine by yourself!

Don't slam the door on your way out

Quote from: Donagh on November 29, 2007, 04:44:42 PM

I'm glad of the unbroken northern lineage that tells us that the legitimacy of the 1916 Rising was based on foreign occupation and nothing else.

....the unbroken northern lineage?

Which lineage is that, Donagh?

The unbroken lineage that led to the Stickies? Or the one that led to the Provos? Or the unbroken lineage that gave us the INLA or the IPLO or the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA?

Who are the current guardians of the lineage?

Quote from: Donagh on November 29, 2007, 12:56:46 PM
[
That's grand Hardy, but you're missing one crucial fact, that 99% of the population had never heard of the IRA when they went to the polls in 1918,

It would have been difficult for them as I understand the term " Irish Republican Army" only came into usage after the first ever democratically elected Irish Parliament met in January 1919 to establish the Republic .
Sadly the British use of Violence and Terror prevented the Republic from ever getting established properly and we ended up settling for half a loaf.
Now that the Brits have agreed to only over rule the 6 Nth Eastern Counties till a majority of the locals see sense and say otherwise - the future of Ireland has to be worked out by the 5.8 million people who live here.
We cant turn the clock back to 1919 and start again just as Unionists cant go back to 1967 and continue as always.
So let's continue to remember the heroes of the past but let's live in the present and look to the future.

Quote from: his holiness nb on November 29, 2007, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on November 29, 2007, 02:25:29 PM
Following the Good Friday Agreement, when the Dail recognised British Rule in NI, dropped their "demand" and agreed to amend the Constitution to make Irish Unity a mere aspiration.

Oh, and the Shinners in the North [sic] finally recognised and accepted Partition, by agreeing to participate in the (British administered) Government of Northern Ireland, located in the "English Garrison" at Stormont.

Eighty-odd years and some thousands of lives late, but "better late than never", as the saying goes.  :(

EG, you would almost convince someone that SF have given up their goals of a united ireland   :D :D :D

No, not their goals, just their principles (not a complaint, btw)

"Not one ounce (of cashmere in my designer suit), or not one round (of golf, with my new-found friends on the Hill) will we give up, until Ireland is free (of VAT on Diesel)"

Quote from: The Hill is Blue on November 29, 2007, 07:46:36 PM

....the unbroken northern lineage?

Which lineage is that, Donagh?

The unbroken lineage that led to the Stickies? Or the one that led to the Provos? Or the unbroken lineage that gave us the INLA or the IPLO or the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA?

The one that stretches from my great grandfather to my father. All men who participated in armed insurrection and did time in British gaols for republican activities, but didn't need some wishy washy contrived Blueshirt bollox to bestow legitimacy on their actions.

Quote from: The Hill is Blue on November 29, 2007, 07:46:36 PM
Who are the current guardians of the lineage?

Anyone still pledged to and working for the establishment of the Irish Republic.

Quote from: Donagh on November 30, 2007, 08:48:39 AM

Quote from: The Hill is Blue on November 29, 2007, 07:46:36 PM
Who are the current guardians of the lineage?

Anyone still pledged to and working for the establishment of the Irish Republic.

Thank you Donagh ...... then that includes me.

Quote from: Hardy on November 29, 2007, 03:37:44 PM
If you're happy to let that be your last word, I have nothing to add. Let the people decide this one too, including who is the bearer of the chip.

(Dubnut - I was only joking, in case you've taken the hump).

Not at all Hardy I was offline, although just before the above I was wording a strongly written reply  ;)

I dont like the word "blueshirt" and dont use it.
Although people "defending" the IRA, or some aspects of them hardly constitutes provo "propaganda".
Its all about opinions on here, not propaganda.

Quote from: Evil Genius on November 30, 2007, 12:58:44 AM
EG, you would almost convince someone that SF have given up their goals of a united ireland   :D :D :D

No, not their goals, just their principles (not a complaint, btw)

"Not one ounce (of cashmere in my designer suit), or not one round (of golf, with my new-found friends on the Hill) will we give up, until Ireland is free (of VAT on Diesel)"
[/quote]

So they turn their back on violence and look to achieve their aims through peaceful methods, as this seems the most likely way to get a united ireland currently, and this is somehow giving up their principles??

Jesus I thought going the peaceful route was what everyone wanted, but you use it to ridicule them?

Makes absolutely no sense EG. They stick with violence and you calll them terrorists, they give up the violence and talk and you make fun for this reason.
You really dont like republicans at all do you?

As regards support for the IRA in the Occupied Six Counties, from the late sixties through the early seventies, support among the Nationalist population would have been very high, as the violence intensified in the seventies, it fell off, only to increase again in the aftermath of the hungerstrikes.
From the mid eighties support for the armed struggle has slowly diminished amongst Northern Nationalists/Republicans, only to be replaced by a growing support for Sinn Fein and a path along a more political route.
Also support for the IRA and the armed struggle was quite high in the Free State during the early years as the people in the 26 saw the pogroms and discrimination and violence suffered by Catholics in the North.

Quote from: his holiness nb on November 30, 2007, 09:25:25 AM
So they turn their back on violence and look to achieve their aims through peaceful methods, as this seems the most likely way to get a united ireland currently, and this is somehow giving up their principles??

Jesus I thought going the peaceful route was what everyone wanted, but you use it to ridicule them?

Makes absolutely no sense EG. They stick with violence and you calll them terrorists, they give up the violence and talk and you make fun for this reason.
You really dont like republicans at all do you?

No contradiction in my stance, whatever. As I understand it, SF have always pledged to work towards a United Ireland, by both political means, and by paramilitary means (i.e. through the IRA). As such, the former has always involved refusing to recognise Partition and the various Governments in Dublin, Belfast and Dublin which recognise or administer it, as well as the organs of state (Police, Security Forces, Courts etc) which they see as upholding Partition.

Fair enough. But on the political front, whatever happened to the abstentionist policy which resulted, whereby they didn't even contest elections to those bodies? And when they did start to contest elections, why did they change their policy of not taking their seats? More to the point, how does playing an active part in the clearly partitionist Stormont administration square with their previous determination to smash the place entirely? Or their recognition of the Courts, and endorsement/support of the PSNI?

I could just understand if such actions were part of a process which was clearly designed and planned to lead towards a British withdrawal etc.  However, the whole GFA etc is constructed upon the principle of consent i.e. the consent of a majority of the people of NI. So while SF has never publicly accepted the right of just a section of the people of Ireland to prevent or delay unity, they are actively participating in a settlement which allows the NI population only to do just that.

Now don't get me wrong, I welcome their conversion to what I see as being a democratic settlement. But no-one can persuade me that it didn't require a breathtaking about-face on the part of SF, including a complete abandonment of their long held and fundamental principles, whether publicly acknowledged by them or not.

As for their simultaneous abandonment of their paramilitary campaign towards a United Ireland, of course I welcome that (even more). But that is/was a matter of pragmatism on their part, not a shift of principle, since they have never renounced their "right" to use "armed struggle" should the need arise, nor shown any sincere regret for what I personally consider to have been a totally unjustified campaign.

P.S. Whilst I may disagree with Republicans, that does not give me the right to dislike them, nor do I. However, I loathe those Republicans who also supported or participated in what they call the "armed struggle". Just like I loathe those Loyalists [sic] who supported and participated in their version of "armed struggle", as well.

Quote from: Donagh on November 29, 2007, 11:17:27 AM
Well there you go. On the one hand we have a bunch of men with weapons, lying in wait to ambush a police patrol. They open up on the police and afterwards go around and execute the presumably unarmed wounded as they lie helpless on the ground. Before they've even finished for the day, they kidnap another, shoot him dead and 'disappear' his body into a bog for years to come, leaving the family without a grave to visit. Then we have the brutal IRA murderers from 50 years later and well dare they claim the republican mantel without first gaining approval from our great moral Blueshirt (or is it Sky Blue, Hill is Blue, Hardy) majority as they sit it out and pass judgement on their countrymen from the safety of their Free State.

How come it's OK to murder police officers in cold blood in 1997, but it's wrong to attempt the same in 2007?

How come it was OK to force Orange bigots down the Garvaghy Road in 1997 but it's not anymore? ;)

Rossfan, are you talking about the Orange Order? the  same Orange Order an English Judge in 2004 ruled that it was fair comment to label them sectarian, anti- catholic and protestant supremacist group?
The same Orange Order that completly dominated the governing Unionist Party policies in NI.?

Quote from: Main Street on December 02, 2007, 09:27:56 PM
Rossfan, are you talking about the Orange Order? the  same Orange Order an English Judge in 2004 ruled that it was fair comment to label them sectarian, anti- catholic and protestant supremacist group?
The same Orange Order that completly dominated the governing Unionist Party policies in NI.?

Indeed. i'm not aware of any other Orange Order.

Erm...can someone explain to me how we've suddenly jumped to the Orange Order? :-\

QuoteErm...can someone explain to me how we've suddenly jumped to the Orange Order?

MW with your Q, it looks like the thread has moved to asking any old dumb question.

Was Clark, when Prime Minister, saying below he was proud to be sectarian, a protestant supremacist and an anti catholic?
"Indeed, I am proud to be in the (Orange) Order and those criticising it know nothing about it" - Major James D. Chichester Clark, Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, in 1969.

Quote from: Main Street on December 03, 2007, 12:34:47 PM

QuoteErm...can someone explain to me how we've suddenly jumped to the Orange Order?

MW with your Q, it looks like the thread has moved to asking any old dumb question.

I didn't realise the point I was making was all that subtle, but evidently it was too subtle for your understanding.

I'll try to break it down for you.

This thread headed in the direction of Donagh (and others) asking how a Blueshirt could commemorate and (retrospecrively) support the actions of the IRA during the Anglo-Irish War given that they opposed the actions of the Provisional IRA during the Troubles. Donagh talked of a line of continuity and of attacks of a similar nature being carried out in both periods.

My point being, surely those who make this argument leave themselves open to the question of why they oppose the same actions now that they might have seen as legitimate ten, fifteen or twenty years ago.

Quote from: Main Street on December 03, 2007, 12:34:47 PM

QuoteErm...can someone explain to me how we've suddenly jumped to the Orange Order?

MW with your Q, it looks like the thread has moved to asking any old dumb question.

Was Clark, when Prime Minister, saying below he was proud to be sectarian, a protestant supremacist and an anti catholic?
"Indeed, I am proud to be in the (Orange) Order and those criticising it know nothing about it" - Major James D. Chichester Clark, Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, in 1969.

Quite the most pathetic attempt at irrelevant "whataboutery" this Board has seen for a while - and that's saying something! If you want to start a thread on the OO and/or Chichester Clark, go ahead. I might even be tempted to reply...

P.S. It was actually Rossfan, and his "dumb question" about Garvaghy etc, who moved this thread way off topic. Still, why miss a chance to blame it on MW? After all, "themmuns" is responsible for everything... ::)

Quote from: MW on December 03, 2007, 01:07:01 PM

Quote from: Main Street on December 03, 2007, 12:34:47 PM

QuoteErm...can someone explain to me how we've suddenly jumped to the Orange Order?

MW with your Q, it looks like the thread has moved to asking any old dumb question.

This thread headed in the direction of Donagh (and others) asking how a Blueshirt could commemorate and (retrospecrively) support the actions of the IRA during the Anglo-Irish War given that they opposed the actions of the Provisional IRA during the Troubles. Donagh talked of a line of continuity and of attacks of a similar nature being carried out in both periods.

My point being, surely those who make this argument leave themselves open to the question of why they oppose the same actions now that they might have seen as legitimate ten, fifteen or twenty years ago.

In Donagh's case, there is a simple explanation for this seeming inconsistency: Connolly House says so, so it must be so. I'm surprised you need to ask... ;)

To me the idea that the leaders in 1916 required a "democratic mandate" is bizarre, surely the conflict began with the Anglo-Norman Invasion and subsequent conquests? This conflict ebbed and flowed over the centuries and when did resisting this lose its legitimacy or more correctly when did the conquest of Ireland gain legitimacy?

The vote for the treaty by the 2nd Dáil could be argued to have ended the conflict and certainly standard histories of the period would have us believe that the 1922 election – which has been billed as a referendum on the treaty – was popular endorsement of the treaty. However looking more closely at it a different picture emerges, the election was first off a 26 county only affair yet was pronouncing on the future of the island and so undermines its mandate. Also, the election was fought (up to the day before polling) on the basis of the Collins-DeVelara Pact which was to be an agreed platform with the Free State Constitution to have been published in advance to allow discussion on it. Collins repudiated it the day before the poll and only published the constitution on the day of the poll, allowing no time for debate or even for voters to reflect on this new situation. Effectively Collins had made the basis on which the election had been fought a sham. His actions were in contravention of what had been passed by the Dáil on the 2nd of March when it stated
"That in the meantime no Parliamentary Election shall be held, and that when held the constitution of the Saorstát in its final form shall be presented at the same time as the Articles of Agreement."

The agreement was published in May but the constitution was not until the day of the election in September! The legitimacy of mandidate that Collins used to launch the civil was was dubious at best.


In 1979, Michael Gallagher's study "The "Pact" General Election of 1922"  examines the results and shows that over 70 per cent of anti-treatyite transfers went to treatyite
panel candidates when there were no more anti-treatyites left to vote for. Treatyites reciprocated generously in equal measure.
John Regan in his work, "Southern Irish Nationalism as a historical problem" says,

Transfers between panel candidates indicate significant voter solidarity on the issue of coalition government which, in the absence of any superior authority, undermines interpretations suggesting a mandate for the treaty, treatyites, the Provisional government, or any democratic premise for the Civil War.
From the available evidence, it can be concluded correctly that a significant, but undeterminable, proportion of panel votes, and perhaps even a majority, were cast supporting the pact's obligation to form a coalition.

Accepting the primacy of transfer patterns over any other available evidence, it is unsound to interpret the combined pro-treaty panel and non-panel vote as a majority endorsing the Provisional government. Precisely what voters intended remains a matter for conjecture.
To extrapolate a mandate for anything, however, least of all a war, imposes impossible demands on both evidence and definitions of democracy. Such, however, is the exacting requirement of the democratic state formation thesis. Of equal importance is the way in which Gallagher's main conclusions have been rejected by historians without satisfactory refutation.

Quote from: MW on December 03, 2007, 01:07:01 PM

Quote from: Main Street on December 03, 2007, 12:34:47 PM

QuoteErm...can someone explain to me how we've suddenly jumped to the Orange Order?

MW with your Q, it looks like the thread has moved to asking any old dumb question.

I didn't realise the point I was making was all that subtle, but evidently it was too subtle for your understanding.

I'll try to break it down for you.

This thread headed in the direction of Donagh (and others) asking how a Blueshirt could commemorate and (retrospecrively) support the actions of the IRA during the Anglo-Irish War given that they opposed the actions of the Provisional IRA during the Troubles. Donagh talked of a line of continuity and of attacks of a similar nature being carried out in both periods.

My point being, surely those who make this argument leave themselves open to the question of why they oppose the same actions now that they might have seen as legitimate ten, fifteen or twenty years ago.

You must be  joking trying to explain your question, it´s as an obvious a hob nail boot. 

Quote from: Donagh on November 30, 2007, 08:48:39 AM

Anyone still pledged to and working for the establishment of the Irish Republic.

Are the Omagh bombers part of that lineage?

Quote from: scalder on December 03, 2007, 01:46:40 PM
Accepting the primacy of transfer patterns over any other available evidence, it is unsound to interpret the combined pro-treaty panel and non-panel vote as a majority endorsing the Provisional government. Precisely what voters intended remains a matter for conjecture.
To extrapolate a mandate for anything, however, least of all a war, imposes impossible demands on both evidence and definitions of democracy. Such, however, is the exacting requirement of the democratic state formation thesis. Of equal importance is the way in which Gallagher's main conclusions have been rejected by historians without satisfactory refutation.

So Scalder to cut to the chase, I take it that you say pro treatyites claim they had a mandate from the 1922 election but another interpretation/examination of the election voting patterns indicate mixed sentiments from the voting public and nothing can be claimed with any certainty.
That would be a hard one to sell to a Blueshirt :)
It's safe to say that the Orange Order dominated Stormont Government was hated and regarded as oppressive.
The IRA had claimed a moral right to fight against both occupation and oppression. Afair a mandate from the majority was never a claim nor a requirement. Has it ever been a requirement in our history? I don´t think so.

The French Resistance in WW2 did not have a democratic mandate nor had they sought one would they have got one.
What were the estimates of their popular support, less that 10%?

So how many people does it take to give authority to an armed campaign? (I'll leave organised crime in the guise of patriotism out of it for now). Can I decide in the morning that I'm the anointed successor to the generations who opposed oppression, announce myself as "working for the establishment of the Irish republic" (a la the Continuity IRA or the Omagh bombers, as somebody brought up) and claim the moral right to target representatives of the people or their "collaborators" in either state (or statelet) for execution as I see fit? What makes the provos right and the Real IRA wrong? If you suggest it's the outcome of the GFA referendum, then I refer you to the numerous elections, north and south, during the troubles that utterly rejected SF.

What would be the position of those who propose the legitimacy of the provo campaign on the basis of some undefined moral authority, if I decided that Martin McGuinness had betrayed the cause and murdered him in pursuit of my task of "working for the establishment of the Irish republic". How could they condemn me? How can his position as Deputy First Minister in a British administration be seen as furthering the establishment of the Irish republic? Surely I would have as much moral authority in such an action as the provos had for theirs, by the logic of those who seem to be suggesting that no authority, other than the conviction that you're right, is required for waging war?

Yes I'm saying that the actual figures point to the conclusion that people in 1922 voted for coalition and not for the treaty, Collins pulled the rug on this coalition and then claimed he had a mandate for the treaty and for war – it could be argued that he pulled off a Coup, as his actions were in contravention of the will of the 2nd Dáil, which he ignored and set up the "3rd Dáil."
Funny thing though, regarding the north we know that neither Collins or the anti treaty side accepted that the war was over in that part of Ireland and Collins continued to arm and work with the northern army (mostly anti treaty!).

Hardy you ask an interesting question and its something I've wrestled with, for example does one generation, i.e. this generation have the right to, borrowing a phrase from Parnell, to "set the boundary to the march of a nation" – can we accept the border and say now it's legitimate when generations have strived for Irish independence. Then again we can't remain trapped by the past either.

Interesting point regarding the French resistance, if Nazi occupation had not ended in 1945 the when would their resistance have ceased to be legitimate, 10 years, 100 years?

Quote from: scalder on December 04, 2007, 10:25:09 AM
Hardy you ask an interesting question and its something I've wrestled with, for example does one generation, i.e. this generation have the right to, borrowing a phrase from Parnell, to "set the boundary to the march of a nation" – can we accept the border and say now it's legitimate when generations have strived for Irish independence. Then again we can't remain trapped by the past either.

The very crux of this (and just about every other Irish) issue! And I personally have come firmly to believe that Ireland's Curse is not the English/Catholicism/poverty/famine etc, rather, it is our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place, whilst we deal with the Present.

Of course it is nice if our forefathers did great things and we should be proud of that, but can we really claim "credit" for that, or be bound by them? Do the "great deeds" of ancestors long dead give someone the right to dictate to the people around him? And if so, if it should turn out that our ancestors were rogues, does that mean we should be ashamed, and apologise on their behalf? And who decides whether these people really were heroes or rogues, terrorists or freedom fighters?

Which is why all the never-ending debate - in this case, about the "legitimacy" or otherwise of the 2nd or 3rd Dail etc - is so much bollox. Nor is it mere academic bollox, to be debated in dusty Professor's Rooms in ancient Universities etc. Rather, it is much more dangerous than that that, since it allows anyone involved to claim a spurious legitmacy - in this case, all of the "pre-Ceasefire" IRA, the "cessation" IRA, the "Real" IRA and the "Continuity" IRA etc - to justify their actions, when it should be patently obvious that if one group is "right", then the other(s) must be "wrong".  ::)

Quite simply, those Irish people who point to Historic Ireland to "justify" their actions, whether it be 1690 or 1916, are the real reason why so much of Modern Ireland is so fucked up. In the end, the land belongs to the people who llive on it and its destiny should be decided by those self-same people, between themselves. And to do so, we must all take responsibility for our own actions when they go wrong, as well as expecting recognition for when they turn out right.

Meanwhile, our History shold be assigned to its rightful place - our history books, libraries and museums, to be consulted for its own sake, or as a guide to our present, but never as a ball and chain to constrict our future.

Here endeth the Lesson for Today... ;)

Quote from: Hardy on December 03, 2007, 11:56:27 PM
So how many people does it take to give authority to an armed campaign? (I'll leave organised crime in the guise of patriotism out of it for now). Can I decide in the morning that I'm the anointed successor to the generations who opposed oppression, announce myself as "working for the establishment of the Irish republic" (a la the Continuity IRA or the Omagh bombers, as somebody brought up) and claim the moral right to target representatives of the people or their "collaborators" in either state (or statelet) for execution as I see fit? What makes the provos right and the Real IRA wrong? If you suggest it's the outcome of the GFA referendum, then I refer you to the numerous elections, north and south, during the troubles that utterly rejected SF.

What would be the position of those who propose the legitimacy of the provo campaign on the basis of some undefined moral authority, if I decided that Martin McGuinness had betrayed the cause and murdered him in pursuit of my task of "working for the establishment of the Irish republic". How could they condemn me? How can his position as Deputy First Minister in a British administration be seen as furthering the establishment of the Irish republic? Surely I would have as much moral authority in such an action as the provos had for theirs, by the logic of those who seem to be suggesting that no authority, other than the conviction that you're right, is required for waging war?

Hardy I don´t know who you are asking these questions from. You are really into right and wrong issues.
I´d suggest you do some research into history.
In 1972 the IRA demands at talks between them and the Labour Gov to end armed conflict
were
a bullish British declaration of withdrawl
British Army back to bases
Political prisoners released

1n the GFA agreement after some 25 years later of armed conflict
2 of those conditions have been met and and a satisfactory framework to replace the British withdrawl demand.

Anybody can claim a self rightuos moral authority of a sell out to pure republican ideals and  find that a justification for violent actions. They will not succeed because they do have not the discipline, a modicum of popular support nor have the basic conditions that create that popular support - military occupation and repression.

I was simply asking a general question, of nobody in particular. What authority is required to justify waging war? I posed a set of simplistic hypothetical questions by way of illustration of the conundrum. Scalder posed some interesting questions to ponder in return.

I can't see how your post addresses the question(s) I posed at all. Here's a more direct question - under what authority were the IRA acting from the start of the troubles to 1998?

QuoteYou are really into right and wrong issues.

I have no idea what to make of that. I thought a concern with right vs. wrong that was one of the distinguishing features of the human race.

(Good post, Evil Genius).

Quote from: Main Street on December 03, 2007, 06:38:36 PM

Quote from: MW on December 03, 2007, 01:07:01 PM

Quote from: Main Street on December 03, 2007, 12:34:47 PM

QuoteErm...can someone explain to me how we've suddenly jumped to the Orange Order?

MW with your Q, it looks like the thread has moved to asking any old dumb question.

I didn't realise the point I was making was all that subtle, but evidently it was too subtle for your understanding.

I'll try to break it down for you.

This thread headed in the direction of Donagh (and others) asking how a Blueshirt could commemorate and (retrospecrively) support the actions of the IRA during the Anglo-Irish War given that they opposed the actions of the Provisional IRA during the Troubles. Donagh talked of a line of continuity and of attacks of a similar nature being carried out in both periods.

My point being, surely those who make this argument leave themselves open to the question of why they oppose the same actions now that they might have seen as legitimate ten, fifteen or twenty years ago.

You must be  joking trying to explain your question, it´s as an obvious a hob nail boot. 

Yes, I thought my question was pretty obvious, you however didn't seem to get the point of it.

Quote from: Hardy on December 04, 2007, 12:45:33 PM
I can't see how your post addresses the question(s) I posed at all. Here's a more direct question - under what authority were the IRA acting from the start of the troubles to 1998?

I replied that you should do some research
The IRA's justification for war has been well documented. For example check out Tim Pat Coogan's dissertation on the Green Book :)
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/docs/coogan/coogan93.htm (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/docs/coogan/coogan93.htm)
Unless of course you are fishing for personal opinions?

QuoteI have no idea what to make of that. I thought a concern with right vs. wrong that was one of the distinguishing features of the human race.

Maybe as you see it.
Morality issues of right v wrong was my stock answer in English class in first year secondary school.
Beware of people who think they are right with God on their side :)

Quote from: Main Street on December 04, 2007, 02:07:00 PM
The IRA's justification for war has been well documented. For example check out Tim Pat Coogan's dissertation on the Green Book :)
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/docs/coogan/coogan93.htm (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/docs/coogan/coogan93.htm)
Unless of course you are fishing for personal opinions?

Fishing? I'm discussing, questioning. Forgive the hackneyed phrase, but isn't this a discussion forum? Of course I'm asking for personal opinions. I hardly expected to find holy writ on this site.

QuoteI have no idea what to make of that. I thought a concern with right vs. wrong that was one of the distinguishing features of the human race.

QuoteMaybe as you see it.
Morality issues of right v wrong was my stock answer in English class in first year secondary school.

I don't know what that means, so I can't respond.

Quote
Beware of people who think they are right with God on their side :)

Well, I agree with the second part of that sentence. As for the first part, don't we all think we're right or do you think you're wrong?

Quote from: Main Street on December 03, 2007, 10:08:41 PM

The IRA had claimed a moral right to fight against both occupation and oppression. Afair a mandate from the majority was never a claim nor a requirement. Has it ever been a requirement in our history? I don´t think so.

This "occupation" of which you speak - do you mean the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom?

Those who led the Provo mass murder campaign and are now in positions of political responsibility have accepted and recognised :

1 - "the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland"
2 - "while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people"
3 - "the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British" (i.e. the majority of people in Northern Ireland are British)
4 - that the following should be included in a Northern Ireland Act, passed by the UK Parliament: "It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1"
5 - that the following should be included in the Irish republic's constitution: "a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island"
6 - that there would be a Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, and that "The Westminster Parliament['s]...power to make legislation for Northern Ireland would remain unaffected"
7 - "the reduction of the numbers and role of the Armed Forces deployed in Northern Ireland to levels compatible with a normal peaceful society"


Occupation?

The Provos claimed the right to perpetrate violence and mass murder until there was a united Ireland, until the Union was ended and there were no more Northern Ireland institutions, and no "British presence". Indeed they actually claimed they were the sole legitimate government of the island of Ireland.

Even in the era of the peace process they claimed a prerequisite for an agreement was the end of the 'unionist veto' - i.e. the principle of consent by the people of Northern Ireland.

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 11:54:00 AM
The very crux of this (and just about every other Irish) issue! And I personally have come firmly to believe that Ireland's Curse is not the English/Catholicism/poverty/famine etc, rather, it is our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place, whilst we deal with the Present.

EG, not having a go here, but given that you are a Northern Unionist, and given the current status of Northern Ireland, the above is not a bit surprising.
Its one "sides" standard viewpoint on the situation.

Its obvious too that Nationalists would disagree with this viewpoint.

Quote from: his holiness nb on December 04, 2007, 02:29:04 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 11:54:00 AM
The very crux of this (and just about every other Irish) issue! And I personally have come firmly to believe that Ireland's Curse is not the English/Catholicism/poverty/famine etc, rather, it is our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place, whilst we deal with the Present.

EG, not having a go here, but given that you are a Northern Unionist, and given the current status of Northern Ireland, the above is not a bit surprising.
Its one "sides" standard viewpoint on the situation.

Its obvious too that Nationalists would disagree with this viewpoint.

For someone who is "not having a go", why do you make me feel as if I'm being "got at"?  ;)

When I ascribed our recent/present problems in Ireland to "our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place" I made no distinction between those Irish people who are Unionist or those who are Nationalist. (I had hoped including "1690" alongside "1916" was a clue).

My contention was that entirely irrespective of our History, with all its conflicting interpretations, "In the end, the land belongs to the people who llive on it and its destiny should be decided by those self-same people, between themselves. And to do so, all must take responsibility for their own actions when they go wrong, as well as expecting recognition for when they turn out right"

Do you disagree with that? If so, I'd be interested to hear why. In particular, I'd like to know why an Irish Nationalist would take greater exception than someone of a different political affinity (or none).

I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should deal with the here, now and future.  But it is easier for those to whom history has been kind/favourable/favoured to do so - that's what I take holiness's statement to mean. 

Quote from: MW on December 04, 2007, 02:26:39 PM

Quote from: Main Street on December 03, 2007, 10:08:41 PM

The IRA had claimed a moral right to fight against both occupation and oppression. Afair a mandate from the majority was never a claim nor a requirement. Has it ever been a requirement in our history? I don´t think so.

This "occupation" of which you speak - do you mean the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom?

In this context the occupation is referring to the British Army occupation.
As in earlier mentioned French Resistance justification  against occupied forces.

Quote from: Billys Boots on December 04, 2007, 02:59:36 PM
I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should deal with the here, now and future.  But it is easier for those to whom history has been kind/favourable/favoured to do so - that's what I take holiness's statement to mean. 

If that is Holiness'es explanation, then he is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

Are Gerry Adams and John Hume entitled to extract some sort of extra allowances when dealing with their Unionist counterparts at Stormont, on the basis that those counterparts had ancestors who displaced their (Adams and Hume) own ancestors from their land four hundred years ago? Hardly, because if that is the conclusion to be drawn, then people with good Gaelic surnames like (Ken) McGuinness must just as easily be entitled to extra consideration from the descendants of people with solid Planter names like, ahem, Hume and Adams...

If I have to sit down and negotiate with you the political settlement which should prevail on this island, I will make absolutely no apology whatever for any advantage which you deem some of my long-dead ancestors to have had, nor can I expect some sort of leniency for any grievance on their part which I might consider they suffered at the hands of your ancestors.

Moreover, if I feel you (not your ancestor) have done or said something wrong, I will ask you to account for it - just as you surely must demand of me, should you consider I have said or done the same.

Ultimately, everyone can point to some grievance in their past and no-one can gainsay them, since these events occurred beyond anyones living memory. Therefore, to engage in some sort of "Historic Mopery Bingo" as a basis for determining how we should try to get along in the here and now is absolutely f**king bonkers - as my Great-Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather always used to say... ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
For someone who is "not having a go", why do you make me feel as if I'm being "got at"?  ;)

Sorry EG, no idea what you are on about here.

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
When I ascribed our recent/present problems in Ireland to "our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place" I made no distinction between those Irish people who are Unionist or those who are Nationalist. (I had hoped including "1690" alongside "1916" was a clue).

I know that EG, but by forgetting the past and dealing with the present as it is now, who does the current situation suit best, nationalists or unionists?
I'll give you a clue, NI is currently part of the "Union".
So my point that your thoughts on how things should be dealt with co-incides with the general unionist idea stands.

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
My contention was that entirely irrespective of our History, with all its conflicting interpretations, "In the end, the land belongs to the people who llive on it and its destiny should be decided by those self-same people, between themselves. And to do so, all must take responsibility for their own actions when they go wrong, as well as expecting recognition for when they turn out right"
Do you disagree with that? If so, I'd be interested to hear why. In particular, I'd like to know why an Irish Nationalist would take greater exception than someone of a different political affinity (or none).

I dont disagree with that at all. And am very curious as to how you got the inclination I did from my last post  ??? But some would argue that the land does not belong to the people who live on it at all, but instead belongs to Britain. A seperate land to many on this land of Ireland.

As you know EG, its not as black and white as you might like to think, otherwise things would have been sorted out a long long time ago.

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 03:43:00 PM

Quote from: Billys Boots on December 04, 2007, 02:59:36 PM
I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should deal with the here, now and future.  But it is easier for those to whom history has been kind/favourable/favoured to do so - that's what I take holiness's statement to mean. 

If that is Holiness'es explanation, then he is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

Missing your point????
I was making a point based on your comment EG.

Quote from: his holiness nb on December 04, 2007, 03:46:59 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
When I ascribed our recent/present problems in Ireland to "our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place" I made no distinction between those Irish people who are Unionist or those who are Nationalist. (I had hoped including "1690" alongside "1916" was a clue).

I know that EG, but by forgetting the past and dealing with the present as it is now, who does the current situation suit best, nationalists or unionists?
I'll give you a clue, NI is currently part of the "Union".
So my point that your thoughts on how things should be dealt with co-incides with the general unionist idea stands.

And it is currently part of the Union precisely because a majority of the people who live here want it to be so, as recognised by over 90% of the people of this island, North and South, Unionist and Nationalist (theGFA, in case you'd forgotten). The fact that it was originally part of the Union due to the actions of people who died centuries ago is neither here nor there - it doesn't give me the right to discriminate against those who disagree today, nor does it allow those who disagree to ignore the rights of the majority. By exactly the same token, should a majority of the people of NI ever decide that they wish the Union to end, there can be no appeal by aggrieved Unionists to history (for example, to re-draw the border around 4 counties, instead of the six which were selected in the historical precedent of 1921)

Quote from: his holiness nb on December 04, 2007, 03:46:59 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
My contention was that entirely irrespective of our History, with all its conflicting interpretations, "In the end, the land belongs to the people who llive on it and its destiny should be decided by those self-same people, between themselves. And to do so, all must take responsibility for their own actions when they go wrong, as well as expecting recognition for when they turn out right"
Do you disagree with that? If so, I'd be interested to hear why. In particular, I'd like to know why an Irish Nationalist would take greater exception than someone of a different political affinity (or none).

I dont disagree with that at all. And am very curious as to how you got the inclination I did from my last post  ??? But some would argue that the land does not belong to the people who live on it at all, but instead belongs to Britain. A seperate land to many on this land of Ireland.

"Some would argue" - and some would be wrong, since there is no place for "whataboutery" or irrelevance in my thesis. Try again.

Quote from: his holiness nb on December 04, 2007, 03:46:59 PM
As you know EG, its not as black and white as you might like to think, otherwise things would have been sorted out a long long time ago.

I never said that the present day problems which fall to be resolved by our present day politicians are "black and white". But they will be a hell of a sight less (intractably) grey if we stop harping on about grievances from the past which weren't even suffered by us. Or haven't we all got enough grievances from the here-and-now to be going on with?  :o

Quote from: his holiness nb on December 04, 2007, 03:49:13 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 03:43:00 PM

Quote from: Billys Boots on December 04, 2007, 02:59:36 PM
I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should deal with the here, now and future.  But it is easier for those to whom history has been kind/favourable/favoured to do so - that's what I take holiness's statement to mean. 

If that is Holiness'es explanation, then he is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

Missing your point????
I was making a point based on your comment EG.

(Assuming that Billy has correctly characterised your point), I simply don't care if you consider that your ancestors may have been hard done by by mine. They (my ancestors) are not my responsibility. Otherwise, if we are all to be held to account for the words and deeds of people long-dead, the logical conclusion must be that if my great-great-great grandfather threw your great-great-grandfather off his land, then that must give you the right to turn round and evict me. And I'll be fucked if I'm going to stand for that, nor I suggest, should you, since none of us knows what skeletons might be found in our cupboards if a strong enough light were shone inside.

We are were we are. Deal with it.

Quote from: Main Street on December 04, 2007, 03:13:46 PM

Quote from: MW on December 04, 2007, 02:26:39 PM

Quote from: Main Street on December 03, 2007, 10:08:41 PM

The IRA had claimed a moral right to fight against both occupation and oppression. Afair a mandate from the majority was never a claim nor a requirement. Has it ever been a requirement in our history? I don´t think so.

This "occupation" of which you speak - do you mean the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom?

In this context the occupation is referring to the British Army occupation.

When did this "occupation" begin? And when did it end?

Those who were prominent in the Provisional republican movement accepted that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom until a majority say otherwise. The British Army is of course the army of the United Kingdom. And the majority of people in Northern Ireland are British.

Quote from: MW on December 04, 2007, 04:20:45 PM
Those who were prominent in the Provisional republican movement accepted that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom until a majority say otherwise. The British Army is of course the army of the United Kingdom. And the majority of people in Northern Ireland are British.

I think you'll find that no representatives of "the Provisional republican movement" signed the GFA nor was were the articles within officially endorsed by "the Provisional republican movement". What happened was that SF suggested to the rest of the "the Provisional republican movement" that, for now, it presented the best way forward toward their common goals. So, you are incorrect in your assertion that members of the republican movement have accepted the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland statlet or it's position in the UK.

Ok so going back to the French example, if the Germans had only partially withdrawn from France in 1945 but held onto part of it.  This area was as part of their Lebensraum policy settled with people from Germany. These settlers now outnumbered the indigenous population and they claimed the right to be part of Germany.

Would this have been deemed acceptable? Would that that they achieved supremacy in the area by displacing, slaughtering and starving the original inhabitants ok?

Quote from: MW on December 04, 2007, 04:20:45 PM
When did this "occupation" begin? And when did it end?

Are you asking me?
What the feck do you think, I spend my time answering questions ad infinitum.
Go do some reading, get an encyclopedia, use the internet.

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 04:09:17 PM
And it is currently part of the Union precisely because a majority of the people who live here want it to be so, as recognised by over 90% of the people of this island, North and South, Unionist and Nationalist (theGFA, in case you'd forgotten).

In case I'd forgotten?? No need to be a smart arse EG.
Also, 90% of people on this island voted for the GFA, many of whom saw it as the best way to eventually achieve a United Ireland.
90% of people did not WANT it to be part of the Union, there really werent many other options given.

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
"Some would argue" - and some would be wrong, since there is no place for "whataboutery" or irrelevance in my thesis. Try again.

Try what again???? And what the hell is that statement even meant to mean?

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
I never said that the present day problems which fall to be resolved by our present day politicians are "black and white".

I never said you did  ;)

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
But they will be a hell of a sight less (intractably) grey if we stop harping on about grievances from the past which weren't even suffered by us. Or haven't we all got enough grievances from the here-and-now to be going on with?  :o

We need to be very clear about the difference between "harping on" and remembering the past.
Its crucial that we remember whats gone before at this stage, lest we make the same mistakes again.
This means remembering right back to the arrival of the British in Ireland. I'm not saying this should be the only thing taken into account by any means, but history cannot be forgotten and must always be taken into account.

Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

Quotehe is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

I don't think I am.  I was just pointing out that (my interpretation of holiness's statement was) that it was easier for those to/for whom history had 'been good' to deal with the here, now and future under existing conditions than those to whom history had not been as kind.  I might call it disillusionment, you might call it mopery.   ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 04:17:56 PM

Quote from: his holiness nb on December 04, 2007, 03:49:13 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 03:43:00 PM

Quote from: Billys Boots on December 04, 2007, 02:59:36 PM
I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should deal with the here, now and future.  But it is easier for those to whom history has been kind/favourable/favoured to do so - that's what I take holiness's statement to mean. 

If that is Holiness'es explanation, then he is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

Missing your point????
I was making a point based on your comment EG.

(Assuming that Billy has correctly characterised your point), I simply don't care if you consider that your ancestors may have been hard done by by mine. They (my ancestors) are not my responsibility. Otherwise, if we are all to be held to account for the words and deeds of people long-dead, the logical conclusion must be that if my great-great-great grandfather threw your great-great-grandfather off his land, then that must give you the right to turn round and evict me. And I'll be fucked if I'm going to stand for that, nor I suggest, should you, since none of us knows what skeletons might be found in our cupboards if a strong enough light were shone inside.

We are were we are. Deal with it.

You got a whole lot of presumptions from me posting   "EG, not having a go here, but given that you are a Northern Unionist, and given the current status of Northern Ireland, the above is not a bit surprising.
Its one "sides" standard viewpoint on the situation.
Its obvious too that Nationalists would disagree with this viewpoint"

All of a sudden I am saying you should personally be held accountable for the actions of your ancestors?
My point was we shouldnt forget the past, no more, no less  ::)

Quote from: Chrisowc on December 04, 2007, 04:43:29 PM
Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

so is Britain's occupation of Ireland.

Quote from: Billys Boots on December 04, 2007, 04:46:27 PM

Quotehe is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

I don't think I am.  I was just pointing out that (my interpretation of holiness's statement was) that it was easier for those to/for whom history had 'been good' to deal with the here, now and future under existing conditions than those to whom history had not been as kind.  I might call it disillusionment, you might call it mopery.   ::)

That was my point alright Billy. No more, although its been twisted into a whole lot more  ::)
Time to throw the towel in and get out of this one, I didnt bring a packed lunch  ;)

Quote from: behind the wire on December 04, 2007, 04:48:04 PM

Quote from: Chrisowc on December 04, 2007, 04:43:29 PM
Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

so is Britain's occupation of Ireland.

How?

Quote from: Chrisowc on December 04, 2007, 04:55:36 PM

Quote from: behind the wire on December 04, 2007, 04:48:04 PM

Quote from: Chrisowc on December 04, 2007, 04:43:29 PM
Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

so is Britain's occupation of Ireland.

How?

apache ?

Quote from: Chrisowc on December 04, 2007, 04:55:36 PM

Quote from: behind the wire on December 04, 2007, 04:48:04 PM

Quote from: Chrisowc on December 04, 2007, 04:43:29 PM
Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

so is Britain's occupation of Ireland.

How?

Cos I said so!

Quote from: Farrandeelin on December 04, 2007, 05:01:18 PM

Quote from: Chrisowc on December 04, 2007, 04:55:36 PM

Quote from: behind the wire on December 04, 2007, 04:48:04 PM

Quote from: Chrisowc on December 04, 2007, 04:43:29 PM
Scalder

Germany's occupation of France was illegal.

so is Britain's occupation of Ireland.

How?

Cos I said so!

I didnt hear simon saying it ?

Quote from: his holiness nb on December 04, 2007, 04:43:04 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 04:09:17 PM
And it is currently part of the Union precisely because a majority of the people who live here want it to be so, as recognised by over 90% of the people of this island, North and South, Unionist and Nationalist (theGFA, in case you'd forgotten).

In case I'd forgotten?? No need to be a smart arse EG.
Also, 90% of people on this island voted for the GFA, many of whom saw it as the best way to eventually achieve a United Ireland.
90% of people did not WANT it to be part of the Union, there really werent many other options given.

Whether they liked it or not, 90% of the people of Ireland voted for a settlement which recognises that NI is a part of the UK and shall remain so as long as a majority of the people of NI will it so. That's the way it is and unless or until some significant part of that changes drastically, that is the starting point from which we must proceed - not 1968, 1947, 1921, 1916, 1912, 1845, 1801, 1798, 1741, 1690, 1607, 1170 or any other date which you or I might choose to pluck from history.

Quote from: his holiness nb on December 04, 2007, 04:43:04 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
"Some would argue" - and some would be wrong, since there is no place for "whataboutery" or irrelevance in my thesis. Try again.

Try what again???? And what the hell is that statement even meant to mean?

I made my thesis clear. You replied by saying "some would argue" (something different). I don't care if they do, it's just irritating when you gratuitously introduce such irrelevanices into the argument to avoid addressing my point.

Quote from: his holiness nb on December 04, 2007, 04:43:04 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
I never said that the present day problems which fall to be resolved by our present day politicians are "black and white".

I never said you did  ;)

When someone finishes his reply to another poster with the observation that "things aren't black and white", the only logical inference to be drawn is that he is accusing the other of taking a black and white view of things. To reiterate my point, it is precisely because I don't consider (Irish) history to be black and white that causes me to argue that history should not be allowed to define our present day attempts to run our own affairs.

Quote from: his holiness nb on December 04, 2007, 04:43:04 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
But they will be a hell of a sight less (intractably) grey if we stop harping on about grievances from the past which weren't even suffered by us. Or haven't we all got enough grievances from the here-and-now to be going on with?  :o

We need to be very clear about the difference between "harping on" and remembering the past.
Its crucial that we remember whats gone before at this stage, lest we make the same mistakes again.
This means remembering right back to the arrival of the British in Ireland. I'm not saying this should be the only thing taken into account by any means, but history cannot be forgotten and must always be taken into account.

Politicians and Soldiers in Ireland have been "remembering the past" ever since there has been a "past" - and a fat lot of good it has done any of us, since we have continued to "make the same mistakes again" throughout pretty much all that period!

And precisely why should we remember "right back to the arrival of the British in Ireland"? What on earth relevance has an invitation by the King of Leinster (McMorrough) to an Anglo-Welsh Norman of Scandinavian descent (Strongbow) in 1170 to help him out with a quarrel with the King of Connaught (O'Connor) got to do with anything nearly a Millenium later? If we are to take that as a starting point for our deliberations to find a settlement to the problems of Ireland today, then all those who would advocate that it should be a united Ireland are just about fucked, since Ireland was self-evidently anything but united in those days! (Besides,how exactly does anyone under the age of 850 "remember" such events? ???)

Ultimately, whilst we should all be informed of our History, the moment our History starts to inform us is the moment when History should be consigned to the bin.

Quote from: Donagh on December 04, 2007, 04:28:28 PM
I think you'll find that no representatives of "the Provisional republican movement" signed the GFA nor was were the articles within officially endorsed by "the Provisional republican movement". What happened was that SF suggested to the rest of the "the Provisional republican movement" that, for now, it presented the best way forward toward their common goals. So, you are incorrect in your assertion that members of the republican movement have accepted the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland statlet or it's position in the UK.

I now begin to understand why Paisley demanded a photograph, if that's the sort of thing your Masters in Connolly House teach you to say when out on your paper round... :o

Christ I made one simple comment which made perfect sense and get dragged into this  ::)
I get the feeling if I just posted to say "you are great EG" you would try to prove me wrong.  :D

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 06:44:04 PM
Whether they liked it or not, 90% of the people of Ireland voted for a settlement which recognises that NI is a part of the UK and shall remain so as long as a majority of the people of NI will it so. That's the way it is and unless or until some significant part of that changes drastically, that is the starting point from which we must proceed - not 1968, 1947, 1921, 1916, 1912, 1845, 1801, 1798, 1741, 1690, 1607, 1170 or any other date which you or I might choose to pluck from history.

Correct, did I say otherwise?

Good to see "want" is changed to "whether they liked it or not" now. Thats a bit more like it. And a bit more honest.

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 06:44:04 PM
I made my thesis clear. You replied by saying "some would argue" (something different). I don't care if they do, it's just irritating when you gratuitously introduce such irrelevanices into the argument to avoid addressing my point.

You made the point that the land belongs to the people who live in it. I didnt argue with this, but pointed out that some people out there think otherwise.
Hardly "gratuitously introducing irrelevancies into the argument"  ???

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
When someone finishes his reply to another poster with the observation that "things aren't black and white", the only logical inference to be drawn is that he is accusing the other of taking a black and white view of things. To reiterate my point, it is precisely because I don't consider (Irish) history to be black and white that causes me to argue that history should not be allowed to define our present day attempts to run our own affairs.

Jesus christ EG, the only logical conclusion to me saying "things arent black and white" is that I am accusing you of thinking otherwise?
Honest to god EG, its a figure of speech, every comment isnt a dig at yourself  :o

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 06:44:04 PM
Politicians and Soldiers in Ireland have been "remembering the past" ever since there has been a "past" - and a fat lot of good it has done any of us, since we have continued to "make the same mistakes again" throughout pretty much all that period!

EG, a fat lot of good its done us? Well pardon my curiousity but dont we have a ceasefire, paramililitary groups hanging up their boots, Paisley and McGuinness pulling the mickey off each other in stormont?
You would think the IRA and the Brits were still shooting at each other they way you said that  ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 06:44:04 PM
And precisely why should we remember "right back to the arrival of the British in Ireland"? What on earth relevance has an invitation by the King of Leinster (McMorrough) to an Anglo-Welsh Norman of Scandinavian descent (Strongbow) in 1170 to help him out with a quarrel with the King of Connaught (O'Connor) got to do with anything nearly a Millenium later? If we are to take that as a starting point for our deliberations to find a settlement to the problems of Ireland today, then all those who would advocate that it should be a united Ireland are just about fucked, since Ireland was self-evidently anything but united in those days! (Besides,how exactly does anyone under the age of 850 "remember" such events? ???)

Do you twist the fries for McDonalds? I didnt once say we should use it as a starting point for deliberations to find a settlement today. Merely that we should "remember".
Surely its at worst no harm, or at best helpful to know and discuss the full history of ones land? Especially our political representatives who are trying to make new history for it??  ???

EG, I made a simple point about your view today not being surprising. It wasnt in a sneery or nasty way,I just made the point that your view was understandable given your political alliances.
And yet we still get this long drawn out waffle where I have been accused of saying you personally should be held responsible for your ancestors actions and that the events of 1170 should be the starting point for current negotiations, among other things.
I havent said any of this and am dissapointed that you twisted things to suggest this. Your better than that  ;)

Quote from: Evil Genius on December 04, 2007, 06:46:49 PM
I now begin to understand why Paisley demanded a photograph, if that's the sort of thing your Masters in Connolly House teach you to say when out on your paper round... :o

I got my Masters from Queen's not Connolly House where no doubt there are some masters working for their Masters but I doubt any of them are really Masters.

 :D
A unionist who wants to forget the last 800 years and start history from the GFA - there's a surprise.  Unionists being ashamed of their history is really nothing new. 
Eg thinks democracy is when an empire holds a gun to a small nation's head and says vote they way we want or else so it's hardly surprising when he goes on about a referendum that never give people a chance to vote for an united Ireland.

The choice was for or against the Good Friday Agreement.
Most people voted for because what was the alternative to the framework it proposed? - more of the same oul crap as had been put up with since 1921 ?
It's not perfect but at least 95% of people can live with it - and it does NOT maintain a Unionist veto - to do so it would require a majority of UNIONISTS to agree to a change in NEI's status.
In fact it needs only 10% of Unionists to see sense to do so.
In practice there will be a gradual evolution of a new Ireland which will probably end up as a Confederation of some sort with an All Ireland Authority having control over some things and the 6 and 26 Cos having "internal control" of a load of other things. The 6 Cos will also retain some kind of formal connection to Britain.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 04, 2007, 09:03:34 PM
A unionist who wants to forget the last 800 years and start history from the GFA - there's a surprise.

As opposed to a Nationalist who would prefer to forget about the GFA and start politics 800 years ago - no surprise there, then... ::)

Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 04, 2007, 09:03:34 PM
Unionists being ashamed of their history is really nothing new. 

Not in the least bit ashamed, in fact, I'd back my knowledge of, and interest in, the history of Ireland against most posters on this Board. It's just that I don't believe in being bound by people who cannot be held accountable for their words and deed since they are long dead. Much more sensible, imo, to try and strike a deal with the person across the table. You know, the one who's got the advantage of breath in his body... :o

Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 04, 2007, 09:03:34 PM
Eg thinks democracy is when an empire holds a gun to a small nation's head and says vote they way we want or else so it's hardly surprising when he goes on about a referendum that never give people a chance to vote for an united Ireland.

No, I think you'll find that in the post to which you referred, I used the term "politics", not democracy. Now as it happens, I think that the 1921 settlement was justified on political grounds, whereas you no doubt would say it was not justified, since it was not "democratic". But that is where my central thesis comes in to resolve this conundrum i.e. it simply needn't matter which line one takes over those events; much better (imo) to seek a settlement to the problems of today by seeking the contribution of the players of today - and holding them accountable to it!

As for a referendum on a United Ireland, I say bring it on!  ;)

Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2007, 09:54:06 PM
The choice was for or against the Good Friday Agreement.
Most people voted for because what was the alternative to the framework it proposed? - more of the same oul crap as had been put up with since 1921 ?

If you think that the alternative of Direct Rule, which was applied from Westminster in the 1990's, was "the same oul crap as had been put up with since 1921", then you clearly know very little about either period. Much more likely (imo) that people voted for the GFA as an alternative to the carnage and mayhem which had plagued us all for the previous 30 years of The Troubles.

Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2007, 09:54:06 PM
It's not perfect but at least 95% of people can live with it - and it does NOT maintain a Unionist veto - to do so it would require a majority of UNIONISTS to agree to a change in NEI's status.
In fact it needs only 10% of Unionists to see sense to do so.

Agree that it's not perfect, but still remain happy enough to be one of the 95% who can live with it. Can even live with the fact that it does not, as you say, maintain a Unionist veto. Instead, I am quite satisfied with the guarantee that NI's position within the UK will not change unless or until a majority of the people of NI will it so. As for the 10% of Unionists required to "see sense", i can also live with that, since there is an equally likely chance of 10% of the Nationalist population of NI "seeing sense" (imo), thereby making NI's position even stronger. But as I say, I'm quite prepared to wait and see - especially since no-one can now come along and thwart this on the basis of some old Declaration proclaimed by a bunch of long-dead fanatics in the GPO in Dublin in 1916!

Quote from: Rossfan on December 04, 2007, 09:54:06 PM
In practice there will be a gradual evolution of a new Ireland which will probably end up as a Confederation of some sort with an All Ireland Authority having control over some things and the 6 and 26 Cos having "internal control" of a load of other things. The 6 Cos will also retain some kind of formal connection to Britain.

If that's what a majority of the people of NI wants, then that's what we shall all have. And I must say, while it would never be my first choice, it's a hell of a sight more palatable than the "United [sic] Ireland that Gerry and Martin & Co spent 30 years trying to bomb and shoot us all into, to no avail, but at a cost of thousands dead or maimed... :o

Jesus christ  ::)

The GFA was framed as "vote for peace" and under this view to oppose it was then to vote for war, it was set out as though these were the only 2 options open. However there were other options and I don't think a return to war was on the cards. A unionist veto on Irish unity still exists today when a minority can decide the extent of the sovereignty of the country. Its bizarre that the for over 100 years now politicians have asked Irish people various questions, do they want Home Rule, do they want the Treaty, do they want the Good Friday Agreement. We've not been asked as a whole if we want Independence and Unity, so forget the past, forget the border and let the people on the island as a whole decide.

How would there ever be peace or harmony in the North with the likes of EG?

Pints, did you ever get flogged under article 5 of the SPA ?


SPECIAL POWERS ACT
In April 1963, the South African Minister of Justice, now the Prime Minister,
introduced a new Coercion Bill by saying that he 'vould be willing to exchange
all the legislation of that sort for one clause of the Northern Ireland Special Powers
Act. "
This Act, which has been continuously in operation since 1922, empowers the
authorities to:
(1) Arrest without warrant.
(2) Imprison without charge or trial and deny recourse to habeus corpus or a
court of law.
(3) Enter and search homes without warrant, and with force, at any hour of
day or night.
(4) Declare a curfew and prohibit meetings, assemblies (including fairs and
markets) and processions.
(5) Permit punishment by flogging.
(6) Deny claim to a trial by jury.
(7)Arrest persons it is desired to examine as witnesses, forcibly detain them
and compel them to answer questions, under penalties, even if answers may
incriminate them. Such a person is guilty of an offence if he refuses to be
sworn or answcr a question.

(8)Do any act involving interference with the rights of private property.
Prevent access of relatives or legal advisers to a person imprisoned without
trial.
(9) Prohibit the holding of an inquest after a prisoner's death.
(10) Arrest a person who 'by word of mouth' spreads false reports or makes
false statements.
(II)

(12) Prohibit the circulation of any newspaper.
(13) Prohibit the possession of any fiim or gramophonc record.
(14) Arrest a person who does anything ''calculated to be prejudicial to the
preservation of peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland and not
specifically provided for in the regulations."
(15) The Act allows the Minister of Home Affairs to create new crimes by Government
Decree, e.g., he recently made it a crime to name a club a ''Republican
Club."

No, why?

Quote from: Donagh on December 04, 2007, 04:28:28 PM
I think you'll find that no representatives of "the Provisional republican movement" signed the GFA nor was were the articles within officially endorsed by "the Provisional republican movement". What happened was that SF suggested to the rest of the "the Provisional republican movement" that, for now, it presented the best way forward toward their common goals. So, you are incorrect in your assertion that members of the republican movement have accepted the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland statlet or it's position in the UK.

The political side of the Provisional republican movement publicly stated that they supported the GFA. And this included many who had been leaders on the violent side in the previous 30 years, including Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Garry Kelly, Martin Meehan etc.

The GFA was clear - I've quoted from it above. Northern Ireland remains within the United Kindgom, and will remain so until a majority says otherwise. It recognised that the choice to remain in the United Kingdom is legitimate, and that it would be wrong for Northern Ireland to leave the UK without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

"the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland"

"the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people"

"DRAFT CLAUSES/SCHEDULES FOR INCORPORATION IN BRITISH LEGISLATION It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1."

"IRISH GOVERNMENT DRAFT LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION... recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island."

"This agreement provides for a democratically elected Assembly in Northern Ireland"

"The Westminster Parliament (whose power to make legislation for Northern Ireland would remain unaffected) will...legislate for non-devolved issues"

Quote from: MW on December 06, 2007, 03:29:59 PM

Quote from: Donagh on December 04, 2007, 04:28:28 PM
I think you'll find that no representatives of "the Provisional republican movement" signed the GFA nor was were the articles within officially endorsed by "the Provisional republican movement". What happened was that SF suggested to the rest of the "the Provisional republican movement" that, for now, it presented the best way forward toward their common goals. So, you are incorrect in your assertion that members of the republican movement have accepted the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland statlet or it's position in the UK.

The political side of the Provisional republican movement publicly stated that they supported the GFA. And this included many who had been leaders on the violent side in the previous 30 years, including Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Garry Kelly, Martin Meehan etc.

The GFA was clear - I've quoted from it above. Northern Ireland remains within the United Kindgom, and will remain so until a majority says otherwise. It recognised that the choice to remain in the United Kingdom is legitimate, and that it would be wrong for Northern Ireland to leave the UK without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

"the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland"

"the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people"

"DRAFT CLAUSES/SCHEDULES FOR INCORPORATION IN BRITISH LEGISLATION It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1."

"IRISH GOVERNMENT DRAFT LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION... recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island."

"This agreement provides for a democratically elected Assembly in Northern Ireland"

"The Westminster Parliament (whose power to make legislation for Northern Ireland would remain unaffected) will...legislate for non-devolved issues"

MW, I don't want to offend you are anything, but I don't care what it says in the GFA. I'll support it as a tactic for now, but as an Irish republican (and I assume those politicos you refer are of this position), I will never accept the northern state as legitimate, or the southern one as the republic envisioned by the men of '98 and '16. Until that is achieved and Emmet gets his epitaph, I and others will be always be agitating and working towards the establishment of an Irish republic by whatever means available and using whichever tactic best suits the climate.

Quote from: MW on December 06, 2007, 03:29:59 PM


this included many who had been leaders on the violent side in the previous 30 years, including Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Garry Kelly, Martin Meehan etc.

Not to forget many loyalists and the British Governent.

Quote from: Main Street on December 05, 2007, 08:22:26 PM
Pints, did you ever get flogged under article 5 of the SPA ?


SPECIAL POWERS ACT
In April 1963, the South African Minister of Justice, now the Prime Minister,
introduced a new Coercion Bill by saying that he 'vould be willing to exchange
all the legislation of that sort for one clause of the Northern Ireland Special Powers
Act. "
This Act, which has been continuously in operation since 1922, empowers the
authorities to:
(1) Arrest without warrant.
(2) Imprison without charge or trial and deny recourse to habeus corpus or a
court of law.
(3) Enter and search homes without warrant, and with force, at any hour of
day or night.
(4) Declare a curfew and prohibit meetings, assemblies (including fairs and
markets) and processions.
(5) Permit punishment by flogging.
(6) Deny claim to a trial by jury.
(7)Arrest persons it is desired to examine as witnesses, forcibly detain them
and compel them to answer questions, under penalties, even if answers may
incriminate them. Such a person is guilty of an offence if he refuses to be
sworn or answcr a question.

(8)Do any act involving interference with the rights of private property.
Prevent access of relatives or legal advisers to a person imprisoned without
trial.
(9) Prohibit the holding of an inquest after a prisoner's death.
(10) Arrest a person who 'by word of mouth' spreads false reports or makes
false statements.
(II)

(12) Prohibit the circulation of any newspaper.
(13) Prohibit the possession of any fiim or gramophonc record.
(14) Arrest a person who does anything ''calculated to be prejudicial to the
preservation of peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland and not
specifically provided for in the regulations."
(15) The Act allows the Minister of Home Affairs to create new crimes by Government
Decree, e.g., he recently made it a crime to name a club a ''Republican
Club."

And those of us who claim that the symbol of that regime, the Ulster banner, is not a fit symbol for an Irish football team are denounced as bigots.

FFA anyone?

Quote from: saffron sam2 on December 06, 2007, 09:14:57 PM
And those of us who claim that the symbol of that regime, the Ulster banner, is not a fit symbol for an Irish football team are denounced as bigots.
FFA anyone?

Apparantly that denounciation is nothing new because according to a report by The Campaign for Social Justice in NI 1968 ´Unionists have claimed that Nationalists are more bigoted than them´ was a constant theme.
Quite hilarious really, when you read the report.

Quote from: saffron sam2 on December 06, 2007, 09:14:57 PM

And those of us who claim that the symbol of that regime, the Ulster banner, is not a fit symbol for an Irish football team are denounced

Are you talking about the white flag with the red cross,red hand and a crown?
That is NOT an ULSTER Banner.
The flag of Ulster is yellow with a red cross and a red hand in the middle as used by the GAA,IRFU,GUI among others.
The other was I believe the official flag of the late unlamented Stormont Regime that existed between 1922 and 1972.

Quote from: Rossfan on December 07, 2007, 10:33:23 PM

Quote from: saffron sam2 on December 06, 2007, 09:14:57 PM

And those of us who claim that the symbol of that regime, the Ulster banner, is not a fit symbol for an Irish football team are denounced

Are you talking about the white flag with the red cross,red hand and a crown?
That is NOT an ULSTER Banner.
The flag of Ulster is yellow with a red cross and a red hand in the middle as used by the GAA,IRFU,GUI among others.
The other was I believe the official flag of the late unlamented Stormont Regime that existed between 1922 and 1972.

The official name of that discredited flag is indeed the Ulster banner. The Ulster flag is of course the one you describe. Make of that what you will.

Quote from: Donagh on December 06, 2007, 03:48:12 PM

Quote from: MW on December 06, 2007, 03:29:59 PM

Quote from: Donagh on December 04, 2007, 04:28:28 PM
I think you'll find that no representatives of "the Provisional republican movement" signed the GFA nor was were the articles within officially endorsed by "the Provisional republican movement". What happened was that SF suggested to the rest of the "the Provisional republican movement" that, for now, it presented the best way forward toward their common goals. So, you are incorrect in your assertion that members of the republican movement have accepted the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland statlet or it's position in the UK.

The political side of the Provisional republican movement publicly stated that they supported the GFA. And this included many who had been leaders on the violent side in the previous 30 years, including Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Garry Kelly, Martin Meehan etc.

The GFA was clear - I've quoted from it above. Northern Ireland remains within the United Kindgom, and will remain so until a majority says otherwise. It recognised that the choice to remain in the United Kingdom is legitimate, and that it would be wrong for Northern Ireland to leave the UK without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

"the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland"

"the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people"

"DRAFT CLAUSES/SCHEDULES FOR INCORPORATION IN BRITISH LEGISLATION It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1."

"IRISH GOVERNMENT DRAFT LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION... recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island."

"This agreement provides for a democratically elected Assembly in Northern Ireland"

"The Westminster Parliament (whose power to make legislation for Northern Ireland would remain unaffected) will...legislate for non-devolved issues"

MW, I don't want to offend you are anything, but I don't care what it says in the GFA. I'll support it as a tactic for now, but as an Irish republican (and I assume those politicos you refer are of this position), I will never accept the northern state as legitimate, or the southern one as the republic envisioned by the men of '98 and '16. Until that is achieved and Emmet gets his epitaph, I and others will be always be agitating and working towards the establishment of an Irish republic by whatever means available and using whichever tactic best suits the climate.

Well I hope that the Sinn Féin leadership's committment to peaceful and demoncratic means and support of the Good Friday Agreement was of a more substantive nature.

Quote from: Zapatista on December 06, 2007, 03:55:22 PM

Quote from: MW on December 06, 2007, 03:29:59 PM


this included many who had been leaders on the violent side in the previous 30 years, including Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Garry Kelly, Martin Meehan etc.

Not to forget many loyalists and the British Governent.

I don't think the loyalists and the British Government were on the violent side of the Provisional republican movement ::)


(Then again...  :-X)

Quote from: saffron sam2 on December 06, 2007, 09:14:57 PM


And those of us who claim that the symbol of that regime, the Ulster banner, is not a fit symbol for an Irish football team are denounced as bigots.

FFA anyone?

What your opinion on the fitness of the Tricolour, bearing in mind for example the Offences Against the State Acts?