# RIC Commemoration



## cremeegg (7 Jan 2020)

Oh dear !

Should the state commemorate the RIC ?

The RIC were the British police in Ireland, before and during the war of independence they served the British Empire.

I have no doubt many RIC men behaved honourably and in accordance with their ideals. Those ideals were opposed to the creation of an Irish state. For the state to commemorate them would be a further step toward the reconciliation of those people today whose ideals support Britain's presence in Ireland and these who support the Irish state.

This commemoration should never have been a one party idea, if the Irish people think it appropriate to commemorate the RIC then that should only happen in the context of broad support for the idea.

Charlie Flanagan seems to have hatched the plan himself, if he had any confidence in his idea he could have asked FF and others to join him in supporting the plan before he issued invitations. Whether it was arrogance or a desire to bump others into a position where they couldn't demur he badly miscalculated.

On balance I am opposed to a state commemoration of the RIC, in particular I am opposed to the recent idea that the Gardaí are some how a successor force to the RIC, they are not. I would have absolutely no objection to any private commemoration, those who admire the RICs ideals  are perfectly entitled to commemorate them. Fine Gael are perfectly entitled to join them. 

Although FG are in Government they are not justified in a state commemoration off their own bat. Ireland is not an elective dictatorship.

When Cathal Crowe the FF mayor of Clare, in a very measured way, declined to attend and started a push back, Charlie Flanagan then used his expert advisory group as cover for the event, to pretend that it was not just a FG plan. Diarmuid Ferriter has called him out on that.

So lacking the courage of his convictions Charlie has deferred (RTE) or maybe cancelled (The Journal) the event.

What are the people who were looking forward to commemorating the RIC supposed to think now. They have been publicly humiliated. Invited to a party and then told the party is off. We don't want to commemorate them after all.

Charlie has disgraced himself thrice, in arranging a state commemoration on a narrow basis of support (was there any active support, apart from himself and perhaps John Bruton), by using the expert advisory group as cover, by failing to stand by his decision after announcing it and insulting those who were pleased to be invited.

As a final point, who were these invited relatives. As the great-grand son of an RIC sergeant, I certainly wasn't invited, nor to the best of my knowledge was any other of his descendents. I suspect the invited relatives were active political supporters of a certain point of view.

This farce has damaged the state and it efforts to sensitively commemorate the events of 100 years ago, it has embarrassed the government, it has embarrassed the expert advisory group, and I suspect it was done from base motives, to suggest that the political views of the heirs of John Redmond are the views of a majority of Irish people. They are not.

Charlie Flanagan should resign or be forced to resign.


----------



## john luc (7 Jan 2020)

He is an idiot. Will the Germans commemerate the Stazi when the time comes. This is an organisation that does not deserve to be commemorated. Just remembered in the history books.


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2020)

When this State was founded we had to invent a uniquely Irish culture as we had been rules by the English (later the British) for so long that our identity was in tatters. The resurrection of the Irish language etc was part of that. At the same time we airbrushed away much of our history and people who did a lot of good in this country (Lady Aberdeen for example) disappeared. In recent years we have revised our outlook and moved closer to the truth.
The RIC was Royal because of their role in putting down the Fenian rebellion but by 1916 most of the rank and file were just policemen doing their job. The first man killed on Easter Sunday 1916 was an unarmed RIC man. Tom Barry's father was in the RIC, as were family of many of the other Rebel leaders but ultimately their were in instrument of British colonial rule in Ireland.
 If any part of the British forces who died from 1916 to 1922 deserve a commemoration it is the Sherwood Foresters; kids mown down at Mount Street Bridge who knew nothing and cared less about Ireland, but were sent here in a light ferry from Liverpool without any of their heavy equipment instead of being shipped off to be butchered in the Great War. 

While I do not agree with this commemoration I would like to point out that this would just be the amuse-bouche of events if we had a united Ireland, unless it was achieved through an ethnic cleansing of the Unionist population, both North and South. I don't think any reasonable person thinks that's desirable. So, while "One Ireland, Gaelic and free" is desirable for some and a "Protestant Land for a Protestant People" is desirable for others I think we might be better off just leaving things as they are. It's good to remember but this sort of ill thought out, ham fisted nonsense is not the way to do it.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jan 2020)

It was a stupid idea but apparently there was an all party meeting where this was discussed and nobody including Sinn Fein raised an objection. But I don't know if a full commemoration was discussed. World Leaders often attend war commemorations for both sides in a conflict and that it is the way it should be. Why they feel to need to commemorate the RIC separately, I have no idea. Of course the Black and Tans were going to come into it. It would be like Germany deciding to hold a ceremony for the SS. And to make it worse, Leo actually makes it sound like it is all our fault for not being mature enough to deal with our history. I have heard my Grandmother talk about her memories of the Black and Tans. His comments were insulting.


----------



## Betsy Og (8 Jan 2020)

A balls up from start to finish. Of itself it is no biggie, its early January, nothing else to talk about bar the great and good of RTE. I doubt we'll still be talking about it in February.

While I'm a FG voter I'm happy enough to see Leo put back in his box, the private school/doctor arrogance grates a bit with me (not to mention the mortification of Kylie, 'on trend' socks, Love Actually and other 'trying too hard' stuff like this hand wringing RIC gaffe  - & his Mr. Unnecessarily Nasty in his Dail barbs), its a pity Simon Coveney didnt get the job that time. Leo fancies himself as an international statesman (after a wet week as Taoiseach) ..... I'll drive him to the airport.....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jan 2020)

I've a hunch that if I had been around at the time I would have been supporting the forces of law and order, maybe even the B&Ts.  Nonetheless I was astounded when I heard of this proposed commemoration, surely the supporters of this in the RoI could be counted on one hand.  Then I was truly gobsmacked when I heard it was a FG solo run.  As I understand it, FG or their predecessors won the Civil War but surely it was the other side who won the peace.  Big tactical mistake for FG to relive the Civil War.  This is one FG vote which will be lent to Michael Martin this time.

As a side bar I read Prof Ferriter's piece on the B&Ts in Saturday's IT.  He stated that 24% were killed in ambush, which seemed to me very high. almost evoked an element of respect.  In a letter to the IT yesterday the source of these figures, DM Leeson, clarified that what he recorded was that 24% of those ambushed were killed.  In fact of 1,153 B&Ts only 21 were killed overall.


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2020)

The fact that the RIC did most of the shooting in Croke Park on Bloody Sunday in 1920 is also a factor in why this was a bad idea.


----------



## john luc (8 Jan 2020)

As said there were many men who joined this organization just to do a job but this commemoration was to be for the organization itself,madness.


----------



## john luc (8 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I've a hunch that if I had been around at the time I would have been supporting the forces of law and order, maybe even the B&Ts.


I have often pondered that position too had I lived as a young man at this time. My fathers family were republican in that time and my mothers were too but they were more towards the W T Cosgrave and my Fathers family were more towards Eamon De Valera. For me I found that I would have sided with Cosgrave/Collins. I had many a good debate with my Father over this as I was growing up


----------



## county (8 Jan 2020)

I was gobsmacked to hear of this first and could not understand how it was being justified as my initial thoughts was a commemoration to the RIC was implicitly endorsing the actions of the B&T's.  I am now told that I am immature and I do not have a grasp of Irish History with my thought process, maybe I am and if so we may need to revisit our History curriculum and they way Irish History is thought.

FG has lost my vote with this one.  There have been a culmination of poor decisions over the past few months but I was still willing to support them again but this shows how out of touch the high rank within the party are with people.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jan 2020)

john luc said:


> I have often pondered that position too had I lived as a young man at this time. My fathers family were republican in that time and my mothers were too but they were more towards the W T Cosgrave and my Fathers family were more towards Eamon De Valera. For me I found that I would have sided with Cosgrave/Collins. I had many a good debate with my Father over this as I was growing up


I grew up in West Belfast as the Troubles were peaking.  My father would have regarded the rebels of 1916 et al as heroes but he was fiercely opposed to the modern day incarnation in Belfast of SF/IRA, despite believing himself to have been the victim of discrimination.  I inherited that abhorrence of SF/IRA but latterly began to question were the original "heroes" any different.  But hey, let's not get off topic.


----------



## Betsy Og (8 Jan 2020)

Duke - you are dead to me......  
John Luc - its not Pro-Treaty or Anti-Treaty that Duke is talking about - I think I'd have been pro-Treaty - he's talking about fighting with the British!! I can see how many a lad was just getting a job before it all kicked off, but I couldn't imagine murdering my fellow couuntrymen for political reasons (1913 on). So if I'd been RIC I think I'd have been an IRA informer or just left (probably the latter).


----------



## Betsy Og (8 Jan 2020)

Duke - on the general point I don't accept at all the SF claim that they are SF from early 1900s, and the PIRA is the same IRA. So I don't think the PIRA should have any bearing on your view of the IRA of 1900-1922. My granda was in the old IRA, never a sectarian word out of him, not even a very political man, but this was fairly Black n White (Tan?) stuff. Most people didn't want to fight but what choice had they when their country was being denied it right to self-determination (& in the past allowed starve, and then being brutalised). The original men of 1916 were a bit like an ISIS squad, limited support for that particular action, all blood sacrifice etc etc, but the brits managed to make them martyrs and fanned republican flames. So ridding ourselves of the empire was unquestionably the right thing to do.   ......now wash your mouth out...


----------



## Sunny (8 Jan 2020)

john luc said:


> I have often pondered that position too had I lived as a young man at this time. My fathers family were republican in that time and my mothers were too but they were more towards the W T Cosgrave and my Fathers family were more towards Eamon De Valera. For me I found that I would have sided with Cosgrave/Collins. I had many a good debate with my Father over this as I was growing up



I don't think anything is really that simple. We all have ideological views or think we know how we would act/behave but in reality we don't really know for sure. I wouldn't have any strong republican roots in my family but my Grandmother was from Cork. Her sister was raped and brother was shot in the leg and told to leave Cork by the Black and Tans. The brother went to the US and was never heard of again. She told me stories before she died of how the Black and Tans would come on to the farm and take/destroy all the milk and food. They would ransack the property looking for IRA members (she admits that her family and every neighbouring family gave shelter to members). She was only a child and didn't exactly grow up to be hating the British but there is no doubt the experiences impacted her. If I was a young man at that time, I don't know how I would have reacted.


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2020)

Betsy Og said:


> Duke - you are dead to me......
> John Luc - its not Pro-Treaty or Anti-Treaty that Duke is talking about - I think I'd have been pro-Treaty - he's talking about fighting with the British!! I can see how many a lad was just getting a job before it all kicked off, but I couldn't imagine murdering my fellow countrymen for political reasons (1913 on). So if I'd been RIC I think I'd have been an IRA informer or just left (probably the latter).


The pro-treaty side were, in effect, fighting with the Brits. They were armed by the British to kill their fellow Irishmen. I don't think it's black and white.


----------



## Betsy Og (8 Jan 2020)

Purple said:


> The pro-treaty side were, in effect, fighting with the Brits. They were armed by the British to kill their fellow Irishmen. I don't think it's black and white.



At the end of the day even Dev himself dealt with the rump of the anti-treaty movement - so you can't wait until the last soldier in deep cover on a tree is on board with you. The Irish people voted for the treaty, that's good enough for me. (This was the problem with making Gods of the men of 16, they struck a blow, but failed, but yet the country should risk yet more misery to be true to them? Collins said it was the freedom to achieve freedom - Dev was still around to deliver it (that which he railed against).

There were Free State atrocities during the Civil War - e.g. Ballyseedy - but sure the whole thing was an utterly depressing omnishambles, but I know where I'm putting the biggest chunk of the blame (and its not with the Irish people that voted for the treaty....answers on a postcard).

Anyway Purple, to get back to Duke's point, would you have joined the Tans?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jan 2020)

Betsy Og said:


> ... Most people didn't want to fight but what choice had they when their country was being denied it right to self-determination...


Young Betsy, many Scottish folk share similar views these days, but not a whiff of gelignite.  It was the Irish side who decided to up the ante to armed conflict as they sought to take advantage of the British in their hour of deadly peril, rather than wait for the promised Home Rule.  This is going off topic


----------



## Betsy Og (8 Jan 2020)

Different times now (you'd hope). I'm not convinced of the Kevin Myers analysis that it was all unnecessary. They fairly fought it hard for a crowd who were allegedly going to hand it over on a platter. Anyway, back on topic and your lament for not having been a Tansman.....

p.s. wish I was still young....it's just a name now, as Sickboy said  ..... total _______ misnomer


----------



## Sunny (8 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Young Betsy, many Scottish folk share similar views these days, but not a whiff of gelignite.  It was the Irish side who decided to up the ante to armed conflict as they sought to take advantage of the British in their hour of deadly peril, rather than wait for the promised Home Rule.  This is going off topic



That's a bit of a stretch now isn't it! You can't compare Scotland in 2020 with Ireland in early 1900's. 

Anyway, the Scots have their own history. I watched Braveheart! (now we are officially off topic!)


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2020)

Betsy Og said:


> At the end of the day even Dev himself dealt with the rump of the anti-treaty movement - so you can't wait until the last soldier in deep cover on a tree is on board with you. The Irish people voted for the treaty, that's good enough for me. (This was the problem with making Gods of the men of 16, they struck a blow, but failed, but yet the country should risk yet more misery to be true to them? Collins said it was the freedom to achieve freedom - Dev was still around to deliver it (that which he railed against).


 I think that dreadful movie about Collins put me off him to be honest as the depiction of Dev, of whom I was never a fan, was so pantomime baddie. Collins would certainly be regarded as a terrorist and a criminal today and of the RIC hadn't open fire in Croke Park the murder of the British Agents earlier that day would be seen in a very different historical light. Pierce was, in my view, a total nutter. Dev was a protectionist who destroyed the economy and Collins did the best thing he could for his legacy; was accidentally shot by one of his own men. 
All that being said they were, on balance, all great men who died to make me free. 
I'm glad they all did what they did and I get to live free in a republic and not in what would be in impoverished region of the UK. 



Betsy Og said:


> There were Free State atrocities during the Civil War - e.g. Ballyseedy - but sure the whole thing was an utterly depressing omnishambles, but I know where I'm putting the biggest chunk of the blame (and its not with the Irish people that voted for the treaty....answers on a postcard).


 The Irish people voted for the Treaty after the fact. Collins went against the explicit orders of his President and caused a civil war. I've great sympathy for him. What else could he do? I also have great sympathy for Dev, what else could he have done?



Betsy Og said:


> Anyway Purple, to get back to Duke's point, would you have joined the Tans?


 No. I don't like the idea of having to shoot people and like the idea of being shot even less. 
The whole family on my Mother's side were in the IRA so I wouldn't have joined even if I liked the idea of keeping my own people down.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jan 2020)

Betsy Og said:


> Different times now (you'd hope).





Sunny said:


> That's a bit of a stretch now isn't it! You can't compare Scotland in 2020 with Ireland in early 1900's.


Yes indeed but if we are to apply different standards to those different times, we should do so to all the players.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Jan 2020)

Purple said:


> All that being said they were, on balance, all great men who died to make me free.
> I'm glad they all did what they did and I get to live free in a republic and not in what would be in impoverished region of the UK.


_Purple_ I'll rise to that bait.  Ostensibly we do appear to be in a better place than say NI but there have been some big serendipities.  For over half a century post independence we were a complete basket case.  Three game changers have occurred in recent decades.
1.  We joined the EU and, ironically, our basket case notorety meant we enjoyed immense charity at a time when it really was a rich man's club.
2,  Charlie Haughey's cute hoorism in establishing the IFSC and running rings round the spirit of the rules of the European community, a culture which survives and serves us to this day.
3.  The RC church shot itself in the foot leading to a rapid secularistion of our society.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes indeed but if we are to apply different standards to those different times, we should do so to all the players.



But we do don't we? Nobody is saying that the British Police would send a version of the Black and Tans to Bermuda if they suddenly rose up and tried to break away from the Empire in 2020. But that doesn't mean we can't judge events and actions from both the IRA and the British forces at the time. For example, I always found the idea of the IRA chopping a woman's hair off in public to be hugely demeaning and a form of psychological warfare on civilian population. The Black and Tans burnt and sacked entire towns in retribution on civilian population.


----------



## TarfHead (8 Jan 2020)

This flare-up had highlighted for me that I am wholly ignorant of this part of Irish History.  I wonder did I just not focus on it for Leaving Cert history, or was it not then (1980-82) part of the curriculum ?

If my family has history, then it's not talked about.  One grandfather had a farm is SW Kerry and the other was a teacher in Donegal.  I have always assumed that my family were one of those who had no active involvement.

My wife's maternal grandparents were, on the other other, up to their necks in it.  Her grandmother was interned on Spike Island with Constance Markievicz.


----------



## Betsy Og (8 Jan 2020)

Purple said:


> If the RIC hadn't open fire in Croke Park the murder of the British Agents earlier that day would be seen in a very different historical light.
> 
> The Irish people voted for the Treaty after the fact. I also have great sympathy for Dev, what else could he have done?



At the risk of sounding like Gerry Adams, those executed by the squad were combatants. The punters playing/watching the game were not. 

Voting for it after the fact - was that not ratifying it? Anyway, the majority wanted it is the main conclusion we can draw.

Dev could have continued to negotiate the treaty - aside from the caricature of the film - I've always felt "he done Collins up like a kipper". Then he wanted to go "wading through rivers of Irish blood"   So without his incendiary influence after his negotiating cowardice the civil war would have been a much more muted affair.


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_ I'll rise to that bait.  Ostensibly we do appear to be in a better place than say NI but there have been some big serendipities.  For over half a century post independence we were a complete basket case.  Three game changers have occurred in recent decades.
> 1.  We joined the EU and, ironically, our basket case notorety meant we enjoyed immense charity at a time when it really was a rich man's club.
> 2,  Charlie Haughey's cute hoorism in establishing the IFSC and running rings round the spirit of the rules of the European community, a culture which survives and serves us to this day.
> 3.  The RC church shot itself in the foot leading to a rapid secularistion of our society.


1. We did, but if we were still ruled by the English (like the Scot's and Welsh are) we'd be as poor as them, maybe even as poor as the Nordies.
2. Good old CJ, he did the country some service...
3. Yep, probably wouldn't have happened either if we were still under the English Yoke or, worse, dominated by an Irish Protestant Ascendency (AKA West-Brits).


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2020)

Betsy Og said:


> At the risk of sounding like Gerry Adams, those executed by the squad were combatants. The punters playing/watching the game were not.


  They were in their pyjamas, shot in front of their families. 



Betsy Og said:


> Voting for it after the fact - was that not ratifying it? Anyway, the majority wanted it is the main conclusion we can draw.


 Collins didn't know that when he disobeyed his government and President. 



Betsy Og said:


> Dev could have continued to negotiate the treaty - aside from the caricature of the film - I've always felt "he done Collins up like a kipper".


 No he couldn't. Once Collins signed the Treaty Civil War was inevitable. He knew that. As for "he done Collins up like a kipper", other than that rubbish from Neil Jordan I haven't read anything (worth reading) to substantiate such an accusation. 



Betsy Og said:


> Then he wanted to go "wading through rivers of Irish blood"   So without his incendiary influence after his negotiating cowardice the civil war would have been a much more muted affair.


 Collins was the one who was comfortable wading through blood. I say that as someone who is glad he signed the treaty. I just don't accept the revisionist, childish position that Collins was the hero and Dev was a snivelling coward. As I said already, Collins's legacy was guaranteed when he was killed.


----------



## Betsy Og (8 Jan 2020)

Purple said:


> They were in their pyjamas, shot in front of their families.
> No he couldn't. Once Collins signed the Treaty Civil War was inevitable.



Well the Tans would probably have shot the entire family.... war is a dirty business, no 2 ways about it.
Sure Dev was doing all the negotiation, legendary cut and thrust with Lloyd George, described Dev as trying to pick up mercury with a fork (i.e. Dev was doing well - I never said he was an eejit). BUT Dev saw the writing on the wall, he knew the only deal that could be done was something along the lines of the treaty. So low and behold he insists Collins go and he not go, then he cannot be contacted at the crunch time, and just to put the tin hat on it he totally hangs Collins out to dry. Sly dog.


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2020)

Betsy Og said:


> BUT Dev saw the writing on the wall, he knew the only deal that could be done was something along the lines of the treaty. So low and behold he insists Collins go and he not go, then he cannot be contacted at the crunch time, and just to put the tin hat on it he totally hangs Collins out to dry.


That's one of many ways to look at it.

Oh, and the Auxiliaries were worse than the Tan's, at least according to my Great Uncle who used to tell stories about the ones he "plugged" with his revolver. He was shot during the War of Independence and the Civil War (he was in the Fours Courts regiment so he actually started the thing).


----------



## john luc (8 Jan 2020)

Given the times were popular with dictatorships in Europe I often wondered if Collins had lived would he have become a dictator. He was popular from both sides of the civil war factions


----------



## Betsy Og (9 Jan 2020)

Purple said:


> Oh, and the Auxiliaries were worse than the Tan's



Yep, heard a historian on radio explaining the same thing about a year ago. 

It's all about branding guys, even back then, like the "Sinn Fein rising" which wasn't even a SF rising, but the London newspaper editors just went with it.  (*all risings were created in a grim looking Chinese factory and just packaged differently on the way out the door & priced solely on the basis of branding)


----------



## john luc (9 Jan 2020)

I thought the auxiliaries and the black and tans were the same


----------



## mathepac (12 Jan 2020)

No, they were different parts of the brutal forces of occupation. I also detect underlying confusion between the RIC and DMP (Dublin Metropolitan Police) whose G Division, or G Men, was highly politicised, brutal killers and torturers.  Collins is on record as instructing his operatives to try to recruit RIC members as spies and informers and that they were not to be killed. With the Cairo gang of imported British intelligence officers and operatives (MI5/MI6 or MI9  military intelligence) he ordered their execution. With the DMP, run from Dublin Castle, he ordered that they be warned about their professional activities as a first stage and that attempts be made to turn them into moles for Collins and his men. The consequences of continuing in their work were made clear to them.

The notion that the RIC should be commemorated nationally was ludicrous and guaranteed to resurrect Civil war politics. Flanagan needs to go as does his boss.


----------



## Gorteen (19 Jan 2020)

A spectacular FG "own goal" in the end stages of their government.... couldn't have been better timed.


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Jan 2020)

Gorteen said:


> A spectacular FG "own goal" in the end stages of their government.... couldn't have been better timed.



It's that arrogance that's Leo's undoing. Pride meant he couldn't just give it up as a bad job, the people are the problem sez he.....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Dec 2020)

Can anybody here tell the difference between IRA actions in the War of Independence and the pointless terrorist campaign of the slow learners.  The chair of the PAC sees them both as equivalent glorious events.
The usual apology is simply not good enough.  He should make it clear that he sees no moral parallel between the two.


----------



## Peanuts20 (2 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Can anybody here tell the difference between IRA actions in the War of Independence and the pointless terrorist campaign of the slow learners.  The chair of the PAC sees them both as equivalent glorious events.
> The usual apology is simply not good enough.  He should make it clear that he sees no moral parallel between the two.



the apology was the ultimate in hypocrisy given the fact that the 2021 calander on the Sinn Fein website shop has hunger strikers and Tom Barry on the cover


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> the apology was the ultimate in hypocrisy given the fact that the 2021 calander on the Sinn Fein website shop has hunger strikers and Tom Barry on the cover


And now the Chair seems to have made very homophobic remarks about Leo. 
Strange that the child killers think that a judge should be removed from office for breaking public health guidelines but supporting terrorists is fine.

I heard Mary Lou getting another armchair ride of an interview on RTE the other day. She said that there should be no hierarchy among those who died during the troubles and within a minute said that it was okay to celebrate the deaths of members of the parachute because of their history during the conflict.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Can anybody here tell the difference between IRA actions in the War of Independence and the pointless terrorist campaign of the slow learners.


Yea, the IRA of the 1920's didn't plant bombs in supermarkets in Wallington or pubs in birmingham or murder two grandfathers for the "crime" of installing windows in an office used by the RUC. The Child Killers are perfectly fine with all of those acts.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Stanley's comment was stupid.
In a historical context, on the anniversary of Kilmichael, he is totally within his right to make a comparison between the Kilmichael ambush and Warrenpoint insofar that the partition of Ireland was not the solution to end our troubles on this island.

The manner in which he made his comparison was stupid, in tweet form and with an obvious dig at the British while lording over the graves of the dead.

It is all the more regrettable that it may have detracted somewhat from the abhorrent and insulting decision of the British government not hold a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane.

In scenes echoing the events of Collins Squad on Bloody Sunday, Finucanes front door was smashed down and shot twice and as he lay on the floor another 12 bullets were fired into his face from close range.

All in front of his family.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Stanley's comment was stupid.
> In a historical context, on the anniversary of Kilmichael, he is totally within his right to make a comparison between the Kilmichael ambush and Warrenpoint insofar that the partition of Ireland was not the solution to end our troubles on this island.
> 
> The manner in which he made his comparison was stupid, in tweet form and with an obvious dig at the British while lording over the graves of the dead.
> ...


I suppose the difference is that no member of parliament in the UK is celebrating Pat Finucanes murder in the way that the TD from the Child Killers is celebrating the murder of the soldiers at Kilmichael. 
Given that the nominal leader of his party frequently says that there is no hierarchy amongst the victims of the Troubles I presume he, along with Mary Lou, is happy to equate the murder of Pat Finucane and the Para's killed at Kilmichael.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> I suppose the difference is that no member of parliament in the UK is celebrating Pat Finucanes murder



They might not have celebrated it publicly, but Douglas Hoggs comments, Home Office Minister at the time, that "some solicitors were sympathetic to the IRA" in House of Commons was an official briefing and not an off-the-cuff remark. That Finucane was murdered three weeks later by agents of the British State says to me that while there was no public glorification of it, there was some chinking of glasses at high levels of power.
They may not admit it publicly, obviously, as they refuse to initiate a public inquiry recommended by their own Supreme Court, but privately I think anyone would celebrate achieving their goals?



Purple said:


> Given that the nominal leader of his party frequently says that there is no hierarchy amongst the victims of the Troubles I presume he, along with Mary Lou, is happy to equate the murder of Pat Finucane and the Para's killed at Kilmichael.



Finucane was a civilian, not a combatant.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> They might not have celebrated it publicly, but Douglas Hoggs comments, Home Office Minister at the time, that "some solicitors were sympathetic to the IRA" in House of Commons was an official briefing and not an off-the-cuff remark. That Finucane was murdered three weeks later by agents of the British State says to me that while there was no public glorification of it, there was some chinking of glasses at high levels of power.
> They may not admit it publicly, obviously, as they refuse to initiate a public inquiry recommended by their own Supreme Court, but privately I think anyone would celebrate achieving their goals?


I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise.



WolfeTone said:


> Finucane was a civilian, not a combatant.


Does that mean that there is a hierarchy of victims of the Troubles?
The IRA were/are (they haven't gone away you know) also civilians and terrorists and had no mandate from anyone to murder soldiers or anyone else.

The Sinn Fein of the 1920's which became Fianna Fail, were supported by the majority of the people of the country. Their goal was achievable and they didn't deliberately murder children or civilians in general.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> Does that mean that there is a hierarchy of victims of the Troubles?



For me yes, innocent civilians first, combatants second.



Purple said:


> had no mandate from anyone to murder soldiers or anyone else.



Nobody had a mandate to murder anybody. 



Purple said:


> The Sinn Fein of the 1920's



Popular support arose from the ashes of the 1916 Rising, a military coup that had no mandate, no popular support, only retrospective support.



Purple said:


> Their goal was achievable



They failed in their goal, as has every military effort, before and after, to remove British rule from the island of Ireland.



Purple said:


> and they didn't deliberately murder children or civilians in general.



The "good old" IRA of the WoI engaged in sectarian murder, kidnapping of civilians, torture and murder of alleged informers and disappeared bodies of the dead. Some as young as 17yrs of age, children in fact, and quite deliberate so.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> For me yes, innocent civilians first, combatants second.


 Okay. The Child Killers disagree with you. When it suits them.



WolfeTone said:


> Nobody had a mandate to murder anybody.


 True. Every IRA killing was murder. Most Security Force killings were not.



WolfeTone said:


> Popular support arose from the ashes of the 1916 Rising, a military coup that had no mandate, no popular support, only retrospective support.


 True. SF/IRA carried on for 30 years without and mandate, popular support or retrospective support. They didn't even have the support of a majority of their community.



WolfeTone said:


> They failed in their goal, as has every military effort, before and after, to remove British rule from the island of Ireland.


No, they gained the freedom of what is now this country. Michael Collins and his side betrayed the Nationalist population of what is now the province of Northern Ireland. Maybe he was right, maybe he wasn't.



WolfeTone said:


> The "good old" IRA of the WoI engaged in sectarian murder, kidnapping of civilians, torture and murder of alleged informers and disappeared bodies of the dead. Some as young as 17yrs of age, children in fact, and quite deliberate so.


 They didn't target civilians in the way Sinn Fein/IRA did. Suggesting that they did is nonsense. They certainly killed 17 year olds but they didn't murder 3 year olds and 12 year olds who were are the shop with their parents.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> Okay. The Child Killers disagree with you. When it suits them.



Who are the 'child killers'?



Purple said:


> True. Every IRA killing was murder. Most Security Force killings were not.



So you think the ambush at Kilmichael and the basically the whole WoI was an illegal murderous campaign?



Purple said:


> No, they gained the freedom of what is now this country.



Yes, but 'this country' was not their goal. 



Purple said:


> They didn't target civilians in the way Sinn Fein/IRA did. Suggesting that they did is nonsense. They certainly killed 17 year olds but they didn't murder 3 year olds and 12 year olds who were are the shop with their parents.



Thomas Clarke, veteran leader of the 1916 Rising and participant of the Fenian campaign of 1881 to 85 planted bombs in public areas such as train stations, town halls and bridges. In one such incident a 14yr old boy was killed from a bomb attack. Peversely, Clarke has had bridges and train stations named after him in this country.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Who are the 'child killers'?


The IRA and their political wing Sinn Fein. When the Army Council are not the power behind the throne and SF's leaders don't go to the funerals of murderers and they don't have former bomb makers in theri ranks I'll stop calling them that. It's the same as someone who used to rape children and doesn't anymore but is unapologetic about their crimes should be called out for it, as should the people who facilitate and support him. 



WolfeTone said:


> So you think the ambush at Kilmichael and the basically the whole WoI was an illegal murderous campaign?


 Sorry, I was mixing myself up. I meant to say Warrenpoint, not Kilmichael.




WolfeTone said:


> Yes, but 'this country' was not their goal.


I know. As I said Collins sold out the North.



WolfeTone said:


> Thomas Clarke, veteran leader of the 1916 Rising and participant of the Fenian campaign of 1881 to 85 planted bombs in public areas such as train stations, town halls and bridges. In one such incident a 14yr old boy was killed from a bomb attack. Peversely, Clarke has had bridges and train stations named after him in this country.


Indeed. Clarke and


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> insofar that the partition of Ireland was not the solution to end our troubles on this island.


That is oh so last millenium.


			
				Joe Biden said:
			
		

> We have worked too hard to finally have Ireland solved


The final solution that Joe is referring to is based on partition, so long as the majority in NI so wish to be partitioned.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That is oh so last millenium.
> 
> The solution is based on partition, so long as the majority in NI so wish to be partitioned.


The Child Killers relationship with democracy is casual enough. It's a means to an end for them.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

I don't really get your position @Purple. On the one hand you seem to be legitimising the ambush at Kilmichael but not Warrenpoint?  Both were IRA attacks on armed British personnel during times of conflict.
As far as hierarchy is concerned, I have always understood the SF position to be that innocent victims of the IRA should not be placed on a pedestal above innocent victims of British State terrorism - that makes sense to me.  

The child killer reference is odd, insofar that it is specific to Sinn Fein only, but not associated with any other protagonists of the conflict, namely the British State who also killed children directly, or through their loyalist proxies, and then protected the killers from seeing justice. They too, still have their military and intelligence apparatus of the conflict in tact directing the operations of the political establishment. As witnessed by the all the continued cover-ups from Ballymurphy, to Miami Showband, to Dublin/Monaghan, Loughinisland, Pat Finucane etc...etc...

Surely anyone, or any organisation, that is involved in killing children are child killers?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> That is oh so last millenium.



Indeed it is. Thankfully we have arrived at a position where the absence of war prevails and that the border is nothing more than abstract notion in our mnids. Where people can live, work and travel freely across the border without much a fuss. 

What could possibly go wrong  ?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The final solution that Joe is referring to is based on partition, so long as the majority in NI so wish to be partitioned.



Yep, and given the majority in NI do not wish to be partitioned from the EU, perhaps it is time to ask the question about partition in Ireland?


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The child killer reference is odd, insofar that it is specific to Sinn Fein only, but not associated with any other protagonists of the conflict, namely the British State who also killed children directly, or through their loyalist proxies, and then protected the killers from seeing justice.


They aren't in the parliament of this country and don't have aspirations to rule us.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yep, and given the majority in NI do not wish to be partitioned from the EU, perhaps it is time to ask the question about partition in Ireland?


NI voted Remain because a sufficient minority of unionists saw that as the rational choice (nationalists were almost 100% Remain as they saw it as anti Brit).  You seriously misunderstand the unionist mindset if you think even a fraction of this minority of unionists put their EUness ahead of their Britishness.  A border poll would fail now for sure.  If I were a unionist I would be pushing for such a poll but on the same terms of the Scottish ref i.e. a once in a generation event.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> They aren't in the parliament of this country and don't have aspirations to rule us.



What has that got to do with qualifying as being child killers or not? 

They killed children in 'this country', notably in the Dublin Monaghan bombings,

- Jacqueline (17 months) & Anne-Marie (5 months) O'Brien.
- plus an unborn baby

By any definition, they are child killers and still have the apparatus in place to deny justice to the victims. And we as a State, recognise their legitimacy to govern over our people.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> By any definition, they are child killers and still have the apparatus in place to deny justice to the victims.


Their politicians don't carry the coffins and go to the funerals of the people who planted the bombs.


WolfeTone said:


> And we as a State, recognise their legitimacy to govern over our people.


No we don't. As a State we recognise that they are not our people. You or I may not like that but that's the way it is.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You seriously misunderstand the unionist mindset if you think even a fraction of this minority of unionists put their EUness ahead of their Britishness. A border poll would fail now for sure. If I were a unionist I would be pushing for such a poll but on the same terms of the Scottish ref i.e. a once in a generation event.



I don't under estimate it all. I have long considered it a bit of an oddity that SF are very vocal in pushing for a border poll and that Unionists are dead set against it, considering the liklihood of its failure.
The only logical conclusion I can come to is that if Unionists were ever to contest border referendum then it sets the precedent for all other future referendums, that is, they could not with any credibility point to one referendum as legitimate (where they are successful) and then point to another future referendum as illegitimate (where they are unsuccessful).
Nope, from a Unionist perspective, best not to have any referendum at all, ever.

United Irelanders only need to get it right once, Partitionists need to win all the time.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Dec 2020)

Forget the apology.  Sinn Fein seem to firmly believe that the PIRA campaign was a glorious affair. I am not a great fan of the WoI but the idea that there is equivalence between that IRA and the PIRA either in terms of their moral justification or in terms of their democratic legitimacy or in terms of what they achieved (absolutely nothing) is nonsense.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> United Irelanders only need to get it right once, Partitionists need to win all the time.





			
				IRA to Maggie after Brighton bomb said:
			
		

> We only need to get lucky once, you need to be lucky all the time.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> Their politicians don't carry the coffins and go to the funerals of the people who planted the bombs.



Well that is simply not true. Off the top of my head, David Ervine was a convicted member of the UVF at the time they were planting bombs killing children. Elected politicians of the British parliament attended his funeral.



Purple said:


> No we don't. As a State we recognise that they are not our people. You or I may not like that but that's the way it is.



Thats right, Collins sold them out. 
You set a peculiar criteria for labelling people as child killers...I just use the tried and trusted method, if you kill a child you are a child killer...simple enough. Political status or funeral record attendance is all whataboutery.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I just use the tried and trusted method, if you kill a child you are a child killer...simple enough. Political status or funeral record attendance is all whataboutery.


See it's that sort of twisted logic that makes the Shinners unelectable for people who are real republicans and democrats in that they understand what both things actually mean. 
I haven't heard any Tory or Labour politician justifying the action of the UVF. I haven't heard any of them fail to condemn the actions of the UVF. I've never heard any of the Shinners condemn the murder of children by their military wing. That's why I think that it is appropriate to refer to them as the child killers. 
As for the Parties in Northern Ireland? The place is an economic and political basket case, a failed entity. With the exception of the SDLP I've little or no time for any of them.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> I haven't heard any Tory or Labour politician justifying the action of the UVF.



They don't govern over the UVF. When was the last time (or first time) you heard a Tory or Labour government minister condemn the British Army (who killed children) in Ireland, or anywhere around the world for that matter.



Purple said:


> I haven't heard any Tory or Labour politician justifying the action of the UVF.



You have heard them justify the actions of the British Army (who killed children). 




Purple said:


> See it's that sort of twisted logic that makes the Shinners unelectable for people who are real republicans and democrats in that they understand what both things actually mean.



Your entitled to your views, but it is the people of Ireland that will the determine the logic of it all. I simply think your logic is extremely twisted. The reference 'Child Killers' is clearly a highly charged and emotive term designed to provoke. But your criteria for applying it is based on political bias and nothing else. The truth is that child victims of British Army, and their proxies in UVF, are as every bit a tragedy of this conflict as the child victims of the IRA. Its this attempt to put innocent victims of the IRA on a pedestal above innocent victims of the British military apparatus that will not go unchallenged. There should be no hierarchy of victims in this regard.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> They don't govern over the UVF. When was the last time (or first time) you heard a Tory or Labour government minister condemn the British Army


And that goes to the heart of the matter.  When has an Irish (insert any nation except possibly Australia here) government condemned its nation's army?  If SF ever get into power they would begrudgingly respect the official army but the real army that would be beyond criticism would be the Provisional IRA.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> They don't govern over the UVF. When was the last time (or first time) you heard a Tory or Labour government minister condemn the British Army (who killed children) in Ireland, or anywhere around the world for that matter.
> 
> You have heard them justify the actions of the British Army (who killed children).


Is your argument that because the British Army kills children (but doesn't deliberately target them) it's okay for people who killed children and are unapologetic about it to be elected politicians in this country and it's not okay to mention it?



WolfeTone said:


> The reference 'Child Killers' is clearly a highly charged and emotive term designed to provoke.


No, it's designed to point out who these people are, what they believe in and who they support.



WolfeTone said:


> The truth is that child victims of British Army, and their proxies in UVF, are as every bit a tragedy of this conflict as the child victims of the IRA. *Its this attempt to put innocent victims of the IRA on a pedestal above innocent victims of the British military apparatus that will not go unchallenged.* There should be no hierarchy of victims in this regard.


  Who is doing that? The only person on this thread proposing a hierarchy of victims is you. You have stated it in unequivocal terms.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Sinn Fein seem to firmly believe that the PIRA campaign was a glorious affair.



I dont think 'glorious affair' is appropriate in fairness. Certainly they are proud of their comrades and the resistance they showed, but this is no different to any other supporters of any other military force and their expeditions, regardless of the atrocities that are directly attributable to them.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am not a great fan of the WoI but the idea that there is equivalence between that IRA and the PIRA either in terms of their behaviour or in terms of their democratic legitimacy.



I have this view trotted out many a time, I have never been convinced. The WoI derives its moral justification from the 1916 Proclamation and the subsequent SF landslide election of 1918. The first Dáil convening on 21 January 1919 never gave any authorisation then, or after, for the use of military force against the British, certainly not for the attack in Soloheadbeg the same day shooting dead two police officers.  In the words of Dan Breen himself "_…we took the action deliberately, having thought over the matter and talked it over between us. Treacy had stated to me that the only way of starting a war was to kill someone, and we wanted to start a war, so we intended to kill some of the police whom we looked upon as the foremost and most important branch of the enemy forces … The only regret that we had following the ambush was that there were only two policemen in it, instead of the six we had expected…_”  

The "good 'ol 'Ra" were a law unto themselves for the most part. They tortured and killed innocent civilians, wrongly identifying them as informers or spies, disappeared their bodies etc....and had no authorisation from any legal authority nor were accountable to anyone for their actions.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> Is your argument that because the British Army kills children (but doesn't deliberately target them) it's okay for people who killed children and are unapologetic about it to be elected politicians in this country and it's not okay to mention it?



No, not at all. You are going to provide an exclusive here? Which elected people in this country have killed children and are unapologetic about it?

My argument is that your reference to SF as 'Child Killers' is an emotive politically charged term. There are no child killers elected to our parliament, if there were you should pass on whatever information you have to the Gardai.
You are attributing guilt by association, something you are not prepared to do for other protaganists of the conflict.




Purple said:


> The only person on this thread proposing a hierarchy of victims is you. You have stated it in unequivocal terms.



I made the distinction between innocent civilians and combatants, yes. Where I believe there should be no hierarchy is between innocent civilian victims of the IRA and innocent civilian victims of the British Army or any other armed grouping.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> If SF ever get into power they would begrudgingly respect the official army but the real army that would be beyond criticism would be the Provisional IRA.



And as we are discovering, the Good 'ol IRA (GOIRA). It is something that hasn't past my attention how some commentators referencing the Stanley controversary placed their disdain at Stanleys reference to dead soldiers at Warrenpoint but ignored the reference to Kilmichael - I can only assume that in the minds of many today, GOIRA are beyond criticism too.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> No, not at all. You are going to provide an exclusive here? Which elected people in this country have killed children and are unapologetic about it?
> 
> My argument is that your reference to SF as 'Child Killers' is an emotive politically charged term. There are no child killers elected to our parliament, if there were you should pass on whatever information you have to the Gardai.
> You are attributing guilt by association, something you are not prepared to do for other protaganists of the conflict.


I'm not going to post stuff about former IRA members on a public forum. I don't want to cause a legal issue for Brendan and I'm fond of my knees.
If you think there are no former IRA members in elected office as members of the Shinners then you are willfully ignoring their history. Anyone who was in the IRA is a child killer, directly or indirectly.
Other foreign based protagonists are not running a political party in this country which is fronted by Mary Lou. 
People are entitled to vote for them and I'm entitled to remind them that they are voting for child killers.



WolfeTone said:


> I made the distinction between innocent civilians and combatants, yes. Where I believe there should be no hierarchy is between innocent civilian victims of the IRA and innocent civilian victims of the British Army or any other armed grouping.


Ah, so you don't think any of the soldiers or RUC officers shot in their homes, blown up in front of, or with, their families were innocent. Wow.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> And as we are discovering, the Good 'ol IRA (GOIRA). It is something that hasn't past my attention how some commentators referencing the Stanley controversary placed their disdain at Stanleys reference to dead soldiers at Warrenpoint but ignored the reference to Kilmichael - I can only assume that in the minds of many today, GOIRA are beyond criticism too.


The whole think was in bad taste. Glorifying our bloody past makes it more likely we'll repeat it or, as happened in Northern Ireland, what in latter years turned into nothing more than a criminal gang used that past as a cloak for their criminality.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I dont think 'glorious affair' is appropriate in fairness. Certainly they are proud of their comrades and the resistance they showed, but this is no different to any other supporters of any other military force and their expeditions, regardless of the atrocities that are directly attributable to them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, as I said I am not a fan of the WoI and I will take you word for it that they were just as great a bunch of thugs as the Provos. Though the former did achieve democratic legitimacy and for some including _Purple _a worthwhile result - our independence.  The latter never attained democratic legitimacy and achieved nothing* during the long bloody campaign before they learnt Sunningdale.  There is absolutely nothing in the Provo campaign that is worthy of commemorating, and yet SF seem fixated on doing just that.
The British Army have I am sure in their time committed war crimes and they have crimes to answer for in the Troubles but the idea that there is some sort of equivalence between BA and the PIRA in terms of either honour or shame whichever you wish is a myth that SF desperately try to make stick but is a grotesque caricature of what actually happened.

_* Correction:  I think the GFA had more references to the Irish Language than Sunningdale._


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> I'm not going to post stuff about former IRA members on a public forum. I don't want to cause a legal issue for Brendan



That is understandable, I wouldnt not be fair to expect you to.



Purple said:


> If you think there are no former IRA members in elected office as members of the Shinners then you are willfully ignoring their history.



I never said that, please do not try put words in my mouth. 



Purple said:


> Anyone who was in the IRA is a child killer, directly or indirectly.



This is guilt by association. It stands to reason then that you think anyone who was in the British Army is also a child killer, directly or indirectly?
Personally I do not draw such equivalence, for members of SF or for members of the British Army.



Purple said:


> Other foreign based protagonists are not running a political party in this country which is fronted by Mary Lou.



You have lost me on that one. Mary Lou is the leader of SF, she is from Dublin. The entire parliamentary party of SF is from Ireland. I think we had this discussion before about members of the Green Party from NI voting on the Programme for Government? I think you are opposed to their interference, in the end though, you were happy that they went into government despite the 'foreign' interference.



Purple said:


> Ah, so you don't think any of the soldiers or RUC officers shot in their homes, blown up in front of, or with, their families were innocent. Wow.



Again, please do not try put words in my mouth. Anyone who joins any military and takes up a gun is far from innocent. As for the RUC, I do not doubt that many of them were ordinary decent family people trying to build careers as police officers. But you would be naive in the extreme to not know that many of them were members and collaborators with the UDR and UVF. And that they scale of collusion insofar as not investigating crimes of murder by loyalist paramilitaries went beyond a few bad apples. It was systemic.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Though the former did achieve democratic legitimacy



In what sense? For sure they brought the British government to the negotiating table and established the Free State. But they failed to repeal the Government of Ireland Act which established NI and in turn led to a century littered with political and sectarian violence in a basket case, church controlled, State.
The Provos too brought the British government to the negotiating table and, like GOIRA, failed to repeal the GoI Act. At best, the Provo campaign may have hopped one of those stepping stones (backwards or forwards) that Collins mentioned in his push for peace. A derisory return either way.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> they learnt Sunningdale



Ah yes Sunningdale, for slow learners, the quip associated with Séamus Mallon. Sunningdale collapsed at the hands of loyalists who brought the economy and society to a standstill. The irony being lost on Mallon that you cannot come to a political settlement for peace if the protagonists engaged in violence are excluded from the negotiation. It was a stance he would hold firm to for the rest of his political life only for Hume to undercut this position with his engagement with Adams. After which ceasefire would eventually emerge despite all the obstacles, obstructions and disdain he had to endure.
Slow learners indeed.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> There is absolutely nothing in the Provo campaign that is worthy of commemorating



Obviously, depending on your perspective, this is a legitimate held view but from a SF perspective and the communities they represent they consider otherwise. Obviously they failed, like GOIRA and all others before them, to forceabley move Britain out of Ireland entirely. But they would hold the struggles of those who stood against internment, criminalisation, collusion, shoot-to-kill, in the face of a military might of the BA. The sacrifices of the Hunger Strikers - regardless of what you think of the individuals or their cause, the act of self-sacrifice resonated around the world smashing the policy of criminalisation.
From a military perspective, and this brings us back to Stanley, Warrenpoint was considered a huge success, similar to Kilmichael before it.
Striking at the heart of the political establishment, twice, in Brighton and in Downing St*



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The British Army have I am sure in their time committed war crimes



I sense you are leaving room for doubt?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> that there is some sort of equivalence between BA and the PIRA in terms of either honour or shame



In terms of shame there is little difference. They murdered innocents, children, the unborn. They cover-up their atrocities protecting the perpetrators from justice. They engaged in torture and they conspired to plant bombs indiscriminately.

In terms of honour, the only honour is for ourselves as a people to ensure it never descends into bloodshed again.

*_I don't proclaim these as events worth commemorating, rather from an objective military view they would be considered as a success. Similarly events like Loughgall and Gibraltar would be considered successes on the British side. _


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Ah yes Sunningdale, for slow learners, the quip associated with Séamus Mallon. Sunningdale collapsed at the hands of loyalists who brought the economy and society to a standstill.


I won't let you away with the that.  I was a resident of a staunchly republican ghetto in West Belfast at the time of Sunningdale.  The earlier suspension of Stormont was even more pleasurable to me than the more recent defeat of the Trump.  I would have been happy enough with direct rule.  Sunningdale righted or set the stage for all the RC grievance, real or imagined, to be righted.  I thought to myself the civil rights movement has been vindicated, I even had to concede that the Provo campaign, by triggering internment which ultimately led to Bloody Sunday and the inevitable demise of the junta, was instrumental in achieving this big win for nationalists.
But there was something missing.  The Provos had no electoral presence at all.  The new dispensation spelt the demise of their whole raison d'etre with nothing to show for it.  So under the guise of continuing to fight for an all Ireland socialist republic they intensified their terrorist campaign.  No wonder this proved intolerable to unionists and yes Wilson should have stood up to them. 
But make no mistake the initiator of the Troubles for their whole duration was the Provos as evidenced by the fact that when they ceased fire everybody ceased fire.  Your _tecate _like insistence that the British were equal stokers of the Troubles would have meant that they would have continued with their (according to you) vile aggression of the nationalist population.  I don't recall after the IRA declared their ceasefire that we were all holding our breaths to see if the British would stop this supposed aggression against the RC population.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> Glorifying our bloody past makes it more likely we'll repeat it



Indeed, we should cut the carp and stop glorifying GOIRA and Kilmichael whilst condemning Warrenpoint. It is a contradiction.



Purple said:


> what in latter years turned into nothing more than a criminal gang used that past as a cloak for their criminality



There are of course war crimes attributable to them but at the heart of the issue is political legitimacy of those in authority.
The British state had lost its legitimacy in the eyes of many, the RUC had no authority in nationalist areas. The BA were guilty of war crimes, the irony of those who purport to uphold law & order, justice and democracy being lost on some.
In such circumstances it would be hard to find a conflict area in the world where gangsterism does not emerge (not exclusively just the paramilitary sides either).
After the peace deal emerged, it was still a long road until the unwinding of the paramilitaries. A generation knowing no different will not automatically revert to trusting state institutions because a handful of politicians tell them to.
But Ive followed the events closely for over 35yrs. One of the most significant events for me is a little known passage in Peter Taylors 'Provos & SF' book published in 1995. In it is an interview with then SF chairperson Mitchell McLaughlin - McLaughlin quite explicitly states that the SF leadership objective is to get rid of the IRA. This was 1995, before Unionists would even share a TV studio with SF, before British government would enter talks, when trust was so fickle that all negotiation stalled on words like 'permanent' and 'complete'. 
It is clear to me, although many still hanker for the illusion that SF is run by an Army Council, that the IRA as we knew it is gone.
Every security report from Gardaí and PSNI indicates that PIRA members are engaged exclusively in peaceful and democratic programs and that recruitment to any military apparatus is non-existent.
SF would be insane to tie themselves to any military organisation, other than what it was tied to in the past. On an island wide basis they are the largest party in the country with the most votes - political legitimacy defined.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

I'm not suggesting that the Provos were not aggressors in their own right and that opportunities for peace were missed on their side. I simply think the attribution of 'slow learners' exclusively to the Provos, or all paramilitaries, is a little glib considering the events of the time. It is all well and good that political establishment leaders congregate and tell the populous  that the solution is some grandiose power sharing arrangement to a population who broadly felt had no political stake, and were under attack from loyalists, abandoned by the police....it was a hard sell I would imagine?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But make no mistake the initiator of the Troubles for their whole duration was the Provos as evidenced by the fact that when they ceased fire everybody ceased fire.



No disrespect Duke, but you know as well as I do that the Provos did not even exist at the commencement of the Troubles.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Your _tecate _like insistence that the British were equal stokers of the Troubles would have meant that they would have continued with their (according to you) vile aggression of the nationalist population.



Again, I'm sure you are quite aware of this. The British government policy was that there was no war, just a criminal conspiracy. There was nothing for them to 'cease fire' to, as officially they were not at war.
Unofficially however, the proof is the pudding, summary executions, collusion with loyalists, arms shipments, shoot-to-kill, subverting criminal investigations and public inquiries (Stevens) etc... etc...

I'm minded to think of the words of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II in Dublin, "_With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see some things we wish could have been done differently, or not at all."_


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Dec 2020)

Troubles score card:
Provos 10 bad 0 good
Loyalist murder gangs 7 bad 0 good
British Army 1 bad 6 good
Charles Haughey et al 4 bad 0 good
Garret Fitgerald 5 good
John Hume 10 good
Seamus Mallon 10 good
David Trimble 3 good 2 bad
Ian Paisley 6 bad
Gerry Adams 10 bad 3 good
Martin McGuinness 10 bad 5 good
The Queen 5 good
Mary McAleese 5 good 1 bad


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

You left out Dana! Then again, perhaps  there is no accounting for the damage she caused!!


----------



## Peanuts20 (4 Dec 2020)

I lived in London for 10 years and in my time there I heard 2 bombs go off. One was Canary Wharf which rattled the windows of my house. The 2nd one was when I was walking from Tottenham Court Road tube station to a theatre to see a show when a "litter bin" bomb went off in a side street. it was a "small bomb", injured no-one Thank God but I can hear the noise in my head as I type this. 

I also worked for a company whose main office was blown up in Bishopsgate. I had to to go to work the following Monday morning, bricking myself for the reaction from the English and to be honest, it could not have been better. To them, we were all in the one boat, regardless of where we came from and I will always be grateful for that.

The IRA in the War of  Independence were no angels, they did not always get it right and innocent people were killed and injured by them. However, the Provos deliberately set out to kill people simply because they were English in an effort to destablise their economy and scare the British into withdrawal. Think the bombs mentioned above, think the pub bombs in the 70s, the list goes on.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Dec 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> However, the Provos deliberately set out to kill people simply because they were English in an effort to destablise their economy and scare the British into withdrawal.



As did the Fenians before them, including Thomas Clarke, revered in political establishment circles in this country so much so that they named bridges and train stations after them.



Peanuts20 said:


> The IRA in the War of Independence were no angels, they did not always get it right and innocent people were killed and injured by them



What is the difference between these two comments? Is there some distinction, some higher level of repulsion and indignation to be applied to innocent English people killed by Provos and the innocent people killed by GOIRA? 

What is the difference between what Thomas Clarke was engaged in, planting bombs on public bridges and underground train stations in England and the bombings that Provos were engaged in?


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> As did the Fenians before them, including Thomas Clarke, revered in political establishment circles in this country so much so that they named bridges and train stations after them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your whole argument seems to be that it's okay for a modern political party to have unrepentant bomb makers in its parliamentary ranks and terrorists running the show from behind the scenes because some dubious moral equivalence with something that happened 100 years ago. Am I missing something or is that it?
We are ignoring their recent links to bank robbery, the murder of Gardai, extortion and racketeering, secret courts which exonerate murderers, kneecappings and assaults (punishment beatings), intimidation and some very dubious party funding. 

The only political party representatives I wouldn't feel comfortable having a frank discussion with are those from the Shinners.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> Am I missing something or is that it?



Yes, a lot, and by some margin. 

I wasn't arguing anything, I was asking questions. Planting bombs and indiscriminately killing children in 1881 was as morally repugnant then as it is today. I'm asking how the perpetrators of such savagery can be revered by our political establishment?


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, a lot, and by some margin.
> 
> I wasn't arguing anything, I was asking questions. Planting bombs and indiscriminately killing children in 1881 was as morally repugnant then as it is today. I'm asking how the perpetrators of such savagery can be revered by our political establishment?


Okay, so you have deflected from the topic which you started which is why I refer to Sinn Fein as the Child Killers. 
You seem to think that it's not okay because other people killed children 100 years ago. 

In the here and now and in the specific context of this country (not what you think this country should be comprised of), and without any whataboutism relating to other countries and members of other parliaments, do you think that the very recent history and utterly unrepentant recent past of prominent members of Sinn Fein make them unsuitable for high office? 
Do you think that people who were active members of a terrorist organisation, and are proud of their membership, are hypocritical when they criticise other TD's about relatively minor transgressions. 
Do you regard the PIRA as a terrorist organisation?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Dec 2020)

Excellent article by Stephen Collins in today's IT.  He warns against RTE continuing to paint the WoI in "cowboys and Indians" terms and how this plays into the SF narrative justifying the Provo campaign of violence.
I am inclined to agree with _Theo _that there is not that much moral daylight between the GOIRA and the Provos.  But the latter were fighting for an all Ireland socialist republic which had no democratic mandate and had no possible chance of success.  Putting the moral question aside I for one do not want any links whatsoever between the Provos and members of our government, I'm glad I left NI.
Where I fundamentally disagree with _Theo_ is in his drawing an equivalence between the British Army role in the Troubles and that of the Provos.  Yes he can cite a tit for tat atrocity for atrocity up to a point but the big picture IMHO was that the BA where there to control the situation and prevent it from descending into civil war, they eventually succeeded.  They had no strategic interest in the campaign, so yes their motives were honourable including a feeling of responsibility to maintain NI within the UK as desired by the majority of its inhabitants.
Frankly we in the 26 counties should be grateful for the BA role for if they had upped sticks in 1974 we would indeed have been engulfed in an all island civil war and possibly find ourselves now in that 32 county socialist republic.
Not sure about the BA of 100 years ago, they certainly did have a strategic interest in Ireland.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> Okay, so you have deflected from the topic which you started which is why I refer to Sinn Fein as the Child Killers.



I haven't deflected from anything. I was asking questions of comments made by another which appeared, to me at least, to contradict themselves. 

You have extrapolated from those questions an interpretation of my views that are so wide off the mark it is hard to know where to begin with your follow-on questions. 
Instead, you might answer some of the questions put to you previously which you have avoided? The criteria you set for labelling democratically elected members of the Irish Parliament as 'child killers' is borne out of nothing but political bias. You proclaim to have information to support your claims but it is not clear if you have passed it on to the lawful authorities to investigate? 
If you have, then the substance of your information is obviously not held in high regard as every security assessment from the PSNI and Gardaí confirm that PIRA have stood down, pose no threat, that it's members are engaged in exclusively democratic programs, that there is no recruitment to any military apparatus. 

You seem to claim different?


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I haven't deflected from anything. I was asking questions of comments made by another which appeared, to me at least, to contradict themselves.
> 
> You have extrapolated from those questions an interpretation of my views that are so wide off the mark it is hard to know where to begin with your follow-on questions.
> Instead, you might answer some of the questions put to you previously which you have avoided? The criteria you set for labelling democratically elected members of the Irish Parliament as 'child killers' is borne out of nothing but political bias. You proclaim to have information to support your claims but it is not clear if you have passed it on to the lawful authorities to investigate?
> ...


Can you answer any of the question I asked or at least clarify your views on the matter?
Were the PIRA a terrorist organisation?
Are (former?) members who are unrepentant of their actions and the actions of the PIRA suitable people to have running this country?
Given their past do they have any credibility when criticising other politicians?


----------



## Peanuts20 (4 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> As did the Fenians before them, including Thomas Clarke, revered in political establishment circles in this country so much so that they named bridges and train stations after them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you bring Thomas Clarke into the equation you are taking someone from a defunct organisation who joined another and adding it all together into one narrative as it it applied to all. I find that odd to say the least. 

The Old IRA did not systematically set out to kill English people doing their Mother's day Shopping or sitting in a pub in Aldershot or Birmingham having a pint. They never planted bombs in fish and chip shops. They never strapped innocent men into cars and forced them to drive a bomb into an army base and then detonate whilst holding their families hostage. 

Maybe I'm biased because my grandparents were all in the Old IRA and Cumman na mBan?. Maybe I'm biased because our farm was raised 3 times by the Tans and my grandparents saw what they were doing as defending their families as much as fighting for independence.? However I do know one thing, they never deliberately targetted civilians unlike the animals in the PIRA.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Dec 2020)

There is a way of doing this Purple, I'm questioning the application of your term 'Child Killers' to democratically elected members of this State when, with the exception of information that you say you have, no such member of our Parliament is under investigation for killing any child, or that I am aware of.
It appears to me that your application of the term is nothing more that highly charged emotive term derived out of your own political bias. I base this on your comments that reference membership of IRA, attendance at funerals, etc as your qualifying criteria for casting such assertions, and not some hidden nugget of information your purport to hold.
To which end, I ask you if you apply the same emotive term to members of the BA, and its government who cover-up and stand over the killing of children in this country. This is my question to you that remains unanswered



WolfeTone said:


> This is guilt by association. It stands to reason then that you think anyone who was in the British Army is also a child killer, directly or indirectly?



But in the spirit of goodwill, and in the interests of progressing the discussion I will, on this occasion, offer to answer your questions ahead of the question that I put to you earlier, I would hope that you may in turn reciprocate? 



Purple said:


> do you think that the very recent history and utterly unrepentant recent past of prominent members of Sinn Fein make them unsuitable for high office?



There are most likely members of SF (or its active supporters) who committed awful atrocities during the conflict that I would most probably consider unfit for high office - the shambolic and wreck less killing of Garda McCabe for a start. 
I am not aware of any such member now that holds office that would fall into this category.



Purple said:


> Do you think that people who were active members of a terrorist organisation, and are proud of their membership, are hypocritical when they criticise other TD's about relatively minor transgressions.



I probably would if you could identify the context, but I hope my next answer helps.



Purple said:


> Do you regard the PIRA as a terrorist organisation?



No, it is an organisation that is defunct. And according to every recent security assessment from Gardaí and PSNI its has wound down its military capabilities and its members are engaged in exclusively democratic programs. I take their word for it, do you?


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Dec 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> Maybe I'm biased



I suspect you are. But don't let me decide for you. Here is a short article focusing on the work of one historian shining a light of the activities of GOIRA. 

GOIRA


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> but the big picture IMHO was that the BA where there to control the situation and prevent it from descending into civil war, they eventually succeeded. They had no strategic interest in the campaign, so yes their motives were honourable including a feeling of responsibility to maintain NI within the UK as desired by the majority of its inhabitants.



I don't disagree with the general sentiment expressed. Certainly the BA were brought in to try quell an eruption of political and sectarian strife in the civilian population. 
_However, _it cannot be said that succeeded much in anyway as an efficient peace-keeping force. The tables turned quickly and it was the aggression from Republicans that was identified as the primary threat rather than Republicans _and _Loyalists. This sentiment no doubt architected by RUC, who already a discredited police force, and their liasons with BA. 
It becomes apparent that the BA role quickly morphed into maintaining the status quo of the Orange State, the supremacy of the Protestant political establishment, in the Protestant state for a Protestant people. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Frankly we in the 26 counties should be grateful for the BA role for if they had upped sticks in 1974 we would indeed have been engulfed in an all island civil war and possibly find ourselves now in that 32 county socialist republic.



The socialists I thought were your old crew? The OIRA? Who were subsequently sidelined whilst dithering in Dublin pondering Marxist ideology while Belfast burned. 
The Provos had no such inclination in the 1970's, communities were under siege and the only order was to attack back. 
Socialism would re-emerge in the prison camps and under Adams leadership of SF. But in the 1970s it was a distant second, hence the split. 

In the context of this discussion I do not purport to claim that Provos did not commit some awful criminal atrocities, I am quite adamant that they did, and shameful atrocities they were. 
I simply do not buy into the mainstream narrative that it was all the fault of the Provos. That they were the aggressors and everyone else just wanted peace. 
To use one example, one narrative that you have mentioned is that when the Provos stopped, then everyone else stopped. The implication being, why didn't they stop sooner? 
On the face of it this is a vslid point. But any examination of events will tell a different tale. 
The Provos only stopped _after _the political establishments in British and Irish governments, backed by the US, showed a real momentum to enter talks for a new negotiated settlement for the people of NI. 
Without such signals and intent from the political establishment then chances of a ceasefire were not likely. 
So conversely, why did the political establishment take so long to get their act together and do what was always going to have to be done anyway? Adams had already brought SF to accepting Dáil recognition in 1986, Hume-Adams was 1988, why did it take another 6 yrs to agree to enter political negotiation?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Dec 2020)

@WolfeTone can I ask a question?  Do you think the PIRA campaign for the 20 years post Sunningdale was justifiable?
That is a subjective matter.  Clearly Gerry Adams thinks it was.  Mary Lou claims that she thinks it was and would have been in the thick of it if she lived where I grew up.
To avoid any doubt I do not think it was justifiable and these are some of my reasons.
The Civil Rights movement had been vindicated.  Catholics were on course to have their grievances addressed, this happened anyway under Direct Rule.
Their cause ( a 32 county socialist republic) had no democratic mandate.
 Anyone could see that they had no chance of success, they simply led to 20 years of unnecessary carnage.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Dec 2020)

I see your point of view _Theo _but I mostly disagree.  We mostly agree what happened but at times make polar opposite interpretations of these events.





WolfeTone said:


> I don't disagree with the general sentiment expressed. Certainly the BA were brought in to try quell an eruption of political and sectarian strife in the civilian population.
> _However, _it cannot be said that succeeded much in anyway as an efficient peace-keeping force. The tables turned quickly and it was the aggression from Republicans that was identified as the primary threat rather than Republicans _and _Loyalists.


Actually at the time and on the ground that was my point of view.  I recall being asked at a road checkpoint by the BA something about my attitude to their presence - I forget what it was and I didn't feel threatened but I do remember my answer, I asked why are you not interning Loyalists. But with hindsight I see it clearer now.  I remember the first deaths of British soldiers.  3 of them in Ligoniel and right out of the blue - no provocation at all.  Clearly the idea of the BA being protectors of the Catholic population was anathema to them.


> It becomes apparent that the BA role quickly morphed into maintaining the status quo of the Orange State, the supremacy of the Protestant political establishment, in the Protestant state for a Protestant people.


You know that's not a fair interpretation. Under direct rule Catholic grievances were largely addressed.  By the time of negotiating the GFA it was no longer an argument for improving the Catholic economic and social conditions, it was about that grandiose sentiment  "parity of esteem" for nationalist aspirations.  But I do say that the British were deeply mistaken in originally allowing NI a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people.


> The socialists I thought were your old crew? The OIRA?


Ah, you're reading my mail.  You know what they say: if a man of 18 is not a socialist he has no heart.





> The Provos had no such inclination in the 1970's, communities were under siege and the only order was to attack back.
> Socialism would re-emerge in the prison camps and under Adams leadership of SF. But in the 1970s it was a distant second, hence the split.


 I think by Sunningdale the 32 county socialist republicans were in the ascendancy, but I may be wrong there.  I agree that the founders of the PIRA, Charlie Haughey, Neil Blaney et. al. were not socialists.



> In the context of this discussion I do not purport to claim that Provos did not commit some awful criminal atrocities, I am quite adamant that they did, and shameful atrocities they were.
> I simply do not buy into the mainstream narrative that it was all the fault of the Provos. That they were the aggressors and everyone else just wanted peace.


Clearly any implication that 100% of the blame falls to Provos  would be OTT.  Loyalists certainly kept it stirring but I still argue that their sectarian attacks were largely reactive.  Once the Provos called it a day, the Loyalist gangs reverted to extortion and exploiting their own community.


> To use one example, one narrative that you have mentioned is that when the Provos stopped, then everyone else stopped. The implication being, why didn't they stop sooner?
> On the face of it this is a valid point. But any examination of events will tell a different tale.
> The Provos only stopped _after _the political establishments in British and Irish governments, backed by the US, showed a real momentum to enter talks for a new negotiated settlement for the people of NI.


  Fundamentally disagree.  The British, Irish and US governments were always prepared to negotiate a return to Sunningdale.  The game changer was that SF/IRA started to see that that would not be too bad and their campaign was being infiltrated and going nowhere.  And the real game changer behind that was the Hunger Strike which made SF an electoral force, something completely absent at the time of Sunningdale.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Do you think the PIRA campaign for the 20 years post Sunningdale was justifiable?



On the cold face of it, absolutely no, of course not. I revert to the solemn words of QE2 in Dublin.
But I have never tried to, nor am I trying to, justify the PIRA campaign. I simply don't join in chorus of condemnation that prevails in political discourse in some quarters. The reason I do this is, because if you scratch beneath the surface of the morally righteous, you will find a very thin veneer of political expediency justifying the very things that they now condemn.
Instead, my interest lies in what drove the campaign, the motivations, and what could possibly sustain it for so long.
I will endeavour to explain somewhat.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Civil Rights movement had been vindicated. Catholics were on course to have their grievances addressed, this happened anyway under Direct Rule.



Yes, from a political establishment point of view you are correct. But the proof is always in the pudding.

To use a very loose analogy - If you happen to be an AIB employee who received news of impending redundancies this week, and on _the exact same day _a government minister peddled optimistic news about the economic outlook you may be inclined to be a bit more cynical and skeptical about what you are hearing?
Similarly, if the political establishment is pronouncing all sorts of wonderful reforms for your civil rights, you may still be a bit skeptical if you happen to live in a small city where the quest for such rights had recently been met with gunfire and slaughtering of the innocents?
And to make matters worse, if these reforms translate into covering up the truth of what actually happened, then I for one would forgive you for believing that any proposed reforms amounted to nothing more than toilet paper.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> Their cause (a 32 county *independent* Republic) had no democratic mandate.
> Anyone could see that they had no chance of success, they simply led to *a century littered with political and sectarian violence*.



(*my edits in bold) *... 1916.

Yet each year, the office holders of my President and of my Taoiseach, are paraded out to lay homage to the 'gallantry' of a city brought to its knees and hundreds of civilians being killed. All to try convince me and the generations to come that it was all worth it.
Forgive me for being a bit cynical of that narrative.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> We mostly agree what happened but at times make polar opposite interpretations of these events.



True, as your next post will succinctly demonstrate.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I remember the first deaths of British soldiers. 3 of them in Ligoniel and right out of the blue - no provocation at all.



I would consider the deaths of some 10 Catholic civilians/IRA at the hands of the BA in the months preceeding Ligoneil as a provocation.
I'm not condoning it, I just consider that there was motive to retaliate.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Under direct rule Catholic grievances were largely addressed. By the time of negotiating the GFA it was no longer an argument for improving the Catholic economic and social conditions, it was about that grandiose sentiment "parity of esteem" for nationalist aspirations.



Again, I have to question this. Yes, on paper that may be the case, but the reality of festering injustices - internment without trial, BA cover-ups, Derry, Ballymurphy, a discredited police force and collusion weigh heavily on the communities most affected.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The British, Irish and US governments were always prepared to negotiate a return to Sunningdale



Yes, but not with the protagonists engaged in conflict. As much as some would like to think otherwise, they did have the support of not insignificant amounts of their respective communities, particularly on the nationalist side.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The game changer was that SF/IRA started to see that that would not be too bad and their campaign was being infiltrated and going nowhere. And the real game changer behind that was the Hunger Strike which made SF an electoral force, something completely absent at the time of Sunningdale.



I don't disagree with this. The Catch 22 was the political establishment would not engage with militarists. The militarists, commanding significant support from their own communities had no political mandate.

Enter Gerry Adams.

While Adams is detested by many, it was his political nous and leadership that brought the Republican community from a position of zero regard for political activity and institutions and to turn it to their strength. He seized upon the sacrifice of Sands and the Hunger Strikers and elections to parliament. We should all be for ever grateful for Bobby Sands sacrifice. In the midst of the propaganda war of the British policy of criminalising the Republican Movement, Sands and the other Strikers projected to the world the legitimacy of their political ideals.
Adams capitalised on that. First through his own election, then leading SF to accept the Dáil, Hume-Adams, US engagement, ceasefire, and eventually a standing down of the IRA.
Whatever the exact truth about his IRA activities, his political activities are open public knowledge.

For the first time since I decided back in 1798 that the only way to shift British rule out of Ireland was through violent insurrection, we have a unified island that is overwhelmingly agreed the future can, and will, only be determined through democratic and peaceful means only.

The case for violent insurrection is now bankrupt, constitutional democratic politics has taken the ascendency and the moral justifications attributed by those engaged in armed revolt in 1969-1994, 1916-23, 1881, 1848, 1803, 1798 are now cast aside.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> On the cold face of it, absolutely no, of course not. I revert to the solemn words of QE2 in Dublin.
> But I have never tried to, nor am I trying to, justify the PIRA campaign. I simply don't join in chorus of condemnation that prevails in political discourse in some quarters. The reason I do this is, because if you scratch beneath the surface of the morally righteous, you will find a very thin veneer of political expediency justifying the very things that they now condemn.
> Instead, my interest lies in what drove the campaign, the motivations, and what could possibly sustain it for so long.
> I will endeavour to explain somewhat.
> ...


Gosh you are much older than I thought. Were you active at Vinegar Hill? Joking aside, I will respond tomorrow.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Dec 2020)

@WolfeTone Decided to read Wikipedia on the Troubles.  It does give scope for your narrative esp the one sided response of the BA in internment, but it also allows for mine.  It will be impossible to have an agreed narrative at least not until this is all ancient history.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Excellent article by Stephen Collins in today's IT. He warns against RTE continuing to paint the WoI in "cowboys and Indians" terms and how this plays into the SF narrative justifying the Provo campaign of violence.



It's a good article in some respects but it is also guilty of propagating the very narrative that it proposes should be questioned. The very opening sentence is the clue, "Brian Stanleys offensive tweet about IRA killings _*in 1979*_...".

Stanley didn't tweet about IRA killings in 1979, he tweeted about IRA killings in 1979 _and _1920.
Collins isn't the only public commentator to try apply a blind side to the content of Stanley's tweet. Colette Brown in Irish Independent did something similar when she derided Stanley's tweet for glorifying the death of '18 British soldiers' when it's clear, that if Stanley was glorifying anything, it was the death of 35 British soldiers - 17 in 1920 _and_ 18 in 1979.

How could two prominent Irish journalists make such a clear and obvious omission when commenting on Stanley's tweet? Was it a coincidental error?
In Browns case, no, it was deliberate. She was challenged on this on her own twitter account responding along the lines that Kilmichael was "a matter of freedom of the State" - the exact rethoric that the Provos would use.
I would suggest that Collins omission was no error either.
It would appear that Stanley's lording over dead British soldiers in 1920 is not to be considered offensive?
Tell that to the Unionist community and British people who so overtly commemorate the memory of all British soldiers who died in service each November, in particular, the memory of soldiers of that period.
Is the narrative of accepting the glorifying the death of British soldiers in Ireland in 1920, and the violence of the period in general, not the very thing that Collins is suggesting we need to challenge in his article ?
I think it is, odd then that he should omit the reference in Stanley's tweet and focus solely on the glorification of the 1979 attack.
It's that scratching of the thin veneer.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Dec 2020)

@WolfeTone same article, completely different perspectives.  I see Collins' article as almost exclusively outing the tendency for over glorification of the WoI which I understood to be one of your points but you seem to imply that his focus was mainly on the recent Troubles.
I see Fintan O'Toole has joined the fray in today's IT.  This time he does exclusively refer to the recent Troubles where he gives an ascendant order of culpability.  First the IRA, second the Loyalist thugs and thirdly the British state.  I know bookies generally only pay out on the first three but if PP happened to pay out on 4th it would have gone to certain sections of Southern Irish military industrial complex.  The Provos got a huge boost at the formation from the likes of Haughey and Blaney.  Throughout the whole period the South was a source of materiel and a safe haven.  But I suppose that is a rabbit hole.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Dec 2020)

@Duke of Marmalade im not sure how we come at Collins article from completely different perspectives? I agree the thrust of article is focusing on glorification WoI. What puzzles me is the glaring miskick-in-front-of-goal in his opening sentence. 
Instead of referencing Stanley's glorification of Kilmichael, in the period which is the subject of his article, he references only Stanley's glorification of Warrenpoint? 

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if it were not for a number of other public commentarys that follow in the same suit, Colette Brown being most obvious. 

So in the speak of the morally righteous, projecting the concept of a 'shared island', trying to proclaim the 'true' narrative of our violent past, the mask slips and underneath lies a tolerance that says - yes, stand on the graves of dead British soldiers and proclaim victory, as long as it is the 'right' British soldiers. 
Collins asserts this view to an extent in his article "_The vitriolic opposition to the planned commemoration [RIC] revealed an ugly level of ignorance and intolerance which went well beyond the ranks of Sinn Féin. It showed that much of the widely trumpeted respect for all traditions on the island is mere lip service"_



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Provos got a huge boost at the formation from the likes of Haughey and Blaney. Throughout the whole period the South was a source of materiel and a safe haven. But I suppose that is a rabbit hole.



Indeed, such a can of worms would only further erode the Haughey "I did the State some service" veneer.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Dec 2020)

Eoin O'Malleyy in the Sindo said:
			
		

> Most of the demands of the civil rights marchers had been conceded early on, but the IRA still chose to pursue a campaign of terror.
> The British showed themselves as willing to talk.
> The proof that it was the IRA, and not the British, the Irish or the loyalists that had prolonged the Troubles is that once the IRA sought to engage politically the violence largely ended.


Has he been reading my posts?
Also in the same paper Declan Lynch highlights the hypocrisy of Mary Lou.  Stanley was merely tweeting SF orthodox credo.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2020)

@Duke of Marmalade that's not going to wash. 

Declaring that civil rights demands will be met is one thing, delivering on them is another. I made this point earlier. 

Is O'Malley seriously trying to suggest that the British had delivered a comprehensive programme of reforms that satisfied and quelled the CRM by 30 January 1972? Seriously? Is he suggesting the marchers had no cause? Why were they marching then? 

Whatever measures were offered by the British ran parallel with protestors gunned down and slaughtered, with the ignominy of being labelled as terrorists by a complicit media. The truth of matter taking 40yrs to be established. Ballymurphy happened six months before, still waiting for the truth there. 

With respect, hard to take such a view as O'Malleys seriously.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> @Duke of Marmalade
> With respect, hard to take such a view as O'Malleys seriously.


Yes, I can see it is hard for you.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes, I can see it hard for you.



_Ah Duke, _you left me dangling?

O'Malley _and_ Lynch... maybe I've missed something?

Sunday morning routines are not what they used to be, hopefully vaccine roll-out will restore normal order. I miss the morning stop for a sit-in coffee after a brisk walk on crisp winter mornings. Free copies of the Sindo abound, straight to the back page for Kerrigan, searing, sometimes merciless, incisions of our political class - you have to hand it to him, easy to see why holds the back page.

After that, much ado about nothing, there is only so much brow-beating septic vitriol one can take in a lifetime from Eoghan Harris. And if you lived in a household where one occupant religiously tuned three times a week into episodes of Eastenders, its dire depictions of the human species and their future prospects, by Sunday, the Harris column and "WE ARE DOOMED! I TELL YA! THE SHINNERS ARE COMING!!" ...becomes all a bit wearisome.

So coffee, Kerrigan, and coffee mat... certainly not handing cash over for it 

All that aside, having no coffee shop to sit in, there is a peculiar absence from my Sunday morning routine and your mentioning of two articles, from Lynch and O'Malley, opened not so much a doubt, more pricked an inquisitive tick.

So here I am, €9.99 worse off. 

Lynch, I acknowledge is an engaging writer, very much accredited in his field and deservedly so. A writer, in my opinion, that can pretty much assign his talents to any particular topic with much aplomb.

And could I have asked for a better example of his seemingly effortless column writing on any random thing? Maybe, but I could have no complaints this week with regard to output on the Stanley Tweet(s) Outrage.

Lynch writes, unaffected by the black comedy of the whole affair, his reaction was... "not much really". He doesn't hold back about Stanley "... appreciate that he willing to publicly state this kind of garbage".

Lynch, using his literary skills for audience engagement, nevertheless proceeds to write a full article on an issue that provoked little interest in him and that basically he thinks is a load of garbage.

Why am I starting to get that familiar empty feeling after watching an episode of Eastenders?
I can almost hear my €9.99 landing in the Sindo slot machine. Reading this stuff will, if you are into it, certainly trigger the pleasure endorphins.
Lynch writes authoritively about the gambling industry and the dark side of its profit-churning tactics. He knows what he is doing, ching-ching!

As for O'Malley, I'm not familiar with his work. I'm unlikely to be enticed much further after today given his wholesale simplified Ladybird version of events, "_First, he _[Stanley]_ was wrong to claim that Narrow Water _[*1979*] _taught the British elite anything. The British in the 1970s had little interest in Northern Ireland, and were actively exploring a policy of withdrawal _[no reference]._.. When Margaret Thatcher took over _[*1977*],_ she did not approve that approach"..._

Do the maths.

Narrow Water occurred at the time when O' Malley admits that the British government, led by Thatcher, were _not _actively exploring a policy of withdrawal.

It gets worse, O'Malley assures us that Stanley's 'slow learners' quip was not targeted at the British military elite as explicitly mentioned in his tweet, but instead it was "*in fact* the leadership of the Provisional IRA"....  _Dum, dum, de, dum, dede, dum (sorry, Eastenders finale). _

I have to switch over.

Barry Egan, that ol' rocker and critique of the arts will provide some distraction. But even he has bought into (or paid to) the Stanley Twitterati bug this week.
Egan, another excellent writer, writes a poignant personal scribe about IRA events, dramatic and traumatic, from his own family tree that he was reminded of recently. There is a welcome sense throughout his piece of trying to portray the real raw tragedy inflicted on the individual lives caught up in the affairs of the IRA and the blessings for those of us that never have to endure such occurrences.
Egans episode portrays a gun running gangster/mafia intimidation affair with his grandfather caught up in the middle.
The events occurred in Dublin in the 1940's, which makes it a kind of "_Whose _IRA _Is It Anyway?" _affair. But joking aside, Egans father, with death threats and a gun put to his head, would die at a young age in 1952.

But what was the event that reminded Egan of his grandad and the affairs of that time?
Was it the series of RTÉ productions that Stephen Collins identified, and agreed by Egans editor Eoghan Harris, as RTÉ portraying Irish revolutionary past in _Cowboys and Indians _format_ (men with guns intimidating other men and their families)? _

Nope.

Was it the recent national commemoration of events in Bloody Sunday 1920 where early in the day of that fatal Sunday IRA men with guns entered the homes of other men and let loose?

Nope.

It was in fact... the Netflix series 'The Crown', and in particular the episode that depicts the IRA atrocity in Mullaghmore that killed young children and Mountbatten...in the year _*1979. *_Mullaghmore being an event where _no men_ with _no guns_ entered nobodys home_*. *_

Egan never makes it clear if he is associating the PIRA bomber of Mullaghmore (Thomas McMahon, born 1948) with the "_Whose _IRA _is it anyway?" _of 1940's, the IRA Irregulars of Civil War, pro-Treaty IRA or GOIRA.
Whichever IRA he chooses, he is unwittingly making an obvious link from PIRA back to a previous IRA, which in the Sindo neck of the woods is surely a no-no?

Am I scratching that veneer again?

I've said enough. In real news, in real reporting, the events of our past are coming to the fore and ugly truth is simmering before us.

Just in the last week

Winston Rea trial
Garda IRA collusion claims

What chances Harris, Lynch, O Malley et al getting stuck into these stories?
I think we will be waiting?

Instead the weekly soap opera of "_The Shinners Are Coming To Get You! " _will continue its serial fetish for the addicted.

Can I get my €9.99 back?


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Instead, my interest lies in what drove the campaign, the motivations, and what could possibly sustain it for so long.


That one is obvious; when the IRA saw a political solution for Nationalists being dominated by the SDLP they kept murdering children. When they saw that their political wing could be the driving force they were willing to stop murdering children. They were interested in power, that's all.


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> No, it is an organisation that is defunct. And according to every recent security assessment from Gardaí and PSNI its has wound down its military capabilities and its members are engaged in exclusively democratic programs. I take their word for it, do you?


Okay. That clarify things. You don't think that an organisation which blew up children, planted the bomb at Enniskillen and so many other attacks targeting civilians was a terrorist organisation. 

I have no time for the Tories and Loyalists who murdered people (directly and indirectly) in Northern Ireland. I consider them unsuitable for high office. If the present British Conservative Party was, at its core, a personality cult dedicated to the glorification of those people I would consider it unsuitable to be in power and condemn all of its membership as fellow travellers with child killers.

The fact is that the Shinners are just that. While they are, and while they give deflective answers about the atrocities committed by their masters and at the same time eulogising the bombers and murderers I will consider them fellow travellers of murderers and child killers. 

I don't or a moment think that the IRA would think twice about blowing up children again if their political base collapsed. They are democrats in name only. It is nothing more than expedience.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Dec 2020)

@WolfeTone are you looking for Kerrigan's job?  I didn't get the €9.99 reference.
I agree that the extract of O'Malley's piece that you have picked out was dubious, didn't go along with it myself at time of reading.  But the general thrust I supported and especially the "when PIRA ceased firing everybody ceased firing".  But let me state that the lowest of the actors in terms of moral squalor were the loyalist gangs who seemed to kill innocent Catholics for psychopathic fun.  I was actually surprised that after all this had a political dimension to it - a tit for tat to PIRA atrocities.
But the real eye opener for me arising from Lynch's and O'Malley's pieces is the public reaction of SF to Stanley's tweet.  My understanding is that SF believe that the Provo campaign was justified in the face of the BA imposing a "Protestant state for a Protestant people" in your own words.  If their campaign was justifiable then Warrenpoint was justifiable, a legitimate and well executed strike at the military oppressors.  Yet do SF annually make a big deal of commemorating that achievement?  No they prefer to celebrate victimhood such as the 8 IRA men killed at Loughall.
So what gives here?  SF realise that their support for the Provo campaign is a big electoral negative in the South.  Yes there are folk here who go along with that but they are in the SF bag, amounting to maybe 8% core support.  But in the 20%s it is a big brake on progress.  So Stanley is being dumped on because his public airing of SF orthodoxy is very negative electorally.  
If SF did not have this Provo baggage there is no doubt Mary Lou would now be Taoiseach.  Thankfully because of that baggage we have been spared this capitulation to leftist populism for at least another 5 years.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> are you looking for Kerrigan's job? I didn't get the €9.99 reference.



I subscribed online for a month - it was too cold out to go to shops and buy a paper! 

@Duke of Marmalade Just to refresh, the 'slow learners' quip originates from Seamus Mallon, on the signing of the GFA. Mallons quip was directed at the political protanganists both on republican side _and _the unionist side. Make no mistake, while the Unionist political hierarchy was in favour of Sunningdale, its core base and membership were certainly not. The Ulster Unionist Party would eventually vote against continued participation in the executive forcing Faulkners resignation. Anti-Sunningdale Unionists would dominate at the following general election. The collapse of Sunningdale was inevitable regardless of anything republicans were doing.

We are in peace-time today. A decade of commemoration should, in peace-time, be a time to reflect and hopefully further embed the culture of peace. Which, given the sensitive nature of events we are talking about, has the potential to incite anger which I don't think is useful for anyone.  Stanley referenced 'slow learners' not at some of his political opponents, that forms part of the general cut and thrust of political activity. Instead he used the memory of soldiers who lost their lives in service to their country. This is the insensitivity, and stupidity, of Stanleys tweet, and hence the subsequent reprimand.

See @Purple continued use of vile accusations targeted at democratically elected representatives of this State. _Purple _will attribute these accusations based on nothing more than guilt by association and political bias. It is designed to provoke, clearly so, as he is not willing to answer direct questions put to him about attributing the same accusations to other armed protaganists of the conflict who also killed children.

If Stanleys tweet was insensitive, _Purples_ outright debased accusations thrown at innocent people are surely on par? How such accusations have been allowed to stand on a social media platform like AAM for days now is a bit troublesome I have to say. I will give the benefit of the doubt that the moderators have not twigged the potentially reputational damage to AAM for allowing vile unsubstantiated accusations to sit unchecked.

This topic began with the sensitivities aroused following proposals to commemorate the memories of RIC members. I'm prepared to engage in honest open truthful debate, mindful of the sensitive nature of what we are discussing.
My overall view is that we have reached a space where finally the constitutional political path has taken outright ascendency and has nullified any proclamation for armed revolt. Some will argue it could have been done a long time ago, Sunningdale, for example. I would argue that the violence of the past century from 1916 onwards achieved nothing more than what a constitutional path would have achieved at a minimum over the same period anyway. But hindsight is a wonderful thing so I am not going to try disqualify some elements of the violent past while placing other elements of violence on a pedestal for hero worship. I'm not going to pretend that planting bombs in 1991 is an act of terror but planting bombs in 1881 was not. Or that torture, killing and disappearing alleged informers in 1972 was any more despicable than torture, killing and disappearing in 1920. Nor will I ever accept that continued cover-ups of heinous murders from Miami Showband, Dublin/Monaghan, Loughinisland, Ballymurphy etc is not part of a collaboration to protect criminal elements within the British State system.

Unless there is anything of substance to add, I will reflect once more on the speech of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth in Dublin. I would recommend others to remind themselves of the content also.

The Queens speech


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Dec 2020)

@WolfeTone It occurs to me that there are much of your comments that I agree with.  Where we differ is in the interpretation of their relevance.  For example I do not deny that there was some dirty work in the State system, possibly mostly confined to elements of the UDR and RUC.  I don't believe for example that the murder of Pat Finucane was sanctioned at any senior level within the British establishment. But I just don't see that on a par with the PIRA campaign which I see as totally unjustifiable at least for the its last 20 years and the prime driver of the continuation of the Troubles.
Take another example.  You are factually correct on the collapse of Sunningdale narrative.  You may even be right that the Paisleyites would have doomed it even if the PIRA had announced an end to their campaign with the fulfillment of the civil rights demands of Catholics in sight. Ironically the PIRA may even have agreed with the Paisleyites that if the Brits can cave in so quickly - only 2 years after the start of the violent campaign, maybe one more push would see them capitulate altogether.
But as the years rolled on and the senseless campaign continued it was obvious to all that an agreement along Sunningdale lines was always there for the taking.  As I said the game changer was when SF/PIRA realized that Sunningdale suited them electorally.
On Stanley, I do not believe that Mary Lou was offended by the substance of the comments, she simply recognised that it would not do the party any electoral favours.


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> My overall view is that we have reached a space where finally the constitutional political path has taken outright ascendency and has nullified any proclamation for armed revolt. Some will argue it could have been done a long time ago, Sunningdale, for example. I would argue that the violence of the past century from 1916 onwards achieved nothing more than what a constitutional path would have achieved at a minimum over the same period anyway. But hindsight is a wonderful thing so I am not going to try disqualify some elements of the violent past while placing other elements of violence on a pedestal for hero worship. I'm not going to pretend that planting bombs in 1991 is an act of terror but planting bombs in 1881 was not. Or that torture, killing and disappearing alleged informers in 1972 was any more despicable than torture, killing and disappearing in 1920. Nor will I ever accept that continued cover-ups of heinous murders from Miami Showband, Dublin/Monaghan, Loughinisland, Ballymurphy etc is not part of a collaboration to protect criminal elements within the British State system.


I agree with most of that but none of the people who planted the bombs in 1881 are still alive and none of their comrades in arms are now in public office. It's not just that the Shinners refuse to condemn the murder of children in the recent past by people who are in the same Party as them but when those killers die they attend their funerals and eulogise about what great people they were.
I don't for a moment think that Mary Lou is comfortable with that which leads me to conclude that there are still other forces directing things in the party she supposedly leads. Therefore the links to that violence are still there.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Where we differ is in the interpretation of their relevance.



Yes that would appear to be the case. The 'some dirty work' suggests to me that perhaps we have different views on the extent of the dirty work.
Britain's propaganda was to tell the world that there was no war in Ireland just a criminal conspiracy. But under British law, alleged criminals are entitled to legal defence, trial by jury and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty etc. It was clear that what Britain was engaged in summary executions of those it saw as a threat. This was a low-level covert war.
The Finucane case is just one of hundreds of cases. It is prominent because of his standing as a solicitor. He was part of the legal system, he used the legal system as it was supposed to be used. So they killed them. That a government Minister was to make mention of solicitors being "sympathetic to the IRA" in HoC three weeks before he was murdered suggests Finucane was that solicitor they were talking about. Why would government ministers be discussing Finucane at all? We won't know until there is a public inquiry. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But as the years rolled on



Indeed, not disputing it. But can you pick to a point in time in all those 20 years where the impetus for a peaceful resolution was being fostered? By anyone? Internment was still in place at the time of Sunningdale and we know how the British Army treated protestors to that policy. 
After internment came Thatcher and her policy of criminalisation which only hardened the resolve of IRA, not weakened it, culminating in the Hunger Strikes and driving up the tensions again. 
The policy of the British in the 1980's was to crush the IRA, and by that I mean applying the covert war, colluding with loyalist paramilitaries. 

A little anecdote. Adams was shot in 1984, I've seen mentioned somewhere that the word 'peace' or 'peaceful resolution' began appearing on SF pamphlets for the first time by 1985.

In Oct 1984, the Brighton bomb occured,  Thatcher up to that point had been intransigent about any Irish government interference in NI affairs. By November 1985 she had signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> I agree with most of that but none of the people who planted the bombs in 1881 are still alive and none of their comrades in arms are now in public office.



No disrespect Purple, but in 2016, President Higgins attended a bridge re-naming ceremony in Dublin in honour of Thomas Clarke. In which he waxes lyrical about Clarkes great resilience and determination. Arrested in London in 1883, but does not mention what for - (possession of explosives, as part of the Fenian campaign to blow up bridges and train stations).

Can I ask, what sort of message do you thinks that sends to Unionist community we hope to share our island with? What message does it send out to future generations of Irish people who may be inclined someday to want to look to draw inspiration from violent revoluntionaries?


Im not condemning Clarke, I think everyone is entitled to commemorate their dead comrades. But the guy tried to blow up bridges. Surely there is a more apt way to commemorate his revolution rather than name bridges after him?

I'm not sure who you are referring to exactly about bomb planters in public office. Dessie Ellis is the only convicted bomber I know of. I dont think he killed any children.


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Dessie Ellis is the only convicted bomber I know of. I dont think he killed any children.


I don't think Dessie will provide an exhaustive list of what he was up to during his previous career.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with your point about Clarke and others. 

Time turns politics into history (just as it turns cults into religions). In 120 years what the IRA did will be history with no clear and unbroken lines into the present but at the moment the people who ran the PIRA campaign in Northern Ireland, Ireland and Britain are still heavily involved up front and particularly behind the scenes in SF. The level of barbarity and the indiscriminate nature of their PIRA's actions differentiates them from what happened 100+ years ago, as does the fact that there was a viable alternative in Northern Ireland, particularly after direct rule was imposed.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> the moment the people who ran the PIRA campaign in Northern Ireland, Ireland and Britain are still heavily involved up front and particularly behind the scenes in SF.



So what? By every security assessment by Gardaí and PSNI they are engaged in exclusively democratic programs - the exact thing they were being called upon to do for so long. Now that they are doing it, its not acceptable?



Purple said:


> The level of barbarity and the indiscriminate nature of their PIRA's actions differentiates them from what happened 100+ years ago, as does the fact that there was a viable alternative in Northern Ireland, particularly after direct rule was imposed.



Thats where we disagree. The Rising alone, in one week left hundreds of civilians dead, including some 40 children, and brought a city to ruin.
The WoI, according to one historian, resulted in 4 times as many persons abducted, killed
and their bodies disappeared in 2yrs than the Provos did in 25yrs.

Barbaric

What viable alternative in NI was there? How can you have a viable alternative when policies of internment, criminalisation, censorship, shoot-to-kill, collusion and cover-up are being operated against a section of the population?

Notions that the armed campaign could have stopped at any given time _unconditionally_ is pie in the sky stuff. At any given time it would have been seen as a surrender with the liklihood of those proposing it being shot, then replaced by more militant leaders.

I would challenge anyone to point to a specific moment in time during the conflict when the conditions existed, and what those conditions were, that would allow for a political strategy to emerge over a military strategy.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Dec 2020)

@WolfeTone I agree with you on the historical facts up to a point.  I probably also agree with your perspective of the WoI.  I will never agree with  your perspective of the Provo campaign, you know that.
On Stanleygate I see positives.  I think Mary Lou might have been  genuinely abhorred by the sentiments. This belies the theory that she is in thrall to West Belfast Provos who would be out and out Stanleyites.  More significantly she sees how counterproductive Stanleyism is to her sustaining and increasing her 25% share of our electorate.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I will never agree with your perspective of the Provo campaign, you know that



I don't doubt it. A lot of the discourse and petty political mud-slinging is centred around the 'narrative' of our violent past. Each bloc accusing others of trying to change or re-write history.
Diarmuid Ferriter on the Claire Byrne show states that there are many narratives, not one single narrative. I would agree, and it is in that context that he espouses our need to be acutely aware of sensitivities. As the proposed RIC commemoration showed, it doesn't take much to stoke the tribal embers within. What the mud-slinging relates to is who controls the narrative, as opposed to establishing the truths of each narrative.

I'm reading some such narratives from articles from my newly acquired Independent.ie subscription. Shane Ross, another commentator that has suddenly acquired arithmetic deficiencies, he too claims that Stanleys tweet was offensive, but to only 18 of the dead British soldiers who died at the hands of IRA, not 35.
Has anyone told the Unionists, the people of Britain, that while our some our political and media establishment are comfortable wearing poppies some of their colleagues are quite comfortable with the memories of their fallen being used as Twitter fodder?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Dec 2020)

I see that the Brits have chosen an Irish woman as their first guinea pig for the vac.  800 years victimisation and still counting.


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Has anyone told the Unionists, the people of Britain, that while our some our political and media establishment are comfortable wearing poppies some of their colleagues are quite comfortable with the memories of their fallen being used as Twitter fodder?


The Unionists are aware of every slight, real or otherwise. The British don't care either way. 

They'd just like shot of the whole mess that is Northern Ireland. As far as I'm concerned they can keep it; you break it you bought it. 

If they want us to take it off their hands we'd need a 20 year transition period and about €20 billion a year for the next 100 years (index linked) with the option of walking away if it wasn't working out. Of course we should aim higher but that should be our bottom line.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> The British don't care either way.



The British care profoundly about the memory of all their fallen service officers, as evidenced each November. The soldiers who lost their lives at Kilmichael were all veterans who served in WWI. That significant elements of our media can pontificate the outrage of Stanleys tweet for referencing the killing of British soldiers in N Ireland in 1979 only, and not the lives lost in 1920, is a demonstration of efforts to control a particular narrative of our past rather than establishing the truths of each narrative.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Dec 2020)

Stanley features at least 3 times in the IT today, its Editorial, Michael McDowell and Kathy Sheridan.  The Editorial makes my point that Stanley is simply echoing the SF line that the Provo campaign was every bit as justified as the WoI but that SF see this as electorally damaging and would prefer to keep that to themselves.


----------



## Peanuts20 (9 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Stanley features at least 3 times in the IT today, its Editorial, Michael McDowell and Kathy Sheridan.  The Editorial makes my point that Stanley is simply echoing the SF line that the Provo campaign was every bit as justified as the WoI but that SF see this as electorally damaging and would prefer to keep that to themselves.



Quiet in the South but not in the North where they will continue to push that line


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The British care profoundly about the memory of all their fallen service officers, as evidenced each November. The soldiers who lost their lives at Kilmichael were all veterans who served in WWI. That significant elements of our media can pontificate the outrage of Stanleys tweet for referencing the killing of British soldiers in N Ireland in 1979 only, and not the lives lost in 1920, is a demonstration of efforts to control a particular narrative of our past rather than establishing the truths of each narrative.


I agree. I was talking about Northern Ireland in general.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Stanley features at least 3 times in the IT today, its Editorial, Michael McDowell and Kathy Sheridan. The Editorial makes my point that Stanley is simply echoing the SF line that the Provo campaign was every bit as justified as the WoI but that SF see this as electorally damaging and would prefer to keep that to themselves.



I suppose it all boils down to interpretation. My view is it is not the referencing of Kilmichael and Warrenpoint that is at issue, as from a purely historical military context the parallels are there to see. It was the manner in which he communicated it. This is in the IT editorial "_He was criticised by party colleagues for his tone and the manner in which he expressed himself – but the party did not, and will not, retract the sentiment which gave rise to the ill-judged tweet." _

The theory of the Provo campaign not being electorally advantageous is correct - it is after all peace-time. It does not serve on the one hand to pushing a peace agenda, while simultaneously glorifying armed resistance against the enemy.
It is no different for FF or FG. When was the last time you heard them glorifying the actions of Kilmichael? Or the Civil War? Each party commemorates the memories of its past associated veterans, Collins, De Valera, etc but they refrain from glorifying specific military operations. Rightly so, its peacetime, to do so is insensitive to those who were victims in those military operations, invariably represented by others on the other side of the peacetime equation.

Even the commemorations of 1916 are washed in the ideals of the Proclamation, the gallantry of the participants, but rarely the specifics. Nobody I know from the Labour party gloats about the ICA putting a bullet in the head of constable O'Brien of DMP. O'Brien, a Limerick man, just doing his job preventing unauthorised access to Dublin Castle, was summarily executed.

It is notable that the IT recognises that the WoI "enjoyed widespread support", it has never been established if it ever enjoyed _majority_ support from the public. The 1918 election sweep of SF is used as evidence of majority support. SF winning 70% of the parliamentary seats, however only 47% of the popular vote. More significant imo is the SF manifesto, upon which that election was won. It falls short of explicitly declaring it will wage war against Britain. Albeit war is implied, I think it is cleverly and deliberately omitted.
There is no record, vote or account from the First Dáil or its cabinet that authorises war against Britain. As well as that, the Catholic Church, and significant elements of media were vehemently opposed to the violent actions and the methods of the IRA at the time.

They called them savages and murderers!

The argument against the Provo campaign about lack of popular support is valid, but also a little trite.
Similar to when violence erupted in 1916 there was no popular political support. That in the years following 1916 SF organised into an effective political entity by 1918 is probably more testament to the existing and well established acceptance of free-and-fair UK elections in Ireland at that time.

The Stormont regime under the Government of Ireland Act was a different beast altogether and there was a not insignificant amount of the nationalist population in NI who were disenfranchised from the system, saw it for the gerry-mandered, discriminatory operation it was and simply did not recognise nor participate in it. For instance, SF as a political organisation was already banned in NI before the violence began.

When violence erupted in 1969, it came from the communities, not private armies. Rather than the political system acting as the valve to demonstrate legitimacy, as in 1918, it was the Stormont political system itself that was targeted as an already discredited entity and it was subsequently collapsed.  The IT editorial lazily ignores that that was one of the consequences of partition. The reality is that while the Provo campaign never enjoyed majority support even amongst nationalists, it did enjoy significant support from nationalist communities. It is the only plausible way in my opinion that it could have sustained itself for 25yrs.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Dec 2020)

@WolfeTone We are approaching making a deal!  You haven't left much for me to argue with there.  I pick out:





			
				Theo said:
			
		

> The reality is that while the Provo campaign never enjoyed majority support even amongst nationalists, it did enjoy significant support from nationalist communities. It is the only plausible way in my opinion that it could have sustained itself for 25yrs.


There was quite a bit of support in the RC ghettos of Belfast and Derry.  These could never have sustained such a sophisticated campaign without substantial support from elements within the Southern Irish establishment. I see Arlene is now on this case.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> These could never have sustained such a sophisticated campaign without substantial support from elements within the Southern Irish establishment. I see Arlene is now on this case.



Absolutely, lets see what becomes of it.

That brings me neatly onto Michael McDowell, a pillar of the Southern Irish establishment in his own right, whom I think we can all testify has never provided succour or any support for the Provo campaign.

McDowell, being a barrister, in my opinion is in the top echelons of political debating in this country. A formidable orator.
It doesn't mean he doesn't have a biased agenda, as all politicians do, propagating their own version of events to control a particular narrative rather than accept and provide space for, the many different narratives that prevail.
I don't take issue with his valid criticisms of SF, certainly the week-off work for Stanley does give the impression of planning for an orchestrated response. I dont think SF are singularly guilty in that regard, when backs are against the wall it all forms part of the cut and thrust of party political point-scoring. The "democratic centralism" and Leninism was a new one on me. A quick search of it and, in a one-party state, like Soviet Union and China you can sense the obvious concern.
But we don't live in a one party state, and what "democratic centralism" amounts to is little more than the party whip system.

With regards Stanleys tweet, true to form, it is for the narrative of all things SF/PIRA - bad, all things SF/GOIRA - good. McDowell lets slip the clear and obvious bias in his piece when he too, along with O'Malley, Browne, Collins, Ross, et al cannot bring themselves to report accurately on Stanleys tweet.

"_His _[Stanley] _underlying views on the killing of 18 paras at Warrenpoint are exactly the same as those of the vast majority in the Provisional movement._"

What about Stanleys underlying views of the killing of 17 Auxilliaries at Kilmichael that he clearly referenced in his tweet? Don't the 'Provisional movement' share the same views as Stanley in that regard also? I would think so.

So why can't these commentators bring themselves to mention this in their articles? The obvious and clear omission is beyond coincidental, it is deliberate.
Because theirs is an agenda to propagate a singular narrative that PIRA can have no commonality whatsoever with former incarnations of the GOIRA. That in their narrative, there can be no equivalence allowed to develop. To do so, risks opening the door to retrospective justification for their armed campaign. This cannot be allowed to happen as it will ultimately expose the partitionist position, and folly, of 26-county party politics in the face of Irish republican ideals set out in 1916 Proclamation.


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> This cannot be allowed to happen as it will ultimately expose the partitionist position, and folly, of 26-county party politics in the face of Irish republican ideals set out in 1916 Proclamation.


Can you expand on that please? I'm not sure what you mean.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Dec 2020)

I think McDowell may be overstating the control of West Belfast Provos over SF.  That such a group exists we know for sure from the PSNI and they are now a political force.  But Mary Lou's swift condemnation of Stanley would not I think have the approval of that shadowy group.  They do believe that they are a continuation of the GOIRA and would greatly welcome any such comparison.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> Can you expand on that please? I'm not sure what you mean.



_Ah_, that is to go into the realm of future speculation of course. None of us holds a crystal ball so I can only offer a personal perspective. Any prospect of a UI will require a number of stars and planets to align in harmony, namely the political, social and economic order of the day. 
You might have to bear with me a little bit here. 

I should say I do not believe SF have a snowballs chance in hell of ever delivering a UI. Even if they were to enter government here, even with a majority which I think is a long way off, if ever, a UI would still be some body of work away. 

But where they can, and do play their part, is keeping the ideal of UI alive in the conscious of the public. Ironically however, it is not currently of their doing that the idea of border poll and UI has emerged in general discourse, but rather Brexit. 
A UI has always been a feature of a SF Ard Fheis. During the conflict it was dominant. But in the decade preceding Brexit, although prominent, a certain amount of lip-service was being paid to it as SF were positioning themselves more to tackle the social, economic issues of the day - to become an 'ordinary' party so to speak. 
Then Brexit happened and soon enough issues around the border (real or perceived) raised their head and a whole generation of people in Ireland and Britain got to learn, to greater or lessor extents, of the various narratives surrounding partition. 
And it is my view that SFs narrative of resistance is an easier narrative to sell to younger generation than the anti-SF narrative which still clings to the GOIRA v PIRA narrative. 

So although I cannot forsee SF delivering a UI, SF in government north and south will send alarm bells ringing in some quarters. People like McDowell try to depict a hostile takeover of State organs and institutions. I don't agree, but greater collaboration north and south working to align economies, welfare systems, education, health services, transport etc becomes a real possibility imo. Albeit over lengthy periods of time. 
The idea would be to turn the economic and political axis from Belfast and London to Belfast and Dublin. 
This would be anathema to Unionism, look at problems they are having with the idea of EU customs applying to NI. 
But in the absence of any real support from London (and as long as there is no sight of a re-emergence of IRA or any hostile acts, then London will drift further out of the equation) then Unionists best option to prevent a SF UI is to build alliances with SFs biggest opponent’s in South, FF and FG. 
FF and FG, also wanting a UI (apparently ) do not want it on SF terms for fear it would be antagonistic. However, if FF/FG remain 26 county they will lose more and more ground to SF. 
In what form would any Unionist/FF and/or FG alliances emerge I couldn't say, but if SF growth continues politics will increasingly align to 32 county considerations for them, conversely, to prevent SF pushing for its UI. If SF do make that breakthrough to government, as the dominant partner in coalition,  relevance of having two large 26 county parties will come under scrutiny. 

Of course all of that is pure spectaculation. There are plenty of people trying to dampen SF growth and may well yet succeed. They may well get into power as an economic crash emerges setting them back 20yrs. Or any number of factors could emerge against their favour. The outcome of a Scottish Independence referendum may also drive other outcomes. 

My overriding sense is, and I'm talking 10-25yrs here, that the trajectory of our political system is heading not for an independent Irish Republic, but somewhere closer to where it all began - some form of a United Ireland Parliament within an equal Union with Britain.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> These could never have sustained such a sophisticated campaign without substantial support from elements within the Southern Irish establishment. I see Arlene is n



Brian Feeney, former SDLP Councillor and columnist with the Irish News, pretty much slices and dices Fosters claims of collusion as an exercise of whataboutery. He reminds us that the Smithwicks Tribunal findings in 2013 dealt with the issues she raised. That, most probably individual Gardaí did supply information to IRA, but there is no evidence that Irish government were engaged in any subversive support for the IRA. 
Unlike the British government. 

In all, the Unionist reaction to denying the Finucane inquiry is an orchestrated response to deflect and to play to their own constituency.


----------



## Peanuts20 (10 Dec 2020)

Harsh and cold reality for nationalists in the North is that deep down, most people in the South don't care tuppence about a UI and its not a factor in deciding who they vote for. It might be a concept or idea we like, especially after a few pints and blasting out "four green fields" but if the price of it was massive tax rises to pay for it and Gardai being sent North to risk their lives against loyalist terrorists, would we really vote for it?? I grew up watching HTV and BBC Wales and probably have a greater affinty with Wales then I do with our Northie friends. 

People did not vote SF in the last election down here because they wanted UI, they voted because they were fed up with FF/FG, saw Labour as a pointless crony of FF/FG and therefore saw SF as the only true opposition.  However SF are not a true one island party, they tell different stories and policies  to different people depending on what side of the border they are on.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> Harsh and cold reality for nationalists in the North is that deep down, most people in the South don't care tuppence about a UI and its not a factor in deciding who they vote for.


The harsh reality is that a sizable proportion of the Nationalists in NI would not vote for a united Ireland as they are better off with the Welfare and massive "We'll pay you not to kill each other" funding they get from everyone. 
I spend a lot of time ion Derry some years back and my view is that there'll be a United Ireland when people stop caring about a United Ireland. Ironically the Shinners in power would make it far less likely that there would be a united Ireland. They are triumphalist and would rub the Unionists the wrong way and their crazy populist pseudo-socialist economic policies would wreck the country economically. I would certainly encourage my children to immigrate if they were running the country.


----------



## cremeegg (10 Dec 2020)

I admire Wolfe Tone and Purple's dedication on his topic.

I would agree that Micheal Martin's condemning Stanley for his comment on Warrenpoint but not Kilmichael is hypocritical. FF loves to think that the violence and killing that put it in power was justified but the violence and killing that may yet put SF in power was not.

I would certainly recognise a hierarchy of victims. There is no equivalence between armed men killed while engaged in military type activities at one end of the spectrum and unarmed people who never chose to become involved in the conflict on the other. Having said that I can see that the grief of the bereaved makes no such distinction.

While Ireland certainly needs to keep on good terms with its nearest and much larger neighbour, and should try to accommodate the aspirations of its sizeable British minority, I think the root cause of the problems is British occupation which originated with the plantation of Ulster.

Resolving problems peacefully is always preferable to resolving them violently, yet British soldiers killed in Ireland will never have much sympathy from me.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> most people in the South don't care tuppence about a UI and its not a factor in deciding who they vote for



As a factor for voting in general elections I agree.

But if it was the only question in a referendum, I would imagine the overwhelming response would be in favour of a UI.


----------



## Leo (11 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> But if it was the only question in a referendum, I would imagine the overwhelming response would be in favour of a UI.



The Sunday Times ran a poll earlier in the year, 80% wanted a united Ireland eventually, but only half of those wanted it within the next 10 years. Most surprisingly: "of those Irish voters who supported Sinn Féin in 2016, 54 percent want unity within the next ten years."

I suspect most people like the idea, but don't like the prospect of what it would cost.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2020)

Leo said:


> The Sunday Times ran a poll earlier in the year, 80% wanted a united Ireland eventually, but only half of those wanted it within the next 10 years. Most surprisingly: "of those Irish voters who supported Sinn Féin in 2016, 54 percent want unity within the next ten years."
> 
> I suspect most people like the idea, but don't like the prospect of what it would cost.



Of course, "what it would cost" would be up for much debate.

The problem with such polls is that the sentiment being gauged would be considerably different to the actual sentiment expressed in a poll.
For instance, I may consider that a UI may be preferable 10-20yrs down the road, but faced with an actual option to vote in a referendum tomorrow, I would certainly not pass on the opportunity to vote Yes to a UI.

The referendum, required favourably in both jurisdictions, would only set the principle of a UI in motion. Without agreement up North, it wont happen. Even with agreement in both jurisdictions, the actual establishment of a UI may take 10-20years of foundation work thereafter before any formal passing of the torch, so to speak.


----------



## Leo (11 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The problem with such polls is that the sentiment being gauged would be considerably different to the actual sentiment expressed in a poll.



Polling accuracy has taken a hit in recent times with a growing number of people taking on populous views that they are not prepared to admit to, but certainly nowhere near the level to support your view that the overwhelming majority would vote for a united Ireland now. If a poll with zero consequences says 60% of Irish voters don't want it within the next 10 years, I can't see too many of those people changing their minds to actually vote for it if it promised real consequences in the short term, let alone an overwhelming majority.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2020)

Leo said:


> but certainly nowhere near the level to support your view that the overwhelming majority would vote for a united Ireland now





Leo said:


> 80% wanted a united Ireland eventually



I think 80% is pretty indicative of the underlying overwhelming level of support. That such a support is then conditioned on vague time frame is a luxury not ordinarily afforded in an actual referendum



Leo said:


> If a poll with zero consequences



Exactly my point. I would rather not go down the rabbit-hole of trying to interpret any number of one-off polls from any number of sources without consequences mean.
But in the event that a referendum was called, say for 2022, then those whose ideal desire for a UI (80%) but not for 10yrs+ or more, will have to face up to making an actual decision, rather than conditioning their preference with some vague notional time in the future that will not be a choice on the referendum paper anyway.
My gut instinct that having to make the choice of Yes or No, considerably more will sacrifice the condition of 10yrs+ for the immediate answer of Yes. But, that is just speculation of course, there is only one real way to find out.


----------



## Purple (11 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I think 80% is pretty indicative of the underlying overwhelming level of support. That such a support is then conditioned on vague time frame is a luxury not ordinarily afforded in an actual referendum


How the question is worded is very important. A "Would you like to see a United Ireland?" question will get a high response in the affirmative.  
A "Would you like to see a United Ireland with the British Queen as head of State at a €10-€20 billion a year cost on what is currently this country?" question would get considerably less support.

A united Ireland would not involve us subsuming Northern Ireland. It would be a new country with a constitutional tie to Britain and some sort of power sharing system in which Unionist politicians would hold a guaranteed share of the seats in our Parliament and, most likely, we'd have QEII or Kink Charles as our head of State. We'd probably have to kick the US Ambassador out of the Viceregal Lodge as well so that would be one positive.    
Personally I'm not a fan of the idea of Orange Marches on O'Connell Street (that would have to be changed as well, maybe Paisley Street?) and our Taoiseach (that would be Prime Minister)  tugging the forelock to his or Her Majesty like they do in Canada and Australia. 
Broadly speaking the Russians had the right idea when it comes to Monarchy.


----------



## Leo (11 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I think 80% is pretty indicative of the underlying overwhelming level of support. That such a support is then conditioned on vague time frame is a luxury not ordinarily afforded in an actual referendum



Well, it's really an indication that most people like the idea of a united Ireland, but the majority don't want the reality. 



WolfeTone said:


> My gut instinct that having to make the choice of Yes or No, considerably more will sacrifice the condition of 10yrs+ for the immediate answer of Yes. But, that is just speculation of course, there is only one real way to find out.



Yep, just speculation and I'd be of the opposite opinion and would certainly vote against it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Dec 2020)

I wonder what the response rate would be to "would you like to see a United World eventually".


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2020)

Leo said:


> Well, it's really an indication that most people like the idea of a united Ireland, but the majority don't want the reality.



I'm pretty you sure you said the Sunday Times poll said 80% _wanted _a UI not _like the idea _of a UI?



Leo said:


> Yep, just speculation and I'd be of the opposite opinion and would certainly vote against it.



As in, you want a UI but if faced with having to make a decision anytime soon you would vote against it?


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I wonder what the response rate would be to "would you like to see a United World eventually".



Good one. But not without merit insofar as defining what a "United Ireland" would look like, and what it would actually mean, probably being on top of the agenda for discussion before any vote taken.
As @Purple points out, the political structure of the island would need to be defined and I would certainly think that we are closer to a Home Rule type scenario rather than an explicit independent Irish Republic.



Purple said:


> Personally I'm not a fan of the idea of Orange Marches on O'Connell Street



That would a bit unfair if they couldn't march considering the first Grand Lodge of Ireland met on Dawson St in 1798. Unless of course, its a northside/southside thing you were refering to?


----------



## Leo (11 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm pretty you sure you said the Sunday Times poll said 80% _wanted _a UI not _like the idea _of a UI?



Are you deliberately misrepresented the poll or misunderstanding the results?

80% want it at some time in the future, 60% of all respondents do not want it now or any time in the next 10 years.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2020)

Leo said:


> Are you deliberately misrepresented the poll or misunderstanding the results?
> 
> 80% want it at some time in the future, 60% of all respondents do not want it now or any time in the next 10 years.



I think, with respect, it is yourself that has misrepresented or misunderstood the results of the ST poll that you referred. Just for the avoidance of doubt, here is what you posted



Leo said:


> The Sunday Times ran a poll earlier in the year, 80% _wanted_ a united Ireland eventually, but only half of those _wanted_ it within the next 10 years.



It is patently clear, there is no fluffy "_like the idea" _of a UI...80% want a UI but the timing of it when it should occur being the only discrepancy. But hey, I think perhaps any amount of data, from any amount of sources, can be interpreted in many a different way. I would have to see the actual poll itself.


----------



## Leo (11 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I think, with respect, it is yourself that has misrepresented or misunderstood the results of the ST poll that you referred. Just for the avoidance of doubt, here is what you posted



Your assertion that the vast majority want it does not accurately tell the story of the poll results. The main finding is that the majority do not want it now or any time within the next 10 years. 

Now, it also says that 80% support the idea *eventually*, the majority of them at lease 10 or 20 years from now, what it doesn't clarify is what those people expect to change in the interim that would bring about the circumstances where they would be in favour of the idea. 

Without knowing what those people expect to change in the meantime, and how realistic those expectations are, we can only conclude the majority of people do not want a united Ireland now, but they might be persuaded otherwise if circumstances change.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2020)

Leo said:


> we can only conclude the majority of people do not want a united Ireland now,



With respect, that is some conclusion to arrive at from one poll. Here is another recent poll

45% back UI versus 46% against in NI



Leo said:


> but they might be persuaded otherwise if circumstances change.



Perhaps, if regular polling data pitted a UI neck and neck with a DI (divided Ireland) on a regular basis in NI, it may be the circumstances needed of persuading the Southern electorate to change?

All speculation of course. I stand by my point that faced with the direct question in an actual referendum, the underlying sentiment of wanting a UI will overwhelmingly prevail over the vague, notional aspirations of a UI in 10yrs time, 20yrs time, just before tea-time, or whenever, and such sentiment will quickly evaporate.

The dynamics and sentiment of the question at hand will automatically change upon official announcement of a referendum. If a referendum were to be held in, say, 2023, then arriving at a polling station still wanting a UI in 10yrs or 20yrs is pretty puerile position when you are being asked to make a decision, with real consequence, there and then.


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2020)

It’ll be all about the reality of the proposed outcome.

If it involved this country moving back into some sort of Union with the UK and inevitably leaving the EU, then I would vote no.

if it involved the British Monarch becoming our head of State I’d vote no.

If it involved the people of this country shouldering the burden of financing the massive “don’t kill each other” bribe the British now pay to NI I’ve vote no.

If it involved a power sharing type arrangement with the Unionists rather than a straight election I’d vote no.

If it meant that we ended up with Unionist terrirists in our Parliament along with the Nationalist ones we already have I’d vote no.


If NI developed a real economy, reduced its state sector to the same relative size as outs, reduced its bigotry, homophobia and racism to the same relative levels as we have in this country, and we were certain that they’d not start a terrorist campaign here then I’d be happy to see them become part of this country as it is currently structured.

They could keep their own soccer league if they wanted and SF/IRA could keep their protection rackets up there to make up for what they’ll lose in cross border smuggling. They’d have to stop the punishment beatings of drug dealers who aren’t paying them their cut though.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> It’ll be all about the reality of the proposed outcome.



Indeed. And unlike the Brexiteers next door we could actually seek to develop a national consensus of what a UI would entail _before _we vote on it. It may not convince Unionism but it would be a start in bringing to an end the acrimony arising out of the peddling of numerous narratives if at a minimum a broad consensus could be agreed.


----------



## ATC110 (12 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> It’ll be all about the reality of the proposed outcome.
> 
> If it involved this country moving back into some sort of Union with the UK and inevitably leaving the EU, then I would vote no.
> 
> ...



I wish this was the tone of public debate rather than the usual anodyne guff which I'm subjected to in any panel discussions


----------



## cremeegg (12 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> If NI developed a real economy, reduced its state sector to the same relative size as outs, reduced its bigotry, homophobia and racism to the same relative levels as we have in this country, and we were certain that they’d not start a terrorist campaign here then I’d be happy to see them become part of this country as it is currently structured.



Perhaps a United Ireland willingly entered into by the people of NI, including the consent of unionists might help to deliver the above.

It's nice to share.


----------



## Peanuts20 (12 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> As a factor for voting in general elections I agree.
> 
> But if it was the only question in a referendum, I would imagine the overwhelming response would be in favour of a UI.



As an idealogical concept then I agree. However if you were to ask people, would you vote for a UI but it will mean your income tax will have to rise to pay for it, we'll have to send Gardai to the Shankhill Road, quite possible loyalist terrorism will spill over into the South and the likes of Sammy Wilson will be in the Dail, then I wonder how many would change their view?. It would still probably be passed but I think it would be close. To be honest, I can't name a single person in my family (and we would have an FF background) who actually give 2 hoots about a UI. Its an irrelavance to our immigrant population as well.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> However if you were to ask people, would you vote for a UI but it will mean your income tax will have to rise to pay for it, we'll have to send Gardai to the Shankhill Road, quite possible loyalist terrorism will spill over into the South and the likes of Sammy Wilson will be in the Dail, then I wonder how many would change their view?.



Well, why ask those questions?

There is as much certainty that income taxes will have to rise as they will be reduced.
Why would Gardaí have to be sent to Shankill Rd, surely existing PSNI could be amalgamated into a new All Ireland policing force?
Why would loyalist terrorism spill over into the South? A UI will only come about by consent of people of NI. What would terrorists be fighting for if their own people had just voted for a UI?
In any case, voting against a UI on the basis of perceived threat of terrorism is just giving in to them. Why combat the IRA for so long only to give into UVF?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> A UI will only come about by consent of people of NI. What would terrorists be fighting for if their own people had just voted for a UI?





			
				2035 Newspaper Headline said:
			
		

> Exit polls indicate that the recent Border Poll has returned a 50.1% vote in favour of a UI.  The same exit polls show that in Protestant heartlands like the Shankill Road there was near 100% rejection of a UI


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2020)

Clearly the implied sentiment here is that the independent Principality of Shankill will have to remain in UK? 

Alternatively, the 50% + 1, is not considered a 'real' or sufficient majority - thus a unilateral changing of the rules? It might have some standing if before the vote unionism agreed that a 50%+1 vote in favour of remaining in UK would be an insufficient declaration of the people also. 
Unlikely I would imagine? 

Despite all pretences of living by democratic principles the true nature of the Unionist mindset - an inherent refusal to accept their Catholic Nationalist Irish neighbours as equals - will be exposed to the world. 

The only thing to do with any threat of violence, or actual violence, that seeks to undermine democratic outcomes, is to stand up against it. 

I don't think that will be needed however. There may be an initial reactionary shock to such a result, but such a result in NI is unlikely to occur without a significant body of unionism already assured and confident that a new UI incorporates and places value of their identity as being British.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Dec 2020)

I was just pointing out dear _Theo _that the putative Loyalist terrorists would be representing a substantial section of their "own people" who had not voted for a UI.
I agree that the threat of violence must be stood up to.  That's why the pan nationalist warning about violence in the event of a hard border on the island should have been rejected by the EU, but hey that is a different rabbit hole.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I was just pointing out dear _Theo _that the putative Loyalist terrorists would be representing a substantial section of their community who had not voted for a UI.



I think maybe we are all missing a trick or two here?

Namely, the formal announcement, or prospect of, NI Secretary legislating for such a referendum to take place.
_If, _there is an underlying threat of violence to the prospect of a UI, I suspect such a development, long before a single vote is cast, to be a sufficient trigger for any prospective violence.


----------



## Peanuts20 (12 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Well, why ask those questions?
> 
> There is as much certainty that income taxes will have to rise as they will be reduced.
> Why would Gardaí have to be sent to Shankill Rd, surely existing PSNI could be amalgamated into a new All Ireland policing force?
> ...



Sinn Fein/IRA never listened to the will of the people in Northern Ireland where the vast majority of the people up there consider themselves British. So why were terrorists fighting for a UI when their own people clearly showed they were not in favour of it?. As for letting the PSNI police their own traditional part of the island, surely that would go against the ethos of a UI. ? 

As for income taxes, NI is a banana state, funded and bankrolled by the British Govt, remove those subsidies and we have to pay for it in a UI. Perhaps it is worth looking at the "soli" tax in Germany as an example of what could happen. After German unification it was created to fund the costs of unifications and added up to 5.5% on income tax for Germans and is only being abolished for the majority of taxpayers next year


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2020)

@Peanuts20 with respect, we are potentially opening the rabbit hole of 800 years of 'whataboutery!'
I have no inclination to digress to such a decripit basket of fruit, doing so would be just another sad and pathetic effort at trying to resolve the unresolvable.

I will say one thing however, considering all of Irelands rebellious past, and our automatic reflex to honour and endorse those efforts over last 100, 200, 400yrs plus, not one, not ONE  can claim to say they had, on record, the support of a majority of the Irish people to embark on violent insurrection.

To qualify SF and IRA support as being dependent on the will of the "vast majority of the people _up there_" is to miss, by some considerable margin, the very nuance upon which they derive their own legitimacy.


I respectfully admire your penchant to measure all things through taxation. Of course the emerging Irish Free State and subsequent 26 county Republic was a prime example of economic freedom and growth with minimal tax impositions?
No, Ireland was a social and economic backwater for 60yrs or more after our 'independence', but we prevailed.
I guess there are some things stronger than taxation rates.


----------



## Peanuts20 (13 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> @Peanuts20 with respect, we are potentially opening the rabbit hole of 800 years of 'whataboutery!'
> I have no inclination to digress to such a decripit basket of fruit, doing so would be just another sad and pathetic effort at trying to resolve the unresolvable.
> 
> I will say one thing however, considering all of Irelands rebellious past, and our automatic reflex to honour and endorse those efforts over last 100, 200, 400yrs plus, not one, not ONE  can claim to say they had, on record, the support of a majority of the Irish people to embark on violent insurrection.
> ...



 With respect back. I'm glad we are agreed on some things, one is trying to resolve the unresolveable. Secondly the acknowledgement that the Shinners nuances upon which they deriver their own legitmacy are warped. Likewise I do not measure all things through taxation but it is naive to ignore it as an issue. 

It is that level of naivity that I find fascinating on any debate around a UI, especially on the Republican side. There seems to be this belief that at some stage, the Unionists will see the error of their thinking and will realise that deep down, they really just want to belt out the Soldiers song and fly the tricolour. There is naivity on the other side as well, especially if they think that the English actually give a damm about NI. 

I like Northern Ireland, been up there enough times for work and pleasure in the last 20 years. I'm just not convinced the economic, socio-political, and security price for a UI is worth paying. And there we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Dec 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> Secondly the acknowledgement that the Shinners nuances upon which they deriver their own legitmacy are warped.



Well it would be wrong of me to leave that there in case it gave the impression that we are agreed on that. The Shinners legitimacy of the Provo campaign is no more warped than the legitimacy afforded to rebels of 1916, "_In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, *through us, *summons her children to her flag and strikes for freedom". _

Seriously?  It may have resonated once upon a time, but surely we recognise this stuff as nothing more fanciful romantic rethoric that has no place in a modern 21st democratic society?
The 2016 commemorations, including those of the thousands of primary schools throughout the country, reciting and reinforcing the rethoric, suggests otherwise.



Peanuts20 said:


> Likewise I do not measure all things through taxation but it is naive to ignore it as an issue.



Absolutely, but the naivety I would suggest is the automatic assumption that taxes will rise, that we will have to pay etc... There is no such certainty, and in fact if a UI is ever agreed, it is as every bit likely that it will benefit our economy rather than cost our economy.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Well it would be wrong of me to leave that there in case it gave the impression that we are agreed on that. The Shinners legitimacy of the Provo campaign is no more warped than the legitimacy afforded to rebels of 1916, "_In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, *through us, *summons her children to her flag and strikes for freedom". _
> 
> Seriously? It may have resonated once upon a time, but surely we recognise this stuff as nothing more fanciful romantic rethoric that has no place in a modern 21st democratic society?
> The 2016 commemorations, including those of the thousands of primary schools throughout the country, reciting and reinforcing the rethoric, suggests otherwise.


Why do you continue to engage in this historical whataboutery? Take it that the 1916 rebellion had no democratic mandate and that the British had broad support in their suppression of the rebellion. Their inept mishandling of the aftermath meant that the War of Independence that followed had broader support but for the sake of argument lets say that had no broad support either and was criminal. So what? That was 100 years ago and none of the people involved are in elected office or running a political party now.
If you think that the SF/IRA campaign of the 70's, 80's and 90's was legitimate then any Unionist campaign blowing up children in Dublin or Cork or Galway would have to be legitimate in your eyes. 

The "Well we've no idea if it is politically possible or economically sustainable but sure lets do it anyway" support for a United Ireland is childish and naive in the extreme.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2020)

cremeegg said:


> Perhaps a United Ireland willingly entered into by the people of NI, including the consent of unionists might help to deliver the above.
> 
> It's nice to share.


And maybe that Lottery ticket I bought will win me a few million Euro.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> That was 100 years ago



So why still commemorate it then?  If it had no mandate, why does our political class still regurgitate the 'gallantry' of secret private armies, with no mandate, to bring a city to ruin, in which hundreds of innocent civilians were killed including 2yr old children. 

Why is our President, as recently as 2016, still honouring indiscriminate bombers of public bridges like Clarke, by perversely naming bridges after him? All in front of the applauding sheep. 

Surely, if one thing GFA has settled, is that our constitutional issues are to progressed through exclusively democratic and peaceful means? 
We cannot undo what has happened, and we acknowledge the ideals of 1916, but when is anyone of our political establishment going to stop glorifying their actions - by any measurement of our standards today they would be condemned for their actions and labelled as terrorists. 




Purple said:


> The "Well we've no idea if it is politically possible or economically sustainable but sure lets do it anyway" support for a United Ireland is childish and naive in the extreme.



If that is what I suggested I'd agree. But I did not. I suggested a debate on the actual economic costs and benefits needs to be had. 
This assumption that Ireland will be landed with a €20bn a year bill, similar to what UK pays to sustain NI, when in a UI NI may no longer even exist is naivety to the fore. 
That Gardai will have to sent, that loyalist terrorists will automatically enact violent acts is the nonsense that needs to be challenged. 
A UI, what it is, is unknown. But whatever shape and form is proposed, if ever, will require the support of majority of peoples. 
If we are geared toward resolving constitutional issues through peaceful and democratic means it might be an idea to stop pretending armed revolts by secret armies is criminal on the one hand, but gallant on the other, depending purely on political expediency to suit a particular narrative.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> by any measurement of our standards today they would be condemned for their actions and labelled as terrorists.


And isn't that the critical point; it didn't happen now. It happened 100 years ago. The PIRA's campaign happened within the current political framework. Any future Unionist terrorist campaign would happen within that framework. 


WolfeTone said:


> This assumption that Ireland will be landed with a €20bn a year bill, similar to what UK pays to sustain NI, when in a UI NI may no longer even exist is naivety to the fore.


Why? Do you think they will somehow develop a proper economy overnight? It took us 30 years, starting with the shift n investment from infrastructure (public housing in the 40's and 50's) to human capital; our education system. The Nordies still have a 1950's education system with what are frighteningly bad outcomes, particularly in the working class Unionist population. Why do you think it won't take decades to bring them up to our standards? The real economic gap between Northern Ireland and this country is as big as it was between West and East Germany in 1990. The educational gap is probably bigger. 

It is interesting that you haven't offered your opinion on the moral equivalence between the PIRA and the IRA of the War of Independence but rather questioned other peoples relativism or lack thereof. Is it fair to say that you think the PIRA's actions were broadly legitimate and justified and that you support the affirmation they receive from their former (or not so former) political wing?


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> And isn't that the critical point; it didn't happen now. It happened 100 years ago. The PIRA's campaign happened within the current political framework.



I know it happened a 100yrs ago. Im asking, why does our political establishment continue to commemorate events that it would, by its own standards today, condemn as terrorism?



Purple said:


> Why? Do you think they will somehow develop a proper economy overnight?



Do you think, if after two referenda (north and south) that supported a UI, that it would happen overnight? 
The only thing that would happen is the principle of a UI would be set and that from that point on, preparations to be made for as smooth, economically viable transition as possible. This is in Britains interest as much as it is ours, it is in the EU's interest (_"Irelands peace, is Europe's peace" - Macron_), and Irish America would undoubtedly weigh-in behind a smooth transition of developing sound economic infrastructure before any formal changing of the guard so to speak. 
The Irish peace story is the success story of the ages, it is in everyones interest, far and wide, to ensure that any decision obtained through exclusively peaceful and democratic means for a United Ireland is supported not just by goodwill, but through real financial backing and capital investment. One way to ensure that the younger generations do not fall into the hands of paramilitaries intent on destroying the democratic process is to offer them hope, in education, employment and prosperity.

A United Ireland would be the greatest economic boost to hit this country in its entire history.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> The Nordies still have a 1950's education system with what are frighteningly bad outcomes.


_Purple, _as a product of that system, if not quite 1950's, I am not sure I would agree with that   You sound like Charlie Lennon.  I think our Corporate Tax rate was far more important than the fact we did Irish at Leaving Cert level.  Didn't a recent OECD report damn our Leaving Cert system?  But let's not go down that rabbit hole.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple, _as a product of that system, if not quite 1950's, I am not sure I would agree with that   You sound like Charlie Lennon.  I think our Corporate Tax rate was far more important than the fact we did Irish at Leaving Cert level.  Didn't a recent OECD report damn our Leaving Cert system?  But let's not go down that rabbit hole.


John Fitzgerald disagrees.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I know it happened a 100yrs ago. Im asking, why does our political establishment continue to commemorate events that it would, by its own standards today, condemn as terrorism?


I don't know. In my opinion it is probably time to look at our history in a more balanced way.

Can you answer this;


> It is interesting that you haven't offered your opinion on the moral equivalence between the PIRA and the IRA of the War of Independence but rather questioned other peoples relativism or lack thereof. Is it fair to say that you think the PIRA's actions were broadly legitimate and justified and that you support the affirmation they receive from their former (or not so former) political wing?


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> A United Ireland would be the greatest economic boost to hit this country in its entire history.


Upon what do you base that assertion?


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> I don't know.



Its because they inherently believe in the right to armed revolt to ride over the democratic process when the political conditions suits their narrative. 



Purple said:


> Can you answer this;



I have already answered this earlier in the thread under a different question from you.

But to repeat, my opinion on the moral equivalence of PIRA and GOIRA is that they shared the exact same ideal - to establish an independent Irish Republic, through force of arms, for the people of Ireland alone to determine their own destiny without external impediment from Britain or anywhere else.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Its because they inherently believe in the right to armed revolt to ride over the democratic process when the political conditions suits their narrative.


That's a bit simplistic.


WolfeTone said:


> I have already answered this earlier in the thread under a different question from you.
> 
> But to repeat, my opinion on the moral equivalence of PIRA and GOIRA is that they shared the exact same ideal - to establish an independent Irish Republic, through force of arms, for the people of Ireland alone to determine their own destiny without external impediment from Britain or anywhere else.


That's not an answer. 
Do you think that the actions of the PIRA were broadly legitimate and justified?

Do you support the affirmation they receive from their former (or not so former) political wing?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> But to repeat, my opinion on the moral equivalence of PIRA and GOIRA is that they shared the exact same ideal - to establish an independent Irish Republic, through force of arms, for the people of Ireland alone to determine their own destiny without external impediment from Britain or anywhere else.


So they are morally equivalent in your eyes as must be the Real IRA and Continuity IRA.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> That's a bit simplistic.



With respect, your earlier answer of "I don't know" is alarmingly simplistic. Why it is perceived ok for our political establishment denounce vociferously on the one hand, the armed actions of private armies in pursuit of legitimate political aims, while simultaneously, on the other hand commemorate the bravery of armed actions of private armies in pursuit of legitimate aims - all of whom, regardless of their ideals, committed heinous war crimes?
Just because it was a "100 years ago" doesn't make it alright. It was as illegal then as it is illegal today. If such actions are to be condemned, then condemn them all.



Purple said:


> Do you think that the actions of the PIRA were broadly legitimate and justified?





Purple said:


> Do you support the affirmation they receive from their former (or not so former) political wing?



The aims of using force were as broadly legitimate and justified for PIRA as it was for IRB and GOIRA. That, in the midst of taking such actions, it descended into chaos and acts of war crimes cannot be justified, by either PIRA or any other engaged party.
I don't support the affirmation SF affords PIRA but I do not condemn it either. I'm no more going to condemn (or commemorate) the actions and memory of Thomas Begley that I am the actions and memory of Thomas Clarke.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> So they are morally equivalent in your eyes as must be the Real IRA and Continuity IRA.



Duke, with respect, you will be aware that in 1998 the people of Ireland, north and south, collectively voted for the GFA. For the first time in the history of this country a resounding majority spoke to the political establishment and militarists and voted to endorse that our constitutional political differences, whatever they may be, can only and shall only ever be challenged by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. We can argue the night and day of when that should have happened, but in 1998 is the time that it did happen.

As I have mentioned earlier, constitutional politics is firmly in the ascendency and the militarists are firmly on the margins. There is no moral equivalence for RIRA or CIRA, there is no justification for any armed groupings to exist as long as the democratic institutions prevail. Only the in the vacuum of usurping democratic institutions does the militant breathe life.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Dec 2020)

@WolfeTone that is a _tecate _like shift of position.  Your earlier assertion was unequivocal that the shared goals of an independent Ireland free of British interference and won through violence granted moral equivalence between GOIRA and PIRA.  RIRA and CIRA share  those goals.
However, I see a chink of common ground here.  We both seem to agree that RIRA has no moral justification whatsoever.  GOIRA at least garnered some moral justification as the WoI progressed.  In fact I would say we are not a million miles away in the extent of the moral justification that we ascribe to GOIRA.
That gives us an agreed spectrum or moral compass to work with, from absolute zero (RIRA) to probably the best that any such terrorist enterprise can muster (GOIRA).  So where does PIRA rate on that compass? You seem to accord them maximum respectability.
My position is a bit more nuanced.  PIRA at the very beginning (1969 - 72, say) where on a par with GOIRA.  Even in the immediate wake of Sunningdale one can see their campaign being justified by their own lights - if they have got this much out of the Brits in a relatively short space of time maybe one more push would see the them off, Garret Fitzgerald wrote in his memoirs that he was really afraid the Brits would up sticks.  But as time wore on and it became clear the Brits were here for the long haul and anyway the civil rights demands were being met PIRA slipped very sharply down the moral compass, hitting rock bottom with the Enniskillen massacre of 1988.
The WoI ended after a short period of about 2 years with a victory of sorts, that in itself is some sort of justification.  The pointless and increasingly depraved never ending campaign of PIRA puts them in RIRA moral territory so far as I am concerned.
.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2020)

Very well said Duke.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> With respect, your earlier answer of "I don't know" is alarmingly simplistic. Why it is perceived ok for our political establishment denounce vociferously on the one hand, the armed actions of private armies in pursuit of legitimate political aims, while simultaneously, on the other hand commemorate the bravery of armed actions of private armies in pursuit of legitimate aims - all of whom, regardless of their ideals, committed heinous war crimes?
> Just because it was a "100 years ago" doesn't make it alright. It was as illegal then as it is illegal today. If such actions are to be condemned, then condemn them all.


I don't know why people hold the views that they hold. Therefore the only answer I can give is that I don't know.
In my opinion post independence we had to construct a version of Irishness that never really existed as we were culturally dominated by England and then Britain for 800 years. So we created a Celtic Ireland in which a kind of Celtic Catholicism and Nationalism were intertwined and ethnically cleansed most of our Protestant population.
We constructed a narrative in which "The Irish" were oppressed by "The British" and ignored the fact that the Nation State as we know it and fought for in 1916 and during the Civil War didn't exist, even as a concept, when Strongbow rocked up in Bannow Bay in 1169. The reality of history didn't suit us and didn't allow us to assert our identity, a constructed identity based on what those in power thought it would have been had we been free all of that time.
In that context the glorification of our independence struggle was inevitable. We are not alone in that; the Americans remember a War in which the French fought the British, with a third of the local population siding with each and a third not getting involved at all, as their War of Independence. They remember it as a war in which the entire population of what is now the United States fought the British, with some help from the French.

That's my view but, as I said before, I don't know why others hold the views they do.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Dec 2020)

@Duke of Marmalade I don't underestimate the sensitivities applicable here so I am trying to be mindful of the language I use, suffice to say, and as @Purple demonstrates in his following post, that there are many differing narratives.

I'm not endorsing PIRA anymore than I'm endorsing GOIRA - I do not endorse either. I thought it quite clear that I have challenged the GOIRA myth?
They had no formal mandate and they engaged in sectarian muder.

I have come to the sombre conclusion that all of the violence of the last century did not achieve one identifiable success that could not, and would not, have been achieved through constitutional politics over the same period of time anyway. I claim hindsight as my witness.

In your scope of reasoning, there appears at least to be some understanding that at the outset of the Troubles as to why an armed revolt was at least initiated. The prolongation of that strategy is what appears to be the critical factor, combined with the reality of no chance of winning. It is an unfortunate reality of war, that once commenced, there is no defining moment from the outset when it should end.
I refer again to 1916. As I have said before the 20th century is littered with political and sectarian violence. In 1916 some 260 citizens of Dublin lost their lives violently in one week. 1916 had no chance of success, and it that much was known by those who organised and orchestrated it.

Does the fact that it was all over in a week, instead of years, give it some moral justification? If that is your narrative, then I will have to respectfully disagree. Maybe it was because they fought head-to-head with the British? That does holds some honour, but the ensuing defeat was a catalyst for engaging guerilla tactics thereafter.

I have asked, but none has come forward, to point to a (the) time when the political impetus was there to bring about an end to the recent period of violence. Sunningdale was the best effort but fell short in no small part from Unionisms intransigence as much as anything. The policy of internment was still implemented so there was little chance of IRA stopping while that was on-going. Internment only ended in 1975.

The policy of criminalisation was then adopted, culminating in the hunger strikes - at which point, from every perceivable angle trust was at an all-time low.
Censorship, collusion, shoot-to-kill, etc were all policies being applied by the British State overtly and covertly. It is simply inconceivable in my view, to have expected the IRA to unilaterally and unconditionally cease-fire without it have been considered as a surrender in their own quarters - proponents of such a move most likely facing an early grave.

So where was the political impetus to bring the violence to an end?

Contrast with WoI and demands by Llyod George for the IRA to surrender its weapons also fell on deaf ears. It was only when King George applied some pressure to his own government to resolve matters that an invitation to peace talks was forthcoming. Such a invitation was not forthcoming in the Troubles era until 1994.
In 1989 Peter Brooke, acknowledging that the IRA could not be defeated, declared that talks could commence following a cease-fire but failed to follow this up with actual contact. Contact did not begin until 1990 but even then it was all back-door and tentative as trust was non-existent.

I did suggest beforehand that when Gerry Adams was shot in Belfast in 1984 it followed that SF literature contained references to 'peace' and 'peaceful resolution'. When Thatcher was dismissing our Government efforts of political resolution the Brighton bomb attack occurred and within a year she was signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Hume-Adams began in secret a couple of months after Enniskillen atrocity. Hume would be subsequently vilified from all quarters when it became public, including those high up in his own party. It was however, the impetus needed to eventually get to a position to end the violence.

I am not endorsing any of the violent actions above, other than to say if peace was the political imperative, why did it take so long? It wasn't a political imperative, that was the problem, throughout 70's and 80's it was British/Unionist policy to destroy the IRA, and IRA had no inclination but to attack.
Billy Hutchinson, PUP, admits as much saying that the working class Protestants were used by the British elite. Used to prolong the war against the IRA. Catholics were to be targeted to get them to drive out the IRA out of their communities, instead, he admits, they drove them into the bosom of the IRA.

We can look with hindsight and wish things happened sooner, or not at all, but they did and each side has its own narrative to play.

The fact is, democratic and constitutional politics has taken the outright ascendency. Hopefully it will stay that way, but I suspect there is always an underlying threat of intimidation when 50%+1 may not be considered a sufficient majority by some. It is designed to raise fear and the prospect of loyalist violence should Irish people even consider voting, democratically and peacefully, in a particular way for a UI.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> I don't know why people hold the views that they hold.



But you are ok with the President and Taoiseach routinely paying homage to a secret rebel army that brought a city to its knees without a mandate and led to the deaths of hundreds of its own citizens, including children? Your qualifying criteria so far seems to be the passage of time makes it ok.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The WoI ended after a short period of about 2 years with a victory of sorts, that in itself is some sort of justification.



It ended after two and half years after the British government agreed to enter into peace talks with the IRA. 

That those talks would subsequently lead to the partition of the country,  a civil war and the establishment of a northern government that would invoke discriminatory practices against its the Catholic population would transpire to be a very shallow victory, or rather no victory at all, in my opinion.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> @Duke of Marmalade
> I have come to the sombre conclusion that all of the violence of the last century did not achieve one identifiable success that could not, and would not, have been achieved through constitutional politics over the same period of time anyway. I claim hindsight as my witness.


Agreed


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> But you are ok with the President and Taoiseach routinely paying homage to a secret rebel army that brought a city to its knees without a mandate and led to the deaths of hundreds of its own citizens, including children? Your qualifying criteria so far seems to be the passage of time makes it ok.


No, I'm not. If we want a united Ireland at any stage then we need to cast a more rational eye on our history rather than framing it within the false narrative which came from within what was a necessary but fanciful construct of what Irishness is, created at the time of our independence.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> No, I'm not. If we want a united Ireland at any stage then we need to cast a more rational eye on our history



Agreed.
I watched a debate with Leo Vradakar in attendence in West Belfast. He made a reasonable observation, that Bunreacht na hÉireann is a constitution for an _Irish _Ireland, whereas if we are ever to have a UI by consent, any constitution underpinning it will have to recognise the identity rights of Irishness and Britishness, and other. He pointed to the GFA as already recognising that up north. The quest will be to expand that recognition to the whole island. The primacy afforded to the Irish language under the constitution, the tricolor, the national anthem, and the narrative of State commemorations of 1916 etc will all have to be reviewed, as well as recognition of loyalty to British Crown, etc.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> the tricolor



I'd be sad to see it go, when you consider its original idea as a bridge across the 'green' & 'orange' communities and the history behind that with Thomas Francis Meagher. Not sure what non-corporate bland flag with some connection to Ireland will fly with both sides... shamrock?


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Dec 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Not sure what non-corporate bland flag with some connection to Ireland will fly with both sides... shamrock?



Shamrock, Harp, _crown?_


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Agreed.
> I watched a debate with Leo Vradakar in attendence in West Belfast. He made a reasonable observation, that Bunreacht na hÉireann is a constitution for an _Irish _Ireland, whereas if we are ever to have a UI by consent, any constitution underpinning it will have to recognise the identity rights of Irishness and Britishness, and other. He pointed to the GFA as already recognising that up north. The quest will be to expand that recognition to the whole island. The primacy afforded to the Irish language under the constitution, the tricolor, the national anthem, and the narrative of State commemorations of 1916 etc will all have to be reviewed, as well as recognition of loyalty to British Crown, etc.


Agreed. That, along with the economic and social issues (their racism, homophobia, xenophobia and religious bigotry) is why I don't want a united Ireland any time soon. Maybe sometime in the next 100 years. We'll wait for the break up of the UK first.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Shamrock, Harp, _crown?_


Do we really want Ireland's Call to be the national anthem?


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Do we really want Ireland's Call to be the national anthem?



Jaysus no! I was thinking more along the lines of Horslips Dearg Doom, probably a non-runner for the use of an Irish word 

Or my preference, Thin Lizzy - Emerald.

Has all the ancient tribal warrior stuff and tragedy of battle that nations lean on for spiritual uplift.
Lansdowne will be rocking for the soccer and rugby too.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Do we really want Ireland's Call to be the national anthem?



God Save Ireland.
(we will need the help)

Danny Boy probably not a runner cos of the whole Derry-Londonderry Air thing.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Dec 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> God Save Ireland.
> (we will need the help)
> 
> Danny Boy probably not a runner cos of the whole Derry-Londonderry Air thing.


God save our gracious President, we could borrow the tune, would buy in the unionists.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> God save our gracious President, we could borrow the tune, would buy in the unionists.


If we make Mickie Dee President for life we could lift something from Darby O'Gill and the Little People.


----------



## Peanuts20 (16 Dec 2020)

Did the IRA in 1916 have a mandate? No, Did they have one in 1919? yes, because the First Dail gave it to them via the Declaration of Independence and which was confirmed when the IRA swore an oath of allegiance a year later. Did then engage in sectarian killing, yes but no where near to the same degree of PIRA and they never targetted civilians in GB and beyond like PIRA did. 

As for the economic side of the UI arguement, like other economic arguments there is no agreement on the impact but the minimum cost to replace the British subvention is around €4.5 billion and the max seems to be around €11 billion per annum. That is before you start to count the impact on some unionists deciding to leave NI for "the mainland" which will happen to some degree, the thousands of public servants who will not be needed on both sides of the border as departments and quango's merge and the costs of unifying and merging systems for those departments and quangos.

As for flags and emblems, why not copy Australia and have a tri-colour with a Union Jack in the corner? Or the Red hand of Ulster in the corner, or the NI flag with a Tricolour in the corner?. Would we be prepared to rejoin the Commonwealth as a sop to our new unionist citizens and have the queen as head of state?. As for an Anthem, why not copy Spain and have no lyrics at all. Mountains of Mourne anyone?


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> As for an Anthem, why not copy Spain and have no lyrics at all. Mountains of Mourne anyone?


Can you fit a Lambeg Drum solo into that?


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> Did the IRA in 1916 have a mandate? No



So it was illegal then. The highest offices in this State commemorate illegal military juntas intent on overthrowing the recognised authority of the day. Nice!   


The economic argument is more interesting, as that at least is a battle to be won rather than re-fighting the battles of the past.

The question of public servants who will not be needed is worth looking at. NI has a bloated public service some 30% of workforce. Ireland has a much leaner service, around 16% of total workforce. In a UI there will obviously be considerable overlap and costs to amalgamation and merging etc. But using a simple calculation of % of workforce, it does not appear too bad. 
NI has a workforce of some 800,000 @30% in public sector that amounts to 240,000
Ire has a workforce of some 2.1m  @ 16% in public sector that amounts to 336,000

The combined workforce in a UI is 2.9m with total public sector workforce of  576,000, or just under 20% public sector. 
The average % public sector workforce in OECD is around 18%. I think we could survive a just-above-average public sector for sometime.

Obviously there will be costs at merging, amalgamating etc, but as I have mentioned before, in the event that the people of Ireland, north and south, ever vote for a UI, it will be as much in Britains interest, as the EU and US, that such a transition occur as smoothly as possible. The underlying threat to a unification are paramilitaries. The objectives of Irish, British, EU and US administrations would be to nullify their presence to the greatest extent possible. In my view, providing ample rewarding opportunities in education and employment is the best way to do this.  
After referenda votes endorsing a UI, I would expect the following decade or two to be supplanted with considerable levels of capital investment from around the globe for those who see an interest in the peaceful democratic process winning through. 
The notion that Ireland will be left to fill some blackhole such as the subvention each year is in nobodys interest. Bankrupting the country, sky-rocketing unemployment and the youth falling into the hands of paramilitaries intent on destroying the democratic process is not in anybodys interest. 



Peanuts20 said:


> Would we be prepared to rejoin the Commonwealth as a sop to our new unionist citizens and have the queen as head of state?



Thats how it was before the illegal insurrection in 1916. The nationalist and republican community in NI have accepted it, why wouldn't the nationalist and republican community down south accept it?


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Thats how it was before the illegal insurrection in 1916. The nationalist and republican community in NI have accepted it, why wouldn't the nationalist and republican community down south accept it?


The difference is that this State and this Government are derived from that insurrection in 1916 whereas the PIRA didn't recognise the legitimacy of this country and considered members of our police and armed services to be legitimate targets. They waged a terrorist campaign against us as well as against the UK. 

Their former(?) members who are now members of our parliament are unrepentant about previously viewing this country as illegitimate and the government of this country, of which they aspire to be members, as their enemy.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Thats how it was before the illegal insurrection in 1916. The nationalist and republican community in NI have accepted it, why wouldn't the nationalist and republican community down south accept it?


Because that was 100 years ago and things have moved on.

BTW, I hate the "Down South" thing. This isn't "Southern Ireland" or "The Republic" or "The South". It isn't The Republic of Ireland either (that's a football team). This is Ireland. That's all. It's "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". The most northerly point of this island is in Ireland so "down south" should be used when referring to Cork.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

You appear intent on battling over old ground?



Purple said:


> The difference is that this State and this Government are derived from that insurrection in 1916 whereas the PIRA didn't recognise the legitimacy of this country and considered members of our police and armed services to be legitimate targets. They waged a terrorist campaign against us as well as against the UK.
> 
> Their former(?) members who are now members of our parliament are unrepentant about previously viewing this country as illegitimate and the government of this country, of which they aspire to be members, as their enemy.



This State and this Government are not derived from that insurrection in 1916. It is derived from the negotiated Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922.
In 1916 the Proclamation, or in 1919 the Declaration of Independence, made no reference to a two-state solution. The opposite in fact, they laid claim to Ireland in its entirety.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> BTW, I hate the "Down South" thing.



I didn't know, Im sorry - I love it!
But for the sake of discussion, if I use the phrase "down south" or something similar, it is not meant in a geographic sense as you quite rightly point out the most northerly point being in Donegal - which begs the question, shouldnt it be "North-Eastern Ireland" and not "Northern Ireland"?
But rather it refers to the legal jurisdiction referred to in  Bunreacht na hÉireann as Éire or Ireland.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> But rather it refers to the legal jurisdiction referred to in  Bunreacht na hÉireann as Éire or Ireland.


It's not a "legal Jurisdiction", it's a country. The name of the country is Ireland.


----------



## Peanuts20 (16 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> Because that was 100 years ago and things have moved on.
> 
> BTW, I hate the "Down South" thing. This isn't "Southern Ireland" or "The Republic" or "The South". It isn't The Republic of Ireland either (that's a football team). This is Ireland. That's all. It's "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". The most northerly point of this island is in Ireland so "down south" should be used when referring to Cork.


 or as the say in Northern Ireland about us, Mexico (South of the border)


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> You appear intent on battling over old ground?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We're not arguing legal definitions here. This country is derived from the 1937 Free State which is derived from the 1920 Government of Ireland Act (there was a Southern Ireland then) which was a result of the War of Independence which was caused by the 1916 Rising. That's the way this State sees things. The IRA didn't see it that way so they didn't recognise this country or the legitimacy of our government. I suppose we should have been charging IRA members with treason.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> or as the say in Northern Ireland about us, Mexico (South of the border)


They can say what they like as long as they don't want to cross the Rio Grande


----------



## Peanuts20 (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> So it was illegal then. The highest offices in this State commemorate illegal military juntas intent on overthrowing the recognised authority of the day. Nice!
> 
> Thats how it was before the illegal insurrection in 1916. The nationalist and republican community in NI have accepted it, why wouldn't the nationalist and republican community down south accept it?



Illegal, yes but then you could put the same argument against the French Resistance in the 2nd world war. That also was illegal as was George Washington and his gang,


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> Illegal, yes but then you could put the same argument against the French Resistance in the 2nd world war. That also was illegal as was George Washington and his gang,



Not at all, the French Resistance derived its authority from the sovereignty of the existing French nation being illegally occupied by the German army. The American revolution in no small part to the lack of political representation in Westminster while having to endure laws bestowed by that parliament upon the colonies. 
A fundamental tenet of any parliamentary democracy is the sovereign right of its people to decide its own laws and customs, not to be dictated to by foreign entities from foreign parliaments or foreign oppressors. 

Ireland was represented at Westminster, through free and fair elections.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Ireland was represented at Westminster, through free and fair elections.


Yes, and in the December 1919 election Sinn Fein (which became Fianna Fail) won an overwhelming mandate on a platform of Independence. Maybe we should we have waited another 100 years but we would be an economic and social basketcase, just like Northern Ireland.


----------



## Firefly (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The combined workforce in a UI is 2.9m with total public sector workforce of  576,000, or just under 20% public sector.
> The average % public sector workforce in OECD is around 18%. I think we could survive a just-above-average public sector for sometime.


Any idea how our PS _pay _compares to the OECD average?


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

Firefly said:


> Any idea how our PS _pay _compares to the OECD average?


There is a massive gap between public sector and private sector pay in Ireland. In other OECD countries in is far smaller to nonexistent. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that relative to PPP our PS employees are better paid. The cost of living in Northern Ireland is lower, partially due to the "please don't kill each other" bribe they get from the British, so it is reasonable the expect their PS wages to be lower.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> Yes, and in the December 1919 election Sinn Fein (which became Fianna Fail) won an overwhelming mandate on a platform of Independence.



Yes, but those elections were to the British parliament, not some unestablished Dáil. The military junta, that we all love and admire, just imposed its will.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Firefly said:


> Any idea how our PS _pay _compares to the OECD average?



Way off topic, but no I do not know how our PS pay compares to OECD average.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, but those elections were to the British parliament, not some unestablished Dáil. The military junta, that we all love and admire, just imposed its will.


If that's the way you feel about it I don't understand how you can be so equivocal about the the Shinners and their PIRA masters.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Way off topic, but no I do not know how our PS pay compares to OECD average.


No, they are way above the OECD and European average and much higher than in the UK. 
Then again we know we have the best nurses, doctors and teachers in the world. How do we know? They keep telling us. How do they know? Well that's a good question.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> If that's the way you feel about it I don't understand how you can be so equivocal about the the Shinners and their PIRA masters.



Its not the way I feel about it, it is simply the truth of the matter. The office of our President and Taoiseach, supported by the entire political establishment of Ireland commemorate the actions of a military junta that, without a mandate from its people, imposed its will on the people through violent means resulting in the deaths of hundreds of its own innocent civilians. Some of those killed were children and many were killed and disappeared for being alleged informers who just happened coincidentally to be mostly Protestant.
I mean, what happend happened, but why is it still commemorated and honoured when it is of the very type of actions that would be condemned today?

Its hard to listen to those who on the one hand condemn PIRA while simultaneously stand behind and honour IRB and GOIRA.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> No, they are way above the OECD and European average and much higher than in the UK.



Ok, accepting PS wages are wage above OECD average, this is just a good reason for Public Sector workers in Northern Ireland to want to be part of a UI.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> The IRA didn't see it that way so they didn't recognise this country or the legitimacy of our government.



Nor did the IRB recognise the legitimacy of the British government, despite the Irish people being represented at parliament in Westminster. Why does our political establishment continue to commemorate and honour those that through violent means, and no authority, sought to overthrow the recognised authority of the day?


----------



## Firefly (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Way off topic, but no I do not know how our PS pay compares to OECD average.


If it's ok to compare the percentage of workers in the PS to OECD averages, I fail to see how comparing rates of pay is so way off topic...


----------



## Firefly (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Ok, accepting PS wages are wage above OECD average, this is just a good reason for Public Sector workers in Northern Ireland to want to be part of a UI.


I don't think it would take them too long to look at what the rates of pay & pensions south of the border are and say "I'll have a bit of that thanks". Of course it will mean higher taxes, more national debt or diversion of funds from other places to fund this..


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Firefly said:


> If it's ok to compare the percentage of workers in the PS to OECD averages, I fail to see how comparing rates of pay is so way off topic...





Firefly said:


> I don't think it would take them too long to look at what the rates of pay & pensions south of the border are and say "I'll have a bit of that thanks". Of course it will mean higher taxes, more national debt or diversion of funds from other places to fund this..




The comparison of workers was made in the context amalgamating public services north and south. Im not sure why PS wages in Ireland (down south) comparison with OECD was made, that's all? Maybe you can elborate?

Perhaps if you took the public sector wage bill as it stands today in NI and Ire, averaged it all up, and then compared to OECD average that might have some reasoning behind it?
But either way or more, what does is the significance of the wage level being above average have?

Im not sure how you have concluded that applying better pay and conditions to public sector workers automatically means higher taxes or more national debt. Certainly a diversion of funds from other places may, or may not be, required. In the UK for instance, the higher rate of tax of 40% does not kick in until £50,000 (€55,000) whereas here it is a lot lower. So perhaps there is scope in the income tax rates, or corporate tax rates, or CGT, VAT, etc, etc that can be adjusted?


----------



## Firefly (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The comparison of workers was made in the context amalgamating public services north and south. Im not sure why PS wages in Ireland (down south) comparison with OECD was made, that's all? Maybe you can elborate?



You combined ROI & NI PS workers to come up with a percentage of  just under 20%. You quote the OECD average as around 18%, adding "I think we could survive a just-above-average public sector for sometime".

So if it's ok to compare the number / percentage of PS workers to OECD averages and say it's OK, surely we should compare rates of pay and if necessary bring those into line also?


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Firefly said:


> So if it's ok to compare the number / percentage of PS workers to OECD averages and say it's OK, surely we should compare rates of pay and if necessary bring those into line also?



Yes, if you want? No problem.

 So what is the average pay of Public Sector workers Ireland _and_ NI in a combined UI?  Where would it compare to the OECD average and what is the significance of that?


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, if you want? No problem.
> 
> So what is the average pay of Public Sector workers Ireland _and_ NI in a combined UI?  Where would it compare to the OECD average and what is the significance of that?


Remember that everyone in NI is subsidised by the "Please don't kill each other" bribe paid by the British. Therefore they'd want parity with PS employees in this country in order to maintain their standard of living.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Its not the way I feel about it, it is simply the truth of the matter. The office of our President and Taoiseach, supported by the entire political establishment of Ireland commemorate the actions of a military junta that, without a mandate from its people, imposed its will on the people through violent means resulting in the deaths of hundreds of its own innocent civilians. Some of those killed were children and many were killed and disappeared for being alleged informers who just happened coincidentally to be mostly Protestant.
> I mean, what happend happened, but why is it still commemorated and honoured when it is of the very type of actions that would be condemned today?
> 
> Its hard to listen to those who on the one hand condemn PIRA while simultaneously stand behind and honour IRB and GOIRA.


You might want to look at who killed the children during 1916. The fact is that this country supported the actions of the IRA, as confirmed in the 1919 election. This country exists because of their actions. The PIRA were open in their wish to destroy this country and considered our police and armed forces to be legitimate targets and our politicians to be their enemy. The PIRA members born here were, by any measure, traitors to this country. Those members born in the UK were foreign combatants. 

Why would we commemorate those people, people who regarded those loyal to this country as enemies?

Why would we not support the  people who won us our freedom? They didn't know at that stage that Michael Collins would betray the people in Northern Ireland. We don't commemorate that event, we commemorate the fight for freedom from British rule. 

Should we now view that in a broader context? Should we remember that the Unionists in Northern Ireland are as Irish as we are but their version of Irishness is different to ours? Yes, on both counts, but the Shinner narrative of moral and political relativism between the 1920's and the 1980's is bogus nonsense. 

If they said they had some justification until 1972 but everything after that was just sectarian terrorism which morphed into almost complete criminality by the late 80's then they'd have some credibility but they don't say that so they don't have any credibility. For nearly all of the 30 years it was about revenge and power and greed and self delusion and that was expressed in day to day bullying and fear and intimidation with the occasional murder. For most of the 30 years they were more like the Kinahan Gang and the IRA or IRB. 

Maybe you know more about the history of the War of Independence but I don't recall reading about the IRA running protection rackets or licencing drug dealers or covering up child rape or all of the other grubby nasty ways the PIRA ran their criminal gang and enriched their leaders.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Dec 2020)

This comparison between the WoI and the PIRA NI campaign is totally bogus and unfortunately we have fallen for the SF ruse to engage in that debate.
Considering the ends to the two events tells it all. After 2 and a bit years of WoI the negotiations were very influenced by the WoI with a form of independence being conceded by the Brits in response to the resistance.  The GFA on the other hand contained absolutely nothing which resulted from the 25 year pointless sectarian PIRA campaign.  It simply applied the Sunningdale dispensation of 25 years earlier.


----------



## Firefly (16 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> So what is the average pay of Public Sector workers Ireland and NI in a combined UI?



I think if you are going to compare the quantity of public sector workers to the OECD average, you should compare the cost of same.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> The fact is that this country supported the actions of the IRA, as confirmed in the 1919 election.This country exists because of their actions.



This is the false narrative. The myth.
The SF vote was won on the SF manifesto. It implied an end to British rule "by all means necessary" but violent action was never explicit, nor was it ever subsequently endorsed by the Dáil.

Arthur Griffith, founder of SF and vice-President at the time was a monarchist.
His means for an independent Ireland was by civil disobedience and abstentionism, not violent insurrection.
It was the policies of abstentionism, ostracisation of RIC members, non-cooperation with tax collection, collapse of the court system, striking workers, transport workers refusing to carry British military personnel and equipment - these were the effective, peaceful, strategies that let the British know Ireland was lost.

The IRA, numbering somewhere between 10-15,000, a pitiful fraction of the Irish Volunteers 170,000 a few years earlier, were vehemently opposed by Catholic Church and most media. Their war was neither sanctioned nor sought by the Irish people. It was British heavy-handed responses to IRA attacks that sustained life and support in the guerrilla campaign. Something that would repeat itself after Derry and Ballymurphy in 1970's.

It wasn't until January 1921 that the Dáil actually debated a motion to formally declare a state of war against Britain.
The motion was _defeated_.
The parliament of the people, in control of a massive SF majority, couldn't even bring itself to give formal support for the IRA. How pathetic is that?

The IRA was broadly a law unto itself, whose actions expedited Britains withdrawal. But it was by no means an army of the people, or an army that held widespread majority public support. It did not.



Purple said:


> Those members born in the UK were foreign combatants.



All the members of IRB and GOIRA in WoI were born in UK.



Purple said:


> In my opinion post independence we had to construct a version of Irishness that never really existed as we were culturally dominated by England and then Britain for 800 years. So we created a Celtic Ireland in which a kind of Celtic Catholicism and Nationalism were intertwined and ethnically cleansed most of our Protestant population.





Purple said:


> Should we remember that the Unionists in Northern Ireland are as Irish as we are but their version of Irishness is different to ours? Yes, on both counts,



Wait a second, PIRA members born in UK are foreigners, but Unionists born in UK are as Irish as we are?

I'm sorry, but these narratives are simply cherry-picking whatever bits taste nice, depending on what day of week it is, but completely avoiding the bits that are hard to swallow.


I'm asking why those who are quick to condemn PIRA (and perhaps I'm being misunderstood, I'm not standing up for PIRA) get their moral justification to commemorate private armies with no mandate who took it upon themselves to engage in slaughter. The claim that 
 is someone all part of the fight for my 'freedom', it is not. They have as much a neck to claim it was for my freedom as PIRA do with the Enniskillen massacre.



Purple said:


> I don't recall reading about the IRA running protection rackets or licencing drug dealers or covering up child rape or all of the other grubby nasty ways the PIRA ran their criminal gang and enriched their leaders.



You may not have read about it but the kangaroo courts set up by the Dáil and administered mostly by IRA volunteers was mostly a charade of justice depending on who knew who, and how much influence they could wield. Depending on which part of the country you were in, at which particular time, the administration of 'justice' in one part of the country was at total odds in another part. It was gombeenism for the most part.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Considering the ends to the two events tells it all.



It is a peculiarty that the ends of conflicts must match to have any comparison.

But to make the comparison anyway, the Government of Ireland Act, received Royal assent on Dec 1920, bringing into being partition of the country and the creation of NI.
The most violent intense period of WoI happened between Nov 1920 tíl the truce in July1921. Some 1,000 people lost their lives, civilians and combatants. And for what?
A treaty that the British government had already legislated for 8 months previously?
Obviously the time differential between Sunningdale and IRA ceasefire is obvious. But the outcome is similar, a treaty agreement that had already been in place meaning the lives of so many were lost for no good reason.

It is only by the grace of God, or King George, that Britain had a PM prepared to come to a negotiating table with those he considered as terrorists, rather than stringing out a long low-level covert war to the point of inevitable deadlock.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Dec 2020)

Firefly said:


> I think if you are going to compare the quantity of public sector workers to the OECD average, you should compare the cost of same.



I told you, I do not know how our PS pay compares to OECD average. Purple says its above average. I will go with that.
I do not know how PS pay in NI compares to OECD average.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Dec 2020)

@WolfeTone So the British Government strung out the 25 years of Provo sectarian terrorism.  This is firmly _tecate_ land.


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I'm sorry, but these narratives are simply cherry-picking whatever bits taste nice, depending on what day of week it is, but completely avoiding the bits that are hard to swallow


We are going around in circled here so i'll leave it at this but I find the above quote deeply ironic.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> We are going around in circled here so i'll leave it at this but I find the above quote deeply ironic.



Really? Its not me that holds the dual position of condemning secret private armies that kill innocent civilians and children while supporting the same.
I have no with truck with the IRA. The IRA, and paramilitarism in general, has been a cancer on this island since its very inception. 
There is no more irony in my position that the same cannot be attributed to broader political spectrum. Each perspective concocting its own narrative of legitimacy over the other, when in fact all paramilitaries engaged in warfare against the State and its civilians, without any moral authority or sanction from the majority of people.
Condemn one, condemn them all. Or don't condemn any.
In the absence of the multitudes willing to swallow their pride and admit to the shame that festers underneath their own glorifications then perhaps the only option, the real option, is to draw a line in the sand.
That is what I have chosen to do.


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> In the absence of the multitudes willing to swallow their pride and admit to the shame that festers underneath their own glorifications then perhaps the only option, the real option, is to draw a line in the sand.
> That is what I have chosen to do.


Yes, that's the irony I was referring to. I find the SF position on this issue, as articulated very well by you, sickening.
To each their own opinion and all that. I am simply giving mine.


----------



## Firefly (17 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> _I told you_, I do not know how our PS pay compares to OECD average.


This also has the whiff of tecate..


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Dec 2020)

Firefly said:


> This also has the whiff of tecate..



What is that supposed to mean? If you are inferring that @tecate is me under a different guise, then you are wrong (again). 
Im not really interested in another one of your rabbit-hole identity parades. Im not @tecate. Anyone taking a cursory look at our comments in Bitcoin threads will see that s/he is more than capable of arguing the technical elements of bitcoin, alot of which go over my head. I think I have a good grasp on the conceptual side.

So if you don't mind, you have implied that there may be some undue financial burden with the cost of PS pay in a UI? Correct me if I am wrong. I have neither agreed nor refuted this, so perhaps you could provide some detail as to how much it would cost, if anything.


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2020)

Firefly said:


> This also has the whiff of tecate..


The beer or the place?


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @WolfeTone So the British Government strung out the 25 years of Provo sectarian terrorism.  This is firmly _tecate_ land.



You've sadly joined the _Firefly _identity parade whataboutery.
It is a matter of record that British government policy included imprisonment without trial, criminalisation of republican ideology, collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, shoot-to-kill and the suppression of criminal investigation into violent crimes. (Finucane, Ballymurphy, Derry, Dublin/Monaghan, Loughinisland, Miami Showband, etc)

A policy to engage in direct negotiation, as Llyod George did, did not emerge until the 1990's.
Once the concept of negotiation did take hold, the impetus for an end to the violence took hold. This is all a matter of public record and fact.

But some more detail on the facts of the tragedy of the era. According to CAIN (Conflict Archive on the Internet) a total of 3,532 deaths are attributable to the Troubles period of 1969-1994 and up to 2001.
60% of those deaths were attributable to Republican paramilitaries (I estimate 52% of all killings attributable to PIRA). 40% are attributable to British Security forces and Loyalist paramilitaries.

Of those killed by republicans                - 35% of their victims were innocent civilians, or 742
Of those killed by BritSec & LoyPara      - 73% of their victims were innocent civilians, or 1,031

These are not my figures, they are obtainable here

Conflict Archive on the Internet

The notion that the conflict was a predominately one sided PIRA affair is bogus. People are entitled to take what narrative they want, but I will stick to the facts as presented.
The British State, wary of the political fallout from atrocities such as Derry and Ballymurphy, engaged with loyalist paramilitaries over a sustained period, in covert operations, to attack Catholic communities in an attempt to drive out the IRA, as leading loyalist Billy Hutchinson testifies.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Dec 2020)

@WolfeTone You display a _tecate _like stubbornness, I didn't say you were _tecate_.  
I note that you combine  British Army/Loyalist Paramilitaries as a single participant.  That is your narrative - the PIRA Catholic defenders versus the British and Loyalist oppressors.  I actually don't go along with the SF apparently conciliatory stance that there should be room for different narratives - there is no room for a narrative that portrays the 25 year senseless sectarian campaign of PIRA in the way that you have portrayed it.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You display a _tecate _like stubbornness, I didn't say you were _tecate_.



With respect _Duke, _the stubborness is all yours.

You flippantly dismiss the recorded factual evidence of collusion between British Security forces and Loyalist paramilitaires. Of course, on the face of it they are separate entities. But if one entity is providing intelligence, weaponary, refuge (by way of escape and non-investigation of serious crimes like murder) then they are collaborators and one and the same organisation.

Sinn Fein and IRA, or SF/IRA?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> there is no room for a narrative that portrays the 25 year senseless sectarian campaign of PIRA in the way that you have portrayed it.



I beg your pardon, what way have I portrayed it? 

Scratch that, I think its fair to say there is little to be gained anymore in the detail. I am recorded here as calling the IRA a cancer, I don't think I can be more forthright than that. Here is a select few comments to back up my views



WolfeTone said:


> Nobody had a mandate to murder anybody.





WolfeTone said:


> Surely anyone, or any organisation, that is involved in killing children are child killers?





WolfeTone said:


> The truth is that child victims of British Army, and their proxies in UVF, are as every bit a tragedy of this conflict as the child victims of the IRA.





WolfeTone said:


> I'm not suggesting that the Provos were not aggressors in their own right and that opportunities for peace were missed on their side.





WolfeTone said:


> Planting bombs and indiscriminately killing children in 1881 was as morally repugnant then as it is today





WolfeTone said:


> In the context of this discussion I do not purport to claim that Provos did not commit some awful criminal atrocities, I am quite adamant that they did, and shameful atrocities they were.





WolfeTone said:


> I have never tried to, nor am I trying to, justify the PIRA campaign


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Of course, on the face of it they are separate entities. But if one entity is providing intelligence, weaponary, refuge (by way of escape and non-investigation of serious crimes like murder) then they are collaborators and one and the same organisation.


That is the narrative I was talking about.  That the Catholic population faced a murderous oppression from combined Loyalist and British State forces and the PIRA campaign should be seen in that light (BTW what is your view of OIRA ceasing to resist this oppression in 1972?).
Then _tecate _like you give a list of prior quotations which are not relevant to the narrative at hand.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That the Catholic population faced an intolerable oppression from Loyalist and British State forces and the PIRA campaign should be seen in that light



_Duke, _no disrespect, but the Stormont regime was, and remains a totally discredited parliament. Do we have to go down the road of the discriminatory practices against Catholics in Housing, eduction, employment, public service appointments?
That a civil rights movement to rectify these wrongs would be subjected to police brutality only went further to disgracing that political establishment.

That violence then erupted is not unsurprising....I think we are agreed on that?
What we are not agreed on, is the sustenance of that violence for such a long period of time. I recognise as you do, the futility of that violence. I recognise the fultility on all sides, do you?
But here is the critical point, it is easy (easier) from the view of hindsight and being of distance to point out the violent actions of the IRA and say they should have stopped long-time before.
But the cycle of violence had commenced, once that commences it can be hard to stop - we are all familiar with the tit-for-tat concept?

So how do you get it to stop?
Internment? Criminalisation? Collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in murder? Suppression of police investigations into murder? Shoot-to-kill?
Or face to face negotiations for a political settlement?




Duke of Marmalade said:


> (BTW what is your view of OIRA ceasing to resist this oppression in 1972).



My understanding of this is that the OIRA leadership in Dublin were caught napping as to the true extent of events erupting in the North. The OIRA ceasefire was more a strategy to suit those who, like Cathal Goulding, who was nearing his fifties simply not prepared to engage. The OIRA was irreparably damaged by the split of the Provos, it was further damaged again with more splits and in-house fueds (I think the INLA emerged at this point).
Their cease fire was not a measure to engage with the British and Unionists to resolve issues and forment a peaceful path. It was a ceasefire of convenience for those who had lost control and simply wanted out.
Thats just my opinion.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> But the cycle of violence had commenced, once that commences it can be hard to stop - we are all familiar with the tit-for-tat concept?


As I have said before, we can now see that the "tat" was almost entirely from PIRA.  When they ceased everyone ceased.
You're probably right on OIRA.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> When they ceased everyone ceased.



Just like 1921 and 1916 before that.


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2020)

This thread is now entering Wonderland...


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Dec 2020)

We are long gone past that. 

Im still trying to figure how someone born in NI is both a foreigner and as Irish as we are at the very same time? Depends on which narrative you are trying to sell at the time I suppose?

The record of Dáil Éireann in January 1921 that failed to back a motion declaring a state of war against Britain is all I need to know about what support GOIRA, and its miniscule membership relative to the Irish Volunteers, had from the public at large. It reveals a lot about the political class of today who try to subvert the events of that period to fit a narrative that is expedient to their political bias.

I'm more interested in looking to the future.  

I'm wondering what the impact of average Public Sector pay levels in a UI would be relative to the average OECD level.


----------



## cremeegg (18 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> I don't know why people hold the views that they hold. Therefore the only answer I can give is that I don't know.
> In my opinion post independence we had to construct a version of Irishness that never really existed as we were culturally dominated by England and then Britain for 800 years. So we created a Celtic Ireland in which a kind of Celtic Catholicism and Nationalism were intertwined and ethnically cleansed most of our Protestant population.
> We constructed a narrative in which "The Irish" were oppressed by "The British" and ignored the fact that the Nation State as we know it and fought for in 1916 and during the Civil War didn't exist, even as a concept, when Strongbow rocked up in Bannow Bay in 1169. The reality of history didn't suit us and didn't allow us to assert our identity, a constructed identity based on what those in power thought it would have been had we been free all of that time.
> In that context the glorification of our independence struggle was inevitable. We are not alone in that; the Americans remember a War in which the French fought the British, with a third of the local population siding with each and a third not getting involved at all, as their War of Independence. They remember it as a war in which the entire population of what is now the United States fought the British, with some help from the French.
> ...


I know that you hold very different opinions to me on these matters, the Troubles etc. and I would respect your opinions without accepting them. Those of us old enough to have lived through (although in my own case at a safe distance I am glad to say) them have our own ideas built over decades and nothing said on here is likely to shift that.

However I would like to address the points you have made above 



Purple said:


> In my opinion post independence we had to construct a version of Irishness that never really existed as we were culturally dominated by England and then Britain for 800 years.



Ireland was not culturally dominated by England for 800 years. Englands cultural influence on Ireland was negligible before 1600. The Norman Lords who ruled approx half the country were Irish speakers, 'more Irish than the Irish themselves'  It began to make some inroads after that, but had little sway over the majority of the population until the early 1800s. 

O Connell's efforts to modernise the country supported the introduction of the English language and the introduction of the National Schools in the 1830s spread education through English. The Famine decimated those Irish speaking parts of the country particularly. 

The idea that a version of Irishness was constructed is touted by those who are unsympathetic. It is a distortion built on a misunderstanding. It began in the late 1800s not after the foundation of the state. It was a work of rescue, not construction. Douglas Hyde collected the poetry of Raftery, because it was still very much alive more than half a century after his death. The culture that produced his work and many others like him was brought into the modern world, particularly the world of print for the first time. It was not 'constructed'.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Dec 2020)

@Duke of Marmalade I see one of your definitive sources of the period of the Troubles, Eoghan Harris, is peddling his distortions of events once again today. This time with regard to killings of two children in Co Cavan by loyalists.

Harris, while initially lauding the documentary _A Bomb that Time Forgot, _that accounts the events in Belturbert, his primary aim is to use the same documentary to advance his own distortions and distractions.

Harris initially lauds the documentary "_It was good, therefore, to have a whole programme devoted to the deaths of Geraldine O'Reilly (15) and Patrick Stanley (16)...", _but the real intent of his article is to then distract and undevote from the subject of the documentary and reel in the reader to the overall events occuring at the time and the general widespread violence in the province, with chief perpetrators being the IRA supported by a number count.

Having set up the distraction, Harris can deliver the soft-soap version of British State collusion. According to him, a British Army officer who had knowledge of a loyalist bomb attack to blow up a border crossing bridge, prior to the Belturbert attack, is of no real significance.

"...._one British army officer - just one - had turned a blind eye to the loyalist attack on Aghalane Bridge" 
"It would be regrettable if a documentary that highlighted one atrocity gave oxygen to Sinn Féin's collusion campaign" _

What Harris conveniently omits is that the officer in question had the authority to direct British troop movements in the area. Having duly informed RUC Special Branch that there were to be no troops in the vicinity at a during set time and period, loyalists just happened to carry out their attack on the border crossing during that set time and period.

By linking campaigns for justice for the victims of British State collusion to a "SF collusion campaign", Harris is effectively urinating on the memory of those victims, not least Geraldine O'Reilly and Patrick Stanley.
For the most part, the victims of collusion have no part or association with SF. If SF are the most vocal for their cause it is only an indictment of the existing political establishment who abandoned these victims a long time ago. The campaign for Dublin/Monaghan, along with this documentary, also carries the "forgotten" tag.

Harris, continues the distortions. Quoting "_Irelands Violent Frontier", _an excellent account of the history of the border, he identifies a quote from visiting Protestant churchmen in the mid-80's who claim that 75 people have been killed by republican paramilitaries with only one person convicted since 1971. Harris ties all these deaths to an "openly sectarian campaign".
The good churchmen are correct insofar that 75 people have been killed between 1971 and 1986 in Fermanagh, and their intent is genuine to highlight the pervasive fear that Protestant community lives under with threats from the IRA.
But to be accurate and offer some context about those that were killed, out of 75 deaths in the period in Fermanagh , the IRA were responsible for 64 deaths - 17 BA, 17 UDR, 16 RUC and 14 civilians. Of the 14 civilians there is substantive evidence that in 7 incidents the intended targets were nearby mobile military patrols. Clearly, in the main, IRA targets were British security force personnel and not ordinary Protestants.

But it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge that the IRA did carry out a sectarian campaign of intimidation, forced evictions and expulsions, business firebombing, house burning, in Fermanagh against the ordinary Protestant population. That indeed they did. At least 4 of the ciilian deaths were between '71 and' 86 were a result of sectarian attacks 

But Harris is no fool. He knows that he didn't have to extract an inaccurate account from, albeit well-intended English clergymen. He could have picked any amount of chapter and verse from _Irelands Violent Frontier _to demonstrate the true nature of Protestant life along the border.
But then if he had chosen the following excerpt it might interfere with the distorted narrative.

"_As the IRA’s campaign developed in 1919–21, it took on a sectarian dimension in these border counties. The border counties experienced the most intense sectarian violence outside Belfast. Protestant churches, Orange Halls and Masonic Halls were destroyed. Their assumed loyalty to the Crown and the British state made Protestants an object of suspicion to republicans – in Monaghan they were forced to swear an oath of allegiance to the Republic. Frequent raids for arms were carried out on Unionist homes.
The IRA picketed Protestant businesses and harassed Catholics who used them. 
Monaghan was a Sinn Féin stronghold. When, in February 1921, a Protestant trader and B Special in Rosslea was fired on, local Specials retaliated by rampaging through the Catholic part of the village, firing into houses. Although no one was killed or injured, Eoin O’Duffy, the IRA commander in Monaghan, authorised the killing of four Specials and the burning of ten Protestant houses in retaliation. Fourteen houses were torched and three Protestants shot dead. Two were Specials but the other was not. Joseph Douglas was dragged from his mother’s house and executed by the roadside. Rosslea and the surrounding towns and villages would be centres of IRA activity, much of it organised and launched from across the border, in both the 1956–62 campaign and that of the Provisionals. From Pettigo and Belleek in the west of Fermanagh along the Fermanagh and south Tyrone borders into south Armagh, IRA activity would be intense during *all its twentieth-century campaigns. *
In February 1922 Eoin O’Duffy organised a series of raids across the border into Fermanagh and Tyrone with the objective of kidnapping 100 prominent Orangemen, who were to be used as hostages for the release of three IRA men who had been sentenced to death. In fact, 40 hostages were taken across the border into Monaghan. Despite the truce between the IRA and the British, which had been in force since the Anglo-Irish Treaty, Michael Collins was willing clandestinely to support this activity as a means of bringing pressure on the northern government."_

GOIRA / PIRA what was the difference?

But yet the Harris narrative, shared by many across the political spectrum, believe that there was a difference.
And they use this distorted narrative to divert attention away from the other foul-stenching narrative of the recent period, namely that collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and British security forces in the murder of innocent civilians and the subsequent cover-up of investigation was only a few bad apples.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (21 Dec 2020)

@WolfeTone I don't really like EH, I distrust people who go through Damascean conversions.  I hadn't read his article until your post alerted me.  If you are correct about the 75 killed in Fermanagh (I didn't check) then indeed his article is a gross distortion.
You have two main themes.  First is that the Provos are just as bad (or maybe just as good) as the GOIRA.  Possibly in the eyes of St Peter you are right.  I sense in mainstream nationalism a bit of an ambivalence over the WoI.  They do not really celebrate it.  Far more comfortable celebrating the martyrdom and victimhood of the Easter Rising.  I was aware of the Easter Rising since I was about knee high - flags out in my neighbourhood every Easter.  It wasn't until I was adult that I became aware that the Rising was in fact a failure, that it was the WoI which won our sort of independence.

Your other theme is that  collusion between State forces and Loyalist murder gangs was at a much more serious level than "bad apples" (ala Gardai, for example) and was so rampant as to both justify the extended but pointless Provo campaign but also to portray the extended Troubles as an equal struggle between Provos on the one hand and British/Loyalist elements on the other.  I profoundly disagree with this narrative for the reasons set out in the preceding 12 pages.
Another question for you which may seem silly at this stage.  Do you support Sinn Fein?  I presume yes and it seems to me that your earnest pursuit of the two themes described above is mainly motivated by a desire to normalise SF.  And that is of course a main SF objective, hence their abhorrence at Stanley breaking ranks.


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I sense in mainstream nationalism a bit of an ambivalence over the WoI. They do not really celebrate it.



Yes it is surely an oddity that on the eve of coming into existence of this State 100yrs ago, that brought us our 'freedom' there is no apparent cause for celebration.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> so rampant as to both justify the extended but pointless Provo campaign but also to portray the extended Troubles as an equal struggle between Provos on the one hand and British/Loyalist elements on the other.



No, I have never tried to justify the Provo campaign. My perspective is one of a collapse of trust in the institutions of policing, courts, govt administration.
This was clearly the case in many nationalist communities and in the absence of such trust the vacuum for those who saw no other way, other than a violent way (as in 1916), is opened.
So I don't justify the Provos, but I dont jump on the political expedient wagon of condemnation. Particularly, on the bandwagon of those political actors whose All-Ireland politics stops at the border.
If ever they participate in elections up north as SF, Greens and PBP do, then the constituents of nationalist communities become their constituents, and the convenience of standing at the border and judging what happens up north will be less convenient.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Do you support Sinn Fein?



Im not a shinner if that's what you mean. I have been very supportive of Adams/McGuinness in bringing at end to the IRA without it descending into a chaotic bloody fued.
They are not without criticism of course, and there are many aspects to pick fault with. But in the round, you can trace the push for political strategy over the military strategy back to the hunger strikes. It was Adams that led the way on this.
But I was also supportive of Ahern, Blair, Reynolds, Major, Clinton, Trimble, Hume and even Paisley when he crossed his own rubicon.
Thatcher is the one I cannot abide.

As for their politics, in terms of the general social and economic discourse I don't they will be much different in power than the rest. Certainly not radically different.
They say the right things in opposition, but in government it will invariably be different - see MM bank bailout comment last week. Apparently, in opposition he referenced it 57 times. Once in government, there was no bailout.

On constitutional matters pertaining to a UI, I do think if they get into government it may provide the impetus for the rest of the political class to actually confront the issue in a meaningful way.


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I don't really like EH, I distrust people who go through Damascean conversions. I hadn't read his article until your post alerted me. If you are correct about the 75 killed in Fermanagh (I didn't check) then indeed his article is a gross distortion.



That is my misunderstanding so. I retract the inference.


----------



## cremeegg (31 Dec 2020)

Purple said:


> the fact that the Nation State as we know it and fought for in 1916 and during the Civil War didn't exist, even as a concept, when Strongbow rocked up in Bannow Bay in 1169. The reality of history didn't suit us and didn't allow us to assert our identity, a constructed identity based on what those in power thought it would have been had we been free all of that time.



Nation states as we know them today didn't exist in the 12th century obviously.

Ireland did however have a recognised High King at that time, Ruaidrí mac Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair ( Ruairí Ó Conchúir in modern Irish, or Rory O Connor in English). The nature of the High Kingship was not like the traditional feudal idea of a King, the regional kings held most real power in their areas, and indeed local kings were often quite independent. Just like the role of the US President is nothing like the role of the French President today. That said O Connor was active on a national level in areas such as church reform and indeed developing infrastructure. 

Ireland was an integrated cultural, social and legal entity. The written Irish language was standard throughout the country as was the Brehon legal system. This standardised spoken language was most unusual at the time. German, French, Italian were mostly spoken languages with little standardisation in their written forms. Latin was of course much more standardised but was not the spoken language.

The Brehon legal system was unique in that it was national law code administered by judges rather than the codification local customs with some remnants of the Justinian canon all enforced by the local political power.


----------



## Purple (3 Jan 2021)

cremeegg said:


> I know that you hold very different opinions to me on these matters, the Troubles etc. and I would respect your opinions without accepting them. Those of us old enough to have lived through (although in my own case at a safe distance I am glad to say) them have our own ideas built over decades and nothing said on here is likely to shift that.
> 
> However I would like to address the points you have made above
> 
> ...


There was certainly an Irish culture but it was interwoven with British and more particularly English culture. We made up a version which excluded the English part, and the Protestant part. We made Protestants strangers in their own country.


----------



## Purple (3 Jan 2021)

cremeegg said:


> Nation states as we know them today didn't exist in the 12th century obviously.
> 
> Ireland did however have a recognised High King at that time, Ruaidrí mac Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair ( Ruairí Ó Conchúir in modern Irish, or Rory O Connor in English). The nature of the High Kingship was not like the traditional feudal idea of a King, the regional kings held most real power in their areas, and indeed local kings were often quite independent. Just like the role of the US President is nothing like the role of the French President today. That said O Connor was active on a national level in areas such as church reform and indeed developing infrastructure.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. These are points I have made to British and American people many times. I do think you are overstating the position/power of the High Kings though. They were more frequently powerless than powerful.


----------

