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

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe if you can point to other instances of revolutionaries and freedom fighters standing in elections organised by those they were fighting against or who banned and proscribed them, you might have the semblance of an intelligent point there.

The Provos were formed on the basis of testing their mandate in the electoral process. The ballot was always available to PSF. I really don't care if there were scores of other groups in a similar position, or none - it has no bearing on my argument.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Labour have seats on a local level, but the 'vast majority' don't vote for them. You said the 'vast majority' opted to vote for those who opposed violence hence removing 'legitimacy' from the IRA.
How come Labour in Cavan/Monaghan have 'legitimacy' and the IRA have it removed?

I've already said that Labour have legitimacy on the basis of their electoral support - and that alone - they are constrained by their popular mandate, and can only lay claim to the support evident in their polling. I wouldn't expect Labour to claim that they could impose their will on the basis of a minority support. If they tried to, they would lose legitimacy - because it wouldn't be supported by a popular mandate.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, I think that is your requirement for them to be 'legitimate'.

I'm glad we've nailed that down at least

Happyman42 wrote: »

Isn't the truth of the situation (and kinda obvious too) that it doesn't matter a dam if they can be proven to be 'legitimate' or not, they exist?

It's a bit like saying rain isn't legitimate therefore rain shouldn't exist.

Rain doesn't claim to act on my behalf. I'm not even sure the concept of legitimacy plays any role in nature. It's a social construct. In the big picture it's not so important that the IRA claimed legitimacy, but it's important for those that they proported to derive legitimacy from, to be very clear that this wasn't the case. The people of Ireland rejected their campaign after all.

SoulandForm

Im never going to agree with either you Happyman or you alastair about the Provos' campaign; but it would be interesting to hear how both of you think any repeat of the troubles can be prevented.

tdv123

alastair wrote: »

A lot of supposition there. Were the Guards they killed also colluding with death squads? SF never managed to pull an electoral majority of 'their community' while the IRA was busy killing people, so this notion that they had 'a lot of support' is rather over-stated. The current crowd have some support as well - neither have legitimacy.

Well when the Provos was formed they were very distrusting of political parties including SF. Then after the hunger strikes you had the rise of SF & then you had the sleaze ball tactic of blocking the rise of SF. Hate Gerry or love him but he was the elected representative of West Belfast. Banning elected SF members from the airwaves was like telling the communties that voted for them that they & their votes didn't matter.

So after the ban was lifted on them on in 93/94 there vote started to go up gradually.


Irish Republican Legitimatize

Republican legitimatists adopt a traditional Irish republican analysis that views the Irish Republic as proclaimed "in arms" during the 1916 Easter Rising as the sole legitimate authority on the island of Ireland. This view is partly shared by all political parties in the present-day Republic of Ireland, who believe the secessionist and abstentionist First Dáil, which "ratified" the Republic proclaimed in 1916, is a predecessor to the current, internationally recognised, Dáil.
It is on the issue of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty that republican legitimatism departs from mainstream constitutional understanding. It views the Anglo-Irish Treaty as incompatible with the Irish Republic and thus null and void. Although the Treaty was endorsed by the majority of TDs of the Second Dáil, republican legitimatists argue that the vote was invalid as all TDs had, prior to their election, taken a solemn oath to defend the Irish Republic, and that people could not possibly express their true desires on the treaty, as the British had threatened a massive escalation, "immediate and terrible war" as they phrased it, if it was not accepted.
On the basis of these views, republican legitimatism argued that:

• all Irish parliaments convened since the Second Dáil in 1921 are illegitimate as they were established by a piece of British legislation, the Government of Ireland Act 1920;I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disputed_statement"]dubious[/URL] – [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Irish_republican_legitimatism#Dubious"]discuss[/URL][/I
• the 64 TDs who voted for the Treaty in 1922 had violated their oath to the Irish Republic and abdicated their legitimacy;
• The Second Dáil had never formally dissolved itself.

The pro- and anti-treaty factions of Sinn Féin attempted to present a united block of candidates for the 1922 general election in the 26 counties for the Third Dáil; 58 pro-treaty Sinn Féin members were re-elected compared with 36 anti-treaty members. Of these, 17 of the 58 and 16 of the 36 were returned unopposed. Following the outbreak of the Irish Civil War, the Second Dáil was never dissolved and the (All Ireland) Third Dáil never convened. Led by Éamon de Valera and others, the Second Dáil TDs who had voted against the Treaty abstained from the (26 county) Provisional Parliament of the Free State and the subsequent Oireachtas of the Irish Free State. They and their opponents engaged in the Irish civil war in 1922-23.
Although de Valera had resigned as President of the Republic on 7 January 1922, and had not been re-elected on a very close Dáil vote two days later, a meeting of the IRA Army Executive at Poulatar, Ballybacon on 17 October 1922 adopted a proclamation "reinstating" de Valera as "President of the Republic" and "Chief Executive of the State". The "Emergency Government," as de Valera called it in his autobiography, was established on 25 October 1922.[1][2][3]
Members of this Republican government were:

• Éamon de Valera - "President of the Republic" (after his arrest in 1923, substituted by Patrick J. Ruttledge)[2]
• Patrick J. Ruttledge - "Minister of Home Affairs"
• Austin Stack - "Minister of Finance"

De Valera also appointed twelve members of the Second Dáil to act as a Council of State.[1] They were:

• Austin Stack
• Robert Barton
• Count Plunkett
• Seán Ó Ceallaigh (John J. O'Kelly)
• Laurence Ginnell
• Seán T. O'Kelly
• Kathleen O'Callaghan
• Mary MacSwiney
• P. J. Ruttledge
• Seán Moylan
• Michael Colivet
• Seán O'Μahony

This "Government of the Republic", however, was unable to assert the authority it claimed to possess. Effectively an internal government-in-exile, one of its first acts was to rescind the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. It continued to meet even after subsequent elections had been held in jurisdiction of the Free State. Styling themselves Comhairle na dTeachtaí, the members of the rump Second Dáil were joined by anti-Treaty republican TDs elected at subsequent elections. The IRA initially recognised the authority of the rump Second Dáil but increased distrust between the two bodies led the IRA to withdraw its support in 1925.
At the 1926 Sinn Féin ard fheis, Éamon de Valera (then president of the party) effectively called for the abandonment of the legitimatist argument by proposing that the party accept the Free State constitution and return to electoral politics contingent on the abolition of the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Opponents of the proposal, led by Father Michael O’Flanagan and Mary McSweeney defeated his motion by a vote of 223 to 218. De Valera subsequently resigned as Sinn Féin president to form a new party, Fiana Fail , which entered the Dáil of the Irish Free State in 1927, reducing the ranks of this rump Second Dáil even further. From this point onwards, de Valera and his followers were seen as having departed from the principles of republicanism by republican legitimatists, who set up Comhairle na Poblachta as a body to popularize its claims.

alastair

SoulandForm wrote: »

Im never going to agree with either you Happyman or you alastair about the Provos' campaign; but it would be interesting to hear how both of you think any repeat of the troubles can be prevented.

The troubles are not going to be repeated, because there are not enough players outside the consensus of parliamentary democracy. Even if those inside that consensus retain sectarian suspicion (and they do, in the main), it will contain any possibility of social breakdown. That, combined with the general clarity on what the reality of extra-political 'activism' actually means, is the insurance against anything of substance kicking off again.

alastair

tdv123 wrote: »

Irish Republican Legitimatize

Notable that the logic for that claim to legitimacy by the Provos is equally applicable to the CIRA and RIRA. Their provenance is just as easily tracked backwards, just add in another split to the mix. The truth is that it offers no legitimacy to any of them post 1922.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The Provos were formed on the basis of testing their mandate in the electoral process. The ballot was always available to PSF. I really don't care if there were scores of other groups in a similar position, or none - it has no bearing on my argument.

And at what point where they allowed to have full and equal electoral rights and the right to aspire to a UI?
The stark reality of NI and the conflict was we had to get to that point by violence.
Unionists simply, where not and never would have been ready to share power equally where it not for an armed campaign. (you can witter on about Sunningdale until the cows come home, but it never was a realistic solution) That is the horrible reality of it all, and it has been the same throughout history around the world where one side suppresses and subjugates another. Here we had the added fireworks that the subjugating side where religious supremacists.

I've already said that Labour have legitimacy on the basis of their electoral support - and that alone - they are constrained by their popular mandate, and can only lay claim to the support evident in their polling. I wouldn't expect Labour to claim that they could impose their will on the basis of a minority support. If they tried to, they would lose legitimacy - because it wouldn't be supported by a popular mandate.

The point is that Labour have a voice and are listened to as part of a democracy.

I'm glad we've nailed that down at least

Yes, like other threads it is begining to become evident that the issue of 'legitimacy' is dictated by you alone and your personal opinion.

Rain doesn't claim to act on my behalf. I'm not even sure the concept of legitimacy plays any role in nature. It's a social construct. In the big picture it's not so important that the IRA claimed legitimacy, but it's important for those that they proported to derive legitimacy from, to be very clear that this wasn't the case. The people of Ireland rejected their campaign after all.

The IRA never claimed to act on your behalf or mine for that matter, they claimed to speak for all true republicans of which there where many.
The IRA decided that a deal could be done and did the deal, the people of Ireland agreed with them. I have a measure of respect for those who recognised that violence was no longer necessary.

Happyman42

SoulandForm wrote: »

Im never going to agree with either you Happyman or you alastair about the Provos' campaign; but it would be interesting to hear how both of you think any repeat of the troubles can be prevented.

Violence in Ireland has always been cyclical and that cycle has a root cause, the British presence here.
I can see the rise of the dissidents (those who legitimately think that the GFA was a sellout) stopping them will be as intractable and as impossible as stopping the rise of the IRA.
I have no truck with those who think that these groups are just criminals or drug dealers (what crim is going to bring an extra heat on themselves by engaging in a quasi political struggle) and that we are being sold a pup on this by the combined forces of the media and the established parties (I include SF in that)
These groups represent (to me) a real threat to the peace process and what they are looking for (just as Adams and McGuinness did) are events to radicalise a whole new generation or generations of republicans.
To me, the only way to stop this inevitable cycle of violence is to remove the primary cause and begin the experiment of a united Ireland.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

And at what point where they allowed to have full and equal electoral rights and the right to aspire to a UI?
The stark reality of NI and the conflict was we had to get to that point by violence.

Rubbish. SF were never excluded from the electoral processes that would have any bearing on lobbying for a united Ireland - north or south. They had equal rights in that regard from the get-go.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Violence in Ireland has always been cyclical and that cycle has a root cause, the British presence here.
I can see the rise of the dissidents (those who legitimately think that the GFA was a sellout) stopping them will be as intractable and as impossible as stopping the rise of the IRA.
I have no truck with those who think that these groups are just criminals or drug dealers (what crim is going to bring an extra heat on themselves by engaging in a quasi political struggle) and that we are being sold a pup on this by the combined forces of the media and the established parties (I include SF in that)
These groups represent (to me) a real threat to the peace process and what they are looking for (just as Adams and McGuinness did) are events to radicalise a whole new generation or generations of republicans.
To me, the only way to stop this inevitable cycle of violence is to remove the primary cause and begin the experiment of a united Ireland.

The British 'presence' is in actuality, the will of the majority of those in NI. I don't ever see the will of the majority being 'removed' by violence. The notion that you can pin a root cause for violence on the British is farcical. A minority of Scottish voters support independence from Britain too, but I don't see anyone claim that it should lead to an inevitable cycle of violence as a consequence.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Rubbish. SF were never excluded from the electoral processes that would have any bearing on lobbying for a united Ireland - north or south. They had equal rights in that regard from the get-go.

Yes, that is true, but we are talking about the IRA.

alastair wrote:

The British 'presence' is in actuality, the will of the majority of those in NI. I don't ever see the will of the majority being 'removed' by violence. The notion that you can pin a root cause for violence on the British is farcical.

What would you say the 'root' cause is

A minority of Scottish voters support independence from Britain too, but I don't see anyone claim that it should lead to an inevitable cycle of violence as a consequence.

Which is a fine and upstanding opinion to have, if you are in denial that violence is actually happening.

.jacksparrow.

alastair wrote: »

The British 'presence' is in actuality, the will of the majority of those in NI. I don't ever see the will of the majority being 'removed' by violence. The notion that you can pin a root cause for violence on the British is farcical. A minority of Scottish voters support independence from Britain too, but I don't see anyone claim that it should lead to an inevitable cycle of violence as a consequence.

The majority voted that a united Ireland be brought about by a majority.

Which means they the majority are happy for the status to change.

So where you're getting the majority wants to remain part of the UK is beyond me.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

To me, the only way to stop this inevitable cycle of violence is to remove the primary cause and begin the experiment of a united Ireland.

And if Unionism becomes the new Republicanism? Do we switch back to appease the terrorists?

.jacksparrow.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

And if Unionism becomes the new Republicanism? Do we switch back to appease the terrorists?

So because of a fear of violence from unionists we should never change the status?

Black Swan

MOD NOTICE:
This thread moved to Northern Ireland. Please read new Northern Ireland charter before posting.

.jacksparrow.

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

So because of a fear of violence from unionists we should never change the status?

So because of a fear of violence from Republicans we should change the status?

.jacksparrow.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

So because of a fear of violence from Republicans we should change the status?

Em no, we have the gfa to change the status, which will be voted on hopefully in the not too distant future.

So my question again is, should we not change the status because of fear on unionist violence?

SoulandForm

alastair wrote: »

The troubles are not going to be repeated, because there are not enough players outside the consensus of parliamentary democracy. Even if those inside that consensus retain sectarian suspicion (and they do, in the main), it will contain any possibility of social breakdown. That, combined with the general clarity on what the reality of extra-political 'activism' actually means, is the insurance against anything of substance kicking off again.

You must have missed the leader of the Police Federation saying that the UVF are basically not on cease fire while the Orange Order and DUP have being pals with them in north Belfast. The "consensus" as you put it is extremely brittle.

Happyman42

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

And if Unionism becomes the new Republicanism? Do we switch back to appease the terrorists?

Unionists signed up to the GFA as well, there is an onus on everybody...EVERYBODY to find a way forward that accomodates everybody and removes the causes of violence.

tdv123

Happyman42 wrote: »

Unionists signed up to the GFA as well, there is an onus on everybody...EVERYBODY to find a way forward that accomodates everybody and removes the causes of violence.

A good way of doing that would be letting Counties with nationalists majorities be handed to the Republic. Fermanagh, South Armagh, Tyrone, Derry City & notable places with nationalist majorities. This would enable the PSNI & Gardai to work together much better & put a stop to paramilitary activity once & for all.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, that is true, but we are talking about the IRA.

Actually, we are talking about the political wing of the IRA - which would be SF. My point stands.

Happyman42 wrote: »

What would you say the 'root' cause is

Sectarianism, cyclical dynamics, gangsterism, localism, siege mentality, distorted ideology - a messy cocktail of causes.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is a fine and upstanding opinion to have, if you are in denial that violence is actually happening.

Care to point toward the equivalent of the troubles in Scotland?

alastair

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

The majority voted that a united Ireland be brought about by a majority.

Which means they the majority are happy for the status to change.

So where you're getting the majority wants to remain part of the UK is beyond me.

A majority voted for the possibility of change, and then continued to vote for the status quo. A majority do not want a 32 county republic currently, and possibly may never want it, while allowing for that possibility. A majority of the electorate would be in favour of allowing the Green Party compete in elections, but does that imply they want a Green-led government tomorrow, next year, or ever?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Actually, we are talking about the political wing of the IRA - which would be SF. My point stands.

No it doesn't actually, SF never sought a mandate for the IRA at the polls. But go ahead and shift the goalposts when it suits.

Sectarianism, cyclical dynamics, gangsterism, localism, siege mentality, distorted ideology - a messy cocktail of causes.

Most of the above caused by the presence of the British and their support for a supremacist regime and subsequent breakdown of society.

Care to point toward the equivalent of the troubles in Scotland?

There isn't any, because the British are not there to enforce the rule of a supremacist regime. That is why there is no comparison between Scotland and Ireland.

But that is all neither here nor there...violence has happened and is still happening and will continue to happen in Ireland and it is up to us to accept that and deal with it's causes.

alastair

SoulandForm wrote: »

You must have missed the leader of the Police Federation saying that the UVF are basically not on cease fire while the Orange Order and DUP have being pals with them in north Belfast. The "consensus" as you put it is extremely brittle.

There's quite a difference between the current state of affairs (UVF, fleg violence, Dissident activities, etc) and a return to how things were. There's no stomach for that - that's where the consensus lies - and it's not brittle - it's pretty emphatic.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

No it doesn't actually, SF never sought a mandate for the IRA at the polls. But go ahead and shift the goalposts when it suits.

Ballot box and armalite ring any bells? No need to shift any goalposts.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Most of the above caused by the presence of the British and their support for a supremacist regime and subsequent breakdown of society.

No it's not. What 'supremacist regime' are you referring to?

Happyman42 wrote: »

There isn't any, because the British are not there to enforce the rule of a supremacist regime. That is why there is no comparison between Scotland and Ireland.

Again with the 'supremacist regime'? The British army are certainly present in Scotland - with the same role and duty to enforce as they have in the rest of the UK. The comparison is quite clear once you shed yourself this nonsense of 'supremacist regimes' - there's a minority who favour a different sovereign arrangement, and a majority who favour the status quo (or slower political change).

Happyman42 wrote: »

But that is all neither here nor there...violence has happened and is still happening and will continue to happen in Ireland and it is up to us to accept that and deal with it's causes.

Which have sod all to do with the British at this stage.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Ballot box and armalite ring any bells? No need to shift any goalposts.

SF convinced the IRA to end the violence, remember an IRA spokesman issuing a statement at a moment of crisis in the process
'If that is what the British want, we will give them another 25 years of war?'
It was SF who intervened and convinced them that the process was the right way to go.
The IRA and SF where always autonomous to one another. Don't be fooled by vested interests in the media and look at the cold hard facts.

No it's not. What 'supremacist regime' are you referring to?

If you are still in denial about that then there is not much I can do.

Again with the 'supremacist regime'? The British army are certainly present in Scotland - with the same role and duty to enforce as they have in the rest of the UK. The comparison is quite clear once you shed yourself this nonsense of 'supremacist regimes' - there's a minority who favour a different sovereign arrangement, and a majority who favour the status quo (or slower political change).

The situation in Scotland is entirely different, please stop with the non-relevant comparisons.

Which have sod all to do with the British at this stage.

It doesn't to those signed up to the GFA, but as always it is those around the fringes on both sides who have the potential to derail the process and bring us very quickly back to a situation where the British presence is the primary battleground. It has everything to do with 'The British' for those two sides.
My hope and indeed expectation is that the British will underscore their dis-interest (stated clearly, but not taken on board by Unionism in the GFA) and overtly lobby for the practicality of a unification. That statement in the GFA has silenced the IRA guns and they need to spell it out now for the die hards in Loyalism and Republicanism before we begin to take steps backward.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The IRA and SF where always autonomous to one another. Don't be fooled by vested interests in the media and look at the cold hard facts.

Danny Morrison was trying to fool me?

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you are still in denial about that then there is not much I can do.

Heh. Right.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The situation in Scotland is entirely different, please stop with the non-relevant comparisons.

I'm simply responding to your baseless claim that the cause of violence was the role that Britain plays in the question of national sovereignty. Same scenario applies there.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It doesn't to those signed up to the GFA, but as always it is those around the fringes on both sides who have the potential to derail the process and bring us very quickly back to a situation where the British presence is the primary battleground. It has everything to do with 'The British' for those two sides.
My hope and indeed expectation is that the British will underscore their dis-interest (stated clearly, but not taken on board by Unionism in the GFA) and overtly lobby for the practicality of a unification. That statement in the GFA has silenced the IRA guns and they need to spell it out now for the die hards in Loyalism and Republicanism before we begin to take steps backward.

The British will never lobby for unification - why would you expect that they should? They have a duty to their citizens, to continue to re-affirm their rights - until their citizenry tell them otherwise. I don't lose any sleep over the dissident's attitude to the legitimacy of 'British rule' - how are they getting with recognising the legitimacy of the Irish state after all?

.jacksparrow.

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Em no, we have the gfa to change the status, which will be voted on hopefully in the not too distant future.

So my question again is, should we not change the status because of fear on unionist violence?

It was you who used the qualifier of republican violence as reasoning for the creation of a UI. Now, what is the difference between republicanism and unionism that allows violence for one group to be somehow different than violence from another? The victims are still the same group - i.e. people who want nothing to do with either.

tdv123

alastair wrote: »

I'm simply responding to your baseless claim that the cause of violence was the role that Britain plays in the question of national sovereignty. Same scenario applies there.

There was no party in Scotland who stood on a manifesto of independence & setting up a Republic.

There was a party in Ireland who stood on that manifesto & won a landslide victory.

If the Scottish people vote for independence (which I don't think is there best interest) that will have to be respected. But it was not respected here & in that lies the underlining problem. When the unit of decision went against them the ruling class changed the unit of decision to suit their own agenda.

So it's really that not difficult when people playing by the rules get cheated & turn to revolutionary organizations & reject constitutionalism as their way of voicing opinion. It's really not that difficult to understand & candidly I don't believe you can't understand it the truth is you can't accept it.

DEFTLEFTHAND

CIRA are living in a timewarp, nobody supports them any more. Take a look at this clip featuring a CIRA member shortly after the death of Ronan Kerr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsA0JvtdhMs

.jacksparrow.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

CIRA are living in a timewarp, nobody supports them any more. Take a look at this clip featuring a CIRA member shortly after the death of Ronan Kerr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsA0JvtdhMs

Wasn't this video discredited by the organisation as nothing to do with them?

Think it was someone just told to put a balaclava on and waffle for a few minutes.