Jim Molyneaux

Happyman42

I never had much time for his politics but was he correct when he let slip that 'This (The IRA ceasefire) is the worst thing that has ever happened us' (Unionism)

Seems to me that he hit a nail, (that still hasn't been publicly accepted by the rest of Unionism) on the head, in that Unionism was completely out maneuvered by SF and the IRA.

NIMAN

Totally right.

The minute that the Provos stopped bombing and shooting, the Unionists were in real trouble. It was always easy to have them as the enemy and their voters were 100% behind them.

Now they have to share power with Catholics, and most of them simply do not like doing this. Many still see it as a unionist state for a unionist people.

Happyman42

NIMAN wrote: »

Totally right.

The minute that the Provos stopped bombing and shooting, the Unionists were in real trouble. It was always easy to have them as the enemy and their voters were 100% behind them.

Now they have to share power with Catholics, and most of them simply do not like doing this. Many still see it as a unionist state for a unionist people.

They have never recovered from it imo. To this day, despite the lipservice paid to 'working together' it still rankles. You can see it in Robinson's (see the current 'crisis') body language all the time. In fairness to Paisley, I think he was the most pragmatic of them all actually. At times he came across as genuinely at peace with sharing power.

Sand

Happyman42 wrote: »

Seems to me that he hit a nail, (that still hasn't been publicly accepted by the rest of Unionism) on the head, in that Unionism was completely out maneuvered by SF and the IRA.

Completely outmaneuvered within a box called Northern Ireland which the Unionists neatly fitted around SF and the IRA.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

I never had much time for his politics but was he correct when he let slip that 'This (The IRA ceasefire) is the worst thing that has ever happened us' (Unionism)

Seems to me that he hit a nail, (that still hasn't been publicly accepted by the rest of Unionism) on the head, in that Unionism was completely out maneuvered by SF and the IRA.

If by accepting and administrating British rule until the point where the majority of people want to join with the Republic is SF "out manoeuvring" unionists when well done, guess they really out manoeuvred them. :rolleyes:

The IRA were put in their place. They thought they could force a united Ireland by military means and were told the only acceptable method was democratically. The IRA capitulated and decommissioned their weapons.

J Cheever Loophole

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The IRA were put in their place. They thought they could force a united Ireland by military means and were told the only acceptable method was democratically.

Which is somewhat ironic, given that the IRA and the troubles wouldn't have happened at all if democracy hadn't been tramped all over in the first place!! :rolleyes:

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The IRA were put in their place.

they weren't. they drove the ba to a stailmate

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They thought they could force a united Ireland by military means

because they were being treated as 8th class citizens and when they dared to march for better, a number were slaughtered. the british government wouldn't talk or change things for them, they allowed a sectarian statelet to form in the first place and allowed it free rein.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

were told the only acceptable method was democratically.

which they were fine with and was what they wanted all along. as things slowly were improved and the power of the sectarian statelet was slowly crushed, there was a huge chance to sort things out

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The IRA capitulated and decommissioned their weapons.

yes, as part of the peace agreement. of course the whole lot could have been avoided if a sectarian little statelet was never allowed to form.

ardmacha

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

Which is somewhat ironic, given that the IRA and the troubles wouldn't have happened at all if democracy hadn't been tramped all over in the first place!! :rolleyes:

I think the problem is that some people think the vote of a British settler should be worth more than the vote of an Irish person.

junder

ardmacha wrote: »

I think the problem is that some people think the vote of a British settler should be worth more than the vote of an Irish person.

and here's me thinking we got past the whole settler / native thing, so I guess what your saying is, reading between the lines is that you still regard those 'british settlers' as foreigners hence why you feel the need to differentiate

Iwasfrozen

end of the road wrote: »

they weren't. they drove the ba to a stailmate

because they were being treated as 8th class citizens and when they dared to march for better, a number were slaughtered. the british government wouldn't talk or change things for them, they allowed a sectarian statelet to form in the first place and allowed it free rein.

which they were fine with and was what they wanted all along. as things slowly were improved and the power of the sectarian statelet was slowly crushed, there was a huge chance to sort things out

yes, as part of the peace agreement. of course the whole lot could have been avoided if a sectarian little statelet was never allowed to form.

8th class citizens? Really? Who were the other 7?

The objective of the IRA was to pursue a united Ireland by military means. When they realized this goal was unattainable by military means they capitulated. They renounced their beliefs, voluntarily disbanded and decommissioned their own weapons.

The provisional IRA no longer exists, their weapons are unusable and their belief in unity by military means has been abandoned by all but a few loons. They were an utter failure of an organization, failing at every objective they set themselves and killing thousands in the process. History has rightly pissed on their legacy.

Sheldons Brain

junder wrote: »

and here's me thinking we got past the whole settler / native thing, so I guess what your saying is, reading between the lines is that you still regard those 'british settlers' as foreigners hence why you feel the need to differentiate

If a person describes themselves as British, when they are not from Britain, then it suggests that they themselves regard themselves as foreigners. Shouldn't we respect their wish to be thought of as foreigners?

You can't win really.

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

8th class citizens? Really? Who were the other 7?

The objective of the IRA was to pursue a united Ireland by military means. When they realized this goal was unattainable by military means they capitulated. They renounced their beliefs, voluntarily disbanded and decommissioned their own weapons.

The provisional IRA no longer exists, their weapons are unusable and their belief in unity by military means has been abandoned by all but a few loons. They were an utter failure of an organization, failing at every objective they set themselves and killing thousands in the process. History has rightly pissed on their legacy.

a load of old rubbish. they wanted a united ireland because the sectarian statelet were continuously treating them like vermin that needed to be eradicated. when the british government refused to do anything including listening to the issues, and once the civil rights movement started to be put down, the IRA had no choice but to mount a campain to either have a united ireland, or force the british into removing the sectarian statelet allowing the catholic population to have a say, something which they succeeded in doing. they disbanded when they got a peace agreement that satisfied them all. now that has been achieved, they have no need to exist and no need for weapons, but should that need arise which is unlikely, they will get more. the only goal they didn't succeed in was getting a united ireland, but they forced the british to do a deal. they drove the BA to a stailmate keeping the BA on their toes. they succeeded in the majority of their objectives, and history has shown they are a success. only for their campain which was unfortunate, NI would still be a sectarian statelet. history has shown their legacy as an unfortunate part of history, but ultimately something that was innevitable

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

8th class citizens? Really? Who were the other 7?

The objective of the IRA was to pursue a united Ireland by military means. When they realized this goal was unattainable by military means they capitulated. They renounced their beliefs, voluntarily disbanded and decommissioned their own weapons.

The provisional IRA no longer exists, their weapons are unusable and their belief in unity by military means has been abandoned by all but a few loons. They were an utter failure of an organization, failing at every objective they set themselves and killing thousands in the process. History has rightly pissed on their legacy.

You're displaying an absolute ignorance of the day to day realities of what NI was like during the troubles and today. Now I'm not a SF supporter, never have been and traditionally come from a background of strong SDLP voters. Actually the animosity between the SDLP and SF throughout that period is something that is worthy of it's own thread.

Now if you cast an unbiased eye to the changing atmosphere in the North you simply cannot deny that SF have completely outplayed every other party by a fairly wide margin. It was the 'dove' element at the higher echelons in the republican movement who knew that the old armed struggle was pointless, going nowhere fast and forced a move to a more political sphere. The opposite was true of mainstream unionism which focused itself on a complete status quo, which the British government was only to happy to support for in truth they probably didn't care a great deal about what went on and saw it as a problem isolated to NI. That was to change, for after the financial districts were targeted after a failed round of talks and a ceasefire the British simply dragged the unionist parties under threat onto the negotiating table.

So no, there was no capitulation, just a transformation onto a different battlefield, a political one which they now absolutely dominate. Unionism has no idea what to do, the SDLP are utterly clueless and alliance have been doing a reasonable job. SF outplayed every other player in NI including both the Irish and British governments.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

8th class citizens? Really? Who were the other 7?

The objective of the IRA was to pursue a united Ireland by military means. When they realized this goal was unattainable by military means they capitulated. They renounced their beliefs, voluntarily disbanded and decommissioned their own weapons.

The provisional IRA no longer exists, their weapons are unusable and their belief in unity by military means has been abandoned by all but a few loons. They were an utter failure of an organization, failing at every objective they set themselves and killing thousands in the process. History has rightly pissed on their legacy.

Which bit of 'the armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other' memo did you not understand?
Put simply, we are in the ballot box phase now.
Certain things had to be achieved by force, and those who eventually (when it could have been given much much earlier without society imploding) capitulated to the demands of the IRA stand accused of society wrecking stubbornness. That is something that has happened in a lot of Britain's former colonies, the spin now (from people like you) is that their behaviour and actions of Britian in those colonies and in NI was always benign.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

You're displaying an absolute ignorance of the day to day realities of what NI was like during the troubles and today. Now I'm not a SF supporter, never have been and traditionally come from a background of strong SDLP voters. Actually the animosity between the SDLP and SF throughout that period is something that is worthy of it's own thread.

Now if you cast an unbiased eye to the changing atmosphere in the North you simply cannot deny that SF have completely outplayed every other party by a fairly wide margin. It was the 'dove' element at the higher echelons in the republican movement who knew that the old armed struggle was pointless, going nowhere fast and forced a move to a more political sphere. The opposite was true of mainstream unionism which focused itself on a complete status quo, which the British government was only to happy to support for in truth they probably didn't care a great deal about what went on and saw it as a problem isolated to NI. That was to change, for after the financial districts were targeted after a failed round of talks and a ceasefire the British simply dragged the unionist parties under threat onto the negotiating table.

So no, there was no capitulation, just a transformation onto a different battlefield, a political one which they now absolutely dominate. Unionism has no idea what to do, the SDLP are utterly clueless and alliance have been doing a reasonable job. SF outplayed every other player in NI including both the Irish and British governments.

Democratic will was not a factor. The IRA's stated goal was the achievement of a United Ireland based on military struggle. A goal they pursued for decades with very little success as the British bravely refused to accept terrorism as a legitimate form of affecting political change.

Under such intense opposition from British, the people of Northern Ireland, the government of Ireland, the international community and more peaceful members of the republican movement the IRA agreed to disband itself.

The IRA capitulated, they lost. They failed to achieve any of their goals before they disbanded and most historians piss on their legacy. SF for their part have not only accepted British rule in Northern Ireland but serve at Her Majesty's pleasure. And they will remain in this humiliating position until the people decide to bring about a United Ireland, if ever.

Hardly a victory when you have to compromise your beliefs and place the achievements of your goals in somebody else's control.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which bit of 'the armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other' memo did you not understand?
Put simply, we are in the ballot box phase now.
Certain things had to be achieved by force, and those who eventually (when it could have been given much much earlier without society imploding) capitulated to the demands of the IRA stand accused of society wrecking stubbornness. That is something that has happened in a lot of Britain's former colonies, the spin now (from people like you) is that their behaviour and actions of Britian in those colonies and in NI was always benign.

The IRA were only about the armalite, their way failed.

" those who eventually capitulated to the demands of the IRA..."

Except no one capitulated to the demands of the IRA. The provos demanded a 32 county socialist republic, achieved by force of arms. When the British refused to back down and were told the only acceptable method of unification was democratic the IRA had no choice but to back down. They failed to achieve every goal they set and disbanded in disgrace.

In the rare event that a United Ireland does occur Northern Ireland will be annexed by a state the IRA refused to recognise. They couldn't even get that right!

History will not be kind to the provisional IRA, unlike the previous incarnations of the IRA who are revered in the South the provisional IRA are considered gangsters, terrorists, murderers, torturers and child rapists.

Karl Stein

It gets rather boring reading the immature ♫ 'na na n-na naa the IRA lost the troubles' ♫ silliness from the usual neurotically anti-Republican types. It's widely accepted that there was a stalemate. The depressing thing about the conflict is that the British knew from fairly early on they couldn't defeat the IRA.

An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA

news.bbc.co.uk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

As for the 'terrorists and gangsters' claim:

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk

karma_ wrote: »

that was to change, for after the financial districts were targeted after a failed round of talks and a ceasefire the British simply dragged the unionist parties under threat onto the negotiating table.

Indeed. As Ian Paisley himself said the British 'we're going to pull the plug'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pumM9jcVTqM

The British essentially forced Unionists into power sharing because they realised that the PIRA had the capacity to harm the British economy.

The Bishopsgate and St Mary's Axe bombs in the heart of the city represented one of the most costly acts of terrorism on British soil.

It is estimated that a total of 325,000 square metres of office space was damaged by blasts in 1992, which resulted in the government paying out £800m worth of claims.

The total cost of loss of business and damage was estimated to be £1bn.

More than 400 businesses in a half-mile radius of Manchester city centre were affected by the blast and the Home Office claimed that 40% of businesses affected by the Manchester bomb in 1996 never recovered.

bbc.co.uk

The damage caused by the Bishopsgate bomb cost £350m to repair. The huge payouts by insurance companies contributed to a crisis in the industry, including the near-collapse of the world's leading insurance market, Lloyd's of London.

news.bbc.co.uk

Iwasfrozen

A military stalemate yes, as it always was going to be. But the IRA disbanded having failed in their objective to force a united Ireland by military means. It is well accepted by all sound thinking people a UI will only be achieved democratically.

As the IRA disbanded having failed in their objective they clearly lost.

Karl Stein

The Golden Miller wrote: »

makes a point of differentiating

68% of Protestants in the north identify themselves as 'British only' despite not living in Britain and having lived in Ireland/NI for generations. I find that remarkable and rather pathetic.

The Golden Miller

Karl Stein wrote: »

68% of Protestants in the north identify themselves as 'British only' despite not living in Britain and having lived in Ireland/NI for generations. I find that remarkable and rather pathetic.

The fact they can't even accept they are Irish on the basis of being born on the island is staggering. Compare that to Irish people who went to England and Scotland and elsewhere, and have absolutely no problem calling themselves English and Scottish

Karl Stein

The Golden Miller wrote: »

The fact they can't even accept they are Irish on the basis of being born on the island is staggering. Compare that to..

Compare it to people from Scotland and Wales who I suspect the vast majority of would describe themselves as Scottish/Welsh despite actually living in Britain itself.

It's as if this 68% 'British only' defines itself by its rejection of all things that could be remotely considered Irish.

The Golden Miller

Karl Stein wrote: »

Compare it to people from Scotland and Wales who I suspect the vast majority of would describe themselves as Scottish/Welsh despite actually living in Britain itself.

It's as if this 68% 'British only' is defines itself by its rejection of all things that could be remotely considered Irish.

Ye even the majority of hardened Celtic fans I've spoken to would regard themselves as Scottish now, with a very soft spot for Ireland. Not all, but even the one's that don't, have no problem being referred to as Scottish by others. And remember this is only 3 or 4 generations. Compare that to unionists who have been here for hundreds of years.

Before partition Protestants did refer to themselves as Irish as well as British. After partition, at what point did they start becoming "British only"?

Karl Stein

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Before partition Protestants did refer to themselves as Irish as well as British. After partition, at what point did they start becoming "British only"?

I think they began to associate being Irish with the desire to be independent of British rule back in the early years of the 20th Century. When the troubles erupted any association with 'Irishness' was probably considered as sympathetic to Nationalists which wouldn't have been welcomed by union/loyalists.

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

the British bravely refused to accept terrorism as a legitimate form of affecting political change.

no they just funded it or carried it out themselves

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Under such intense opposition from British, the people of Northern Ireland, the government of Ireland, the international community and more peaceful members of the republican movement the IRA agreed to disband itself.

no, they got a deal they were satisfied with. thats it. no amount of twisting and re-writing will change it. their campain as unfortunate it was that it had to happen was successful

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The IRA capitulated, they lost.

they didn't. they achieved 99 % of their goals. they took on the BA and drove them to a stailmate, that was a huge achievement

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They failed to achieve any of their goals before they disbanded and most historians piss on their legacy.

they achieveed 99 % of their goals and only the delusianel can't see their legacy for what it was in the context of how NI was at the time the troubles started.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The IRA were only about the armalite, their way failed.

" those who eventually capitulated to the demands of the IRA..."

Except no one capitulated to the demands of the IRA. The provos demanded a 32 county socialist republic, achieved by force of arms. When the British refused to back down and were told the only acceptable method of unification was democratic the IRA had no choice but to back down. They failed to achieve every goal they set and disbanded in disgrace.

In the rare event that a United Ireland does occur Northern Ireland will be annexed by a state the IRA refused to recognise. They couldn't even get that right!

History will not be kind to the provisional IRA, unlike the previous incarnations of the IRA who are revered in the South the provisional IRA are considered gangsters, terrorists, murderers, torturers and child rapists.

their way didn't fail. it was successful in bringing the british government to the table, the british backed down as they knew they couldn't continue with their failed methods, the bombs in england itself brought about that. plenty capitulated to the demands of the IRA. the british did back down. the IRA were always for the democratic will once the catholic population was given the equal status they always should have had. they achieved 99 % of their goals and dispanded as their campain wasn't necessary anymore. history doesn't need to be kind to the IRA. they got most of what they wanted, that is all that matters.

porsche959

So the death of implacatory Unionist Molyneaux, linked to Kincora and all kinds of nastiness, and according to quote in OP where he seemingly admitted that "the Troubles" bascially benefitted his ilk, turns into a trollfest slagging off republicans.

Christ, the Sindobots/Cruiserites/Redmondites have truly exceeded themselves.

allroad

In 1969 unionism owned the north. They had their own paramilitary police, the RUC and their own, well, paramilitaries, the B Specials. They controlled the government, holding every ministerial position, the judiciary, housing and councils. Jobs were for the boys and membership of the Orange Order was a key which unlocked many doors. That government had the ability to intern, without trial, anybody it chose to.
After an IRA campaign, unionism is in an enforced coalition government (despite having an overall majority of seats) with republicans - many of whom are former IRA members - the RUC is gone, the B Specials are gone, the Attorney General is a Catholic, housing is out of their hands and the councils are engaged in all sorts of anti unionist antics, from naming playparks after hunger strikers to removing union flags. Membership of the Orange Order now means long stints in a smelly caravan at Twadell hoping the Fenians will let you walk down the road before the winter freezes your nuts off.

There is nothing democratic about the GFA. In fact, democracy is set to one side and the majority are deprived of the right to govern. It is a little bit like democracy with stabilisers attached. The British must have applied considerable pressure to unionists to force acceptance of a system which is based on the assumption that they are unfit to govern democratically. A system so different from anything else in these islands that it is astonishing that more people haven't highlighted the humiliation it represents for the majority party in the north.

At least the IRA didn't force the British army to evacuate the beaches. So that must mean unionism won, yes?

porsche959

allroad wrote: »

There is nothing democratic about the GFA.

The GFA was voted on, in referendums both sides of the border, and voted for by a huge majority south of border, and by a smaller one in the Six Counties.

allroad

porsche959 wrote: »

The GFA was voted on, in referendums both sides of the border, and voted for by a huge majority south of border, and by a smaller one in the Six Counties.

Yes it was. The unionists must be delighted every time someone mentions that the population of the Republic were asked to vote on the governmental structures in the north.
I support the GFA. I support it because it prevents unionist majority rule.
Why do unionists support it?
After all, they won, didn't they?

Full Marx

The initial demands of the IRA at the beginning of the troubles (1969/70) did not include a demand for British withdrawal. Faced with Unionist intransigence and brutality the demands and aims of IRA volunteers, most coming from the civil rights movement (keep in mind their demands) crystallized into the only solution which remained once agitation was shot off the streets and reasonable demands were ignored - "Brits Out".

While the demand for British Withdrawal was the main one of the IRA it is important to note that for the vast majority of IRA members and supporters it was not always their goal, rather they accepted it as one which would achieve theirs - fair housing, voting rights, end of sectarian discrimination and violence, equal rights and access to housing. The vast majority of IRA members would never have joined the IRA if they were not second class citizens and peaceful attempts to achieve equal rights had not been violently suppressed when the British State chose to protect the discriminatory status quo and back it up militarily. Essentially people turned to the old republicans who had long preached (to oft bemused and uninterested audiences) that ending of British rule was the only way to achieve respect and equal rights and that the only way to do this was with bomb and gun as the British would beat down anything else. The analysis of these old republicans had been proved largely correct - Britain would not listen to peaceful demands. The civil rights movement had failed and people turned to those who had long preached and predicted a solution and put their shoulder to the wheel.

Hence we can say that the goal of the IRA volunteer was to smash the Orange State, something they believed based on what they saw and experienced could only be achieved by militarily defeating the British State and ending British power in Ireland completely. The IRA completely annihilated the Orange State - of this there can be no doubt. Catholics and nationalists are now equal citizens and the vast majority of IRA members were happy with this. This in itself was a great victory.

Adams and co did not persuade or hoodwink the IRA into agreeing to it, rather the majority were happy to agree to it as it was the realization of the majority of their goals. If they were not happy with it the leadership would have been ousted as they were when the provos were initially set up and the war would have gone on. Much of the chatter about Adams and others holding back the "men of violence" had little reality. This perception, which was encouraged, was a very useful negotiating tool.

porsche959

allroad wrote: »

Yes it was. The unionists must be delighted every time someone mentions that the population of the Republic were asked to vote on the governmental structures in the north.
I support the GFA. I support it because it prevents unionist majority rule.
Why do unionists support it?
After all, they won, didn't they?

IIRC, at the time of the GFA, a majority of unionist voters voted against. But they have worked with the structures since then as they didn't have much choice.

As a general rule, I think it is unhelpful in conflict resolution if either side thinks they have 'lost'. Obviously, concessions have been made on both sides. But it is clear that Orange hegemony is a thing of the past. Mind you, so is 'Rome rule' down south (almost).

allroad

porsche959 wrote: »

IIRC, at the time of the GFA, a majority of unionist voters voted against. But they have worked with the structures since then as they didn't have much choice.

As a general rule, I think it is unhelpful in conflict resolution if either side thinks they have 'lost'. Obviously, concessions have been made on both sides. But it is clear that Orange hegemony is a thing of the past. Mind you, so is 'Rome rule' down south (almost).

One of the enduring features in the north is the unionist failure to accept that the conflict ended as a result of a tacit acceptance by the IRA and the British government that, militarily, they had reached a stalemate.

The changes in the way the state was governed (the removal of unionist ability to oppress Catholics meant, in practice, preventing them from governing alone) were a necessary precondition for an end to the military phase of the campaign.
The continued unionist pretence that nothing has changed displays a remarkable talent for dissonant thinking. It really isn't that important from a nationalist perspective, however, the reality on the ground is what matters.

Another interesting point is the decline of Catholic Church influence amongst working class Catholics in the north was evident many years before the same phenomenon was apparent in the south. The Church were seen to back the establishment against the interests of the working class nationalists and experienced a significant backlash. I suppose when people were engaged in struggling with the British state apparatus, the local bishop or parish priest were relatively small fry by comparison.