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

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So it wasn't a democratic process then as to how Irish nationalism became a 'minority in the UK'?

Given that the Act of Union predates any real democratic process, it's not terribly surprising, is it?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

But at the same time you would use the selective application of the democratic process to attempt to show that it was a 'minority', once this 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' was complete as you so diplomatically put it.

Because it was a minority movement within a parliamentary democracy; yes.

Just to be clear - 1800: no democracy, 1918: democracy, but minority electoral representation for Irish independence within that democracy.

Rubeter wrote: »

These two comments show you feel the aspirations of the Unionist people to be a genuine and "acceptable" attitude but the aspirations of the Irish people was nothing more than an unruly minority in a greater country.

They do? Or could it be that they just mean what they say? It's perfectly acceptable for two groups of society to hold contrary aspirations regarding their nationality. Both nationalist and unionist Irish lobbies/opinions were minority ones within the democratic structure of the UK. Neither had any claim to greater democratic legitimacy.

Rubeter wrote: »

Why do you have this inconsistency regarding people's desires in how they would like to be governed?

There is no inconsistency. That's an invention of yours.

Rubeter wrote: »

Could you also explain how these competing fiefdoms created an acceptable (to you) country, yet when one "tribe" continues this (acceptable to you) processes all of a sudden it is no longer valid or acceptable.

There were no fiefdoms at play in 1918. I've made no comment on the acceptability or validity of competing fiefdoms. The reality is however, that they were the historic background to the region.

Rubeter wrote: »

In other words all you are saying here is what the British do is grand and what the Irish do is wrong irrespective that they might be doing the same thing, that doesn't seem right, don't you think?

That probably doesn't seem right, because it's not anything I've said. My point was that the political initiatives of 1914, 1920, and 1922 were prompted by Irish demands, and not any British originated plan. Partition is a consequence of there being no unanimity between the Irish on the issue of nationalism, not 'lack of respect' by the British towards Irish aspirations. Those aspirations were, and are, not universal.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Since you appear to be saying that Irish nationalism didn’t come to be a ‘minority in the UK’ through any application of democracy, you’ll understand then why one would have issues with the British government then, and you now, arbitrarily deciding that it was.

Nothing arbitrary about it. The reality was there was a parliamentary democracy in place in 1918, and Irish nationalism only formed a minority within that democracy.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I must say though, the term: 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' is one of the best whitewashes I’ve read here in quite a while describing a process of colonial annexation and exploitation.

Conflict between fiefdoms on these islands predated any notion of colonialism.

Rubeter wrote: »

`
Surely you as an Ulster Unionist would be in favour of the people of Cork having the right to make that decision if they so wish, it would be quite similar to many people of the north wanting to go it alone if the political future looked like involving the words "United" and "Ireland".
Or do you feel of all the people on these islands only the northern Unionists have the right to decide their own future?

Hold on what are you suggesting ??????

Rubeter wrote: »

Minor addition, the people here VOTED in 1918 to leave that democracy (and I use that word lightly because that democratic wish was ignored).

Cork unilaterally deciding to leave the state, without any dialogue or negotiation with the state, would have no democratic mandate within the terms of the state, and if they, consequently, decided to declare war on the state as their next move, the Irish state would be both mandated, and justified in re-asserting their rule of law. This would apply even if a majority of Corkonians were voting for secessionist candidates.

Rubeter wrote: »

Interesting.

Pity the British didn't have such an enlightened outlook during the occupation and not ignore our democratic attempts.

Good.

If that always worked the world would be a very different place.

What I can't understand is you are here arguing for peaceful democratic resolution of issues yet it was the British ignoring such means that lead directly to the conflicts in 1920 and more recently from the begining of the civil rights movement in NI.
As a lover of the democratic method you seem to be on the wrong side.

You wouldnt even replay. I rest my case .

Rubeter wrote: »

Pity the British didn't have such an enlightened outlook during the occupation and not ignore our democratic attempts.

Is the Irish state currently 'occupying' Cork? In 1918 Ireland was just a constituent part of the UK.

Rubeter wrote: »

What I can't understand is you are here arguing for peaceful democratic resolution of issues yet it was the British ignoring such means that lead directly to the conflicts in 1920 and more recently from the begining of the civil rights movement in NI.
As a lover of the democratic method you seem to be on the wrong side.

The British didn't ignore anyone in 1918/1920. SF had the policy of ignoring the institutions of the state, and of supporting violent insurrection against the state. The British were plugging away legislating for the constitutional change that had been demanded of them by Irish voters in 1914. The British came to a negotiated settlement with SF, when SF finally decided to engage with parliament in 1922. The civil rights movement within NI was directed not at issues of British rule/law, but with devolved Ulster rule/law.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So where does colonialism come in then on the timeline when talking about the 'rationalisation of various competing fifedoms' and the appearance of the UK, or do you believe that there was ever a colonial era in Ireland?

Well - you could start with the Celts, or the Vikings, or the Normans, just as legitimately as the British, if you really want to focus on oppressive foreign forces.

Rubeter wrote: »

Indeed it was and just like France being part of the German Reich in 1942 and Kuwait being part of Iraq in 1990 this particular arraignment had been forced upon the Irish people by the liberal use of violence.
Obviously you feel violence was OK for the British to use to create a legitimate state, but not OK for the Irish, why is this?





If the British didn't ignore anyone in 1918 then why didn't the Free State (or even a republic) appear after the vote, maybe you could produce some documentation from the time showing how the British had started making plans for the withdrawl before the war kicked off.

Here we go again with the " what ifs"

Rubeter wrote: »

Yes because it was going nowhere and died when WWI kicked off.

:eek::eek:
Get your facts right.
It was going somewhere (Home Rule)

and secondly continued during and after the war ( 1916 rising and N. Ireland act 1920)