Who surrenderd to whom the IRA or the UK?

This thread is in response to a tangent this thread seems to be going down with a certain poster attempting to maintain that:

"This labour government had to actually surrender to the Irish Republican Army to get a cessation of violence on the streets of Britain"

And to use the term "we won" sort of displays your total naivety when it comes to politics......

Now I am of the opinion that we (by which I mean the UK) won and the IRA surrendered. My grounds for this are:

• The IRA's aim was to forcibly incorporate Northern Ireland into a 'United Ireland' - they failed.
  
• Our aim was that the people of Northern Ireland not be forcibly incorporated into a nation they really don't want to join - we succeeded.
  
• The IRA has (largely) given up it's weapons.
  
• We still have lots of weapons.

The IRA abjectly failed to achieve it's "war aims" we achieved ours, the IRA has given up its weapons, we remain a significant military power, we won they lost.

I don't think you can reasonably claim that the IRA surrendered, but certainly they failed in their primary objectives. They did, though, extract various concessions in exchange for renouncing violence; among them, the release of all the convicted criminals who'd been bombing and shooting Ulster in the previous thirty years.

I don't think you can reasonably claim that the IRA surrendered, but certainly they failed in their primary objectives. They did, though, extract various concessions in exchange for renouncing violence; among them, the release of all the convicted criminals who'd been bombing and shooting Ulster in the previous thirty years.

You are arguing that they didn't unconditionally surrender not that they didn't surrender.

You are arguing that they didn't unconditionally surrender not that they didn't surrender.

No, I'm arguing that they didn't surrender, but that is merely a matter of semantics. That they lost the fight is unquestionable; Ulster is still part of the Union.

Maybe the poster interpreted the "Surrender" to mean that members of the IRA like Gerry Adams had seats in the N. Irish parliament after the peace accord came into effect.

The IRA's aim to "forcibly incorporate N.Ireland into the Irsih Republic" was sheer lunacy from the start anyway and the Irish Republic in turn had no desire to annex a territory that was rife with religious bigotry, general lawlesness and economically depressed.

I dont think it's helpful to couch the settlement in terms of 'winning' or 'surrender', as the outcome has been beneficial to both parties, surrender implies subjugation or an enemy overwhelmed.

Sinn Fein had no political platform, now they do, the sectarian violence has almost ceased and NI remains part of the UK, so in terms of winning or losing, its been a symbiotic outcome, with Britain perhaps being the larger beneficiary.

Maybe the poster interpreted the "Surrender" to mean that members of the IRA like Gerry Adams had seats in the N. Irish parliament after the peace accord came into effect.

If so that's a pretty stupid interpretation as the PIRAs aim was to abolish any notion of Northern Ireland not to have members in NI's parliament.

I dont think it's helpful to couch the settlement in terms of 'winning' or 'surrender', as the outcome has been beneficial to both parties, surrender implies subjugation or an enemy overwhelmed.

Seeing as none of us are actually negociating with Sinn Fein to try and get the PIRA to surrender why does it matter whether or not our accurate terminology might hurt the pride of PIRA/Sinn Fein members?

Seeing as none of us are actually negociating with Sinn Fein to try and get the PIRA to surrender why does it matter whether or not our accurate terminology might hurt the pride of PIRA/Sinn Fein members?

LOL, my post wasn't intended to defend the feelings of Sinn Fein, plek.

I was trying to more accurately reflect the nature of the 'surrender', which as you pointed out earlier was conditional, so looking at it from Sinn Fein's perspective, with democratically elected MP's and representatives on the Assembly (many of whom are released prisoners following the GFA), I'd think I'd done pretty well out of it compared to how things were.

From our point of view, the terrorist threat (Irish) has largely rescinded, and it was something we all grew up wary of and affected our behaviour subconsiously and whilst NI remains part of Britain I dont think we could ever say we surrendered or lost the conflict.

Probably mutual as both were under presure from America to sort it out

My grandfather who was born and bred in Northern Ireland used to say that the catholic Irish were often treated as second class citizens. Whenever there were jobs going at Harland and Wolf (Onetime builders of ships) they always took on the prods first. Giving your name to the employment office was a dead giveaway as to whether you were prod or catholic.

The protestant "0rangemen" are a stupid bigoted bunch of rednecks anyway with their tactless annual parades through catholic areas to celebrate the victory of King Billy over James 11.

The troubles in North iIeland were bound to erupt sooner or later. Not that I being English would ever see anything good in a bunch of thugs like the IRA but there were also thugs on the Loyalist side as well. It takes two to Tango

LOL, my post wasn't intended to defend the feelings of Sinn Fein, plek.

 

I was trying to more accurately reflect the nature of the 'surrender', which as you pointed out earlier was conditional,

Yes and? Surrenders are often conditional, the release of prisoners "of war" (Sinn Fein/PIRA obviously regarding themselves as fighting a war, atleast when they were doing the killing) being one of the most common conditions.

so looking at it from Sinn Fein's perspective, with democratically elected MP's and representatives on the Assembly (many of whom are released prisoners following the GFA), I'd think I'd done pretty well out of it compared to how things were.

 

From our point of view, the terrorist threat (Irish) has largely rescinded, and it was something we all grew up wary of and affected our behaviour subconsiously and whilst NI remains part of Britain I dont think we could ever say we surrendered or lost the conflict.

From Sinn Feinn's perspective they had to give up their overriding goal of forcing Ulster into a united Ireland that was why they went 'to war' in the first place. Elected positions within the UK are nothing compared to that.

Yes and? Surrenders are often conditional, the release of prisoners "of war" (Sinn Fein/PIRA obviously regarding themselves as fighting a war, atleast when they were doing the killing) being one of the most common conditions.

 

 

From Sinn Feinn's perspective they had to give up their overriding goal of forcing Ulster into a united Ireland that was why they went 'to war' in the first place. Elected positions within the UK are nothing compared to that.

Ok, you're right.