Why are the troubles stirring again in Ardoyne?

[Opinionated]

After children as young as 8 join the rioting in Belfast during the marching season (Children involved in Northern Ireland riots - The Guardian), I am asking myself are children brought up living with violence destined to repeat it, is this a case of monkey see; monkey do? Or is there maybe something even more sinister going on: Sinn Fein have said dissident republicans and "anti-social elements" are behind the violence. BBC news.
Why now? Is possibly the only good thing NuLab managed to achieve (peace in NI) is going to be one of the first things that comes unravelled under the coalition?

[Barry]

Ah, peace in Northern Ireland is a Labour achievement is it?
I must go back to my history books.
I think John Major had a lot to do with it, didn't he?

I think that the peace that was created was a false peace, which will always have undercurrents, as there are many that have beliefs which are not politically compatible with the current situation.

I do hope that it all calms down again soon. No-one wants to see a return to violence, although it did achieve a lot for the terrorists.

[Opinionated]

Ah, peace in Northern Ireland is a Labour achievement is it?
I must go back to my history books.
I think John Major had a lot to do with it, didn't he?

This is the part you want to debate? OK then, I can't say I'm hugely knowledgeable about Irish history (North or South), but I have visited both and found it to be a beautiful country both sides of the boarder, places with deep scars often are either despite or because of them.
Yes John Major started the peace process leading in 1993 to the Joint Declaration on Peace, along with EIRE (more commonly known as the Downing Street Declaration), this was vehemently opposed by Paisley and the DUP and both the UUP and Sinn Féin faced huge dissatisfaction within the parties. By May of 1997, after several failed ceasefires and Major refusing to let Sinn Féin into the Stormont talks and the "Northern Ireland Forum", things were pretty desperate again, don't forget 1996 saw the Enniskillen deaths and the bomb in Manchester. Personally I'd like history to record the fragile peace formed from 1997 onwards as the acheivement solely of Mo Mowlem (Old Labour girl that she was, may she rest in peace), but then women rarely get the place they deserve in the history books! So, yes I think without Blair's government putting Northern Ireland so high on the agenda, insisting that the Republican's legitimate grievances be taken at face value, pushing for devolution and in an act of genius involving Clinton in the process we wouldn't have seen the fragile peace we have.

I think that the peace that was created was a false peace, which will always have undercurrents, as there are many that have beliefs which are not politically compatible with the current situation

I think sadly you may be right, but how do we now protect that fragile peace and make it stronger?

I do hope that it all calms down again soon. No-one wants to see a return to violence, although it did achieve a lot for the terrorists

That last part intrigues me. What did it acheive? It's not often I get to show off my near to fanatical love of The West Wing, but Aaron Sorkin is a hundred times the writer I'll ever be so to paraphrase his take on the topic.

The thing that strikes me about terrorism is it's 100% failure rate.
Not only do terrorists always fail at what they're after, they pretty much always succeed in
strengthening whatever it is they're against.
The Brits are still in Northern Ireland. The Protestants are still there. Basque extremists have been staging terrorist attacks in Spain for decades with no result. Left Wing Red Brigades from the 60s and
70s, from the Bader-Meinhoff gang in Germany to the Weatherman in the U.S. have tried to take over capitalism. You tell me. How's capitalism doing?

[Midas]

That last part intrigues me. What did it acheive? It's not often I get to show off my near to fanatical love of The West Wing, but Aaron Sorkin is a hundred times the writer I'll ever be so to paraphrase his take on the topic.

The thing that strikes me about terrorism is it's 100% failure rate.
Not only do terrorists always fail at what they're after, they pretty much always succeed in
strengthening whatever it is they're against.
The Brits are still in Northern Ireland. The Protestants are still there. Basque extremists have been staging terrorist attacks in Spain for decades with no result. Left Wing Red Brigades from the 60s and
70s, from the Bader-Meinhoff gang in Germany to the Weatherman in the U.S. have tried to take over capitalism. You tell me. How's capitalism doing?

I know it's a bit off-topic, but can I pull you (and Aaron Sorkin) up on that. Terrorism does not have a 100% failure rate by any means, and not only because the very definition of the word depends on your viewpoint. For example in Afghanistan when the Russians were occupying it, the Taliban and the Mujahideen were considered freedom fighters. When the Russians left and America tried to occupy the country, they became terrorists. When America leaves in all probability they'll become part of the legitimate government. When Israel was first formed, it's government was significantly comprised of men who had been considered terrorists with organisations like the Stern Gang. Back more on topic, and I know it's arguable, but the terrorist group known as the IRA is now legitimised in Sinn Féin.... There are many more so-called 'terrorist' organisations which are now considered legitimate political parties or governments.

[DC]

Honestly I don't think this is really IRA. Most of those in those demonstrations would not have been born in the troubles, or only very young. Obviously sectarianism is still strong, but this is not the IRA's doing or instigation, this is simply young men who feel disenfranchised trying to reopen old wounds because they have nothing better to do. They are simply yobs, and there is little to no real political motivation or angle.

[Fraxinus]

This type of violence is going to escalate every year. The GFA is simply sticky tape being employed where glue is needed. Sectarian conflict is inevitable as the Agreement enshrines sectarianism through its 'two-tribes' approach. This was clear for all to see in the last Westminister elections when Sinn Féin withdrew a candidate in Belfast (I think) to allow a rival party (SDLP) but same 'tribe', to win a seat. Then in Fermanagh/Tyrone the Unionists did something similar. Class politics is basically impossible with the GFA, so tribe politics prevails.
Also the GFA is designed specifically towards the 1969-1997 conflict, completely ignoring the fact that it was a continuation and born out of the Anglo-Irish conflict which had been almost non-stop for centuries. The role of the British establishment as a root cause of that conflict is therefore ignored and it is then left for both Irish communities to blame each other.
Working class areas are the losers in this agreement as the absence of class politics means that there will be no chance of left-wing political representation. It is no suprise then that the violence is remerging from working class areas.
It is also becoming clearer to some in the Nationalist and Republican communities that they were sold a pup with this agreement. They were led to believe by their political leaders that the GFA would lead to a relatively quick re-unification of the country. The agreement which entrenches division makes that impossible. And as more and more come to this realisation, another hectic chapter in Irelands history will begin.

The GFA was negotiated by three serial liars, Tony Blair (war mongerer), Berti Ahern (corruption prince) and Gerry Adams (the IRA, never heard of them).