“no mandate whatsoever..”
Northern Ireland deputy First Minister, and MP for Mid Ulster, Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness, was on the Politics Show today repeating the argument that dissenting republican paramilitary groups should stop their activities because they have “little or no support in the community” and “no mandate whatsoever”. Although, leaving aside the moral vacuity of his position, the recent CJINI report on community restorative justice schemes might suggest otherwise for some communities.. Martin McGuinness’ comments came ahead of his appearance at a parade in Londonderry to commemorate Provisional IRA members from the city who had died during their campaign of violence. The annual parade was held the day after the funeral of Emmett Shiels, who was murdered in the city on Tuesday morning – both of the men who had presented themselves to the police have now been released without charge. RTÉ tells us that Martin McGuinness also used the occasion to claim that “he had joined the paramilitary group [the IRA] in his youth and said it was then supported by the people.” [Must have missed that referendum.. - Ed]. Here’s the clip from the Politics Show, which also contains his comments on the outcome of the Robert McCartney murder trial. Adds UTV have the quote
Mr McGuinness told supporters at the republican commemoration: “When I joined the IRA in this city it was an army of the people – sustained by the people – supported by the people – and answerable to the people.”
And armed with the “people’s guns”, no doubt..
“Funny how the UK legislated to give effective independence to that part of Ireland where the people wanted it, and to allow the other part to remain in the UK according to the people’s wishes. That was facilitating the democratic will not treating it with utter contempt!”
And it’s not like it never even took a war to get that much. Nor did it come about only after the failure of a brutal military campaign against recognising the result of the 1918 election. Which was of course ignored. Let’s not forget that 75 seats out of 106 is a landslide, especially when around a quarter of the seats were uncontested so massive was the majority in favour of independence within them.
As for the Provos as the army of the people. Mc Guiness stealing from the Officials again.
There is a lot of discussion of the 1918 election and what mandate it gave to certain parties.
It is a waste of time looking at the results as that election is on a par with what happened in Zimbabwe last Friday . In fact there was more murder and intimidation by SF/IRA than by Mugabe supporters in Africa.
Unionists by the score were killed Prospective candidates shot in front of wives and children and voters in rural areas told to stay away from the polls throughout Ireland.
That was not by any stretch of the imagination a free and fair election.
I have long dismissed the the result/mandate but understand the grasping at straws by SF/IRA to legitimize a murderous campaign when it was always lacking in Legitimacy.
That is why they and their Republic have failed because the rest of the world saw through their deceit.
Perhaps they should now explain this to the Irish people.
“In fact there was more murder and intimidation by SF/IRA than by Mugabe supporters in Africa. ”
Ulsterfan
Is that really and truthfully a fact??? Have you got any supporting evidence?
Does seem rather far-fetched!
I heard a rumour that Comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe could be moving to Willowfield shortly.
Garibaldy,
For the record, are you (or have you ever been) a person who is (or at least would have been) known in common parlance as a ‘stickie’? Just wondering like.
“Ah I see Willow. Leaving aside the opposite valid interpretation that, if we are dealing with 1918 as a referendum, then the country should a united 32 county republic now, I find it strange that you use just a portion of the country’s results to justify an action of relevance to the whole natiion.”
Only 48% of Irish people voted for Sinn Fein so there wasn’t a mandate for a 32 county republic.
Willowfield’s argument is no stranger than arguing Ireland alone has the right to decide its destiny in spite of its decision affecting the rest of the UK.
And your comparision with Lisbon is facetious. A more accurate comparision would be to compare the attitude of Republians to the Eurocrats who view the wishes of the RoI’s voters as illegitimate. Unionists merely sought an opt-out from a Catholic state for a Catholic people which made clear there was no room for accomodating them (and thats the view of non-Unionists like Yeats).
“By the way myself and a few other like minded people are thinking about partitioning the area I live in in Belfast (Finaghy) away from the rest of Norn Iron. We have all signed an agreement (The greater Andytown Covenant). It gonna be great! We are just going to ignore the democratic wishes of everyone else and create a completely partizan state-let which will be xenophobic, inward looking and afraid of change and outsiders.”
Gee, so its not just Unionists who think Andytown News readers are bigots
Only 48% of Irish people voted for Sinn Fein so there wasn’t a mandate for a 32 county republic. – But Sinn Fein were unopposed in 25 constituencies – There is no doubt that they would have easily crossed the 50% barrier if elections had been held in these seats.
Dewi, I really wouldn’t bother.
This debate with Willowfield has all the characteristics of talking to a little child who sticks his fingers in his ears and sings when theres something he doesn’t want to hear.
Summarising the argument, Ireland is an illegitimate state set up at gun point by a small minority, all SF members… no sorry, SF/IRA members.. against the greater will of the good living people. Unionists in the north where fair sports the whole time, and gerry-mandering and electoral jiggery-pokery was only necessary to preserve the democratic wishes of the people – who otherwise may have been outvoted by that minority of gunslinging Shinners… somehow.
Now I understand why I didn’t get what willow was on about when he was trying to explain why the OO can march everywhere. He operates wth a logic so loose that he can bend it to justify and defend basically anything unionists have ever done that may indeed have been less than fair. I suppose willow those civil rights rowdies where just a pack of trouble makers too.
RJ: If you read my post, I didn’t say anything like the 1918 general election was a referendum. As you say, the pathetic attempt to use it as a referendum is a baseless for any case (partition or republican unity). Put simply, the British would never have ran a referendum on the issue becuase the outcome was already well known. Democracy denied is no democracy, whichever way you look at it.
My Lisbon reference was tongue in cheek, just to emphasise the nonsensity of using the 1918 election as a referendum for partition.
CIRCLES
This debate with Willowfield has all the characteristics of talking to a little child who sticks his fingers in his ears and sings when theres something he doesn’t want to hear.
And what is the basis for this assessment? I respond to every point put to me – quite the opposite of your characterisation. Perhaps you just find it difficult to refute a reasonable argument?
Summarising the argument, Ireland is an illegitimate state set up at gun point by a small minority, all SF members… no sorry, SF/IRA members.. against the greater will of the good living people.
Why do you misrepresent me? I have never said anything of the sort. You make a spurious attack on me and then create a straw man because you are unable to refute anything that I have said. Truly pathetic.
Unionists in the north where fair sports the whole time, and gerry-mandering and electoral jiggery-pokery was only necessary to preserve the democratic wishes of the people – who otherwise may have been outvoted by that minority of gunslinging Shinners… somehow.
Again, this is a complete misrepresentation. I said nothing of the sort.
Now I understand why I didn’t get what willow was on about when he was trying to explain why the OO can march everywhere. He operates wth a logic so loose that he can bend it to justify and defend basically anything unionists have ever done that may indeed have been less than fair.
More misrepresentation. I never said that “the OO can march everywhere”: I said that the starting point is always that people have the right to freedom of assembly. Do you not read what people say or do you have a cognitive problem that means you don’t understand them?
As for “loose” logic, I can assure you that my arguments are characterised by quite the opposite. You are free to seek to refute them, but resorting to misrepresentation indicates to me that you are totally incapable of constructing an effective argument.
I suppose willow those civil rights rowdies where just a pack of trouble makers too.
Again, this seems to be an implied straw man.
Pathetic.
Mayoman
Put simply, the British would never have ran a referendum on the issue becuase the outcome was already well known. Democracy denied is no democracy, whichever way you look at it.
The outcome was certainly well-known in Ulster. Not necessarily in the South, though: the scale of the republican victory I don’t believe was anticipated.
My Lisbon reference was tongue in cheek, just to emphasise the nonsensity of using the 1918 election as a referendum for partition.
Your Lisbon reference didn’t work in any way. And characterising a one-issue election (1918) as effectively a referendum is hardly nonsensical!
Willow: “And characterising a one-issue election (1918) as effectively a referendum is hardly nonsensical!”
Yes it is. It was a general election. You are clutching at straws for a democratic legitimacy that doesnt exist.
You’re just being silly. You know as well as everybody else what platform the unionist candidates stood on in 1918.
Willow: thats just last wordism of the poorest kind! Good night!!
If we could get back to something approaching the actual topic..
Abdul-Rahim
“I see, violence is cool, as long as you have a mandate. Nice one.”
Partly.
Unless you’re Martin McGuinness, as a youth. In which case you don’t need a mandate.
For example, in what way were your IRA accountable to the people, Martin? In an era when people were being ‘disappeared’ by your IRA?
Because this looks more like an attempt to retrospectively justify an historic campaign of violence by pointing to post-campaign election results.
I’ve just noticed you used Londonderry in the post Pete. An attempt to be naughty?
That would be another distraction, Garibaldy.
Unless the official names change I will continue to refer to Londonderry, Derry City Council and City of Derry Airport when appropriate.
Check the archives.
I see. Just checking if it was an attempt to get a row going that people had missed was all.
Anyway, nothing like the falsification of history on a daily basis. Glad someone is tracking it properly for future reference.
“Unless you’re Martin McGuinness, as a youth. In which case you don’t need a mandate”
When your neighbours are mown down by an occupying army I don’t reckon you really need a referendum.
Well Dewi there’s a problem of chronology there but.
Garibaldy – enlighten me mo chára.
Well Bloody Sunday is 1972. Mc Guiness was claiming the support of the people – i.e. massive and almost universal acceptance – before that. Even the Provos themselves say Bloody Sunday caused a sea change, at least for a while.
I know it’s a bit boring but Séamas Cusack and Desmond Beattie killed on July 8 1971. When neighbours and friends get murdered I just think retaliation is inevitable – blasted thankful that Martin has help to stop it all – petrified that the process won’t deliver however.
The process is delivering, and McGuiness et al deserve some credit for that. All the paramilitary groups had much more support in the early 70s than they did in the 1980s and 1990s, and never did it approach majority support on either side (the UWC strike was not just paramilitaries). So Pete is rightly sceptical I feel, and the fact is that the Provos in particular are on thin ice when they claim their campaign was fundamentally different than that of their offshoots.
Repartition anyone ? You all know it’s eventually the best and fairest solution except this time lets get a neutral international agency in to do the job backed up by the UN /EU .
Northern Ireland as a 6 county State was never a legitimate democratic entity other than on paper. It simply never commanded sufficient cross community popular support for it’s constitution. It could only exist as a de facto one party State which it became in double quick time because it had to – to survive .
But that’s in the past and although NI was not the worst ‘state ‘ in europe for ‘minorities’ for too many Irish nationalists it was not their ‘state’. Even now it’s still debateable whether the present hard won partial ‘legitimacy’ will stick.
Following the GFA , we can say that the present NI State has legitimacy – because a majority of the people on this island North and South voted to accept the GFA .
Thus Mr McGuiness is perfectly correct when he states that the ‘dissidents ‘ have no mandate.
Longer term the present NI State probably contains within it the seeds of it’s own future demise . Does this mean there will be an inevitable UI . Not necessarily . Unionists can conceivably make a case for a predominantly East Ulster mainly Unionist State.
Why not ? Let’s face it most Irish Nationalists don’t really understand ‘unionism ‘ or even want to. This is not being anti Brit for we have few hang ups about understanding your average Englishman , Scot or Welshman regardless of their politics but to be brutally honest do we really or have we really ever ‘got’ the unionist ‘message ‘ ?
Perhaps under the present dispensation and given time there will be more ‘understanding ‘ of our fellow islanders ‘national/religious and cultural predelictions ‘ But somehow I doubt it.
Now that has to be a good thing eh ?
I read that even SKY has removed it’s reps as ther is now NOT ENOUGH NEWS from NI
nah, greenflag. We’re an all or nothing type of people in the north.
Absolutely outrageous and disgusting comments from Dewi in justifying the Provisional IRA murder campaign.
Willows,
Many people including many historians view the Provo campaign as a response to forced partition, Unionist misrule and British military heavy handedness. To characterise it as a murder campaign is understandable from a Unionist point of view but you should understand that even the British governement do not see it in these terms. The proof of this is the GFA which allowed the insurgents into government, allowed their prisoners out, removed the RUC and created new constitutional arrangments with ROI – all key insurgent demands. Whether the Provo campaign was justitified or not is another matter but surely in time Unioinists will move to a more balanced view of these events.
P.S. I could recommend some reading for you which which might broaden your view on these matters if you feel that might help?
McNally
It doesn’t matter to what it was a response: it was an immoral, illegitimate murderous response and Dewi’s support for it is disgusting.
… even the British governement do not see it in these terms. The proof of this is the GFA which allowed the insurgents into government, allowed their prisoners out, removed the RUC and created new constitutional arrangments with ROI – all key insurgent demands.
The GFA was an expedient, political settlement. It was not “proof” that the Government, or anyone else, saw the Provo campaign as legal or legitimate. The “insurgents” were “allowed” into Government on the basis of being elected, not on the basis of beig “insurgents”; the RUC was not removed but rather renamed; new constitutional arrangements with the ROI were not “insurgent” demands, but long-held constitutional nationalist demands.
Whether the Provo campaign was justitified or not is another matter but surely in time Unioinists will move to a more balanced view of these events.
It’s not a case of “balance”: it’s a case of fact. The Provo campaign involved many, many murders. Check out “Lost Lives”.
Willows,
many people have a problem with those who support what they saw as the murderous response of the security forces to the civil rights movement and it’s aftermath. In Marty’s backyard the Provos were deluged with applicants after Bloody Sunday and such incidents as Dewi referred to confirmed to many Nationalists that a (para)military response was the correct one. Lets not get all precious given the track record of the UDR and the rest of the British army directly and in arming, organising and directing loyalist paramilitaries.
Can you confirm your view of the other Irish insurgency at the other end of the 20th century – another murder campaign perchance?
It does not follow that because security forces carried out murders, therefore the Provos did not. That is utter nonsense.
Re. the “war of independence” (to which I suppose you refer), most certainly it involved murders – the first two killings in January 1919 were quite clearly murders. I’m afraid my knowledge of it, however, is insufficient for me to come to a judgement about its legality as it progressed.
In terms of morality, however, I think it is quite clear that it had a much greater degree of legitimacy than the Provisional campaign. Indeed, it may just about achieve the threshold of being considered legitimate, although I am not entirely convinced that peaceful means were fully exhausted before the killing began. It is something about which I need to do more reading.
Willows,
“It does not follow that because security forces carried out murders, therefore the Provos did not.”
but it does follow that “because security forces carried out murders” that many nationalists, historians and commentators and many (mainland) British people would agree with Dewi’s words that “When your neighbours are mown down by an occupying army I don’t reckon you really need a referendum”.
re. the ‘War of Independence’ – I asked the librarian in the old library in Belfast for books on the subject, it was about 5 years ago, and he directed me to the American history section.
but it does follow that “because security forces carried out murders” that many nationalists, historians and commentators and many (mainland) British people would agree with Dewi’s words that “When your neighbours are mown down by an occupying army I don’t reckon you really need a referendum”.
No-one said that it did. Very strange and irrelevant comment.
re. the ‘War of Independence’ – I asked the librarian in the old library in Belfast for books on the subject, it was about 5 years ago, and he directed me to the American history section.
Could be because there doesn’t seem to be a universally-accepted name for it.
Repartition anyone ? You all know it’s eventually the best and fairest solution except this time lets get a neutral international agency in to do the job backed up by the UN /EU .
Up to your old tricks I see Green Flag!
Yes the politics of Norn Iron are infuriating and yes, there are legions of intransigents and backswoodsmen but as has been pointed out to you time and time again there can not be such thing as just or fair re-partition As for the record of the UN or EU on things, well as John McEnroe was wont to say, ‘You cannot be serious!’
Leave re-partition for the TUV. The rest of us will have to learn to share the six counties.
Willows
“Very strange and irrelevant comment”
Well we are discussing mandates and you were moral high horsing about Dewi’s comments.
re. War of independence.
“Could be because there doesn’t seem to be a universally-accepted name for it”
Could also be because many Unioinists (librarians included) dont view it as a ‘war’ – the same question to a nationalsit librarian might have got a different answer as would the same question in ROI.
Well we are discussing mandates and you were moral high horsing about Dewi’s comments.
Your comment made no sense, I’m afraid, regardless of what we were discussing. I have never disputed that some people regard the Provo campaign as justified. Those people, however, do so from a warped ethical perspective, determined in most cases by ethnicity (as you admit).
Could also be because many Unioinists (librarians included) dont view it as a ‘war’ – the same question to a nationalsit librarian might have got a different answer as would the same question in ROI.
Or because the American War of INdependence is more famous and the librarian gets more requests for books about it than the Irish one.
Willows,
as you are maintianing you dont understand what was said – try this.
Many people, inside and outside of Non Iron, including British mainlanders think it was understandable/justifiable that “because security forces carried out murders” Irish Nationalists should respond with violence.
To characterise this view as “Absolutely outrageous and disgusting” suggest a lack of balance on this topic by your goodself.
I do understand what you are saying, I just don’t see the relevance. Those “many people” (as you claim) are adopting an immoral and unjustifiable position. It is, indeed, disgusting to justify horrendous murders on the basis that some other supposed murders also took place.
There is no suggestion of a lack of balance. Simply because “many people” (as you claim) hold one view it does not follow that my view must be a “balance” between their view and another view.
Murder is wrong. It is not a case of “balance”.
Willows,
presumably you believe that the Nationalist community – by voting in SF – who led the insurgency – should also share in your condemnation as should the British for conceding so much to SF in the GFA and of course the DUP for respectablising them in governement?
Or do reserve your condemnation just for people who express their opinons and not those who have materially altered the situation to SF’s benefit.
Why didn’t Martin just tear up the proclamation and read the crowd a new one ?
Written by himself and Gerry of course.
The death of anyone is a loss to the whole community and should be condemned by all.
However we see once again Martins disgraceful use of others misfortune to his personal gain as was done with bloody Sunday and the hunger strikes but to name 2.
Just a pity he couldn’t have afforded one quarter the effort behind the family of Paul Quinn who’s MURDER was as pointless and painful (especially to family and loved ones) as that of Emmett.
McNally
presumably you believe that the Nationalist community – by voting in SF – who led the insurgency – should also share in your condemnation as should the British for conceding so much to SF in the GFA and of course the DUP for respectablising them in governement?
Everyone should condemn murder, no matter their political affiliation or public position.
Or do reserve your condemnation just for people who express their opinons and not those who have materially altered the situation to SF’s benefit.
I condemn anyone who supports or justifies murder.
Garibaldi ,
‘We’re an all or nothing type of people in the north. ‘
So I’ve noticed
Best prepare yourselves then .
For ‘Nothing’ .
picador ,
‘ there can not be such thing as just or fair re-partition’
Not in an absolute sense I agree but then no political solution ever is . However the repartition of NI would relieve remaining Unionists of the responsibility of having to share power with a large number of the so called ‘minority’ -and the Republic would gain by not having it’s stability threatened by an alienated 800,000 British Unionist minority.
‘As for the record of the UN or EU on things’
True but they eventually did a reasonable job with the former Yugoslavia which is now peacably partitioned between Slovenian , Croatia, Bosnia , Montenegro , and Serbia ,
Repartition would be a lot better than the eternal ‘nothing ‘ which Garibaldi and others will be looking forward.
In life half a loaf of fresh bread tastes better than a full stale cake
Greenflag, picador
What unionists want most is the union with the rest of the UK. Repartition might satisfy the northern protestants’ sense of difference from the rest of the island but it would be a further diminution of the United Kingdom, which is undergoing quite fundamental reforms anyway. Also nationalists and republicans would continue to campaign for a sovereign united Ireland. So ,with the UK crumbling behind it and continuing pressure for a united Ireland, a ‘wee Northern Ireland’ would probably be pretty unstable. As an independent state, I wonder what its economic prospects would be? What sort of politics would emerge? Left and right, or nationalist and aggressively nationalist?
However I wouldn’t entirely rule it out. The UDA had a ‘doomsday’ plan, I recall, which invloved repartition by force. And there are a few Ulster Nation cranks around – but then again there are loads of ideas that were once attributed to cranks, then a few years later you can’t find any bugger who didn’t claim to think of them first!
Re-partition. Pretty grim notion though.
It will never happen. No-one wants it. Certainly no-one with any power or the means to achieve or enforce it.
Unionists missed the boat on that one a long time ago.
Willowfield,
I suspect that this is something you don’t really want to contemplate and perhaps something that you don’t believ ever will but what do you think unionists would do in the event of Scotland leaving the union?
Would independence be something they might contemplate then? Or do you think a union of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would continue. Although I have to say that the English, I suspect, while they might wish to maintain constitutional links with Wales would have less enthusiasm for the same NI. What do you think?
I suspect that this is something you don’t really want to contemplate and perhaps something that you don’t believ ever will but what do you think unionists would do in the event of Scotland leaving the union?
What could they do? Absolutely nothing.
Would independence be something they might contemplate then?
No.
Or do you think a union of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would continue.
Yes.
Although I have to say that the English, I suspect, while they might wish to maintain constitutional links with Wales would have less enthusiasm for the same NI. What do you think?
There is little enthusiasm for the Union with NI presently. Equally, though, there is little enthusiasm for dissolving it. The Union would be weakened, but it would continue. No Government at Westminster is going to want to unravel the “peace process” by doing anything radical.
willowfield
“It will never happen. No-one wants it”
For the first few centuries of its existence Irish Unionism didn’t want partition. That changed when democracy was flourishing on the island. The position became untenable and so Irish Unionism was dropped and ‘Ulster’ Unionism embraced.
I, for one, won’t be betting against the movement away from ‘Ulster’ Unionism towards an ‘North-East Ulster’ Unionism should it become clear that the democratic wish of the NI people in a future constitutional referendum will deliver Irish re-unification.
When Irish Unionists turned their back on the Irish parliament after having sat in it for centuries as Irishmen and gone to the polls as the same in order to state that they had in fact been Ulstermen all along and as such distinct from the rest of the island and not binded to the democratic expressions of that parliament, the lack of any real democracy (or at least its implementation) in Ireland up until the foundation of the Republic may have made it arguable that this was a moral position and a people expressing the right of self-determination. I would strongly disagree.
However, the GFA is the will of the people and any attempt to seek repartition, should re-unification look likely, will remove, what would by then be revealed as, the delicate veil of morality that resonates among the Unionist position.