“Gerry Adams is a block to progress”
That’s the view of Northern Ireland First Minister, the DUP’s Peter Robinson. The quote didn’t make it to the BBC report which adds another instead – “Sinn Féin should get on with it and stop dragging their feet.” And DUP MP, and NI Finance Minister, Nigel Dodds joins the fray
What really bugs Gerry Adams and why we are seeing this sort of childish behaviour from Sinn Fein is due to their frustration at not being able to get their own way over certain issues. When their spokespersons talk about demanding equality it is code for getting their own way. When they talk about lack of engagement, it is because they do not get their own way in meetings. Unfortunately for Sinn Fein, and happily for the Unionist community, the days of Unionists being pushed around or intimidated by Sinn Fein are over. The DUP position on the devolution of policing and justice powers and the provision of Irish Language legislation is perfectly clear. It does no good for Sinn Fein to keep repeating the lie that the DUP signed up to these issues at St Andrews. Sinn Fein need to stop the tantrums, stop holding ordinary people to ransom, and get down to the business of government.
Is it a crisis yet? Adds A quick reminder, from March this year – “failure to deliver [policing and justice powers] will seriously damage [the Sinn Féin leadership's] credibility.”Adds The UTV report carries a fuller quote from Peter Robinson.
“Gerry Adams is a block to progress.
Instead of lecturing the DUP he should stop blocking the transaction of Executive business.
The DUP will not be rolling over for him or any Republican.
Sinn Fein just doesn’t seem to get it.
Progress is made and agreements are reached when both sides are content. Adams seems to think that it is the role of everyone to move to his position.
That just will not happen”
Picador ,
If you address your posts to Dr Karadz don’t expect a reply.
My, we are precious.
How about I call you Ratko Mladic then?
I don’t mind if you don’t reply as you are not open to reasoned debate on your favourite topic.
You just keep repeating the same mantra about ‘fair re-partition’ over and over again no matter what the topic.
As long as you keep trolling in this manner I will point out that you are in fact advocating ‘ethnic cleansing’.
Who do you work for anyway?
Trust me, ken. I’d be perfectly happy never to have to go over this ever again.
But you keep popping up, in this case on one of my posts, making ludicrous assertions.
And each time you do I’ll point out that what was “down on paper at St Andrews” wasn’t what Sinn Féin have claimed it was.
As you well know.
So you now resort to pointed at supposed secret agreements and assurances that even Sinn Féin don’t claim to have existed – I know, I know, you’re “completely shocked”. Despite the fact that any “private assurances by the British Government” couldn’t be enforced.
Btw, what Sinn Féin have claimed is laughable.
Now I’ve got a fair idea of why Sinn Féin continue to make their claims about commitments. The question is why do you?
It is actually key to any discussion about what SF do next. Any strategy that they produce will have to take account of their starting point.
Simply ignoring it will not make it go away. However hard some might wish that to be so.
‘I don’t mind if you don’t reply as you are not open to reasoned debate on your favourite topic.’
Th record shows I’m very open to reasoned debate on the issue . The record also shows that other than not liking repartition at a solution those who oppose it have yet to come up with a substantive reason as to why it would not work other than their own long held sectarian preferences and political preferences for either the failed status quo or the unrealistic dream of a UI .
Trust me, ken. I’d be perfectly happy never to have to go over this ever again.
I’d be perfectly happy if you just got what the fuck I was actually saying, rather than going over your own personal crusades. I really do not give a flying fuck.
And each time you do I’ll point out that what was “down on paper at St Andrews” wasn’t what Sinn Féin have claimed it was.
I never disagreed. In fact, I have told you repeatedly that you were right they didn’t get what they wanted nailed down properly, and that it was bad form. Go tatoo it on your fucking head, and stop wasting my time. But I happen to think both Devolution of Policing and Justice, and some form of ILA (and a United Ireland, for that matter) are Good Things, and currently only SF are in any position to get anything done about them at the moment. That may be unfortunate, but that’s how it is.
St Andrews did have things to say about both those topics, if not what SF thought they said. I was making was simply that SF should stick to the issues contained within St Andrews, and avoid temptation to pull in anything else as a matter of strategy. Which I wanted to discuss with Mick. Which is why the post said “Mick” at the top, and not “Pete”. Is this hard? No, it is not fucking hard.
So you now resort to pointed at supposed secret agreements and assurances that even Sinn Féin don’t claim to have existed – I know, I know, you’re “completely shocked”. Despite the fact that any “private assurances by the British Government” couldn’t be enforced.
Actually MMG stated that assurances were given by Ian Paisley Junior – as yourself have posted. They also claimed, I believe “There is a mechanism to go back to the British”. Also blogged by you. But that’s beside the point.
That is simply intuition and personal view based on all the facts at hand as I see them, including those flagged up by you. SF have claimed they had some private assurance. Is this claim credible? Well I don’t particularly trust public statements by the DUP or the British Government as being inherently truthful. That affects about everything you have come up with. There have clearly been back channels in the past, and private assurance, else SF could not have screwed Trimble so royally on the choreographed deal. Blair would have had no problems operating in this fashion, and neither would the Irish or US Government. It is also hardly unknown in negotiation in general, and it is hardly unknown in government level dealings – pick you example from a hundred. SF also clearly walked away seemingly convince they had got what they wanted, mainly. Blair’s removal could also be a factor. So, yes, the idea that someone along the line give some assurances or at least, allowed that impression to be given has some credibility.
That is a different evaluation as to why SF are doing it or is it a good idea. It certainly doesn’t excuse screwing up, but given past experience it means I might, as a Nationalist voter, give them another chance. And ultimately if Nationalism backs SF solidly there will need to be movement, just as there had to be for decommissioning. That’s the bottom line.
I can’t prove it, don’t claim to and don’t care who else agrees or disagrees. It isn’t a “claim” that needs refuted, merely a personal opinion. You disagree because of X Y Z. Different judgment call. Great, got that the first 100 times. Go blog on how I am part of the supernaturalist Unenlightment or something. I don’t really care, as long as you do it away, over there somewhere.
“I can’t prove it, don’t claim to and don’t care who else agrees or disagrees.
It isn’t a “claim” that needs refuted, merely a personal opinion.”
Indeed, ken.
I quite like the irony of Greenflag arguing fervently for sovereign territorial borders that are delineated by ethnicity on one thread, then abandoning his support for nationalism on another thread, as he switches to arguing that sovereign territorial borders should be abandoned because they support the ethnicity of nation states and impede the progress of the EU project of merging all ‘peoples’ into one people.
EU lackey and Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheál Martin, displayed a similar confusion today when he lambasted the British business think-tank, Open Europe, for having the audacity to inject “outside interference in our national debate” without grasping the irony of his government’s support for a process that gives “outside interference in our national debate” a statutory and sovereign basis (i.e the EU) or grasping that his outrage is rendered sublimely comical when contrasted with his invitation to Europhiles elsewhere in the EU to come to Ireland during the Lisbon Treaty referendum and campaign for a yes vote.
And has the jumped-up little man so uptight this time? The result of a Red C poll commissioned by Open Europe that shows that an overwhelming majority of voters oppose any attempt to re-run the vote and declare their intention to vote against it and, further, to vote against FF if they try to pull that anti-democratic stunt. The lackey tries to deflect attention away from the findings of the poll and onto ad hominem attacks against those who commissioned it.
I thought you weren’t talking to me.
The subject of repartition has been discussed ad infinitum on this site several times before with whole threads dedicated to it. In fact some of those threads were created specifically to prevent you and your half-wit brother from continually harping on about it on other non-related threads.
You are a MONOMANIAC!
Sometimes you make intelligent points while discussing other topics but invariably the monomania creeps in and we’re back to ‘fair repartition – which is conincidentally (!) the same term Declan Catholic Birth Rate Fair Re-partition Monomaniac also uses – and is also an oxymoron.
RG Cuan has recently started a thread on the subject on politics.ie so why don’t you go there and share your brilliant idea which nearly everyone else thinks is lunacy.
In the meantime can you just make your point here without raising the words ‘fair repartition’ unless there is a thread specifically relating to that subject because, genuinely, you are ruining it for me.
Previous post (#8) directed to GreenFlag
P.S. “53% said they would be less likely to vote for Brian Cowen at the next election if he called a second referendum. In particular, 43% of Fianna Fail voters said they would be less likely to vote for him.”
The full results of the poll are available at:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/redc.pdf
Pete
It isn’t a “claim” that needs refuted, merely a personal opinion.”
Indeed, ken.
Yes, Pete, indeed.
Just another reminder, ken.
“Actually MMG stated that assurances were given by Ian Paisley Junior – as yourself have posted. They also claimed, I believe “There is a mechanism to go back to the British”. Also blogged by you. But that’s beside the point.”
As I’ve already pointed out in an earlier comment here
“what Sinn Fein have claimed is laughable.”
I know, I know, you’re “completely shocked”.
But as long as you continue to claim that your imaginary scenario is credible, I’ll have to continue to point out that it is not.
“I don’t really care, as long as you do it away, over there somewhere.”
You really don’t get this blogging thing do you, ken?
As I’ve also pointed out here
“Simply ignoring it will not make it go away. However hard some might wish that to be so.”
“what Sinn Fein have claimed is laughable.”
I know, I know, you’re “completely shocked”.
No. I just don’t agree. Simply saying it is laughable doesn’t actually make it so. How about that?
But as long as you continue to claim that your imaginary scenario is credible, I’ll have to continue to point out that it is not.
Except it is. What you have posted in your little red link is MMG’s word against the DUP’s word. No more, no less. It doesn’t constitute a disproof of anything, nor does it make the claim “laughable”. Nor is the claim that some from of private assurance of some degree occurred during negotiation particularly outlandish.
“Imaginary scenario”? Oh how you love to make your language work for you :rolleyes:. Try “hypothesis” or “hunch”. By all means keep trying to disprove it, but it’ll help if you managed something new.
You really don’t get this blogging thing do you, ken?
Fortunately Pete, I’m not a blogger, simply a pleb. I don’t have to get anything, least of all something that is many things to many different people.
“Simply ignoring it will not make it go away. However hard some might wish that to be so.”
Ignoring what? That SF haven’t got what they wanted? At this stage, I am more worried about what they are going to do about it.
Pete,
if I was to buy a second hand car from a salesman( who for the purposes of this analogy is the DUP) and when I go it home it didn’t start. If I went back to salesman and said I want my money back and he told me (correctly) that at the time of sale, he had explained to me, that I had got a good price and that because of that he would NOT guarantee the road worthiness of the vehicle. I (for the purposes of the analogy am Sinn Fein) would have a problem. This is your point – I did a bad deal.
But supposing I know the owner of the garage ( who in this instance are the British Govt) and I know that if I went to them they would support me and that they would lean discreetly on the salesman because they did not want the bad publicity that this dispute would cause – and also because, although we had our differences (the troubles) in the past now the owner and I were good friends. Also I knew the owner thought the saleman was a funny bugger. Technically of course the poor salesman would be ‘right’ but just like in the real world such considerations are often meaningless.
And yes – before you say it – I am making it up.
“What you have posted in your little red link is MMG’s word against the DUP’s word. No more, no less.”
No, ken. No it’s not.
You should pay more attention to the actual detail.
Pete
No, ken. No it’s not. You should pay more attention to the actual detail.
I disagree. The DUP might well have said less than SF thought, but they certainly knew what SF thought they were saying, and clearly MMG is claiming they gave an assurance. Cute ‘n’ all, but the issues aren’t going anywhere. So bite me.
Much more importantly, you need to pay attention to your bloody links.
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php
FRAGMENT ONE
?URL=http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php
FRAGMENT TWO
?URL=http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php
FRAGMENT THREE
?URL=http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/it-was-ian-junior-that-said-it/
Is there no end to your madness?
My bad.
Just for you, ken.
Here’s that link again.
You really should read it. It’s not about what the DUP said or didn’t say.
“clearly MMG is claiming they gave an assurance.”
And clearly MMG is wrong.
Pete
Just for you, ken.
Here’s that link again.
When I get a little time, I think I’ll write a greasemonkey or chickenfoot script that removes every one of your links from your posts in my browser. Shouldn’t be too hard. The trick will be not obliterating everyone else’s.
And clearly MMG is wrong.
Not so sure he is. You might debate about what exactly Junior is assuring but in terms of whether that scene happened it is simply MMG vs DUP.
SF are right to provoke a crisis if they are not getting what was promised at St Andrews. Indeed, re the Irish Language, the DUP are openly boasting about how there will never NEVER be an Irish Language Act. Now the British Government promised an Irish Language Act at St Andrews and all the parties signed up to the St Andrews Agreement. IF THE DUP WON’T DELIVER, AS PER SAA, AN ILA, THEN THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAS TO DO SO, EVEN IF IT’S ONLY TO DO WITH BROADCASTING AND POLICING AND JUSTICE (THE NON DEVOLVED MATTERS). The rest can follow later, when the DUP finally gets its head around “power SHARING” government.
As for the SDLP, whose deputy leader, the outgoing MP for South Belfast appears to be turning his fire on SF (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0728/1217013340780.html) for the ‘ineffective, inefficient and incompetent’ government. I agree that SF are on a learning curve in terms of how to govern – though I don’t see that they’re any worse than FF in the South or the Labour Party in the UK. Does Mr McDonnell’s attack on SF, and not the DUP, who are equally (at least) as ineffective, ineffecient and incompetent as SF, indicate that the SDLP deputy leader is seeking the DUP nomination in South Belfast next time around? It seems to me to be base political point scoring that he’s at rather than seeing the bigger picture. Is this the SDLP position as a whole – and if not, why doesn’t the party’s leader, the invisible and inaudible Mark Durkan start doing what he was elected to do, lead the party?
Concubhar O Liathain
if like the UUP and the SDLP you are effectively in opposition you have to say SOMETHING but lets be honest it doesnt really matter a feck unless you are likely to stir the masses – as that is clearly not the case here the DUP and SF are safe enough.
picador ,
”The subject of repartition has been discussed ad infinitum on this site several times before with whole threads dedicated to it.’
So have many other subjects – Northern Ireland is a small place and thus the universe of subjects to be debated is ‘limited’. We see this from several threads being debated on essentially the same subject . But that’s the nature of the blog world .
‘In fact some of those threads were created specifically to prevent you from harping on about it on other non-related threads.’
In a context in which the future ‘stability’ of the present settlement is in question as in whether Adams or Robinson want to pull the plug or the Assembly cannot/won’t meet etc then referring to what may replace the current settlement be it Direct Rule or Repartition or some other possible solution is not non related .
It was not my intention to re open any repartition debate merely to point out that there is at least one other solution out there which would relieve 90% plus of the people of Northern Ireland from having to be misruled by a divided government for the next half century or more . We all know where that will lead .
PS,
I have nothing to do with RG Cuan or Declan – My views are my own and if others support them fine and if they don’t also fine . I can’t see the present coalition going full term and neither can I see any possible replacement being agreed with enough cross community support . In that context ‘repartition’ will be raised as a way out of the eternal impasse.
In that context ‘repartition’ will be raised as a way out of the eternal impasse.
I agree with this statement. It has already been pointed out on this thread that realignment of the states on this island may be a possible outcome of a future border poll. But why wait that long when the issue can be tackled at a much sooner date?
Those advocating the ‘waiting game’ – that NI will reunite with the rest of the island when the northern state’s population becomes 50%+1 nationaist – have to realise you’ll be waiting a very long time indeed.
After 400 years, only a small number of those original planters associate themselves with Ireland and things Irish. It will take another 400 years for some of the rest to change their minds too.
Why does NI’s Irish population have to put up with the current situation when other possibilities are available?
PICADOR
I don’t know Greenflag or any of the others who are looking at other options to today’s impasse. And your references to Serbian leaders are not only ridiculous but also now boring.
Ah, Mladic has crawled out of the woodwork.
It’s Belfast that’s the issue – it’s difficult to see Unionists accepting repartition without Belfast. On the other hand a nationalist city at the heart of a Unionist statelet would be a little icongruous. How about a Parliament for Unionists in a United Ireland with powers over education and culture but no specific geographic territory?
In that context ‘repartition’ will be raised as a way out of the eternal impasse.
Fair enough, it may be raised (and comprehensively dismissed by the vast majority of posters, both unionist and nationalist) from time to time. But not EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK!!!
I, along with many others, have heard your arguments in favour of repartition on countless occasions now and I am not interested in hearing them again.
Repartition is not on the table. It has been considered in the past and dismissed for very good reasons of which you appear totally ignorant. No political party in Ireland advocates it for the same reasons. If you are really that intent of pushing repartition as a solution why don’t you start your own pressure group or join an existing political party and try to change their policy?
Unfortunately you don’t have the courage of your convictions and will continue to come on here TROLLING!
Dewi,
Don’t fall into their trap. I already have and it’s not worth it.
They already know about Belfast being the fly in the ointment for their sick little plan but still they keep on.
They will talk about islands and corridiors and other ridiculous nonsense. They conveniently ignore the fact that there are as many nationalists living in the north and south of the city as there are in the west. They would turn the west of the city into the Gaza Strip, an island of poverty surrounded by hostile forces and overflowing with refugees, expelled from elsewhere in the city and surrounding area.
And they call it fair!
So you can see why the Dr Karadzic comparison is not inappropriate – people who spent too much time looking at maps and tables of statistics and forget about the human beings whose lives they would wreck.
But once again I have fallen into the trap.
Henceforth I will remain silent save to ask Admin to act against this repetitive trolling.
Repartition – a unionist solution to a unionist problem.
I’m reading Misha Glennie’s compelling book about the history of the Balkans at present. And sure enough the idea of repartition rings a bell there… Partition wasn’t right in 1921 – but that error shouldn’t be compounded by repartition now.
Greenflag,
just to stick my oar in – repartition is deemed by most to be far, far too dangerous. There are undoubtedly many arguements in its favour and many advanced very well by your goodself but for the vast majority of people it is looked upon as the LAST resort. Failure of the executive – before joint authority etc is tried – is a long way short of that.
Your best bet for repartition will be if ‘pogroms’ significantly worse than the 1970 break out.
Repartition – a unionist solution to a unionist problem.
You got it! though strangely enough the people advocating it here fall into the Eoghan Harris self regarding pseudo-intellectual category.
Your best bet for repartition will be if ‘pogroms’ significantly worse than the 1970 break out.
Exactly, absolute mayhem. But it’s OK so long as the murder and mayhem is ‘fair’. And the UN contingent from Uruguay and Malaysia will be their with their nice white hats to bring us food relief.
Repartition – a unionist solution to a unionist problem.
But unionists are a significant part of the modern island of Ireland – they cannot be ignored. At the moment hardline unionists, a minority on this island, have a veto over the progression of the ideals of hundreds of thousands of Irish nationalists.
Whenever a referendum on the future of NI is carried out and slightly more people would like to reunite the island, a minority of unionists are likely to violently oppose the move.
Of course interational law could be applied and the democratic process defended but that still doesn’t take away from the fact that many of this “united Ireland’s” new population would like to have nothing to do with it. Perhaps regional power and the protection of British identity in the new state may abate some of their fears but it’s not certain.
If we acknowledge that unionist hostility is a possibility, and that repartition may well be proposed after a future referendum, why wait to put it into place?
Carried out in a non-contentious manner, emphasising the relationship between the newly-realigned states would create far less hostility than the aftermath of any referendum.
Aontaím leat nuair a deir tú gur aondachtaithe sciar suntasach de dhaonra an oileain. I agree with you to a point. I just don’t believe that repartition is the solution. What would that create except an Orange state with a permanent Orange – not just unionist – majority. This would be like giving Jim Allister and the DUP the keys to the kingdom and turning the clock back on nationalists and other freedom minded people within that statelet to a time before 1970. Not just nationalists would be affected – can you imagine the Talibanesque laws which would be enacted by Iris and Co re gays? Or their treatment of the Irish language? No doubt it would be good news for the people of South Down and Armagh and Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry – but don’t let’s abandon Antrim and North Down and Belfast….it would simply be a case of not learning the lessons of 1921.
IWSMNWDI,
‘repartition is deemed by most to be far, far too dangerous.’
Because they envisage it being implementd as a result of pogrom and in the aftermath of a civil war . Bringing in neutral international agencies such as the UN or EU together with peacekeeping troops and the back up military aid of both British and Irish Armies would reduce the prospect of ‘violence’ to a minimum . It’s not 1969 -people in NI know that the present political situation is leading nowhere and will sooner or later collapse due to it’s inherent political contradictions .
The point for Irish Nationalists from NI to consider and remember is that Unionists almost to a man have opposed any move towards a UI since 1920 . IN every election they have consistently and without fail voted to support the Unionist parties be they DUP, UUP, Alliance etc etc . Those wishful thinking Nationalists or Republicans who assume or believe that Unionists can be outbred and thus outvoted into a UI are wrong . It’s not going to happen .They forget it’s no longer the 1930′s and there will probably never be a Nationalist majority in NI at least not for another century if ever . Given that certain prospect why should NI nationalists not aspire to a fair repartition of NI in order to achieve at least most of what is possible of their constitutional goal ?
A fair repartition would be a new line on the map with a small Unionist minority of approx 100,000 in an enlarged Republic with a small Nationalist minority approx 100,000 in a smaller Unionist State . Both States would still be obliged to adhere to the EU Court of Human Rights re the treatment of cultural and religious minorities . Assuming the smaller Unionist State was still ‘devolved’ from Westminster those rights would also be upheld by the British Government . Likewise the onus would be on the Irish Government to deliver the same for the new ‘unionist’ minority . Meanwhile some 97% of all the people on this island would be living in the State of their first preference . Now that sounds to me like a better deal for Irish Nationalists in Northern Ireland than another uncertain, divisive , economically stagnant and politically inchoate 50 years a waiting for .
And as you may recall Godot never arrives . Neither will a UI based on the present ‘wooly’ mode of thinking among many well meaning though naive Irish Nats. There is no prospect of there being any change as regards Unionists loyalty to the UK or to 6 billion pounds sterling a year in financial subvention. About as much prospect I would think of expecting the majority of the citizens of the Irish Republic changing their mind re independence and applying to rejoin the UK.
RG Cuan ,
‘Carried out in a non-contentious manner, emphasising the relationship between the newly-realigned states would create far less hostility than the aftermath of any referendum.’
Indeed . The present ‘dispensation’ is very imprecise as to the how , when and why any future referendum on the constituional position would or even if one should be held . One can envision all kinds of loyalist advance ‘reaction’ in any lead up to a referendum which could go the wrong way ‘
Best to have ‘repartition’ in advance with all major parties agreed that Northern Ireland in it’s present format is a ‘hopeless’ case not because of the people who live there but simply because the politics of the place cannot be made to work as a normal democracy or like anywhere else on these islands or even in the EU.
The people of Northern Ireland deserve good governance . They’ll never get it under the present mess of pottage arrangement .
“They forget it’s no longer the 1930’s and there will probably never be a Nationalist majority in NI at least not for another century if ever .”
Not sure that’s true GF. Everything else being equal 20 years should do it.