“the Good Friday Agreement represents a significant defeat for republicanism.”
As the Belfast Telegraph predicted, one of those other republican paramilitary groups repeated their claim of responsibility for the murder of Denis Donaldson today in Londonderry. And at the same demonstration, attended by a reported 200 people, RTE notes – “Martin Galvin, a former director of the Irish/American Noraid which helped support the IRA’s campaign during the conflict, was present along with Francis Mackey from the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, which supports the Real IRA.” Btw, they weren’t the only paramilitary displays in evidence over the weekend. The Irish Times report adds.
A [32 County Sovereignty Movement] statement said: “We are constantly asked; what is your alternative? The answer depends on who is asking the question. To those who call us traitors (Martin McGuinness) we say; any alternative but yours. “To those who call us anti democratic we say; let us negotiate without preconditions. To those republicans who genuinely seek an alternative we say; let us construct one together. “We must be clear that the Good Friday Agreement represents a significant defeat for republicanism.”
Except that the Good Friday Agreement wasn’t a defeat for republicanism in itself. It was an acknowledgement of a need to reverse out of the cul-de-sac that movement had driven itself into, as well as providing the means to do so.
Even though some Sinn Féin representatives may deny it, their party president has admitted as much.
The problem has been that that reversal has been accompanied by assertions from the same movement that it was, instead, still driving forward along the same road.
And those legacy issues remain.
But then, some people are “not very interested in [poking through the embers of the last 30 years]“..
Poisonous foundations and all that..
Picador,
You’re up late? Trouble sleeping?
The logic is that if you assent and agree to a unionist veto then de facto you’re unionist. It’s arguable Pic. Now go back to bed before your muttering at the computer wakes everybody.
How long will it be until we hear ‘vast majority of Irish people now legitimate targets’?
These people are absolute fanatics. Of that I am no longer in any doubt.
L,
Squealing child nearby. What’s your excuse? Afraid you’ll miss a united Ireland if you fall asleep?
The logic is that if you assent and agree to a unionist veto then de facto you’re unionist.
As I’m sure you’re aware it’s 50% + 1, but no matter.
‘Vast majority of Irish people now unionist traitors’ says die-hard fanatic.
Go and howl at the moon.
Pic,
So once again all you’ve got is the repetition of the mantra you’ve been taught “if you don’t agree with the GFA your a crazy fanatic who wants to kill people”
Oiche mhaith
L
‘All I’ve got’ is that you and your overly verbose fellow fanatic have exposed yourselves for the self-righteous extremists that you really are.
By declaring that the majority of the Irish people are unionists – and thereby traitors loyal to a foreign country – you remind me of Dr Ayman al-Zahwari when he declared anyone opposed to Salafist Islam to be apostate and thereby liable to be slaughtered – i.e. arrogant in the extreme.
Secondly ‘I have got’ the blogger to once again reveal his pettiness towards anyone who he perceives as espousing a pro-GFA republican viewpoint – to the extent of intervening on the side of ‘republican’ fanatics.
As you are quite obviously suffering from the effects of lasting indoctrination I will leave you to wallow in quasi-religious certainty and give others a chance to comment.
It has been an experience and I am sure that you will now have the final word.
Comrade,
If the Irish people are allowed to vote as one for or against UI and vote against then fair enough. But the GFA wasn’t it and you know it. If you’re so sure they prefer the GFA why were they not allowed to vote on the two options.
Everybody knows that the GFA was not a poll on the border. I haven’t once pretended that it was. I think you are confusing the subtleties here.
As I explained above, a 32-county vote on partition would lead to a civil war. A civil war is a bad thing. Lots of people would die. We’ve avoided that by everyone agreeing to a compromise. The compromise is that we won’t have a 32-county border poll. Instead we’ll have dual consent between the two states on this island.
It’s completely pointless arguing about the Irish people being “denied” a 32 county border poll. The GFA referendum means that the Irish people have willingly compromised on the issue of a 32-county poll as part of their support for efforts to try to find a peaceful solution.
My allegiance isn’t to the Queen or Peter the great but thanks for asking.
You’re the one who brought allegience up, and now you’re dodging my question.
Your point is that it’s acceptable (you might call that acceptance realpolitik) for unionists to threaten violence (you qualify it with reference to their feelings to make the threat sound ok) over partition but not nationalists because then they’ll be peace wrecking swines of limited intelligence and low moral character who’ll sell us all to hell in a handbasket and nobody’s mortgage will get paid.
That is the definition of “acceptable” that people voted on in the GFA. Partition is a reality.
My personal view (and this part is not reflected in the GFA) is that partition was a symptom, not a cause, of the division in the Irish people. Getting rid of partition will not get rid of the division.
That’s a unionist perspective.
Then everyone in Ireland is a unionist ? I don’t think that’s true.
Nationalists are thus held to a separate standard. No other country in the world would put up with it (except maybe Scotland).
Yes, because the alternative is to put up with a civil war.
latcheco:
It is of course logically arguable that if you’ve consented to the union (albeit under duress) and even in the short term, then you are defacto a unionist.
Earlier you accused me of deploying the “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” argument. Isn’t that what you’re doing here, by essentially arguing that anyone who doesn’t agitate against the union is a unionist ?
Anyway, you’re wrong. A unionist is a person who is ideologically (either through conviction or tradition) committed to the union.
In other words, a person who can foresee a time when a united Ireland might be a good thing – is not a unionist. A person who thinks that the union is a terrible thing, but will go along with it for the time being for the sake of peace and quiet – is also not a unionist. They aren’t unionists because they aren’t committed to the union. Of course, they may not be entitled to call themselves republicans – that’s a different matter. But they’re not unionists.
Your definition essentially means that everyone in Ireland is a unionist because they have chosen to accept, rather than agitate against, the union. This is nonsensical.
And I think I already said quite clearly that there is nothing wrong with being opposed to the GFA. I have no problem with that. I do not believe that everyone who opposes the GFA supports the dissidents. However, it is clear in your case that you favour some kind of civil war, not because you oppose the GFA, but because you have said yourself that you believe that it’s more important to “stand up” to the loyalists than take the peaceful option which, necessarily, implies that the men who threaten violence are getting away with it. Have I got you right ?
Pete baker or is the Peat baker or Turf burner. If you actually read some of this stuff you would see that stuff in Irish included… I never said exclusively on Irish but if you read the earlier stuff it is in here. Anyway. Be good and stay awake
P
Morning Comrade,
I said it is arguable that accepting the union made you a unionist if you voted for it. Administering it even more so. You disagree because you voted for it. Fair enough
I said clearly previously that I don’t believe in the civil war myth because I think it’s the tactic of a bully.Remember when I said it was an old Paisley tactic after you brought the spectre up. I think it’s so clearly contrary to the unionist interest that it’s a non-runner. What would be the goal, repartition? I don’t think Unionists are stupid. That’s my opinion and I don’t believe that means, as you entusiastically claim, that I want civil war. You turned “I don’t believe in the civil war myth” to “you want civil war.” Your suggestion that I’m crying out for one against MI5′s alphabet gangs is puerile. I believe doomsday is a myth that should have been challenged.You suggest the GFA or war are the only options for nationalists and that if you don’t go with one then you’re by default threatening the other. I don’t buy it.
Off the top of my head for example one option could be that London could give a firm withdrawal date that was long enough away (say 2050/2060)that it didn’t scare anybody, soundly reasoned on demographics, and which would give everybody time to acclimatize, offering unionists an excellent deal in return for their percieved loss(as a nationalist I think they’ll actually be gaining) while at the same time disarming any arguments for violence (however tenuous). That would be much more practical than the nebulous 50+1 which could happen in ten years for all anybody knows, and which nobody is prepared for, and is much more likely to cause panic given the GFA’s sectarian themmuns v. usuns horserace setup which is even now being propagated by self-interested parties.
Almost everyone believes unificatiion is going to happen eventually anyway so why bullshit around in neverneverland? Why not just bite the bullet (no pun intended) and start preparing people decades before. I appreciate that’s offensive to unionists but I’m a nationalist and think it’s reasonable. My point was that something like this wasn’t, I think, unattainable for nats. given the support and moral force of half the north-east of the country and practically all of the rest and (if you believe it) London’s much vaunted desire to get out. But amid all the fanfair and celebrity, negotiations were allowed to get sidelined into irrelevant nonsense about guns buried in bogs and how many seats the Women’s Coalition should have, which is why tiny cracks are appearing now. That doesn’t mean I’m calling for jihad as some comdeians repetitively suggest.