“Like Ian Paisley they have accomplished their mission.”
Sinn Féin have stated that Connolly House in west Belfast has been attacked three times in the past 2 weeks – One of their Londonderry offices has also been targeted. Meanwhile, in the NewsLetter, Liam Clark identifies the Real IRA strategy, “if it can be called one”, and points to some of those legacy issues for Sinn Féin. From the NewsLetter.
Their strategy – if it can be called one –is to force a re-militarisation of society and bring troops back onto the streets. They aim to plunge society into chaos and draw in the loyalists in the vague expectation that they may somehow be able to capitalise on the fear and anger that would follow. The problem for Sinn Fein leaders like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness is that they lack the moral authority to counter such sick arguments. They have been around too long; the roots of their power and authority lie in the 1970s when the Provisional IRA, like today’s dissidents, had only contempt for democratic political struggle. Its policy was, like RIRA’s today, to destabilise existing forms of government in the hope that its demand of British withdrawal would eventually emerge as the only option left. It didn’t work for the Provos and it won’t work for RIRA, a much smaller group, either. Adams and McGuinness saw that the IRA campaign would fail and moved republicans towards power sharing, but they accumulated a lot of baggage in the process. Like Ian Paisley they have accomplished their mission. They should now have the sense to step aside and let someone with a less complicated history take charge.
“In practical terms, rather than technical terms, the poll was a referendum on the GFA and it’s silly for people to try to pretend that it was not.” – Comrade Stalin
Stop telling lies. Nobody in the south for the GFA. The British-Irish Agreement is a totally separate agreement. The only reason that the British-Irish Agreement was mentioned in the 19th amendment poll at was because of its cross-border sovereignty provisions in Article 2, with the Crotty judgement requiring the people to approve those specific provisions under the Irish constitution, and it had nothing to do with the south agreeing to the GFA.
In regard to the main substance of 19th amendment, that was removing the Ireland’s territorial claim to Northern Ireland. In other words, declaring that its citizens are born with British nationality and not Irish nationality but instead have the right to self-nominate themselves as members of the Irish nation. It formally declares that Northern Ireland is a foreign state.
Typo: “Nobody in the south [b]voted[/b] for the GFA.”
By the way, what difference would it have made if the citizens of Ireland did vote for the GFA instead on the 19th amendment? Bugger all, since the GFA would still have been implemented if the citizens of Northern Ireland voted for it and the citizens of Ireland rejected it. Ergo, the citizens of Ireland are a complete irrelevance to the citizens of Northern Ireland and their entirely seperate claim to self-determination, which is why they did not vote on the GFA. The GFA is the agreement that governs their British state, and not the Irish state.
Just to hammer home to Mr Stalin a point that those who have not been inoculated with the applicable propaganda would immediately appreciate: the point of a referendum is for the people to either reject or accept a proposal. If the reject it, then the proposal is not implemented. If they accept it, it is. So, what would have happened if Ireland did vote on the GFA and duly rejected it? The GFA would have been rejected in Ireland but it would still be implemented if it was accepted in Northern Ireland. Therefore it is utterly asinine to declare that the people of Ireland had any reason to vote on a proposal where the implementation would not be determined by the outcome of their vote. Again, for slow learners, nobody in Ireland voted for the GFA.
Dave,
Stop telling lies. Nobody in the south for the GFA. The British-Irish Agreement is a totally separate agreement.
Yes, an agreement within which the governments stipulate that they will support the GFA. I don’t see the point in making the distinction.
It’s not possible to make the case that the Irish people opposed the GFA if they voted in favour of a constitutional amendment where the government could choose to agree to implement it.
By the way, what difference would it have made if the citizens of Ireland did vote for the GFA instead on the 19th amendment? Bugger all, since the GFA would still have been implemented if the citizens of Northern Ireland voted for it and the citizens of Ireland rejected it.
I don’t agree. It would have been more difficult to implement Strand 2 wouldn’t it ? All the stuff about cross-border bodies ? And the unionists though that the part about cancelling the Anglo-Irish Agreement was very important.
Further, a vote against that agreement would make it very difficult for the government to introduce legislation and provide support in public for the GFA.
Like I said, technically the referendum was not about the GFA. In practice, it was.
wether or not the GFA was voted for by the south or not i think the point that the North as it exists is a failed state is being ignored.
It is economically unviable ,
Sectarianism will flourish as long as it exists,
Self Determination has no place on the Agenda within the GFA framework. And because of this violent responses will arise.
The GFA was a proosed solution accepted under dubious democratic circumstances but it has failed.
The few hoods, hangers ons, knuckle dragger argument has been used since 71. Wrong, vaccuous and unproductive then. Likewise now.
Halfer,
It’s been used by Home Rulers (they find the term unionist offensive) for longer than that.
halfer,
You’re entitled to your opinion. I think you’re wrong, and so does almost everyone else. I don’t think anyone called the GFA a “solution”.
latcheeco, a home ruler is not a unionist. Read some history.
Comrade,
Beg to differ. The distinction is just by degrees.
But I do plan to follow your kind advice once I get done with Fluff and Nip. Cheers
“Yes, an agreement within which the governments stipulate that they will support the GFA. I don’t see the point in making the distinction.”
Well, if you don’t see the point, why change the point? The point being that “the poll was a referendum on the GFA” when it was no such thing. Indeed, the British-Irish Agreement is a treaty, so it is between two governments, not determined by plebiscite, by definition.
The people of Ireland didn’t endorse the GFA because the GFA (or, rather, the Act that implemented it) is a matter to be determined by the people it governs (the Northern Irish) via their seperate expression of self-determination.
You cannot have an act of self-determination that doesn’t determine anything, can you? Their act of self-determination determined whether or not they would implement the GFA, and our seperate act of self-determination determined whether or not we would diminish our national sovereignty by allowing Her Majesty’s government to determine our affairs in respect of the provisions of Article 2 of the British-Irish Agreement (British-Irish Council, Waterways Agency, Food Authority, etc). That was required because the Grotty judgement in the Supreme Court declares that the people must give their consent to degradations of their sovereignty. If that provision wasn’t there, then there would have been no mention at all of the British-Irish Agreement in the 19 Amendment. It is, of course, spun by the Shinners that Ireland gained specific sovereignty over Northern Ireland via these provisions but it is also true that the United Kingdom gained sovereignty over Ireland by the same provisions. If the Republic did not give its own sovereignty away to Her Majesty, it would not have required the consent of the people to do so.
That cannot be interpreted as an endorsement of the GFA by the people of Ireland or as a statement that the people agree that the Irish state should be bound by any agreement under than the British-Irish Agreement (separate from the GFA). Under the GFA, the former northern nationalists (now constitutional unionists) agreed to renounce their right to national self-determination as members of the Irish nation in exchange for a right to self-determination as members of the Northern Irish nation (some odd mix of British, Irish, Ulster Scots, and wotnot), whereas the citizens of Ireland merely agreed to facilitate the right of the former northern nationalists to renounce that right, but did not agree that they (the citizens of Ireland) should also renounce their right to national self-determination as members of the Irish nation.
“It’s not possible to make the case that the Irish people opposed the GFA if they voted in favour of a constitutional amendment where the government could choose to agree to implement it.”
It’s completely irrelevant. They did not vote for the GFA. Nor does it matter whether or not they would have supported it, since even if they did support it, it’s implementation in Northern Ireland did not require their consent. You can’t claim that people supported an agreement because they voted for a separate agreement. What you can claim from the poll result is what was actually determined by the poll result, i.e. that they agree that Northern Ireland is British and that those born there have no birthright to national self-determination as members of the Irish nation, but rather may self-nominate as Irish if that is their fancy. They’re still born British and reside in Her Majesty’s dominion, of course.
“I don’t agree. It would have been more difficult to implement Strand 2 wouldn’t it ? All the stuff about cross-border bodies ? And the unionists though that the part about cancelling the Anglo-Irish Agreement was very important.”
It would have been impossible, since that is the part that was determined by Irish self-determination rather than Northern Irish self-determination. You’d just have to leave out those strands, that’s all.
“Like I said, technically the referendum was not about the GFA. In practice, it was.”
There is no de facto constitutional law when it is written. It is always de jure. That is the point of writing it down. And, de jure, there is no such thing as an act of self-determination that doesn’t determine anything.