54% of Catholics reckon failure to agree should result in the collapse of Institutions…
Interesting figures in the latest poll on policing and justice. If you total up all the figures, it’s a grand 81% in favour. Yay! However, if you break that down between those who want the decision time bound (ie, 25% immediately and 14% before general election) 39% (in legal terms this is a meaningless option without the agreement deemed necessary under St Andrews) and those who want to see it as a result of agreement between the parties, 42%, you begin appreciate the fork in the road the two parties in Stormont Castle have brought us to. And, unsurprisingly, a sizeable proportion of Catholics are feeling pretty reckless over the issue:
The threat of the collapse of the current Assembly over this issue elicited markedly differing views from the majority of Protestant and Catholic respondents — 63% of people surveyed said that the timing of the devolution of powers should not warrant the collapse of the institutions, 83% of the Protestants polled and 38% of Catholics. Of the 27% who believe that a failure to resolve the current row should result in the collapse of the Assembly, this figure is made up of only 5% of the Protestants polled but 54% of Catholics.
It’s unsurprising in the sense that it’s probably a fair reflection of Sinn Fein’s support in the population at large (ie 27% of the whole population, whilst Bairbre de Brun pulled 26% in June’s Euro election).
So we can reasonably surmise that of that sector of the Catholic community which backs the SF party line, is prepared to see the indigenous deal that Gerry Adams once warned us not to interfere with go west in the event there is a failure to get agreement on a new deal.
So although 37% of Protestants say they still lack confidence, more than 80% say it is not worth the collapse of Stormont. So despite the talk of growing cynicism within that community towards Stormont, it is the unionist population which seems more sanguine about retaining the Assembly and Executive, albeit at some limited cost.
Sinn Fein will likely take heart from this. They have their people lined up behind them, and the sentiment within unionism appears broadly that P&J is not worth the hassle hustle.
However they are still stuck with two big headaches: how they manage the break down of the game with an opponent who appears keen to keep the ball in play; and, perhaps more importantly, how they deal with the aftermath in which they are likely to have to deal with a tougher unionist response to what amounts to a severe breach of various promises in early 2007. Spinning it out for a few years until people forget the original settlement is not a great solution when you’ve not got much else going for you on your other strategic fronts…
Whether it is a breakdown to negotiations, or a breakdown to an election, negotiations will be unavoidable. The party’s consistent messaging on this (along with an unwillingness of the MSM to call it as it really is) has clearly prepared their support for a moment of departure. It seems unlikely though that they have prepared that same support for the kind of deal that protracted negotiation is likely to bring them.
Given 81% of the population agree on the desired outcome (as opposed to the means by which it may be had) it would also be a grand denial of the art of the possible…
This is a game of diminishing returns for both protagonists… They’d be better doing a functional deal and taking it to their respective homes soonest… Just don’t hold yer breath. There is a lot more spin and playing of the MSM optics yet to come I fear…
Dread Cthulhu,
Do you believe that if someone commits a crime that is them condemned for life. Is it not possible for people to take a different path and add to society?
Stephen Blacker: “Do you believe that if someone commits a crime that is them condemned for life. Is it not possible for people to take a different path and add to society? ”
Do you think it reasonable to expect the thugs former targets to embrace their attackers without reservation or hesitation?
Criminals should not profit from their crimes. They should not expect their victims to automatically forgive and forget. To expect their victims to embrace them without hesitation is at least a bit unreasonable.
While I do not think it impossible for a thug to take a new path, I am neither sanguine on the probabilities of the thing, nor do I think that society at large should be required to assume their good intentions until they have proved themselves beyond a doubt.
Dread Cthulhu,
I will not go into the complexities of our history in Northern Ireland, im sure you are well aware of it yourself so ill skip all that and ask, how would you progress our society without large sections of the electorate.
Stephen Blacker: “I will not go into the complexities of our history in Northern Ireland, im sure you are well aware of it yourself so ill skip all that and ask, how would you progress our society without large sections of the electorate.”
The electorate has chosen the tails of the curve of their own free will. It is the “large sections of the electorate” that has created the problem and are sustaining the problem.
Like I said, the joy and the pain of democracy is that the electorate always gets the representation they deserve.
Dread Cthulhu,
So what i believe you are saying is let the electorate decide for themselves and they can live with the consequences!
Stephen Baker: “So what i believe you are saying is let the electorate decide for themselves and they can live with the consequences! ”
Among other things. If the voting population want to elect folks who can barely stand being in the same room with one another and, on those occasions they they can manage the trick of being in the same room, spend their time arguing over china patterns and other minutia, that is their business. That said, given their choices, it is a little hypocritical of them to complain about the lack of comity, cooperation and compromise, now innit?
Dread Cthulhu,
It is very interesting to hear it put the way you do, i do think you are making it sound very simplistic as if we lived in a society that never had our “Troubles”
It cannot be easy working for people that were willing to fight with each other just a few years back, even you would have to admit it is a lot better today compared to a decade ago.
Peace building was never going to be smooth and it would be terrible if the momentum that has built up over the last few years stopped because of P&J.
Dread Cthulhu,
It is very interesting to hear it put the way you do, i do think you are making it sound very simplistic as if we lived in a society that never had our “Troubles”
It cannot be easy working for people that were willing to fight with each other just a few years back, even you would have to admit it is a lot better today compared to a decade ago.
Peace building was never going to be smooth and it would be terrible if the momentum that has built up over the last few years stopped because of P&J.
Stephen,
I’d say its better than it was 20 years ago but 10 years ago, I’m not so sure. The electorate are fed up now, not hopeful as they were then. Its good that the DUP and SInn Fein became the biggest parties, they brought a large proportion of their respective extremes into the fold. They have served their purpose now. The vast majority of the electorate want devolution, now they need to elect parties that can make it work. Apart from that point though,Dread is being far too simplistic
Lionel Hutz,
You have blogged with me recently and I’m forever the optimist, I think we will get through this without Stormont folding because as you said, “The vast majority of the electorate want devolution, now they need to elect parties that can make it work.” and the politicians are starting to get that message!
Ment to add, I dont believe that the main parties, as they are now, will fail us! It will not go smoothly but we will get there.
SB: “It is very interesting to hear it put the way you do, i do think you are making it sound very simplistic as if we lived in a society that never had our “Troubles””
How so? Do election work differently in Northern Ireland? The people have spoken, they chose the two least tractable parties to run the show. It didn’t take a genius to figure out that a DUP / SF forced coalition gov’t was a recipe for gridlock. With or without the troubles, the answer is the same.
SB: “It cannot be easy working for people that were willing to fight with each other just a few years back, even you would have to admit it is a lot better today compared to a decade ago.”
**rubs thumb and forefinger together**
That me playing “my heart bleeds for you” on the world’s smallest violin. Life is a contact sport, plan accordingly.
Now, getting down to cases, you’re analysis has a few flaws.
For starters, the two parties **aren’t** “working,” easy or otherwise. They are spending most of their time exercising their vetoes.
Now, that said, the electorate chose gridlock and knew they were choosing gridlock when they cast their ballots. Its a little silly of them to complain they got what they asked for, as expressed by their ballots.
The casual definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The next election should be interesting.
When the electorate tires of gridlock and political spectacle, they will choose other candidates, if not other parties.
Stephen
“Ment to add, I dont believe that the main parties, as they are now, will fail us! It will not go smoothly but we will get there.”
On balance, I think thats quite likely. Stormont will be in limbo for a few weeks or even months but eventually a deal will be done in time to sell it to the electorate.
I think I’m an optimist most of the time, but it has got the point that I wonder would it be better for Stormont to fold for a while. Perhaps the voters would get fed up and give the DUP and SInn Fein a kicking in the upcoming election. Now thats just pie in the sky, but I can dream!
LH: “I’d say its better than it was 20 years ago but 10 years ago, I’m not so sure. The electorate are fed up now, not hopeful as they were then. Its good that the DUP and SInn Fein became the biggest parties, they brought a large proportion of their respective extremes into the fold. They have served their purpose now. The vast majority of the electorate want devolution, now they need to elect parties that can make it work. Apart from that point though,Dread is being far too simplistic ”
No, I’m simply unwilling to subscribe to the shared delusion that Northern Ireland is somehow special. The electorate chose the two hard-line parties. Contrary to what you’re suggesting above, the true extremes are going their own way, which may be good or bad — the TUV is attracting at least some of the DUP’s extreme members, while the most extreme members of the Republican end of the spectrum have been making the news lately, if you hadn’t noticed.
As I said above, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. When the population decides they want progress, they will elect candidates capable of providing that progress. So long as they prefer spectacle and pissing contests, things will continue as they are.
DC
” Contrary to what you’re suggesting above, the true extremes are going their own way, which may be good or bad—the TUV is attracting at least some of the DUP’s extreme members, while the most extreme members of the Republican end of the spectrum have been making the news lately, if you hadn’t noticed.”
Not contrary at all, in fact exactly what I said – a large proportion. The most extreme ofcourse where not going to be convinced. Anyone expecting anything different was being incredibly naive. But its a minority. Its quite difficult to guage the Republican dissent, but the Unionist dissent, in the form of the TUV is minute.
Ofcourse, NI is special. Its special because conflict has given way to democracy. If you know anything about history, you’ll know how unusual that is. Even look at what happened with the Republic. Conflict torn regions rarely give way to a great democratic model and so in order to ensure the success in Northern Ireland. It was neccessary to force a coalition, to put as many checks and balances in their as possible so that if was going to work, it required cooperation.
The DUP and Sinn Fein want to cooperate, rest assured of that, they just don’t know how. In another 10 or 20 years time, we may not need a madatory coalition. However, the breakdown in trust you see at the moment is, in a roundabout way, the greatest evidence for the need for it at this time.
Dread Cthulhu,
As i stated previously about our history and not going into it, it cannot be overlooked that our small Country had vile bloody conflict. Yes, the elections are the same as other places but the results were determined in accordance to the “Troubles”
The Violin was playing sweet, Ha ha! But it was /is not easy for some people to embrace our new society.
I believe that the parties are working well considering the history, no one said it would be easy. Its not working well but people are talking and seeing the human side of the “others”
The electorate are unhappy but its because they want to see quicker progress on issues, bread & butter issues not orange and green!
The next election will be interesting and we will just have to work with our democratic outcome!
Ment to say, “Its not working great but people are talking and seeing the human side of the “others””
LH: “Ofcourse, NI is special. Its special because conflict has given way to democracy. ”
Democracy with training wheels, maybe. A gelded democracy with all the rules and social dynamics of an unruly kindergarten class — walk in line, keep your hands to yourself and smile at one another. Nap-time, kiddies.
And having democracy doesn’t *make* N.I. special. Lots of conflicts give way to democracy. It will be the keeping and making that Democracy work which may eventually make N.I. special — ain’t there yet. Big difference and there is a long testing period — Zimbabwe used to be “special,” too… still is, but in that “half-a-loaf” bus sort of way.
LH: “The DUP and Sinn Fein want to cooperate, rest assured of that, they just don’t know how.”
Sure, an’ you can pull the other leg next, its got bells. They know how — you give a little to get a little — that’s compromise. What N.I. has is brinksmanship, hardly the same thing.
Now, that said, their electorate isn’t keen on them compromising, or at least doesn’t seem to be. The TUV and UUP have both tried to run to the political outside of the DUP, which suggests that one side’s voters are lukewarm, whilst the SF has its own issues, ranging from nascent scandals, the dissidents, the odd elected official abandoning the party and the awkward questions of what to do with the revolutionaries now that the revolution is passed. In short, there is still a lot of rough edges that need smoothing and more than a few nettles that need grasping.
SB: “As i stated previously about our history and not going into it, it cannot be overlooked that our small Country had vile bloody conflict.”
Sure, an’ that never happened anywhere else in the world, ever…
SB: “he electorate are unhappy but its because they want to see quicker progress on issues, bread & butter issues not orange and green!”
Aye, but they still *vote* orange and green, not bread and butter.
When they want progess, they’ll vote bread and butter, not orange and green.
Driftwood:
Most people I meet are completely indifferent. [about devolution]
It’s the election results which count. And given that the UUP are nominally pro-devolution, I don’t see the Tories making many changes here. You’re obviously off in a wee world of your own.
But if some people think hospital waiting lists are of no importance compared to setting up a vast new bureacracy fair play to them.
been for a routine consultancy recently Comrade?
I think the NHS has gotten a lot better lately, mainly because Labour pumped money into it after nearly two decades of Tory neglect.
blue hammer:
One Loyalist terrorist is being assisted in his attempts to secure release from his rightful place in gaol by one member of the TUV. Is this worse than ALL Loyalists getting the assistance of the Alliance Party in securing early release from the proper gaol terms for their heinous crimes 10 years ago?
Obviously as a pro-agreement person there are circumstances under which prisoner releases are acceptable to me. The concept of releasing prisoners in exchange for concessions is one that is practiced throughout the world. I don’t regret voting for the prisoner release section of the GFA and I’d do it again tomorrow.
But the TUV is different, it says that it opposes prisoner releases under any circumstances.
So why would a party member, who presumably joined the TUV in support of their very clear stance on total opposition to any concessions to terrorists, believe it appropriate to campaign for the release of a loyalist who violated the terms of his early release ? Is there some sort of a wink and a nudge when the application form is handed in that says that loyalists don’t count ?
And what does Jim have to lose by excluding that member ? Is he afraid that large numbers of his membership (the petition to release the loyalist in question was signed by 2000 people, several of those are bound to be party members) and electorate are themselves sympathetic with the release of Torrens Knight ? If so, doesn’t that suggest hypocrisy ?
Obviously people like Turgon have to compromise their own principles a fair bit in order to share party membership with people who think that loyalists should be released from jail. It’s that compromise on what are supposed to be steadfast moral principles that I’m highlighting. Alongside the fact that I bet that any TUV member who dared to utter the words “actually, government with Sinn Fein might be OK” would immediately be ejected, which goes back to my old point about how unionism has a different attitude to murders and shootings whenever loyalists are the protagonists.
I’m still hopeful that Turgon will therefore see that he isn’t in a position to lecture anyone else about the evil terrorists when he is so close (in person, if not in mind) to people who sympathize with them, and will therefore join the rest of us in accepting that the way forward in this country includes accommodating those who in the past committed serious crimes – because very few of us are completely innocent.
Stephen Blacker:
So what i believe you are saying is let the electorate decide for themselves and they can live with the consequences!
I believe that is democracy, yes. Any alternative is not democracy. People here need to understand this. For too long in NI, we’ve been insulated from the effects of electing bad politicians.
The cross-community vote + d’Hondt package will guarantee voting Orange and Green indefinitely into the future.
Political parties are constructed to achieve power. In most countries power comes from a simple majority, so that is what they try to achieve.
In NI, under the GFA, power comes from achieving majority status within one of the two communities. If the other community is voting for their most hardball players (ie SF or DUP) then there is a big incentive to vote for similar representatives. This is the situation which we are now in.
Perhaps one way out of this situation is to consider what the purpose of a constitution should be. The GFA has incarnated a very utopian vision of the purpose of a constitution. It believes that the purpose is to give representation to all segments of society, hence the d’Hondt rule. Most utopian projects are unrealistic fantasies, the GFA certainly is.
An alternative vision for the purpose of a constitution is that its purpose is to ensure that a majority does not override the legitimate rights of a minority. This can be done with a lot less constitutional architecture.
What I would suggest is that a government could be formed in NI with a simple majority of the Assembly which includes at least 30% each of designated unionists and designated nationalists. The designation laws would need to be tightened to prevent tactical designation, but this offers a way out of the GFA straitjacket.
Comrade Stalin
“Very few of us are completely innocent”
Scandalous. A small minority in both communities (granted in one community with substantial electoral support) go on a 40 year orgy of murder and destruction and the best the Alliance Party can come up with is to suggest that the majority, who never took up arms or supported anyone who did, have some responsibility for that orgy? Thank you for that valuable insight into Alliance thinking.
As for the TUV, I am not a member but i lean towards voting for the only party which has maintained the “No” position from 1998. There are no circumstances in which Torrens Knight should be released. Or Sean Kelly. Or Johnny Adair. Or any other murderous thug. Only the TUV now seems to reflect that view.
The fact that a member of that party takes a different view is not unusual, but since it is not a totalitarian party which brooks no dissent, there is little to be done. If you want totalitarianism, then vote for dUP or their buddies in SF.
If, as you claim, you believe in democracy, you may come to terms with the fact that some people fundamentally disagree with your sickly compromise with murderers and will never accept it.
BTW, what compromises have been secured from Loyalist murderers since the GFA was ratified by referendum in 1998 and they were all let loose on the good people of NI?
“Very few of us are completely innocent” Comrade Stalin
Indeed. A long time ago, Voltaire wrote “We are all guilty of the good we do not do”
In 1967, an Irish Catholic living in Londonderry or Belfast had few rights a British Protestant was bound to respect. A cold house for Catholics and all that.
Those that did nothing about that must accept their share of culpability and act to improve the lot of all their fellow countrymen. Anything less perpetuates the problems. This is not to say that the do-nothings are as culpable as killers, but I do think it makes talk of “innocent victims” not as clear as some make it out to be.
Kevsterino: “Those that did nothing about that must accept their share of culpability and act to improve the lot of all their fellow countrymen. Anything less perpetuates the problems. This is not to say that the do-nothings are as culpable as killers, but I do think it makes talk of “innocent victims” not as clear as some make it out to be. ”
The parallax view is equally valid.
Kev
Abject nonsense. Mopery. Working class prods were no better off than their roman catholic neighbours in the 1960s.
And since I had not even been conceived in 1967, I don’t accept any responsibility.
And my working class dad from the shankill road should have done what, precisely, to ease the ‘suffering’ of the working class of either religion or none?
Keep swallowing the Sinner propoganda, but careful it doesn’t choke you.
Is it Sinner propaganda that the government policy as regards voting, housing and employment was unfair to Catholics? What do you think O’Neill was talking about then? Were his eyes deceiving him?
The working class prods would have been alright if the industrial might of Ulster had survived. But, alas, they shared the fate of my own countrymen in the “Rust Belt” of the United States. Those jobs went to cheap labor in the third world. So it goes.
It just seems logical enough to me that if you want peace, you work for justice.
Obviously, you can’t be responsible for that which occurred before you were born. But we all have a responsibility for what we do, and don’t do. Everybody.
Things are better now than in ’67, which leads me to believe that war/armed struggle/physical force/terrorism/what have you will not return to Northern Ireland. But there is obviously work left to be done to give today’s children a start in a place where everyone born there is secure in the knowledge that they are where they belong in a country that wants them there.
Laws can change overnight. That bit is comparatively easy. Changing people’s outlook is much more difficult, particularly when they’ve been brutalized.
Irresponsible politicians have made a colossal mess that will take generations to clean up. It is past the time for the people to lead the way to a better day.
Do what you can, hammer. Don’t miss a chance to improve the place, one little bit at a time.
Unless, of course, you think it perfect.
Kev
It’s not perfect. Nowhere is.
I have no desire to debate the relative plights of the working classes of both religions in the late 1960s. It’s not relevant today. Maybe we could debate the plight of your “countrymen of colour” during the same period, but again, it’s not relevant today.
We have justice. We have the most over-regulated employment practices in Western Europe to ensure that. Please advise what justice you consider that needs to be fought for now? Apart from justice for the innocent victims of paramilitary murderers. Justice for Robert McCartney? Lisa Dorrian? The disappeared?
I don’t want my outlook changed. The pro-agreement consensus have taken collective amnesia over the vile crimes of those they now sit with. I cannot and will not stomach that.
My attempt to “improve the place, one little bit” as you put it, is to argue for and vote for change to the structure which puts unrepentant terror in the heart of government. Unless you think THAT is perfect.
The laws have been changed regarding my “countrymen of colour” and Catholics in Northern Ireland. That, difficult as it was to achieve, is the easy part.
It is possible that real change won’t be possible for generations as regards people’s attitudes toward those who are of a different religion or nationality in Northern Ireland.
Here, we elected a guy who is half African to the highest national office. But, I assure you, we still have plenty of bigots about.
In Northern Ireland, protestants who call for Torrens Knight to go to jail are doing the right thing. He is convicted and a bad bastard, sure enough. Those calling for his release are perpetuating the problems. That is just one example of what it is that I’m blathering about.
Whatever it is, it will take a long period of people not blowing up one another to create a more sensible government architecture. With all the vetoes everywhere you turn, I’m amazed they can open the doors in the morning.
Kevsterino: “The working class prods would have been alright if the industrial might of Ulster had survived. But, alas, they shared the fate of my own countrymen in the “Rust Belt” of the United States. Those jobs went to cheap labor in the third world. So it goes.”
If ifs and ands were pots and pans, all the world would be a tinker, or some such rot. Saying things would have been fine if not for, y’know, reality is a pretty weak tactic.
Kevsterino: “Things are better now than in ‘67, which leads me to believe that war/armed struggle/physical force/terrorism/what have you will not return to Northern Ireland.”
Sadly, it hasn’t left. It has merely been muted… and never is a damned long time to be making wagers about…
Kevsterino: “It is possible that real change won’t be possible for generations as regards people’s attitudes toward those who are of a different religion or nationality in Northern Ireland.
Here, we elected a guy who is half African to the highest national office. But, I assure you, we still have plenty of bigots about.”
Indeed… some of them are even black, but that’s progress for you.
The fact of the matter is that getting Obama elected is a strawman, an example that has nothing to do with the matter at hand and is a couple orders of magnitude smaller than the situation in N.I.
To be comparable, imagine if Nathan Bedford Forrest had been elected to high office sometime after the end of the Civil War and was made an integral part of the government. To the protestant side of the ledger, that is what seeing McGuinness in high political office after the end of “the Troubles.” I’m certain that Roman Catholics weren’t pleased to see the Rev. Dr. No, either, come to think of it.
It is going to take at least a generation for this bad blood to settle out, barring some sea change.
Kev
Not wishing to stoop to more unnecessary whataboutery, just a serious query:
What is your view on the incarceration or otherwise of Sean Kelly? Like Knight, he would meet your definition of a “bad bastard” who was convicted of mass murder. He walks the streets a free man, and when he was returned to gaol, the cries for his release were deafening from some quarters.
My view is that Kelly, like Knight and all the others, should be returned to gaol immediately, or better still, never have been let out. Your view?
Blue Hammer,
It’s your that smack of historical revisionism. My parents and their parents lived in time when they were disenfranchised and discriminated against. That’s not Sinn Fein propaganda, they never supported Sinn Fein or violence. It’s not making excuses to try to explain why hundreds or thousands of people took a violent path or why many tens of thousands more supported it. Explaining it only helps to create understanding amongst very angry sections of the unionist population, some of whom don’t understand it, some of whom are simply blind to it.
The battle for the truth will perhaps be the last conflict this province will have to endure but it is neccessary for reconciliation. The two factors that irk me in the Republican viewpoint are firstly that violence was neccessary and secondly that it achieved anything. That belief among many Republican, I believe, is perpetuated by Sinn Fein propaganda. However, the route cause of all the upheaval, civil or violent, is just historical fact.
Kevsterino, you are conflating those whose aim was an end to British rule with those whose aim was an improvement in the quality of British rule. The Provos claimed that the former aim was there aim before they endorsed the legitimacy of British rule and accepted nice pensionable jobs assisting in its administration, whereas the latter aim was the aim of NICRA. It now suits those who had the former aim to pretend that they actually had the latter aim as that allows them to present their current position as a victory rather than a defeat. It also, of course, creates the impression that self-determination is irrelevant to nations, with the nation not requiring a nation-state if the nation which does control the state looks after the nation which doesn’t. Since they have renounced their former right to a nation-state, that works for them.
Lionel Hutz: “It’s not making excuses to try to explain why hundreds or thousands of people took a violent path or why many tens of thousands more supported it. Explaining it only helps to create understanding amongst very angry sections of the unionist population, some of whom don’t understand it, some of whom are simply blind to it.”
The word you’re dodging in “rationalizing.” You’re trying to rationalize what was done, trying to impose some sort of meaning on the murder and mayhem that was done. Explaining it, btw, does not create understanding, it creates friction, as some dog and pony show of an explanation purports to “explain” how killing someone’s father/mother/sibling/friend was a meet and just deed. Electing some of the hatchet-men who committed these crimes serves to exacerbate this friction.
The problem you’re overlooking is that neither side wants the truth and, frankly, the truth is probably out of reach at this late date. The guilty who were caught were released and there seems to be none interested in ferreting out the guilty who have avoided being nicked.
Frankly, I’d have wanted every weapon traced, Loyalist and Republican, for starters, but the Republicans have avoided that fate and I suspect that the Loyalists will do the same.
I’m not trying to rationalize it really because I don’t believe it to be entirely rational. In fact I’d say that it was an irrational response from people who an endured an irrational hatred. Rationality went out the window. But that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t understand it and perhaps even forgive it. Understanding is the basis upon which this country can move on, that or death of the memories. As some of these memories seem to have composed their own genetic code, I’d go for the former.
hammer
If memory serves, didn’t Kelly lose an eye and the use of an arm in the fish shop bombing? At any rate, yes he was certainly responsible for that horrible explosion, killed folks that I suppose were shopping for their family dinner that evening. I don’t agree with letting him out to begin with, but people did vote for the agreement and have to live with that, I suppose. But if it were up to me, he would have been executed for capital murder. Europeans, it seems, don’t share my view regarding executing murderers.
I never did figure out what they were putting Kelly back in jail for and I don’t think it was very well explained to dim yanks like myself.
Reading the last few blogs it is obvious that there is a long way for some people to go to embrace the massive and necessary changes to political live here. A number of people seem to believe there is only black and white ways to look at our failings but they, i believe, do not want to deal with the realities of what was and is essential for our society to do after coming out of conflict!
On a mural in East Belfast there are the words, “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it!” I trust that the two main parties will not forget the past and do the deal on P&J as, according to the above poll, 81% of the people want!
LH: “I’m not trying to rationalize it really because I don’t believe it to be entirely rational. In fact I’d say that it was an irrational response from people who an endured an irrational hatred. Rationality went out the window. But that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t understand it and perhaps even forgive it.”
Perhaps the use of the second-person pronoun was unfair, but “rationalizing” something implies that the thing itself is irrational — if it made sense on its own, there would be no need to explain it — res ipsa loquitor. Likewise, I would point out that, within the Settler mindset, it was a wholly rational fear, although Protestants dislike the word. The Ulstermen feared that in a UI, they, now the minority shorn of their position and support, would be treated by Catholics in the same fashion they had treated Catholics — nothing irrational about that. Likewise, in the shrinking economy of the rump-statelette that is N.I., certain other “irrational” positions make sense. Protestant leaders in N.I., such as Brooke, made grand speeches of a Protestant state for a Protestant people, just as leaders in Eire, via their Constitution, ensured a Catholic nation for a Catholic people.
And while I agree that sometimes insanity is the only rational response to an irrational set of circumstances, trying to rationalize that response after the fact is a little like boot-strap levitation.
Stephen Blacker: “On a mural in East Belfast there are the words, “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it!” I trust that the two main parties will not forget the past and do the deal on P&J as, according to the above poll, 81% of the people want! ”
Had they *really* wanted P&J, they’d not have elected SF and DUP in the first place.
Blue Hammer:
Scandalous. A small minority in both communities (granted in one community with substantial electoral support) go on a 40 year orgy of murder and destruction
I would go further and say that the IRA had substantial support in general terms. “Support” does not only mean lifting a gun or planting a bomb. It also includes cheering from the touchlines, (voluntarily) providing safe cover, providing political justification for their actions, etc etc. John Hume and the SDLP are also guilty, in my view, of dancing to the IRA’s tune in the form of the Hume-Adams agreement which they dutifully followed after the collapse of the Brooke talks in 1992.
In addition to this, I am saying that unionism is equally supportive of loyalist paramilitarism. The support occurs in a different form, and isn’t directly reflected at the ballot box, but it’s there. Go all the way back to 1918, where the NI state was founded based upon a threat of violence from a Unionist paramilitary force (with the full support of their politicians) to overthrow the authority of the British government if they did not get their way. Once Stormont was prorogued and the USC disbanded, this support continued in the form of the UWC strikes, Vanguard, the 1978/79 Paisley/UDA attempted strikes. Later on you’ve got Ulster Resistance and the Third Force, and the present DUP leader’s invasion of Clontibret. There’s TV footage of Ian Paisley threatening civil war – where he also said “don’t come running to me when your homes are attacked” to police officers.
More recently we’ve got events like William McCrea receiving a resounding electoral endorsement after standing on a podium with Billy Wright who had gone on TV to issue death threats against his former UVF colleagues. Or the UUP electing (with the help of a DUP abstention) the UVF-linked Hugh Smyth as Lord Mayor of Belfast in 1993, while the UVF were still actively murdering people. At that time, the loyalists were murdering more people year on year than the IRA were. There was also David McNarry and the “Loyalist Commission”, an organization with no apparently obvious aims beyond legitimizing the UDA and UVF.
And of course, most recently of all, we see that Jim Allister’s party, despite all the talk about total opposition to violence and terrorists, has at least one member, and probably more, who thinks that loyalists shouldn’t have to go to jail if they assault and intimidate people, and who managed to find 2000 people who agreed with him within the space of a few weeks.
To me, political Unionism is largely the same as Sinn Fein. The main difference is that Sinn Fein admits that it supports armed struggle and glorifies those who engage in it. Unionism pretends that it opposes violence, but courts the men of violence nonetheless.
That’s what I mean when I say that we all have had a hand in the conflict here, one way or another.
and the best the Alliance Party can come up with is to suggest that the majority, who never took up arms or supported anyone who did,
But that’s total rubbish. Unionism has gone to arms several times within the past 100 years to protect it’s own interest, starting in 1918, and continuing throughout the 1970s and right up to the present day.
In normal politics in sane parts of the world, getting on a podium with a known murderer and drug dealer like Billy Wright would secure nothing other than the end of a political career. In Willie McCrea’s case, it secured a poll-topping result in South Antrim. Can you explain that ?
have some responsibility for that orgy? Thank you for that valuable insight into Alliance thinking.
I’m not speaking for Alliance.
As for the TUV, I am not a member but i lean towards voting for the only party which has maintained the “No” position from 1998. There are no circumstances in which Torrens Knight should be released. Or Sean Kelly. Or Johnny Adair. Or any other murderous thug. Only the TUV now seems to reflect that view.
No, the TUV doesn’t reflect that view because it failed to expel the member who actively campaigned for Torrens Knight’s release. Do you think he would have been treated equally leniently had he been campaigning for Sean Kelly’s release ?
The fact that a member of that party takes a different view is not unusual, but since it is not a totalitarian party which brooks no dissent, there is little to be done.
Why would a person who thinks terrorists should be released from jail join a party which is founded on, among other things, keeping terrorists in jail ? Don’t you think that’s a bit strange ?
If you want totalitarianism, then vote for dUP or their buddies in SF.
I don’t expect them to be totalitarian, just to admit that quite a lot of unionists (2000 signatures) think that the actions of people like Torrens Knight are forgiveable, or possibly even justifiable.
cont’d
If, as you claim, you believe in democracy, you may come to terms with the fact that some people fundamentally disagree with your sickly compromise with murderers and will never accept it.
Yeah, that number is a tiny minority in unionism, and in Northern Ireland in general. I’m a realist.
BTW, what compromises have been secured from Loyalist murderers since the GFA was ratified by referendum in 1998 and they were all let loose on the good people of NI?
I don’t see the GFA as a this for that exchange, but as a whole package which has helped secure long term peace. I’d like to see the loyalist organizations shut down, by force if necessary, but when’s the last time you heard a unionist politician asking for that to happen ? When have you heard Jim Allister calling on the police to raid/jail/intern the UDA and UVF leaders ? Here’s a prediction for you : you won’t, because he knows it would alienate too many of his supporters.
kevsterino:
Indeed. A long time ago, Voltaire wrote “We are all guilty of the good we do not do”
That’s not really what my argument is. My argument is unionism used paramilitarism and violence to get it’s own way in the same way that the IRA did. The IRA, of course, killed about double the number of people, but the point is that unionism is in no position to lecture other people about democracy and peaceful means, as it has been busy subverting both for the past century.
I’m not necessarily saying that unionism deserves some sort of one-sided punishment for this. I’d just like to see them embrace powersharing fully and accept their role in perpetuating the violence.
Maybe if one day unionism renounces the methods used in 1918, or in the Drumcree standoff, or in the UWC strike as being the antithesis of democracy (which they were and are) I might accept it has changed. Otherwise, they are no different from Sinn Fein.
In 1967, an Irish Catholic living in Londonderry or Belfast had few rights a British Protestant was bound to respect. A cold house for Catholics and all that.
I don’t think the majority of Catholics supported the IRA’s war. But a substantial number did, and a large number of those who did not thought that the blame lay elsewhere. Civil rights were obtained in other places without mass political killing, and as the IRA has basically admitted, their “war” achieved nothing that hadn’t already been achieved peacefully.
Blue Hammer (again) :
We have justice. We have the most over-regulated employment practices in Western Europe to ensure that.
Yes, and this was all done in the teeth of opposition from unionism. In the end the British had to prorogue Stormont because they knew that it wasn’t capable of operating to normal democratic standards. That’s why, by the way, we’re stuck with mandatory coalition.
Please advise what justice you consider that needs to be fought for now? Apart from justice for the innocent victims of paramilitary murderers. Justice for Robert McCartney? Lisa Dorrian? The disappeared?
The best way to talk about justice for those people is to take action to eliminate the organizations that perpetuate the violence and death. And like I said to you earlier, I don’t believe unionists are serious about taking on loyalist crime and murder. I remember clearly about five years ago, when the PSNI raided a loyalist drinking den in North Belfast, Nigel Dodds came on to say that the police raid was heavy handed and unnecessary. This was long before the “government with SF” thing. Dodds had topped the poll in North Belfast by then and has done so again since, so, following your standards about electoral endorsement, it’s reasonable to assume that unionist North Belfast agrees and that loyalists who are drug dealers should be treated leniently. Yes ?
My attempt to “improve the place, one little bit” as you put it, is to argue for and vote for change to the structure which puts unrepentant terror in the heart of government. Unless you think THAT is perfect.
I’m not happy with the representatives of the IRA being in government. But given the concessions they have had to make in order to get there, namely their total disarmament and surrender-in-all-but-name, I can live with it.
Don’t you agree that it’s more important to deal with actual, active terrorists, ahead of dealing with those who were active in the past ?
Dread,
“but “rationalizing” something implies that the thing itself is irrational—if it made sense on its own, there would be no need to explain it—res ipsa loquitor.”
Well rationalizing implies that it is atleast seen as irrational, if it was irrational, it would be impossible to rationalize it. Which is what I believe. Quite clearly many people attempt to rationalize irrational incidents but it doesn’t work, it can’t. You seem to believe that I am that poor sod:
“And while I agree that sometimes insanity is the only rational response to an irrational set of circumstances, trying to rationalize that response after the fact is a little like boot-strap levitation.”
I’m not attempting to do that. I’m just explaining it as for all it’s irrationality, it is human. The one thing that can be rationalized on this basis though is the reason why so many republicans today refuse to condemn those who committed past violence. They can understand it, they can empathize with it and see the violence as an inherently human reaction to the treatment received. These people are apparently cheerleaders to many on these boards. That’s nonsense, utter nonsense.
On the subject of parties tolerating dissent, let’s take a look at the TUV membership application form, which you can find here.
Note the sections where you are asked to
(a) support the founding principles
(b) provide information on your past organizations.
It’s reasonably obvious that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to those principles, or who has membership of organizations not supported by the party leadership, would not be allowed to join.
Compare and contrast with the Alliance Party, or the SDLP membership form, or even Sinn Fein’s membership form. Also, check out the UUP form and the Conservative form. You’ll note that none of these parties ask the joiner to either explicitly uphold any party principles, or to provide any details about any bodies they were members of in the past. The DUP has a form something like that of the TUV, except they don’t ask about your past membership.
So it looks to me as if the TUV are less tolerant of members who do not toe the party line than any other parties registered in the UK.
CS
A well reasoned response. I can understand the logic within it. None of the points you raise would draw any great argument from me.
However
My emotions aren’t logical. Some unionists secretly support terrorism against republicans. I admit that to some extent I once did. Now i don’t, and perhaps like the reformed smoker, I am therefore even more hugely against such tacit support for terror.
Maybe you feel that I am wrong, but my honestly held position is that prior terrorist activity should (must) preclude anyone from holding high office. I firmly believe that SF/IRA continues to operate, under various new guises, and the McCartney/Quinn murders would bear that out. These leopards have not changed their spots.
That’s my view, and i won’t apologise for it. I voted “No” in 1998, and 12 years later I would still do so – maybe even work harder than i did then for a “No” vote. I don’t see that the benefits outweigh the moral cost.
MSG 2 Turgon. I stopped reading the telegraph a long time ago as I could see they were posing as neutral while being unionist with a small ‘u’.
They write their editorials as a ‘Northern Ireland’ paper, knowing full well that nearly half of the population doesn’t identify with the entity. Also, any Poll published here is suspect if one newspaper has a monopoly on publishing them. add their own spin on it as stated.
Lionel Hutz: “I’m not attempting to do that. I’m just explaining it as for all it’s irrationality, it is human.”
Really? Blowing up an old man and his grand-kids was “human?” Dropping a bomb in a pub was “human?”
Last I checked, killing women and children is *inhuman*, at least when it someone other than (“insert your preferred bastard here”) doing it.
Lionel Hutz: “The one thing that can be rationalized on this basis though is the reason why so many republicans today refuse to condemn those who committed past violence.”
No, it can’t, but it is the one thing that can be explained. They wear their victim status on their sleeves and anything that tarnishes that is verboten.
Lionel Hutz: “They can understand it, they can empathize with it and see the violence as an inherently human reaction to the treatment received.”
Until and unless they can come to grips with the deeds that were done in their name, this is pretty much a dead letter, Lionel. It is irrational and unreasonable, not to mention impractical, to expect to be permitted to demonize your adversary whilst pretending their own hands are clean. The Troubles weren’t about separating the sheep from the goats or even victory, it was a debate on which side had the better bastards, ultimately.
Lionel Hutz: “These people are apparently cheerleaders to many on these boards. That’s nonsense, utter nonsense. ”
What would you call them? They refuse to accept the ugly realities. They elect terrorists to high office. If not “cheerleaders,” what would you call them? Fan-boys? The obviously approve of what was done in their names, since they elect the terrorists to office. By the same token, they obviously don’t want or expect progress, given whom they choose to represent them.
The joy and the pain of a democracy is that the people always get the government they deserve. When the people decide they deserve better, they will choose accordingly, on both sides.
Blue Hammer: “Maybe you feel that I am wrong, but my honestly held position is that prior terrorist activity should (must) preclude anyone from holding high office. I firmly believe that SF/IRA continues to operate, under various new guises, and the McCartney/Quinn murders would bear that out. These leopards have not changed their spots.”
On the other hand, there is an alternate hypothesis.
The humorist Mark Twain once remarked that “The cat, having sat upon a hot stove lid, will not sit upon a hot stove lid again. But he won’t sit upon a cold stove lid, either.”
The McCartney and Quinn murders were not terrorism. One was an ego-killing, the other was, for lack of a better way to say it, more about business than politics. However, since the players and the tactics remain the same, you include them with past insults, elevating the petty and the personal to the political.
On the other hand, it would seem to be prima facie evidence that “they haven’t gone away, you know…”
My emotions aren’t logical. Some unionists secretly support terrorism against republicans. I admit that to some extent I once did.
Well, at least you’re honest about it, which is more than most unionists are, although most loyalist violence was directed at civilians rather than active republicans. Of course, most IRA violence was directed at civilians as well.
Now i don’t, and perhaps like the reformed smoker, I am therefore even more hugely against such tacit support for terror.
Well, you’re in a very small minority. I’ll believe otherwise when I hear any of the major unionist parties announcing their proposals to take tough action on paramilitarism.
Maybe you feel that I am wrong, but my honestly held position is that prior terrorist activity should (must) preclude anyone from holding high office.
Yeah, but that’s not democracy. Democracy is where you appoint leaders based on their votes, not on someone’s ideas about whether they should be “allowed” into office or not because they fit someone’s definition of what a terrorist is. Democracy is also about understanding that you have to go with the result of the election, even when it doesn’t go your way (something unionism doesn’t have a good history of doing).
There are plenty of unionists who meet some people’s definition of a terrorist, eg ex UDR or RIR members, full/part time reserve members, people who’ve been present at loyalist paramilitary gatherings, etc. Where do you stop ?
I firmly believe that SF/IRA continues to operate, under various new guises, and the McCartney/Quinn murders would bear that out. These leopards have not changed their spots.
Nah, the SF/IRA types who want to continue the violence have left the organization and have issued death threats against its current members. Note how former republicans like Harry Holland can be murdered practically in broad daylight by common criminals without any violent blowback. That wouldn’t have been the case had the IRA been around; they’d have strung those kids up.
That’s my view, and i won’t apologise for it. I voted “No” in 1998, and 12 years later I would still do so – maybe even work harder than i did then for a “No” vote. I don’t see that the benefits outweigh the moral cost.
The benefit is having a stable, peaceful country where people can go to work without getting shot or blown up.
CS: “Nah, the SF/IRA types who want to continue the violence have left the organization and have issued death threats against its current members. Note how former republicans like Harry Holland can be murdered practically in broad daylight by common criminals without any violent blowback. That wouldn’t have been the case had the IRA been around; they’d have strung those kids up.”
Perhaps, perhaps not.
The ones who have left PIRA are the ones who want to maintain the struggle. I am certain there are those who haven’t left, but are still operating those “businesses” which supported the struggle and which require the shedding of a little blood, now and again, to maintain.
Until someone has the stomach to roll back the logs, we can’t say with 100% assurance what sort of maggots are underneath, now can we?
Dread Cthulhu,
“Really? Blowing up an old man and his grand-kids was “human?” Dropping a bomb in a pub was “human?”” Thats a cheap shot saying those things to help make your arguement. Everyone on Slugger could quote some atrocity to benefit their arguement.
If that attitude had been taken over the years of the GFA, it would not have lasted long. The killings would probably be continuing and a lot of our people would have an early grave or have terrible injuries.
The “terrorists” in government are not killing anymore and if people take the time to watch and observe their words and deeds it is obvious we are in better times!
Dread,
One was an ego-killing, the other was, for lack of a better way to say it, more about business than politics.
I know what you’re trying to say. There is a wider picture in both cases; it was about the IRA (as you indicated in your final comment) making it clear to everyone that it was still active and wouldn’t brook anyone trying to interfere with its authority. Both incidents damaged Sinn Fein.
CS
I go with the outcome of elections and the referendum inasmuch as i have to. I don’t have to like it or sing its praises.
Democracy also allows me to work to undermine the outcome of those votes.
Putting conditions on who can stand for election is not unusual. It happens around the world. In the UK, the House of Commons Disqualification Act (1975), and in NI Schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 sets out a number of conditions for excluding people from the right to stand for election. My view is that it should include those with previous terrorist convictions.
NB : If NI at present is stable and peaceful then God help us.
Stable? We have toys out of the pram on an almost daily basis, with the threat that the institutions will be dragged down if one or other power-hungry group doesn’t get its way. An Education? what a stable position most 10-11yr olds are in at present thanks to our failed “Agreement”.
Peaceful? Tell that to the people of Ardoyne when terrorist bands named after a loyalist terrorist who killed an innocent man in Ardoyne are allowed to parade around Ardoyne with impunity.