Sunday, April 23, 2006
Hain: IRA is no longer an excuse…
Peter Hain seems to be officially putting Unionist concerns to one side regarding the IRA. That would seem to tick major item number one on Sinn Fein’s declared ‘shopping list’ from before last year’s election. Only two remain: buy in from the DUP; and the smooth transition of policing to local hands.
Mick Fealty @ 10:22 AM
Hain appears to be indistinguishable from a Sinn Feiner, other than his sporting of an amusing perma-tan. The current contrived machinations will end in failure by November. There can be no right time for admitting terrorists to Government, and the DUP will not roll over like the UUP under Trimble. When it comes to detangling itself from its mafia-roots, the IRA/Sinn Fein is a liitle bit pregnant, and that ay suit delusional nationalism but does not impress unionists.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 11:50 AMWe can see why Hain has had to postpone the elections. Whatever the DUPes do they will split unionism. Step forward, First Minister Adams!
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 12:21 PMLotus-eating on Slugger?
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 02:09 PM“There can be no right time for admitting terrorists to Government, and the DUP will not roll over like the UUP under Trimble.”
Is this the dying squeal of a lemming? Sounds so much like, “Never! Never! Never!”
Didn’t the DUP “roll over” in 2004?
I’m sure I’m not alone in finding your use of the word “admitting” patronising in the extreme. It smacks of Protestant ascendancy. If “buggery” was still illegal would it be reasonable for SF to state they’d not be “admitting” buggers in to government? Which fenian don’t you want about the place?
For political reasons we’re told to rely on IMC reports on terrorism instead of the judicial process. That may wash for short-term political reasons – but it is no replacement.
David - what’s your evidence of terrorism since 2004? Has that evidence been tested in court? Short of this, we’ve guilt by association. That’s a glass house the DUP shouldn’t be throwing stones in.
I didn’t vote SF – but their right of admission to government is given by the people, its laws and the agreements it made that were freely entered in to.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 02:12 PMThings are coming together nicely for Mr Hain,the cricket pitch vandal. The latest IMC report (published for the great unwashed very soon - once the spin has been set to “maximum RPM") will report on “progress” so happy days and please ignore the odd murder, robbery, assaults and general Lurgan-ish rowdy behaviour.
The sheep will bleat, the lambs will sings and good old Uncle Gerry will demand the right to enter in the kingdom.So “which fenian” do we not want about the place? Well the murderous, psychopathic ones would be a great start thanks.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 02:39 PMDV seems to be taking his hate from A Tangled Web over here again. A quick point for unionists re elections:
you vote for your own representatives and not the opposition.
This is what distinguishes these elections from the farce of the old Stormont government. Roll on 1st minister adams in stormont and sf in government in the south!
And all those poor old decent unionists who have lived nobly on this island for the last x00 years.
Gods frontiersmen.......my hole.Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 02:52 PMWouldn’t the best way to bring us all together in brotherly love be for First Minister Adams to run for the job of Irish President? There seems to be no legal or other reason why he shouldn’t hold the two jobs simultaneously.
It would be a symbol of the warm regard we all hold for each other. One that no democrat could possibly object to.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 03:05 PM“Wouldn’t the best way to bring us all together in brotherly love be for First Minister Adams to run for the job of Irish President? There seems to be no legal or other reason why he shouldn’t hold the two jobs simultaneously.
It would be a symbol of the warm regard we all hold for each other. One that no democrat could possibly object to. “
It would mean he would have to get the presidential slaute wherever he would go.
Including every time he stands up in stormont to make a statement...;-)
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 03:23 PMDV - “There can be no right time for admitting terrorists to Government”
Ah, but the British Government has a long record of admitting ‘terrorists’ into government. They’ve been doing it for years, centuries even. The United States, Cyprus, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ireland, etc, etc. Time the DUP sat up and took notice.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 05:45 PMDV writes : “there can be no right time for admitting terrorists to Government”
But David doesn’t actually believe that. Just ask him about the Irgun (who murdered British civil servants, and subsequently established the modern-day state of Israel), and watch him run away from the thread screaming about “moral relativism”.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 05:47 PMLoftholdingswood:
So “which fenian” do we not want about the place? Well the murderous, psychopathic ones would be a great start thanks.
I always found this to be a joke. Several opportunities existed since 1921 where unionists could share power with nationalists who were not murderers or psychopaths, but unionists spurned them all. They refused to let them into government in Stormont; they blocked them off in city councils around the country; they tore up the Sunningdale Agreement. At the time of Stormont the justification given for keeping the then-unarmed taigs out was that those who were “disloyal” could have no role in the running of the state - in other words, we had a system of theoretical apartheid. I know of no situation before the mid-1990s where unionists voluntarily shared power on any elected body with non-unionists.
On the other hand, unionists seem to be more than happy for unelected loyalists to play a political role here, and far from spurning them they actively work to represent their interests. When loyalists are being arrested, unionists lodge complaints with the Chief Constable and voice complaints on their behalf in the House of Commons. DUP MPs have been instrumental in taking forward the grievances of the father of the LVF leader Billy Wright (whilst simultaneously condemning enquiries into events such as Bloody Sunday), and have been actively pursuing problems relating to conditions at Maghaberry on behalf of UDA inmates, which could of course only be possible if those MPs were actually talking to the UDA about that matter.
So can we please have less of the lectures from unionism about peace, democracy and the evils of terrorism - you’re as up to your necks in it as the republicans were. Let’s work to get Northern Ireland back on it’s feet. Refusing to make Northern Ireland workable not only benefits republicans (who regard the state as an illegitimate failed entity), but it increases the probability of joint authority - it’s as simple as that.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 06:13 PMBravo Sir - as clear and incisive a post as has graced Slugger’s pages in months.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 07:23 PMI think that the problem is that there is a certain conflict between what the Decommissioning Body is saying and the IMC. The IMC’s source according to some media outlets was MI5. But remember, British intelligence got it wrong over WMD. How can we rely on the veracity of such claims now?
I am tired of the Unionists picking holes on whether the Provisional movement are doing this or that. If someone in the DUP were to rob a bank, would that make it a “DUP bank robbery”? I assume not. PIRA are damned if they do and if they don’t. A previous IMC report referred to an assault suspected of being by the Provos to deter someone thinking of joining the dissidents. Now would the Unionists prefer that such people are left to go ahead and join them and do whatever harm to life or limb? If he were to do so and then someone was harmed, no doubt the Unionists would use that as evidence of Provo violence or failure to stop this individual. Yet if the Provos try to stop such people they are also condemned. How can this circle be squared? The answer is that it can’t. The underlying issue here is whether the DUP are prepared under any circumstances to share power with SF.
I believe that whatever the bluster, they are not, but that the threat of Plan B may be what serves to force them into powersharing. But I am not sure. Paisley does not want to go down in history as a “Lundy”. Yet paradoxically by not entering powersharing his party may end up bringing a United Ireland closer. They too, are damned if they do and damned if they don’t!
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 07:49 PMWill Mr Hain be advising the same to Bertie Ahernia in the event of Fianna Foyle needing support in a coalition.
Bertie has been as defiant as big Ian in saying he would never share power with Sinn Fein.Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 08:41 PMSo can we please have less of the lectures from unionism about peace, democracy and the evils of terrorism - you’re as up to your necks in it as the republicans were.
Ach stop gurning.No ones lecturing you, they’re just setting out their demands.It’s called politics, piss or get off the pot.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 08:49 PMThanks for that slightly covered admission of unionist hypocrisy TAFKABO ;-)
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 08:52 PMAs if proving one side or another is guilty of double standards means anything.
So what?What does it change if Unionist politicians act like every other f*cking politician on the planet and show a lack of balance?
Unionists have said what they want to see, either meet their demands take yer ball and go play with someone else.
but for Christs sake stop all this bollox about unionists once stood on a platform with so and so, therefore they are exactly the same as yer man who planted that big bombIt’s all bollox, and the only people you will get to agree wth you are the ones that already agree with you.
Come crunch time, unionists will still make their minds up based upon the realities on the ground and political expediency.In the meantime, you can all let Hain stroke yer plonkers if that’s what floats yer boat, but don’t kid yourself it actualy means anything.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 08:58 PMTAFKABO - have you been drinking?
You seem to be saying - “Yes we’re a shower of hypocritical cunts but hey, who cares.”
Fine. Glad you’ve finally had the balls to admit it.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 11:15 PM“Will Mr Hain be advising the same to Bertie Ahernia in the event of Fianna Foyle needing support in a coalition.
Bertie has been as defiant as big Ian in saying he would never share power with Sinn Fein.”Dr.Who, SF doesn’t have 24% of the vote down here, and the Republic isn’t a society recently out of violent conflict over its constitutional status. You should compare like with like to a better degree methinks.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2006 @ 11:52 PMYou seem to be saying - “Yes we’re a shower of hypocritical cunts but hey, who cares.”
The point being that no matter what form of words I used, you would still see the same meaning.
And round and round and round we go.....Posted by on Apr 24, 2006 @ 12:04 AMTAFKABO - I’m surprised by your emotive responses – it’s not your normal level of debate. I can’t see your point. It seems most of the posts are saying “it’s time to share power – let’s get on with it”.
You write, “either meet their demands take yer ball and go play with someone else”. Mr. Vance believes, “There can be no right time for admitting terrorists to Government”.
What are you demanding?
The demand used to be “decommissioning” then it was photographs and pointing to criminality now is just realising nationalist fears that power-sharing is something unionism won’t accept. Raising this fear wins SF votes.
Instead of electioneering for SF while retreating between a rock and a hard place why not take a leaf out of the SF book. Unionism needs redefined, it needs to loose its sectarian baggage and join the 21st century by making it a concept people can value.
Is this too tough? How tough do you think it was for SF to drop Articles 2 & 3? Has republicanism not taken 2 steps forward after taking a step back?
It’s time unionism wised up. Bowler hats, sashes and anti-Catholicism shame many Protestants who’ll take no active role in politics and not even exercise their vote.
If unionism has something relevant to say then now is the time. Get in to government, prove your worth or the rest of the UK and Ireland will move on.
Yes, I suppose that does mean that the ball will be taken away to play with someone else.
Posted by on Apr 24, 2006 @ 02:26 AMAnyone arguing that the DUP has split unionism, doesn’t know the first thing about unionism. The unionist project is unrecognisable from the day that Trimble was ‘shafted’ by the IRA and de Chastelaine in October 2003. It may not be moving forwards, but it’s no longer in reverse gear.
For those who doubt that, read Gonzo’s latest post. So far as I can detect, there is no significant internal pressures inside the party and it is not especially vulnerable to any outside pressures, particularly from its unionist rivals. That puts them in a strong position to deal. But will they actually do it?
Ferghal McKinney did an interesting piece on UTV a few months back, in which he got all the main parties’ reps to talk about where they thought each of the other parties was likely to end up (since, as evidenced by this conversation, none of them seem in the least bit interested in talking about where they are planning to go themselves).
All of them said Stormont.
Despite the ‘spin’ of party stalwarts here, the truth is that this situation has been played beautifully for party advantage by both Sinn Fein and the DUP. The timing of a return will depend largely on two factors: the amount of pressure that the British can exert on all parties to commit; and the degree to which the IRA continues to play ball.
These are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they are always going to be susceptable to the actions of individual players - for instance we might otherwise have expected to have been back at work by now had it not been for the Northern job and the McCartney killing.
As we laid out some three years ago in A Long Peace?, it’s a classic ‘prisoner’s dilemma’.
The thing to look out for is signs of a classic (and positive) tit for tat pattern emerging separately from Sinn Fein and the DUP. Gonzo sees the DUP’s presentation in precisely this light.
BTW. Is there any chance we can drop the stereotyping of unionists in the abstract. People may have their reasons for doing so, but it lends a faintly ludicrous (’lotus eating’?) character to the discussion here.
Posted by on Apr 24, 2006 @ 03:58 AM“They refused to let them into government in Stormont; they blocked them off in city councils around the country; they tore up the Sunningdale Agreement. At the time of Stormont the justification given for keeping the then-unarmed taigs out was that those who were “disloyal” could have no role in the running of the state”
Comrade- you usually hit the button when you set off on a rant, but this is poor poor poor. The electoral system kept nationalists out of Government, cos they didn’t win elections. They didn’t use their opposition status effectively (or at all)or try to put any pressure on the rotten gerontocracy of the Unionist party.
There were no City Councils- only two Corporations, one of which was gerrymandered- though not as comprehensively as myth would have us believe- and that in the context where there were concerted attempts to detach local councils from NI in the 1920s. What is a government supposed to do in those circumstances? I bet if Kingstown Urban District Council had voted to secede from the Free State in 1922 the response would not have been to say “cheerio!” either.
And Sunningdale was first rejected by the electorate in the February general election- the Government ignored the Unionist mandate and paid the price.
Posted by on Apr 24, 2006 @ 08:28 AMSometimes we make posts that come across as being angry, or overly emotive, even though this was not our state when we wrote it.
It seems my responses have been interpreted thusly, and all I can do is say that it was not my intention to sound overly emotive.
far from it, I was simply pointing out that all this focus from others on what unionists need to do is absoloutely pointless, since all it does is perpetuate empty arguments.Frankly, I’m tired of being lectured on my sectarian baggage and I have no intention of apologising for being a unionist.
essentialy people are demnding that unionists top being unionists in order to advance the process.This isn’t going to happen, I’d have thought that was obvious by now.
essentialy the problem is that republicans have a real difficulty in coping with the fact that unionsts exist.It’s time unionism wised up. Bowler hats, sashes and anti-Catholicism shame many Protestants who’ll take no active role in politics and not even exercise their vote.
What does that mean exactly?
From where I’m standing, unionists did pretty well out of the last elections, so someones voting for them.
I refute the implicit suggestion that because I did vote, it means I have bought into anti catholicism.If unionism has something relevant to say then now is the time. Get in to government, prove your worth or the rest of the UK and Ireland will move on.
Why is now the time?
This is empty rhetoric, it means nothing.A deal will be done when a deal will be done, unionists will not be bumped nto a deal because someone says now is the time.
I humbly suggest you take a look at how slowly the republicans moved, and how long it has taken them to get to their present state and say that now it’s your turn to wait.Yes, I suppose that does mean that the ball will be taken away to play with someone else.
So go ahead.
We’ll see how far it gets.Posted by on Apr 24, 2006 @ 09:57 AMRubicon,
You want evidence of terrorism? Only too happy to help a fellow Sluggerite. I have three names for you, two of which were callously murdered...they might help refresh your memory of what the Provisional IRA scum are capable of post-2004;1)Bobby Tohill
2)Robert McCartney (Deceased)
3)Denis Donaldson (Deceased)Posted by on Apr 24, 2006 @ 10:41 AM
