Sunday, June 29, 2008
“no mandate whatsoever..”
Northern Ireland deputy First Minister, and MP for Mid Ulster, Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness, was on the Politics Show today repeating the argument that dissenting republican paramilitary groups should stop their activities because they have “little or no support in the community” and “no mandate whatsoever”. Although, leaving aside the moral vacuity of his position, the recent CJINI report on community restorative justice schemes might suggest otherwise for some communities.. Martin McGuinness’ comments came ahead of his appearance at a parade in Londonderry to commemorate Provisional IRA members from the city who had died during their campaign of violence. The annual parade was held the day after the funeral of Emmett Shiels, who was murdered in the city on Tuesday morning - both of the men who had presented themselves to the police have now been released without charge. RTÉ tells us that Martin McGuinness also used the occasion to claim that “he had joined the paramilitary group [the IRA] in his youth and said it was then supported by the people.” [Must have missed that referendum.. - Ed]. Here’s the clip from the Politics Show, which also contains his comments on the outcome of the Robert McCartney murder trial. Adds UTV have the quote
Mr McGuinness told supporters at the republican commemoration: “When I joined the IRA in this city it was an army of the people - sustained by the people - supported by the people - and answerable to the people.”
And armed with the “people’s guns”, no doubt..
Pete Baker @ 09:36 PM
‘During their campaign of violence’....sounds like a burst of Editorial comment from the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ of ‘Newsletter’ during the worst of the troubles. I wonder you do not simply place a picture of an Ulster Flag and a Union Jack flying over a bonfire on this site and get it all over with.
Journalistic objectivity how are ye???
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 05:25 AM“they have “little or no support in the community” and “no mandate whatsoever”. Although, leaving aside the moral vacuity of his position, the recent CJINI report on community restorative justice schemes might suggest otherwise for some communities..”
Pete, can you please explain this part of your, errrm, analysis? How does the CJINI report suggest that for some communities it is is not true that they have “little or no support” and “no mandate whatsoever”, the reference in the link to the small numbers of disaffected youth being attracted to them notwithstanding?
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 07:14 AMPadraig,
I don’t get it. The writer describes the IRA’s shooting and bombing as a “campaign of violence”, and therefore the entire site must be Orange propaganda ? Bizarre.
If it wasn’t a campaign of violence then what was it ?
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 07:36 AMIf dissident republicans succeeded in increasing their support in the community from “little or no support” to, say, “some support”, and went from “no mandate whatsoever” to having a mandate (say, getting a few councillors elected) would their violence then achieve the approval of Martin McGuinness?
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 08:23 AMWillows,
mandates are a very common means of establishing moral and political justification for starting an insurrection or a war. Arguably, until the GFA and the referendums on both sides of the border there was no moral authority for British rule in non iron. In the absence of that, the IRA could claim moral justification for resisting British rule. Of course most Unionists will disagree about the later point and would not accept that partition was against the wishes of the Irish people - but like it or not - the boy Marty does have an arguable point.
This view was implicitly accepted by the British and Irish governements in reaching the constitutional/political accomodation in the GFA and short of the British reverting back to their bad old ways of dealing with Irish affairs no mandate for further violence can reasonably be argued on behalf of the Irish people.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 08:58 AMMcGuinness is nothing but an unrepentant bloodstained terrorist.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 09:35 AMSammy McNally
I’m afraid that doesn’t answer my question.
What level of support and/or mandate would mean that McGuinness and the Provos would cease to disapprove of dissident “republican” terrorism?
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 09:48 AMNote to Ed: The ‘referendum’ you ‘missed’ was the same as the ‘referendum’ that was held on the subject of partitioning the country I expect.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 09:52 AMIs that the one that unionists won in 1918? (And at every election since?)
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 10:21 AMMcGuinness is nothing but an unrepentant bloodstained terrorist.
Posted by Ulsters my homeland on Jun 30, 2008 @ 10:35 AM
And he’s our dFM! Aint democracy great. To know how much that annoys you and your backwoodsmen friends gives me much pleasure.
By the way let us not forget Carson was also a ‘terrorist’ so get off your moral high horse.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 10:22 AMMcGuinness is now nothing more than a latter day Broy Harrier.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 10:25 AMWillows,
The simple answer in my opinion is - Never.
For a more detailed answer see below.
As mentioned above the GFA provided for an expression of self determination ( a key republican insurgency demand) of the Irish people. They voted for peace.When the Irish people and/or SF no longer favour peace (this might presumably occur if the British reneged on the GFA/STA ) this would not therfore be a ‘dissident’ republican campaign but rather a ‘mainstream’ republican one.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 10:36 AMEnlighten me Willow. Can you post a link to information on this All-Ireland referendum on partition in 1918? I know of the general election, with Sinn Fein’s landslide victory. I am genuinely interested in this All-Ireland referendum that I never knew took place in 1918.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 11:01 AMWest Belfast
By the way let us not forget Carson was also a ‘terrorist’ so get off your moral high horse.
When did Carson engage in terrorism?
Sammy McNally
The simple answer in my opinion is - Never.
Yes, but what about in McGuinness’s and the Provos’ opinions? The implication from his statement is that if support for the dissidents reaches a certain threshold, then the grounds for McGuinness’s and the Provos’ disapproval is removed.
Mayoman
Enlighten me Willow. Can you post a link to information on this All-Ireland referendum on partition in 1918?
At the 1918 general election, Unionist candidates stood for election on the platform of the 1912 Covenant, which involved exclusion of Ulster from Home Rule: effectively a referendum. They won a majority in Ulster. You should be able to get details from a quick Google search.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 11:14 AM1918 election (Irish seats)
Sinn Fein 73
Unionist 22
Irish Parliamentary (Home Rulers) 6
Labour Unionist 3
Independent Unionist 1Willowfield - is this when the unionists “won”? That’s interesting definition of winning. Maybe it can be defined as “getting your own way by threatening violence”. Oh now wait, I forgot, only those nasty republicans can be accused of that.
What happens in Larne in 1914 again?
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 11:59 AMAh I see Willow. Leaving aside the opposite valid interpretation that, if we are dealing with 1918 as a referendum, then the country should a united 32 county republic now, I find it strange that you use just a portion of the country’s results to justify an action of relevance to the whole natiion.
Just to point out how ridiculous this is, lets look at the latest referendum in th RoI. Under your logic, the following parts of Ireland will now ADOPT the Lisbon treaty, and the rest won;t!!
Clare, Dublin North, Dublin North Central, Dublin South, Meath East,........ (you get my point!)
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 12:08 PMWillows,
that is your interpetation of Marty’s position - I think that if he were asked this question my interepetation of the SF position - i.e. violence will never be justified without a reversal of the GFA would be closer to his answer.
For political reasons he is however unlikely to speculate on when/if there could be a return to ‘war’ as it would be used by those determined to undermine SFs position.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 12:14 PMUlsterManIrelandFan
Willowfield - is this when the unionists “won”?
Er, you’ve shown the result for the whole of Ireland. You need to look at the for Ulster, which was the subject of the unionist proposal.
Mayoman
Ah I see Willow. Leaving aside the opposite valid interpretation that, if we are dealing with 1918 as a referendum, then the country should a united 32 county republic now, I find it strange that you use just a portion of the country’s results to justify an action of relevance to the whole natiion.
Irish nationalists do just that in relation to the British Isles/UK as was.
Only the people residing in a territory have the right to self-determination.
Just to point out how ridiculous this is, lets look at the latest referendum in th RoI. Under your logic, the following parts of Ireland will now ADOPT the Lisbon treaty, and the rest won;t!!
I’m unaware of any people in the Republic arguing for self-determination for any of the constituencies listed.
Sammy McNally
that is your interpetation of Marty’s position
It is the clear implication of what he said.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 12:35 PMWillowfield, if you look at the results for all of the 9 counties of Ulster (and at that point in time no-one considered Ulster to be only 6 counties), the Unionists lost that referendum.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 12:41 PMWillows,
perhaps it’s that I (as a Nationalist) take a positive view of what he said and you as a (Unionist?) take a negative one - but both iterpetations are possible from his statement.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 12:42 PMWillowfield,
The territory you refer to didn’t exist in 1918. Also, Carson (a Dublin man) the leader of unionism was against the partition of Ireland.
Presumably you would support the SNP bringing Scotland out of the UK now that they are in the majority there.Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 12:44 PMk
Willowfield, if you look at the results for all of the 9 counties of Ulster (and at that point in time no-one considered Ulster to be only 6 counties), the Unionists lost that referendum.
No they didn’t.
But, in any case, it was only 6 counties which formed NI.
Sammy McNally
perhaps it’s that I (as a Nationalist) take a positive view of what he said and you as a (Unionist?) take a negative one - but both iterpetations are possible from his statement.
Indeed.
UlsterManIrelandFan
The territory you refer to didn’t exist in 1918.
Ulster didn’t exist in 1918? You’re just being very, very silly now.
Also, Carson (a Dublin man) the leader of unionism was against the partition of Ireland.
Indeed he was, but sought it when it became clear that it was unavoidable if at least part of Ireland was to be spared from Home Rule.
Presumably you would support the SNP bringing Scotland out of the UK now that they are in the majority there.
The SNP isn’t in the majority in Scotland.
No offence, but you appear to be quite an ignorant person!
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 12:47 PMk
Willowfield, if you look at the results for all of the 9 counties of Ulster (and at that point in time no-one considered Ulster to be only 6 counties), the Unionists lost that referendum.
No they didn’t.
But, in any case, it was only 6 counties which formed NI.
Exactly! There were clearly a majority of the people of Ulster against the partition of Ireland. Look at the numbers! But Unionists simply changed the definition of Ulster to 6 counties, christened it ‘Northern Ireland’ and claimed victory! Democracy at its finest!
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 12:59 PMk
Exactly! There were clearly a majority of the people of Ulster against the partition of Ireland.
I already told that there wasn’t. Please read what I say before responding.
But Unionists simply changed the definition of Ulster to 6 counties, christened it ‘Northern Ireland’ and claimed victory! Democracy at its fines
Six counties was much fairer than nine, given that the three counties had nationalist majorities.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 01:01 PMC’mon Willowfield,
Ulster existed in 1918 and still does, but not the artificial gerry-mandered structure that you’re talking about.
The SNP are in government in Scotland but I take the point that they don’t have an overall majority. However, on the substantive issue - presumably you would support the SNP’s moves to take Scotland outside the UK if they won an overall majority? This is a scenario that looks more likely by the day, given Labour’s problems there.
btw, insults don’t add anything to your argumentPosted by on Jun 30, 2008 @ 01:05 PM
