Saturday, January 13, 2007
No smoke yet - Redux
Still no official word from the Sinn Féin Ard Chomhairle meeting in Dublin today, but given that they have confirmed that Gerry Adams has recommended that the Ard Fheis on policing should go ahead, and they’ve also given a date, 28th January, it’s unlikely to be rejected at this point. What will be more interesting to see is whether any motion to be proposed, and/or the support for the rule of law, will be conditional.. and whether the un-met conditions of Motion 395 are mentioned at any point.. Update Ignore the post title - Smoke spotted.. looks greyish to me
Here’s the interesting part of the official word in relation to the points I was raising
The Ard Chomhairle is proposing that an Extraordinary Ard Fheis adopts this motion and gives the Ard Chomhairle the responsibility and authority to fully implement all elements of it. The necessary context for this is the re-establishment of the political institutions and confirmation that policing and justice powers will be transferred to these institutions or when acceptable new partnership arrangements to implement the Good Friday Agreement are in place. [added emphasis]
It would be entirely wrong to allow the most negative elements of unionism a veto over republican and nationalist efforts to achieve the new beginning to policing promised in the Good Friday Agreement. Sinn Fein will not be paralysed by rejectionist elements of the DUP.
There are also those within the PSNI who are opposed to change. In this context, I have been made aware of incidents in parts of South Derry, Castlederg and County Armagh where local PSNI units are involved in trying to destabilise nationalist communities. This is entirely predictable and needs to be stopped.
As previously mentioned, the imposition of those powers without the support of the Assembly would be “a constitutional nonsense”.. even though that target date may be “a Government objective”..
Adds I’ve extended the emphasis to include the line that seems to cede responsibility for implementing the motion to the Ard Chomhairle
The Ard Chomhairle is proposing that an Extraordinary Ard Fheis adopts this motion and gives the Ard Chomhairle the responsibility and authority to fully implement all elements of it.
Pete Baker @ 07:09 PM
Maura,
I suspect that Gordon Brown was speaking to the voters of England as opposed to the North. He was, I think, deemphasizing his Scottishness.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:35 PMChris Gaskin.
I suppose we all got the message wrong did we Chris.LOL
maura, i agree with you, chris has given the impression, that he would resign if there was support for policing before there was a new beginning to policing. semantics chris semantics!!! whether you like it or not, the position you hold is now untenable, have the courage to stand over your convictions and do as you led people to believe-otherwise you are guilty of misleading all of us.
It just reinforces the points made earlier. Goodnight Chris.
Gerry,
Pete, has ruled on the issue this evening. Me and Henry agreed to drop it.Would you stop playing the man and get on with it.
Ingram
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:36 PMopps should be MI5 not MI4
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:37 PMchris gaskin, at the very least you are guilty of misleading readers
Not at all, I suggest some readers learn to read.
you have always given the impression if the sf leadership came out in favour of policing before a new beginning to policing you could not support it.
I have always said that if Sinn Féin sign up to a police service which I could not support then I would not lend that force any semblence of legitimacy by asking others to support or join in my stead.I said that if such a situtation arose my position would be untenable.
That situtation has yet to arise!
you like the dup have reneged on what you said you would do.
No I haven’t
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:42 PMJeremy,
He was speaking to the Fabian society. The invited audience was from all parts of the United Kingdom including Northern Ireland.
It was clear he was talking about the union meaning all parts of it. He did focus upon the scotland debate but he made a very firm committment to the Union, obviously a few others on this board picked up the subliminal message.
Ingram
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:43 PMCS,
I have said how the decisions will be made and delegated etc but not that they have already been made.
I have always believed that some sort of mechanism, should be put in place that ensured that those in the RUC with a ‘history’ could be rooted out of any future policing service. How far it is possible to gut the PSNI of these people will be what sways my vote.Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:43 PMHenry, do you think it would have mattered to bobby sands if he’d been convicted of that particular crime? wasn’t the whole point of targeting commercial premises to strain the british exchequer and the overall point was to make NI ungovernable? Now instead of making it ungovernable, they want to govern it themselves!!
qubol perhaps maura was speaking more of other ‘real republicans’ who before where classed as dissident or disaffected. Now of course it could be argued taht they are the only republicans since sf are travelling the road of constitutional nationalism.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:44 PMChris,
Like you I will need convinced. I look forward to the debate, AF and vote.
I look forward to the DUP committing to powersharing - they don’t need such things as internal discussion and votes, they just get told. Hopefully they are preparing to tell.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:50 PM“He was speaking to the Fabian society.”
you’d be very naive to think he was *only* speaking to the Fabian society, like a lot of what Gordon Brown does these days it was for the Daily Mail/Express (probably Sunday Mail it being a Saturday)
I remain to be convinced that Gordon Brown even cares about NI - I could see him palming off responsibility for NI negotiations to someone else and who better than his deputy Mr Hain with all that experience.Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:51 PMI’m probably the least qualified person to do this, but since Pete Baker did ask people to comment on the section of the SF statement he emphasized, here goes:
For myself I found the grammer in the “necessary context” sentence a bit confusing. I think the intended meaning was that there were two possible necessary contexts”, one being devolution with “confirmation that policing and justice powers will be transferred to these institutions”, and the other being some sort of Plan B. (I’m guessing that “partnership” in this context refers to a partnership between the British and Irish governments, but of course I could be wrong.)
Going back to the previous sentence in the SF statement, my reading is that the Ard Fheis is basically being asked to authorize the Ard Chomhairle to implement the motion, conditional on the Ard Chomhairle’s deciding that the “necessary context” has arrived. In other words, if the motion passes the Ard Fheis is now out of the picture, the Ard Chomhairle decides on its own when the time is right, and then the commitments in the motion go into effect at that time (but not before that time).
The other thing I noticed is that the plan A “necessary context” doesn’t involve a deadline or even a target date for devolution of policing and justice, but simply “confirmation that policing and justice powers will be transferred to these institutions” at some unspecific future time. However actual restoration of the assembly and executive is in fact a pre-condition; if that doesn’t happen (e.g., because the DUP refuses to cooperate) then presumably the AC can just sit on its hands indefinitely until and unless a real Plan B comes into effect.
I don’t have time right now to compare this formulation to the Motion 395 conditions, so I’ll defer to others regarding that.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:53 PMgerry
Henry, do you think it would have mattered to bobby sands if he’d been convicted of that particular crime?
He pleaded not guilty so I assume it did. But I’m not going to presume to speak for Bobby Sands in this debate and neither should anyone else. We all have enough to do to speak for ourselves.
Chris & Pat
God luck with your deliberations. You know my view. Like I have said before it will be for the PSNI to prove themselves to people on the ground even if a motion is passed.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:53 PMLike you I will need convinced
That is the position that I have got from most of the party members that I have spoken to that have not already decided no.
The next few weeks will provide a good (internal) debate for Republicans.
I too look forward to the Ard Fheis and vote
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:56 PMLike I have said before it will be for the PSNI to prove themselves to people on the ground even if a motion is passed.
Agreed Henry
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 11:58 PMqubol
To quote Brown
“It is time to acknowledge Great Britain for the success it has been and is: a model for the world of how nations can not only live side by side but are stronger together and weaker apart,” he adds. “Perhaps in the past we could get by with a Britishness that was assumed without being explicitly stated.
“But when our country is being challenged in Scotland, Wales and now England by secessionists, it is right to be explicit about what we, the British people, share in common and the patriotic vision for our country’s future.”
It is quite obvious that the union Brown is interested in can happily exclude the north. If he loses Scotland he loses the MPs he needs to be PM. If he loses the north he looses mainly Tory allies in the DUP.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:01 AMhenry re your post at 11.34 was to confirm that what i said was correct that bobby sands had been charged with burning down a store?
Your point was in telling me i was right?
which contributed what exactly?
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:01 AMQubol.
This as an extract from the BBC coverage of the speech:
The title of the piece is
UK’s existence is at risk - Brown
The chancellor told the Fabian Society that some groups were “playing fast and loose” with the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
And yesterday Mr Ahern said this.
I have already said that the Good Friday Agreement has settled the constitutional position.
It could be that Gordon Brown is sending a very clear message that the Union is not up for any argument. Bertie is saying something similar.
What is clear though is Brown is NO Tony Blair on Ireland. He has met with the DUP recently, I have a feeling Sinn Fein have not had the same invite.
Regards
Ingram
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:04 AMhenry, the point i was making re qubol and his carpet rite variety of republicans is that at one time a lot of republicans where of that variety. i wasn’t presuming to speak for anybody, i was merely inquiring what you thought.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:12 AMgerry
The fact that he was acquitted for lack of evidence was relevant I thought. Because some people here might assume he was guilty.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:15 AMWhat has Brown’s speech got to do with us
He is fighting for his right to be PM. He is frightened.
Nothing to do with us.
Any chance of staying on topic and ignoring the spook laid rabbit trails?
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:15 AMgerry
In any case I think there is a big difference between burning down anything before The Agreement and after it. The agreement is the agreed basis for resolving the national question and ensuring fairness pending that resolution.
I oppose violence against the agreement and that obviously includes burning down shops.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:20 AMMark.
Can you read the last little bit? northern Ireland.
The chancellor told the Fabian Society that some groups were “playing fast and loose” with the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Can you read what Bertie said:
I have already said that the Good Friday Agreement has settled the constitutional position.
That is relevant. The Odds On fav for the next British PM of the UK is going to be key, whether SF sign upto CJS or not.His recent meeting with the DUP along with this veiled appreciation of of the Union is very relevant.
The AF will take place and I have no doubt will ratify any Adams instruction. The crap about the local cummans taking a view and then voting in accordance with their wishes is bollox.
Why would you need the meeting at all if the vote is pre determined by the local constituency?
The impression being given is the local Cumman discuss this issue then take a local decision and then convey that to an assembled Ard Fheish?
LOL
Ingram
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:25 AMThe impression being given is the local Cumman discuss this issue then take a local decision and then convey that to an assembled Ard Fheish?
If this impression is being given, it is correct. Regardless of the ‘ding-dick’ trolling.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:35 AMhenry says ‘i oppose violence against the agreement’, strange choice of words henry. did you not oppose violence before the agreement, if so aren’t you being a little inconsistent. there are other republicans out there, carpet rite type, who see violence in the context of armed struggle, while I am not endorsing armed struggle, neither before or after the agreement, it has been a feature of republicanism for a very long time. I find it difficult to comprehend people like qubol who use words like carpet variety as some sort of put down in an argument against republlicans who do not agree with sf. many don’t see it as a put down, they see it as carrying on tradition.
to be for violence, tatical or otherwise before the agreement but not after it, and then use it to put down other republicans who see it as a method of liberation is a little hypocritical in my view.Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:49 AMsomeone earlier said that this thread had lost its way, too right, thi site in fact used be worth tuning into. now its Ingram / Gaskin ding dinging every day.
If someone sets up a blog faciliting genuine debate on the future of N Ireland politics i’ll see some of you there.
so long.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 01:04 AMThe comments about MI5 are totally irrelevent - we all know they are - and always have - ran ageants in Ireland, I often suspected Fine Gael to be a political wing.
The PSNI will always pass info to them, PSNI officers will always work with them, this is the reality.
To me the building at Hollywood? is just an insult, they did not need it but it is a way of impressing the natives who is really in charge.
SF and the SDLP are regretably tearing chunks out of this - the reality is they can do nothing - the English can do whatever they want.
As far as policing is concerned - I view the monitoring of the police to be the same as the voice of Nationalists in the old Stormont - the got up said their piece and the Unionists laughed at them and did what they wanted. All they did was give Stormont an air of credibilty to outsiders. Well done the SDLP and now the SF for lending credibility to the foreigners police.
This will be passed I feel - hopefully I am wrong
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 01:04 AM
