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
The statements by Bertie have confirmed my arguments at the time reardin the GFA- this is the death of the basis of Irish arguments against English interference in Irelands affairs, it asserted the right of English rule - it also labelled the men who fought against it since the Norman landings as wrong and indeed justified English actions over the centuries.
However I would say that our brother Scots in Alba will achieve independance before the English leave Ireland, thus undermining the current premise for occupying Ireland, the native Unionists will have to sort this out.
Interesting scenario if it occurs - what say you?
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 01:14 AMgerry
did you not oppose violence before the agreement
I did not oppose it but I am glad that people with vision managed to find a way out of it. I thought we were stuck with it and I’m glad we are not.
I think the agreement is fantastic. To see unionists and republicans sitting down together to work is the closest we have ever been to making the idea expressed in our flag a reality.
If it works in the north it will work in a united Ireland. To break the connection with England it is still necessary to unite Catholic Protestant and dissenter under the common name of Irishman.
It’s not easy and policing is a huge ask for many people. But I think it is a decision the nationalist people in the north are entitled to take and if they endorse it then that should be that. No more fire sales.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 01:14 AMHenry94,
I think the agreement is fantastic. To see unionists and republicans sitting down together to work is the closest we have ever been to making the idea expressed in our flag a reality.
Faultless, precise, and brilliant as ever.
Tops McGurk today in the SBP, who is far too gloomy.
You should write a weekly columnPosted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 01:33 AMGerry “I find it difficult to comprehend people like qubol”
getting off topic but…
Many of the dissident republicans I know aren’t so much motivated by Republican ideals but rather hatred and ignorance. That’s not how I see Republicanism and I also can’t see how their vision (or lack thereof) for the future will ever deliver a United Ireland.Ingram:
Check out the quote Henry pasted. Specifically
“our country is being challenged in Scotland, Wales and now England by secessionists”
Fact is none of us know Browns intentions or views towards NI but given the absence of NI from that line, his lack of opinion on the record about it - the most likely opinion is that he doesnt give a (well not totally true he’s probably mostly concerned about the cost of keeping NI). As Henry pointed out, where is the value of NI to Brown?Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 02:41 AM“I think the agreement is fantastic. To see unionists and republicans sitting down together to work is the closest we have ever been to making the idea expressed in our flag a reality.” (Henry94)
Yes, I agree. The Union Jack is symbolic of a union of people and regions.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 02:43 AMBruce101
So, does that mean you want to see unionists and republicans sitting down together to work? Good . That’s one anyway.
parcifal
You should write a weekly column
It would beat working for a living.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 08:42 AMQubol,
Henry 94 does not source is quote!
The BBC have taken a direct quote from his speech. It clearly mentions NI in the contect of the Union.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6258089.stm
Read it for yourself. I listened to whole speech and kept a copy.
In respect to MI5/ Brown.
Every PM has supported the work of the Security services. His main thrust this week and for some time has been how he is selling Britishness to the Union.
That is a departure from Blair.
Bertie also made the obvious point about the constitution.
It is food for thought.
Mark.
What is the purpose of the AF if the decision is pre determined? any debate taking place will not be able to influence the final vote?
The debate on the day is irelevant.
Ingram
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 09:42 AMMy source is Gordon Brown. I quoted him directly from this article he wrote in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/13/ngordon113.xml
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 09:56 AMThe BBC have taken a direct quote from his speech… I listened to whole speech and kept a copy.
There is a copy online.
http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/press_office/news_latest_all.asp?pressid=520
No mention of NI that I can see.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 10:01 AMHe mentions England Scotland and Wales but the north doesn’t come up. It is not relevant to his political calculation therefore not relevant to his thinking. His attitude is the same as the majority of British people. They would be happy to see the back of it.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 10:02 AMBrown may be a passionate Unionist when it comes to the north. We dont know, certainly no evidence for it.
His comments cant be interpreted without considering the Scottish elections in May, the increased support for the Scottish independence (in Scotland and England) and the fact that the English electorate are beginning to complain about a Scottish Raj ( as contemptible a complaint that is)Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 10:50 AMI would not read too much into Gordon Brown’s latest output. He is trying to manage his image to encourage people to think of him as British, rather than Scottish, in an effort to try to make himself more appealing as future PM. Remember Thatcher’s “British as Finchley” comments, yet she was the one who signed the Anglo Irish Agreement, and it was her successor government who quietly began background discussions with the IRA about ending violence. Brown is certainly no Mrs T.
The comments from republicans here do not sound too promising. You guys are saying that there has to be evidence on the ground before you can sign up to policing. Hell, that’s the DUP’s line about powersharing. We all know that it’s a get-out. How can there be empirical evidence will show that the police are now acceptable ?
I’m reminded of that eejit Simpson listing all kinds of requirements knowing full well that they were impossible. All it takes is one stone-throwing incident in Ardoyne. If the police back off, people will say they did not do their job. If the police confront the wee scumbags and break a few heads in the process, people will say that they used heavy handed tactics and have not changed since the old days. How can anyone assume that SF supporters are being genuine here ?
I’ve a minor personal incident to relate regarding this type of thing just last night. My house is next to a park area. Wee scumbags like to race their dangerous and illegal mini-motors/scramblers by day, and turn up and light fires in the park in the evening. Well, last night they showed up and started dismantling my fence to add it to a fire they’d lit right on the street. Naturally I had to call the cops; when they arrived the brats all ran into the (unlit and very dark) park and began pelting them. The cop who came in to take the statement had to run a gauntlet to get into my house, and while she was here the house was subjected to a sustained brick and bottle attack, which actually prevented the officer from leaving. In the end they had to back the damn landrover up to my front door and get the officer to quickly dash in during a lull. After the whole incident I realized that the kids had deliberately lit the fire in order to get an opportunity to brick the cops and the fire brigade.
The point here is that if this stuff had happened elsewhere, such as in the USA, there would have been hospitalized or possibly dead kids - either because the householder would have held a legally-held weapon, or because the cops would have opened fire. Instead the cops here are effectively on the run from the anti-social element. The thing is, if the cops had been able to use an appropriate level of force, possibly involving tear gas, the incident would have been over - but there would have been a news item and complaints from the usual people about heavy handed tactics.
I hope that the people who are saying that they are open minded but expect to see evidence of reformed policing on the ground, are prepared to accept the possibility that during the course of law enforcements there are likely to be people from nationalist and republican neighbourhoods on the wrong side of the law and as such on the receiving end of police attention.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 11:47 AMThe motion looks good but adding the conditions was foolish.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 11:48 AM“I think the agreement is fantastic. To see unionists and republicans sitting down together to work is the closest we have ever been to making the idea expressed in our flag a reality.”
That Henry can write such drivel is bad enough, but that members of SF, a party which claimed the legacy of James Connolly can support it just shows how far to the right that organization has moved. Any one can sit down with protestants and many do on a regular bases. The point is when you are engaged in politics it is who and what they represent that is the issue.
What Henry is cheer leading is working in tandem with some of the most right wing political b i g g o t s in the UK. Now if the shinners are doing this out of necessity, that is an argument, but to rejoice in doing this is wicked from my political standpoint; and makes no sense politically.
The reason Connolly told his Citizen army men and women to keep their arms handy, even if the Rising succeeds, is as pertinent today as back then. For what he was telling them, win or lose the struggle continous until the democratic socialist republic. [whether by armed struggle or politics alone was for the future]
The members of the Unionists parties are the enemies of Irish republicanism and thus the mass of irish working class people, and not because of their Protestantism, but because of their reactionary politics,
catch yourself on boys before it is to late.Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:29 PMRunciter.
Your link does not cover the thirty three minutes of question and answer session.
The BBC took the quote which are recorded below.It is reproduced upon their site(BBC).
quoteThe identity of the United Kingdom is threatened by an “opportunist group of nationalists”, Gordon Brown has warned.
The chancellor told the Fabian Society that some groups were “playing fast and loose” with the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. unquote.
I understand that quote came from a question posed.
Henry 94.
QuoteHe mentions England Scotland and Wales but the north doesn’t come up. It is not relevant to his political calculation therefore not relevant to his thinking. His attitude is the same as the majority of British people. They would be happy to see the back of it.
As you can see from the BBC he does mention the North, in any event he mentions the UK and the Union.
If you honestly believe the UK have no interest in the North and want to disengage you clearly do not understand HMG.the public is another matter altogether from HMG.
Gordon Brown has only shown an interest in preserving the Union NOT dismantling it. The evidence to date regarding Gordon Brown is very clear.
Unless you can show evidence to show otherwise.
HMG are showing no signs of disengaging from the North. In fact they are preparing to spend fortunes on new bases like the MI5 New Headquarters.That is a good indicator. Can you show one indicator to show otherwise?
Bertie Ahern made the constitutional point very, very clear on Friday.That is why Sinn Fein argreed to the removal of Articles 2& 3 be removed from the Irish constitution.It is sorted for a very long time.
Henry94. One thing is for certain. You will never see it in your life time.
Regards
Ingram
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:42 PMIngram
Were you possibly Mooretwin in a another life??
Your annoying posts seem to suggest...oh, never mind!
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:52 PMFear and loathing
You guys are saying that there has to be evidence on the ground before you can sign up to policing.
Not that. Sinn Fein can sign up to policing at the Ard Fheis and they can encourage people to join the police an co-operate with the police but how that works out on the ground depends as much on the police as it does on republicans. For example if a bike is stolen and someone goes to report it they don’t expect to be asked about political activity in the area. Either they are a civic police service or they are a political police force.
That will be defined by their day to day dealings with people.
mickhall
Even in a united Ireland there will be a very small vote for socialism. Do you think people should hang on to their weapons in that context?
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 12:57 PMFor example if a bike is stolen and someone goes to report it they don’t expect to be asked about political activity in the area. Either they are a civic police service or they are a political police force.
I agree with you that questioning along those lines would be unacceptable.
However, people must be encouraged to report activity on the paramilitaries to the police. I am thinking of dissident republicans.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 01:17 PMFear & Loathing
“However, people must be encouraged to report activity on the paramilitaries to the police. I am thinking of dissident republicans.”
Do unionist politicians demand that their loyalist para counterparts report on their own criminal activity?
Then why should this be a tested condition put upon Sinn Fein?
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 02:38 PMDo unionist politicians demand that their loyalist para counterparts report on their own criminal activity?
No, but they should do.
Where do you stand on the issue ?
Then why should this be a tested condition put upon Sinn Fein?
I didn’t advocate that it should be a testable (pre)condition.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 02:58 PMIngram
The BBC have taken a direct quote from his speech… I listened to whole speech and kept a copy… I understand that quote came from a question posed… in any event he mentions the UK and the Union.
Mm.
Perhaps you could transcribe the bit where he mentions NI from your ‘copy’.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 03:08 PMSinn Fein completely outwitted by the DUP again…
they played political chicken with a party that has no fear because it tells no lies and the Sinn Fixers chickened out, they tried to go eyeball to eyeball with the DUP but started blinking in no time.I’m sure the protestant people of Northern Ireland must be kicking themselves why they ever bothered with the UUP when they see how easily Sinn Fix can be “Bitch-slapped” by the DUP
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 03:14 PMFear & Loathing
“Where do you stand on the issue?”
I believe that supporting the PSNI and all that it entails, should be sufficient for everyone involved. Part of Sinn Fein support DOES emphasize the reporting of criminal activities by nationalist/republican supporters. This is all that can be asked of any democratic party, including the DUP.
The DUP has NO right to set pre-conditions on an equally qualified democratic party.
“The DUP’s Jeffrey Donaldson also welcomed the move but said his party would need to see support by Sinn Fein translated into action on the ground.”
There lies the conditional process. What gives the DUP the right to erect certain conditions?
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 03:19 PMF & L
We are in danger of tying ourselves up in knots on the detail. Support for the police means that people can go to them but it does not oblige them to do anything any more than the ordinary citizen of any country has such an obligation.
You won’t get a uniform response but what you might get is normality and that should be the objective.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 03:21 PMHenry
“Support for the police means that people can go to them but it does not oblige them to do anything any more than the ordinary citizen of any country has such an obligation.”
But you know that there will be “cherry-picked” conditions set upon Sinn Fein once the support is approved.
Sinn Fein seemingly ignores this with their policing support, but it will have to be addressed sooner or later.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 03:29 PM
