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
Harris
I have no doubt elements in unionism will try to raise exceptional conditions. Let’s smoke them out and expose them for what they are. But you can’t refuse to do something reasonable for fear of being asked to do something unreasonable later.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 03:32 PMI 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.
I asked where you stood on the matter yourself. Should people report paramilitary activity to the PSNI, or not ?
I expect political parties to uphold the rule of law, and also hold the police accountable. That means that they should urge their supporters to report crime to the police, condemn those who try to interfere unlawfully in the work of the police, and also ensure that the police do their jobs correctly. However, I do not expect parties to give unqualified support to the police in every circumstance. The police require community support but they should not get a free ride. To require that they receive unqualified support would mean that we would be in a police state.
My opinion is that the DUP have no business placing preconditions, and powersharing government should be established immediately. I’m not sure why you’re countering my questions with missives on the DUP’s position. I hope you’re not assuming that just because I think SF should support the rule of law means I’m a DUPper.
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.
I completely agree.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 04:04 PMFear & Loathing
“I asked where you stood on the matter yourself. Should people report paramilitary activity to the PSNI, or not?”
I believe they should, if they feel compelled to do so. However it should not be a condition placed upon a democratically elected party that, their constituents/supporters do so before they can be considered fit for govt.
And no, I don’t assume you to be a DUPer because of your position.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 04:44 PMMore weasel words from the SF stalinist leaders.
Posted by on Jan 14, 2007 @ 10:16 PMIngram,
For a nationalist you have an extremely blinkered view of what’s been going on throughout the ten years.You can’t stop criticising Republicans for negotiating their positions in some kind of crazy chocalate stirring sense that compromise must be based upon a form of direct current.The peace process works on AC current and always has done.
If articles 2 and 3 where cheques that you consider money well what are the Irish passports popping up all over the north?I follow you and your logic into the valley.GoldPosted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 08:13 PM
