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
There have been many debates on this board about this subject.The snap shot you provided was not in an exchange with me
That is the response that I have always given weather in debate with people like Brenda or spooks like you.
Feel free to find a different quote to support your absurd claim.
The old maxim of “He who asserts must prove” still stands.
Until then you are still a liar!
Dont be embarrassed mate, you too can now join a British police force.
Yet more bullshit from the babbling brook that is Marty the spook!
So you now agree Adams was/is in the IRA?
I am not playing that game with you Ingram. You said I believed he wasn’t, find me a quote for that claim.
Would you consider yourself a sceptic on this issue at the moment? I use the word sceptic advisedly
I have yet to be convinced, like most party members.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:17 PMHenry 94.
This was the question I posed to YOU.
In clear terms the last time an Adams sponsored motion was defeated at this renowned democratic insitution?
This was your answer.
As far as I remember Gerry Adams was on the losing side in the abstention debate in 1985. He didn’t walk out in a huff either. He stayed and argued and won the next year.
This was then Chris Gaskins post a short time later.
<em>could you tell us when was the last time Adams was beaten at a vote at the Ard Fheish?<?em>
What are you on about!
When was the last time that Gerry had a motion in at an Ard Fheis?
Individuals don’t put in motions at an Ard Fheis.
However the Ard Chomhairle have been beaten on many occassions at an Ard Fheis.
Henry 94.
You can see from the above exchange. I asked you a direct question.My understanding of the exchange was based upon the material you wrote. It certainly did not involve me lying. I would ask you to withdraw that slur please.
You answered in a direct way.I recorded that exchange.
Chris then posted subsequently.
Ding Ding
Ingram
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:25 PMChris,
So you now agree Adams was/is in the IRA?
quote"I am not playing that game with you Ingram. You said I believed he wasn’t, find me a quote for that claim.
Very clear though.I will dig out the exchange.
Take a look at your own site Chris. Dubliner makes a similar point about you not accepting policing whilst MI5 was involved.But then again you never mentioned the word CIVIC. LOL
We all know mate.
Ding Ding
Martin
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:28 PMChris
Thats fair enough, the question then is how much have the top table of SF engaged with the membership up until this moment?
Obviously some debate has occurred but I’m trying to understand to what extent the leadership (who I’m guessing are less needing to be convinced since They’ve voted to go to an 0AF) have yet to really weigh in with their persusion.
In any political party, when it comes to set pieces such as a conference vote on a critical issue, the leadership can really go to work and turn things round more in their favour. On the other hand if they’ve already been heavily engaged in persusasion with the members and it isn’t maybe pulling the sceptics round then I’m guessing it may need something from outside the organisation (e.g. from the UK government or less likely, the DUP) to help push their case to the membership. There’s a couple of weeks worth of time for something along those lines to occur though I’m not sure they are going to get much.
I’m guessing now that this decision has been taken that the DUP will sit back and say they are going to leave it to SF to go through their processes and just continue the warm and cold words in the media. the UK government I thought would be giving more when the pressure was on but I’m surprised by how little they have conceded in the post ST AA talks.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:29 PMheck,
local cumann members decide the delegates (normally two) and then mandate the delegates to vote after the cumann itself has voted. Thus if there is widespread dissension it will be reprsented at the AF.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:32 PMPat McLarnon
If I read this right, say 51% of a cumann decided to vote in favour of the motion, their two delegates would go forward to the AF and vote in favour despite that 49% opposed?
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:36 PMHenry94.
In summary.
I asked you this question.
quote"In clear terms the last time an Adams sponsored motion was defeated at this renowned democratic insitution?
Comment: The operative word in my post was LAST TIME.
your response was this:
As far as I remember Gerry Adams was on the losing side in the abstention debate in 1985. He didn’t walk out in a huff either. He stayed and argued and won the next year.
Comment.
I clearly asked you the last time he had been defeated at the AF.
This was your comment today.You state that certainly YOU DID NOT SAY OR AGREE IT WAS THE LAST OR ONLY TIME. It is recorded below,
That was the extent of my involvement. I certainly did not say or agree it was the last or only time Adams was on the losing side. I simply gave an example I remembered.
You then go on to say that I was a liar to represent our exchange in a false way.
I look forward to an early apology.
Martin
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:42 PMIngram
This statement is a lie
The last vote lost by Adams was abstensionism? Henry 94 agreed.
I agreed to nothing of the sort. You lied.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:42 PMIngram
Before I brought up the abstention vote you hadn’t mentioned it. You point was that he had never lost so in fact it is two lies. One that it was your point that he lost that vote (in fact it was mine) and second that I agreed stated or otherwise indicated it was the last time.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:49 PMHenry 94.
That was based upon this exchange.
Henry In clear terms the last time an Adams sponsored motion was defeated at this renowned democratic insitution?
You answered.
As far as I remember Gerry Adams was on the losing side in the abstention debate in 1985. He didn’t walk out in a huff either. He stayed and argued and won the next year.
Today you posted this attack upon me.
That’s a lie and a childish one. You claimed he had never lost a motion and I gave you an example to show you were wrong. End of story.
Comment.
Your comment about it being a childish comment is not borne from our exchange. I never claimed Adams HAD NEVER LOST AN EXCHANGE. I asked you the last time he had lost one.Big difference from what you wrote tonight.
It is clear Henry you have acted with haste.Please just say sorry.
Ingram
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:49 PMYet again Ingram is revealed as the liar he always was.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:52 PMYokel,
aye I reckon Brown is quite the dour pro-union type; whereas Blair is more united ireland friendly.
Tony’s hols in Donegal as a boy, 1972 ish plus he’s married to a catholic ( also rumour has it Blair will become a catholic after his premiership is over ... hate to put it down to religion as I hate sectarianism.. but you know its a factor )
Brown will give SF short shrift IMHO, so if power-sharing can be up and running in March, all the better.. republicans can get on with Stormont and the overall project of a united ireland, without interference and are free to do so, with Brown
( to use a neat jewish phrase _, Mr Brown can keep his big schnoz ( nose ) out of it :-)Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:54 PMChris,
Care to show me were I lied in that exchange?
In clear terms the last time an Adams sponsored motion was defeated at this renowned democratic insitution?
Henry 94 wrote As far as I remember Gerry Adams was on the losing side in the abstention debate in 1985. He didn’t walk out in a huff either. He stayed and argued and won the next year.
My comment tonight was based upon the information supplied by Henry94.
My request was very clear. LAST TIME
Ding Ding
Ingram.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:55 PMIf you are right Parcifal, that means the P&J;issue will happen under Gordon’s watch.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 09:58 PMCare to show me were I lied in that exchange?
You have yet to tell the truth on this thread
1. You lied about Henry.
2. You lied about the last time Gerry lost a motion at an Ard Fheis.
3. You lied about my position on policing.
4. You lied about my view of Gerry Adams and his membership or lack of in the IRA.Do keep up!
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 10:02 PMParcifal,
Once Sinn Fein sign upto CJS they are light years away from a United Ireland.
Gordon Brown made the point today within his speech in London how important the union was,he is NO Tony Blair.That is one reason why it is now or not under the Tories or Gordon Brown.
Sinn Fein are going for a very very long ride on the Little Red London Bus.
Ding Ding
Martin
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 10:07 PMIngram
The lies keep coming
Henry In clear terms the last time an Adams sponsored motion was defeated at this renowned democratic institution?
Nowhere in the original thread does the above appear. (lie 3)
You answered.(lie 4)
I did not. If I was answering a question of yours I would have put you name in my post. My contribution did not follow from any of yours directly but came later in the thread as a general comment clearly stated to be based on memory and clearly as an example.
As far as I remember Gerry Adams was on the losing side in the abstention debate in 1985. He didn’t walk out in a huff either. He stayed and argued and won the next year.
From this you concocted a claim that you were the one who brought up the abstention motion (lie 1) and claimed I agreed with you that it was the last defeat for Adams (lie 2)
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 10:08 PMYokel
yes, straight majority.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 10:12 PMGuys
Enough with the accusations and counter-accusations about what was or was not said in a previous conversation.
Could you focus on the actual topic?
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 10:13 PMThe whole debate on slugger about Sinn Fein accepting policing is being ruined by a ‘some or one ‘ poster(s).
I thought the whole idea was to get various points of view and discuss online.
Its difficult for me not to ‘play the man’ in this comment, but is it possible for the comments of ‘some’ to be relevant to the discussion.
It really is quite boring and puts me off bothering to read topics that are being blighted by particular poster(s)who offer nothing to the discussion.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 10:14 PMPlaying to the gallery.
Figures.
By the way Stalin you still sporting a moustache?
Of course. Moustaches are symbols of our collective proletarian struggle, except on women of course.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 10:14 PMChris,
Dont be silly.
1. You lied about Henry.comment Henry supplied the info check above links.
2. You lied about the last time Gerry lost a motion at an Ard Fheis.comment That was based upon what me and Henry discussed. You can of course tell us when an ADAMS inspired motion was defeated. Yoy have not yet.
3. You lied about my position on policing. Not at all . You have been clear on this board and on your own that you would resign if MI5 was not removed from policing. You now appear able to support policing. Dubliner made that point yesterday. Did he not?OR what is your current position on policing?
4. You lied about my view of Gerry Adams and his membership or lack of in the IRA.Not lied. You are even more confused about this subject than over policing .
Come on Chris, was Gerry Adams in the IRA yes or No? LOL
Ding Ding
Martin.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 10:16 PMPete
You are quite right. On the topic I am glad the motion is going to the Ard Fheis and I hope it is passed convincingly. But I wonder if even then the DUP will be up to power-sharing. Is a negative position the only one they can remain united around?
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 10:19 PMPete,
No problem just making a point.
Ingram.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 10:21 PMPat McLarnon
Thanks for that.
Posted by on Jan 13, 2007 @ 10:22 PM
