Saturday, October 21, 2006
Tough questions for Sinn Fein’s Ard Fheis?
Following on from Pete’s blog on the difficulties facing Sinn Fein in getting acceptance for the PSNI, Republican blogger Chris Gaskin, for a long time an opponent of his party accepting the PSNI still seems opposed. One of his commenters helpfully lays out the policing motion Sinn Fein’s Ard Fheis in full from earlier this year:
Six County Policing
395. This Ard Fheis calls for the creation of the new beginning to policing, in accordance with the principles of the Good Friday Agreement. A key requirement in this is democratic accountability. In the Six Counties, this requires the transfer of powers on policing and justice away from London and out of the hands of British securocrats to restored, democratically elected institutions in Ireland. The Sinn Fein President will propose to the Sinn Fein Ard Chomhairle that it calls a special Ard Fheis to decide Sinn Fein?s position on new policing arrangements in the context
of:? Agreement between the parties on the departmental model and powers to be transferred;
? The enactment by the British government of the legislation to give full expression to this transfer of powers on policing and justice away from London;
? A DUP commitment to an acceptable timeframe for the transfer of powers on policing and justice.
? A position paper would go to all levels of the party for discussion to inform a comprehensive debate leading up to the special Ard Fheis.
None of this is disablingly specific. But if a similar motion were adopted for the party’s special Ard Fheis we might expect some vigorous debate around the precise meaning of the term ‘acceptable timeframe’. In the past, the DUP has argued that it is not a matter of time, but of judging the quality of Sinn Fein’s committment to the rule of law.
Intriguingly, the St Andrews Agreement does contain a timeline, albeit one that allows for considerable and unspecified slippage. But, it seems, devolution of policing powers to a local minister has been relegated to last place on the list. And oversight of MI5 would seem to remain with Westminster.
As Pete has noted the complexity of Sinn Fein’s consultation process may mean that considering proximity of the first deadline for response (10th November - when parties have to signal their intent to the two governments) and the second (the more public deadline of the 24th November), this is either going to be put through at breakneck speed. Or as Jeffrey Donaldson hinted in last week’s Saturday view, there is likely to be a very forgiving schedule, if they ask the two governments for more time.
Mick Fealty @ 10:59 PM
Well, Mick, the deliberate complexity of the consultation is what has led to the DUP suggestion that SF ask for more time - in short they can’t/won’t deliver in the current timeframe.
But there’s an important point to highlight in the current SF policy statement
• The enactment by the British government of the legislation to give full expression to this transfer of powers on policing and justice away from London;
• A DUP commitment to an acceptable timeframe for the transfer of powers on policing and justice.
Arguably the timeframe for transfer is agreed to in the full St Andrews Agreement - May 2008 - should all parties endorse that document.
But the question remains - will SF endorse this document?
Notably, the enactment of the legislation was already in place by May when Peter Hain imagined the Ard Fheis would be called at the end of July - he imagined wrongly.
Then SF argued that the “full expression\” meant the actual transfer of powers.. that isn’t going to happen ahead of their endorsement of the St Andrews Agreement.. nor their endorsement of the PSNI.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 12:19 AMImagine what would happen if SF didn’t endorse the PSNI.
Politics would almost cease in NI.SF would get the blame from all the players.
Irish and Brit Gov’ts, SDLP, UUP, DUP .SF wouldn’t get more than 5% in the Republic’s general election.
Blair leaves office, no-one thinks Brown? is interested in NI, so it slips down the political agenda.
Assembly shuts. No meetings, no MLA jobs.
No peace dividends.
Dissidents could possibly restart.Blair and Aherne have dedicated themselves tremendously to the Peace Process.
Who could follow?It would be a nightmare for SF.
They might even be wiped out by the SDLP in any future election.Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 12:38 AMSF have to stay with their people: not too far ahead, not too far behind.
They cannot make enemies, worse still targets, of bright young Catholics, or those of mixed background, who are joining the PSNI.
But they cannot quickly jump into bed with old enemies of their traditional constituencies.
As SF in the North has the best political brains in Ireland in their ranks, I expect them to convert this tight-rope walk into a Carrickawhatsit rope-bridge jog and deliver, for the price of a concession or two.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 01:52 AMIs it worth anyone’s while paying serious attention to Sinn Fein’s policy on anything? In the South, they had a big march for “the right to life” for poor people. This is after 30 odd years of killing people, poor and rich and jacking up insurance rates with their heavy handed tactics. In the north, they tried to wreck the 11 plus system because one of their leaders failed it. Currently, with their partners, they are looking for $1 bn as a further peace dividend, just like the UFF guys look for a few quid to hang up their weaponry.
My point is Sinn Fein is a partitionist party, cemented in the big government policies of the past. Aa all they underststand is take, take, take, no one needs them. They are like SFWP in it is early days and the quicker the cordite babes like Mary Lou take over, the quicker will they be some way articulate. Next thread please.Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 03:09 AMSF meeting in Gulladuff last Wednesday didn’t go too well
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 09:30 AMIt is hard not to to feel for Chris and solid people within SF like him. The fix they find themselves in is that their party has asked its membership to compromise on so many of its core beliefs, if they reject policing what would have been the purpose of it all. They find themselves in the position of participants in musical chairs, if they cannot find a chair when the music stops, they are all but out of the game.
Mr Adams does not appear to ever have considered the need for a plan B. In this he reminds me of his political mentors Clinton and Blair [on Iraq] in that power is all, never mind that when you attain it you have neutered your party to such an extent that it becomes worthless, as it brings your support base sod all but the exhaust fumes from the leaders limo as he drives by.
I wish Chris well what ever he decides.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 12:55 PMMick
There is not a chance in hell that the Ard Chomhairle will call a special Ard Fheis on the strength of these current proposals. We have not even reached the standard whereby it would be constitutional to call an Ard Fheis.
The opposition on the ground is palpable
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 01:40 PMyeah remember brits out, not an bullet, decommissioning means surrender.... all favourite SF slogans now, probaly thanks to the brits on the inside, just milestones on the road of humiliation for SF/IRA.
Policing will also come that way.Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 02:45 PMoh yeah and thre was always that bit about ending partition, what ever happened to that?
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 02:57 PMThe enactment by the British government of the legislation to give full expression to this transfer of powers on policing and justice away from London;
Gerry Adams apparently has a poor understanding of democratic constitutional politics. It is not the government that enacts legislation: it is parliament.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 04:42 PMI doubt it was Adams who wrote that Ard Fheis motion, Willowfield.
Chris is correct. These proposals are a non-starter as far as SF are concerned.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 05:05 PMWhile understanding Chris’ and Wednesday’s concerns over the two government’s agreement at St Andrew’s and if meets the requirements under motion 395 for convening a special Ard Fheis, I feel the DUP are deliberately positioning themselves to try and ensure they do not create the conditions relating to them in the motion.
I feel there may be a deeply cynically exercise from the DUP to ensure they create a problem for SF in moving forward on policing in the hope that power sharing will not be established and SF are seen as the obstacle.
I would ask Chris and Wednesday to consider if they are walking into a carefully constructed trap laid by the DUP.
I’m not satisfied with the position on policing as it stands under the two government’s proposals but hopefully further effort will lead to the removal of the remaining issues of concern on this topic for Republicans. I certainly don’t want to see Republicans gift the DUP the collapse of potential power sharing without ever testeding their commitment on the issue.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 05:23 PMMark
Why have you twice used the singular possessive when talking EXPLICITLY about TWO governments?
I’m guessing you are relatively young? Were you not taught the basics of grammar at school?
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 05:47 PMWhile Chris and Wednesday put up good arguments I put my faith in the current Sinn Fein leadership, whatever they decide to do.
To pretend that there is an easy answer would be wrong and simplistic. This is part of the negotiations and as such a decision for the negotiators.
At the same time the only answer to the accusations of a sellout is to involve the whole party in making the decision, a process which is also necessary in order to minimise splits.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 05:51 PMWhy have you become liberal and reasonable, lib2016?
Was the extreme, bigoted stuff a provocative act?
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 06:00 PMWillowfield,
Your rules of grammar are, like unionism, becoming outmoded. The use of the apostrophe to assist in marking plurals is now frowned upon by most authorities.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 06:01 PMAAAHH! That feels better! ;-)
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 06:03 PM1. They’re not my rules of grammar.
2. Even if “the use of apostrophes to assist in marking plurals” is “becoming outmoded” (if so, it is a result of increasing sloppiness), Mark still used apostrophes to assist in marking plurals - but he used them wrongly.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 06:35 PMMark, I would not be at all surprised if the DUP are counting on us to reject the proposals - but equally I have no doubt that if we did sign up to them, Paisley would just move the goalposts again.
I think that some people in this party are too fixated on the image of us being the ones trying to move the process forward, and unionism being the stumbling block. You can see how defensive our language is getting on that subject. I’m not really sure what they think will happen if we’re the ones seen to be saying “no” for once. The DUP, the Stoops, the Governments will blame us for obstructing the process? Sure don’t they do that anyway?
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 07:05 PMWhile also understanding Chris and Wednesdays points I think there is not too much opposition to these proposals. I think it can be taken through if handled carefully by the leadership.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 07:06 PMwillowfield,
I am extremely youthful and was an awful pupil. Thanks for your tips on grammar. I assure you they wasted on me but the effort is appreciated.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 07:14 PMThe fact of the matter is really based on a fundamental question with two answers.
Firstly, does one presume that SS/RUC has been sufficiently decimated and reconstructed as mandated with Patten et al’s proposals? Incidentally this includes the disbandment and decomissioning of the SS/RUC Special Branch.
Secondly, are Irish Republicans, i.e. the third larges political force on the island of Ireland, going to be accorded its status orementioned status in the governance of occupied Ireand as determined by its franchise? If not, screw the political charade, designed by southern politicians and british colonizers, at the behast of their orange cheerleaders.
We are more than capable of making the Brits run faster than they are currently scurrying out of Southern Iraq. In fact Al Sadr and other non Bin Laden/Paisley type religious supremacist owe Oglaigh na hEireann gratitude for the creation and development of an efficient and just army of Liberation. In fact only Nelson Mandela, Nazrallah in Lebanon, Che Guevarra and Bobby Sands
can be used in the same breath, if one understands reverence and respect.But despite our ANC and Venezualan/Cuban friends, as a Republican I must say....time to take a second look. Cuz if perfidious albion and the orangies are just trying to buy some time, and if Bertie is just trying to cover his ass, then the ‘Ra may become part of the solution rather than a “symptom of the problem”, as the noveau Shinners (swore i’d never use that term).
Looks like a second Civil War is not merely some joke. Blueshirtism is as strong now as it was in the 1930s. In fact even neo-nazi groups like Paisleyite Dupers and Pee Dees are finding common ground with Combat 18 etc. So the choice seems pretty clear. Either accept the Orange status qou, hope for a FG/UUP led 32 county Republic or take Ireland back as envisaged by Pearse, O’Braidaigh, McGlinchey
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 08:08 PM‘I think there is not too much opposition to these proposals. I think it can be taken through if handled carefully by the leadership. ‘
I am finding that among those I know and talk with, it is split very slightly pro- acceptance for joining the PSNI. I take this position myself. As learned from SF’s political development and participation since 1981, change can only come about from the inside out, not vice versa.
Naturally, I have some misgivings about taking this position, I do not take it lightly, but I also realise that 1- our society must have a viable and functioning police service, and 2 ( maybe more importantly) I can not be asking my opponents to make a leap of faith that I am unwilling to take myself.
The peace process is about faith in our own ability to take risks and make the difficult decisions; so is NOT accepting the police worth losing the promise of peace and progress? Is it worth losing all that has been gained? Is it worth gambling with the peace and security of this and the following generations?Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 08:30 PMA very strong debate going on within the grass roots at present.
I think it will be supported
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 08:48 PMI feel the DUP are deliberately positioning themselves to try and ensure they do not create the conditions relating to them in the motion.
I agree
I would ask Chris and Wednesday to consider if they are walking into a carefully constructed trap laid by the DUP.
I know that Mark however as Irish Republicans we should decide policy on what is right for the Struggle and Irish Republicans, we should not concern ourselves with the whims of the DUP.
I’m not satisfied with the position on policing as it stands under the two government’s proposals but hopefully further effort will lead to the removal of the remaining issues of concern on this topic for Republicans.
I have no doubt that such a senario may indeed occur, my opposition is based on the here and now.
whatever they decide to do
It is the membership, not the leadership who will decide our position.
I think there is not too much opposition to these proposals.
I suggest that you get out of Dublin and head futher Northward, you should have no problem seeing opposition then.
I think it can be taken through if handled carefully by the leadership.
From what I have been told I don’t think even the leadership believe that.
There is no chance of the leadership presenting these proposals, as currently constituted, to the party membership.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 09:35 PM
