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
‘I suggest that you get out of Dublin and head futher Northward, you should have no problem seeing opposition then. ‘
Chris, I don’t think anyone is seriously claiming there is not opposition- of various strenghths. I doubt even among those of us who can accept it, there are not serious misgivings and deep concerns and worries.
However, as I have said before, among those I know there is slight leaning toward acceptance- and that is in a republican stronghold more than ‘90 Miles from Dublin Town.’Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 09:45 PMI suggest that you get out of Dublin and head futher Northward
There is plenty of opposition in Dublin too.
On Maura’s post, there is obviously a majority within the party in favour of signing up to policing at some point - otherwise Motion 395 would not have been passed. The question is whether the conditions on offer now are acceptable. The vast majority of opinion I am encountering is that they aren’t.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 09:51 PMMaura
No Irish Republican should accept what they have offered on Policing, it is just not good enough!
There has been no change from what the SDLP signed up to.
We don’t have a timetable for develoution of policing and justice powers, indeed we have an inbuilt Unionist veto.
We will still have political policing with MI5 continuing its war with no mechanism for scrutiny.
I am quite a progressive Republican, I try not to let dogma deter me from moving on or accepting difficult decisions.
This is one leap that I will not be making though on the strength of these proposals.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 09:56 PMWednesday
There is plenty of opposition in Dublin too
I was not suggesting that there wasn’t, I am well aware that opposition is not just in the North but all over the country.
The question is whether the conditions on offer now are acceptable. The vast majority of opinion I am encountering is that they aren’t.
Agreed
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 10:11 PMWednesday: ‘there is obviously a majority within the party in favour of signing up to policing at some point - otherwise Motion 395 would not have been passed. The question is whether the conditions on offer now are acceptable. The vast majority of opinion I am encountering is that they aren’t. ‘
To be quite frank with you Wednesday, outside of the actual party, few of the SF voters ( non party members) are really that well informed on Motions, and the particulars of the objections and what parts of Patten have been implemented or not! I am finding that these voters, (not party members) are in favour of joining the PSNI and this is something Sinn Fein leadership and political/electoral strategists will be keeping in mind.
Within the membership of course, a more informed discussion is going on ( we hope) but those I am encountering so far are in favour. Not to say there is not heated exchange and strongly held views. I do agree with you that much more will have to be done especially to address the issues that Chris rightly raises in the follow on blog to yours, but as I stated earlier, a good argument being put forward is that these changes can be made ( maybe even more effectively) through participation.
Maybe I need to get out an about a bit more, who knows, but my experience is for!Chris: ‘No Irish Republican should accept what they have offered on Policing, it is just not good enough! ‘
Chris, I am a bit older than you I think and I have listened to this argument since the debates about dropping absentionist policy ( and indeed before but I am reluctant to give away me age:-) ).
This ‘it is just not good enough’ argument has been bandied about for years by all political parties: the DUP line is always ‘it is just not (EVER) good enough.’ It is a hardline position, but I do admit that sometimes a hardline position is necessary.
For me, however, hard line positions get nobody nowhere, and as I said to Wed. I think the changes we as Republicans demand of the policing structures can be made from within.
The question I ask myself is this: Is it worth losing every advance we have made over this? The answer for me is no, especially when the changes can be brought about even if we do say yes.Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 10:15 PMpid: SF have to stay with their people:
But these days, who are ‘their people’? Party members? Current Voters? Potential voters? ex-prisoners?
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 10:16 PMChris, in the 70s to early 80s S/F could claim relatively little electoral support in the North, even less in the South, but they were relevant / important due to their campaign of violence, surely there is a danger that if they fail to take the final steps into ‘real politics’ regarding policing they will get caught between ‘two stools’ with the very real possibility that they will be deserted by the bulk their electorate, i.e. those not classified as ‘hard-line republicans’ they would then become irrelevant / unimportant.
Of course they could always go back to violence post 9/11, but for what, another 30 odd years, another 3500 odd dead, and 100s of years rotting in prison.
Wake up, Sinn Fein will back policing, they’re to smart not to.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 10:22 PMI am finding that these voters, (not party members) are in favour of joining the PSNI and this is something Sinn Fein leadership and political/electoral strategists will be keeping in mind
It is a shepards job to lead his flock. Sinn Féin have been entrusted with a mandate to achieve the best that they can for their voters. This is not it! We have a duty to inform our voters and supports of our position. They are not stupid, they will understand and be glad that we are working in their best interests
changes can be made ( maybe even more effectively) through participation.
You can not make the proper changes if the relevant structure is not there to begin with.
I think the changes we as Republicans demand of the policing structures can be made from within
I don’t
Is it worth losing every advance we have made over this?
This is a usual scare tactic, we will not be losing anything.
We will simply be telling the Brits that they have not come far enough and that they need to change their position.
I would never ask anyone to support something that I could not.
Sinn Fein will back policing, they’re to smart not toWho do you think Sinn Féin are? It is the membership that make up Sinn Féin. I am more than happy to let the final say rest with them.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 10:34 PMprogressive Republican - oxymoron time
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 10:42 PMThe underlying principle of this deal are sound - get devolution of policing powers to the Assembly, and into the hands of Irishmen and women. It’s the key point. Some oversight of MI5 would also be necessary, but I think it’s unrealistic to expect the full ask on that because of the natur eof government.
The problem as I see it is that the leadership are allowing the DUP a veto on the matter; even if they have indicated their intent to support the proposed timetable, if the SF leadership haven’t learned that you don’t put your future in the hands of your opponents then they are complete morons. I wouldn’t put it past the DUP to pull a stunt on the matter. Everything - else oaths, words whatever have proven to be meaningless in the past and a complete red herring.
On the other hand, there is a need to break deadlock. Some kind of yes in principle with the proviso that SF will upend the whole lot if the DUP doesn’t keep it’s end of the bargain would be my prefered option.
In either case formal support of the Garda would also be nice.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 10:54 PMKensei
Sinn Féin do support the Gardaí, this has been made clear again and again.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 10:57 PMChris:’ It is a shepards job to lead his flock. Sinn Féin have been entrusted with a mandate to achieve the best that they can for their voters. This is not it! We have a duty to inform our voters and supports of our position. They are not stupid, they will understand and be glad that we are working in their best interests “
Chris, the shepard only leads his flock( party). SF voters who are not party members are in the thousands as you know and if SF finds that a majority of its voters are in favour of joining the PSNI, I would guess that will be a huge consideration in their strategy. You are right, SF members have a right and indeed a duty to state their position ( BOTH pro or anti) to the voters, and like the party members, they
(voters) will not be dictated to.Chris: ‘You can not make the proper changes if the relevant structure is not there to begin with. ‘
You could be right there Chris.
I think the changes we as Republicans demand of the policing structures can be made from within
Chris: I don’t
You are entitled to hold and promote your opinion- isn’t it great being a Republican.
Is it worth losing every advance we have made over this?
Chris: This is a usual scare tactic, we will not be losing anything.
I can agree with you there Chris.
Chris: ‘I would never ask anyone to support something that I could not. ‘
Nor should you, but I and many like me will be taking the oppositie position.
Chris: ‘Who do you think Sinn Féin are? It is the membership that make up Sinn Féin. I am more than happy to let the final say rest with them.’
Chris, I suspect that what appeals to the voters, to what will promote Sinn Fein electorally, is what will mnake the final determination on this.
I do share your misgivings about this Chris, and I welcome the opportunity to thrash them out.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:02 PM‘progressive Republican - oxymoron time
Posted by exuup on Oct 22, 2006 @ 10:42 PM’
I expect that there could be a clause added to the St Andrew’s agreement that encourages some Unionists to educate themselves and move beyond the name calling and one liners?
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:07 PMChris, the shepard only leads his flock( party).
Our voters look to the party for leadership, that is the nature of politics.
Is it worth losing every advance we have made over this?
I don’t believe that we will lose anything, if we accept a police force that has not changed and can’t be changed enough then we risk losing a lot more.
I welcome the opportunity to thrash them out.
As do I maura
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:09 PMI wouldn’y worry about him/her (exuup) Maura.
A bitter person who has seen his/her party crumble by the wayside just as the Empire did and just as his beloved “Norn Iron” will as well.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:12 PMWell I think that we should not spend too long chasing things that are impossible, lets get this powersharing assembly up and lets press ahead with progress in the south too. Stalling has its dangers too
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:13 PMChris ‘Our voters look to the party for leadership, that is the nature of politics. ‘
Chris, true enough, but it is a two way street and SF looks to its voters, testing their mood and decisions are made accordingly- that is the very essence of politics.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:17 PMInteresting back and forth here.. but there are a few naive, if not delusional, assumptions in evidence.
The 10th November deadline is for all parties, not those who might have lent their votes to individual parties, but for the parties and their memberships themselves to endorse or not the St Andrews Agreement.
Whether an Ard Fheis has been held by that stage or not, the SF party leadership will give an answer to that question to the governments.
If it’s not a definitive answer then there are likely to be problems for the changes in legislation to adapt the current 24th November deadline for the Assembly.
That’s the current dilemma for ‘the leadership’.. and why Ian Paisley has suggested that they might need more time..
A ‘maybe’ probably isn’t going to be enough.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:29 PM“Sinn Féin do support the Gardaí, this has been made clear again and again”
But lots of people don’t know or are unsure. Stick something through the Ard Dheis anyway. Done right it’s free PR in an election year.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:30 PMReader:
all of those you mention.
The PSNI poses difficulty for Nationalists.
If it is accepted, inherent in it is a partitionist police force. Nationalists don’t fundamentally accept that there should be 2 states, and state police forces in Ireland.
If it is rejected, an elephant enters the sitting room in the form of the PSNI. An elephant that offers jobs, has increasingly shown fair play, and looks like being accepted by the next generation.
Ignoring elephants in sitting rooms is never a sound medium term option.
Unionists located in a corner of Ireland, with the Union melting away, could secretly attest to that.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:38 PM‘Interesting back and forth here.. but there are a few naive, if not delusional, assumptions in evidence. ‘
Interesting...... yet naive and delusional.
I like that!Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:38 PMStick something through the Ard Dheis anyway
That would be a waste of Ard Fheis time, it is there to debate/amend/change party policy. It is not there to support existing party policy.
I can see where you are coming from kensei but you risk such a motion being ruled out of order for the very reasons that I have outlined above.
Gerry Adams made it very clear at last years Ard Fheis what our policy is towards the Gardaí.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:39 PMInteresting...... yet naive and delusional.
I like that!Now maura, that’s not what I said :o)
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:42 PM“Gerry Adams made it very clear at last years Ard Fheis what our policy is towards the Gardaí.”
Apparently not clear enough, and the PSNI situation provides enough ammo for further confusion. And SF gets hammered on law and order in the SDouth at the moment.
Something prominent in the elction platform would be a must at least.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2006 @ 11:47 PMChris,
“Gerry Adams made it very clear at last years Ard Fheis what our policy is towards the Gardaí.”
But we also have had Sinn Fein TDs saying that while they accept An Garda Siochana and Oglaigh na hEireann (the one President McAleese is head of) as the legitimate forces of the Irish state they would not urge the public to help investigators tracking down murderers of Gardai.Sinn Fein may think this book is closed but they still have a long way to go on this matter.
Simply saying something at an Ard Fheis doesn’t mean this is the reality on the ground.
Support means being horrified when you see elected officials being photographed with Garda killers, who also fired on unarmed Gardai. Support doesn’t mean being the elected official in the photograph.
Is Sinn Fein’s primary loyalty to former comrades or to the Irish state?
This still isn’t clear I’m afraid regardless of what Gerry Adams says.
Unless it commits total and unswerving loyalty to the Irish state and its institutions, it can still be construed as an enemy of the Irish state.
Gerry Adams coming out and saying such killings have no place in the Republican struggle aren’t good enough.
If Sinn Fein doesn’t bite the bullet on policing soon, it’s facing a huge crisis south of the border in my view.
If Sinn Fein really is an all-Ireland party then it will have to address this.
How is up to you.
Posted by on Oct 23, 2006 @ 12:15 AM
