Feeney: political realities reinstated

Brian Feeney is on fire this morning (subs needed). Most of you will be able to pick it on Newshound tomorrow, but for now, here’s the last two paragraphs:

Look on the bright side: it means that the next negotiations will be streamlined. Gone are the days when Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were able to suck their teeth and say they didn’t know whether the IRA would accept something or not, so everyone has to wait while they convene an Army Council meeting and draft a P. O’Neill statement. Instead, the IRA will be in ‘a new mode’ and have no role to play. It has to be like this because Dublin and London are never again going to risk concluding an agreement with republicans before its military wing is stood down. As for unionists, they won’t even talk to republicans before that and who could blame them? Wouldn’t they have looked right eejits if they’d signed up on 8 December?

So in the end it will not have been the unionists or the British but the IRA which put itself out of business and in doing so laid bare the polite fiction about the republican leadership we have all indulged which has been the fundamental flaw in the peace process.

  • peteb

    Hmm.. on the basis of those two paragraphs, Mick.. He’s right that it’s been the fundamental flaw, but we haven’t all indulged in it.. that’s a blatant attempt at complicity to excuse his previous ‘opinions’ whilst he, still, avoids calling Adams and McGuinness on their duplicity.

  • Travis

    You need to read the whole article; he is referring to those who bought into the idea that Adams and McGuinness were engaged in a delicate, dangerous and patient game of leading the whole RM away from violence.

    And not those who were cynical about the whole thing from the off.

  • peteb

    It’s not “the whole thing” that I’ve been cynical of, Travis, it’s the “polite fiction” that Feeney refers to – and that’s something that he’s written about, and excused, before.

  • Davros

    It’s an excellent article. First time I’ve read a Feeney article without lighting up 😉

  • Roger W. Christ XVII

    I don’t read Feeney’s hate-filled published frenzies as a matter of course, but do I understand the above paragraphs correctly in that it appears that he agrees that the IRA was probably behind the raid ?

    If so it looks like a turn up for the books ?

  • Davros

    He’s also very blunt about Gerry Adams Roger:

    “So back to the American politicians’ questions.
    If Gerry Adams isn’t in charge, who is? The answer of course is that Gerry Adams is in charge, a fact no-one doubts which is why Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair are feeling like right Charlies.”

  • GavBelfast

    Read it in full at lunchtime (thank Goodness for Eason’s).

    My, my, the worm has turned.

    Don’t worry, Brian, you’re not alone in having been fooled, though not all of us who were seemed so ready until so recently to be so again.

    I don’t much like Direct Rule either (even the term stinks), but some things are worse, and we won’t now have to endure them.

  • Roger W. Christ XVII

    The worm has indeed turned, this is sensational stuff. Only a few days ago Feeney was writing about how the SF mandate was there and was unassailable, and how people had better start getting used to it (if I read the synopsis on Slugger correctly).

    Now he is implying that reasonable people will now not touch SF with a bargepole until the IRA matter is dealt with once and for all – he has gone full circle and taken the DUP position. I’m lost for words. If people like Feeney are briefing against SF what friends do they have at this point ?

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Does Brian not realise that Adams is relevant because he represents 340k voters. He represents more people on the island of Ireland than the two unionist parties put together. Pretty significant I assume.

  • David Antsinpants

    Fair play to Feeney – he must have hated writing every word of that but he cut straight through the crap regardless.

  • James

    “If Gerry Adams isn’t in charge, who is?”

    And if he isn’t why give him the time of day? Find the guy with the real juice.

    “The answer of course is that Gerry Adams is in charge, a fact no-one doubts which is why Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair are feeling like right Charlies.”

    “Confusing you is just the nature of my game” said it more succinctly.

    If this is the case then your leaders don’t have a clue about the nature of the IRA’s game. You may learn to envy us. even saddled with Bush for the next 1469 days.

  • Roger W. Christ XVII

    Pat, it looks like Feeney agrees that having 340,000 votes does not allow you to rob banks.

    I still can’t get over Feeney producing an article like this – going with the PSNI/Orde line, against Sinn Fein and – even worse – backing the DUP line that the IRA would have to disband before unionists could reasonably expect to talk to them. It’s so unbelievable I’m nearly inclined to think the article was written by an imposter.

  • Davros

    Pat- Gerry Adams represents those who voted for him . His party represents 340k voters. This fuhrer-complex needs to be nipped in the bud 😉

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Roger & Davros,

    Feeney asks what is the point of dealing with Adams. People deal with him because he represents 340k voters, more than the unionist parties combined. It may stick in unionist gullets, but that’s just tough.

    Davros I don’t understand your last post.

  • Davros

    Pat- the point I’m making is that there’s a lot more to SF than Adams. Adams doesn’t represent 340K voters, the party has the mandate of 340K voters.
    Unless I have misread the situation, Adams isn’t a modern-day Franco or even Paisley. I have a fantastic picture of Ruairi O’Bradaigh glaring naked hatred at Adams when he was deposed. He who deposes can be deposed.