Alliance: IMC is in Sinn Fein’s interest

Stephen Farry of the Alliance Party argues that for all the heavy protest, the IMC performing a role that is ultimately in the interest of Sinn Fein.

  • Betty Boo

    I’m properly a marked child if it comes to Alliance.
    There is an insurance company in Germany going by the same name and some comic made a song about it. “Wer sich Aliance versichert, der hat völlig ausgekichert.” Meaning, if you‘re getting insured with Alliance you have absolutely nothing to laugh about anymore.
    And if this wasn’t bad enough to have in the back of my head, I also remember the episode of “Give my head peace” as Ma joined the Alliance Party. So with respect to hard working members of this party and well intended policies, but I just can’t take them serious.

  • I totally agree with Stephen Farry.

    Sinn Fein is not doing itself any good by attacking the IMC when it couldn’t have expected a more favorable review without the DUP et al. going completely ballistic. The IMC complaints are certainly less important, unexpected and numerous than its favorable findings.

    All the exaggerated comments from almost all corners just indicate how much the war attitude remains amongst the parties.

  • IJP

    Betty

    Care to address the actual point?

    What is the problem with Cllr Farry’s argument, in your view?

  • paddycanuck

    To address the points Steven made:

    “Today, the IMC is providing a large degree of clarity of what is going on”

    This is off course, to quote Martin McGuinness: “bullshit”.

    The IMC regurgitated groundless inuendo and rumour, bottle fed to them by anti peace process, and nameless members of the the Special Branch, and British Security services.

    They will continue to feed the IMC with tittle tattle and rumour for ever and a day if it suits them, effectively delaying progress, and handing the DUP a veto on the process, until the British government reigns them in, or until the Sinn Fein position within the Naionalist and Republican consticuency becomes untenable.

    To achieve the latter is obviously the agenda of the securocrats.

    “With an unambigously positive report from the IMC, it will then be possible to make objective and authoritative assessments that the so-called ‘Republican Movement’ is committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful means, and to supporting and upholding the rule of law. Pressure than falls on those political parties who do not wish to engage.”

    The IMC will never produce such a report.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Apart from giving Farry a platform from which to try and appear relevant does he not simply understand that the majority of the nationalist community do not accept the bona fides of the IMC and their underhand briefings from the PSNI Special Branch. It is perfectly straightforward.

  • Glen Taisie

    Pat

    “the majority of the nationalist community do not accept the bona fides of the IMC” not to sure on that one as it has never been tested.

  • Betty Boo

    IJP,

    “Without the IMC, rejectionist unionists would still be able to cling to rumours and innuendos, and historic incidents in order to justify refusing to engage in power-sharing.”

    In my view are “ rejectionist unionists … refusing to engage in power-sharing.”

    Shouldn’t that be rejectionistic unionists? A tongue twister’s challenge can be refreshing, incompetence no matter how pragmatic is not.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    ‘not to sure on that one as it has never been tested.’

    It has funnily enough it is called an election. One nationalist party publicly supported the IMC and was stuffed by the party that very publicly
    opposed it. Those nasty rebels thinking for themselves eh.

  • Robert Keogh

    It’s not the Independent Monitoring Commission, it’s the Westminster Commissioned Independent Monitoring Commission. The only thing they are independent of is the ability to smell the shit they are being fed.

  • Henry94

    Paisley has now said that the IRA must disband. Even then it is unlikely that the DUP would really share power.

    All the IMC does is provide a fig-leaf. The real problem is what’s behind the fig-leaf.

  • IJP

    Betty Boo et al.

    I note your total failure to address the actual point. That would suggest to me you don’t have one.

    Perhaps you’d like to prove otherwise?

    Paddy Canuck

    So you think that if the Governments alone simply agreed that the IRA had ‘gone away you know’, the DUP would take them at their word and there’d be political progress?

    Now that is bulls**t!

    With an independent body in place, however, political progress may eventually be possible, provided the IRA does go away of course. Which it hasn’t.

    Out of interest, how exactly should progress with the end of criminality by the IRA be monitored, in your view?

  • Comrade Stalin

    Paddy Canuck, you’ve repeated this canard on several threads and I don’t see where you’re getting it from.

    The IMC have reported that the IRA is doing what it said it would do. It could have reported that the IRA ceasefire was not intact; it could have reported that full-scale criminality was in progress; it could have reported that the entire decommissioning situation has been a total fabrication. But it didn’t. It reported that everything was on course, but that some low-level things were still going on.

    A reasonable person would expect that the IRA would take a while to run itself down and would not shut down dead overnight. This is obviously the case given the lack of discipline prevalent in the organization (cf. Robert McCartney, Garda McCabe etc). Similarly, a reasonable person might expect that 100% total decommissioning is never possible and that small quantities of weapons would still be around – Gen. DeChaistelain made that very clear. For all of these reasons, a reasonable person would be suspicious of an IMC report that delivered a 100% clean bill of health.

    Instead of attacking the DUP for making patently unreasonable expectations, republicans are busy launching into the IMC for providing what appears to be a reasonable and factual account which portrays an IRA organizationally doing everything reasonably possible to stick to it’s word. Where is the sense in this ?

    Henry94, I agree with you. The problem is not the IMC, but the DUP. Now, things would get exciting if the DUP were investigated by the IMC over their links with paramilitarism. If Sinn Fein were clever, they might push for exactly that. SF (and their lickspittles posting here) instead seem to be more interested in attacking the Brits.

  • Betty Boo

    IJP,

    because you can’t get someone’s point doesn’t mean this someone hasn’t one.
    Farry made his view quite clear in stating that the very existence of the IMC is based on engaging “recjectionist unionists” in power-sharing by “objective assessment of what paramilitaries were doing”.
    The last IMC report most definitively failed to engage those “recjectionist unionists” in anything besides a variation of never, never, never to a not in my lifetime sort of cry.
    And an objective assessment should have looked equally into the activities of all paramilitaries and not assign half of the document to one in particular.
    Even if I grant them well meant intention but in business, if you archive the opposite of your objective you are on your way out – due to incompetence.

  • Comrade Stalin

    The last IMC report most definitively failed to engage those “recjectionist unionists” in anything besides a variation of never, never, never to a not in my lifetime sort of cry.

    The IMC’s existence and it’s reports help to highlight the fact that rejectionist unionists occupy an unsustainable position.

    The IMC cannot in and of itself move them from that point, then again what will ? The rejectionists are in fact damaging their position rather than strengthening it. As time goes on without agreement, the more likely we are to see joint authority by the back door. This doesn’t particularly benefit Sinn Fein but it most certainly does not benefit the DUP.

  • Henry94

    Comrade Stalin

    The Sinn Fein position onn the iMC is perfectly reasonable and consistent. It was set up outside the terms of the Agreement and provides nothing but re-cycled spook speak. That is exactly what Sinn Fein will be saying when the IMC deliver a report declaring all IRA activity to be at an end.

    And that is also the the DUP will stop accepting the IMC’s word about anything. They will get the DeChastelain treatment.

    Because the DUP can’t share power. It would split them. And the UUP won’t risk going in without the DUP.

    What needs to happen at that stage is for the institutions to be restored with British ministers sitting in for the unionists until the unionists sort themselves out.

    Either that, Joint Authority or all power to the new councils (the road to re-partition).

  • IJP

    Sinn Féin is quite happy to make plenty of demands that go well beyond the Agreement (more all-island bodies, OTRs, common taxes etc etc etc), so let’s stop this ‘oh it’s beyond the scope of the agreement’ nonsense.

    In fact, it isn’t even beyond it. The Agreement requires a total end to paramilitarism to have any chance, the IMC provides the means to monitor this.

    We need to stop this ‘until unionists sort themselves out’ lark too. Though that is true, it is not only unionists. For a start, Sinn Féin needs to accept democracy (policing and all).