“It was Ian junior that said it..”

The other problem for the deputy First Minister is that his analysis elsewhere is, at best, flawed – now that we are in May.. In the Irish Times he’s repeated his claim that the DUP told him that they “would stand by St Andrews” [subs req]

“When I asked the question about St Andrews I was told on the Saturday prior to the 26th (of March) – that was the 24th – that the DUP would stand by St Andrews,” said Mr McGuinness.

“It was Ian junior that said it. But nobody at the meeting said: ‘No, we can’t do that.’ When you negotiate with people and someone tells you that they will stand by it and nobody else disagrees, I think it’s fair on our part to leave the meeting on the basis that you have an agreement.”

As the Irish Times report also notes

However, the DUP rejected Mr McGuinness’s account of the March 24th meeting.

“At no time during the meeting did any DUP representative give a commitment to devolve policing and justice powers by May 2008,” a spokesman said.

He said the DUP at that meeting said it would “stand by any commitment it made at St Andrews”, but never “during or after St Andrews did the DUP make a commitment to devolve policing and justice powers within the Government timetable”.

“Whilst the DUP favours the devolution of policing and justice powers, we have stated in our manifesto, and in other public comments, that the confidence does not exist to support any move.”

For those still confused, there may be some, here’s a post from November, 2006, on the difference between target dates and commitments – or deadlines and conditions – and what the St Andrews document actually said.

Or you could read the DUP’s Iris Robinson’s response to Martin McGuinness’ previous assertion that the DUP had given the commitment he claims.

While it would seem foolish for republicans to accept the outlandish boasts and rhetoric of the Sinn Fein leadership when playing to their base and not see through them, it would be even more foolish for unionists to fall into the trap of believing them.

Now that we are in May..

, , , ,

  • Ahem

    Look, Murderin’ Mart is the one plainly telling the truth. To reinforce that, please see the thread where we’re all admiring his stalwart honesty in telling us that he doesn’t know whether the Provos’ “Army Council” exists or not.

    Or perhaps, just perhaps, as Pete says, it is May, so Martin is lying (he only fibs in months that have a vowel in their names).

  • kensei

    I don’t think MMG is lying: rather I suspect the DUP allowed an impression to be given without ever actually giving any cast iron guarantees, or public commitments. Just like… well, SF, up and until this negotiation.

  • Pete Baker

    Whether or not Ian junior said it is irrelevant.

    The point is that, according to Martin McGuinness, Sinn Féin’s analysis, of what the St Andrews document actually said, was wrong.

  • DM

    Kensei: definitely.

    [i]However, the DUP rejected Mr McGuinness’s account of the March 24th meeting.

    “At no time during the meeting did any DUP representative give a commitment to devolve policing and justice powers by May 2008,” a spokesman said. [/i]

    Worth noting that the DUP didn’t deny outright what MMcG claims he heard, simply that ‘no committment was given’. Quite possibly Paisley Jnr did say something along those lines, without expressly committing to anything.

  • Dave

    Mr McGuinness has gotten himself into a pickle. Instead of admitting outright that he told a whopper of a lie to his own party in order to secure its support for Sinn Fein’s entry into the Executive, he has to claim that he was a bit thick and erroneously accepted a nod and a wink from junior instead of securing a written guarantee from the DUP stating its commitment to the devolution of policing and justice powers within the timeframe. So, he’s either a liar or a hoodwinked idiot. I suspect he is a liar and his party’s voters and members are the idiots.

    “That this Ard Fheis endorses the Ard Chomhairle motion. That the Ard Chomhairle is mandated to implement this motion only when the power-sharing institutions are established and when the Ard Chomhairle is satisfied that the policing and justice powers will be transferred.”

    tut tut

  • Steve

    Ahh yes because its obvious only Sinn Fein lies and the dupers are paragons of virtue

  • Ahem

    If Murderin’ Mart actually came up to you Steve and said, “I Am Lying”, would you believe it even then, or is there really no end to your willing self-deception? I have to ask, because as plenty of other posters have pointed out on Slugger over the years, Beardie and Marty aren’t at the end of the day fooling anyone. The only people doing the fooling are their followers who seem quite determined to fool themselves, pace, most recently, this screamingly obvious instance cited by Pete. McMurderous said something to you. It wasn’t (and isn’t) true). Will your heads all actually pop clean off if you have to accept that, at this stage, utterly, completely and totally incontrovertible fact?

  • kensei

    Pete

    Whether or not Ian junior said it is irrelevant.

    The point is that, according to Martin McGuinness, Sinn Féin’s analysis, of what the St Andrews document actually said, was wrong.

    Yes. Just like everytime beforehand the analysis of what commitments SF had actually given, was wrong.

    Do you see, Pete?

  • Pete Baker

    “Yes. Just like everytime beforehand the analysis of what commitments SF had actually given, was wrong.

    Do you see, Pete?”

    I’m not even convinced that you know what you mean by that, Ken, nor the relevance to the original post.

    Ahem

    Keep it civil.

  • kensei

    Pete

    I’m not even convinced that you know what you mean by that, Ken, nor the relevance to the original post.

    Point being that given that SF have been expert in actually promising less than they’ve appeared to, or in wrangling out of commitments given, you’d think they’d be savvy enough not to walk into this when it is done on them. Or at least have the foresight to see it coming. Or more succinctly:

    I don’t think MMG is lying: rather I suspect the DUP allowed an impression to be given without ever actually giving any cast iron guarantees, or public commitments. Just like… well, SF, up and until this negotiation.

    And given that just about the only thing I do know is my own bloody mind, I’ll have less of your bullshit, thanks all the same.

  • Pete Baker

    Rather than take on trust Sinn Féin’s supposed expertise, Ken.

    Why not look back at the analysis of the St Andrews document in November 2006.

    You know, that bullshit of mine.

    Or you could read again why the Sinn Féin leadership keep presenting May 2008 as an enforceable deadline.

    Compare it to what Martin McGuinness now claims.

    It is all in the original post.

  • Dave

    Given that the Ard Fheis is the ultimate governing legislative body of Sinn Fein and that control of the Sinn Fein is vested in the Ard Chomhairle when the Ard Fheis is not in session, these two entities are the constitutional core of Sinn Fein.

    If the leadership of Sinn Fein has acted contrary to the mandate that they have received from their Ard Fheis, then that leadership does not have the legitimate authority of its governing body to enter the Executive.

    Did the Ard Chomhairle have reasonable grounds for being “satisfied” that the policing and justice powers would be transferred within the timeframe?

    A reasonable person would seek to obtain a written guarantee on a matter of critical importance to the Ard Fheis and would be suspicious of the integrity of any party that refused to provide one. If, for some reason, a verbal guarantee was to be accepted in place of a written guarantee, then the reasonable person would ensure that the guarantee was offered in the company of credible witnesses and was offered on behalf of the party by a person who was authorised by the party to offer it.

    A reasonable person would not be satisfied with a vague reassurance from Junior that he would “stand by St Andrews” could be intended to mean “I am authorised by the DUP to agree that it will agree to the devolution of policing and justice powers within the non-agreed timeframe” on the supporting grounds that no one else from the DUP overheard Junior and leapt to their feet to protest “We will not stand by St Andrews.”

    Indeed, the only thing that any reasonable person can conclude from this is that Sinn Fein’s leadership were unable to secure any commitment from the DUP about the devolution of policing and justice powers and were thereby not authorised by the Ard Fheis to enter the Executive. In order to hoodwink the Ard Fheis, McGuniness lied to them about the quality of the secured commitment. If they were “satisfied” by McGuinness without questioning him on the details, then I imagine they’ll want to forget the whole thing rather than focus on a issue that shows their party as one that is run by liars and controlled by idiots.

  • Dave

    [i]A reasonable person would not be satisfied with a vague reassurance from Junior that he would “stand by St Andrews” could be intended to mean “I am authorised by the DUP to agree that it will agree to the devolution of policing and justice powers within the non-agreed timeframe”[/i]

    Just to clarify: as St Andrews didn’t give an agreed timeframe, it wasn’t reasonable interpret Junior’s remark as being a commitment to a timeframe.

  • kensei

    Rather than take on trust Sinn Féin’s supposed expertise, Ken.

    Why not look back at the analysis of the St Andrews document in November 2006.

    I don’t know, because maybe you’ve done it to death and I probably recite “target date not deadline” in my sleep at this point.

    But if you doubt SF’s expertise in wriggling out of delivering on promises, I suggest you look at the GFA and then at the date decommissioning was finally done. Or the point they actually signed up to the police. Or, well, any number of other things over the course of The Process. Perhaps you might also want to look at the trouble that they got the Ulster Unionists in by doing so. The simple point I was making is that if any party should have been aware that you get exactly what it is you want spelled out in public in triplicate, it’s SF.

    But I am of course imagining things, and none of that shit happened.

    You know, that bullshit of mine.

    Your bullshit in that instance was on not knowing my own mind. Which is why that statement is separate, on its own at the end. Would you like a diagram?

    It is all in the original post.

    No, Pete, it isn’t. It is in a poorly marked backlink which I refuse to read on principle.