Affect of McGuinness presidency win on the peace process

UDP · 14-10-2011 12:03PM #1

Hi,

Was chatting with a friend of mine last night about the elections. He said he didn't care about McGuinness' past but was concerned about voting for him for fear that it might stoke something up the north with unionists. Is that a credible fear? How do they see his candidacy at the moment? and how would the unionists react to a McGuinness win if that happened to come about?

LordSutch · 14-10-2011 12:04PM

Oh No, not another McGuinness thread

UDP · 14-10-2011 12:09PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Oh No, not another McGuinness thread

Oh wow, sorry for asking a valid question.

pablomakaveli · 14-10-2011 01:51PM

You could have asked it on one of the other 300 McGuinness threads that have popped up in the last few weeks.

getz · 14-10-2011 02:07PM

it could have a very negative affect for irish credibility on the world stage,unionists in the north would mistrust his motives,he would also get only at best a cool welcome in the UK , they do not like him in the USA,and many western goverments know of the IRAs connections with libya and moamer al-khaddhafi,

dlofnep · 14-10-2011 02:08PM

Um, McGuinness has already held the highest position in office in the north as deputy first minister. The only concerns I have heard from Unionists was the double-think from certain elements in the south, where they feel as if Unionists were told that he was good enough for the north, but not good enough for the south.

McGuinness has played a pivotal role in the peace process, and would continue to do so as president.

T runner · 14-10-2011 02:19PM

UDP wrote: »

Hi,

Was chatting with a friend of mine last night about the elections. He said he didn't care about McGuinness' past but was concerned about voting for him for fear that it might stoke something up the north with unionists. Is that a credible fear? How do they see his candidacy at the moment? and how would the unionists react to a McGuinness win if that happened to come about?

The peace process is effectively an internal process in NI. It was external only briefly for the purpose of removing articles 2 and 3. Umionism is quite safe unfortunately.

RandomName2 · 14-10-2011 02:50PM

It would identify the republic of Ireland more with the Troubles, and, in particular, identify the Republican movement as the representatives of the citizens of the republic of Ireland and the natural inheritors of the republic's political process.

It would also be quite likely to help create tensions with the unionists of Northern Ireland (same sort as happened during the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising), although it would help force a political process of unification with Northern Ireland (if that floats your boat).

pablomakaveli · 14-10-2011 02:52PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Um, McGuinness has already held the highest position in office in the north as deputy first minister. The only concerns I have heard from Unionists was the double-think from certain elements in the south, where they feel as if Unionists were told that he was good enough for the north, but not good enough for the south.

McGuinness has played a pivotal role in the peace process, and would continue to do so as president.

We can hold our candidates to a different standard to them if we want. We shouldn't accept him just because they did.

Pretty sick of us "ignorant Southerners" being lectured by Northerners tbh.

dlofnep · 14-10-2011 02:53PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

although it would help force a political process of unification with Northern Ireland (if that floats your boat).

No, it wouldn't. Unless you'd care to explain how that might occur, given that it would be unconstitutional to 'force' anything?

RandomName2 · 14-10-2011 02:59PM

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it wouldn't. Unless you'd care to explain how that might occur, given that it would be unconstitutional to 'force' anything?

Well it would give a pro-unification party a leg-up, and since this party is cross border...

dlofnep · 14-10-2011 03:05PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well it would give a pro-unification party a leg-up, and since this party is cross border...

And? All major Irish parties support unification. What's your point? Are you suggesting that candidates from parties that oppose unification should only be allowed to run for candidacy?

foggy_lad · 14-10-2011 03:10PM

it is a pity Big Ian didn't come down and seek nomination, I think he would have had a better chance of success then McGuinness.

UDP · 14-10-2011 04:06PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You could have asked it on one of the other 300 McGuinness threads that have popped up in the last few weeks.

and then I would have been off topic in those threads. I did search through the threads in elections to see if there was a thread that dealt with this already and I could not see any.

If McGuinness was elected would the unionists see that as a threat and would it start something as a result or are we gone past all of that?

KeithAFC · 14-10-2011 04:09PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

it is a pity Big Ian didn't come down and seek nomination, I think he would have had a better chance of success then McGuinness.

That would have shaken the election up in a big way!

dlofnep · 14-10-2011 04:15PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

That would have shaken the election up in a big way!

No, it wouldn't. Ian Paisley wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting elected as president.

LordSutch · 14-10-2011 04:27PM

UDP wrote: »

If McGuinness was elected would the unionists see that as a threat and would it start something as a result or are we gone past all of that?

We'd all see it as threat, never mind Unionists, it really would be a nightmare scenario if former Provo McGuinness got the ticket.

But he won't.

PS; did you really have to create yet another McGuinness thread :cool:

alex73 · 14-10-2011 04:31PM

McGuinnes is a total twat if he thinks he could be elected.. He should have waited 7 more years... Lot of memories too raw, did he really think that those who were killed by IRA in the republic were going to sit back and do nothing.

There may have been a peace process up north.. down here we never had one and he has come opening a can of worms too soon.

KeithAFC · 14-10-2011 04:37PM

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it wouldn't. Ian Paisley wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting elected as president.

A bit like Martin Mcguinness then. I ain't saying he would have won, but the debates would have been even more interesting.

RandomName2 · 14-10-2011 04:43PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Are you suggesting that candidates from parties that oppose unification should only be allowed to run for candidacy?

No - I don't think that that could be inferred by what I said.

However, I would say that Sinn Fein would seek unification before other considerations, such as the economy, standard of life, etc. It is their raison d'etre if you will.

T runner · 14-10-2011 04:43PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

A bit like Martin Mcguinness then. I ain't saying he would have won, but the debates would have been even more interesting.

Ian Paisley going for president of ireland would arguably be more of a threat to Unionism than Martin mcGunness going for it.

RandomName2 · 14-10-2011 04:45PM

LordSutch wrote: »

We'd all see it as threat, never mind Unionists, it really would be a nightmare scenario if former Provo McGuinness got the ticket.

At least it is still a free country (for the moment :eek:) where one is free to criticise a political animal such as McGuinness.

RandomName2 · 14-10-2011 04:47PM

T runner wrote: »

Ian Paisley going for president of ireland would arguably be more of a threat to Unionism than Martin mcGunness going for it.

On the grounds that him coming down here to campaign would be deemed quite cheeky on the part of a unionist from Northern Ireland whose views on the republic have been made quite clear on numerous occasions?

dlofnep · 14-10-2011 04:59PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

However, I would say that Sinn Fein would seek unification before other considerations, such as the economy, standard of life, etc. It is their raison d'etre if you will.

It doesn't matter what they seek - the terms for how it can occur are clearly defined. And SF are attempting to resolve the economic issues in the north, and harmonise the economy of the island to ease such a future move. That is a responsible move on their behalf.

cardwizzard · 14-10-2011 05:03PM

UDP wrote: »

and then I would have been off topic in those threads. I did search through the threads in elections to see if there was a thread that dealt with this already and I could not see any.

If McGuinness was elected would the unionists see that as a threat and would it start something as a result or are we gone past all of that?

Yeah I think we are away past that point OP. He has being working with and indeed getting on pretty well with Unionists for the last decade or so. SF are an all island party so its fair game. IMO has done a good job as Joint First Minister.

MMG has political connections worldwide (sure to get a few quips from some). Contrary to a comment here, is well known and liked in the U.S. The Guardian paper recently ran a report on why they support his bid for President, so the UK has softened to him. Has being all over the world trying to build peace, which often gets thrown under the bus around here. Has brought a lot of jobs to the North(with help) which we could do with. All in all I think the best candidate, experienced, good negotiator and known internationally.

So he is getting my vote.

dlofnep · 14-10-2011 05:17PM

alex73 wrote: »

McGuinnes is a total twat if he thinks he could be elected.. He should have waited 7 more years...

Whether he believes he can win the election or not (and he's got every chance to do so) is irrelevant. He has every right to run for election. To call him a 'twat' because he has the courage to run for the Aras shows immaturity on your behalf.

anymore · 14-10-2011 05:30PM

UDP wrote: »

Hi,

Was chatting with a friend of mine last night about the elections. He said he didn't care about McGuinness' past but was concerned about voting for him for fear that it might stoke something up the north with unionists. Is that a credible fear? How do they see his candidacy at the moment? and how would the unionists react to a McGuinness win if that happened to come about?

I am sure they would be quite amused that a man whose undying ambition was to create a 32 county republic would now be willing to settle to be president of the 26 State Republic whose courts he would not have previousily even have recognised. Bit like De valera really.

Alopex · 14-10-2011 05:33PM

no it won't affect the peace process. Will probably make unionists even more against uniting with the south as it would appear then that the Irish people see the IRA as legitimate - by electing an army council member as head of state.

alex73 · 14-10-2011 08:35PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Whether he believes he can win the election or not (and he's got every chance to do so) is irrelevant. He has every right to run for election. To call him a 'twat' because he has the courage to run for the Aras shows immaturity on your behalf.

Courage?? Hufff... He gets annoyed when victims down south bring up the murders his organisation commited. Courage would be to tell us the truth, instead of hiding behind his IRA oath.

Penfailed · 14-10-2011 10:27PM

UDP wrote: »

was concerned about voting for him for fear that it might stoke something up the north with unionists. Is that a credible fear?

No.

getz wrote: »

they do not like him in the USA

Yes, they do.

Sunnyisland · 14-10-2011 10:45PM

Alopex wrote: »

no it won't affect the peace process. Will probably make unionists even more against uniting with the south as it would appear then that the Irish people see the IRA as legitimate - by electing an army council member as head of state.

TBH don't think there many unionists at the moment interested in uniting with the south but then not many unionists agreed with Terence o'neill back in the day when he sat down with Sean lemass.As always time will tell.

Affect of McGuinness presidency win on the peace process

Comments