David McWilliams: Unionists can share power with Sinn Féin - what's our problem?

Dionysus

I'm not a fan of McWilliams but he made one good point on the radio today.


McWilliams, as many know, is married to a Belfast woman but in between talking about "the North is such a different place, such a totally different country" and "most people in the south don't know who Peter Robinson is", he came up with something with which I agree:

"if the Northern unionists have got over Sinn Féin as a partner in government, which they have, I think it's about time that we said this is a political party, this guy is number 2 in that political party, he's going to go out and as George said in the next four weeks he's going to be scrutinised, and let him go and see what happens." (starts @ 29.00 here)

McWilliams wasn't saying he was supporting McGuinness (or any candidate), but he was making a valid point that there is now no moral objection to electing a Sinn Féin President when the unionist community's representatives are willing to share power with Sinn Féin.

I'm not voting for McGuinness for the reasons I gave here, but if the election comes down to something like the 1997 Presidential election where the right of Irish people in the north to be President of Ireland is challenged by Sunday Independent journalists and Fine Gael politicians like John Bruton, then I will shift my preferences. Ideally, though, I want a President who will be inclusive enough to speak Irish as well as English to Irish citizens, and that gives Michael D. the edge in my value system.

---

So, why are some people in the 26 counties feigning moral objections to McGuinness when the representatives of the very community who were his victims (as McGuinness's community were their victims, of course), can get over it and elect their representatives to share power with him? It sounds like a deeply feigned "moral outrage" on the part of these people in the Republic given the reality of the compromise which unionists have made. Last night I discussed this issue with somebody and after about a half an hour of talking about political violence (I made sure to mention how the British government used violence to fulfil political aims in Iraq and other countries) and morality his real reason for opposing McGuinness's candidacy was enunciated: Sinn Féin was, apparently, a "radical socialist party". I have to say, though, I respect that reason more than I respect these supposed "moral" objections to McGuinness.

Question: Is it hypocritical for some people in the Republic to have moral objections to McGuinness when unionists in the North can get over them and share power?

johngalway

Dionysus wrote: »

Question: Is it hypocritical for some people in the Republic to have moral objections to McGuinness when unionists in the North can get over them and share power?

No.

The likes of MMG were necessary in NI because it was pretty much a warzone.

The Republic of Ireland, while feeling the some of the effects of the conflict in NI, was not in conflict with itself.

The two situations are different.

Sonnenblumen

So rule out any candidate without a good grasp of the Irish language who would be unable to communicate to the very few Irish only speaking electorate?

Time to start installing more streetlamps in the bogs.

Wolfe Tone

No (explain in post)

Dionysus wrote: »

Question: Is it hypocritical for some people in the Republic to have moral objections to McGuinness when unionists in the North can get over them and share power?

What is hypocritical is to call for unionists and republicans to powershare, put the past behind them and work together inclusively,(broadly speaking they have), then throw the toys out of the pram at the prospect of SF or a republican, having electoral success in the south.

Some people in the southern establishment and media are increasingly starting to sound like Jim Allister and the likes.

Dionysus

No (explain in post)

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

So rule out any candidate without a good grasp of the Irish language who would be unable to communicate to the very few Irish only speaking electorate?

Time to start installing more streetlamps in the bogs.

:rolleyes: You have so many chips on your shoulder that every day it's like a new, even more unhappy person appears here using your user name.

Wolfe Tone

No (explain in post)

Dionysus do you know how much of a grasp MMG has on the Irish language? I imagine it is decent enough, he certainly would have studied it in Portlaoise.

The Waltzing Consumer

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What is hypocritical is to call for unionists and republicans to powershare, put the past behind them and work together inclusively,(broadly speaking they have), then throw the toys out of the pram at the prospect of SF or a republican, having electoral success in the south.

Some people in the southern establishment and media are increasingly starting to sound like Jim Allister and the likes.

So nothing to do with the murdering of Gardai, the robbing of banks, not recognising our Republic or Armed Forces and the belief that whilst most candidates lie, McGuinness takes it to a whole new level and maybe that does not appeal to people as our head of state?

But no, we must be hypocritical and west brits, that is the only possible reason.

Dionysus

No (explain in post)

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Dionysus do you know how much of a grasp MMG has on the Irish language? I imagine it is decent enough, he certainly would have studied it in Portlaoise.

I've never heard McGuinness speak it, and it was Michael D. who established TG4 back in 1996. That was a far cry from the time in the 1980s when Irish speakers were imprisoned for refusing to pay their tv license for English language television. There was a poignant documentary on TG4 about that once; a quick Google and this is part of the documentary I'm thinking of.

Michael D. broke the mould when he set up TG4, despite the rantings of Myers and the like. For that courage he's getting my vote.

RachaelVO

NO!

In as much as I have watched and listened to MMcG in interviews, and I have found myself warming to him personally, and I've found him quiet funny, and I'd think about going for a pint with him, I don't think we're ready to have him as President. When he says he was in the IRA, but he never committed murder, ordered a murder (or shooting or knee capping), I just don't believe him!

He worked great for peace in NI, but that's because he was part of the group that was part of the troubles. That's not the case here.

It just doesn't feel right to me!

tayto lover

No (explain in post)

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What is hypocritical is to call for unionists and republicans to powershare, put the past behind them and work together inclusively,(broadly speaking they have), then throw the toys out of the pram at the prospect of SF or a republican, having electoral success in the south.

Some people in the southern establishment and media are increasingly starting to sound like Jim Allister and the likes.

For once i agree WT. While i have not voted for SF previously i have to say that F.G.'s Phil Hogan's comments really bugged me. Himself and his party need to be brought back down to earth. However if SF are now a party of peace they need to distance themselves from some of their hangers-on and be seen to do so. There are still some lads around my way throwing their weight about.

Zebra3

No (explain in post)

If people can't get over MMG's and SF's past, will they get over the past of the mainstream parties and their candidates collaboration with the terrorist practises of the Roman Catholic church in the RoI?

Ghandee

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

So nothing to do with the murdering of Gardai, the robbing of banks, not recognising our Republic or Armed Forces and the belief that whilst most candidates lie, McGuinness takes it to a whole new level and maybe that does not appeal to people as our head of state?

But no, we must be hypocritical and west brits, that is the only possible reason.

Stupid is as stupid does.

KeithAFC

There I was thinking power sharing was part of the Good Friday Agreement and not that Unionists actually really wanted to go into government with Sinn Fein.

Nodin

No (explain in post)

KeithAFC wrote: »

There I was thinking power sharing was part of the Good Friday Agreement and not that Unionists actually really wanted to go into government with Sinn Fein.

Ah yez did really.

NIMAN

If people can't get over MMG and SFs past, was there any point in them going down the peaceful, political route at all?

Paparazzo

Dionysus wrote: »

Is it hypocritical for some people in the Republic to have moral objections to McGuinness when unionists in the North can get over them and share power?

I couldn't care less what they do up the north.

Superbus

David McWilliams is in a Bulmer's ad.

The Waltzing Consumer

NIMAN wrote: »

If people can't get over MMG and SFs past, was there any point in them going down the peaceful, political route at all?

Yeah, they are gonna think "it is so hurtful to be slagged and reminded of what we did that it may be better to go back blowing up people"

Sticks and stones Niman.

Nodin

No (explain in post)

Superbus wrote: »

David McWilliams is in a Bulmer's ad.

Bulmers is gassy ****e in a flagon. Merrydown was great stuff.

Sonnenblumen

Dionysus wrote: »

:rolleyes: You have so many chips on your shoulder that every day it's like a new, even more unhappy person appears here using your user name.

And I've got full use of all of my faculties. Mind where you go in the dark.

Kevin Duffy

The reason all parties in the North share power is because if they didn't there would be no assembly and nothing to share. To imagine it's based on love and forgiveness and moving on is laughable. Someday it'll be hearts and flowers, but for now it's just pragmatism. It's not a bad start, but that's still all it is for now.

whubee

imho mcguinness knows he wont win, this is a way of easing in the idea of a SF president in future elections, acclimatizing the electorate.

washman3

No (explain in post)

Paparazzo wrote: »

I couldn't care less what they do up the north.

Well 90% plus of the Republics population do. they voted yes to the Good Friday agreement in the full knowledge that McGinnis and Paisley would share power.

2 stroke

MMG was democratically elected in the north, and so entitled to be part of the powersharing government. As yet he is not democratically elected down here.

alastair

McGuinness has had the decency to start dealing with loyalists and unionists without demeaning their positions. He hasn't acclimatised to the state he wants to head up if he's going on about 'west brits'.

Between that and the big lie about his involvement in a long series of activities that people here find unacceptable, he's making himself unelectable. I'm happy to have him run like any other candidate all the same

Kevin Duffy

washman3 wrote: »

Well 90% plus of the Republics population do. they voted yes to the Good Friday agreement in the full knowledge that McGinnis and Paisley would share power.

A rather cavalier approach to stats there. Turnout was 56% for that referendum, so your 90% is a bit makey-uppy.

squod

No (explain in post)

Yes it's hypocritical. It's BS to suggest people shouldn't vote for him.

spider guardian

Hypocritical yes. Martin McGuinness should be judged on whether he will make a good president or not. Moral outrage should not decide, nor should people pay any heed to the idiotic statements made by Phil Hogan.

Nodin

No (explain in post)

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

And I've got full use of all of my faculties. Mind where you go in the dark.

Threats now?

Kev_ps3

No (explain in post)

Irish west Brits such as those in RTE and Fine Gael are more loyalist then Ulster loyalists. I wouldn't even call them Irish. They are the remains of the occupation.

washman3

No (explain in post)

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

A rather cavalier approach to stats there. Turnout was 56% for that referendum, so your 90% is a bit makey-uppy.

90% plus of the 56% that turned out to vote. thats all that matters.
if the other 44% didnt cast their vote thats their business, they just have to go along with the result of the majority afterwards.
And that my friend is whats called Democracy...;)

Pace2008

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Irish west Brits such as those in RTE and Fine Gael are more loyalist then Ulster loyalists. I wouldn't even call them Irish. They are the remains of the occupation.

Tiocfaidh ár lá, 26+6=1, huns are scum.

KeithAFC

Pace2008 wrote: »

Tiocfaidh ár lá, 26+6=1, huns are scum.

Thanks. :pac:

Where To

No.


I'm an unrepentant west brit.

gigino

Pace2008 wrote: »

Tiocfaidh ár lá, 26+6=1, huns are scum.

They have'nt gone away, you know.
A bit funny all the same how someone from another jurisdiction, who never paid tax here in his life, and who is generally acknowledged ( inc by our ex minister for Justice ) to have been a leader of the terrorist organisation known for many outrages on both sides of the border, has the neck to accuse hard working law abiding citizens of this state of being "west brits" in a degrotatory tone of voice. Imagine having him as President:rolleyes:

gigino

where do i go from here wrote: »

I'm an unrepentant west brit.

Much better to be a west brit than someone who was a leader of the organisation who kidnapped Jean McColville, bombed Le Mons + Enniskillen + Belfast, shot Gerry McCabe in Limerick, another Guard in Leitrim etc etc etc. He killed + terrorised "west brits", still has not shown remorse or apologised for doing so, and still talks about "west brits" when risen. A leopard does not change his spots.

Wolfe Tone

No (explain in post)

People seriously need to read his "west brit" comment. He said it was certain sections of the Dublin based media, ie, Myers, the usual suspects. He also referenced certain politicians who were "formally in political parties". That is clearly a reference to McDowell in response to his diatribe against MMG on the frontline.

Martin was 100% correct too. There are "west brit elements" out there with a clear agenda against him, but thats not saying that EVERYONE who doesn't want him as president is a West Brit. He never said that.

I certainly would not apply that description generally. I think there's a very tiny number of people who fit into that category

KeithAFC

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

People seriously need to read his "west brit" comment. He said it was certain sections of the Dublin based media, ie, Myers, the usual suspects. He also referenced certain politicians who were "formally in political parties". That is clearly a reference to McDowell in response to his diatribe against MMG on the frontline.

Martin was 100% correct too. There are "west brit elements" out there with a clear agenda against him, but thats not saying that EVERYONE who doesn't want him as president is a West Brit. He never said that.

Why is being a west brit wrong? Can't an Irish person have a soft spot for the UK/Britain? It is the way he is saying it as if being British or liking anything British is wrong.

orourkeda

I'm neither a sinn fein nor am likely to vote for Martin McGuinness in the upcoming election but maybe it is time to move on.

retalivity

There are "west brit elements" out there with a clear agenda against him

with bloody good reason too

steddyeddy

Pace2008 wrote: »

Tiocfaidh ár lá, 26+6=1, huns are scum.

I hope you dont mean that:(

pow wow

So he's married to a Belfast woman and presumably knows loadz about NI and then comes out with that oversimplified tripe?

michael999999

No (explain in post)

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why is being a west brit wrong? Can't an Irish person have a soft spot for the UK/Britain? It is the way he is saying it as if being British or liking anything British is wrong.

Maybe you could recommend some loyalist websites people could sign up to!

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why is being a west brit wrong? Can't an Irish person have a soft spot for the UK/Britain? It is the way he is saying it as if being British or liking anything British is wrong.

I dont think someone who likes england or britian is a west brit. I have a soft spot for britian to a degree. Even look at the dubliner's songs, a lot of them are about england!

gigino

Dionysus wrote: »

McWilliams wasn't saying he was supporting McGuinness (or any candidate), but he was making a valid point that there is now no moral objection to electing a Sinn Féin President when the unionist community's representatives are willing to share power with Sinn Féin.

We have no moral obligation to share power with McGuinness when he was not born in this state or paid tax here.

gigino

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont think someone who likes england or britian is a west brit. I have a soft spot for britian to a degree. Even look at the dubliner's songs, a lot of them are about england!

+1. We have close ties to our neighbouring island going back many hundreds of years. I know a lot of my friends and relations got work in England, and were treated well there.

Zebra3

No (explain in post)

I wonder do many people even realise that McAlesse is not the democratically elected president of Ireland. :rolleyes:

Sunnyisland

No (explain in post)

gigino wrote: »

We have no moral obligation to share power with McGuinness when he was not born in this state or paid tax here.

So are you saying that every potential Td or presidential candidate must have worked and paid taxes here first ?

Sunnyisland

No (explain in post)

Zebra3 wrote: »

I wonder do many people even realise that McAlesse is not the democratically elected president of Ireland. :rolleyes:

Come on explain

Zebra3

No (explain in post)

realies wrote: »

Come on explain

Well did you get to vote on her second term in office?

dj jarvis

Zebra3 wrote: »

I wonder do many people even realise that McAlesse is not the democratically elected president of Ireland. :rolleyes:

yes she is

no one stood against her - she put herself forward for the post - she became president because of the fact - she has the seal of office - that my friend makes her president of the republic of Ireland

because no one had the chance to vote on her second term, does not mean she is not " elected " to office , her first election took care of that

hardly her fault if no one stood against her