Affect of McGuinness presidency win on the peace process

UDP

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

Oh No, not another McGuinness thread

UDP

LordSutch wrote: »

Oh No, not another McGuinness thread

Oh wow, sorry for asking a valid question.

pablomakaveli

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

getz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

anymore

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.

I dubt if they ever though winning was realistic but doing reasonably well would be a victory in itself plus by getting all the predictable questions out of the way, they are diluting the effect of these in future elections. Consider it a sanitising operation.
I would say it has probably worked. Look at Miriam O callaghan - she seems to havecome out of this not too well.

anymore

P.S at this stage a lot of people are simply bored to death by all this talk of ' the Peace Process' Its over get on with it. They didnt spend five/ten years after the end of WW II talling about the ' Peace Process' . It si time for all the actors to come off the stage.

Happyman42

It's interesting that 'Irish men and women of a certain type' have no problem listening to the 'meaningless Peace and Reconciliation vomit inducing speak and guff that comes from Mary McAleese but would have a problem with it coming from the lips of somebody who was actively involved in the peace process.
Martin McGuinness in the Aras would definitely send out a message that we Irish men and women are no longer ashamed of the past. It would send out a message that 'we are dealing with it and coming to terms with who we are as a people and culture.

I have absolutely no problem with a Unionist standing for the office either before the usual bunch jump in.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's interesting that 'Irish men and women of a certain type' have no problem listening to the 'meaningless Peace and Reconciliation vomit inducing speak and guff that comes from Mary McAleese but would have a problem with it coming from the lips of somebody who was actively involved in the peace process.
Martin McGuinness in the Aras would definitely send out a message that we Irish men and women are no longer ashamed of the past. It would send out a message that 'we are dealing with it and coming to terms with who we are as a people and culture.

I have absolutely no problem with a Unionist standing for the office either before the usual bunch jump in.

dont you have to be a irish citizen to stand for office in the republic ? so how can a unionist stand for office

phog

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's interesting that 'Irish men and women of a certain type' have no problem listening to the 'meaningless Peace and Reconciliation vomit inducing speak and guff that comes from Mary McAleese but would have a problem with it coming from the lips of somebody who was actively involved in the peace process.
.

I have absolutely no problem with a Unionist standing for the office either before the usual bunch jump in.

If Bertie Ahern stood for office would he be elected? I seriously doubt it and he gave as much to the Peace Process as anyone in SF.

Martin McGuinness in the Aras would definitely send out a message that we Irish men and women are no longer ashamed of the past. It would send out a message that 'we are dealing with it and coming to terms with who we are as a people and culture

That's my issue with M MG standing for election, I dont want people to think that I'm proud of what SF and the IRA did.

Happyman42

phog wrote: »

If Bertie Ahern stood for office would he be elected? I seriously doubt it and he gave as much to the Peace Process as anyone in SF.

What a completely bizarre analogy. Bertie gave more to the peace process than SF?............that's mad Ted!

phog wrote: »

That's my issue with M MG standing for election, I dont want people to think that I'm proud of what SF and the IRA did.

Heaven forbid. Somebody from 'one of them floreign countries' might see you? The shame, the shame!

Don't vote for them, it really isn't worth it.:rolleyes:

maccored

phog wrote: »

If Bertie Ahern stood for office would he be elected? I seriously doubt it and he gave as much to the Peace Process as anyone in SF.

hahahaha - thats one of the best jokes I've heard in ages

COYW

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

No they are not. They are implementing cuts which are in complete contradiction to their policies down here. Also, on questioning regarding their economic policies in Northern Ireland, they reply that their hands are tied by the British government and they are just implementing their policies.

MMG becoming president would be a massive negative for the country. It would tell the Unionist community in Northern Ireland and also people in the international community that a democratic majority of the people here condone the actions of the IRA and it's political wing, who also had strong links to vicious regimes throughout the world such as that of Gaddafi in Libya.

It's academic at this stage anyway, MMG won't win and I hope that the respectable people in this country are starting to wake up and realise what this person did in the past. A final vote of less than 10% would be an utter embarrassment for him and SF.

maccored

COYW wrote: »

No they are not. They are implementing cuts which are in complete contradiction to their policies down here. Also, on questioning regarding their economic policies in Northern Ireland, they reply that their hands are tied by the British government and they are just implementing their policies.

MMG becoming president would be a massive negative for the country. It would tell the Unionist community in Northern Ireland and also people in the international community that a democratic majority of the people here condone the actions of the IRA and it's political wing, who also had strong links to vicious regimes throughout the world such as that of Gaddafi in Libya.

It's academic at this stage anyway, MMG won't win and I hope that the respectable people in this country are starting to wake up and realise what this person did in the past. A final vote of less than 10% would be an utter embarrassment for him and SF.

As much as they HAVE to implement the cuts set by Westminster, all the main parties are trying to convince London to pass financial control over to stormont. Always wiser to look these things up before going off on one. Plus, if you dont mind me asking, how do you know what it would tellt he Unionist community? Do you live in the north? Have you much experience of what went on? Are you in any position at all to make the assumptions you made in your post? (Im not denying that you are, btw, Im interested to know whereby you came across this knowledge)

Happyman42

maccored wrote: »

As much as they HAVE to implement the cuts set by Westminster, all the main parties are trying to convince London to pass financial control over to stormont. Always wiser to look these things up before going off on one.

It's actually one of the problems with SF for me. Their economic policies, while making all the right socialist noises just don't add up for me.

maccored wrote: »

Plus, if you dont mind me asking, how do you know what it would tellt he Unionist community? Do you live in the north? Have you much experience of what went on? Are you in any position at all to make the assumptions you made in your post? (Im not denying that you are, btw, Im interested to know whereby you came across this knowledge)

I don't think it would matter all that much to a Unionist when it comes down to it. Remember, the people of the North have been through quite a lot, they don't buy a hen on a wet day, in general. Any that I know realise that it is more complex than that and not necessarily an endorsement of violence or the actions of the past. Much the same as the foreign media don't seem to have a problem with it.

COYW

maccored wrote: »

As much as they HAVE to implement the cuts set by Westminster, all the main parties are trying to convince London to pass financial control over to stormont. Always wiser to look these things up before going off on one.

So at this moment in time, we agree that SF and their partners in government are not implementing their own policies in NI, with the aim of resolving their economic issues. London is calling all the shots.

maccored wrote: »

Plus, if you dont mind me asking, how do you know what it would tellt he Unionist community? Do you live in the north? Have you much experience of what went on? Are you in any position at all to make the assumptions you made in your post? (Im not denying that you are, btw, Im interested to know whereby you came across this knowledge)

I have work colleagues and friends who come from both sides of the divide in NI. To be fair, they are very moderate and quite balanced in their views on NI and all to man/woman hold little love or respect for MMG. One very close friend of mine from the Creggan has absolutely no time for him at all. She is more anti MMG than the people from the Unionist community that I know. She is actually extremely bitter towards him for reasons unknown to me.

Durnish

Just one point, a poster has noted that the Guardian ran a comment piece from one Ronan Bennett. Speaking for himself, and given the space to do so by the newspaper, he said he supported the McG campaign. I do not expect that the Guardian itself would like to be described as supporting the McG campaign. It was not an editorial piece, if I remember correctly.

One may as well cite the comment article by Nick Cohen, also in the Guardian, as saying that the Guardian calls McG's campaign an "affront".

Durnish

sorry, should have said "Guardian's sister paper, The Observer", where the Nick Cohen comment first appeared.

Happyman42

Durnish wrote: »

and given the space to do so by the newspaper,

That's the rub though, I am not so sure that that kind of comment would have found a space in the British print media a few short years ago.

Durnish

ah, but I commented as it seemed as if the Guardian itself was supporting the McG campaign, rather than running Bennett's comment piece.

As an aside to the whole thing, I find it refeshing, as a NI resident, with a small u, to see the southern media quizzing McG so thoroughly, although it seems that he himself is not amused.

Happyman42

Durnish wrote: »

ah, but I commented as it seemed as if the Guardian itself was supporting the McG campaign, rather than running Bennett's comment piece.

As I always say, if you can't objectify what you are reading you shouldn't be left alone with a newspaper.

Funfair

KeithAFC wrote: »

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

Would have shaken Dana up a notch allright she'd come in 2nd last...

Funfair

COYW wrote: »

So at this moment in time, we agree that SF and their partners in government are not implementing their own policies in NI, with the aim of resolving their economic issues. London is calling all the shots.



I have work colleagues and friends who come from both sides of the divide in NI. To be fair, they are very moderate and quite balanced in their views on NI and all to man/woman hold little love or respect for MMG. One very close friend of mine from the Creggan has absolutely no time for him at all. She is more anti MMG than the people from the Unionist community that I know. She is actually extremely bitter towards him for reasons unknown to me.

Do you realize that every post you write from now on about MMG will be dismissed by me as hearsay and bar stool rumour after that sentence above...:o

maccored

COYW wrote: »

So at this moment in time, we agree that SF and their partners in government are not implementing their own policies in NI, with the aim of resolving their economic issues. London is calling all the shots.

Obviously, as thats the way it is as far as a lot of the finance is concerned. good to see you agree with it all of a sudden. earlier you were hinting they were setting the finance themselves. ("They are implementing cuts which are in complete contradiction to their policies down here")

maccored

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's actually one of the problems with SF for me. Their economic policies, while making all the right socialist noises just don't add up for me.

I dont know to be honest. I think they have the balls to make decisions but they've never actually had a chance to put any economic policy into action so I cant say they'd fail. lets face it - look at the economic ****e we're in at present. the past government wasnt that great at it.

I don't think it would matter all that much to a Unionist when it comes down to it. Remember, the people of the North have been through quite a lot, they don't buy a hen on a wet day, in general. Any that I know realise that it is more complex than that and not necessarily an endorsement of violence or the actions of the past. Much the same as the foreign media don't seem to have a problem with it.

I was really just asking COYW how he/she was so certain of the unionist reaction.