Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gerry Adams repeats himself again. But

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    That's not true.

    Question: How has Sinn Féin and the republican movement in the North overcome civil rights violations? And how has it best worked towards social progress?

    Answer: From outside of the political system.

    Nonsense, Sinn Fein and the Republican movement did not overcome civil rights violations in the North. The right to life is THE fundamental civil right and both of the above either supported those who committed and/or committed repeated breeches of this civil right.

    Civil rights violations in NI were overcome by legislative change WITHIN the political system and/or court cases to overcome those violations.


  • Options
    #63
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    View wrote: »
    It is the electorate who has maintained this ideological outlook.

    They have displayed an impressive lack of interest in alternatives.
    I know. I'm not interested in the electorate's current views. I don't think Sinn Féin ought to show much interest in them either. The electorate is cynical and lethargic. No right-minded activist should be plámásing cynicism or lethargy.
    View wrote: »
    Nonsense, Sinn Fein and the Republican movement did not overcome civil rights violations in the North. The right to life is THE fundamental civil right and both of the above either supported those who committed and/or committed repeated breeches of this civil right.

    Civil rights violations in NI were overcome by legislative change WITHIN the political system and/or court cases to overcome those violations.
    More rubbish. The same institutions that formally ended the culturally informed civil rights violations were the same institutions that had introduced and permitted civil rights violations in the first place.

    Why did these institutions engage in an about turn? One reason is because they were undermined. Sinn Féin and the Republican movement drew these institutions into a battleground where their masks slipped and they were revealed to be incapable as honest brokers or responsible lawmakers, and, in the case of the courts, as being incapable of upholding civil rights.

    They were undermined, and consequently had no choice but to respond.

    The only procedure that has consistently upheld civil rights since long before the foundation of this state has been drawing the national institutions into a public glare where incompetence and wrongdoing is made explicit. Sometimes the courts can do this. Sometimes the courts are themselves incompetent.

    The idea that some sleeping beauties just woke up one morning and enacted legislative change is a proposition for which there are no polite words.


  • Options
    #64
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    I know. I'm not interested in the electorate's current views. I don't think Sinn Féin ought to show much interest in them either.

    Fair enough. Ignore the electorate's opinions - sounds like a strategy for electoral success. :-)
    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Why did these institutions engage in an about turn?

    Because the democratically elected politicians operating within the political system introduced legislation.

    People outside the democratic political system don't get to introduce legislation.


  • Options
    #65
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    "Things changed because the law changed".

    Insightful.


  • Options
    #66
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    "Things changed because the law changed".

    Insightful.

    Reality.

    It was the democratically elected politicians acting WITHIN the system that brought about change not those outside it.

    You can like it or dislike it but you almost certainly can't bring yourself to admit it because that means all the hatred, violence and murder that NI experienced was unnecessary.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Sure.


  • Options
    #68
    Smiles35
    Registered Users Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    So conservative elements held us back after we gained our republic? We are conservative Gerry.


  • Options
    #69
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    View wrote: »
    Reality.

    It was the democratically elected politicians acting WITHIN the system that brought about change not those outside it.

    They achieved sooo much up North up to 1969, didn't they?


  • Options
    #70
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    They achieved sooo much up North up to 1969, didn't they?

    Sunningdale was agreed in 1973. That it took those operating outside democratic politics another 25 years to arrive at what's essentially Sunningdale II in the GFA, is no great reflection on the merits of extra-democratic strategies in the North. And then there's all those awkward atrocities.


  • Options
    #71
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    Sunningdale? Ffs. It wasn't the "awkward" atrocities that brought Sunningdale down.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Sunningdale? Ffs. It wasn't the "awkward" atrocities that brought Sunningdale down.

    No - did I say it was? It was brought down by the combined antics of anti-democratic republicans and loyalists. The slow learners spent another 25 years engaged in atrocities before returning to the same basic arrangement that the democratic parties had set up in '73.


  • Options
    #73
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    alastair wrote: »
    No - did I say it was? It was brought down by the combined antics of anti-democratic republicans and loyalists.

    Even if you don't like reading books, watch the 1974 episode of Reeling In The Years to find out who brought down Sunningdale.

    Three letters, pal: UWC.


  • Options
    #74
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Even if you don't like reading books, watch the 1974 episode of Reeling In The Years to find out who brought down Sunningdale.

    Three letters, pal: UWC.

    Thanks telling me what I already know, eh, pal. As I've already said - it was brought down by anti-democratic republicans and loyalists.


  • Options
    #75
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    alastair wrote: »
    Thanks telling me what I already know, eh, pal. As I've already said - it was brought down by anti-democratic republicans and loyalists.

    OK, I'll write it slowly for you this time: U... W... C...


  • Options
    #76
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    OK, I'll write it slowly for you this time: U... W... C...

    Inane posts don't change the reality of Sunningdale - it was brought down by anti-democratic republicans and loyalists. 25 years of 'activities outside the political process' for essentially no gain. Quite a record. The UWC opposed Sunningdale, just as SF and other republican cliques did - they're all culpable in 25 wasted years.


  • Options
    #77
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    For a time when the alphabet has been mastered, here's the Sunningdale story:

    BACKGROUND

    In March 1972, the Northern Troubles were in their worst year, with nearly 500 deaths. It was then that the Conservative British government under Edward Heath abolished the Unionist-dominated Stormont parliament. Stormont had denied Catholics civil rights since the 1920s but the British government had foolishly allowed it to dictate security policy. London had let Stormont tell the British army what to do, especially after the Conservatives came to power in June 1970 (e.g. the Falls Road Curfew July 1970) and had also let Stormont introduce internment (of Catholics) in August 1971.

    William Whitelaw, the Northern Ireland Secretary, then produced a White Paper that has 4 key components:
    1) Northern Ireland Assembly
    2) Executive (power-sharing between Protestant and Catholic ministers)
    3) Council of Ireland (a joint parliamentary body between North and South)
    4) Guarantee that NI remained part of UK as long as a majority wanted this.

    A split resulted among the Unionists. Brian Faulkner, the last Unionist Party PM of Northern Ireland, agreed with the White Paper. Those who pledged their support to him were called “Pledged” Unionists. Those Unionists against him consisted of Ian Paisley and his Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), William Craig and his Vanguard party, the Orange Order and the “Unpledged” Unionists led by Harry West of Faulkner’s party.

    The nationalist SDLP gave cautious support to the plan but the IRA rejected it, saying it reinforced Partition. Election results showed 64% of the six-county population in favour of power-sharing. Of the Unionist results in the election, 26 seats were won by anti-White Paper candidates and 24 by pro-White Paper candidates. Faulkner was therefore in a very difficult position, leading a minority of Unionist representatives.

    THE AGREEMENT
    ~ Faulkner wanted a Unionist majority in the Executive
    ~ A Council of Ireland was agreed on. It would have influence over policing and would contain representatives from the Dáil.
    ~ SDLP agreed to end the Catholic rent and rates strike against internment
    ~ Whitelaw was called back to London and replaced by Francis Pym
    ~ On 6th December 1973 a conference opened in Sunningdale, Berkshire
    ~ Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave along with ministers Garret Fitzgerald and Conor Cruise O’Brien attended
    ~ John Hume of the SDLP got real power for the Council of Ireland
    ~ Prime Minister Heath chaired the meeting and quickly got impatient with Unionists
    ~ Irish Government agreed to give a verbal agreement on Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK as long as the majority wanted that.

    THE POWER-SHARING EXECUTIVE
    ~ On 1st January 1974, with Faulkner as Chief Minister and Gerry Fitt (SDLP) as his Deputy, power-sharing began:
    ~ The Orange Order, DUP, Vanguard and “Unpledged” Unionists united to form the United Ulster Unionist Council (UUUC), which was created to resist power-sharing and the Council of Ireland.
    ~ Faulkner resigned as leader of the Unionist Party after a motion on the Council of Ireland failed to pass at a meeting. He was replaced by Harry West.
    ~ IRA and Loyalist attacks continued.
    ~ A British general election was called by Heath, against the advice of the Executive, which said it was bad timing.
    ~ UUUC used the election as a referendum on Sunningdale and put forward one anti-Agreement candidate in each constituency.
    ~ UUUC won 11 out of 12 of the Westminster seats (Paisley, Craig and West all won).
    ~ Gerry Fitt was the only pro-agreement candidate to win a Westminster seat.
    ~ In Britain, the Conservatives lost the election and Harold Wilson of Labour became PM.
    ~ Pym was replaced by Merlyn Rees as Northern Ireland Secretary.

    THE ULSTER WORKERS’ COUNCIL (UWC)
    ~ Northern Ireland industries employed predominantly Protestant workers.
    ~ The Ulster Workers’ Council was a group of loyalist workers in shipbuilding, engineering and electricity generation.
    ~ On 15th May 1974, the UWC called a strike.
    ~ Loyalist paramilitaries became involved and workers were ‘persuaded’ not to go to work.
    ~ Road blockades were established and youths armed with clubs turned back lorries delivering milk, groceries and petrol.
    ~ Strikers managed to cut electricity output by 60% and factories were forced to close.
    ~ The British Army and RUC stood by and did nothing.
    ~ Most Protestants supported the strike.
    ~ The UWC did not alienate its own people and made sure supplies got through to Protestant areas.
    ~ Loyalists with British army collusion carried out bomb attacks in Dublin and Monaghan in May, killing 33 people.
    ~ The Executive was isolated and had no control over events.
    ~ Rees the Northern Ireland Secretary failed to stop the strike.
    ~ Faulkner tried to get the Dublin government to reduce the powers of the Council of Ireland but, despite agreement to hold off implementation, it was too late.
    ~ Hospitals were about to close and the Executive resigned.
    ~ The Power-Sharing Executive ended in failure.

    WHY DID THE SUNNINGDALE AGREEMENT FAIL?
    ~ Northern Ireland Secretary Rees (i.e. the Labour Government) was unwilling to use the police and army to break the strike.
    ~ The Labour Party under Wilson was not as keen as the Conservatives on the Agreement.
    ~ The UWC strike brought the North to a halt.
    ~ The Council of Ireland was greatly feared by the Unionists as they believed it would lead to a United Ireland.


  • Options
    #78
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Your cut and paste skills nothwithstanding, can you remind me again who rejected Sunningdale, if not anti-democratic republicans and loyalists?


  • Options
    #79
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    You are dishonestly trying to apportion blame equally for what happened to Sunningdale.

    It was destroyed by the anti-democratic majority of the majority, with the collusion of the British state.

    So don't cry crocodile tears for it, that's all.


  • Options
    #80
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    You are dishonestly trying to apportion blame equally for what happened to Sunningdale.

    It was destroyed by the anti-democratic majority of the majority, with the collusion of the British state.

    So don't cry crocodile tears for it, that's all.

    The collusion of the British state? :rolleyes:

    It was entirely the fault of anti-democratic republicans and loyalists that a resolution to the governance of NI was thrown away for 25 years, before they came crawling back to the logic of the same formula. Seamus Mallon was right.


  • Options
    #81
    HansHolzel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 996 ✭✭✭HansHolzel


    alastair wrote: »
    The collusion of the British state? :rolleyes:

    Dublin and Monaghan 1974, 33 killed, the most awkward atrocity of all, you ignorant Orange troll.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    HansHolzel wrote: »
    Dublin and Monaghan 1974, 33 killed, the most awkward atrocity of all, you ignorant Orange troll.

    Exactly - excellent example of what anti-democratic republicans and loyalists gave us with their rejection of Sunningdale. This and 25 more years of the same.


  • Options
    #83
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    alastair wrote: »
    Exactly - excellent example of what anti-democratic republicans and loyalists gave us with their rejection of Sunningdale. This and 25 more years of the same.

    Unionists brought down Sunningdale. The loyalist thugs 'policing' the strike were allowed to do so by the RUC militia and British state.

    But hey, don't let reality assert itself in your fantasy world where everyone is equally to blame.


  • Options
    #84
    Norwesterner
    Registered Users Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Norwesterner


    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    Unionists brought down Sunningdale. The loyalist thugs 'policing' the strike were allowed to do so by the RUC militia and British state.

    But hey, don't let reality assert itself in your fantasy world where everyone is equally to blame.
    To be fair SF also rejected Sunningdale.
    Paddy Devlin was a former IRA member who took his seat in Stormont in 1974.
    Adams and Mc Guinness called him a traitor and collaborator.
    The option of entering Stormont was always available to Republicans but they rightly rejected it until 1998.
    Some of the election posters for SF in 1998 were actually put on placards that read "No return to Stormont".
    They literally papered over it with Stormont election posters.


  • Options
    #85
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Norwesterner wrote: »
    To be fair SF also rejected Sunningdale.

    SF were a non-entity at the time.
    The election in Northern Ireland was in effect a referendum on power-sharing, and the Council of Ireland as proposed in the Sunningdale Agreement. There was no electoral pact between the parties in favour of the Executive. There was however a very successful pact amongst those opposed to the Sunningdale Agreement who joined forces in the United Ulster Unionist Council (UUUC). The UUUC was formed by three main Loyalist parties: Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), (Ulster) Vanguard, and Official Unionists (West). These parties agreed to put forward one candidate in each of the constituencies. The Campaign slogan of the UUUC was, 'Dublin is just a Sunningdale away'. Candidates standing on behalf of the UUUC won 11 of the 12 Northern Ireland seats, gaining 51.1 per cent of the valid votes.

    cain.ulst.ac.uk


  • Options
    #86
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    Unionists brought down Sunningdale. The loyalist thugs 'policing' the strike were allowed to do so by the RUC militia and British state.

    But hey, don't let reality assert itself in your fantasy world where everyone is equally to blame.

    The fantasy is in pretending that Republicans didn't equally reject Sunningdale, and that, in common with the loyalists who rejected it, they spent 25 pointless years engaged in an extra-political 'armed struggle' that led them right back to the same arrangement (or a worse one, from a Republican perspective, if you subscribe to Marian Price's 'Sunningdale for retards' perspective)


  • Options
    #87
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    SF were a non-entity at the time.

    That's some revisionism you've got going there.


  • Options
    #88
    Norwesterner
    Registered Users Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Norwesterner


    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    SF were a non-entity at the time.
    Well I was going to say SF-IRA but that would've been offensive too I'm sure.

    The Provisional Movement rejected Stormont.
    OK


  • Options
    #89
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Norwesterner wrote: »
    Well I was going to say SF-IRA but that would've been offensive too I'm sure.

    The Provisional Movement rejected Stormont.
    OK

    Yes, and they were politically insignificant and would have had no ability to bring down the Sunningdale Agreement.

    The vast majority of the Catholic/Nationalist population were far more concerned with civil and political rights than a UI.
    alastair wrote: »
    That's some revisionism you've got going there.

    Prove it wrong. Use links. Check out the charter if you're confused about how to debate effectively.


  • Options
    #90
    Norwesterner
    Registered Users Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Norwesterner


    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    Yes, and they were politically insignificant and would have had no ability to bring down the Sunningdale Agreement.

    The vast majority of the Catholic/Nationalist population were far more concerned with civil and political rights than a UI.
    In 1974??
    Provos were at their peak then.
    Most Nationalists boycotted the border poll at that period as they felt it was partitionist and gerrymandered, now it's on Gerrys wishlist.

    Even Hume said after Bloody Sunday, that for most Nationalists/Republicans "it was a United Ireland or nothing".
    Show me a SF or IRA statement at any time during the conflict that asked for "civil rights within the Union"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Norwesterner wrote: »
    Show me a SF or IRA statement at any time during the conflict that asked for "civil rights within the Union"

    I'm not saying that SF were for anything within the union. I'm making the point that SF and the IRA were a fringe element at the time.

    The SDLP was the pre-eminent party of choice for Nationalists until the IRA ceased its actions.


Advertisement