The disappeared

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

Orange fascists? I don't think I've ever heard a loyalist claim the IRA brought down Sunningdale.

Plenty have on here.

+ Your quote from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, even without Thatcher's "Out, Out, Out" summary, shows the difference between it and the Downing Street Declaration.

Thanks for your assistance, Ally.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Plenty have on here.

Boards - the hotbed of 'Orange fascists'. Well colour me convinced!

HansHolzel wrote: »

+ Your quote from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, even without Thatcher's "Out, Out, Out" summary, shows the difference between it and the Downing Street Declaration.

Care to highlight the differences that matter?

tayto lover

Listened to the interview with Marian Finuchane today.
Shocking stuff really.
That poor family suffered more than they deserved. God love them all.

HansHolzel

Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985)

Article 1

The two Governments

(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

(b) recognise that the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland;

(c) declare that, if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and support in the respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

Article 2 (b)

The United Kingdom Government accept that the Irish Government will put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland within the field of activity of the Conference in so far as those matters are not the responsibility of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.

Downing Street Declaration (1993)

4. The Prime Minister, on behalf of the British Government, reaffirms that they will uphold the democratic wish of the greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. On this basis, he reiterates, on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Their primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people who inhabit the island, and they will work together with the Irish Government to achieve such an agreement, which will embrace the totality of relationships. The role of the British Government will be to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of such agreement over a period through a process of dialogue and co-operation based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland. They accept that such agreement may, as of right, take the form of agreed structures for the island as a whole, including a united Ireland achieved by peaceful means on the following basis. The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish. They reaffirm as a binding obligation that they will, for their part, introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to this, or equally to any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland may themselves freely so determine without external impediment. They believe that the people of Britain would wish, in friendship to all sides, to enable the people of Ireland to reach agreement on how they may live together in harmony and in partnership, with respect for their diverse traditions, and with full recognition of the special links and the unique relationship which exist between the peoples of Britain and Ireland.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985)

Article 1

The two Governments

(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

(b) recognise that the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland;

(c) declare that, if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and support in the respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

Article 2 (b)

The United Kingdom Government accept that the Irish Government will put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland within the field of activity of the Conference in so far as those matters are not the responsibility of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.

Downing Street Declaration (1993)

4. The Prime Minister, on behalf of the British Government, reaffirms that they will uphold the democratic wish of the greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. On this basis, he reiterates, on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Their primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people who inhabit the island, and they will work together with the Irish Government to achieve such an agreement, which will embrace the totality of relationships. The role of the British Government will be to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of such agreement over a period through a process of dialogue and co-operation based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland. They accept that such agreement may, as of right, take the form of agreed structures for the island as a whole, including a united Ireland achieved by peaceful means on the following basis. The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish. They reaffirm as a binding obligation that they will, for their part, introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to this, or equally to any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland may themselves freely so determine without external impediment. They believe that the people of Britain would wish, in friendship to all sides, to enable the people of Ireland to reach agreement on how they may live together in harmony and in partnership, with respect for their diverse traditions, and with full recognition of the special links and the unique relationship which exist between the peoples of Britain and Ireland.

Is there a meaningful difference in there? Emboldening passages doesn't really articulate anything.

In both cases it's made clear that any change of sovereignty is a decision for the people of Northern Ireland - and them alone. That's still the case under the Downing Street declaration, and the subsequent GFA. No difference of any substance.

HansHolzel

From the Paras stopping Billy Wright's Nazis at Drumcree to the flag coming down off City Hall ("Surrender" - Billy Hutchinson, having dropped the 'No' ;-), it's more and more like the Christmas song says

Sleigh bells ring, are you listening
The union flag has gone missing
Huns smash up the town as the crown rag comes down
Walking in a Fenian wonderland

Census results now show 48% Protestant and 45% Catholic. Power-sharing and the flag issue hark back to what Parnell thought of the 1881 Land Act. It didn’t abolish landlordism but made landlordism intolerable for the landlords.

As for the Brits still paying for the place, it's just a case of 'You broke it, you own it' ;-)

Merry Christmas!

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

...doesn't really articulate anything.

The story of your posts, really.

Busted Flat.

HansHolzel wrote: »

From the Paras stopping Billy Wright's Nazis at Drumcree to the flag coming down off City Hall ("Surrender" - Billy Hutchinson, having dropped the 'No' ;-), it's more and more like the Christmas song says

Sleigh bells ring, are you listening
The union flag has gone missing
Huns smash up the town as the crown rag comes down
Walking in a Fenian wonderland

Census results now show 48% Protestant and 45% Catholic. Power-sharing and the flag issue hark back to what Parnell thought of the 1881 Land Act. It didn’t abolish landlordism but made landlordism intolerable for the landlords.

As for the Brits still paying for the place, it's just a case of 'You broke it, you own it' ;-)

Merry Christmas!

Good one.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

The story of your posts, really.

So - no difference of any substance to point to? Just petulant sulking?

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

So - no difference of any substance to point to? Just petulant sulking?

Facts look petulant when you can't face them.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Facts look petulant when you can't face them.

You've not presented any facts.

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

You've not presented any facts.

Should have gone to Specsavers

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Should have gone to Specsavers

There's that sulking again.

So - no difference of any substance to point to?

HansHolzel

You repeat yourself. I repeat facts. That's the substance of the difference.

From the Paras stopping Billy Wright's Nazis at Drumcree to the flag coming down off City Hall ("Surrender" - Billy Hutchinson, having dropped the 'No' ;-), it's more and more like the Christmas song says

Sleigh bells ring, are you listening
The union flag has gone missing
Huns smash up the town as the crown rag comes down
Walking in a Fenian wonderland

Census results now show 48% Protestant and 45% Catholic. Power-sharing and the flag issue hark back to what Parnell thought of the 1881 Land Act. It didn’t abolish landlordism but made landlordism intolerable for the landlords.

As for the Brits still paying for the place, it's just a case of 'You broke it, you own it' ;-)

Nollaig shona do na Hunaigh.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

You repeat yourself. I repeat facts. That's the substance of the difference.

You posted no facts - as I've already pointed out - there's no shift on the substantial issues regarding the sovereignty of NI, who gets to determine changes to it, and on what basis. There's been no shift at all - not even from the Maggie 'Out, Out, Out' statement - the status quo still stands as she stated, back then, today. Check for yourself:

I have made it quite clear ... that a unified Ireland was one solution that is out. A second solution was confederation of two states. That is out. A third solution was joint authority. That is out. That is a derogation from sovereignty. We made that quite clear when the Report was published. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. She is part of the United Kingdom because that is the wish of the majority of her citizens. The majority wish to stay part of the United Kingdom

United Ireland? Not until a majority within NI vote for it (like the old bat said).
Joint Authority? Nope - except within the limited bounds agreed within the Anglo-Irish Agreement (in so far as those matters are not the responsibility of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland).
Confederation of two states? Not that I've noticed, and not championed by anyone I'm aware of these days.

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

You posted no facts - as I've already pointed out - there's no shift on the substantial issues regarding the sovereignty of NI, who gets to determine changes to it, and on what basis. There's been no shift at all - not even from the Maggie 'Out, Out, Out' statement - the status quo still stands as she stated, back then, today. Check for yourself:



United Ireland? Not until a majority within NI vote for it (like the old bat said).
Joint Authority? Nope - except within the limited bounds agreed within the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Confederation of two states? Not that I've noticed, and not championed by anyone I'm aware of these days.

Dripping with anxiety.

HansHolzel

£1 for €1 in the shops?

The consumer is sovereign.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Dripping with anxiety.

I'm still waiting for those facts.

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

I'm still waiting for those facts.

The special bus left hours ago.

Godge

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-arrested-in-connection-to-abduction-and-murder-of-jean-mcconville-30103264.html


Hopefully, at long last, there will be some justice for the McConville family.

Happyman42

Probably the ex IRa commander interviewed on the RTE assassination of Gerry 'The Disappeared' a while back.
We'll see if he has anything to back up what he said on that programme. I wouldn't be holding my breath to be honest.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Probably the ex IRa commander interviewed on the RTE assassination of Gerry 'The Disappeared' a while back.
We'll see if he has anything to back up what he said on that programme. I wouldn't be holding my breath to be honest.

Adams never sued, did he, despite all the bluster from him at the time?

Heard Michael McConville on Newstalk this morning. Much more restrained than I would have been at the time.

Here's a thought. IF Adams feels he has been wronged by media organisations on this issue, why doesn't he sue them for libel? If he wins he could show his good faith by donating any damages to funds for the disappeared?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Adams never sued, did he, despite all the bluster from him at the time?

Heard Michael McConville on Newstalk this morning. Much more restrained than I would have been at the time.

Here's a thought. IF Adams feels he has been wronged by media organisations on this issue, why doesn't he sue them for libel? If he wins he could show his good faith by donating any damages to funds for the disappeared?

Have you considered the potential damage Adams could do to support for the peace process within his own ranks (where there are plenty with knives at the ready) by suing, a court case calling on witnesses etc to prove his innocence would rip the SF movement apart.
RTE and the print media know that he is never likely to sue for this reason and consequently get away with printing/saying what they want.
While not being a supporter of SF, I do recognise what Adams has sacrificed on a personal level to ensure the process survives.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have you considered the potential damage Adams could do to support for the peace process within his own ranks (where there are plenty with knives at the ready) by suing, a court case calling on witnesses etc to prove his innocence would rip the SF movement apart.
RTE and the print media know that he is never likely to sue for this reason and consequently get away with printing/saying what they want.
While not being a supporter of SF, I do recognise what Adams has sacrificed on a personal level to ensure the process survives.

That does not make any sense.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

That does not make any sense.

To somebody who has never displayed any empathy on here for the position of Adams or for what he has done to see the process survive...probably not.

Sand

Odd to use Adams and empathy in the same sentence. My abiding memory of Adams is him being distinctly nonempathic, dismissing without emotion the victims of the most recent atrocity and intoning, practically by rote the same old nonsense about not getting drawn into the politics of condemnation.

Happyman42

Sand wrote: »

Odd to use Adams and empathy in the same sentence. My abiding memory of Adams is him being distinctly nonempathic, dismissing without emotion the victims of the most recent atrocity and intoning, practically by rote the same old nonsense about not getting drawn into the politics of condemnation.

Funny that, I judge people for what they actually did to bring about a lasting peace, not on how much ultimately useless condemnation they spouted.

Godge

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-77-charged-in-connection-with-the-murder-of-motheroften-jean-mcconville-30114803.html


Good, let us see what other slimy things lie under this rock.

Shady Tady

Godge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-77-charged-in-connection-with-the-murder-of-motheroften-jean-mcconville-30114803.html


Good, let us see what other slimy things lie under this rock.

+1

meathstevie

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

I didn't know this

How in gods name has Adams not been questioned repeatedly over this (or has he?)

I'm no legal expert so could someone tell me if the charge of "directing terrorism" be brought retrospectively for events before the legislation was enacted?

Impossible, in a self respecting EU country one can not be retrospectively prosecuted. That sort of carry-on is strictly the prerogative of dictatorships with zero respect for human rights. If it's not illegal today you can't fall faul of a law enacted tomorrow.

By the way, very few people involved in the conflict in the north have ever been convicted of "terrorism" offences. Quite a few convictions were for "ordinary" offences like unlawful possession of firearms or explosives, murder, assault, robbery etc etc. Convictions for ordinary offences are a lot easier to secure burden of proof wise since the whole political discussion about the motivation for certain acts or conspiracies simply doesn't enter into the equation. Letting of an IED for example, depending on the outcome, would be covered by criminal damage, causing an explosion, murder, attempted murder etc etc....