Sinn Féin - various articles and discussion. [merged thread]

MT

Violence will fill vacuum, warns Adams

Angelique Chrisafis, Ireland correspondent

The Guardian

Northern Ireland's political vacuum, caused by the breakdown of the peace process, will be filled by the type of people who planted a pipe bomb along the route of the Belfast marathon, Sinn Féin's leader, Gerry Adams, said yesterday.

As he prepared for the last leg of his campaign, Mr Adams said he repudiated the planting of the device, which a caller to a Belfast journalist claimed was intended for Hugh Orde, the province's chief constable, who was taking part in the race on Monday. Mr Adams said: "Our focus and part of the reasons for the initiative which I took [calling on the IRA to consider abandoning armed struggle] is and was a concern that the peace process is on a downward spiral."

He said his party wanted to thwart the prospect of violence filling "a prolonged vacuum" in the peace process. The pipe bomb was blamed on dissident republicans.

Political commentators said the election would polarise politics in Northern Ireland, boosting Sinn Féin and Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist party (DUP) and obliterating the middle ground.

But Sinn Féin's vice-president Pat Doherty said yesterday that Sinn Féin could become the biggest party in Northern Ireland "in terms of popular support" according to an analysis of canvass returns in all 18
constituencies,

The DUP responded by warning of a "nightmare scenario". Its deputy leader, Peter Robinson, said: "Sinn
Féin could not be clearer about the worldwide impact of a victory for them on election day. Unionists must take heed."

The leader of the moderate nationalist SDLP, Mark Durkan, said: "This is just Sinn Féin and the DUP trying to pump each other up.

"The DUP has been trying to make this an election between Sinn Féin and themselves and both of them are trying to reduce things to two-party politics based on them.

"This is the DUP's game plan. Peter Robinson has called for it for a number of years because in a two-party set up, he can declare the Good Friday agreement a bust.

"Sinn Féin is playing into his hands."

This seems to be Gerry Adams yet again hinting at the threat posed by the IRA for political leverage. With the dust settled on the grave of Robert McCartney and the outrage over the Northern Bank heist fading, it’s back to business as usual. Get the ‘historic’ offering of the IRA – I was going to write disbanding but nothing that specific was ever proposed – out of the way and the election it was designed to aid completed and we seem to drift back to where we were ten years ago. Another outing for the tried and tested ‘vacuum’ warning. Let me guess, next Gerry will be informing us in the usual ethereal terms that without some offerings from the governments the ‘historic moment’ could be lost, what with the good ole boys in south Armagh straining at the leash. Then we’ll here about the risk of a split and for all our sakes it’d be better if the IRA was kept in existence for fear of weapons falling into rogue hands. Same old, same old, it would appear.

For how long are the democrats in Ireland going to be held to ransom? And if the IRA is still to remain in existence, still involved in criminality, targeting and recruitment after ten long years, can we now assume that a vote for Sinn Fein is indeed a vote for the armed wing of Republicanism? Lets get rid of all the niceties and the comforting of the extremes and call a vote for SF by what it really is – support for a violent criminal conspiracy. The excuse that the end of violence and brutality is just around the corner and a vote brings that corner closer has surely now worn through completely. If the ‘RA can’t bring itself to cease these appalling activities within the next few months then continued support for Sinn Fein should be seen for nothing other than an endorsement of crime and violence. Not the ‘path to peace’ ramblings of previous years.

At least, the Noble Laureate and genuine founder of what was once the peace process, John Hume, has now seen through Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams:

Hume launches attack on Adams

SUNDAY 01/05/2005 14:50:40

Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams was today accused of insulting the electorate by a former partner in the peace process.

Former nationalist SDLP leader John Hume, whose series of talks with Mr Adams between 1988 and 1994 led to the IRA ceasefire, launched a stinging attack on the Sinn Fein leader for suggesting his rivals had abandoned their initiative.

Mr Hume, whose Foyle seat is being fought over in a fierce General Election battle between SDLP leader Mark Durkan and Sinn Fein general secretary Mitchel McLaughlin, insisted his party had consistently stood for lasting peace unlike Mr Adams` party.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate said: "Gerry Adams` claim that the SDLP has abandoned the Hume-Adams process is nonsense and an insult to the knowledge of the electorate.

"The reason I got involved in the talks with Adams was to secure lasting peace followed by a lasting agreement.

"The people know that the SDLP has always been a party of lasting peace, unlike Sinn Fein, and always proposed the main items of the Good Friday Agreement - power sharing and a North-South Council of Ireland.

"I have no doubt that in this election the people, in very large numbers, will stand shoulder to shoulder with the SDLP, in total support for the consistent work of the party."

At the start of the General Election, Gerry Adams told the IRA in a public speech on April 6 he believed there existed a democratic alternative to armed struggle which it should embrace.

Following confirmation this week that the Provisionals have authorised an internal debate on their future, Sinn Fein also outlined five consequences of the IRA accepting Mr Adams` proposal in its manifesto.

"Doing so would: revive the peace process, deny the DUP a veto over progress, remove unionist excuses for non-engagement (with republicans), expose unionist intransigence, put the onus firmly on the two governments (in London and Dublin) to move forward."

SDLP leader Mark Durkan claimed yesterday Mr Adams` appeal shows Sinn Fein is playing catch up with the position of his party and others in the process who have said the IRA has been an obstacle to political progress for years.

During canvassing in West Belfast, Mr Adams would not be drawn on Mr Hume`s criticism.

However he added: "We have less than a week to go before the election and our focus is on our agenda which is getting the biggest possible vote out for Sinn Fein, to rebuild this process and move the entire situation forward.

"And we want to deal with these other big issues, whether it is the issues of racism or sectarianism or the blight of suicides where young people are taking their own lives.

"There is no anti-suicide strategy here in place in the north (of Ireland). There is only 2% of funding going into mental health.

"Lots of big issues need to be dealt with and the first prerequisite for that is to get the Sinn Fein vote out."

UTV

This is the man who brought Adams in from the cold and gave him the political career he has earned so much from. Clearly, his patience too has been tried to its very limit and beyond by the Republican Movement. When did Hume, in all the years of his distinguished political life, ever fall back on the threat of mayhem or force to push his case? Sure enough, like the rest of us, he originally gave Sinn Fein the benefit of the doubt but ten years on when murder, robbery and racketeering still continue Hume can tolerate no longer the hypocrisy of Adams and his cohorts.

Thankfully, the people of Foyle took onboard his wise counsel and rejected SF’s Mitchel – murder isn’t a crime – McLoughlin. And yet, even when the people had delivered their verdict McLoughlin hadn’t the decency to accept defeat gracefully and respect the voter’s wishes. No, according to the all-knowing Mitchel, the SDLP had committed the unspeakable act of garnering votes from unionists. Heaven help us, how low into the gutter can sectarianism in the north now stoop. It now seems to be unacceptable – in SF’s eyes anyway – that a Nationalist might ask Protestants to vote for him. Are Prod votes unclean or something? So much for Republican’s Ireland of equals when McLoughlin feels he can cast aspersions on Durkin’s mandate due to the presence of themun’s ballot papers in his total. So much for bringing people together. I wonder if Mitchel feels the election would have been more acceptable had nasty Protestants in Derry been denied the vote?

It appears that the North is set for another term of IRA criminality and violence, another term of raving by the fundamentalist Imams in the DUP, yet more Sinn Fein lies and most likely further polarisation into warped sectarian tribalism. With prospects like this even Eastenders doesn’t seem half so gloomy by comparison.

Cork

MT wrote:

This seems to be Gerry Adams yet again hinting at the threat posed by the IRA for political leverage. With the dust settled on the grave of Robert McCartney and the outrage over the Northern Bank heist fading, it’s back to business as usual. .

When people vote for people like the DUP and SF - they don't get anything but hardliners.

It is like the ad for Ronsel - just as descibed on the tin.

They had the choice to vote for people like Trimble but decided that the hard line was the way to go.

Strange.

chris_d_rat

I dont see anything "strange" about voting for Sinn Fein. The only thing I do see as strange is that more so called nationalists dont vote Sinn Fein. The SDLP won their Derry seat with unionist votes therefore Mark Durkin is a unionist, not a nationalist.

Cork

chris_d_rat wrote:

I dont see anything "strange" about voting for Sinn Fein. The only thing I do see as strange is that more so called nationalists dont vote Sinn Fein. The SDLP won their Derry seat with unionist votes therefore Mark Durkin is a unionist, not a nationalist.

The SDLP stood by constitutional republicanism your many years. SF followed the armailite and ballot box stratergy.

Unionists are just as Irish as Adams and his people. It is about time SF/IRA came to accept this.

FF, FG, Labour, SDLP etc believe in constitutional republicanisim. Unionists are entitled to vote as well.

Just some unionists voted for Mark Durkin - it does not make Mark Durkin a Unionist.

If the smurfs voted for Adams - Would it make Adams a smurf?

SF and the DUP have got on shift from the politics of the Battle of the Boyne.

Ireland has moved on.

the_syco

Northern Ireland's political vacuum, caused by the breakdown of the peace process, will be filled by the type of people who planted a pipe bomb along the route of the Belfast marathon, Sinn Féin's leader, Gerry Adams, said yesterday.

Thought that pipe bomb was put there by dissedent republicans

Wertz

Cork wrote:

Unionists are just as Irish as Adams and his people. It is about time SF/IRA came to accept this.

About time the unionists accepted it too. Most still live with a seige mentality and want very little to do with the country as a whole...

Cork wrote:

SF and the DUP have got on shift from the politics of the Battle of the Boyne.

Ireland has moved on.

But it hasn't. The same fears and prejudices exist, the same hardliners and people willing to do bad things to get their own way exist, and the facilities to try and get us away from the current impasse are starting to collapse.

DUP voters opting to vote for Mr Durkin isn't really surprising....anything's better than SF in their opinion.
Anyway it doesn't matter who voted for him; what matters is his mandate and policies.


In this election (and in any election) you'll find that the people who most often turn out to vote are people with strong beliefs one way or other....hence you'll see hardliners from both sides getting the biggest majority...especially in low turn outs.
Trimble going is a big blow. He's been dodging it for years though, and it was easy to see it coming.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

chris_d_rat

Cork wrote:

The SDLP stood by constitutional republicanism your many years. SF followed the armailite and ballot box stratergy.

Unionists are just as Irish as Adams and his people. It is about time SF/IRA came to accept this.

FF, FG, Labour, SDLP etc believe in constitutional republicanisim. Unionists are entitled to vote as well.

Just some unionists voted for Mark Durkin - it does not make Mark Durkin a Unionist.

If the smurfs voted for Adams - Would it make Adams a smurf?

SF and the DUP have got on shift from the politics of the Battle of the Boyne.

Ireland has moved on.

Its about time the IRA accepted this?? Its the dinosaurs of the DUP that wont accept they are Irish, not Sinn Fein. Gerrry Adams constantly states that the Orange are a part of Ireland. When did Ian Paisley ever say that?

MT

chris d rat wrote:

I dont see anything "strange" about voting for Sinn Fein. The only thing I do see as strange is that more so called nationalists dont vote Sinn Fein. The SDLP won their Derry seat with unionist votes therefore Mark Durkin is a unionist, not a nationalist.

It's this sort of thinking that displays the Republican mindset to be every bit as sectarian as that of DUP supporters. Does support from Protestants discredit Durkan's victory in your view? Will they be allowed to vote in a united Ireland? Or only if they vote for the correct parties?

How do you think the world would react if a white candidate's victory in an Alabama election was disparaged because he saught and relied upon the support of black voters to win?

It's interesting how times change. A while ago Gerry Adam's claimed he would appeal to Unionist voters and now when those same voters do give support to a Nationalist candidate they're condemned. So much for Sinn Fein's Ireland of equals.

chris_d_rat

I was simply making the point that the SDLP have entered into an unoffical pact to keep Sinn Fein out. Is that the correct behaviour you should expect from a so-called sister nationalist party???

MT

chris d rat wrote:

I was simply making the point that the SDLP have entered into an unoffical pact to keep Sinn Fein out. Is that the correct behaviour you should expect from a so-called sister nationalist party???

Why not question the behaviour of Sinn Fein that forced Durkan to make such a decision? Is the retention of a private army and the undemocratic activities it carries out the behaviour we should expect from any so-called democratic party?

Was Durkan not entirely entitled to compete fully for seats and for all votes possible in a democratic election? Why should the SDLP have to role over for SF?

Furthermore, it's very interesting that Sinn Fein refused a voting pact in South Belfast when Alasdair McDonnell was the only Nationalist with a chance of winning the seat. It seems Republicans only demand sectarian solidarity when it will suit their own ends. When the SDLP needs electoral support from their 'sister' party they're told in no uncertain terms to get stuffed.

Victor

How is the SDLP to stop people voting for it?

And didn't quiet a few nationalists vote UUP to try to keep the DUP out?

MT

chris d rat wrote:

Its the dinosaurs of the DUP that wont accept they are Irish, not Sinn Fein. Gerrry Adams constantly states that the Orange are a part of Ireland. When did Ian Paisley ever say that?

But clearly from this latest reaction Sinn Fein don't consider the 'Orange' to have a status equal to that of other Irishmen. Why else would the sincere votes of these Irishmen be singled out for condemnation amongst the many others that elected a Mark Durkan.

Maybe, in light of this revelation concerning Republican thinking we should now take it that Sinn Fein view 'Orange' northerners as Irishmen but clearly of a lower class.

'An Ireland of not so equals' anyone?

A Dub in Glasgo

MT wrote:

It's this sort of thinking that displays the Republican mindset to be every bit as sectarian as that of DUP supporters. Does support from Protestants discredit Durkan's victory in your view? Will they be allowed to vote in a united Ireland? Or only if they vote for the correct parties?

I saw no mention of religion in the post you repleied to. In fact I saw a reference to people of a certain politicla stance. It was you who brought religion into the equation.

How do you think the world would react if a white candidate's victory in an Alabama election was disparaged because he saught and relied upon the support of black voters to win?

Not relevant. Of greater relevancy would be a political party relying on their political opponents to give them the punt up. There is nothing wrong with it as it is tactical voting.

It's interesting how times change. A while ago Gerry Adam's claimed he would appeal to Unionist voters and now when those same voters do give support to a Nationalist candidate they're condemned. So much for Sinn Fein's Ireland of equals.

You picked out that chris_d_rat represents SF and from his small message, you imply that SF are not a party of equals?

MT

MT wrote:

But clearly from this latest reaction Sinn Fein don't consider the 'Orange' to have a status equal to that of other Irishmen. Why else would the sincere votes of these Irishmen be singled out for condemnation amongst the many others that elected a Mark Durkan.

In fairness mark durkan was ahead by nearly 6000 votes.
They didnt all come from unionists, maybe a thousand or two did,ergo he would have been elected without them anyway.

But I take your point as regards consistency.
Casting a wry disapproval at unionist votes going to Durkan would seem contrary to being inclusive.

chris_d_rat

chris_d_rat wrote:

I was simply making the point that the SDLP have entered into an unoffical pact to keep Sinn Fein out. Is that the correct behaviour you should expect from a so-called sister nationalist party???

Well, it's certainly more subtle that what was withnessed here ...
Whats that you were saying about sisterly love??

chris_d_rat

MT wrote:

But clearly from this latest reaction Sinn Fein don't consider the 'Orange' to have a status equal to that of other Irishmen. Why else would the sincere votes of these Irishmen be singled out for condemnation amongst the many others that elected a Mark Durkan.

Maybe, in light of this revelation concerning Republican thinking we should now take it that Sinn Fein view 'Orange' northerners as Irishmen but clearly of a lower class.

'An Ireland of not so equals' anyone?

You talk of an Ireland of equals as though Sinn Fein were somehow against the idea. For generations it was the unionists of Ireland who denied equality to the nationalists, i think you will find that is one of the reasons why the IRA came about in the first place.

Cork

chris_d_rat wrote:

I was simply making the point that the SDLP have entered into an unoffical pact to keep Sinn Fein out. Is that the correct behaviour you should expect from a so-called sister nationalist party

Sinn Fein have excluded themselves because of their continued links to the IRA. The SDLP are constitutional republicans.

They are an independant political party with a record of intergrety.

They have never been a " so-called sister nationalist party" to the likes of SF/IRA.

MT

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I saw no mention of religion in the post you repleied to. In fact I saw a reference to people of a certain politicla stance. It was you who brought religion into the equation.

And in Derry in particular that certain political stance is almost entirely confined to one of the city's two religious groups. Mitchel knows this and so his criticism of Durkan's vote was an oblique attack on an SDLP victory requiring Protestant votes. Furthermore, when a unionist votes for a natonalist candidate can s/he even be placed in the former category. So, the only way then to differentiate these 'tarnished' votes from the rest is by the religious persuasion of the elector. Again, Mitchel McLoughlin knew full well what he was hinting at, ie. it was Prods that got the SDLP leader in.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not relevant. Of greater relevancy would be a political party relying on their political opponents to give them the punt up.

I disagree, it's an entirely relevant analogy. McLoughlin cast aspersions on Durkan's victory claiming that the SDLP leader had to rely on the votes of unionists to gain election. Now, because in the North the term unionist largely equates with Protestant, the true meaning of the slur directed at Durkan was quite clear. As in Alabama where there has been a history of animosity between two hostile groups and where relying on votes from the other side was once (still is?) frowned upon, McLoughlin was pulling the same stunt in the North - a place with another woeful record of societal schism and feuding.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

There is nothing wrong with it as it is tactical voting.

I see no problem with inter-religious votes either. To paraphrase an oft used quote, voting should be creed blind. However, Sinn Fein's Mitchel McLoughlin clearly disagrees otherwise he wouldn't have singled out a religious specific share of Durkan's total vote to disparage the SDLP candidate's success.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You picked out that chris_d_rat represents SF and from his small message, you imply that SF are not a party of equals?

I have not picked out that chris_d_rat represents SF. Though it would be entirely impossible to infer from his comments that he favours the party. Furthermore, I have implied that SF are not a party of equals from the beginning of this thread, before chris_d_rat posted, and not from his comments but from those of Mitchel McLoughlin in the wake of his defeat in Foyle.

A Dub in Glasgo

MT wrote:

And in Derry in particular that certain political stance is almost entirely confined to one of the city's two religious groups. Mitchel knows this and so his criticism of Durkan's vote was an oblique attack on an SDLP victory requiring Protestant votes. Furthermore, when a unionist votes for a natonalist candidate can s/he even be placed in the former category. So, the only way then to differentiate these 'tarnished' votes from the rest is by the religious persuasion of the elector. Again, Mitchel McLoughlin knew full well what he was hinting at, ie. it was Prods that got the SDLP leader in.

So you elect to differentiate on religious grounds. I choose political grounds.

I disagree, it's an entirely relevant analogy. McLoughlin cast aspersions on Durkan's victory claiming that the SDLP leader had to rely on the votes of unionists to gain election. Now, because in the North the term unionist largely equates with Protestant, the true meaning of the slur directed at Durkan was quite clear. As in Alabama where there has been a history of animosity between two hostile groups and where relying on votes from the other side was once (still is?) frowned upon, McLoughlin was pulling the same stunt in the North - a place with another woeful record of societal schism and feuding.

Nope, I fail to see the relevancy. The SDLP may have needed the votes of one of their political opponents but yet again you elect to differentiate on the basis of religion.

I see no problem with inter-religious votes either. To paraphrase an oft used quote, voting should be creed blind. However, Sinn Fein's Mitchel McLoughlin clearly disagrees otherwise he wouldn't have singled out a religious specific share of Durkan's total vote to disparage the SDLP candidate's success.

Again, you are raising the religious card here. I merely stated that tactical voting means that you may have to vote for one of your political opponents to further your objectives.

MT

Earthman wrote:

In fairness mark durkan was ahead by nearly 6000 votes.
They didnt all come from unionists, maybe a thousand or two did,ergo he would have been elected without them anyway.

But I take your point as regards consistency. Casting a wry disapproval at unionist votes going to Durkan would seem contrary to being inclusive.

We know now that Durkan would have got in without the unionist votes. However, when the result was anounced - and had yet to be analysed - McLoughlin made the leap that Durkan was only victorious because of additional unionists votes. It's this reaction that my original post was referring to.

MT

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So you elect to differentiate on religious grounds. I choose political grounds.

No, I elect to infer that McLoughlin differentiated on religious grounds. I believe the political reference was a coded sectarian slur.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Nope, I fail to see the relevancy.

Because you are choosing to avoid seeing an implicit sectarian slur for what it is.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The SDLP may have needed the votes of one of their political opponents but yet again you elect to differentiate on the basis of religion.

The SDLP canvassed for votes in Derry from across the sectarian divide unlike Sinn Fein. So, the SDLP did not plan their election strategy from the standpoint of religious differentiation, whereas SF did. In light of SF's sectarian election strategy in the city of Derry I have read between the lines of McLoughlin's veiled comment and called it for what it really is - a sectarian slur. On the other hand, you have yet again chosen to avoid the intended slur contained in the remark.

Cork

MT wrote:

The SDLP canvassed for votes in Derry from across the sectarian divide unlike Sinn Fein. So, the SDLP did not plan their election strategy from the standpoint of religious differentiation, whereas SF did. In light of SF's sectarian election strategy in the city of Derry I have read between the lines of McLoughlin's veiled comment and called it for what it really is - a sectarian slur. On the other hand, you have yet again chosen to avoid the intended slur contained in the remark.

The SDLP attracted some votes from unionists. There was some tactical voting. This is called democracy.

The SDLP had the vision and maturity to canvass and subsequently attract such votes.

Why should voting in NI be down sectarian lines?

The SDLP as a political party always had vision. It never engaged in cheap political stunts.

I am not suprised they have attracted voters from all various communities.

Snickers Man

Typical bloody Provos. Can't take their beating. They hyped up McLoughlin to put the nail into the SDLP coffin and even managed to convince the bookies in Derry that Durkan would lose.

Then when he romps in, 'Oh he took votes from Unionists. The bastard!!!'

What a bunch of low life!! Make all the noises you like about 'inclusive dialogue' and 'peace processes' but the minute they come under pressure it's back to the balaclavas and the macho jibes about fraternising with the enemy.

What this election showed is that there is a large body of NATIONALIST opinion in Northern Ireland that will NEVER vote for the Shinners. In fact, looking at the results, the SDLP outpolled Sinn Fein in eight out of the 18 constituencies. So much for a party being eclipsed.

Sure the SDLP needs to concentrate on youth and replace its old guard that have largely retired now. But as the Northern economy improves, as real jobs come in (just about everybody in Northern Ireland is a state employee anyway) and real economic factors come into play, the pie in the sky state socialism that the Provos are adept at exploiting will diminish in importance.

The SDLP are better placed to become the New Labour of Northern Ireland than the provos with their begging bowl politics.

Too bad the Good Friday agreement has now been comprehensively rejected by the Unionist people and that it is now largely a pan-nationalist position. You wouldn't give Trimble a bone so he got filleted by his own people.

Silly twats.

chris_d_rat

Snickers Man wrote:

Typical bloody Provos. Can't take their beating. They hyped up McLoughlin to put the nail into the SDLP coffin and even managed to convince the bookies in Derry that Durkan would lose.

Then when he romps in, 'Oh he took votes from Unionists. The bastard!!!'

What a bunch of low life!! Make all the noises you like about 'inclusive dialogue' and 'peace processes' but the minute they come under pressure it's back to the balaclavas and the macho jibes about fraternising with the enemy.

What this election showed is that there is a large body of NATIONALIST opinion in Northern Ireland that will NEVER vote for the Shinners. In fact, looking at the results, the SDLP outpolled Sinn Fein in eight out of the 18 constituencies. So much for a party being eclipsed.

Sure the SDLP needs to concentrate on youth and replace its old guard that have largely retired now. But as the Northern economy improves, as real jobs come in (just about everybody in Northern Ireland is a state employee anyway) and real economic factors come into play, the pie in the sky state socialism that the Provos are adept at exploiting will diminish in importance.

The SDLP are better placed to become the New Labour of Northern Ireland than the provos with their begging bowl politics.

Too bad the Good Friday agreement has now been comprehensively rejected by the Unionist people and that it is now largely a pan-nationalist position. You wouldn't give Trimble a bone so he got filleted by his own people.

Silly twats.

Well say what you like about Sinn Fein that is your right but whether the SDLP outvoted them in some contituencies or not is not really relevant, What matters at the end of the day is who wins the seats and last time I checked Sinn Fein left the SDLP at the starting post. What does this say? Well it shows that just as there is a large section of so-called nationalists who will always vote SDLp, there is also an even larger section who will always vote Sinn Fein.

Cork

chris_d_rat wrote:

there is also an even larger section who will always vote Sinn Fein.

But the vote that SF got is small compared to those who voted for the removal of articles 2 & 3 from our constitution.

Lest we forgot the IRA has zero mandate.

cdebru

Cork wrote:

But the vote that SF got is small compared to those who voted for the removal of articles 2 & 3 from our constitution.

Lest we forgot the IRA has zero mandate.

and my lollipop is bigger than yours

lest we forget the IRA never claimed a mandate from articles 2 and 3

lest we forget SF supported the changing of articles 2 and 3

lest we forget we changed articles 2 and 3 we did not remove them we still have an article 2 and an article 3

and your post had nothing to do with the topic of the thread

cdebru

Snickers Man wrote:

Typical bloody Provos. Can't take their beating. They hyped up McLoughlin to put the nail into the SDLP coffin and even managed to convince the bookies in Derry that Durkan would lose.

Then when he romps in, 'Oh he took votes from Unionists. The bastard!!!'

What a bunch of low life!! Make all the noises you like about 'inclusive dialogue' and 'peace processes' but the minute they come under pressure it's back to the balaclavas and the macho jibes about fraternising with the enemy.

What this election showed is that there is a large body of NATIONALIST opinion in Northern Ireland that will NEVER vote for the Shinners. In fact, looking at the results, the SDLP outpolled Sinn Fein in eight out of the 18 constituencies. So much for a party being eclipsed.

Sure the SDLP needs to concentrate on youth and replace its old guard that have largely retired now. But as the Northern economy improves, as real jobs come in (just about everybody in Northern Ireland is a state employee anyway) and real economic factors come into play, the pie in the sky state socialism that the Provos are adept at exploiting will diminish in importance.

The SDLP are better placed to become the New Labour of Northern Ireland than the provos with their begging bowl politics.

Too bad the Good Friday agreement has now been comprehensively rejected by the Unionist people and that it is now largely a pan-nationalist position. You wouldn't give Trimble a bone so he got filleted by his own people.

Silly twats.

the good friday agreement has not been rejected the DUP were prepared to do a deal in december
and in a couple of months they will do another deal
the DUP want power they dont have any in westminister and they will never get any there
in order to get power they willl have to share power with SF
SF know that the IRA will have to go away before they will be able to share power with the DUP

the IRA will go away the DUP will get their photos or some compromise there will be new assembly elections and with in a year it will be all up and running
smoothly


the SDLP are better placed to become the new northern wing of FF than anything else

Sand

the good friday agreement has not been rejected the DUP were prepared to do a deal in december
and in a couple of months they will do another deal
the DUP want power they dont have any in westminister and they will never get any there

You guys dont get it, do you? I predicted back in November and December that the deal would never hold together and it didnt. You know why it didnt? You want to know why I knew it wouldnt? Because SF/IRA simply cant stop being terrorist scum. And the DUP cant stop being fringe religious whackos who were elected on the manifesto that they *wouldnt* deal with SF/IRA again. Hell, the UKIP got a promise from them that they wouldnt do a deal with SF/IRA.

You can have whatever pretty words and promises down on paper but for as long as the people involved are unreformed theyre meaningless. The original GFA has taught us nothing if not that.

Please understand, the only people talking about doing a deal are SF/IRA. The governments are desperate to try and salvage something from the mess. The DUP are comftable that they annialated the UUP. Why would they destroy their vote by doing exactly the opposite of what got them elected? Why in gods name would even moderate unionists want the party whose workers kills men like McCartney and covers up for them in government? Why is that such a draw for them over having London ruling them? Sure, they want local representation, but not with terrorists! The GFA itself didng provide any more guarantees for unionism than the Anglo-Irish agreement already did. Why would they want to sell their children out by letting the IRA - who have no intentions whatsoever of going away - run their police, their schools and their hospitals?

Wake up! Its over. The peace proccess is dead and buried. SF/IRA got greedy. They thought they could enter government and keep their terrorist army too. They fecked the whole thing up. It was based on trust, and SF/IRA pissed all over it. Its over.

Cork

Sand wrote:

They fecked the whole thing up. It was based on trust, and SF/IRA pissed all over it. Its over.

Voting for extremists and expecting them to compromise and work together is pretty far fetched.

Trust was indeed squandered. SF/IRA have to take some of the blame.

Both governments needed to stand up to these people. We got seven years to stalemate after the GFA.

I think both communities in NI wanted to vote for hardline political partys.

David Trimble crompromised and he sacaficed his political career.

cdebru

Sand wrote:

You guys dont get it, do you? I predicted back in November and December that the deal would never hold together and it didnt. You know why it didnt? You want to know why I knew it wouldnt? Because SF/IRA simply cant stop being terrorist scum. And the DUP cant stop being fringe religious whackos who were elected on the manifesto that they *wouldnt* deal with SF/IRA again. Hell, the UKIP got a promise from them that they wouldnt do a deal with SF/IRA.

You can have whatever pretty words and promises down on paper but for as long as the people involved are unreformed theyre meaningless. The original GFA has taught us nothing if not that.

Please understand, the only people talking about doing a deal are SF/IRA. The governments are desperate to try and salvage something from the mess. The DUP are comftable that they annialated the UUP. Why would they destroy their vote by doing exactly the opposite of what got them elected? Why in gods name would even moderate unionists want the party whose workers kills men like McCartney and covers up for them in government? Why is that such a draw for them over having London ruling them? Sure, they want local representation, but not with terrorists! The GFA itself didng provide any more guarantees for unionism than the Anglo-Irish agreement already did. Why would they want to sell their children out by letting the IRA - who have no intentions whatsoever of going away - run their police, their schools and their hospitals?

Wake up! Its over. The peace proccess is dead and buried. SF/IRA got greedy. They thought they could enter government and keep their terrorist army too. They fecked the whole thing up. It was based on trust, and SF/IRA pissed all over it. Its over.

look the deal was basically agreed in december it did not really suit either side to complete it at that stage the DUP wanted to consolidate their position against the UUP
SF wanted to consolidate their position against the SDLP in the looming election


the DUP want power so do SF both sides know that with out each other they can not have it
SF also know that the DUP will not share power with SF whilst the IRA is still going
hence adams call for the IRA to go away
the IRA will go away there will be a decontamination period although SF wont call it that in which we will see if the IRA has indeed gone away
then the DUP and SF will come back to the deal they negoiated in december
there will be fresh assembly elections so that the DUP can say the unionist people have approved of the deal ( the UUP cant credibly opppose the deal as they have already shared power whilst the IRA was in existence)
there will not be any sniping from the sidelines the way the DUP sniped at the UUP

SF will take their place on the police boards having secured some minor changes to the PSNI and the promise that policing and justice will be devolved

the peace process is not over it has entered a diferent phase

as i have said a deal involving the DUP is much more likely to stick because there will not be the sniping and looking over there shoulder that the UUP had to do

what you are failing to understand is that politicians want power wether they are in the DUP UUP PUP SDLP or SF

at the moment SF dont go to westminister and the DUP hardly go why because they are insignificant they dont matter over there they will never be in government they will never have any power they both want it and they both know what they have to do to get it

SF have already shown that they will do anything even things that they originally say would be impossible to secure power
going to stormont
decommisioning
accepting the principle of consent
etc etc

DUP have shown that despite what they say at election time they are prepared to do a deal

it is only a matter of time

Sand

the DUP want power so do SF both sides know that with out each other they can not have it

The DUP *have* power precisely because they wont do a deal with SF/IRA. Only a few years ago the DUP were being sneered at openly by the UUP as extremist losers and nobodies. Now they have just annialated the UUP. SF/IRA do not live up to their end of any deal. It is political suicide to do a deal with them. Ask Trimble.

the IRA will go away there will be a decontamination period although SF wont call it that in which we will see if the IRA has indeed gone away

The IRA will never go away. SF is the IRA ffs. The whole provo movement is physical force republicanism - thats what differentiates them from peaceful nationalism like the SDLP. SF/IRA have consistently delivered nothing but empty promises. Theyre still around, theyre still armed, theyre still active, theyre still recruiting, theyre still training. This is after 10 years of peace!!!!

And what, theyre going to go away now? Maybe this plays well at the local SF/IRA meeting but the DUP arent going to slit their throats for SF/IRA promises. They had a very, very, very lucky escape at December. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

DUP have shown that despite what they say at election time they are prepared to do a deal

And unionist voters have shown they will punish any party that allows an unreformed SF/IRA to govern them. If the DUP abandon their manifesto, theyll be annialated in turn at the next elections and some other fringe fanatice party will become the new face of unionism. The DUP know this. They also know that SF/IRA are liars.

it is only a matter of time

It really is sad how badly you guys dont get it. You cant provide a single reason why Unionist voters would suddenly about face and support move to engage with SF/IRA when SF/IRA have consistently demonstrated they do not live up to their end of the bargain. SF/IRA got greedy. They killed the peace proccess. And sadly you guys cant fix the peace proccess because your martyred mindset refuses to allow you to see the problem in the first place.

Seriously, why do you guys think the UUP got annialated? Because they *didnt* go into power with SF/IRA? Are you that blind?

sceptre

the_syco wrote:

Thought that pipe bomb was put there by dissedent republicans

He only repudiated[1] it, not condemned it.

[1]dictionary.com definition

cdebru

Sand wrote:

The DUP *have* power precisely because they wont do a deal with SF/IRA. Only a few years ago the DUP were being sneered at openly by the UUP as extremist losers and nobodies. Now they have just annialated the UUP. SF/IRA do not live up to their end of any deal. It is political suicide to do a deal with them. Ask Trimble. ?

that is not power
if that is power then sinn fein have power as well because they can equally stop the dup

you obviously have not read what i wrote there will be new assembly elections so that the dup can say the deal has been approved

besides that who will be sniping at the dup the way the dup sniped at the uup certainly not the uup

Sand wrote:

The IRA will never go away. SF is the IRA ffs. The whole provo movement is physical force republicanism - thats what differentiates them from peaceful nationalism like the SDLP. SF/IRA have consistently delivered nothing but empty promises. Theyre still around, theyre still armed, theyre still active, theyre still recruiting, theyre still training. This is after 10 years of peace!!!!

And what, theyre going to go away now? Maybe this plays well at the local SF/IRA meeting but the DUP arent going to slit their throats for SF/IRA promises. They had a very, very, very lucky escape at December. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.?

ok the ira is not sf but that is another arguement
if the IRA is SF then do you believe that SF should dissolve itself come on for FS
and we have all heard this rubbish beforethey will never call a ceasefire they did they will never decommission they did they will never go away they will
because logic determines they have to


the IRA will go away it has always been adams and co intention to rid themselves of the IRA when the time is right but to garner as much political pull out of the IRA whilst they still existed
it now suits SF to get rid of the IRA they are not involved in a military campaign why would they want to hang on to them when at the moment all they are is a mill stone around their necks there is no political advantage to holdng on to them
as i have said all political parties want power SF know that not only is their way blocked by the IRA in the 6 counties it is also blocked in the 26counties

Sand wrote:

And unionist voters have shown they will punish any party that allows an unreformed SF/IRA to govern them. If the DUP abandon their manifesto, theyll be annialated in turn at the next elections and some other fringe fanatice party will become the new face of unionism. The DUP know this. They also know that SF/IRA are liars.?

well again you did not read my post the IRA will be wound up we will have an unofficial decontamination period to check the bona fides of the republican movement SF will probably at that stage take seats on the policing boards
and again the DUP will insist on fresh assembly elections so the unionist people will approve4 the deal
also all the dissenting voices in unionism in relation to sharing power with SF are all in the DUP camp now they will not have the sniping that the UUP had

Sand wrote:

It really is sad how badly you guys dont get it. You cant provide a single reason why Unionist voters would suddenly about face and support move to engage with SF/IRA when SF/IRA have consistently demonstrated they do not live up to their end of the bargain. SF/IRA got greedy. They killed the peace proccess. And sadly you guys cant fix the peace proccess because your martyred mindset refuses to allow you to see the problem in the first place.

Seriously, why do you guys think the UUP got annialated? Because they *didnt* go into power with SF/IRA? Are you that blind?

personally i think it is really sad how much you dont get it politicians become politicians to attain power and implement their policies
for SF they would prefer that in a united Ireland but they will accept stormont because that is all that is available to them right now
the DUp would prefer tha t they could go back to the old stormont and majority rule but that is not available so they will go with what is ie the GFA

remember the DUP uttered all this nonsense in 2003 at the assembly elections they were going to destroy the GFA never never never then again at the euro elections but then they almost did a deal in december

if the IRA have to produce photos tehy will or something else agreable to all sides
when they say no never not an ounce not a bullet wether it is the DUP or SF or whoever tthey dont really mean it


we will see time will tell

A Dub in Glasgo

It is almost as if some are hoping that the peace process is dead so they can utter the 'I told you so' phrase

spanner

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is almost as if some are hoping that the peace process is dead so they can utter the 'I told you so' phrase

here, here, i completely agree with you, too many pessimistic people here. The northern bank raid and the macartney murder have shown the IRA cant just do what they have been doing for the last 30 years and the DUP are not going to do any deal with them unless they decommission and stop the crap. lets remember before leeds castle the IRA were meant to have been centralising their arms getting them ready for decommissioning. Maybe this was one of their many ploys to trick everyone but i do think alot of the members in the IRA know its only a matter of time before decommisioning will happen. DUP will be blowing a lot of hot air asual but lets wait and see what happens

MT

Keep the lunacy out

John A Murphy

TRIMBLE dignified, Doherty surly, Hermon spirited, Paisley vindictive. Virtually a clean sweep for the DUP but not for SF. Mitchel McLaughlin, smarting from defeat in Foyle, suggested that Mark Durkan could thank some unionists for crossing the sectarian barrier.
Why not? Tactical voting could begin to blur the North's rigid tribal lines.

Martin McGuinness sourly observed, without any sense of irony (but then SF don't do irony), that SDLP expenditure on the Foyle election was lavish. There was another reason for the SDLP to rejoice: the bookies got it dreadfully wrong - 4/7 McLaughlin, 11/10 Durkan. And you could see Durkan visibly growing in confidence as he escaped at last from John Hume's patronising shadow.

The successful DUP candidates fervently thanked God for their victory. God is a black Protestant and lives in Ulster. Can this be the same God who, says our Constitution's preamble "sustained our fathers through centuries of trial" - ie: by Protestant oppressors? "My God, says God, what am I going to do?"

Judging from their victory speeches, SF leaders will now be urging Dublin to take a united Ireland policy seriously. The Government should firmly resist such pressure. It would be lunacy to consider incorporating the bitterly polarised and hatred-riven society we saw yesterday into our body politic.

Sunday Independent (8/5/05)

I agree entirely with Murphy’s main point here: that it would be disastrous to incorporate the North and its madness into the Republic.

From developments in recent years, and now these polarised election results, the North has become an almost entirely tribalised society. Sadly, a majority of its inhabitants have chosen the path of failure and destruction above all others. The result is a people sundered by a poisonous sectarian divide. Most are affected to some degree by ethnic and religious prejudices.

With the election of the ethnic entrepreneurs in the form of Protestant Jihad and the political wing of the IRA, this election confirms the extent of the North’s hatred driven psychosis. The petty tribalism and sectarianism in the build up to this contest has been woeful. The results indicate that it’s now clear from the way they voted that a majority care not one iota for community partnership or tolerance. Not for them the forging of a bond between neighbours or the construction of a better society. In stark contrast to genuine liberal democracies across the globe, each sides primeval atavistic wish on Thursday was for leadership by the tribal chieftains best disposed to fúck over the other side – or themun’s to use the term spat up here. Again and again the bitter people of NI have refused to jettison their ancient animosities in favour of maturity and compromise. I fear they’ve become corrupted beyond all hope.

So, the idea of even attempting to incorporate this land of delinquents into the rest of Ireland would be to risk democratic suicide. Such a move would threaten to contaminate one of the world’s most prosperous, stable and democratic states – the Irish Republic – with the pathological nihilism that passes for ‘political’ discourse up here.

If anything, what the Republic needs is a bulwark against the North and its deluded ravings. To do the opposite and seek unity would be akin to inviting an arsonist into your home. I couldn’t agree more with Murphy on this issue - ‘keep the lunacy at bay’. Democracy is much too tender a plant to do otherwise.

MT

Exploring this theme further is Eoghan Harris, Murphy’s controversial co-writer at the Sindo. Although I disagree with Harris on many issues I couldn’t concur more with his warnings on the threat posed to democracy by Northern Ireland

Cold wind from North on a summer’s day

THOSE of us who wake in good health this Sunday morning, a May morning at the start of summer, should be able to count ourselves among the luckiest people in the world. We have a healthy democracy, a booming economy, an energetic and educated young population.
God's in his heaven, all's right with our Republic.

So why do some of us wake with a feeling of foreboding? And why do there appear to be so few of us? Are we missing something? Does everybody else have some secret knowledge that allows them to start up the SUVs, collect the Sunday papers and consume the British general election over caffe lattes, and not feel the cold wind from Northern Ireland?

Consider: not 100 miles from Dublin, a divided community, which after 30 years of armed struggle, and 10 years of intensive peacemaking, involving two US presidents, has decided to destroy its centre ground, take down its noblest politician David Trinble, and put its trust in two parties, one of which is the political front for a criminal conspiracy and the other a byword for bigotry.

This is a recipe for a return to trouble in Northern Ireland, a consequent rise in nationalist sentiment in the Republic of Ireland, the political ascent of Sinn Fein, the corruption of Irish democracy, the degradation of Irish politics, and the descent of the Irish Republic into a populist dictatorship.

That's the shadow on our summer Sunday morning.

* * * * *

LOOKING over the devasted landscape of Northern Ireland, littered with the corpses of the centre parties, a simple question asks for an answer.
How did we get here?

Tragically, future historians will say that democracy on this island was destroyed by men and women of goodwill who lacked the moral gumption to keep the Provos outside the pale until the IRA was stood down.

The goodwill list is long. It includes minor figures ranging from Mo Mowlam to Richard Haass. It includes a generation of feebles at Foreign Affairs who are now stealing away. It includes gullibles like me who fell for the Provo peace ploy.

But the two men who did most of the damage were John Hume and Tony Blair. These two
great men - and they are great men - can claim they did what they did from the best of motives. But there was also arrogance and more than a hint of hubris.

High ideals plus hubris is a short definition of Greek tragedy.

* * * * *

I WISH I could let John Hume off the hook, for two reasons. First, he takes criticism hard, and has a habit of phoning his critics and making pained and, it must be admitted, persuasive complaints. As he did a few months ago when I queried some of his actions, and asked me about all the lives that had been saved.

Another reason I don't like to criticise him is because he is a good man. But what John Hume did for the best of reasons has had the worst possible results. Before the Hume-Adams, talks the IRA was outside the political pale. It could murder and maim and make life miserable inside the IRA ghettos. But it could not corrupt constitutional nationalism or constitutional unionism - as it has now done - and threaten the Irish Republic.

* * *

THE second guilty man is Tony Blair. As a long-time admirer I find it as hard to take him to task as I do John Hume. With one tragic exception, Blair has been a politician driven by conscience and conviction. Alas for us, that exception is Northern Ireland.

If Blair was simply an opportunist he would neither have invaded Iraq nor defended his decision to the death. At any stage he could have sanctuary from a savage press by saying he had got it wrong, apologising profusely, and blaming his mistake on poor intelligence and George W Bush.

But Blair has never given ground on Iraq, rightly believing it to be the best and bravest thing he did during his tenure of office. In his otherwise abrasive book on Blair, Pretty Straight Guys, Nick Cohen remarks:

"In his retirement he can reflect with justifiable bemusement on a British centre-left which forgave him everything except his part in the downfall of a fascist regime."

Blair has been heroic on Iraq. But like all heroes he has an Achilles heel. And that Achilles heel has been Northern Ireland, where Blair has behaved with consistent bad faith, beginning with the morning of the Good Friday Agreement when he gave David Trimble a letter of comfort which said he, Blair, would do no business with Sinn Fein unless the IRA disarmed.

By dishonouring that promise, not once but again and again, Blair destroyed the prospects of David Trimble, the most brilliant unionist politician in Northern Ireland since James Craig.
Blair's bad faith also destroyed the best and brightest of the progressive unionist generation which had backed the Belfast Good Friday Agreement and which was ready to do business with the Irish Republic.

* * * * *

NOW for the hard bit. Neither Hume nor Blair was a free agent. At all times they were under the IRA's gun. Behind that gun, as we now know, are most of the nationalist people of Northern Ireland.

So what are we in the Irish Republic to say about the decision of northern nationalists to destroy the SDLP and vote for the party whose members murdered Robert McCartney?

The answer seems to be that we in the Irish Republic are not allowed to say much in the matter of pointing out the moral issues involved - according to Anthony McIntyre, a former Provisional activist, who is now an incisive political commentator, and who, I suspect, speaks for many of the new breed of northern nationalists.

In last week's issue of the dissident republican Belfast online paper The Blanket, he took me to task as follows: "Moralising arguments, such as that articulated by Eoghan Harris and which sound remarkably like a religious rant, move very few in West Belfast." There are two
things I would like to say about that.

First, McIntyre is too good a commentator to let his work be corrupted by cliches like 'rant', which has been so devalued by left-wing student polemics that it has about as much punch as their favourites, 'hysterical' and 'Thatcherite'. Second, as a disillusioned former Provo, McIntyre is presumably making the long journey from ideology to natural instinct. Like most of us who moved from totalising ideologies such as Marxism or republicanism, he finds it difficult to give up the technical and ideological comfort-blankets that make the move bearable.

If McIntyre is lucky he will live long enough to find out that the only arguments that matter are "moralising" arguments.

The problem with the Nazis or Sinn Fein is not just a matter of bad policies. It is a matter of bad intentions.

That is why the Irish Republic must reject the actions of northern nationalists by saying: "my country right, but not wrong".

Eoghan Harris

Irish Independent (8/5/05)

MT

In today's Independent, Sam Smyth examines the collapse of the centre and the deepening sectarian schism cutting across the North. Interestingly, Smyth is a Protestant that long ago saw the light and got out of Northern Ireland to pursue his career as a journalist in the Republic. I think his article goes a good way towards summing up the extent of what has been called 'the benign apartheid' that Sinn Fein and the DUP have been attempting establish across the North. The IRA gets to control its fiefdom and the biblical theocrats get theirs.

Tribal voting patterns contrive to set sectarianism in stone

LAST week's elections have literally set sectarianism in stone, cementing unionists and nationalists into tribal homelands, constituencies where the electorate's political colours are indelibly dyed-in-the-wool.

SDLP seats may be taken by Sinn Fein, or maybe even vice versa; if the UUP loses its only seat in North Down, it will almost certainly be won by the DUP.

Only a massive and sudden shift in population - unlikely except for the appalling vista that dare not speak its name - could have a currently unionist or nationalist constituency electing an MP from the other side.

From South Down and all of western Northern Ireland to Derry is solid republican and Sinn Fein, except for Eddie McGrady's stubbornly nationalist foothold north of Newry. East of the River Bann is Protestant and unionist, with isolated Catholic and nationalist enclaves, particularly in Belfast where 62 'peace walls' separate the opposing communities.

Seamus Mallon, who retired at last week's election and whose SDLP seat at Westminster was taken by Sinn Fein, warned about this 'Balkanisation' of the North. "We have to avoid two parties rooted in sectarian power," said Mr Mallon. "Parties who have worked politics based on half truths, the threat of violence and a Stalinist approach."

Or course, there were always similarities to Yugoslavia in Northern Ireland, but last week's election has drawn up the divisions even more starkly than before. In 1994, when the peace process began after the IRA's first ceasefire, there were 21 prospective sectarian flashpoints in Belfast.

Yet 11 years on, seven years after the Good Friday Agreement and the on-going intervention of a US president, the British prime minister and the Taoiseach, there are now 62 potentially lethal community interfaces.

Suspicion and mutual distrust between the communities has deepened alarmingly in the past generation to the point where sectarian abuse is as sadly inevitable as road rage.

As the days lengthen, another grim possibility looms: a long hot summer of sectarian rioting. A major Orange march scheduled for Derry has been greeted by a 'no talk, no walk' warning from republicans.

Anyone expecting Tony Blair to pay the same attention to Northern Ireland in the coming weeks should note that the British prime minister and his government will be preoccupied with their EU presidency.

Peter Hain, the new Northern Ireland secretary, whose ambition and unswerving self-confidence is put down to "a dysfunctional modesty gland", is unlikely to perform any emergency miracles.

Sinn Fein has promised a lot from the IRA, but they are already five years late in delivering the decommissioning promised in the Good Friday Agreement.

Gerry Adams and his team have their eyes set beyond even the next Westminster election in 2009, to the centenary of the Easter Rising in 2016, and will only change or innovate when it suits them.

They had a major disappointment in Foyle when, against all expectations, Mark Durkan convincingly held the SDLP seat, leaving Mitchel McLaughlin looking foolish.

On the eve of polling last Wednesday night, the Sinn Fein candidate went on Derry's community TV and announced that he had won the seat - the SDLP were despondent on polling day as Mr McLaughlin and his team swaggered through the constituency.

But Mr Durkan won in Foyle, Mr McGrady, as expected, held his seat in South Down and Alasdair McDonnell slipped between the internecine unionist squabble to steal a seat in South Belfast.

In fact, the SDLP's seat in South Belfast is probably the last that may go to the other side if the unionist parties field a single candidate at the next election.

But the evidence points to Sinn Fein dominating nationalist politics and the DUP's decimation of the UUP will be leave Ian Paisley's thundering oratory as the prevailing unionist voice. There can be no realistic hopes for an early deal between Sinn Fein and the DUP, particularly when Ian Paisley came within a whisker of losing face - and the leadership of unionism - last December.

If the DUP had done a deal with Sinn Fein before the Northern Bank robbery in December, they would have been Trimbled at the polls last week.

So, any future agreement with Sinn Fein will require tortuous negotiation, verification and even then there will be a long 'decontamination' process.

And the DUP will almost certainly want to put the terms of any future agreement with Sinn Fein in an election manifesto to get the security of a mandate from their voters before signing up to anything.

Sam Smyth

Irish Independent (9/8/05)

Sand

that is not power

Its more power than theyll have if they go into power with the IRA - theyll be annialated at the next elections.

Cdebru, try to think from a unionist mindset. Youve got two options....

A) Direct rule from London, where you elect MPs to represent you, a parliment that governments the nation you are a part of .

Local rule where terrorists control the police, undermine the institutions of the state, carry out murder, intimidation, violence and criminality on a massive scale.

As a unionist, which is more appealing to you? Which protects the union best? Which best protects the democratic institutions of the state from subversion? Hmmmmm, yeah, ..... thats a toughie alright. Try to understand that just because SF/IRA see nothing wrong with terrorism doesnt mean everyone else doesnt.

personally i think it is really sad how much you dont get it politicians become politicians to attain power and implement their policies

So why would they commit political suicide? See what happened to the last unionist politician and party to cut a deal with the IRA? What was that guys name again, god he used to be important, cant really remember these has beens to be honest..... I dont think hes particularly powerful these days. I wonder if the White House is returning his calls today?

the IRA will go away it has always been adams and co intention to rid themselves of the IRA when the time is right but to garner as much political pull out of the IRA whilst they still existed

This is an example of why the peace proccess is dead and why SF/IRA are idealogically incapable of making it work again. They still view terrorism as a chip to be traded in, not as wholly against the democratic values they claim to be embracing. They still cant call murder a crime. They still cant co-operate with the institutions of state they would have influence over in a power sharing deal. They still cant stop terrorising communities in their thrall. Devalera and Fianna Fail made the journey from militant republicanism to constitutional republicanism by completely and utterly rejecting militant republicanism - to the point where Dev introduced internment to break the back of his former comrades, SF/IRA show no indications of the same idealogical journey.

They have no interest in peace, everything is tactical, everything is calculated. Ceasefires can be stopped if they view it in their interest, decommissioning was only ever for publicity stunt value, mooted disbandment is only for show. Promises and deals were only to be observed if they couldnt get away with breaching them, and only if it suited them.

It is almost as if some are hoping that the peace process is dead so they can utter the 'I told you so' phrase

Oh, I already established my "I told you so" rights a long time ago. Dig up the threads around December and November here, the ones on that scumbags O Snodaighs punishment gang being convicted. I think there was a disagreement there on whether the peace proccess was best served by confronting the provos and demanding they live up to the deals they had entered into, or using creative ambiguity and fudge. I argued then that the December deal was meaningless and would fail because no one was willing to stand up the provos repeated breaches of their undertakings. And guess what, I told you so.

Maybe this was one of their many ploys to trick everyone but i do think alot of the members in the IRA know its only a matter of time before decommisioning will happen

Nah, it was definitly one of their many ploys to trick the gullible. Lets face it, if SF/IRA wanted to decommission they could do it tommorrow. Whats stopping them? They have significant political power, they have mechanisms in place to bring about a United Ireland without bloodshed, they have a British Army that is downsizing in Northern Ireland and only remains at all because they havent gone away. Catholic civil rights were never important to them to begin with, but for what theyre worth theyre secure.

But the problem is the IRA *like* having the guns, the intimidation, the control, the implied threat, the bank jobs and the extortion to buy pubs and holiday homes in Donegal. They like having the control over the police. They honestly dont see why they cant have both. Lets face it, the SF branch was only a side show until very recently. Their idealogy is devoted to a violent, brutal, merciless "war" for some blood soaked holy republic. Disband the IRA? Theres more chance of SF being disbanded than the IRA. Sure, they might have to re-arrange the deck chairs and make pretty speeches about peace, ceasefires, commitment, drive, energy and the Sit-yee-ah-shun but why cant they quietly keep both on the go. If anyone complains, too bad - thats an ex member, weve disbanded love, nothing to do with us.

And the gullible will lap it up, with Tommie "historic" Gorman in the fore.

hawkmoon269

MT, I've read the above articles, and several of the others you have posted recently. Your analysis is not without merit and up to a point I would agree with it.

However, in my view it is unnecessarily pessimistic. Consider the following "straws in the wind":

(1) George W Bush has seemingly told his advisors that he will never again meet with Gerry Adams, following Northern Bank robbery and the McCartney murder. In fact, most of the American political establishment is now highly sceptical of Sinn Fein / IRA. The only thing likely to change that is if Hilary Clinton is elected president and goes back to the cosing up of terrorists that her husband so liked to do. However, I doubt very much if HC will become President. In fact, I think the next US President will be another Republican, and if (as I hope) it's John McCain, well he views the IRA for what they are, i.e., a Mafia.

(2) The DUP are not necessarily as intransigent as widely perceived. They do have a commonsense interest in jobs for their constituents and a successful economy.

(3) FF ministers are now much more sceptical of SF/IRA than they have been in years. In the event of a showdown with Paisley and Adams, who are they more likely to back?

(4) The issue of the McCartney murder has been raised in the European Parliament. The IRA have now been shamed all across Europe. Whatever about the IRA, Adams and McGuinness don't like bad publicity any more than any politicians and will be anxious that similar events do not happen again.

madmorphy

It would be lunacy to consider incorporating the bitterly polarised and hatred-riven society we saw yesterday into our body politic

Amen to this,the place is now a serious basket case.
Most of the middle ground has been wiped out,trimble has paid the price for trying to broker a deal with Gerry and the boys.A deal is now moving further and further away.
Surely the shinners know they won't get a better deal out of paisley than they would have out of trimble,so what was the point in taking him out in the first place,the mind boggles !

shltter

Sand wrote:

Its more power than theyll have if they go into power with the IRA - theyll be annialated at the next elections.

Cdebru, try to think from a unionist mindset. Youve got two options....

A) Direct rule from London, where you elect MPs to represent you, a parliment that governments the nation you are a part of .

Local rule where terrorists control the police, undermine the institutions of the state, carry out murder, intimidation, violence and criminality on a massive scale.

As a unionist, which is more appealing to you? Which protects the union best? Which best protects the democratic institutions of the state from subversion? Hmmmmm, yeah, ..... thats a toughie alright. Try to understand that just because SF/IRA see nothing wrong with terrorism doesnt mean everyone else doesnt.



So why would they commit political suicide? See what happened to the last unionist politician and party to cut a deal with the IRA? What was that guys name again, god he used to be important, cant really remember these has beens to be honest..... I dont think hes particularly powerful these days. I wonder if the White House is returning his calls today?.

who would anihilate them at the polls see the dup are the opposition to the GFA once they accept it and the unionist population have accepted it by endorsing any new deal in fresh assembly elections the IRA will be gone paisley will have his photos or something just as good to him
he can then go and face the people as the leader that defeated the IRA

seriously think about it where would the opposition to annihlate them come from not the UUP all the main dissidents from the UUP are now in the DUP not the UKUP they have thrown their hat in with the DUP bob stood aside for the DUP in north down

what is more appealing to the DUP if you stopped to listen to them is devolved government where instead of taking the blame for bad decisions made by part time ministers that have no connection to the north they get to make the own decisions

Sand wrote:

This is an example of why the peace proccess is dead and why SF/IRA are idealogically incapable of making it work again. They still view terrorism as a chip to be traded in, not as wholly against the democratic values they claim to be embracing. They still cant call murder a crime. They still cant co-operate with the institutions of state they would have influence over in a power sharing deal. They still cant stop terrorising communities in their thrall. Devalera and Fianna Fail made the journey from militant republicanism to constitutional republicanism by completely and utterly rejecting militant republicanism - to the point where Dev introduced internment to break the back of his former comrades, SF/IRA show no indications of the same idealogical journey.

They have no interest in peace, everything is tactical, everything is calculated. Ceasefires can be stopped if they view it in their interest, decommissioning was only ever for publicity stunt value, mooted disbandment is only for show. Promises and deals were only to be observed if they couldnt get away with breaching them, and only if it suited them..

since you use dev in your arguement i suggest you go back and read up on it
when did dev and FF break their links with the IRA not for many years after they had left SF in fact the IRA in 1932 campaigned on behalf of FF

yes dev did eventually turn his back on the IRA when he had to when the IRA launched its bombing campaign on britain in 1939 up till shortly before that relations between dev and the IRA had been cordial in fact dev used the IRA to defeat the blueshirts

just as dev used the IRA until they were of no political use to him infact they became a danger to him so to will the provos when they are used up SF will discard them and i wouldn't bet that if SF are in charge of policing or justice they will crack down harder on the IRA P R or C harder than the brits ever did in true dev style

adams and co show all the signs of the same journey dev made you just have to open your eyes and see it


I have to agree with ADIG you so want the peace process to be over you are basically wishing for it

sleepwalker

eoghan harris has an unhealthy obsession with connecting cafe lattes with people he doesnt agree with

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Its more power than theyll have if they go into power with the IRA - theyll be annialated at the next elections.

Cdebru, try to think from a unionist mindset. Youve got two options....

A) Direct rule from London, where you elect MPs to represent you, a parliment that governments the nation you are a part of .

Local rule where terrorists control the police, undermine the institutions of the state, carry out murder, intimidation, violence and criminality on a massive scale.

As a unionist, which is more appealing to you? Which protects the union best? Which best protects the democratic institutions of the state from subversion? Hmmmmm, yeah, ..... thats a toughie alright. Try to understand that just because SF/IRA see nothing wrong with terrorism doesnt mean everyone else doesnt.



So why would they commit political suicide? See what happened to the last unionist politician and party to cut a deal with the IRA? What was that guys name again, god he used to be important, cant really remember these has beens to be honest..... I dont think hes particularly powerful these days. I wonder if the White House is returning his calls today?



This is an example of why the peace proccess is dead and why SF/IRA are idealogically incapable of making it work again. They still view terrorism as a chip to be traded in, not as wholly against the democratic values they claim to be embracing. They still cant call murder a crime. They still cant co-operate with the institutions of state they would have influence over in a power sharing deal. They still cant stop terrorising communities in their thrall. Devalera and Fianna Fail made the journey from militant republicanism to constitutional republicanism by completely and utterly rejecting militant republicanism - to the point where Dev introduced internment to break the back of his former comrades, SF/IRA show no indications of the same idealogical journey.

They have no interest in peace, everything is tactical, everything is calculated. Ceasefires can be stopped if they view it in their interest, decommissioning was only ever for publicity stunt value, mooted disbandment is only for show. Promises and deals were only to be observed if they couldnt get away with breaching them, and only if it suited them.



Oh, I already established my "I told you so" rights a long time ago. Dig up the threads around December and November here, the ones on that scumbags O Snodaighs punishment gang being convicted. I think there was a disagreement there on whether the peace proccess was best served by confronting the provos and demanding they live up to the deals they had entered into, or using creative ambiguity and fudge. I argued then that the December deal was meaningless and would fail because no one was willing to stand up the provos repeated breaches of their undertakings. And guess what, I told you so.



Nah, it was definitly one of their many ploys to trick the gullible. Lets face it, if SF/IRA wanted to decommission they could do it tommorrow. Whats stopping them? They have significant political power, they have mechanisms in place to bring about a United Ireland without bloodshed, they have a British Army that is downsizing in Northern Ireland and only remains at all because they havent gone away. Catholic civil rights were never important to them to begin with, but for what theyre worth theyre secure.

But the problem is the IRA *like* having the guns, the intimidation, the control, the implied threat, the bank jobs and the extortion to buy pubs and holiday homes in Donegal. They like having the control over the police. They honestly dont see why they cant have both. Lets face it, the SF branch was only a side show until very recently. Their idealogy is devoted to a violent, brutal, merciless "war" for some blood soaked holy republic. Disband the IRA? Theres more chance of SF being disbanded than the IRA. Sure, they might have to re-arrange the deck chairs and make pretty speeches about peace, ceasefires, commitment, drive, energy and the Sit-yee-ah-shun but why cant they quietly keep both on the go. If anyone complains, too bad - thats an ex member, weve disbanded love, nothing to do with us.

And the gullible will lap it up, with Tommie "historic" Gorman in the fore.

the DUP dislike direct rule just as much as republicans

the actual choice is do a deal with SF once the IRA is gone because the IRA are going one way or the other they are a millstone to SF

or sit twiddling their thumbs for the next 20 years waiting to retire letting direct rule ministers take decisions that affect their constituents with out having any say

i cant see any threat to the DUP from doing a deal the most likely threat to then is in not doing a deal I dont think most unionist are as closed minded as the DUP
they have been elected for one main reason to deal with SF harder than the UUP did i dont think most of the people who voted for them agree wi th their views on homosexuality rock music alcohol etc etc

as for De valera remember the phrase slightly constitutional party De valera did not end his links with the IRA over night it probably took about 10 years or so
and FF entered leinster house the first time with guns in their pockets never mind guns outside
the paralells between now and FF then are there and plenty


about the IRA like having guns what good are they to them if they are actually preventing them from achieving their political aims
when it boils down to it the IRA takes the back seat in the republican movement if it is in the interests of SF for them to go away that is what they will do

gandalf

Cork wrote:

But the vote that SF got is small compared to those who voted for the removal of articles 2 & 3 from our constitution.

Lest we forgot the IRA has zero mandate.

Cork either stay on topic with the thread or do not bother posting at all. I am getting sick and tired of us warning you. Next time I will remove your mandate from posting here.

monument

MT wrote:

Furthermore, it's very interesting that Sinn Fein refused a voting pact in South Belfast when Alasdair McDonnell was the only Nationalist with a chance of winning the seat. It seems Republicans only demand sectarian solidarity when it will suit their own ends. When the SDLP needs electoral support from their 'sister' party they're told in no uncertain terms to get stuffed.

Alasdair McDonnell? The fellow who comes across as more bitter towards SF then most Unionists? Oh, right, I wonder why SF don't support him? :rolleyes:

Cork wrote:

But the vote that SF got is small compared to those who voted for the removal of articles 2 & 3 from our constitution.

Lest we forgot the IRA has zero mandate.

...

Cork wrote:

Trust was indeed squandered. SF/IRA have to take some of the blame.

Is it 'SF, and the IRA', or 'SF/IRA'? Make up your mind.

I think it is 'SF, and the IRA', but if we were to go with the 'SF/IRA' mindset, "SF/IRA" have a "mandate".

MT

monument wrote:

Alasdair McDonnell? The fellow who comes across as more bitter towards SF then most Unionists? Oh, right, I wonder why SF don't support him?

This sounds to me like the Sinn Fein persecution complex. No one seemingly can have a disagreement of opinion with SF, there clearly has to be something off key with their personality. They’ve got to be a bit unhinged, a bit nasty. So, McDonnell can’t simply differ with SF, he’s got to be bitter. What an awful man he must be. Of course, the truth – as is almost always the case when the Republican Movement’s involved – is entirely different. McDonnell is a hard working, balanced upstanding politician. But as a rival he has to be castigated, portrayed as not quite right.

SF do this to all their opponents: it’s part and parcel of a persecution complex they’re unable to jettison. And for so long as they see themselves as the victim and everyone else as either wicked or an oppressor, they’ll never have the maturity to seek compromise and take responsibility. It’s why everything written by the likes of Danny Morrison, P O’Neill, etc. sounds just like one long whinge. ‘Whaah, Whaah, everyone’s picking on us, whaah, whaah, they’re bashing… and after we’d behaved as saints an all. I hate those bastards.’

And it’s why the IRA will never go out of business. They are so mired in their own sense of persecution, so consumed by the psychosis of perpetual martyrdom that they genuinely believe they can do no wrong. And mores the point, when they’re accused of anything, or disagreed with over any issue their self idolisation as nothing short of saints and their all consuming paranoia convinces them that it all must be a conspiracy. That’s why murder isn’t a crime when they do it. Back robbery is fine and dandy as sure ‘them banks stole it all in the first place’. Psychiatrists could have a field day on their victim/saint complex.

But then, even if McDonnell was bitter, wouldn’t he be entirely justified? For look what republicans have done to his cause. Having toiled his entire political career to advance Northern Nationalism, he’s had to watch as a bunch of glib flashy hypocrites have come along, stolen the limelight, and then proceeded to bring the entire ideology into reproach. With their lies, false promises, intimidation, contempt for human rights, savage brutality, arrogant protection of the monsters in their midst and the casual dismissal of those attempting to gain justice for the McCartney family they’ve done almost irreparable damage to the standing of nationalism. On this alone he’d have every right to be seriously pissed off. It’s a credit to the man, and a shame on the smear-merchants in republicanism, that he has behaved with dignity in the face of abhorrent thugery.

But then, take that brutal murder of Robert McCartney by Republicans, not to mention their subsequent attempts at a cover-up. Just observe the poisonous effect of their whispering campaign against the brave souls in the McCartney family. Look at how at almost every opportunity SF abdicated responsibility and actively attempted to thwart the police investigation. The entire episode, from slaying to deliberate silence, intimidation and the destruction of evidence, Mitchel McLaughlin’s appalling claim that it wasn’t even a crime in the first place, the whole thing – it was as sickening an example of corrupt power and tyranny as your likely to get. Anyone, with even an ounce of morality wouldn’t fail to feel some measure of negativity towards SF, and especially someone such as McDonnell who has cared for and done so much for the McCartney family.

Shame on Republicans for questioning his good character. If only there were politicians of his integrity within SF. The man has more decency in his little finger than the entire shower of hypocrites.

flogen

madmorphy wrote:

Amen to this,the place is now a serious basket case.
Most of the middle ground has been wiped out,trimble has paid the price for trying to broker a deal with Gerry and the boys.A deal is now moving further and further away.
Surely the shinners know they won't get a better deal out of paisley than they would have out of trimble,so what was the point in taking him out in the first place,the mind boggles !

I think it's more the case that the extremist parties have moved more into the middle ground than the middle ground being wiped away. I do agree, though that Trimble has payed for trusting SF while Paisley has benefited for his image of taking no crap from the Republicans. To people in the Republic it may seem like he's a narky moan who doesn't want peace but to Unionists he gives the image of standing up for what he believes in and kicking the Shinners into touch. Good timing meant that in December he came out looking like a wise tactitioner and Adams came out looking like a sly crook

cdebru

MT wrote:

This sounds to me like the Sinn Fein persecution complex. No one seemingly can have a disagreement of opinion with SF, there clearly has to be something off key with their personality. They’ve got to be a bit unhinged, a bit nasty. So, McDonnell can’t simply differ with SF, he’s got to be bitter. What an awful man he must be. Of course, the truth – as is almost always the case when the Republican Movement’s involved – is entirely different. McDonnell is a hard working, balanced upstanding politician. But as a rival he has to be castigated, portrayed as not quite right.

SF do this to all their opponents: it’s part and parcel of a persecution complex they’re unable to jettison. And for so long as they see themselves as the victim and everyone else as either wicked or an oppressor, they’ll never have the maturity to seek compromise and take responsibility. It’s why everything written by the likes of Danny Morrison, P O’Neill, etc. sounds just like one long whinge. ‘Whaah, Whaah, everyone’s picking on us, whaah, whaah, they’re bashing… and after we’d behaved as saints an all. I hate those bastards.’

And it’s why the IRA will never go out of business. They are so mired in their own sense of persecution, so consumed by the psychosis of perpetual martyrdom that they genuinely believe they can do no wrong. And mores the point, when they’re accused of anything, or disagreed with over any issue their self idolisation as nothing short of saints and their all consuming paranoia convinces them that it all must be a conspiracy. That’s why murder isn’t a crime when they do it. Back robbery is fine and dandy as sure ‘them banks stole it all in the first place’. Psychiatrists could have a field day on their victim/saint complex.

But then, even if McDonnell was bitter, wouldn’t he be entirely justified? For look what republicans have done to his cause. Having toiled his entire political career to advance Northern Nationalism, he’s had to watch as a bunch of glib flashy hypocrites have come along, stolen the limelight, and then proceeded to bring the entire ideology into reproach. With their lies, false promises, intimidation, contempt for human rights, savage brutality, arrogant protection of the monsters in their midst and the casual dismissal of those attempting to gain justice for the McCartney family they’ve done almost irreparable damage to the standing of nationalism. On this alone he’d have every right to be seriously pissed off. It’s a credit to the man, and a shame on the smear-merchants in republicanism, that he has behaved with dignity in the face of abhorrent thugery.

But then, take that brutal murder of Robert McCartney by Republicans, not to mention their subsequent attempts at a cover-up. Just observe the poisonous effect of their whispering campaign against the brave souls in the McCartney family. Look at how at almost every opportunity SF abdicated responsibility and actively attempted to thwart the police investigation. The entire episode, from slaying to deliberate silence, intimidation and the destruction of evidence, Mitchel McLaughlin’s appalling claim that it wasn’t even a crime in the first place, the whole thing – it was as sickening an example of corrupt power and tyranny as your likely to get. Anyone, with even an ounce of morality wouldn’t fail to feel some measure of negativity towards SF, and especially someone such as McDonnell who has cared for and done so much for the McCartney family.

Shame on Republicans for questioning his good character. If only there were politicians of his integrity within SF. The man has more decency in his little finger than the entire shower of hypocrites.

can you provide a link or some evidence where mitchel mclaughlin said the murder of robert mccartney was not a crime

also it is a bit rich castigating SF for not giving the SDLP a free run in south belfast

where was the free run in fermanagh south tyrone

why did the SDLP not stand aside as they had promised to do in west tyrone for the hospital candidate they had no hope of winning it themselves

what is really wrong is not the SDLP or SF it is the FPTP undemocratic system
why should any party deny its supporters the oppurtunity of voting for them

Raskolnikov

MT wrote:

From developments in recent years, and now these polarised election results, the North has become an almost entirely tribalised society.

What are you talking about? I only know of a few such areas that are 'tribalised' and they've been that way since the Troubles began.