The Sinn Féin Question

Victor

Sinn Féin and various supporters, here and elsewhere, have (if I may) whinged that they are being persecuted on various political issues and then proceed to throw or threaten to throw the toys out of the pram.

This is bordering on SF rejecting politics, they can't bear to accept criticism. In this case should they be rejected from political circles?

On the other side should other political parties accept them, for having moved most of the distance?

I'm divided on the issue and while a year ago I was willing to work with individuals in SF, I feel less willing given the behaviors of the last 4-5 months.

aidan_walsh

Personally, while three has been a lot that goes against Sinn Fein, there has been a lot move movement on their behalf that there has been from the Unionists (who have only gone from a divisive split to right - but hey, at least they're finally unified!). I'm not so sure they should be ejected yet, but they definatly need to get their act together.

KnowItAll

Sinn Fein have probaly done the most in the northern ireland peace process. They are also villified in the media (McCarthney murder).

I do think though that they are cannot control the IRA anymore. They must get that sorted to restore credibility.

The worst thing you could do is not talk to someone. That only suites Paisley who is more than happy to delay everything and mess everyone around.

AmenToThat

Victor wrote:

Sinn Féin and various supporters, here and elsewhere, have (if I may) whinged that they are being persecuted on various political issues and then proceed to throw or threaten to throw the toys out of the pram.

Well Iv certainly 'whinged' on here as you put it as some of the comments have been of a sweeping and all encompassing nature intended to brand 'all Republicans' and made at times in a childish and very nasty way and on occassion on a personal and individualistic level.
All I can say to you is that if people appraoched me on a street and made some of those comments that have been made on here and in sections of the media simply because of my political views they would want to be prepared to either appologise for their remarks or prepare to defend themselves as Id do far more than 'throw my toys out of the pram'.

Might not be the 'politically correct' or mature thing to say but you have asked and Iv given you my honest opinion.

Sand

This is bordering on SF rejecting politics, they can't bear to accept criticism. In this case should they be rejected from political circles?

They should be allowed to engage in political debate, but they shouldnt be allowed to participate in democratic elections unless theyre willing to observe the same standards as other candidates.

On the other side should other political parties accept them, for having moved most of the distance?

Have they moved most of the distance? The only thing we have is a tactical ceasefire which Adams was reminding us not so long ago can be removed whenever they feel like it. SF/IRA contests elections true, but why wouldnt they - it offers them a route to power, and they dont have to sacrifice terrorism to get it. The provo mindset hasnt changed an iota since 1994.

I'm not so sure they should be ejected yet, but they definatly need to get their act together.

What exactly would they have to do to deserve getting ejected? No genuine political party would be allowed to get away with what SF/IRA have been trying on for the past decade.

oscarBravo

AmenToThat wrote:

All I can say to you is that if people appraoched me on a street and made some of those comments that have been made on here and in sections of the media simply because of my political views they would want to be prepared to either appologise for their remarks or prepare to defend themselves as Id do far more than 'throw my toys out of the pram'.

Good to see that the republican commitment to non-violent means is as strong as ever.

jman0

There is no "Sinn Fein Question", there is only a question of democracy.
It is not governments, nor political opponents that "allow" a democratically elected party into office, rather it is the electorate that decides.
And the nationalist people of NI have spoken quite plainly: they will be represented by Sinn Fein.
There is no question how to proceed from here, all the mechanics of governance have been worked out. Any delay is rightfully blamed on HMG and the Unionists.
Maybe some of these SF bashers feel it's ok for one political party to select whom their opponents will be...Like when Unionists pretend they have the right to form a government with the SDLP for instance, kind of like when [insert dictatorial country here] Party stands for election they get to select who runs on the other ticket, or appoint "opposition" ministers.
But this chicanery has no place in a democracy and is rightfully rejected by democrats.

Nuttzz

I loathe Sinn Fein, but SF themselves arent the problem, the problem is the nature of northern ireland politics. The Irish government should now withdraw from NI politics, the vast majority of people in the north voted for parties with two completely opposing views, there will be no compromise between the Rev and Gerry, and the Irish government is wasting its time.

People who call for unification of the island would have to expect to pay the costs of this. Loyalist arent going to go away the day after the island is reunified, government with SF in the north is more appealing to them than government from Dublin (Home Rule is Rome Rule and all that)

If it were put to the vote about unification in the morning....

would people here be prepared to pay for the integration of the PSNI into the GS, which would double the forces size?

would people here be prepared to bear the cost to at least double the size of the defence forces to replace the vacumn of the withdrawing British forces?

would people here be prepared for their sons/brothers/friends lives to be lost in volience in areas like sandy row in belfast, just like many a british solider was killed in nationalist areas?

Do people here honestly their their would be a bloodless unification of this Island?

jman0

Nuttzz wrote:

Do people here honestly their their would be a bloodless unification of this Island?

Yes, to date: the unionists bluff was never called back in whatever year 1918 or something. And it deserves to be. Sure what are the Loyalist paramilitaries without British Intelligence collusion?
Nothing that the IRA couldn't sort out, that's what.
Couple that with possible British Intelligence cooperation with RoI to snif out Loyalist paramiliaries and their weapons cache (which is probably doubtful) I think they could be mopped up quickly and fairly painlessly.

Lemming

It's fantastic reading the commentary here from the ardent SF supporters, proclaiming the use of violence if things don't go their way or someone speaks their mind against them.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

To be honest, I am much like Victor in my stance in that before November, whilst I found the peace process in its current guise a bitter pill to swallow, events soon after prompted me to be less forgiving and hold SF to the same accountability that all other parties are held rather than "letting them find their legitimate political feet" so to speak.

"Shape up or f*ck off" quite frankly is the best way to sum it up.

Do I think that SF should be allowed to engage in politics. Yes. That's part of the beauty of politics, and also its poison sting. Do I think that SF have behaved in an acceptable manner to be taken seriously (beyond being viewed as the PR dept for criminal scum) at political level? I think most of you know the answer to that already .....

gandalf

Getting very close to the closing this thread right now !

KnowItAll

KnowItAll wrote:

I do think though that they are cannot control the IRA anymore. They must get that sorted to restore credibility.

And here is the thing for me. How can we allow a party to be the political force of an illegal organisation? SF should be thrown out simply because they haven't taken the gun out of politics. They continue to maintain links with a paramilitary organisation, that shouldn't be tolerated.

jman0

Deleted User wrote:

And here is the thing for me. How can we allow a party to be the political force of an illegal organisation? SF should be thrown out simply because they haven't taken the gun out of politics. They continue to maintain links with a paramilitary organisation, that shouldn't be tolerated.

"throwing out" a democratically elected party is the very opposite of democracy. So long as SF is a legal entity then you must respect their mandate.
If you think SF should become a proscribed organisation then that is an entirely different debate.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

"throwing out" a democratically elected party is the very opposite of democracy. So long as SF is a legal entity then you must respect their mandate.
If you think SF should become a proscribed organisation then that is an entirely different debate.

But operating contrary to legitimate and indeed democractic social structures would warrant expulsion from any body in any country. So to say we must respect their mandate is laughable. Respect is earned. Not demanded.

jman0

Lemming wrote:

But operating contrary to legitimate and indeed democractic social structures would warrant expulsion from any body in any country. So to say we must respect their mandate is laughable. Respect is earned. Not demanded.

Your distaste for democracy is showing Lemming.
The electorate is not laughable, it is sizeable, 3 times the size of the PD's by the way and they are actually partners in government.
Respect is not "earned" by passing some arbitrary litmus test of yours, it is "given" and in fact, in a democracy that respect is given by those who elect them.

If you think SF should become a proscribed organisation then that is an entirely different debate.

Huh?

perhaps you can explain this to me. We need to respect SF's position as a legit Politicial organisation, while they're a front or at least have some direct ties with an illegal organisation? Why?

And explain to me how a party thats in two different countries can remain loyal to one without loosing loyalty to the other? Are they Irish or are they loyal to the crown as being representatives in the North? Something I've never understood is how they can perform duties in Two Separate governments. (sorry to sortof go off topic.)

gandalf

Ah but you are really talking about Democracy Lite jman, ie we will be democratic until we don't like what we hear and the lads with the guns/bombs will be out. Until Sinn Fein get the IRA to disband they should not be considered a Democratic Party. The IRA's time has passed and they should realise that, disband and let Sinn Fein enter politics properly in this country. If not then they should be prescribed and removed from any public offices they hold.

Hydroquinone

jman0 wrote:

Yes, to date: the unionists bluff was never called back in whatever year 1918 or something. And it deserves to be. Sure what are the Loyalist paramilitaries without British Intelligence collusion?
Nothing that the IRA couldn't sort out, that's what.
Couple that with possible British Intelligence cooperation with RoI to snif out Loyalist paramiliaries and their weapons cache (which is probably doubtful) I think they could be mopped up quickly and fairly painlessly.

so in your brave new world of a unified ireland, the IRA will still be bopping about, will they? Knocking off Loyalists? Sorry - "mopping them up"
I see
And will they be part of the regular army, or will they be some sort of elite force; and SAS equivalent, perhaps?

So in one fell swoop, we get a united Ireland, a bunch of "mopped up" loyalists and an elite military force that are an illegal and criminal organisation at the moment.
Lovely. Bring it on. I can hardly wait.

There's no way the Loyalists would sit down and take it. No way. And why should they? The Republicans didn't.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Your distaste for democracy is showing Lemming.

No. Sorry, that'd be my distaste for bullsh*t. The bullsh*tometre needle just spiked there ...

The electorate is not laughable, it is sizeable, 3 times the size of the PD's by the way and they are actually partners in government.
Respect is not "earned" by passing some arbitrary litmus test of yours, it is "given" and in fact, in a democracy that respect is given by those who elect them.

I never put forward any such arbitrary litmus test, not did I suggest such. You insinuated that. So please stop with the theatrics already. It's quite simple. Political party with a private army (or rather private army with political PR front) behind it tends to break the idea of politics in the accept ed sense of the word. Every political party operating inside a soverign state that wishes to be recognised as legitimate has to abide by the constitution of said state. Violation of which would warrant explusion since it goes against the 'charter' of the state and by inference probably not in the interest of the state. Irregardless of how many have voted for a party, once it sits in clear and continued contemptuous violation of the state constitution there's not much else that can be done that will not send a message of "do what you like " to the offenders.

The IRA's insistance on "business as usual" is an absolute afront to the notion of democracy or free-thinking political will. You claim I have distaste for democracy? I suggest you look in your own backyard before screaming j'accuse.

hawkmoon269

Jman0, as I said in another thread, the war is over. Get used to it.

jman0

gandalf wrote:

Until Sinn Fein get the IRA to disband they should not be considered a Democratic Party. The IRA's time has passed and they should realise that, disband and let Sinn Fein enter politics properly in this country. If not then they should be prescribed and removed from any public offices they hold.

Other political parties have been made illegal in the past Gandalf.
SF is not one of them.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Other political parties have been made illegal in the past Gandalf.
SF is not one of them.

Before or after the British government handed back soverign control? Would you care to name these parties, the dates and reasons for their being delcared illegal organisations?

jman0

Lemming wrote:

Before or after the British government handed back soverign control? Would you care to name these parties, the dates and reasons for their being delcared illegal organisations?

the UDA, 1992

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

the UDA, 1992

Tell me ... why were the UDA banned exactly?

hill16

I cant believe some of the middle class posters on this board who want to ban Sinn Fein just because they dont agree with them,sorry lads this is not Nazi Germany.

Lemming

hill16 wrote:

I cant believe some of the middle class posters on this board who want to ban Sinn Fein just because they dont agree with them,sorry lads this is not Nazi Germany.

I invoke Godwins Law.

Incidentally you have spectacularly failed to grasp what's being argued.

jman0

Lemming wrote:

Tell me ... why were the UDA banned exactly?

Due to the overwhelming evidence against them, finally after years and years of innocent catholics getting murdered HMG raided the UDA offices, and among the items found included a terrorist manual in the leader's desk drawer. Maybe it was Andy Tyrie, i'm not sure.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Due to the overwhelming evidence against them, finally after years and years of innocent catholics getting murdered HMG raided the UDA offices, and among the items found included a terrorist manual in the leader's desk drawer. Maybe it was Andy Tyrie, i'm not sure.

And what can we conclude from this boys and girls? Besides not leaving terrorist manuals lying about?

The IRA have been clever enough not to get caught .... yet. But being clever enough to not get caught and having everybody know that you are involved in exactly the same manner of activity (indeed more so) than the UDA is hardly something to bray about now is it?

jman0

Lemming wrote:

And what can we conclude from this boys and girls? Besides not leaving terrorist manuals lying about?

The IRA have been clever enough not to get caught .... yet. But being clever enough to not get caught and having everybody know that you are involved in exactly the same manner of activity (indeed more so) than the UDA is hardly something to bray about now is it?

Um, the IRA are already a proscribed organisation.

ionapaul

hill16 wrote:

I cant believe some of the middle class posters on this board who want to ban Sinn Fein just because they dont agree with them,sorry lads this is not Nazi Germany.

Every thread I read with a Shinner bleating about their 'democratic mandate' I have to restrain myself from posting, as I would invoke Godwin's Law...SF's democratic mandate is still less than the Nazi's democratic mandate (percentage-wise) circa 1932.

jman0

ionapaul wrote:

Every thread I read with a Shinner bleating about their 'democratic mandate' I have to restrain myself from posting, as I would invoke Godwin's Law...SF's democratic mandate is still less than the Nazi's democratic mandate (percentage-wise) circa 1932.

And the point is what?
Does it mean that democracy is worthless?

ionapaul

jman0 wrote:

And the point is what?
Does it mean that democracy is worthless?

Merely that this 'democratic mandate' you speak of can be claimed by all manner of patently undemocratic groups! The Nazis and SF included.

Nuttzz

jman0 wrote:

Does it mean that democracy is worthless?

Is this the democracy you speak of? Post unification let the IRA "sort out" the loyalists. One law for us, one law for them....

jman0 wrote:

. Sure what are the Loyalist paramilitaries without British Intelligence collusion?
Nothing that the IRA couldn't sort out, that's what.
.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Um, the IRA are already a proscribed organisation.

Yes. And since SF is the political wing of said organisation ......

axer

Sein fein has always gone to great lengths to try and make the peace process work. That is not an easy thing to do considering he has to try and sell it to the IRA.

The IRA are very sceptical of the british government and the RUC (PSNI). Everytime in the past that the IRA went on ceasefire the RUC began monitoring its members and arresting soon after. The RUC/British government have always been colluding with the UDA etc. Maybe I'm mistaken but did the british government not pass a law recently (or is in the process or failed whatever) restricting the amount of information that they have to give out about the dublin/monaghan bombings etc. so that it does not have to share the evidence.

You must remember that it was actually the bitching and baby crying of the loyalists/unionists up north that caused this whole mess in the first place. The home rule act would have passed was it not for the violence and intimidation of the unionists up north. Even the bristish army (in the curragh) were colluding with them at that stage and refused point blank to go up and stop it.

I certainly would not like the task of trying to convince the IRA to disband after all that and more. But Gerry Adams persists because he believes in the peace process. Yet you see Ian paisley, the great ian paisley, never comprimising 1 inch to try make the deal work when sein fein AND the IRA both have made huge comprimises.

The IRA agree to decommision its arms and agree to an independant witness as was requested. But no, Ian is not happy with that, that would mean progress, so he says he wants photos - photos in order to try and humilate the IRA and use for his own political benifit, not for proof or peace but for his own personal benifit.

I believe the war for the IRA is over, well over. I believe the peace process can work ONLY when the DUP start to comprimise.
Just my 2c.

/edit: the reason I think the sein fein are getting such a media bashing is because the Irish political parties are afraid of the fact that sein fein have gained so much ground recently as their support is growing rapidly. Just look at the childish comments Minister McDoogle flaunts in his speeches. Blaming sein fein for bank robberies - saying they have very clear evdience of involvment of high ranking members of sein fein in the robbery - to this day they still havent arrested any of them - why? because it is crap - and he is the minister for "justice"

jank

Yes. And since SF is the political wing of said organisation ......

an organisation they cant control anymore...

This will probably end up in another 12 page rant of why we need democratic principles implimented in Irish politics, lol the irony. Just look at the state of politics here in the republic

No one or party has a right to exclude another political party. This isnt Nazi germany but i belive some on here would love that.

AmenToThat

oscarBravo wrote:

Good to see that the republican commitment to non-violent means is as strong as ever.

Its nothing to do with me being a Republican its the fact that people would make certain assumptions about me because Im a 'Republican' because of the actions of certain 'republicans' these are the same kind of assumptions that are made against people because they are 'Travellers' or 'Nigerian' simply because they happen to be Nigerian or Travellers.
Its a bigoted viewpoint and yes as I said if someone were to make the comments to me that have been made to me on this board or in the media in the street then yes I will call them to accounts over it and I make no appologies for that view.

rubberduckey

It is driving me crazy that 'republicanism' has been hijacked as an exclusive term to describe Sinn Fein/IRA ideals and methods to achieve said ideals.

I as an Irish citizen and republican, believe that the only way towards a United Ireland is by peaceful democratic means. I absolutely abhor SF/IRA's cynical approach to democracy/murder/gangsterism.


I have no political affiliations to any party but this is an interesting discussing on Sinn fein/IRA's hijacking of 'Republicanism'

http://www.willieodea.ie/newsarts.asp?StoryID=320

Lemming

jank wrote:

an organisation they cant control anymore...

I would go so far as to say an organisation they've never controlled, rather it controlled them.

This will probably end up in another 12 page rant of why we need democratic principles implimented in Irish politics, lol the irony. Just look at the state of politics here in the republic

Indeed. Hey .... we may have democracy but the country is disgustingly corrupt! That said I don't think it's politics that's corrupt here in the republic but more that so many facets of society end up with political dabbling (hence the corruption of all involved). Still, (the considerably) lesser of two evils and what-not. I'd still rather have them all fired into the sun together though. Anyway, I digress!

No one or party has a right to exclude another political party. This isnt Nazi germany but i belive some on here would love that.

I will not deny anyone their right to speak in a democratic manner. That does however mean playing within the same rules that everyone else is obliged to play inside. If you aren't going to abide to democratic rules and operate in a democratic manner, then you have no business claiming to do so.

axer

rubberduckey wrote:

http://www.willieodea.ie/newsarts.asp?StoryID=320

another example of the irish government trying to demonise sein fein.

Lemming

axer wrote:

another example of the irish government trying to demonise sein fein.

I happen to think he's quite right. The IRA (and their PR bunnies SF) do not have a monopoly on the word "republican" or its variants. It would be quite accurate to note that the word has now become synonymous with their shenanigans, ergo they have managed to hijack it.

FF, FG, etc are all parties that represent the "republic". Are they any less republican? Do you need to have an armalite and a pound of c4 to be republican? No?

I think O'Dea (as much as I may think the guy is a bit of a blethering idiot most of the time) is spot on with that article's main thrust.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

I would go so far as to say an organisation they've never controlled, rather it controlled them.

in the past the military side of provisional republicanism was the dominant side however the opposite is the case now the IRA will cease to exist in the near future because the now dominant side of the provisional republican movement see the IRA as a millstone around their necks there is no point in having an armed group and not using them and paying a political penalty for having them

Lemming wrote:

I will not deny anyone their right to speak in a democratic manner. That does however mean playing within the same rules that everyone else is obliged to play inside. If you aren't going to abide to democratic rules and operate in a democratic manner, then you have no business claiming to do so.

the people decide who shall represent them not you or any other political party or groups of political parties
if the people no longer want to be represented by SF then they will stop voting for them
it seems to me that a couple of months ago the anti provisional republicans were on a high between the northern bank robbery and robert mccartneys murder they tought the end of the PSF was nigh the electorate in the 6 counties have show them that this is far from the case and they are now throwing a tantrum again.
it strikes me as odd that at a time when bertie has said that the debate is on within the PIRA about ending all the things that you protest about you are so afraid of the provisional republican movement that you would rather ban PSF than encourage this developement

jank

I would go so far as to say an organisation they've never controlled, rather it controlled them.

So whats the point then of the IRA having SF there as a puppet.

Do you think they are trying to fool everyone, overthrow our government here and install a south armerican style military dictatorship with the IRA calling the shots!

Come on a bit of realistic.

Maybe, just maybe SF are trying to take off the shackles of the IRA and BE the strong democratic force they have the portential to become. Imo its already happening. Its this possibilty that FF et all are so scared of because like it or not they are the rising stars in Irish Politics. And like it or not irish politics needs a radical shake up rather then the FF/PD vs everyone else coalition. That in the long run will be good for the contry and democarcy.

Look at the big picture.


Oh and im not a shinner,never voted for them, hate violence and all that, wish sinn fein would be more cooperative regarding the mccarthy situation.etc..... but i do realise the sensitivity of the matter that SF have to thread carefully. Il reserve my judgement until the next election. Id expect big strides to be taken on the north and with the issue of arms etc

Call me naive but im optimistic, rather then critise them day in day out here or in the media (ill mention no names ), ill let things play out and see what happens. The ball is in their court lets see what they do with it.

axer

Lemming wrote:

I happen to think he's quite right. The IRA (and their PR bunnies SF) do not have a monopoly on the word "republican" or its variants. It would be quite accurate to note that the word has now become synonymous with their shenanigans, ergo they have managed to hijack it.

FF, FG, etc are all parties that represent the "republic". Are they any less republican? Do you need to have an armalite and a pound of c4 to be republican? No?

I think O'Dea (as much as I may think the guy is a bit of a blethering idiot most of the time) is spot on with that article's main thrust.

Since when have sein fein highjacked the word "republicanism". If anyone has labeled them as THE republican movement - it is the media. I am not a member of sein fein but I am a republican. Republicanism is the idea that no man (sorry - person - got to be politcally correct here) should be ruled by a king or queen but by a government of elected representatives. It is a form of government in which there is an elected president rather than a king. I don't want a king or queen or anything to do with them. The north, if ruled by britian while it has a democraticis government is not a republic - it has no president. When sein feiners call themselves republican they are not highjacking the word, they are using it in the since of northern ireland where they do not want to have anything todo with the queen of england i.e. british rule. If willie o'dee is offended because he considers himself a republican, how come i dont hear him campaigning for a unified ireland?? He is talking ****e! I don't think he even knows what the word republicanism means - in relation to nothern ireland especially! get a dictionary willie!!!

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

in the past the military side of provisional republicanism was the dominant side however the opposite is the case now the IRA will cease to exist in the near future because the now dominant side of the provisional republican movement see the IRA as a millstone around their necks there is no point in having an armed group and not using them and paying a political penalty for having them

Then why the, I should hasten to add the phrase "extremely beligerent", position taken by SF & their puppet masters the IRA with regards decommissioning. They recognise that having an armed group is determental to their "cause" at this point in time and that any resumption of violence would most likely result in some very swift and altogether nasty retaliation by both governments. So what's the hold-up? They've gotten about as much mileage as they can possibly hope to achieve out of bartering the decommissioning chip and at this point are just p*ssing everyone else off.

the people decide who shall represent them not you or any other political party or groups of political parties

Ah, but they still have to act within the constitution (or equivalent) of the recognised sovreign state in which they are operational. Failure to do so gets something like what happened to the likes of the UDA way-back-when. The only reason that SF have not been blacklisted officially is that they've been thus far good enough at covering any clear tracks linking them and their masters, the IRA.

Suppose, for arguments sake, that a terrorist handbook linking SF with the IRA was found, what do you think would happen to SF overnight? They'd be ejected from every single government body they are in, all public media would be barred their access, and so on so forth, as befitting a named illegal organisation. Whether or not people voted for them. The law is the law and your vote cannot override the law, it can only work within it.

it seems to me that a couple of months ago the anti provisional republicans were on a high between the northern bank robbery and robert mccartneys murder they tought the end of the PSF was nigh the electorate in the 6 counties have show them that this is far from the case and they are now throwing a tantrum again.

I would suggest this has little to do with people genuinely believing in the IRA as opposed to the fact that the middle-ground (in both camps) have failed to inspire, hence the two extreme wing parties have moved centre stage.

So I wouldn't be out congratulating yourself quite yet in that regard.

it strikes me as odd that at a time when bertie has said that the debate is on within the PIRA about ending all the things that you protest about you are so afraid of the provisional republican movement that you would rather ban PSF than encourage this developement

I never said I would rather ban SF. I did say that I consider their stance to be a very weak one and one that has no business in democratic politics given their links to paramilitary/criminal operations.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

Then why the, I should hasten to add the phrase "extremely beligerent", position taken by SF & their puppet masters the IRA with regards decommissioning. They recognise that having an armed group is determental to their "cause" at this point in time and that any resumption of violence would most likely result in some very swift and altogether nasty retaliation by both governments. So what's the hold-up? They've gotten about as much mileage as they can possibly hope to achieve out of bartering the decommissioning chip and at this point are just p*ssing everyone else off.

it is in the process of happening

the problem is that the reason for the IRAs existence has not gone away the IRA did not win arguably they did not really lose
if they had won then obviously there would no longer be a need for them to exist and getting rid of them would not be a problem
if they had been thoroughly beaten then getting them to go away would be alot easier
trying to convince them that they should go away when they have not achieved what they were sworn to achieve is obviously harder

Lemming wrote:

Ah, but they still have to act within the constitution (or equivalent) of the recognised sovreign state in which they are operational. Failure to do so gets something like what happened to the likes of the UDA way-back-when. The only reason that SF have not been blacklisted officially is that they've been thus far good enough at covering any clear tracks linking them and their masters, the IRA.

Suppose, for arguments sake, that a terrorist handbook linking SF with the IRA was found, what do you think would happen to SF overnight? They'd be ejected from every single government body they are in, all public media would be barred their access, and so on so forth, as befitting a named illegal organisation. Whether or not people voted for them. The law is the law and your vote cannot override the law, it can only work within it.

well one it has never happened so supposing supposing three men were frozen

Lemming wrote:

I would suggest this has little to do with people genuinely believing in the IRA as opposed to the fact that the middle-ground (in both camps) have failed to inspire, hence the two extreme wing parties have moved centre stage.

So I wouldn't be out congratulating yourself quite yet in that regard.

I am not congratulating myself for anything

BTW what has actually happened is that the extremes as you call them have moved into the middle ground
PSF stance could no longer be called extreme what is extreme about wanting to get the stormont assembly up and running or wanting the GFA implemented
the days of PSF being extreme are long gone what extreme policies did the 2 ministers they had in the last assembly carry out
they are about as extreme as the SDLP whose policies they have largely adopted

even the DUP aren't the extreme they were years ago I honestly cant see much difference between them and the UUP other than the free presbytarian influence in their social policies
They have even started to drop this silly nonesense of not being in the same studio as republicans as witnessed during the recent election coverage


it appears more like that everyone knows a deal has to be done and they are putting forward the people they think will do the best deal for their respective communities
the UUP are seen as a bit wishy washy on the unionist side and likewise the SDLP on the nationalist side

Lemming wrote:

I never said I would rather ban SF. I did say that I consider their stance to be a very weak one and one that has no business in democratic politics given their links to paramilitary/criminal operations.

Look the fact is that we dont live in a perfect society in a perfect society we would not have had 30 years of conflict
We can not expect the problems to go away overnight it is not realistic nor will the problems be gone away when the IRA goes away it may suprise some of you here but the IRA did not actually cause the problem in the north they are a symptom of the problem making the symptom go away will not solve the problem
and if the problem is not addressed we are doomed to have a return of the symptom sooner or later

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

I happen to think he's quite right. The IRA (and their PR bunnies SF) do not have a monopoly on the word "republican" or its variants. It would be quite accurate to note that the word has now become synonymous with their shenanigans, ergo they have managed to hijack it.

FF, FG, etc are all parties that represent the "republic". Are they any less republican? Do you need to have an armalite and a pound of c4 to be republican? No?

I think O'Dea (as much as I may think the guy is a bit of a blethering idiot most of the time) is spot on with that article's main thrust.

Republicanism is not an easily defined thing it means different things to different people

there are some who would argue that PSF no longer have the right to call themselves republican

Sand

Maybe some of these SF bashers feel it's ok for one political party to select whom their opponents will be...Like when Unionists pretend they have the right to form a government with the SDLP for instance, kind of like when [insert dictatorial country here] Party stands for election they get to select who runs on the other ticket, or appoint "opposition" ministers.
But this chicanery has no place in a democracy and is rightfully rejected by democrats.

Of all the SF/IRA apologists and supporters on this board I have the greatest respect for Jmano. Unlike most of the others he's not ashamed of provo idealogy, and isnt afraid of exspressing it. He doesnt try to pretend the provos are anything other than what they are. I respect that far more than hearing tripe about Adams appealing to the IRA, and a need for the IRA to stand down, and how SF and the IRA are distant cousins, twice removed.

Right now SF is on a winning course, while the IRA still exists and are apparently still active , SF is growing and winning votes.
Maybe we really are getting to the Armalite and Ballot box strategy.
It may be or will become debatable if some miltary action (by proxy?) could be tried to test the loyalty and tolerance of the electorate at some future point.

On the other hand, whilst I have to admit he can spell democracy, its clear from his stated views that thats about the extent of his knowledge on the subject.

Yet you see Ian paisley, the great ian paisley, never comprimising 1 inch to try make the deal work when sein fein AND the IRA both have made huge comprimises.

Such as? Have they disbanded? No. Have they decommissioned? No. Have they stopped recruiting? No. Have they stopped training? No. Have they stopped equipping themselves? No. Have they stopped punishment beatings? No. Have they stopped crinimal activity? No. Have they stopped killing people? No. Have they declared an end to violence? No.

What exactly are these huge compromises that they have made? I'm honestly asking here. Because I dont see any worth mentioning, and I'm just curious to see whats viewed as a massive compromise in provoland.

Do you think they are trying to fool everyone, overthrow our government here and install a south armerican style military dictatorship with the IRA calling the shots!

Come on a bit of realistic

.

Yeah, I cant name a single ultra violent ultra nationalist socialist "movement" whose political front went from 2.6% vote to running the country in 5 years, whilst its thuggish "army" terrorised the country. Yeah, thats a real toughie. Id imagine if such a movement existed it would be too coincidental that their leader would share Adams love of writing books about themselves and their views.

Call me naive but im optimistic, rather then critise them day in day out here or in the media (ill mention no names ), ill let things play out and see what happens. The ball is in their court lets see what they do with it.

Wow, SF/IRA have their work cut out getting your vote.

oscarBravo

AmenToThat wrote:

Its nothing to do with me being a Republican its the fact that people would make certain assumptions about me because Im a 'Republican' because of the actions of certain 'republicans' these are the same kind of assumptions that are made against people because they are 'Travellers' or 'Nigerian' simply because they happen to be Nigerian or Travellers.
Its a bigoted viewpoint and yes as I said if someone were to make the comments to me that have been made to me on this board or in the media in the street then yes I will call them to accounts over it and I make no appologies for that view.

That's the mindset I'm talking about. Fair enough, it's wrong to describe it as a republican mindset - it's an attitude displayed by violent extremists on all sides.

Here's a nutty idea: how about, instead of reacting with violence to someone else's opinion of (or assumptions about) you, you make an effort to set them straight? Failing that, just walk away?

I mean, it may be more viscerally satisfying in the short term to hurt someone because of their opinion, but do you honestly think either you or them would be better off as a result of a violent altercation?

Sand

Sand wrote:

On the other hand, whilst I have to admit he can spell democracy, its clear from his stated views that thats about the extent of his knowledge on the subject.

Sand you have been around long enough, to avoid being derisory, however subtle.
I take the view that whatever your intention, that the above point could easily have been made without the schoolmaster chiding.

Have a relaxing 2 week holiday from here.

jank

Yeah, I cant name a single ultra violent ultra nationalist socialist "movement" whose political front went from 2.6% vote to running the country in 5 years, whilst its thuggish "army" terrorised the country. Yeah, thats a real toughie. Id imagine if such a movement existed it would be too coincidental that their leader would share Adams love of writing books about themselves and their views.

What was the point of the "witty" remark. Seems to me you just like to hear yourself talk rather then try and argue the points i made. For example building up Jmano so you can take him down with another "witty" remark.

Wow, SF/IRA have their work cut out getting your vote.

You know I believe the term SF/IRA was started by pasiley himself, speaks volumes of the people who use it. Its like a fashion statement.