Gerry Adams repeats himself again. But

Norwesterner · 08-08-2013 4:13am

southsiderosie wrote: »

And thus spoketh the People's Front of Judea.

I need my head examined for ever wading into these threads.

1.5 points for originality.

Chips Lovell · 08-08-2013 7:41am

HansHolzel wrote: »

...an Orange-lite hack like Henry McDonald ...

Really?

SoulandForm · 08-08-2013 8:29am

Norwesterner wrote: »

1.5 points for originality.

Well its an interesting fact that southern Ireland is one of the most if not the most apolitical places in western europe- this cannot blamed on ordinary people in general, its due to the fact that debate is tightly limited by the elite who control parties and the media. Any dissent is demonized or laughed off. However given the suicidal course that people of rosie's ilk have taken the country on Im not sure how long this state of affair can last. Rising gun crime and a massive debt from bailing out grossly irresponsible banks and still they are coming out with the same old nonsense.
.

alastair · 08-08-2013 9:45am

SoulandForm wrote: »

The point of Republicanism is not to reform the set up enforced on the Irish people at the point of gun but to abolish both Stormount and Leinster house giving the Irish people a direct as opposed to pseudo-representative say in how the nation is governed. Both legislative bodies have no legitimacy both in their origins and their practices.

The 'pseudo-representative' model at least has the benefit of actually better representing the majority of people's opinions and inclinations. The elusive 'pure' republican ethos hasn't exactly captured much public support, has it? So the question of legitimacy really comes down to consensus - which isn't really an area that 'pure' republicanism does particularly well in. It's a minority interest, unable to garner anywhere near enough support to be much more than a cliquey talk shop.

alastair · 08-08-2013 9:49am

SoulandForm wrote: »

this cannot blamed on ordinary people in general, its due to the fact that debate is tightly limited by the elite who control parties and the media.

Of course it it is. Those nefarious elites strike again.

SoulandForm · 08-08-2013 12:00pm

alastair wrote: »

The 'pseudo-representative' model at least has the benefit of actually better representing the majority of people's opinions and inclinations. The elusive 'pure' republican ethos hasn't exactly captured much public support, has it? So the question of legitimacy really comes down to consensus - which isn't really an area that 'pure' republicanism does particularly well in. It's a minority interest, unable to garner anywhere near enough support to be much more than a cliquey talk shop.

Does it? The majority of people in southern Ireland have precious few political opinions and inclinations but maybe you should ask them what they think about their "representives" who have made themselves the best paid politicians in the EU. You might be surprised and it might cause you to wonder how such a situation could exist in a supposedly representative situation. And yes the issue of legitimacy very much does come into play given the foundation of the state and the way it has continually exercised authority against the best interests of the majority of its citizens since its foundation. If the silent majority actually began to develop a genuine interest in politics things would radically change- already Fine Gael would clearly love to see the mirage of democracy stripped back even further.

alastair · 08-08-2013 12:14pm

SoulandForm wrote: »

Does it? The majority of people in southern Ireland have precious few political opinions and inclinations

They don't? Or they just don't share your opinions? The 'silent majority' keep exercising their democratic franchise elsewhere, after all.

Manach · 08-08-2013 12:52pm

There does seem to be a drift away from a more accurate representation of the peoples' wishes in the historical context of the emerging structures of the Irish state. At a local level, which presumably would be more in tune with popular sentiment, there is a trend from the 1927(?) Local Government Act onwards to strip the executive powers from these councils and encorporate it to a central state functionality. By international European statements, there is a very low rate of engagement by the public at a local level - and compared to the benchmark of the US style townhall style meetings, nearly non-existent.

Cody Pomeray · 08-08-2013 1:03pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

...on what issues today do you think they would have more policy leverage on outside of the system rather than inside of it?

This time around it's social inequality of an economic nature. Without a fundamental change of social values, inequality is a game of musical chairs.

Recessions and booms and ceasefires and political parties come and go, but it's always the turn of another generation to leave society. It's always the turn of another generation to face unemployment, to face into the unlucky fiefdom of an economic wasteland.

Correcting this problem requires wholescale re-design of the public institutions that have scarcely changed since the foundations of the original Free State. Government has maintained a spectacularly consistent ideological outlook since 1922. If given the chance, it will coast along with the same outlook intil 2022 and beyond.

Activism outside of the political establishment seeks to undermine Government, undermine its moral authority, and challenge the people to re-imagine the Republic. If extraordinary, extra-political measures were required to fight inequality and economic tyranny in Northern Ireland in the late 20th century, why not in all of Ireland in the present day?

View · 08-08-2013 1:11pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Government has maintained a spectacularly consistent ideological outlook since 1922.

It is the electorate who has maintained this ideological outlook.

They have displayed an impressive lack of interest in alternatives.

View · 08-08-2013 1:24pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's not true.

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

Answer: From outside of the political system.

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

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

Cody Pomeray · 08-08-2013 4:09pm

View wrote: »

It is the electorate who has maintained this ideological outlook.

They have displayed an impressive lack of interest in alternatives.

I know. I'm not interested in the electorate's current views. I don't think Sinn Féin ought to show much interest in them either. The electorate is cynical and lethargic. No right-minded activist should be plámásing cynicism or lethargy.

View wrote: »

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

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

More rubbish. The same institutions that formally ended the culturally informed civil rights violations were the same institutions that had introduced and permitted civil rights violations in the first place.

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

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

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

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

View · 08-08-2013 4:56pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

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

Fair enough. Ignore the electorate's opinions - sounds like a strategy for electoral success. :-)

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why did these institutions engage in an about turn?

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

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

Cody Pomeray · 08-08-2013 5:14pm

"Things changed because the law changed".

Insightful.

View · 08-08-2013 5:36pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

"Things changed because the law changed".

Insightful.

Reality.

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

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

Cody Pomeray · 08-08-2013 6:09pm

Sure.

Smiles35 · 11-08-2013 10:19am

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

HansHolzel · 11-08-2013 10:48am

View wrote: »

Reality.

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

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

alastair · 11-08-2013 11:01am

HansHolzel wrote: »

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

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

HansHolzel · 11-08-2013 12:03pm

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

alastair · 11-08-2013 12:09pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

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

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

HansHolzel · 11-08-2013 1:04pm

alastair wrote: »

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

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

Three letters, pal: UWC.

alastair · 11-08-2013 1:14pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

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

Three letters, pal: UWC.

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

HansHolzel · 11-08-2013 2:32pm

alastair wrote: »

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

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

alastair · 11-08-2013 2:38pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

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

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

HansHolzel · 11-08-2013 2:46pm

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

alastair · 11-08-2013 2:49pm

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

HansHolzel · 11-08-2013 3:14pm

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

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

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

alastair · 11-08-2013 3:18pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

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

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

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

The collusion of the British state? :rolleyes:

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

HansHolzel · 11-08-2013 4:02pm

alastair wrote: »

The collusion of the British state? :rolleyes:

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

alastair · 11-08-2013 4:22pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

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

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

Karl Stein · 11-08-2013 5:56pm

alastair wrote: »

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

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

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

Norwesterner · 11-08-2013 6:01pm

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

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

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

To be fair SF also rejected Sunningdale.
Paddy Devlin was a former IRA member who took his seat in Stormont in 1974.
Adams and Mc Guinness called him a traitor and collaborator.
The option of entering Stormont was always available to Republicans but they rightly rejected it until 1998.
Some of the election posters for SF in 1998 were actually put on placards that read "No return to Stormont".
They literally papered over it with Stormont election posters.

Karl Stein · 11-08-2013 6:08pm

Norwesterner wrote: »

To be fair SF also rejected Sunningdale.

SF were a non-entity at the time.

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

cain.ulst.ac.uk

alastair · 11-08-2013 6:09pm

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

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

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

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

alastair · 11-08-2013 6:10pm

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

SF were a non-entity at the time.

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

Norwesterner · 11-08-2013 6:12pm

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

SF were a non-entity at the time.

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

The Provisional Movement rejected Stormont.
OK

Karl Stein · 11-08-2013 6:28pm

Norwesterner wrote: »

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

The Provisional Movement rejected Stormont.
OK

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

The vast majority of the Catholic/Nationalist population were far more concerned with civil and political rights than a UI.

alastair wrote: »

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

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

Norwesterner · 11-08-2013 6:31pm

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

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

The vast majority of the Catholic/Nationalist population were far more concerned with civil and political rights than a UI.

In 1974??
Provos were at their peak then.
Most Nationalists boycotted the border poll at that period as they felt it was partitionist and gerrymandered, now it's on Gerrys wishlist.

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

Karl Stein · 11-08-2013 6:37pm

Norwesterner wrote: »

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

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

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

alastair · 11-08-2013 6:41pm

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

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

Perhaps you should look to your own house before referring anyone to the charter?

The significance of Republican's rejection of Sunningdale wasn't lost on anyone at the time, and still isn't. Hiding under the pretence that SF were a 'non-entity' at the time because they wouldn't engage with the ballot box, is complete revisionism.

Karl Stein · 11-08-2013 6:50pm

alastair wrote: »

Hiding under the pretence that SF were a 'non-entity' at the time because they wouldn't engage with the ballot box, is complete revisionism.

Sure thing. It's like blaming SF for scuttling a ship they weren't even on.

Brilliant use of logic.

The Ulster Unionists formed the United Ulster Unionist Council (UUUC) as a coalition of anti-agreement unionists with the Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party* and the Democratic Unionist Party** to stand a single anti-Sunningdale candidate in each constituency. The pro-Sunningdale parties, the SDLP, the Alliance, the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the "Pro Assembly Unionists" made up of Faulkner's supporters, were disunited and ran candidates against one another. When the results were declared, the UUUC had captured eleven of the twelve constituencies, several of which had been won on split votes. Only West Belfast returned a pro-Sunningdale MP (Gerry Fitt). The UUUC declared that this represented a democratic rejection of the Sunningdale Assembly and Executive, and sought to bring them down by any means possible.

Wiki

You'll not there is no mention of SF there.

alastair · 11-08-2013 6:58pm

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Sure thing. It's like blaming SF for scuttling a ship they weren't even on.

Brilliant use of logic.

I think you're confused as to the logic at play here. If SF/IRA/INLA/IRSP actively opposed the Sunningdale formula as a resolution to power sharing (as they did), then it's pretty disingenuous to pretend that the only mechanism for scuttling that particular ship was from within. The UWC & UAC weren't inside that ship either, let's not forget.

alastair · 11-08-2013 7:01pm

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

You'll not there is no mention of SF there.

I could be wrong on this, but I don't believe they were a member of the UUUC. I don't have a link to support this though.

Karl Stein · 11-08-2013 7:15pm

alastair wrote: »

If SF/IRA/INLA/IRSP actively opposed the Sunningdale formula

You just slid down a snake back to square one. SF/IRA/INLA/IRSP were politically insignificant at the time.

If the SA had not been scuttled by Unionists it's quite possible the PIRA would have ran out of any support it had garnered from Unionist/Loyalist/British terrorism against Catholics/Nationalists.

alastair · 11-08-2013 7:21pm

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

You just slid down a snake back to square one. SF/IRA/INLA/IRSP were politically insignificant at the time.

As were the UWC - but then, that would highlight the nonsense of pretending that extra-political activity had nothing to do with the rejection/fall of Sunningdale.

SoulandForm · 11-08-2013 7:35pm

alastair wrote: »

As were the UWC - but then, that would highlight the nonsense of pretending that extra-political activity had nothing to do with the rejection/fall of Sunningdale.

The IRSP/INLA didnt exist at the time and the Provos and the UWC where anything but insignificant politically.

Karl Stein · 11-08-2013 7:38pm

alastair wrote: »

As were the UWC - but then, that would highlight the nonsense of pretending that extra-political activity had nothing to do with the rejection/fall of Sunningdale.

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

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

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

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAcnDevkTnc

I'm out of here.

Cody Pomeray · 11-08-2013 8:29pm

alastair wrote: »

As were the UWC - but then, that would highlight the nonsense of pretending that extra-political activity had nothing to do with the rejection/fall of Sunningdale.

How - specifically - do you say that the IRA were responsible for bringing down Sunningdale?

Can you be specific?

You realize that your suggestion is at odds with...say... history books?

Richard · 12-08-2013 1:08am

Norwesterner wrote: »

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

The Provisional Movement rejected Stormont.
OK

Yeah, but they didn't cause its failure. It was the UWC strike. There always would have been unionist disention, but if they had been handled better it might have succeeded, regardless of Republican opposition.

Although there were many "what ifs" before then that could have saved many many lives.

Gerry Adams repeats himself again. But

Comments