FROM DEFEAT TO DECOMMISSIONING …AND DISBANDMENT?
Liam O Ruairc
Signing up the Belfast Agreement in 1998 signalled that the Provisional IRA’s war against the British state was well and truly over (154). It took almost ten more years for the Provisional Republican Movement to conclude its transition into state. By then the Belfast Agreement had been replaced by the St Andrews Agreement unveiled on 13 October 2006.
Whereas once they Provisionals promised "no return to Stormont" (155), their new argument was "Why should we be afraid of Stormont? It’s our parliament too." (156) When devolution was restored on 8 May 2007 with Ian Paisley as First Minister and Martin McGuiness as his deputy, this had been made possible by the fact that the Provsional IRA had gone out of business for good and Sinn Fein openly supports the policing system. Prime Minister Blair stated that "the IRA campaign is over" and boasted that "the IRA has done what we asked it to do."
On Thursday 28 July 2005, the Provisional IRA issued a statement, declaring that its war was over: "The leadership of Óglaigh na hÉireann has formally ordered an end to the armed campaign. This will take effect from 4pm this afternoon. All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms." For the first time since 1922, an organisation claiming to be the IRA has publicly declared that there is no need for an armed campaign, as it believes that "there is an alternative way" to achieve its objectives: namely "the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement".
This goes much further than a cessation and dumping arms, which the IRA had done a few times before - in 1922, 1945 and 1962 for instance. "All volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means. Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever." (157)
In other words, "Now they promise to be nothing more than an old boys’ club for former volunteers. As of 4pm yesterday, promised republican Danny Morrison, the IRA will be about as threatening as the British Legion." (158)
Why was that statement issued? There is a fundamental contradiction between accepting the legitimacy of a state, of its laws and institutions, the constitutional system and the rules of parliamentarism and agreeing to operate within their framework; and armed insurrectionary politics dedicated to overthrow them. One cannot accept that the state has the monopoly of legitimate force and at the same time have links to an illegal army refusing to recognise the legitimacy of two Governments and ready to kill the servants of both. As the Fine Gael leader recently reminded Gerry Adams, "fundamental to the constitution" of the 26 counties is that there should be "one Army and one Army only". (159) There is no chance that Fianna Fail or the Unionist would ever consider having Sinn Fein in government as long as they retain links to an illegal organisation carrying unlawful activities. That is why sooner or later the Provisionals would have to issue such a statement.
Consequently, the statement confirms the Provisional leadership’s intent "to complete the process to verifiably put its arms beyond use in a way which will further enhance public confidence and to conclude this as quickly as possible" and informs that they "have invited two independent witnesses, from the protestant and catholic churches, to testify to this" (160). It will thus complete the destruction of its arsenal.
Ten years prior to that, in 1995, the IRA had stated that the demand for decommissioning was "ludicrous" (161). In 1996, it stated again:
"Whenever and however the ludicrous British demand for an IRA surrender is raised we can and will have only one answer. There will be no decommissioning either through the front or the back doors. This is an unrealistic and unrealisable demand which simply won’t be met" (162).In 1996 Brian Keenan declared: "The IRA will not be defeated. Do not be confused about decommissioning. The only thing the Republican Movement will accept is the decommissioning of the British state in this country." (163) The slogan, ‘Not an ounce, not one bullet’, appeared in nationalist areas of the Six Counties.
However, in May 2000, the Provisional leadership was forced to "initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA weapons beyond use": "the contents of a number of arms dumps will be inspected by third parties ... to ensure weapons have remained secure" (164). In October 2001, it began the destruction of its stock of weaponry; and in September 2005 it completed the process.
The political significance of decommissioning is crucial. It showed that the Provisional IRA war was truly over -- an army does not destroy its weapons if it is to fight a war. It was an act of surrender. There has never been a situation in the world where an ‘undefeated army’ has willingly and unilaterally handed over its weapons to its enemy. The only situation where that applies is when an army has been defeated and is forced to hand over arms as an act of surrender.
Critics also pointed out that the acceptance of the principle of decommissioning has served to delegitimise and criminalise the previous republican resistance to British rule. It also elevates to a higher moral plateau British state weaponry.
"Basically republicans are being told that the weapons used by Francis Hughes, the deceased hunger striker, to kill a member of the British SAS death squad are contaminated in a manner which the weapons used to slaughter the innocent of Bloody Sunday and the victims of shoot-to-kill are not" (165).This was historically unique: "Never before in the long and bloody history of Anglo-Irish conflict had an Irish insurgent group voluntarily given up its weapons for destruction, even self-destruction, at the behest of its opponents. When de Valera recognized the inevitability of defeat in the terrible Irish civil war and called a halt to the IRA’s campaign in May 1923, the organization was ordered to bury its arms, not to destroy them. Similarly when the 1956-1962 Border Campaign ended, Ruairi O Bradaigh’s last order to the IRA units as chief of staff was to ‘dump arms’." (166)
One just has to look at what the IRA constitution has to say to realize the extent of the shift taken by the Provisionals:
"General Order No. 11 (Deals with the seizure of arms and dumps under Army control.)Given al this, why has the Provisional IRA not yet disbanded? Sinn Fein TD Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin has suggested that this was because the Provisional IRA represents a bulwark against the growing 'dissident' republican movement:
a) Any volunteer who seizes or is party to the seizure of arms, ammunition or explosives which are being held under Army control shall be deemed guilty of treason. A duly-constituted court martial shall try all cases.
Penalty for breach of this order: Death.The deed was done and General Order No. 11 was breached coldly, deliberately and publicly. William Shakespeare once asked: 'When is treason not treason?' Answer: 'When it is successful; because then none dare call it treason'. But those who went before us would dare."(167)
'the (Provisional) IRA, in whatever way it exists today, represents a bulwark against dissident advance in many areas on this island, not least in the border counties in the North' (168)Logically, once the Provisionals agreed not to oppose the armed forces of the state, they would have to explicitly accept the state’s monopoly of armed force and agree to observe its laws. In practice, this means supporting the police forces north and south of the border that they had been fighting for more than three decades. There was a contradiction with the fact that while the party was prepared to administer British rule, it refused to accept British policing structures in the north. The party cannot have Ministers making the laws and at the same time refusing to endorse the forces in charge of implementing them.
'This was an absurd and illogical political position. One either rejects the legitimacy of a state or accepts it. One cannot reject the legitimacy of one arm of the state and accept the legitimacy of another. Sinn Fein was trying to have its cake and eat it.' (169)The 1998 Belfast Agreement made it quite clear that signatories would have to accept new internal policing arrangements. The Provisional movement had to accept the state's monopoly of legitimate violence. 'If Sinn Fein is to complete its transition from a revolutionary group to a constitutional party which seeks to achieve positions in government on both sides of the border, support for policing has always been essential' noted the Irish News. (170)
As John Kelly (one of the founders of the Provisional IRA) pointed this again raised the question of what had the thirty year war been about. (171) This was far away from the movement’s earlier call to "disband the RUC". (172)
On 28 January 2007, a Sinn Fein Ard Fheis made the 'historic' decision to support the PSNI and the criminal justice system; appoint party representatives to the Policing Board and District Policing Partnership Boards; and actively encourage everyone in the community to co-operate fully with the police services in tackling crime in all areas and actively supporting all the criminal justice institutions. For all the hopes of Sinn Fein to one day control the justice ministry, the transfer of 'counter-terrorist' intelligence from the police to MI5 means at present that any justice minister would have no effective control over counter-terrorist operations in Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin is colluding with the British state to hide the fact MI5 has been given an expanded role in the North to take supreme control of all counter-terrorist intelligence with virtually no accountability or outside controln and when justice is set to be devolved, control of security matters will remain at Westminster. (173)
The SDLP's Mark Durkan correctly pointed out that the Provisional agenda is in fact allowing the British Government to set the clock back on policing. Under the Patten reforms the PSNI is obliged by law to open all its files to the Ombudsman in any investigation, whereas under the Blair-Adams deal, the police Ombudsman will not be able to investigate MI5.(174)
On 5 February 2010, the Agreement at Hillsborough Castle marked in the words of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown "the last chapter of a long and troubled story". (175) The reason for the devolution of policing and justice is "that Northern Ireland cannot be stable within the Union without the involvement of Sinn Fein and they badly need this agreement to justify their support for the police." (176)
However the Agreement at Hillsborough Castle was another victory for unionism.
"Devolution of policing and justice powers will occur on Unionist terms. There will be no Sinn Fein Justice Minister. Unionists have a veto on who will hold this post. …There will be no Irish Language Act…Yesterday was a good day for Unionism which will further cement Ulster’s place within the United Kingdom." (177)It will increase the involvement of Provisionals in combatting republicans still engaging in armed actions. The Provisionals have even asked for a special unit to be set up by the PSNI to combat so-called dissidents. (178)
PRAGMATISM OR OPPORTUNISM?
It is now over fifteen years since the 1994 IRA ceasefire and over ten years after the 1998 Belfast Agreement. The peace process achieved the "reconstitution of bourgeois order" in the North "not in the context of the British Empire…but in the context of the European Union" . (179)
It is very difficult to argue that the peace process represents an advance for republicanism and does provide the transitional mechanisms to a united Ireland. In the words of Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey, the purpose of the peace process was " the de-militarisation, the re-radicalisation, the de-mobilisation of the resistance movement in the North." (180)
The peace process is not only a defeat for republicanism but represents its effective transformation into constitutional nationalism, an ideology it is in conflict with. The class nature of the pan-nationalist alliance determined the nature and parameters of the national struggle and set clear limits to the course of development that may or may not challenge the prevailing class structures and class relations. (181)
The peace process has thus represented a major shift for Provisional republicanism. Far from "republicanising" the peace process, it effectively amounted to a means of "de-republicanising" Sinn Fein. (182) This was clear from the preconditions for entry into the peace talks. (183) However, in a recent book, academic Martyn Frampton argues that the "republican leadership remained fundamentally unaltered at an ideological level". (184) But as Kevin Bean points out, he "does not explore the possibility that the apparent continuity within the leadership’s discourse throughout this period might have quite another purpose, namely to conceal the ideological retreat of the Adams-McGuinness leadership and the defeat of its political project." (185)
Others, like the UCD political theorist Jennifer Todd for example, have argued that, rather than republicanism being transformed into constitutional nationalism, its ideological repertoire has simply been extended. Traditional long term goals have been subordinated to an agenda of ‘radical egalitarian democratic transformist principles’ (186) However, her transformist principles "do mark a significant scaling down of republican demands and a redefinition of the scale of the Republican project." (187)
In terms of international comparison, journalist Kevin Rafter cannot find any other example of political movements who have gone so far in the dilution of their core principles: "No other political party in Europe has undergone such a radical overhaul of its basic principles, not even the former communist parties in Central and Eastern Europe that transformed themselves into social democratic entities in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet bloc." (188)
More significantly, in an Irish context, there are no historical precedents of a Republican organisation going so far. Many historians agree that Adams actually outdid de Valera. (189) Eamon Phoenix writes that the Provisional movement "has opted for the de Valera path of purely constitutional means but, crucially, it has surpassed the Fianna Fáil founder by carrying the IRA with it" (190)
Speaking of parallels, most striking has been the Provisionals’ re-habilitation of Michael Collins’ brand of ‘republicanism’. In a language reminiscent of Michael Collins’ description of the 1921 Treaty as "not the ultimate freedom…but the freedom to achieve it" (191), An Phoblacht-Republican News described the 1998 Agreement as "not a solution, but the potential for a solution". (192)
Incidently, during the 1990s the Provisionals were increasingly putting Collins in a positive light. (193) portraying him as some kind of proto-provo. (194) This was increased by the popular success of the Michael Collins film by Neil Jordan. (195)
"A simple, yet obvious, indication of this rehabilitation was the fact that a poster of Neil Jordan’s 1996 film on Michael Collins…was displayed prominently in the Sinn Fein office in Parliament buildings at Stormont after 1998…Collins, it would seem, was no longer to be viewed as the proverbial ‘bad guy’ of republican history, but rather as the progenitor of a new brand of republicanism, to which Gerry Adams and his supporters were the rightful heirs." (196)This has often been presented as a matter of ‘pragmatism’ and ‘recognizing realities’. According to Richard English, "pragmatism did indeed lie at the heart of the momentous shift in late-twentieth century Irish republican nationalism." (197)
For Danny Morrison:
"There are many republicans who feel that the IRA leadership went too far…I myself think that whilst there have been mistakes they got the balance just about right. But it has been a difficult road given that the armed struggle was waged –and could only have been waged- with idealistic zeal and for fundamental demands. … Life is complex, circumstances change, battles are won and lost, opportunities arise, and, as in nature, it is those who can adapt who survive and thrive. In fact, to use and exploit the system in a considered way, both in its contradictions and whatever advantages it offers to achieve one’s ultimate aim is often to do the revolutionary thing. And this, to me, is the story of the peace process, and the peace process to me is a phase of struggle. " (198)The pragmatism thesis states that under the Adams leadership, the rule book of Irish republicanism was fundamentally rewritten, ideological purity was jettissoned in favour of electoral advancement: "The trade-off has been between a position of principle combined with isolation or opting for pragmatism married to political success. In the 'era of pragmatism', the Adams leadership ensured which choice was made." (199)
The problem with this characterisation is that it tends to confuse pragmatism and opportunism. Pragmatism is about temporarily setting aside a minor ideal to achieve some higher ideal. Opportunism is abandoning some important political principles in the process of trying to increase one's political power and influence. With pragmatism, there is unity between means and ends; whereas with opportunism, political means have become ends in themselves and the original relation between means and ends is lost. Political circumstances change and so do tactics, but tactical flexibility is still connected to the strategic goals of the programme. Only when tactics are applied in a manner that undermines the realization of strategic aims can they be said to be unprincipled. The confusion of principles and tactics opens the road to opportunism. (200)
"The record of the Adams era shows that everything in the republican code is now a tactic...He has displayed a total disregard for traditional republican dogma and has refused to be hamstrung by historical principles like abstentionism and decommissioning..." (201)The so-called "new realism" of the Provisional movement as Adams called it (202) cannot be understood in isolation from the collapse of actually existing socialism and the defeat of actually existing national liberation movements and the general crisis of credibility of the socialist project if not the very idea of the Enlightenment and modernity to which republicanism had always been intrinsically connected. (203) The inspiration for the ‘peace strategy’ was South Africa and Palestine. (204) However the objective results of the ‘peace processes’ in South Africa and Palestine was the defeat of popular struggles. (205)
But crucially, besides the fact that republicanism has been defeated and disfigured is "the devious way that it was all brought about" as Brendan Hughes bitterly complained. (206) Obfuscation -- or 'creative ambiguity' as it is branded -- has been central to the peace process. (207) Professor Roy Foster writes that "the British quickly learned linguistic ingenuity; Orwell would have appreciated the way ‘an "agreed Ireland" ‘turned out to mean the very opposite of a ‘united Ireland’, while ‘power-sharing’ came to denote ‘separate spheres’, not reconciliation." (208)
As Jim Gibney reminds us:
"If there is one big lesson coming out of the peace process...it is words like 'certainty' and 'clarity' are not part of the creative lexicon that conflict resolution requires if it is to be successful...Give me the language of ambiguity...It has oiled the engine of the peace process. Long may it continue to do so." (209)Or as Bernadette Devlin McAliskey puts it more bluntly, peace has been bought by "perjury, fraud, corruption, cheating and lying". (210) Brendan Hughes was on solid ground when complaining that "the process had created a class of professional liars and unfortunately it contains many Republicans". (211) As a result of this, the legacy of the ‘peace process’ for republicanism is not only defeat but also far more serious, the relinquishing of the moral position of the republican struggle.
NOTES
(154) See for example Danny Morrison, No longer need for Armalite, The Andersonstown News , October 27 2001
(155) ‘No Return to Stormont’ – IRA, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 4 April 1996
(156) Tim Pat Coogan, The IRA, London: HarperCollins, fifth revised and updated edition, 2000, 715
(157) Irish Republican Army orders an end to armed campaign, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 28 July 2005
(158) Jonathan Freedland, A nightmare ends, another nightmare begins, The Guardian, 29 July 2005
(159) Gerry Moriarty, FG ‘not trusted’ on the national question, Adams tells Kenny, The Irish Times, 22 June 2010
(160) Irish Republican Army orders an end to armed campaign, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 28 July 2005
(161) IRA says British acting in bad faith, An Phoblacht-Republican News, October 5 1995
(162) IRA says British good faith required for new peace process, An Phoblacht-Republican News, March 7 1996
(163) Tim Pat Coogan, The IRA, London: HarperCollins, fifth revised and updated edition, 2000, 674
(164) IRA statement, An Phoblacht-Republican News, May 11 2000
(165) Anthony McIntyre, Good Friday: The Death of Irish Republicanism, New York: Ausubo Press, 2008, 9
(166) Ed Moloney, A Secret History of the IRA, London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, second revised and updated edition, 2007, 491-492
(167) Ruairi O Bradaigh, When Treason is Not Treason, Fourthwrite, Issue 8
(168) Paul O Brien, Ó Caoláin: IRA a bulwark against dissident republicans, The Irish Examiner, 6 March 2008
(169) Paul Maguire, Provo poachers turned gamekeepers, New Republican Forum, January 2007
(170) Editorial, The Irish News, 29 December 2006
(171) John Kelly, If MI5 rules, what was the 30-year war all about?, The Irish News, 5 February 2007
(172) For example: Disband The RUC, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 16 February 1995
(173) Westminster will retain control of MI5 when justice is devolved to Northern Ireland, The Belfast Telegraph, 19 February 2010
(174) SDLP, The Truth About MI5: what they don't want you to know (available at: http://www.sdlp.ie/documents/MI5Truth-jan07.doc )
(175) Last chapter of long and troubled history: PM, The Irish News, 6 February 2010
(176) Henry Patterson, Inevitable deal would be mix of clarity and vagueness, The Newsletter, 6 February 2010
(177) Peter Robinson, Why I did the deal, The Newsletter, 6 February 2010
(178) Adrian Rutherford and Deborah McAleese, Dissident attacks prompt calls for special PSNI unit, The Belfast Telegraph, 10 March 2010
(179) John Newsinger, The Reconstruction of Bourgeois Order in Northern Ireland, Monthly Review, June 1998
(180) Bernadette McAliskey, The Peace Process Is (available at www.socialistdemocracy.org)
(181) Berch Berberoglu, Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict: Class, State and Nation in the Age of Globalization, New York : Rowan & Littlefield, 2004, 112
(182) Brendan O Muirthile, Strategic Republicanism: Neither strategic nor republican, The Blanket
(183) David Trimble, Peace is built on preconditions, The Irish Times, 1 April 2008
(184) Martyn Frampton, The Long March: The Political Strategy of Sinn Fein 1981-2007, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmilan, 2009, 77
(185) Kevin Bean, Irish Political Studies, Volume 25 Issue 1, February 2010, pp.135-154. Henry Patterson correctly remarked that in his The New Politics of Sinn Fein (Liverpool University Press, 2007), "Kevin Bean provides us with the most deeply researched and convincing analysis of the radical transformation of provisional republican strategy and politics that has yet been written." (Henry Patterson, Irish Political Studies, Volume 24 Issue 1, February 2009, pp. 123-135)
(186) Jennifer Todd, ‘Nationalism, republicanism and the Good Friday Agreement’ in Jennifer Todd & Joseph Ruane (eds) After the Good Friday Agreement; Analysing Political Change in Northern Ireland, Dublin: UCD Press, 1999, 58
(187) Henry Patterson, Towards 2016, Fourthwrite, Issue 1, Spring 2000.
(188) Kevin Rafter, Sinn Fein 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen, Dublin: Gill&Macmillan, 2005, 15
(189) Brian Feeney, Adams succeeded where Dev failed, The Irish News, 29 July 2005
(190) Eamon Phoenix, Modern movement surpasses de Valera by taking IRA with it, The Irish News, 29 July 2005
(191) Tim Pat Coogan, Michael Collins: A Biography, London: Hutchinson, 1990, 301
(192) Brian Campbell, Not a solution, but a potential for a solution, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 9 April 1998
(193) C.Carney, Was Michael Collins a Provo?, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 29 November 1990
(194) Mick Derrig, Michael Collins’ Unfinished Revolution, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 21 October 1999
(195) Michael MacDonncha, To hell and back: Jordan’s Collins makes big impact, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 31 October 1996
(196) Martyn Frampton, The Long March: The Political Strategy of Sinn Fein 1981-2007, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, 112-113
(197) Richard English, Irish Freedom: The History of Nationalism in Ireland, London : Macmillan, 2006, 408
(198) Danny Morrison, Paisley just a blip in the ongoing peace process, Daily Ireland, 9 February 2006
(199) Kevin Rafter, Sinn Fein 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen, Dublin: Gill&Macmillan, 2005, 5
(200) For overall discussion of these issues see: Georg Lukacs, Taktik und Ethik, in Georg Lukacs Werke: Frueshriften II, Neuwied und Berlin: Luchterhand, 1968, pp.45-53
(201) Kevin Rafter, op.cit., 242
(202) ‘Our struggle and our party have never faltered’, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 27 February 1992
(203) Mark Ryan, War & Peace in Ireland: Britain and the IRA in the New World Order, London: Pluto Press, 1994, pp.35ff. For the crisis of the Enlightenment and modernity see Kevin Bean, The New Politics of Sinn Fein, Liverpool University Press, 2007, Part II, passim.
(204) For South Africa see for example Neil Forde, Path to a just peace in Ireland and South Africa, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 18 August 1994, for Palestine see Yesterday’s ‘Terrorist’…, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 16 September 1993
(205) For South Africa, see in particular Dale T. McKinley, The ANC and the Liberation Struggle: A Critical Political Biography, London: Pluto Press, 1997. For Palestine, see in particular Edward W. Said, Peace and Its Discontents, London: Vintage, 1995 and his The End of the Peace Process, London: Vintage, 2002.
(206) Ed Moloney, Voices From the Grave: Two Men’s War in Ireland, London : Faber and Faber, 2010, 292. See Ed Moloney, A Secret History of the IRA, London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, second revised and updated edition, 2007 for a detailed history of this.
(207) See Arthur Aughey, The Art and Effect of Political Lying in Northern Ireland, Irish Political Studies, 17 (2), 2002, pp.1-16. For some related issues see also Paul Dixon, Political Skills or Lying and Manipulation ? The Choregraphy of the Northern Ireland Peace Process, Political Studies, 50 (4), 2002, pp.725-741.
(208) Roy Foster, Partnership of Loss, London Review of Books, 13 December 2007
(209) Jim Gibney, Ambiguity: Oiling wheels of progress, An Phoblacht-Republican News, 17 April 2003
(210) Lorna Siggins, Peace in NI bough by ‘fraud and lying’, says McAliskey, The Irish Times, 30 April 2007
(211) Interview with Brendan Hughes, Fourthwrite, Issue 1, Spring 2000
Liam, extensively researched and brilliantly written.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite hard to seriously believe, that academic writers would seriously argue the case, that Adams and Mc Guinness remain loyal to core republican principles. In many ways it is like saying the local abattoir owner promotes the tenets of vegetarianism in their spare time.
Sinn Fein and it's apostles have actively embraced all that it once warned against.
Disciple Morrison's theory that, 'only those who adapt will trive and survive' may provide some sort of an explanation for their choice of petty-bourgeoisie lifestyles.
In front of our very eyes the classic animal farm satire was played out.
The pigs have now taken up their seats at Blair, Browne, Cameron table.
While the people who gave so much stand looking on, as spoils of war and dividends of peace are unequally divided.
This was fascinating to read Liam really enjoyed it.
there was no promotion of stormont untill the crown was removed,
ReplyDeletethis is a peoples assemply now, no crown oath means no subjects at the assemply, we are egual at stormont now, which is a twenty-first century Eire nua,
liam quotes blair and paisly, both of whom got the boot by their own partys, he as to quote those who lost to give his argument some credence,
the army had done its job, volunteers swore to volunteer to the movement, they now have been asked to volunteer to work the objectives peace-fully,
the army never give over 1 bullet or 1 ounce to the brits,
no surrender to the brits,
general order no:11 deals with the sizure of weapons, there was no sizure of weapons by the past enemy,again the brits never got a bullet, never got an ounce,
liam also quotes people for his argument, who took the crown oath,
durkan and mcCaliskey, de valera also took the oath,
liam has no problem with this, strange but true,
the r.u.c and the brit crown on its badge was disbanded.
i am a bit puzzled, annoyed at liam, 5 articles now, trying to criticise SINN FEIN, and yet he can not tell us who he now supports, if anyone, or any group, afraid of being laughed at liam, time to grow a pair lad.
Michael,
ReplyDelete"there was no promotion of stormont untill the crown was removed,"
The Crown has not been removed from Stormont. Stormont exists because, "Following referendums in Scotland and Wales in 1997, and in both parts of Ireland in 1998, the UK Parliament transferred a range of powers to national parliaments or assemblies. The UK government remains responsible for national policy on all matters that have not been devolved, including foreign affairs, defence, social security, macro-economic management and trade.It is also responsible for government policy in England and on all the matters that have been devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland."
Moreover you wrongly view this as a form of Irish federalism, as set out in "Eire Nua", which it clearly is not. "Devolution is the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to government at a subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed by central government in the same way as any statute. Federal systems, or federacies, differ in that state or provincial government is guaranteed in the constitution. It differs from federalism in that the powers devolved may be temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains, de jure, unitary." The central government and sovereign state relating to Stormont is Her Majesty's United Kingdom Government Of Great Britain And N.Ireland and not the Irish Republic.
No crown at Stormont? What does that mean? They are British ministers administering British rule is that not enough.
ReplyDeletemichaelhenry, why do you not just spend your days in the bottling 'Only Our Rives Run Free' factory.
Or listening to Martin Miller's fairy tales about the wonderful water board.
Or just gaze endlessly into Big Gerry's eyes, seeing how you seem to spend your life telling him how wonderful he is.
Or listen to arch traitor Mc Guinness as he speaks the Brit speak.
You are full of it just like they are.
"there was no promotion of stormont untill the crown was removed," and was there no promotion of stormont until Martin the Deputy First Minister called on Sinn Fein followers to inform on all republicans to the PSNI, Please take your head from your anal area quickly MichaelHenry
ReplyDeleteis the truth still taking a time to sink in robert,
ReplyDeletethe crown oath got a wack, and was removed from stormont when all IRELAND voted yes for the good friday agreement, a victory for equality when IRISH people removed the term subject from the unionist partys, whilst they are on 32 county soil,
the crown oath is still in power at the scottish and welsh assemplys because SINN FEIN was not involved in those two set-ups,
the crown oath is also at westminister, which is one of the reasons why SINN FEIN do not participate on those green seats,
once the IRISH people removed the crown oath from IRISH democracy SINN FEIN was free to promote stormont, there would be no return to the old ways,
both unionists and stoops were house tamed in the ways of equality, both still take the oath in a foreign land, but not in IRELAND, or what they both term northern IRELAND.
finnuala, no one can be a british minister if they do not take the crown oath, it is not possible or legal under british law, or under the brits constitution, ask poor robert, he knows.
our rivers are free of the crown finnuala, drink that freedom aid,
i dare say that i would get hit over the head with GERRYS hurly stick if i were to gaze endlessly in-to his eyes.
what about the socialist party finnuala, are those hardliners for or against the crown,
take a look at that other crown on the p.s.n.i logo, it aint the brit crown, the p.s.n.i also got rid of the crown oath, they have given the r.u.c past a kick,
do you think yer man robert will huff, when he checks the facts out.
Word words and damn words MichaelHenry thats all that i keep hearing no oath to the crown so what try this one , Who rules Northern Ireland and please dont tell me Sinn Fein, it all 6 counties that is belongs to the British government facts are facts as you have rightly said.
ReplyDeleteLiam first class,and as has heen said well researched and presented.cant find fault for love nor money,where Robert and his section of our community should be worried is Adams Mc Guinness and co all swore allegiance to an Irish Republic and with treacherous volte face abandoned that nobel ideal, so if I was a member of the unionist community I,d be worried about having those lying carpetbaggers playing anypart in the running of this part of Ireland
ReplyDeleteMichaelhenry,
ReplyDelete"the crown oath got a wack, and was removed from stormont when all IRELAND voted yes for the good friday agreement"
"the crown oath is still in power at the scottish and welsh assemplys because SINN FEIN was not involved in those two set-ups"
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain."
You appear to suggest that Sinn Fein negotiated the removal of the oath of allegiance and that this was ratified in the referendum. This is incorrect in,"That Members of the Assembly are not required to swear an oath [this] is not a new departure. ..it is notable that no oath was required of Members elected to
the 1973 or the 1982 Northern Ireland Assemblies. The Northern Ireland Constitution Act
1973 rendered religious and political discriminatory laws void and discriminatory executive
action unlawful. Section 21 of the Act made it unlawful for a public body to require an oath,
undertaking or declaration from any person “as a condition of his being appointed to or acting
as a member of that authority or body, or serving with or being employed under that body”.
Huff with you MichaelHenry? Never!Never!Never! - you are every Unionist's dream.
Marty,
ReplyDeleteMy view of Stormont is essentially that of a talking shop albeit with a substantial budget. Gerry and Marty don't concern me for two reasons - the real power still resides in Westminster and secondly the bold Peter will and has wiped the floor with the two of them. I have often thought that Haughey's description of Ahern was a perfect fit for Robinson in Unionist terms he really is, "the most skilful, the most devious, the most cunning of them all". The career politican par excellence. Saying that I hope they all s@*t hedgehogs.
robert, notice you wrote that the crown oath is discriminatory
ReplyDeletelike it still is now at westminister and in the scottish and welsh parliaments,
can us catholics sue then, the queen is immune from the law but her little helpers are not exempt from the law,
sunningdale and that 1982 attempt both failed because republicans were not in the mix,
no crown oath, thats a good one,
robert is saying that any-one who took the crown oath in any parliment, or in the r.u.c from 1973 to the p.s.n.i are guilty of discrimination, unless i missed something, he actually agrees with me.
watch out old hand, that the unionist dream of yours does not turn in-to a wet dream, or a nightmare.
It was a decent piece alright, well researched and well written. As I read down, I did get a sense that it was a tad one sided - but that's fair enough, most articles are.
ReplyDeleteFionnuala, you will never accept the Leadership, and that's your perogative, but I think you should stop insinuating that everyone who continues to support and work for Sinn Féin is nothing but a blind and brainless follower - this is simply not true. Our mutual friend Seando Moore is but one perfect example, and despite what you may think, there are many like him, if not as dedicated and committed as only he and a few can be.
I would prefer for republicans who oppose the SF strategy and political direction to articuate what they want to see happen, and how, from a 'pragmatist' point of view, they would like to see this implemented. Instead, they tend to spend most of their time throwing personal and collective insults at Adams, McGuinness, Kelly, Gildernew, Ramsey, Maskey and the manmy other public 'elected' representatives.
The facts are that most Irish Republicans in the North support this party, believe in their achievements thus far and are committed to their future. Those facts are repeatedly borne out by the electorate, including the recent election results in the North, despite the predictions to the contrary.
I do not accept that SF have abandoned their ideaology or fundamental goal. Nor do I believe they have abandoned or de-legitimised the armed struggle of the Provisional Army.
They obviously have a major problem with the legitimacy of the current armed campaign of those groups involved - I have a problem with them myself, both in terms of objectives, and in their execution. To threaten a taxi driver that they will be shot unless they drive their vehicle to its target - what is the problem with the 'volunteer' driving it him or herself? I know the provisionals carried out similar operations in the past but I felt the same about those operations then as I do about the apparent tactic that seems to be the norm nowadays. Combatants join up and take the risks along with the consequences, local taxi drivers are just out earning a bit of money for their families!
Is this what the people of Ireland today want?
Slán
Westie
id say that the chaplain who baptised you interested,
ReplyDeleteraised his eye-brow when he was told your name.
words, whats wrong with words next
no crown oath here, so you say so what, not a nice republican position to take, is their a lick of sense in you,
you ask who is in charge, the people are in charge,
the british goverment are subjects,
that is their choice, that is all they and their familys are,
you say that SINN FEIN ministers are british ministers, i have noticed that argument being used before,
but your statement would mean that SINN FEIN ministers have broken the taboo of british ministers swearing alliance to the leader of the crown, which would be another first for SINN FEIN,
you can not be a british minister and also oppose the crown oath,
its the IRISH way.
those damn words interested, i more
or less said the same thing when i read the last of the dark tower series by stepen king, what that author done was beyond belief,
i'll not say, in case some-one reading this is reading the dark tower books, i said then that i would never again read stepen king,
i relented over time, and im glad i did, as under the dome and cell were first class.
Westie you write,I do not accept that psf have abandoned their ideaology or fundamental goal, nor do I believe they have abandoned or de-legitimised the armed struggle of pira.I,d advise you to read Liam,s excellent post again a cara and all of it, take your time reading it,an example of abandoning ones ideaology would in my opinion would have been when socialist minister Mc Guinness as education minister initiated pfi finance to rebuild Balmoral High school, which closed not so long after and has left the taxpayer a massive bill for years to come,although that building may now be part occupied it is a financial disaster for everyone except the devoloper who stands to make a fortune from this folly, another example is Babs Brown as health minister as a socialist how can she defend the closure of Omagh hospital because Westie she initiated that move, mind you they could claim they were only obeying orders no change there then!you state that psf/prm have not abandoned the armed struggle??can we expect that we will see large amounts of police men/women blown to bits soon by the boys in pursuit of what excatly?I can assure you taxi drivers,bus drivers,train drivers,lorry drivers,car drivers, fathers going to mass, mothers of ten,dog lovers will all be worried about that statement,as for taking the piss outa your heros they put themselves up there in the public eye they take the piss out of us with their expensive and freeloading lifestyles and holiday homes have you ever heard of spitting image and I bet you have ,did you feel annoyed when they took the piss outa the queen and Thatcher I bet you didnt a cara!!!
ReplyDeleteCant disagree with that Robert although I do think Iris,s knicker elastic has damaged Peter the punt beyond repair, I agree he was far and away more capable and devious, as a successful politican usualy is.than any from psf,although O Dowd is worth watching imo,but as you say may they all s##t hedgehogs,although again this is where we disagree I,d prefer porcupines.deep fried hedgehog is tasty!!!!!
ReplyDeleteMichaelHenry,
ReplyDeleteWhen you have finished with Stephen King can I recommend David Feherty's "Somewhere In Ireland A Village Is Missing An Idiot". It may provide a roadmap home.
You have Jim Alister the turd talking about the slow slide of Ulster into a United Ireland with Mc Aleese at the RUC passing out parade and the IRA murderers now in government. Then you have the 'dissidents'. They are just mall-contents, the lot of them. What we have now in the North was on offer for the whole island before the first world war and was offered as an alternative to Home Rule. Westminster controls all things of importance. A limited budget is given for the children to play with at Stormont. There's possibly no alternative to what is going on. That's the sad part. What is even sadder is that Mi6 Mc Guinness Adams and Donaldson and the entire Mi6/SF leadership it would seem, had decided to settle for this end result many many years ago. They dumped all principles and people with what the Unionists termed at the beggining of talks about talks "Indecent haste".
ReplyDeleteNow we know what they were discussing at their wee office in Westminster, don't we? That's a rhetorical question Michaelhenry, please don't answer it ffs, heard enough about you and your crown. Get Gerry's balls out of your mouth, or Liams maybe?? A wee oul man in a Donegal bar suggested about 2 yrs ago to me that Adams was amazing that in all these years the dirty war never caught up on him, they can't get him, he said. I would love to run into the oul fella now I can tell ya!!
Westie, I agree I have a problem with Sinn and their leadership, they are liars and they are hypocrites and I would hazzard a guess that a lot of people would find that a problem.
ReplyDeleteWestie, I also sgree there are a lot of committed people in Sinn Fein, the problem with that is, what are they committed to?
You suggest that, people who disagree with Sinn Fein should articulate their position.
Once upon a time Sinn Fein articulated theirs and it cetainly was not surrender, sell out and corruption.
Alternative republicans have argued that, they would like republicanism to progess and progress in a cohesive fashion to produce a viable alternative to the one we got.
Unfortunately republicanism is fragmented and strategies vary.
However, I would say the strategy that underpins many groups is a way forward based on the principles Sinn Fein departed from.
You speak about their achievements, well I would be very interested if you could name one!
Just one achievement, I once asked this of Eoin O Broin and I still await his reply.
Westie, those who vote for them are not all republicans.
Many people believe that a vote for them is in fact a vote for peace.
Others believe they will deliver in relation to investment.
Marty, must have been round the globe thrice with his begging bowl.
I also believe that they will cut the throats of the poor and anyone else unfortunate enough to be the victims of their neo-liberal economic policies.
They did criminalise the entire struggle. Do you seriously believe people died for this.
I cannot even get house insurance because in the eyes of insurance companies I am a criminal.
I bet Adams has his house insured, I bet Kelly has his portfolio of property insured.
In relation to the taxi-driver bomb, they strapped Patsy Gillispie to a bomb.
A lot of Irish people did not want that.
Can I just clarify that Marty ( with the begging bowl' is Marty Mc Guinness, not Marty of the 'Pensive Quill'
Fionnuala
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that volunteers did not die for a Stormont based power sharing govt. And I understand why people challenge the reality of the present day against previous statements and deeds by the Provisional movement -but that is what happens and has done through historical conflicts between nations.
Times and circumstances change, and obviously Sinn Féin took the decision that the armed struggle had run it's course in terms of whether it was more damaging to the Brits or more damaging to the Movement itself to continue.
The motive for fighting was also different - for instance what do you honestly think was the primary reason why so many people joined the Army in the late sixties and then the seventies and early eighties, genuinely the reason why they did this? I think it was as much about inequality, brutality and a fight for survival as it was about removing the Brits from our land for good. The fact that those circumstances no longer prevail is one achievement in itself. I do not subscribe to the belief that the GFA was the same as the Sunningdale offer, which was brought down by Unionists who were not prepared to accept even that model.
In relation to SF achievements, I see them mainly around the equality agenda - the rise and rise of our culture in the North, especially Irish Language education, the full part that Irish Nationalist and Republicans play in our society without having to feel like second class citizens,the prisoners being released from jail as part of the GFA, the campaigns for justice for the likes of the Bloody Sunday victims, Pat Finucane and curently the Ballymurphy massacre, the transformation of the sectarian RUC through the Patton principles.
With regard to the criminalisation of the armed struggle, I attend many rememberance events and functions and have visited most of the beautiful memorial gardens and monuments that have been erected to honour Ireland's dead and I never get a sense of anything but pride and comradeship on such occasions.
I know you will disagree with most, if not all that I have written but I didn't want to leave your post unanswered.
Slán
Westie
Westie,
ReplyDelete'Combatants join up and take the risks along with the consequences, local taxi drivers are just out earning a bit of money for their families!
Is this what the people of Ireland today want?'
Can you point to a time when they ever wanted it?
Westie, when you said I would disagree with absolutely everything you said you were totally right.
ReplyDeleteRather than cover old ground I will just answer the points you made in relation to the changes Sinn Fein have brought about and the criminalisation of the struggle.
You say (paraphrasing again) The rise and rise of our culture especially the Irish language.
Are we seriously supposed to be grateful that we can practice Irish customs and Irish language in our own country?
Are we supposed to be grateful we are no longer viewed as second class citizens? (Even though Ardoyne proved we are still viewed as such)
In relation to the Belfast Agreement and the prisoners.
What about the prisoners in Maghaberry, they will waffle all sorts of shit about them, but they (Sinn Fein) will never recognise them as political prisoners.
I too attend the memorial services in the memorial gardens and I can tell you in all honesty most of them are superficial and underpinned by claptrap.
My partner is the Chair of our local memorial garden and he has never received one penny piece contribution from Sinn Fein or any other branch of the 'mainstream movement' including Coiste towards the up keep of the garden.
Instead, local events are run and money gotten from the cash strapped local people to pay for its up keep.
At the risk of sounding very cynical, why would they pay for the dead, when basically they have served their purpose?
Fionnuala
ReplyDeleteYou asked me the question. I gave you my answer, and I stand by it.
I didn't expect you to agree and you didn't disappoint!
Sin maith go leor.
Westie
Westie a cara you give the impression that the revival of the Irish language is somehow down to psf, maybe you can give an example of that ,the Irish language act eh a cara mm! We built a school in honour of Bobby Sands in T/brook,no help from psf but there was a push for the bearded one to open it,and thankfully that didnt happen,psf have been stalling and procastinating on the prisoner issue, I suppose they really dont have a choice since they stupidly labeled them traitors and criminals,so a cara please furnish us with something tangible that your socialist mates in psf have provided for our communities other than well paid jobs for their cronies,and the building of their holiday homes, something you never mention a cara ,maybe your hoping to get an invite to Alexs new pad up in Falcarragh next door to Gort a Horc where the psf president for life and fan of Ed Carson has his big pad not bad for a bloke who only worked about a few weeks in his life,while as Nuala has stated ex prisioners have been left high and dry if they dont toe the party line,bravehearts have been turned into geldings on the psf alter, nor have you to my knowledge explained or condemned the picketing of homes of republicans such as Tommy Gorman or Anthony, you may also say large numbers of people vote for psf, I,d agree but I,d say its not for psf,s policies as psf,s policies change with the wind direction but rather to stay with this peace at any price,2016 is not to far away and when it passes and Ireland remains divided will your colleagues in psf then call your president to account or as usual accept the waffle that securocrats are to blame not him.
ReplyDeleteWestie, feeling a bit beleagured here. I think we will do what we normally do, agree to differ.
ReplyDeleteT.P Westie..."They tend to spend most of their time throwing personal and collective insults at Adams etc".Well a cara calling a former member of the party an eejit by Adams ,how would you describe that? Squinter /Livinstone ,week in week out continually taking the piss out of those republicans who dont obey the bearded ones orders,after all rule no 1 he is the lord your god and you shall have no other before him, Marty boy calling republicans traitors crims etc .need I go on westie a cara or do you get the point. Tchifidh me annon thu.
ReplyDeleteMarty
ReplyDelete- I get 'your' point a chara - it just isn't shared by me!
- I'm not expecting any invite to Donegal or any of our other beautiful counties. I have good company of my own.
As for the rest, I belive SF have been the main driving force, and continue to be so for the increase in Irish Language schools throughout the North. No other political party would have ever raised an eyebrow in support of it - and the Acht na Gaelige campaign is nothing to be ashamed about, nor is it dead in the water imo.
On prisoners, I have referred to the Republican prisoners that were released under the GFA. I did not refer to the current prisoners because I accept that SF do not see them as their 'army'. Whilst I do not support the armed actions that are being carried out by the various groups, I do support the prisoner's campaign for political status - but do you not accept that prisoner release was a good thing for those Irish Republicans who did not have to pend further decades behind bars?
If Gerry A called someone an eejit, its a lot less vile than what he and his fellow Shinners has been called over the past few years, wouldn't you agree Marty?
Finally, I don't think many in SF are holding their breath on 2016 or anywhere near it for that matter, but I hope and pray that beidh an lá linn - lá amhain cara.
Slán
Westie
Westie a cara, we are agreed that everyone calls everyone else a c##t it,s the nature of the beast here.As you must be only a minor player in psf you are right not to expect any invites to the big boys holiday homes unless its to help serve canopies when the have alls throw their soiree,s,on a more serious note re prisioners, I would prefer that we had no political prisioners, but while we do I for one will not turn my back on them,nor label them crims,you still havent answered my question as a member of a would be socialist organisation you could be comfortable with your leadership being more than happy to implement capatalist and anti people policies, nor have you responded to the vile and disgusting tatic of picketing and imtimidating of republicans homes,because they speak out against your leadership,please dont tell me it was a spontaneous outpowering of anger by residents, tell me who would have given the green light for such actions,the hypocrisy of psf knows no bounds,we have an example today in the Irish News where minister Murphy psf states he would,nt want his kids in the psni,then he tries to cloak that by saying he wouldnt want them in the gaurds or metropolitan forces either, I for one cant see why the south Armagh psf minister would have a problem with either forces they turn a blind eye to his mates wee money making ventures, heck they even get away with murder! Marty Mc Guinness has just been on the news mixing about meetings that have allegedly taking place between the two goverments and dissident republicans.he tells us these meetings did take place .its a pity he wasnt so forthcoming to his comrades years ago when he held secret talks with mi5/6 without the knowledge or premission of the other members of the army council.duisigh agus boladh an caife,a cara,beidh an la linn-la amhainn nach nil se 2016 a cara, so you dont believe the bearded one either Westie!!
ReplyDeleteWestie,
ReplyDelete'If Gerry A called someone an eejit, its a lot less vile than what he
and his fellow Shinners has been called over the past few years,
wouldn't you agree Marty?'
I agree. But not as vile as killing Joe O'Connor.
Wouldn't you agree Westie?
Agreed Anthony - there have been many acts by the Provisional Army that one would find it very hard to be proud of - but as an organisation, for what they endured and what they stood for in our communities, I think we will always be very proud!
ReplyDeleteMarty, I'm not a devout socialist myself, don't understand it enough and I get mixed messages from those I know who claim to be?
More of an Irish patriot!
As for the things I don't comment on, there are many such things on the site. I choose not to, not because I don't have an opinion on them, but because I'd rather keep them to myself.
ádh mor cara
Westie
Fair enough Westie. Can't really ask for any more than that.
ReplyDeleteOrwell once said socialism would be brilliant only for the socialists. I suppose you are in that frame of mind Westie. The single biggest obstacle to encouraging socialist ideas in the movement was the socialists. People would go out of jail full of revolutionary fervour and when they came back in again a few years later they had cast it aside and would point to their experience of the socialists they met - usually the Trots.
That always puzzled me until I got out and found out what they were talking about.
Westie a cara we werent or I wasnt talking about the operations of the pira, as a supporter of psf and in your own words an Irish patriot,the questions I asked were relating to the actions of psf and the policies of psf,as and Irish patriot can you accept that the party you would call republican are now just a minor cog in the brit establishment,can you explain or comment on the picketing of republicans homes again who do you think would have given the ok for those actions,as an Irish patriot can you accept such actions,I,m not attacking you personally a cara although it sure looks like it, as a republican I have and always will question any and every action and will state what I think is wrong,if as I think you are that you will still tie your colours to psf then all I would ask of you is to at least the relavant questions a cara. beidh ar la linn
ReplyDeleteWestie a cara, I penned my last response to you last night after reading your reply and Anthony,s more than gracious response, as for my post well maybe as the man said I should have been more pensive with the quill, to much plum poteen and I was back in the sixties,where the biggest argument was were you a Beatles or Stones fan, (my case Dylan,Stones) anyway my point is your reply was a sweeping statement re the pira and undoubtly most volunteers acted with courage and dignity in the best intrests of the movement, there were more than a few who used the cover of the pira to line their pockets and commit perverse sexual misdeeds,I will say no more on the matter now as its aside from my main point, you say you are a member/supporter of psf yet your not a committed socialist,you must be right at home in psf they who are more than willing to implement capitalist policies,but tell me why do they have a big house on the Andytown rd called Connolly house in honour of the founder of the Irish Republican Socialist Party and the Citizens Army,and sell Connolly badges by the score when really the house should be called Thatcher house and psf should be be selling Thatcher badges instead.as an Irish patriot your words,how can you accept that the party you support has helped copperfasten partition and put reunification even futher back?as for not commenting on things I thought most who come here do so to comment and from what I have noticed about your posts is that you are a clone of Adams yip you prevaricate when asked a straight question,yip Westie stick with psf you are well cloned.
ReplyDeleteIn his memoirs, Tony Blair says he stretched the truth, on occasions, "past breaking point".
ReplyDeleteMr Blair admits to "bending and distorting" the truth as prime minister, but says a degree of manipulation and distortion are necessary to govern, and voters accept that. "Politicians are obliged from time to time to conceal the full truth, to bend it and even distort it, where the interests of the bigger strategic goal demand it be done. Without operating with some subtlety at this level, the job would be well-nigh impossible." From the Long War to the Long Lie...(Tony Blair 'lied to stop Northern Ireland peace talks collapsing',
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH 1 September 2010)
Liam,
ReplyDeletehardly anything new there! TB just admitting what the rest of us knew already. anybody waiting on the floodgate to open and all the liars to come rushing through will be disappointed. He put in a strong display on the Late Late last night.
Caoimhin O'Muraile
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of the GFA is; "those parties with links" to armed groups will "use their influence" to bring about a permanent ceasefire and decomissioning of weapons. If this was the case all the SF leadership had to do in order to be allowed into the process, was to say words like; we have spoke to the IRA, using our "influence" as laid down and they pokitely told us ceasefire yes, decommissioning no. That, by my understanding, would have fulfilled the criteria for entering the process.