Dev and Chauncey's Big Irish Debate or something

[Chauncey Gardner]

Dev is right.

lol. Dev is almost right..arse.

The notion that the PIRA is to blame for sectarianism in Norn Ireland or if PIRA didn't mount their campaign things would have been very different is wishful thinking and conveniently glosses over so many atrocitities, I wouldn't know where to begin. For example, how did the Provisional IRA provoke the Malvern Street atrocity of June 1966? And many other atrocities like it.

As for Sinn Féins armalite & ballot box strategy failing...Civil rights is available to all and Northern Ireland is in the process of breaking away from the UK, working towards an autonomy that's the envy of the scots and welsh. Ending British involvement in ireland was one of the core aims of Sinn Féin and while that falls short of a united ireland, or "reunification" as most prefer to call it now, it would be illogical in the extreme to call it a failure.

Or to use basic occams razor rationale: If Sinn Feins campaign "failed", why are they part of the power sharing executive? And why is Northern Ireland breaking away from the UK, working towards autonomy? Wouldn't the opposite be true, if they failed?

[devogue]

re: Scotland gaining full independence before Northern Ireland.
Possible but unlikely.

No. It is far more likely that Scotland will gain full independence first.

There is a large measure of support for a referendum to be held in Scotland, and support for independence is seen as a respectable position, if disagreeable to the majority at the moment. However, if the Tories win the next general election the idea will probably gain even more support as the Scots will see the Conservatives lord it over them from Westminster while having practically no base in Scotland.

Now just imagine that for 30 years the SNP had a paramiltary wing which blew the shit out of those Scots who wanted to maintain the union - do you think the SNP's call for a referendum would be heeded? The Scottish Unionists would feel embittered, paranoid, not willing to give an inch to those who brought mayhem to their community...

The main reason is because of strategic and economic importance. For example, it means more than 90-per cent of the UK's oil wealth would come under an independent Scotland's control.

You seem to be saying that Scotland would ultimately be denied independence by a Westminster government if the Scots ever voted for it in a referendum. While the main British parties are pro-union not once has there been a threat or implication of a threat from them to proponents of Scottish independence.

Contrast that with the strategic and economic importance of Northern Ireland and almost the opposite is true...instead of revenue coming in, downing street is haemorrhaging money towards Northern Ireland. I can't remember how big the first tranche of payouts is from the British Government, to repair the damage done there, but, I think it's between 75 and 90 billion pounds sterling.

Oh I don't doubt for a second that the British would love to wash their hands of Northern Ireland, regardless of Cameron's cynical attempts to tie in with the Ulster Unionists and the ridiculously out of touch Reg Empey. However, they have to pay lip service to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, a demographic which desperately wants to remain part of the UK.

However, whether it's Scotland or Northern Ireland, Westminster has made clear that the constitutional status of each territory is ultimately in the hands of their people.

It should also be noted that there appears to be an enormous amount of ignorance amongst ulster unionists to the implications of the good friday agreement. Only a few days ago, Gregory Campbell from the Democratic Unionist Party gave an astonishingly ignorant speech outlining his (and unionist support) for the death penalty. Not only is it illegal in the EU, but, there have been so many miscarriages of justice in the British legal system over the years, it would be simply madness to even suggest bringing it in.

Campbell's call for the reintroduction of the death penalty does not signify an enormous amount of ignorance regarding the constitutional implications of the GFA.

As an aside and speaking of madness, Campbells speech is up there with dangerous homophobic bigotry from unionists like Ian Paisley Junior or Irish Robinson who even suggested that the victim of a brutal homophobic attack in Northern Ireland should see a psychiatrist to stop being gay!!!!

I agree with you. However, what you are saying has nothing to do with the DUP's position regarding the constitutional position of NI and it remains a fact that they are the largest party in Northern Ireland - they are not going to lose votes to the moderate UU's any time soon - more likely to the seriously hardcore unionist TUV. You accused me of displaying cognitive dissonance earlier - I prefer to see it as a realistic analysis of the schizophrenic nature and severe polarity of the NI political landscape. You are obviously a Republican who views the Unionist position with contempt, but that doesn't stop the Unionist position, Unionist values, Unionist traditions and Unionist culture from standing in the way of what you see as a relatively straightforward path to a 32 county republic. You are either unable or unwilling to see things from the unionist perspective.

re: sectarian divisions
I'm not sure how you can blame the IRA for sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland.

I said they were part of the problem, not the whole problem.

Some would argue that they are just reacting to sectarian discrimination. In the same breath, I accept that the IRA and UDA, UVF etc. helped exacerbate sectarian divisions, but, I would argue that the separate protestant/catholic public school system is more to blame.

I am in total agreement with you, but I do feel that by its very nature the IRA was sectarian.

In truth, you have to go back to Winston Churchills father, Randolph, to find the source of contemporary sectarianism in Northern Ireland.

Churchill famously played the "orange card" and even made a big speech in belfast to incite hatred amongst loyalists against the home rule bill, which like the United Irishmen rebellion of 1798 was supported by both Irish protestants and catholics. The orange order, I might add, was wound up in 1836 and lay dormant for nearly fifty years, up until this point. Soon after Churchills speech, over 73,000 orange men were mobilized and volunteered to defeat the home rule bill by force if necessary.

Basically, by whipping up loyalists' belief in their superiority and linking it to their religion, Churchill believed the unity of the Irish people could be dealt a blow and the landlords and capitalists would continue to hold the reins of power in Northern Ireland.

The same "orange card" has been played again and again over the years, such as when Thatcher needed the unionist vote to hold a majority in the house of commons, during the 1980s, or more recently when David Cameron, worringly, announced closer ties with Ulster Unionists.

Agreed.

I agree that sectarianism is a problem, but, I get the impression that many unionists don't understand the implications of the GFA (good friday agreement) in a wider context, particularly in an EU context. The secularisation of Europe via the EU is the biggest threat to anyone wanting to maintain the protestant/catholic public school system in Northern Ireland, for example. If I was asked, I wouldn't have religion taught in schools at all and let people setup private sunday schools instead, without state support.

So my argument would be that blaming the provisional IRA for sectarianism in Northern Ireland is incorrect and I would also argue that removing the Provisional IRA won't remove sectarianism.

I would argue that as many nationalists as Unionists do not understand the implications of the GFA in a European context, but the trouble is that most of them don't care. Europe could wipe out agriculture and fishing here and still all the vast majority of people would care about would be the imaginary line created by partition.

Once again, I don't blame the IRA alone for sectarian feeling in the north, but to deny that they contributed heavily to such feelings in the latter half of the 20th century in Northern Ireland would be silly.

What is fascinating about recent developments in Northern Ireland is that it was an echo of the United Irishman of 1798....i.e. when irish protestants, catholics (and jews, non-believers etc.) rose up in a rebellion to end british involvement on the island of ireland (most of the leadership of the United Irishmen were in fact Presbyterian). Over 90% of the electorate on the island of ireland (catholics, protestants, jews, non-believers etc.) voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Good Friday Agreement - which means an end to british involvement on the Island of Ireland and the establishment of an autonomous northern Ireland parliament...or "home rule" for a lack of a better description. That new N.I. assembly still has a good bit to go, but, the parallels with the United Irishmen are uncanny.

The overall vote reflected an overwhelming desire for peace, progress and just leaving the past behind. You make it sound so clear cut, but you know as well as I do that the most important part of the referendum was the Northern Irish vote - and only a rather shaky 60% of the unionist electorate voted Yes (http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ire ... aspiration).

However, those that did vote certainly did not vote for "an end to British involvement on the island of Ireland" and you really should try to find a better description than "home rule". You know that term is loaded historically and would never have got past the Unionist electorate with its nationalist connotations. The NI Assembly is a devolved body within the greater framework of the UK. It is indelibly linked to the UK on so many levels - do you honestly think that the likes of Paisley, Robinson, Dodds, Campbell, Donaldson and the rest are that stupid or naive?

[devogue]

Dev is right.

lol. Dev is almost right..arse.

I liked Arse's assertion better.

The notion that the PIRA is to blame for sectarianism in Norn Ireland or if PIRA didn't mount their campaign things would have been very different is wishful thinking and conveniently glosses over so many atrocitities, I wouldn't know where to begin. For example, how did the Provisional IRA provoke the Malvern Street atrocity of June 1966? And many other atrocities like it.

Again, read back through my posts - I did not blame the IRA alone for sectarianism.

As for Sinn Féins armalite & ballot box strategy failing...Civil rights is available to all and Northern Ireland is in the process of breaking away from the UK, working towards an autonomy that's the envy of the scots and welsh. Ending British involvement in ireland was one of the core aims of Sinn Féin and while that falls short of a united ireland, or "reunification" as most prefer to call it now, it would be illogical in the extreme to call it a failure.

I have explained why the Scots and Welsh have little to be envious about.

As for Sinn Fein's Armalite and Ballot Box Strategy it only began to see fruition and success when the Armalite part was dropped. Also, look how much time and energy was wasted pissing about with decommissioning, the release of prisoners and pandering to IRA (and loyalist) egos about their godforsaken "war".

Seriously - why couldn't Sinn Fein and the IRA knock it all on the head in, say, 1978 when so much progress regarding civil rights had been made and the Troubles had just become a war of attrition? I'll tell you why - the romance and glory of fighting to establish the republic, the joy of nonentities feeling big and important within their communities, the power, the worry about losing face, the fear of showing any weakness within the community and on and on - worthless, trite reasons I had observed myself and had confirmed to me in a bar in County Down on one of the most fascinating evenings of my life with an ex-IRA man in 1997.

Or to use basic occams razor rationale: If Sinn Feins campaign "failed", why are they part of the power sharing executive?

They are there in spite of the Troubles, not because of them. There is nothing at all wrong with a desire for independence, autonomy, self-determination, call it what you will. We all had to wait for the IRA to become exhausted by its war, for them to ask Adams to make overtures about peace before we could move on.

For many years the issue of decommisioning was at the forefront of politics here - the demand by unionists that the IRA put its weapons beyond use. Of course the whole thing was merely a gesture (you and I know the Ra could get a ship load of guns tomorrow) but unionists demanded that it be seen that Sinn Fein was leaving behind violence before they could join the mainstream.

Once the violence was "officially" removed and Sinn Fein had been "cleansed" they found their vote jumping rapidly, and why wouldn't it because they were a) high profile and b) worried moderate unionists fled to the DUP, something reciprocated in the nationalist community as moderates left the SDLP in their droves.

And why is Northern Ireland breaking away from the UK, working towards autonomy? Wouldn't the opposite be true, if they failed?

No, because the very nature of Northern Ireland's history (including pre-PIRA) suggests that full British rule is unacceptable to a large part of the population, while full Irish rule is abhorrent to the other. There is no "working towards autonomy outside the UK". Instead we are resolving our own differences as we could have and should have years ago, but we are doing it within the UK and everyone here understands the principle of consent and parity of esteem.

It may well be that in 30 years or so the majority of the population in NI want to unify with the Republic - hopefully our politicians will work towards a level of trust and shared esteem through democracy that will lead to a peaceful transition. This could always have been the way. There was no need for thousands of people to die to learn this lesson.

[Chauncey Gardner]

The PIRA weren't like the british army...where you could use a broadstroke statement to say that, for example, the british army were responsible for the sectarian attacks carried out by their troops on the island of ireland. In contrast to the British Army, the PIRA were a ramshackle bunch of (mostly) amateurs driven on by oppression, a form of apartheid and discrimination fighting for civil rights, an end to british involvement in northern ireland and ultimately a united ireland. However, in the same breath, it would be disingenuous in the extreme to blame PIRA for *every* nationalist sectarian attack that happened over the years.

I'm just guessing here, but, I get the impression that you agree with most of what I'm saying, but, you feel too uncomfortable with the idea that the PIRA and Sinn Féin forced matters, rather than your preferred view...i.e. you assert/believe the IRA & Sinn Féin held back progress.

I'm afraid I can't accept that assertion because it's not only irrational and illogical but it's also not true. I can understand why you might think that way, but, that doesn't make it any more rational or true.

And I hope it's not too embarrassing for me to point out that it's a similar unwillingness to "let go" of chips on shoulders, or grudges, that is holding back the entire process in Northern Ireland.

Incidentally, I recommend you double check the GFA and the definition of autonomy. N.I. is in a political limbo at the moment - where ALL parties are part of the government, as opposed to the norm where you have a majority party/coalition and an opposition - but it is heading towards an independent and devolved state. It's also worth mentioning that dublin, as well as downing street has a big say in what's happening up north....at the moment, while it goes through this limbo period.

[devogue]

The PIRA weren't like the british army...where you could use a broadstroke statement to say that, for example, the british army were responsible for the sectarian attacks carried out by their troops on the island of ireland. In contrast to the British Army, the PIRA were a ramshackle bunch of (mostly) amateurs driven on by oppression, a form of apartheid and discrimination fighting for civil rights and a united ireland. However, in the same breath, it would be disingenuous in the extreme to blame PIRA for *every* nationalist sectarian attack that happened over the years.

How many times will you ignore what I have said? PIRA ruthlessly pursued their overriding objective (a United Ireland) despite the fact that the majority of people in Northern Ireland did not share their objective - their ultimate goal by its very nature was selfish and sectarian. However, as I have said time and again they were not the only sectarian organisation in Northern Ireland, they were not completely to blame for sectarianism, and they were nowhere near as psychotic and prone to attacking random targets as the likes of the UFF. You are correct when you say it would be disingenuous in the extreme to blame the IRA for every nationalist sectarian attack, but it would also be disingenuous in the extreme to say that they did not contribute hugely to sectarian feeling over the years.

I'm just guessing here, but, I get the impression that you agree with most of what I'm saying, but, you feel too uncomfortable with the idea that the PIRA and Sinn Féin forced matters, rather than your preferred view...i.e. you assert/believe the IRA & Sinn Féin held back progress.

My "preferred" view has been backed up with reasoned analysis which you now choose to ignore by suggesting I have a personal agenda. By all means have a go at my detailed arguments above, but please don't just skip past what I have said to have a go at me.

I'm afraid I can't accept that assertion because it's not only irrational and illogical but it's also not true. I can understand why you might think that way, but, that doesn't make it any more rational or true.

Point out where I have been irrational and illogical - don't just say it. I have laid my arguments on the table - sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "It's not true" just doesn't wash, I'm afraid.

And I hope it's not too embarrassing for me to point out that it's a similar unwillingness to "let go" of chips on shoulders, or grudges, that is holding back the entire process in Northern Ireland.

Absolutely astonishing.

As someone who has an English Protestant mother, an Irish Catholic father, who was brought up as a catholic nationalist, attending Catholic schools, playing GAA and embracing Irish culture within an Irish nationalist community, who then went to a state "protestant" school, played rugby and cricket, and played in orchestras with 90% protestant membership I feel that I have less of a grudge or chip on my shoulder than 99% of the population here. While the Troubles raged I despaired, when the peace process broke down time and time again because of petty squabbling I felt the frustration keenly. To say it is people like me who are holding back the peace process is fucking laughable. What I do have is a detached, objective view of both sides of the community and their history - I see and hear both sides of the same story, and your side is very much a Republican side with a whiff of admiration for the romanticism and derring-do of the oppressed masses in the North. That's okay, as long as you can see the point of view of the unionist community - I will quite happily tear in to them if you like as well, but this discussion has been about the effect PIRA has had on life in the North.

Incidentally, I recommend you double check the GFA and the definition of autonomy. N.I. is in a political limbo at the moment - where ALL parties are part of the government, as opposed to the norm where you have a majority party/coalition and an opposition - but it is heading towards an independent and devolved state. It's also worth mentioning that dublin, as well as downing street has a big say in what's happening up north....at the moment, while it goes through this limbo period.

You can keep wishing for it (I do), but the fact is that Northern Ireland is still a part of the UK, and will be for the foreseeable future - where is your evidence that NI is heading towards independent status (assuming you mean outside of the UK - if you don't then please don't muddy the waters)? As a result, British troops are based here, I hold a British passport, our currency has the British queen's head on it, the road signs, civic structures, symbols of the British state are evident. The majority of the population call themselves British, our MP's sit in the British parliament, our police force is headed by a British policeman, the whole bias of the media is UK-centric and there are some formidable politicians here with a strong mandate who insist that the Union is secure. There is nothing to suggest that unification is going to happen any time soon. Nothing.

[Chauncey Gardner]

I never said "you" were holding back progress. I was just pointing out that you appear to be unable to accept that rather than holding back the process, as you assert, Sinn Féin and their armalite & ballot box strategy was hugely successful. That's the occams razor (rational) view and in no way justifies the innocent victims caught up in the troubles but your arguments don't explain your point of view...you are simply fudging some facts and juggling chronology to suit your view which is why I prefixed my post with the words "I'm guessing here but..." (I've highlighted the operative word in red).

As an example, you claimed that O'Neill's Reforms package announced on November 22nd 1968 was proof that the civil disobedience and threat of violence should cease....the fact is it was actually James Callaghan’s reform package and it was August 1969. O'Neill may have been part of the drafting of the package but either way it was regarded by many as toothless and ineffectual as history shows. It was not until the Patten Report in 1999 as part of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, that sweeping changes were made, such as to the PSNI, for example, where a model of accountability comparable to other police forces came into effect.

You also mentioned the Fair Employment Commission which was set up in 1974, but that was basically toothless also. It wasn't until the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (FETO) that it became unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief and/or political opinion in the fields of employment.

I also never said that reunification is going to happen any time soon. The way the N.I. government is setup is designed for full autonomy....as opposed to partial devolution, as is the case in scotland and wales. That means an end to british involvement in N.I. affairs through self governance. That isn't going to happen overnight..at the moment there is a unique setup, where all parties are members of the government....as opposed to the norm..where you have a majority party and an opposition party, but, the framework is in place.

Incidentally...."autonomy" in modern political terms is a moot point for members of the EU. For example, recent suggestions by Unionists regarding the death penalty are actually illegal in the EU.

What you'll notice soon, Devogue, is more and more cross-border projects, like Tourism Ireland and a whole raft of other bodies that will merge into "island of ireland" projects. Through work recently I needed to get in touch with various bodies north and south of the border and I was informed that "island of Ireland" is the accepted way of talking about such projects without offending members of a specific community.

In the same breath, it's not devolution or reunification by stealth....it was all made very clear in the GFA and the British have to cough up the main bulk of the costs...I think the first tranche is about 90 billion pounds.

[devogue]

I never said "you" were holding back progress. I was just pointing out that you appear to be unable to accept that rather than holding back the process, as you assert, Sinn Féin and their armalite & ballot box strategy was hugely successful. That's the occams razor (rational) view and in no way justifies the innocent victims caught up in the troubles but your arguments don't explain your point of view...you are simply fudging some facts and juggling chronology to suit your view which is why I prefixed my post with the words "I'm guessing here but..." (I've highlighted the operative word in red).

My point of view has been made very clear.

I would ask you this - do you think that the current state of affairs in Northern Ireland is what Sinn Fein and the Provos would have wanted?

Did they really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Chief Constable of the RUC and condemn their own? Did they really want to cosy up to Ian Paisley? Did they really want to condemn those from their own community who have not forsaken armed struggle as "traitors"?

What concessions did they win exactly? The removal of the bulk of the British securitat for which they were responsible for entrenching in the first place? The release of prisoners they were responsible for in the first place? The changes in Articles 2&3 thus legitimising the majority status of the unionist position in Northern Ireland? The decommissioning of the IRA's weapons?

From a standpoint of extreme violence to acheive their clear goal of a United Ireland that's a hell of a lot conceded.

Is this "huge success", this glorious result what the 263 IRA volunteers who died through the Troubles envisioned?

Even the IRA said on 30th April 1998 that the "document [the GFA] clearly falls short of presenting a solid basis for a lasting settlement".

As an example, you claimed that O'Neill's Reforms package announced on November 22nd 1968 was proof that the civil disobedience and threat of violence should cease....the fact is it was actually James Callaghan’s reform package and it was August 1969. O'Neill may have been part of the drafting of the package but either way it was regarded by many as toothless and ineffectual as history shows. It was not until the Patten Report in 1999 as part of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, that sweeping changes were made, such as to the PSNI, for example, where a model of accountability comparable to other police forces came into effect.

According to CAIN (University of Ulster and Queen's University) there was a Reforms package announced on November 22nd 1968 by O'Neill. It is evidence that the powers that be were taking some measures to alleviate the situation, to prevent it from escalating. I am not saying that those reforms were nearly enough or that the Civil Rights movement did not need to press on with its demands, but it does show that you are the one fudging the chronology when you said firstly:

There are a lot of "if only's" devogue, but, perhaps the most pertinent one is [/i]if only[/i] William Craig (home secretary 1966-1968) or the British had of done something in the first 18 months of NICRA which was already a combined group of protestants, catholics and others. They didn't and NICRA decided to up their game.

NICRA's first march was in April 1969, and the first Reforms package was announced seven months later. You then jumped immediately from 1968 to 1972 and Bloody Sunday.

As for the PSNI - what incentive did the state have for wholesale change of the RUC while PIRA was raging its campaign? It's great that Catholics have been able to join in the new dispensation, but do you honestly think they were running to join the RUC at the height of the Troubles? Of course not - that's the trouble; so many of these wonderful reforms were only possible after paramiltary groups removed their threat.

You also mentioned the Fair Employment Commission which was set up in 1974, but that was basically toothless also. It wasn't until the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (FETO) that it became unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief and/or political opinion in the fields of employment.

Toothless compared to what? The violence of the paramilitaries? The state ended up in a full blown battle against the Provos - it's interesting that you put progress down to the Provos decision to turn their backs on violence. Don't you think that progress could have been quickly made in 1977 or 1987 if the moderate voices had been given a chance to sit down without the threat of violence everywhere?

Also, you are wrong about the FETO 1998 - the Fair Employment Act 1976 explicitly outlaws religious discrimination in the workplace (my father benefitted from this act in particular) while in 1989, while the Troubles were still raging, the Act was amended to allow for positive discrimination - all of this done in spite of the Provos, not because of them.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/fea1976.htm#s17

I also never said that reunification is going to happen any time soon. The way the N.I. government is setup is designed for full autonomy....as opposed to partial devolution, as is the case in scotland and wales. That means an end to british involvement in N.I. affairs through self governance. That isn't going to happen overnight..at the moment there is a unique setup, where all parties are members of the government....as opposed to the norm..where you have a majority party and an opposition party, but, the framework is in place.

I agree that self-governance is on the way, but when it comes to big issues like decisions about defence, Europe, grants etc (ie our tasty handouts), the decisions will be taken in London. Not what PIRA was fighting for.

Incidentally...."autonomy" in modern political terms is a moot point for members of the EU. For example, recent suggestions by Unionists regarding the death penalty are actually illegal in the EU.

True.

What you'll notice soon, Devogue, is more and more cross-border projects, like Tourism Ireland and a whole raft of other bodies that will merge into "island of ireland" projects. Through work recently I needed to get in touch with various bodies north and south of the border and I was informed that "island of Ireland" is the accepted way of talking about such projects without offending members of a specific community.

It's crucial we work tourism on an all-Ireland basis (the prods don't like all-Ireland ) and it's been great to see joint developments regarding transport infrastructure etc. You and I know that a divided Ireland is weaker - take out all of the politics, nationalism etc - from a purely pragmatic point of view it is nuts. I've had so many arguments with unionist friends - why in the name of Christ do they want to be the rump end, one fortieth of the UK with no say and the objects of general disdain, when they can be a quarter of Ireland and their culture and outlook treasured as an essential part of our national make up? The logistics of a one island nation would become so much more dynamic, and we wouldn't have to put up with shit like seeing my fellow retailers within a 45 minute drive of the border being wiped out by tidal movements in the economy.

In the same breath, it's not devolution or reunification by stealth....it was all made very clear in the GFA and the British have to cough up the main bulk of the costs...I think the first tranche is about 90 billion pounds.

That's one area where unionists and nationalists can agree - screwing as much money as possible out of the British Exchequer.

[Chauncey Gardner]

I'm not sure how you can pin so much of the blame for the troubles on sinn féin and their armalite & ballot box strategy. Are you saying that atrocities, such as the Malvern Street atrocity of June 1966, are excusable? And many other atrocities like it?

My point would be that it's very difficult for anyone involved to hold any "moral highground". The british coughing up 90 billion in the first tranche is not charity....it's to patch up the damage done in that part of ireland. The unionists aren't exactly walking around with halo's hovering over their heads for their part in the situation. And I think it's disingenuous to pin so much blame on Sinn Féin and their strategy.

To answer your question about results.....ending british involvement in northern ireland was a key goal of sinn féin....the opposite was true for the unionists. The GFA was the start of the end-game for the british in Ireland and the unionists aren't exactly skipping around stormont gleefully happy about that. Just ask david trimble. Since the NI assembly was established, the unionists have been trying to stall and sabotage the process at almost every turn. Until recently when the penny finally dropped that their best hope was to hold out for an independent state of northern ireland....even if that eventually amounts to just a few counties over the years.

Leaving all that aside, though, what I would prefer to talk about is what Sinn Féin have to offer politically now that they are emerging from 30 years as a protest party. They were very good as a protest party...or an antagonistic party with an unrivalled nack for public relations (and spin) that even Alastair Campbell couldn't deal with (according to mo mowlan in the BBC/RTE "end game" documentary).

However, now that is all behind them, to a certain degree, I find their policies, particularly their economic and policies concerning the EU, to be extremely naive at best and bordering on vacuous. I don't know who is advising them, but, they really need to consult some more savvy economists and policy makers. The "ireland" that may have existed in the 50s and 60s when the troubles kicked off doesn't exist anymore. As an example, secularisation is where Ireland is heading, while Sinn Fein appear to be stuck in "dev's ireland" with mothers in the kitchen and dancing at the crossroads.

That's not to say that unionists aren't stuck in a time warp either. They appear, for all intents and purposes, to subscribe to some sort of little britain esque sketch, where the queen and the union jack are the only things that matter....a potted historical view of an empirical britain where brittania still rules the waves. It's no surprise, then, that they are so closely linked to the BNP and Nick Griffin in the UK.

If I was living in Northern Ireland I would be screaming out for a new political party to start up....one that unites the moderates from both sides, is based on secularism and cuts through the bickering, backstabbing and blather that is consuming the process at the moment.

wishful thinking i know, but, we see all the adverts on telly down here...particularly those "GO FOR IT" adverts which is essentially a sweet shop equivalent of dragons den without any grilling by experts....in other words, money is being thrown around like confetti to anyone with a vague idea of setting up their own business. It's complete madness and while it might work for a few years as the economy is bolstered by loads of small to medium start ups, it's pissing in the wind long term. They tried the same in the UK during the "cool brittania" years and it went pear shaped very quickly, with knobs on top.

If only someone would phone up that "go for it" number and said "what about ye? i'd like a couple of million pounds to setup a new political party in n.i. and a decent budget to hire the best economists, health advisors, strategists and developers in the world to help build a better northern ireland".

[devogue]

Very thought provoking post.

Will get back when I've more time (first batch of Christmas stock arriving today = mayhem).

[devogue]

Right, I've got more time...

[mistermack]

Ban religion in Northern Ireland.
All mention of religion gets a six-month sentence. Pull down the churches, and build brothels.
Fuck some sense into them.

[JimC]

Ban religion in Northern Ireland.
All mention of religion gets a six-month sentence. Pull down the churches, and build brothels.
Fuck some sense into them.

A shocking waste, mm...

Don't tear down the churches, convert them into brothels!. Fucking under the gaze of stained glass saints might be stimulating to some...

[mistermack]

Stained glass and stained sheets?

And some filthy habits as well?

You know, it might work !

[Tyrannical]

Flood Northern Ireland with Syrian refugees. Then maybe the catholics and protestants will realize how much worse things could be lol

[Rum]

Actally I think they've done a pretty decent job of it considering the levels of hate and mistrust there were - and still are. Hopefully rabid nationalism of whichever colour will go the way of religion in due course.