The consultation paper will be published, a period will elapse and then our robotic pro-consul (if he and his rotten government are still inflicting themselves on people here) to impose it. Sinn Féin and nationalists will boycott the plans (in his own words), Brian Feeney.
SINN Féin speeches at Bodenstown are always important. Bodenstown is the primary republican shrine, the site of the annual pilgrimage where republicans go to generate their founding father and first martyr, Wolf Tone.
A lot of thought therefore goes into the annual speech which sometimes, as in 1977, lays out a new policy direction and other times reiterates the existing policy.
On Sunday there was nothing new in Declan Kearney speech. It was a restatement of current policy but in terms that indicate that nothing has changed in the past six months. That is to say the DUP still refuses to committ to what Gerry Adams, (pictured above), repeated yesterday was necessary, that is ‘time-framed commitments to implement existing agreements’.
If the leaked talks paper revealed by Barney Rowan is anything to go by there’s not much hope of progress by June 29th. Yesterday was the deadline for responses by the northern parties but the paper is so bad there is a chasm to bridge.
For example the fudge suggested about an Irish Language Act downgrades it to lump it together with Ulster-Scots (which is not in any way equivalent to Irish), an armed forces covenant and the Petition of Concern under the heading of Equilty and Respect.
That is so far from what was agreed at St Andrews more than a decade ago that is an insult. Instead of a free-standing act ‘a hybrid option’, whatever that is, is proposed. The question to be asked is, did the Irish government agree to that paper being presented to the parties?? Any fool knows it’s unacceptable.
Clearly the British government sees no hope of progress on legacy matters and has drawn a line under them as unresolved. It is now proposed in a gesture of incredible stupidity to discuss a statute of limitations for killings carried out by the Security forces before the Good Friday Agreement.
Would that include the RUC and UDR (irregular Briitsh Army), or just the regular British Army? So much for equality before the law. Or extend to all Troubles events? An amnesty in effect?
Putting out this stuff for public consultation is a gesture of equal stupidity. On matters like dealing with the past the public divides predictably. It’s not like a proposal to rationalise hospitals or reform the household rates. Nationalists and Unionists hold diametrically opposed views which are impossible to reconcile in a public discussion paper.
It’s obvious what our robotic proconsul (James Brokinshire), plans. The consultation paper will be published, a period will elapse and then he intends (if he and his rotten government are still inflicting themselves on public here) to impose it.
Sinn Féin and nationalists will boycott the plans. Numerous very expensive court cases will FOLLOW. Inquests into security force killings will continue as before and well be exactly where we are now gazing in wonder at the political ineptitude of this proconsul.
Buying into any of the sort of suggestions inocted in the disscussion paper would be a huge climb-down for Sinn Féin. Is that what they pulled the executive down for? Why would they agree? What’s in it for them?
A say in spending any money the DUP wring out of the British Treasury? Then the British government collapses but Sinn Féin are sitting in an Executive being treated just as they were when Martin McGuinness resigned.
There’s another aspect the NIO (Northern Ireland Office), hasn’t taken on board. All the talk about the general election was the enormously increased unionist turnout organised especially in working-class districts/areas by the DUP’s friends in the UDA. There’s another side to it all though.
There was an increased Sinn Féin turnout but to what effect? The effect is quite clear. The northern nationalist electorate rejejected the SDLP (a moderate nationalist party who most members come from mixed or Protestant backgrounds), and voted instead to turn their backs on the British State by switching to Sinn Féin (over 1.5m votes), in the full knowledge that they would abstain from Westminster.
This wasn’t a case of the SDLP (Socialist Democratic Labour Party), vote not turning out. It did but in places like Co. Derry and South Down the voters deliberately turned towards the republican party.
Sinn Féin play the long game, so why would they settle for something based on tempory chaos in British politics?
With many thanks to: Brian Feeney,The Irish News, for the original story.
Not that I should mention but I would just like to say and (don’t take into it my political beliefs because of my blog), Yes, I am an Irish Republican and very proud to be my father (if you haven”t read my blog was a leading member of the IRA. So was my late Grandfather and my younger brother Martin Og, who served 12-years in the H-Blocks for the IRA. Oh by the way my late father served 45 years for the IRA. I know what I am talking about. That’s enough about me. This man is a unionist/Protestant I personally read and publish lots of his colums form the Irish News (Yes before you ask) Protestants do publish & read it. He is a great columnist and writer and speaks his mind truthfully. Thanks Everyone Kevin. Oh by the way I want to apologise in advance for any spelling mistakes. I want to get this published before midnight & have been writing since 6.00am. Sorry all.
The late Martin McGuinness Deputy First Minister for the North of Ireland follow this link to find out more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_McGuinness
Find out more about the DUP & Tory Links check this out: https://ansionnachfionn.com/2017/06/21/the-dup-turns-the-screws-on-the-tories-while-demanding-respect-from-the-uk/
Check out this link to find out more on Sinn Féin’s Declan Kearney: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Kearney
Check out this link to find on more on Wolfe Tone:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfe_Tone
Loyalist Communities Council (LCC) was launched on 13th October 2015. With the full backing of the UDA, UVF and Red Hand Commando and was also the group which give it’s full backing to the ten recently elected Unionist DUP Westminster MP’s
‘Electoral dynamic has changed’
Follow these links to find out more about the Loyalist Communities Council (LCC): http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/loyalist-communities-council-launched-with-backing-of-uda-uvf-and-red-hand-commando-31606726.html
The Homepage of LCC: http://www.lcc-ni.com/
The Statement released to the Loyalist Communities by the LCC: http://www.dalaradia.co.uk/?p=701
With many thanks to the: BBC NI for the original story.
I’d encourage anyone who questions the rationale behind our policy to have a read:
How can I object to Britain interfering in Irish affairs if I go over and interfere in theirs?
SINN FÉIN won seven seats in the Westminster general election running on an abstentionist ticket that has been the party’s policy for at least one hundred years.
The SDLP (which boasted about sitting in Westminster but had nothing to show for it) lost its three seats – seats held by three former leaders and two of which have now been taken by Sinn Féin.
And yet, despite the wishes of the electorate which had been heavily exposed to all the arguments, Sinn Féin’s critics – including the SDLP and Southern political parties and many in the media (few of whom wish Sinn Féin well) – continue to criticise the party for keeping to its manifesto commitment.
I was at the Belfast election count on Thursday night/Friday morning and was asked by a succession of journalists about whether, in the circumstances of a hung parliament, Sinn Féin would not drop its policy and help Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party or at least make it more difficult for Theresa May to form a government with the help of the DUP.
I said: “No, it was not going to happen.”
Many arguments have been advanced in defence of abstentionism, including that the oath or affirmation of allegiance to a foreign monarch and her heirs presents a difficulty and is inimical to one’s republicanism.
Or that one’s influence is minuscule and dwarfed by the major parties with few from the North able to demonstrate worthwhile achievements commensurate with their attendance.
These arguments, whilst valid, are not at the core of abstentionism.
For example, the oath could be completely removed. Or, imagine Britain a republic.
It might well be possible for some of the parties who take their seats to point to pieces of legislation that they have influenced or initiated.
In the circumstances of a hung parliament, it is undeniable that a tail might be able to wag the much bigger dog for a time. But even if the oath was removed and I was an MP, I would still not take my seat.
Even if Britain was a republic, I would still not take my seat.
Even if I held the balance of power and could get through bits and pieces of legislation (while flattering myself as to the magnitude of my importance), I would still not take my seat.
For me, it is quite simple: How can I object to Britain interfering in Irish affairs if I go over and interfere in theirs?
Once I took my seat (with or without an oath), I have lost the moral high ground on that question of Irish sovereignty and I have conceded Britain’s right to govern on this shore – a claim that was demonstrably rejected in December 1918 by the majority of people in Ireland in a democratic election.
Even though for reasons of pragmatism I support agreements which were passed into law in the House of Commons, this does not mean that I recognise Britain’s claim to rule over me as being legitimate. Leinster House and Stormont, for all their many flaws, are assemblies of the people of this island.
Furthermore, the state I live in is not the state I grew up in. Much has changed, often beyond recognition; much has clearly still to be changed.
I am in the business of building a new society in Ireland out of the two states which currently exist. To do that I need to win over a significant body of support from the unionist community as well as winning over people in the South who have lived for a century under successive partitionist governments who have never acted in truly national terms.
The Establishment in the South distances itself from us by increasingly in its discourse conflating the 26 Counties with ‘Ireland’, although the threat of Brexit to the Southern economy and to the security of the Peace process has suddenly produced fresh (some might say opportunistic) interest in reunification.
On Friday, the day after the general election, I tweeted:
“In interfering in British affairs the DUP will gather many enemies.” I hadn’t appreciated how quickly that would happen nor the scale of the revulsion.
The British, especially the English, deeply resent anyone else telling them what to do. In simplistic terms, it explains their dislike of Europe and the Brexit vote.
As an exercise, imagine that the Labour and Tory wins were reversed and that Sinn Féin’s seven seats would be enough to support a Labour minority government, and that the party, out of the blue, took its Westminster seats.
Make no mistake about it – the British public and the British media would be just as scathing of republicans as they are now of the DUP, although the DUP – because of its homophobic, racist and sectarian proclivities – presents much more fertile ground for ridicule and attack.
And that is because the British, especially the English, do not like outsiders interfering in their affairs. Although the Scottish National Party would also have faced criticism were it to prop up, say, a Corbyn minority government, the criticism and the type of condemnation would not be as visceral as the attacks on the Irish unionists because Scotland and Wales are unquestionably viewed differently from the Six Counties.
Incidentally, those famous Irish politicians who did take their oath and seats in Westminster failed abysmally in their objectives.
Daniel O’Connell failed to achieve the Repeal of the Union. Charles Stewart Parnell and his Irish Parliamentary Party, after decades in Westminster, and his successor, John Redmond, failed to achieve Home Rule but did manage to sacrifice the lives of 50,000 Irish Volunteers in the First World War who were fooled into believing they were fighting for the freedom of a small nation – Ireland.
I’m not including one major success at Westminster by the original Ulster Unionist Party because their exclusion of the Six Counties and the abandonment of the Home Rule Act has proved to be one unmitigated disaster for everyone.
By abstaining from Westminster, Sinn Féin is making a powerful statement – that the people who vote for it reject British rule and British interference.
And that is something that should give British people pause for thought. If you are livid at the prospects of a party from here going over there to interfere and make your laws, how do you think we feel after all these centuries?
This sordid Tory/DUP arrangement (if it comes off) may not last long. It will ultimately damage both parties but, more immediately, will jeopardise the prospects of a return to devolution.
Why would Sinn Féin go into an Executive in which the DUP has a disproportionate degree of influence over the British Government – an alleged joint-guarantor with the Irish Government of the Belfast Agreement?
One perhaps unforeseen consequence of the DUP’s willingness to go into coalition with a British Government is that the DUP is effectively relinquishing any objection it might make in the future to Sinn Féin doing exactly the same in Dublin.
For the DUP I hope that the demonisation they are facing (and which must appear as unjust and unfair to them) is a chastening experience and one which will make them or their supporters reflect on the antediluvian nature of their policies which encroach on the freedom of others.
I also hope it makes them realise that in actual fact they belong here more than over there.
It is here, not over there, they should be entering into a true pact with their fellow Irish people.
With many thanks to: Republican Sinn Féin,
Follow these links to find out more about Danny Morrison: http://www.irishnews.com/news/2016/02/03/news/senior-republican-claims-ira-stood-down-stakeknife-in-1990-404194/
WESTMINSTER Westministor ELECTION 2017.
THE BBC had to issue a clarification at the end of it’s flagship programme after Sinn Féin’s Máirtín Ó Muilleoir made claims about DUP rival Emma Little Pengelly’s father.
The pair clashed on The View during a debate between South Belfast candidates for next week’s Westminister election broadcast from St George’s Market on Thursday night. In a heated exchange, Mr Ó Muilleoir refused to appologise for mentioning Mrs Pengelly’s father Noel Little after she urged the Sinn Féin MLA to condemn IRA bombings.
Mr Little was a founder of Ulster Resistance. In 1989 he was arrested in Paris in connection with a plot to exchange a missile stolen from Shorts for South African guns. The weapons sought were destined for the UVF, UDA and Ulster Resistance. After spending two years on remand, he and two others received suspended sentences and fines.
The well known and often bought magazine “The Loyalist” is mainly bought and sold wihin the loyalist community of North & West Belfast. Only to members of the UDA & UVF. Facing criticism from Mr Ó Muilleoir, she accused him of hypocrisy and urged him to condemn IRA acts of violence including the 1996 Manchester bombing. In response, Mr Ó Muilleoir said: ‘I wasn’t sure what point of this conversation I would get to mention your father, Emma, who when my father was being discriminated against working in the Harland & Wolff, was bringing in guns into this country which led to the slaughter along the Island.”
Mrs Pengelly interacted: “I’m going to stop you there.
His name was raised after Mrs Pengelly defended her Westminister candidacy being endorsed in a magazine connected to the UDA-linked Ulster Political Research Group. Alliance’s Paula Bradshaw called on Mrs Pengelly to publicly reject the endorsement.
Mrs Pengelly said the DUP has “clearly called for the UDA to go away, and all paramilitary organisations”. She added that the article in The Loyalist endorsed her because of the “hard work the DUP have been doing in the community for everybody”. Facing criticism from Mr Ó Muilleoir, she accused him of hypocrisy and urged him to condemn IRA acts of violence including the 1996 Manchester bombing.
Mrs Pengelly interjected: “I think its absolutely appalling for Máirtín to sit there and just say that. Because I think when Máirtín goes back to his group meeting of the MLAs from Sinn Féin and he looks left and right and he sees people in his party that have committed horrendous crimes, and I want him to think how would you feel, how would you feel, if their children – who had no responsibility for the actions of your colleagues – had to sit in a studio and hear abuse like you have given me. It’s a lack of respect, it is wrong and I am going to call you out on that.”
Asked by host Mark Carruthers if he wished to apologise, Mr Ó Muilleoir said: “I will not apologise for bringing up the question of Noel Little who brought in guns to this country. “But if Emma had any self-respect, she would not be trying to lecture other people on the terrible conflict we have been through. “You are the last person, to be lecturing.”
Mrs Pengelly said she has “clearly condemned all paramilitary violence”. At the end of the pre-recorded TV programme, a BBC continuiy announcer said: “We have been asked to point out that Noel Little was never convicted of arms importation to the North of Ireland. “He was given a suspended sentence and fined in a French court for his part in an intelligence plot.”
With many thanks to: Brendan Hughes, The Irish News, for the origional story.