Tony Blair: “I took horrendous chances in what I was telling each the other had agreed to…”
From Mick’s linked chapter on Northern Ireland in Tony Blair’s memoirs [pdf file]
Such tactical manoeuvres were the warp and woof of the Northern Ireland peace process. Again at the last minute, after the negotiation over the St Andrews declaration of October 2006, up popped the issue of what oath would be sworn by those taking office in the reconstructed Assembly and Executive. All manner of permutations were gone through to find a mutually acceptable formula. Naturally the DUP wanted a very clear commitment to the police in the oath itself. Sinn Fein didn’t like the wording and wouldn’t commit until it was clear the Executive was in being, so there was a synchronising issue as well as a language problem.
In the end they agreed a timing and, roughly, a wording, but over the following weeks it started to fall apart. Gerry Adams had agreed to call an Ard Fheis (a council meeting of Sinn Fein) to endorse it, but only if Ian Paisley had clearly stated in advance that such an endorsement would allow the institutions to be revived. For once, roles were reversed, with Gerry Adams demanding clarity and Ian Paisley producing waffle. I then had the idea that I would reinterpret the waffle and so deliver Gerry his reassurance.
I had a Christmas holiday in Miami. The sun shone, but that was about it as far as holidaying went. Because of the time difference I had to start my calls at 5 a.m. Frequently the Paisleys would be out visiting friends so calls were missed. I took horrendous chances in what I was telling each the other had agreed to – stretching the truth, I fear, on occasions past breaking point – but I could see the whole thing collapsing because of the wording of an oath of office. Somehow, with creativity pouring out of every orifice, we got through it. [added emphasis]
Which, with their credibility at risk, might help to explain the kerfuffle caused by Sinn Féin back around May 2008…
Adds But then, as the BBC notes
In the book he also wrote of strong relationships with Sinn Fein leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.
“They were an extraordinary couple,” he said.
“Over time I came to like both greatly, probably more than I should have, if truth be told… they were supreme masters of the distinction between tactics and strategy.
“They knew the destination and they were determined to bring their followers with them, or at least the vast bulk of them.” [added emphasis]
Topic: Government, Politics
Region: Northern Ireland, UK
P E
‘Are you really telling a lie if you believe that lie to be true Pete?’
It is called lying to yourself. Or ono-monism, the belief that your beliefs are the ultimate truth, (a whisker from onanism.)
That’s TB Sheets for you.
It’s not really an argument because to believe otherwise is to claim that he deliberately lied to the republican electorate at large. How that can be proved I do not know, thus we speculate or go on what is most likely. You may choose to believe that Adams and co. would lie to his electorate I on the other hand reckon that he believed Blair and acted accordingly. I know of no evidence to prove otherwise, indeed as you and others have argued the toss now for years over SF’s consistant belief (mistaken though you claim and mocked them so you have) that it was the case, then what else are we to do?
Also forgive me for pointing out the obvious but if SF were to wait for the agreement from the DUP or any other unionist grouping, freely given…………….then that would be a long bloody wait. Blair pushed and pushed and pushed until even unionists realised that there was no getting away from the new paradigm that Blair wanted, and Blair got.
Oh and save the nonsense about “signing the cheques” as we know jaw jaw is supposed to be much cheaper than war war…………unless you are a peace process lawyer or a paid off UDR and RUC militia man.
If I knew what TB sheets were wee buns I’d be laughing. However my guess is you are saying Gerry was kiddin himself on………..how do we know that?
Actually I’ve always been a semi- interested observer over what I have always considered to be a fatuous debate between the likes of Pete and Sammy Mc, wherever he is now.
It is not my debate but reading the self satisfaction of Pete’s view (importantly not so much from him) was to me off kilt and Percy for once has grabbed the glory by articulating my thoughts more forefully and to the point than I could’ve.
“I on the other hand reckon that he believed Blair and acted accordingly.”
Despite what the DUP told Gerry to his face…
Still, as requested, the SF Ard Fheis did endorse the PSNI.
Aye right Pete!
Let’s all join hands and shout;
“NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!”
Unionism as perpetual nay sayers are a spent force and beholden at the time to that fella Blair who you rightly said “signed the cheques”.
However you can continue to kid yourself on all you like.
cheers tony ,
I know your base-line is a solid one, and would urge peteb and others to reconsider theirs.
Once ya start living and breathing this process in the North, things fall into place naturally.
trying to pin it down all the time really is a fool’s charter.
life has a habit in norn iron of leaping up and biting you in the ass..e.g mrs robinson.
we’re gonna have to get the band back together.
Remember we’re talking about a book written (or ghost-written) by Tony Blair, a charming apologist for mass murder, so let’s not treat is as some kind of revelation from on high. Blair and Adams and McGuinness came to a balanced and sensible decision which left Sinn Fein and Irish nationalism in the ascendency–it’s just a matter of time before the island is joined. The Brits would dearly love to be rid of the North, but the Irish government doesn’t have the political will or the capital to fund such a venture. So the ever pragmatic Blair and his pals in SF concocted an interim deal. SF will keep chipping away at the underpinnings of the northern statelet until one day the Unionists will wake up in a unitary Irish state. It’s inexorable. A unionist Gorbachev will step forward and work out a deal. As the Afghans say, The Americans have the watches, but we have the time. SF and their allies have all the time in the world…Soon come.
Oh for goodness sake!
It almost has nothing to do with TB, SF or the DUP etc, etc. It has everything to do with the Brits wanting to get rid of the north, peacefully.
Deals were done, people were elevated above their ability (each of us probably has a different idea of who that applies to) and their main, almost only, task was to keep the lid on things while everyone adjusted to the ‘new’ reality.
Liars never hear good of themselves, and serve them right.
No, Tony knew the game was up, but asked Gerry for some breathing space, which the canny Adams offered, that’s all. The northern statelet has fallen, like East Germany did, just not so suddenly or dramatically. Blair didn’t blink: he acquiesced in the process. Otherwise he’d be claiming outright victory and not claiming the heads of IRA as personal friends, would he? Time will bear this out. Be patient.
I’m in broad agreement with you, but the natives played their part too: if the going was relatively easy, I’m sure the nostalgic Brits would have been happy to hold on to their Coconut colony a little longer: the financial drain, bombs in Britain, international pressure (not least from the White House that p baker claims did so much to force SF’s hand), and the extreme intransigence of certain sections of those who claimed dogged loyalty to the British state, all combined to leave them with a deep longing to leave. They were hounded, nagged, pecked to the negotiating table.
Colin Carberry
I think the writing was on the wall for the north from the moment it became a ‘British’ problem.
The Brits would no doubt have been happy to let things trundle along, after all they didn’t even notice the marked and aggressive inequality until it was o forcibly bought to their attention..
The north has over time become a political graveyard, so called good politicians have foundered there. I think regardless of any outside influence the Brits are fed up with sectarian battles they dont understand. Oh they know the difference between Catholic and Protestant, they just dont understand why anyone would care, or how anyone can tell the difference outside a church….
Actually, the Brits realized the game was up–it was the Provo campaign, among other factors, that brought them to the table. Top British bomb-disposal expert Peter Gurney (see his comments on YouTube) asserted that there was a direct relationship between the big blasts in London and elsewhere in England and the initiation of serious talks. There were no more “talks about talks” once Canary Wharf occurred, and what followed was a distinctly green-hued interim deal. This is not to say that Tony Blair doesn’t deserve his due, or that the killing of innocents is justified.
[...] ‘indigenous’ deal.In December 2006, post-St Andrews and around the time that Tony Blair admits to “stretching the truth, I fear, on occasions past breaking point”, Mick noted Gerry [...]