Eamonn McCann has his own take on this idea in the Blanket:

The relevance of the British to a deal with Irish Nationalism has now been turned on its head. Just a couple of days before the decampment to Kent, Sinn Fein chairman Mitchel McLaughlin publicly suggested that if the talks come to nothing, Britain should form “an alliance” with Nationalists to reach a settlement above the Unionists’ heads.

No essential contradiction, then, between the British ruling class and the interests represented by Sinn Fein.

Just as socialists have been arguing for years.

http://lark.phoblacht.net/noessentemc.html

deja vu : That's pretty much what Unionists wanted to happen when SF wouldn't play Ball.

Haven't we been down this road before with the Anglo-Irish Agreement? All it served to do was bring unionists together (something more necessary today than ever) and split the pliticial establishment in the Republiv (remember both Charlei Haughey and Mary Robinson were leading the opposition to the AIA for very different reasons). Like it or not Unionist are the majority in N.I. so any deal done without their consent is by definition undemocratic.

Not to mention the fact that Mr Adams seems to be doing a U Turn on the Unionist Veto he has acknowledged.

No essential contradiction, then, between the British ruling class and the interests represented by Sinn Fein.

Would it kill McCann just once to identify specifically these interests that he claims that Sinn Fein represent?
Or is this just simply a manifestation of SEA (SWP)bitterness at being rejected by the Catholic working-class?