"erection of graffiti"?

"damaging to the environment"?

Oh yes... it's the "Young people who are involved in this"...

...while "Those who subscribe to the republican ideal know that this serves no purpose in the present period"... in the past however...

What a typically begrudging comment Pete! You don't even bother with the full quote: "serves no purpose in the present period of conflict resolution"

This is a forward thinking statement from Michael Agnew - but you would just have to be mean spirited wouldn't you? That's just so sadly typical and small minded!

Michael Agnew's Ballymena home has been attacked and pipe bombed by the UDA. Why? Because he was election agent for Philp McGuigan MLA.

Didn't notice you condemning that? Don't hear you urging Gregory Campbell to call for the cleaning up of offensive graffiti in his constituency - especially the post office in Harpers Hill!

But then, you wouldn't, would you?

Liam

If the thread had referenced a similarly selective condemnation from any other politician I would have been equally 'begrudging'.

I fully admire Michael Agnew's stance, but wouldn't it be wonderful if Sammy Wilson followed the same path and took steps to remove the 'Welcome to Loyalist Larne' emblazoned on the side of a railway bridge on the A1 as drivers approach the town?

All the best,

That Other Murphy

That Other Murphy

From today's News Letter:

Shankill Cleans Up And Wins Award
By Stephen Dempster

Thursday 4th November 2004

A clean-up campaign in the Greater Shankill area, which has removed 27 sectarian and paramilitary murals, is to receive a prestigious national award at Westminster today.

West Belfast Councillor Frank McCoubrey and representatives of the council will this morning attend a ceremony in London to accept the UK Green Apple Environmental Award, on behalf of various agencies, community workers and the people of the area involved in the Greater Shankill Clean-Up scheme.

As well as the council, the Northern Ireland Office, Department of Environment, Housing Executive and Roads Service are among those who came together in a bid to change the appearance of the Shankill.

Murals displaying violent images have been removed, painted kerbstones replaced and many flags taken down.

Independent Unionist Mr McCoubrey said the clean-up had brought a very noticeable and positive change to the Shankill.

He said: "The whole idea began after the second loyalist feud (involving Johnny Adair and the UDA).

"The community was suffering and was swamped by these negative images. We knew that taking away many of the murals and toning things down could improve people's quality of life and outsiders perception of the area."

Mr McCoubrey explained that due to tensions between the Lower and Upper Shankill, involving the UDA and UVF, he and PUP Councillor Hugh Smyth had worked together to get the two groups on-board for the changes.

Recalling a News Letter picture which depicted the Lower Shankill/Peter's Hill area bedecked in loyalist flags and looking "scruffy", Mr McCoubrey noted that the same view was now "a lot cleaner and more welcoming".

He also said it was not difficult to get paramilitaries or local people to back the project.

"They understood what we were trying to do. Some people were unsure because they were afraid what this meant," he said.

"But since they have seen the change I cannot see the murals and graffiti coming back. It makes a real difference to the overall feeling in the community."

It is hoped the project may now be used as a blueprint for similar schemes in other areas.

"toning things down"

"could improve people's quality of life and outsiders perception of the area."
(particular emphasis on 'outsiders')

and "The community was suffering"

Would it be too difficult for a public representative to recognise that the suffering in these areas was being caused by the paramilitaries.

Interesting point- where do we draw the line?

I think the below is an excellent Idea but I'm sure some people would object.
Museum of Free Derry

peteb

That's kinda my point here: http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2004/11/prods_paramilit.php

People like McCoubrey simply don't recognise that the reason they community they live in is suffering is because of what people like his friends in the UDA are doing.

He even states that this initiative came about after the Adair feud! Hello...!? Didn't McCoubrey used to share platforms with Johnny striding about with an AK?

Can we now expect Mr McCoubrey to be welcoming an £X million Government investment package on the Shankill any week? I think so, cynic that I am.

Sorry Guys and Gals, Try this :

Free Derry

If it doesn't take you to story, enter Free Derry into Search box.

and to complete the circle, Gonzo... could that be what Michael Agnew has his eye on?

another interesting story on same lines :

Brush-Off For Bogside Art

I'm not sure.

Dunclug isn't a bad spot already, and I think the Doury Road has been practically rebuilt. Maybe Fisherwick needs help?

Haven't been down that way for a while, so others can fill me in.

'Dunclug isn't a bad spot'??

Would have to disagree with you there. It's a pretty depressed estate.

I suppose it could have gone downhill after I moved out 24 years ago...!

LOL :)

So you were a Dunclug Gonzo before you became a Belfast one!

Tsk - blow-in!

While I welcome Mr Agnew's comments about IRA graffiti and wish that the loyalist leaders in the town particularly Mr McCaughey would echo it re. their flags and graffiti.

It does not change the fact that Mr Agnew has failed to stop the sporadic violence in Dunclug/Fisherwick and to condemn the attacks on the police in the north end of Ballymena.

I would suspect that this is an attempt to take votes form the SDLP (the well established O'Loan & McAvoy) in the forthcoming elections by appealing to their voters as being more moderate.

Dunclug is a large estate with pockets of Loyalism and Republicanism, and a drugs problem. It has an active community group who are trying to improve it and there is evidence of some private ownership. While it is not the best area in Ballymena it is certainly not the worst.

"It does not change the fact that Mr Agnew has failed to stop the sporadic violence in Dunclug/Fisherwick and to condemn the attacks on the police in the north end of Ballymena."

How exactly is he supposed to stop the sporadic violence?

Pat

By using SF's obvious "influence" and telling the self same people who do the graffiti that it is wrong to indulge in holiganism and vandalism and also to stir up racial tensions in the area.

This also goes for the loyalists as well, I make no excuses for them in their areas.

But as we all know this is part of a strategy on both sides to strengthen feelings and promote the extremes.

Agreement with NAR
Continually pointing out peoples faults is unlikely to encourage positive attitudes. We should try to "catch people doing something right", and acknowledge positive behavour were it occurs. (This doesn't mean that you should ignore negative behaviour).

This strategy should be applied to all sections of society.

NAR,

He may be trying to use his influence to stop the stone throwing, he may just be unsuccessful. Given his statement on graffiti in the area at least he appears to b etrying. At Ardoyne on the 12th night you had very senior republicans just about managing to cutail a situation that was spiralling out of control. It would be doubly difficult for a relative lightweight like Agnew to carry the same 'influence'.

But then again one persons 'influence' is another persons threat. No doubt if tear jerking mothers from Dunclug had appeared on TV clutching their blameless kids and complaining of republican threats your good self and others would have complained about republicans still being 'active'.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

You sound really oppressed today Pat.

I think Pat is making a fair point Gonzo.

It is a fair point. I am merely concerned about Pat.

But then again one persons 'influence' is another persons threat. No doubt if tear jerking mothers from Dunclug had appeared on TV clutching their blameless kids and complaining of republican threats your good self and others would have complained about republicans still being 'active'.

Good ol' republican tactics there, Pat.

Pat

When SF don't accept the police and instruct their followers not to and set themselves up as the local police, judge and jury what exaxtly do SF expect people to say.

When SF create the circumstances they have to live with them and not moan that they can't win.

SF are a despicable lot.

Not all of them WF. The Jekylls are good people.
They need to be encouraged and supported by our community - by being treated with respect and their arguments apd policies given serious consideration.
The Hydes need to be shunned.

I don't consider anyone who justifies a despicable murder campaign to be a "good person". Jekyll and Hyde are two identities of the one person.

But, unfortunately, people elect them and of course we have to deal with them.

Willowfield is someone who condones, facilitates and indeed advocates the early release from prison of those involved in and responsible for the despicable murder campaign a good person?

Peter Brown
Do the ends ever justify the means?

Peter Brown

Willowfield is someone who condones, facilitates and indeed advocates the early release from prison of those involved in and responsible for the despicable murder campaign a good person?

You don't understand politics very much, do you?

Yes or no?

Gonzo,

I'm no more oppressed than usual (23 yrs of marital bliss) but thanks for the concern.

NAR,

"When SF create the circumstances they have to live with them and not moan that they can't win."

I was under the impression that it was you who was monaning about Agnew not stoppimg the alleged trouble at Dunclug. I'm merely pointing out the real world difficulty in trying to do so.
The problems over support for policing are many and have been discussed at length on other threads.

Willowfield,

Not tactics at all but an attempt to explauin the difficulties of using 'influence' in the present political climate. Wouldn't want Dunclug coming out in the next IMC report.

How long have you been married Pat ? ;)

Pat

Its not a real world difficulty, it is a world created by SF where they are the police, judge and jury.

I am complaining that people who set themselves up as political representatives (even unelected)do not do enough to try to create a situation where there is no room for violence or even the threat of violence.

Still waiting Willowfield....

Waiting for what??

Is someone who condones, facilitates and indeed advocates the early release from prison of those involved in and responsible for the despicable murder campaign a good person?

Yes or no?

PB

'Willowfield is someone who condones, facilitates and indeed advocates the early release from prison of those involved in and responsible for the despicable murder campaign a good person?'

If you are a good Christian and believe in Christian values then you believe in the forgiveness of sins, when you add this to the fact that it may stop further murders,which are against Christian morality, I would have thought the answer was self evident and needs no further elucidation from anyone. I would bring forward Robert Bradford's wife, Nora, as a good example of a Christian who although her huband was murdered by terrorists agreed with and promoted their release. (see last night's tele article on Trimble)

Christians in NI need to follw her lead and act as Christians not just call themselves Christians either morally or politically when it suits them personally.

Peter what do you think?

Is someone who condones, facilitates and indeed advocates the early release from prison of those involved in and responsible for the despicable murder campaign a good person? Yes or no?

In the context of a landmark political agreement which brings political advantage to unionists, which involves SF/IRA assenting to partition, which provides a basis for political stability for NI and hence helps to secure the Union, the answer would have to be "no".

Pat Mc Larnon:

"(23 yrs of marital bliss)"

A budding lifer.

At my 30th I mused that if I'd killed someone, I'd have been on parole years ago.

Just a cherry little thought to tide you through yet another day of slings and arrows.

willow

did you mean yes?

NAR

Um, yes, I meant yes! Assumed he had written "despicable person"!

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of stating that I don't consider anyone who justifies a despicable murder campaign to be a "good person" yet supporting The Agreement.

However I cannot disagree that If you are a good Christian and believe in Christian values then you believe in the forgiveness of sins, but it is not necessarily the next logical step to suggest when you add this to the fact that it may stop further murders,which are against Christian morality - the doctrine of forgiveness does not do away with the need for punishment. Didn't see the article about Norah Bradford but know the family and respect her views but every victim is entitled to justice irrespective of whether or not they have forgiven the perpetrator or he/she has repented.

Also agree that Christians should wlak the walk and not just talk the talk but equally their religion should not be warped by non believers and then cast up against them....;-p

Maybe you could answer the original question on Willowfield's behalf instead of trying to change the subject in such a Phariseeical manner?

Freudian slip ;-p

There is no SF councillor in Ballymena and there never will be.

This idiot is only stirring the pot in Ballymena

God Save The Queen.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of stating that I don't consider anyone who justifies a despicable murder campaign to be a "good person" yet supporting The Agreement.

Does this sentence make sense?

Not to me ;-p

Probably not the best way to insert your quote but if you all can do is attack my grammar and not my logic I'm still happy to stand over the principle

The meaning is not clear. If you want a response please rephrase it.

How can you advocate the early release and insertion into government of people you do not consider "good"? If there are still to many big words in this question I can attempt to reduce the number of syllables further. I'm off home....

PB

As I said the answer to your original question is self evident and needs no further elucidation. If you can't figure it out - Nora Bradford is a good clue, is she a good person or a bad person? She set aside her right to justice for the greater good of all, a very Christian act.

Who was warping Christianity? I merely pointed out Christian views that you seem to agree with, maybe you meant someone else?

You are now asking a different question since the first one has been answered in a way that you didn't like: it is easy to answer the second one, anyone who attempts to justify a murder campaign is not a 'good' person. Who on the Unionist side, if anyone, is doing that?

Quite simply because it's in unionists' long-term interests to reach an accommodation with nationalists and the price of that was early release prisoners. A bitter pill to swallow, but keep your eye on the bigger picture. Power-sharing I actually think is a positive thing and seems to be acting as an incentive to get the terrorists to disarm.

Peter

Is there a requirement in the Code of Conduct for Members to be 'good'? Please define 'good'?

Ice cream is 'good', for example. But then I hate the stuff because of a gammy tooth, so is this not all a bit silly?

As for Christianity, all religion should be kept out of politics. Keep your principles, but please don't enforce such superstition on the rest of us!

That's Robin Stirling's job. I heard he might be needing a new one come May...! Surely the DUP must be holding selection meetings soon..?

It is not in Unionist longterm interest to reach an agreement with nationalists. We are being forced to by events.

Until nationalists accept the finality of any agreement no accomodation will work. The GFA failed because nationalists saw it as the start of a process leading to Irish unity. Unionists saw it as a final settlement.

That conflict of interests led to its downfall.

God Save The Queen.

when you add this to the fact that it may stop further murders,which are against Christian morality, I would have thought the answer was self evident

NAR this is where the Christianity in your previous analogy ended - there is no requirement for individual to surrender their individual rights for the greater good of all, particularly if there is only a possibility rather than certainty of success as your use of "may" confirms. If there is please refer me to it. And ironically as you are a non believer een if i could use that to justify my actions in the event that I supported the Agreement what could non Christians use to justify the hypocrisy of allowing people they themselves describe unreconstructed terrorists as despicable into government if they didn't have the fig leaf of their religious beliefs however mistaken? Religion is irrelevant to this debate and it is only a distraction on your part from the rank hypocrisy of the the broken promises about the Executive to introduce it. Ironically Jesus main opponents were those who said one thing but did another....

Is there a requirement in the Code of Conduct for Members to be 'good'? Please define 'good'?

As for Christianity, all religion should be kept out of politics

Gonzo - no there isn't but I was addressing Willowfield not the Code of Conduct. As for religion that is true corporately although it will inevitably affect the conduct of individual politicians like myself and apparently be used as a stick to beat us occasionally when ordinary logic fails....

You a UK Unionist, Peter? NIUP?

Who and what are you? Simply because I choose not to hide behind anonimity and as in some cases I am aware of even from people on this thread use it to engage in self praise or nepotism does not mean that it is open season - I am as you are well aware a member of the UUP. How about you?

Willowfield, Man of Mystery!

My crystal ball tells me that Willowfield is from the leafy part of the front line in East Belfast and has grown resentful at being represented, or should I say misrepresented, by Peter Robinson for so long.

He feels duped, or should that be DUPed?

Peter Brown

Who and what are you?

That's a secret, sailor.

I am as you are well aware a member of the UUP.

I wasn't aware, sorry. I haven't the foggiest who you are or what you're in.

Why are you in the UUP if you are anti-Agreement? Why be a member of a party if you oppose its policy? Seems very odd to me.

I thought, seeing as you are anti-Agreement, you must be UKUP or NIUP. They're the only parties left still opposing it.

Until nationalists accept the finality of any agreement no accomodation will work. The GFA failed because nationalists saw it as the start of a process leading to Irish unity. Unionists saw it as a final settlement.

Ulsterman, you have hit the nail on the head, unfortunalely the GFA and its sucessor if there is to be one will be a political agreement and in politics nothing is accepted as final, thats the reality

You a UK Unionist, Peter? NIUP?

Who and what are you?

That's a secret, sailor

With that blatant lack of consistency you must be exactly as George but not prepared to lose your anonimity

My personal identity is secret, not my political views. Not much point in discussing politics if one doesn't disclose one's views.

Why are you in the UUP if you are anti-Agreement? Why be a member of a party if you oppose its policy?

Why do you support the UUP if you are pro Agreement when it is now avocating forming an opposition rather than joining the Executive? I am still in the UUP because it is so much fun to go along to meetings and tell eeveryone I told you so about the content of the Agreement which is as we predicted not as we were told and to point out that we also predicted the consequential electoral collapse that would inevitably follow from that policy. Now we need to turn the ship around and we are here to tell them how....

Why do you support the UUP if you are pro Agreement when it is now avocating forming an opposition rather than joining the Executive?

Supporting an option to be in opposition - which is merely an idea - has no bearing on support for the Agreement!

I am still in the UUP because it is so much fun to go along to meetings and tell eeveryone I told you so about the content of the Agreement which is as we predicted not as we were told and to point out that we also predicted the consequential electoral collapse that would inevitably follow from that policy.

You predicted it? You contributed to it!

How? By pointing out that it was coming - voters abandoned the UUP because it abandoned its bottom line and I and others tried to stop it doing that....

Dissidents such as yourself undermining the UUP leadership contributing to the UUP's election defeat. Self-fulfilling prophesy. You should have been supporting the leadership. Either that or you should have resigned.

Why - is there no room for dissent in any political party ? Are you really advocating that every political party should be like the Nazis? How do policies develop or should they just be handed down without question from the leader? if you believe that then maybe you should join the UUP after all!

"You don't understand politics very much, do you?"

Now where have we heard that before - and I'll not even correct your poor grammar as that is only a tactic used by those wishing to disguise the inadequacies of their arguments....

Peter Brown

Why - is there no room for dissent in any political party ?

Of course, but that dissent should be expressed at the time of policy formulation and has to be balanced with party loyalty and the interests of the party. When you lost the argument about the Agreement you should have weighed in behind the party. If that was against your conscience you should have resigned.

How do policies develop or should they just be handed down without question from the leader?

The dissidents had their chance to convince the party to oppose the Agreement, just as the leadership had the chance to convince the party to support it. The dissidents lost.

So once formulated party policy is incapable of amendment or change by the Party grassroots - I'm sure Tony Benn and other eminent politicians who have based their careers on continually pointing out the inadequacies of their Party's policies would be glad to hear that inciteful comment. Chairman Mao would be proud of his star pupil - no need for you to be lifted by the thought police and dragged off to the gulags you obedient little servant.

You are being a bit harsh, surely, WF? If Peter had 'done a Donaldson', you would have been criticising him for deserting the party, being dishonorable, having no loyalty etc.

No?

Yes, the UUP is an organisational mess in need of root and branch restructuring. But if every anti-GFA unionist left the UUP, you'd...

Hang on a minute... Peter, LEAVE THE UUP!

:o)

Peter Brown

So once formulated party policy is incapable of amendment or change by the Party grassroots

Don't be ridiculous!

You can work away to change policy through the proper channels, but you have to accept defeat, and you shouldn't be publicly undermining the leadership as you do it. That is not in the party interests. How many UUC defeats does it take before you get the message?

Gonzo

You are being a bit harsh, surely, WF? If Peter had 'done a Donaldson', you would have been criticising him for deserting the party, being dishonorable, having no loyalty etc.

Donaldson should have resigned years before. Failing that, he should have been expelled. Criticism of Donaldson is for staying in the party and using the party ticket to get elected (and, more significantly, getting Norah Beare elected alongside him), instead of resigning before the election.

has anyone seen Nora lately

She was on TV last week or the week before alex s, I think it was Hearts and Minds.

You can work away to change policy through the proper channels, but you have to accept defeat, and you shouldn't be publicly undermining the leadership as you do it. That is not in the party interests. How many UUC defeats does it take before you get the message?

OK now I get it you are allowed one attempt to change Party policy then you have to shut uop and toe the line....one step away from a totalitarian regime. I have never publically undermined the leadership but if you compare the literature circulated by myself and others within the Party with that circulated by the leadership (Understanding the Agreement) for example you will see who has been more honest. were we wrong to attempt to ensire that the UUP did not commit electoral suicide by breaking its promises in the 1998 election manifesto? Subsequent events have as always proved our analysis to be correct. Why should Donaldson have resigned earlier? he only left when he was the victim of a viscious personal attack from 2 Johhny come Latelys in the Executive and a vindictive disciplinary procedure overturned as being fundamentally flawed by the High Court.

Dear, dear. Do you really - honestly - think the dissidents' antics benefited the party?

Catch yourself on!

If you were unable to sense that 1998 was a Rubicon and there was no going back, then your political awareness is questionable to say the least. Even the DUP has realised that now.

You were, of course, quite entitled to argue against the supposed "breaking of pledges" when Trimble called the Provos' bluff, but when you lost the argument, what was the point in continuing to hark on and on like spoilt children? It had happened. It was done. You can't go back in time and change it. You either resign in disgust or get on with making the best of it and supporting the decision of your party colleagues.

With apologies to Laurel and Hardy if we had succeeded then we wouldn't be in this fine mess...

What would you have considered to be a "success"?

If you and other dissidents hadn't been undermining the party, the UUP would probably still be the largest party.

Initially not endorsing The Agreement until all the wrinkles and flaws which even DT now accepts were in it were ironed out - no constructive ambiguity, then after we walked into that obvious trap not getting ourselves in any deeper by breaking our promises to our electorate.

So by "succeeding" you mean (a) not signing up to the Agreement, and - given that the Agreement was approved, (b) not "jumping first".

If the dissidents had succeeded with (a), there would have been no Agreement, and unionists would have been blamed for failing to sign up to the Agreement. The result? A period of stasis with unionists out in the cold, and the Government negotiating bilaterally with republicans. Meanwhile the need for an agreement remains, but when the opportunity for negotiations comes round again, unionists are in a worse position than previously.

If the dissidents had succeeded with (b), we would have had stasis again, with blame being attributed to unionists, and no progress on decommissioning. There would be no devolution, possibly no Assembly, and - again - the government would have negotiated bilaterally with republicans.

Neither scenario would have been helpful either to unionism or to the UUP.

Supposition which gives rise to conclusions that the UUP would have been worse off yet neither scenario when replayed by DUP appears to be doing them any harm when they choose to learn from and not repeat UUP mistakes....

Er, what the DUP doing is founded upon what the UUP has already done! The Agreement is already there, and the UUP has already jumped first and got the Provos to start decomissioning!

Left to the devices of the DUP and the UUP dissidents we'd be without any agreement, unionists having lost good will, and with plenty of concessions given to the Provos in the interim.

I'd rather lose intangible good will than the police, criminal justice system, and tens of thousands of votes.

You'd lose the police and the criminal justice system anyway, only it would be done outside a process in which unionists had influence.

As for tens of thousands of votes, those wouldn't have been lost if it hadn't been for the UUP dissidents and DUP.

"I'd rather lose intangible good will than the police, criminal justice system, and tens of thousands of votes."

Peter, what about lives, in the case of the police, in the six years since the GFA was signed by Trimble one police officer has lost his life by terrorism, in the previous six years seventeen. Lives or votes Peter?

"I'd rather lose intangible good will than the police, criminal justice system, and tens of thousands of votes."

Peter, what about lives, in the case of the police, in the six years since the GFA was signed by Trimble one police officer has lost his life by terrorism, in the previous six years seventeen. Lives or votes Peter?

Is that not the ultimate argument in favour of the GFA? That since it was signed, the 'war'/conflict/whatever has essentially - with blips - resulted in possibly hundreds of lives being saved?

Has life not changed immeasurably for the better since the GFA for many people, despite the countless faults of the Agreement and the continuation of the conflict in the political arena?

I'm quite happy to site all day and nitpick the Agreement, point out its fundamental weaknesses, criticise the politicking, pettiness and pointless of the talks, be sickened by the increase in sectarianism, watch as a cultural conflict almost leads to civil war and so on.

Is the situation still so bad that it really wasn't worth voting Yes in '98?

Maybe if we had had a real civil war we wouldn't still be whinging because we would be so damn grateful that we were still alive, have experienced a touch of finality one way or the other and seen enough horrors of outright war that we would've wised up by now.

...or maybe not.

God, that reads more morbidly than I thought it might. It's been a hectic day.

If you talk to many members of the security forces or listen to the interviews senior policemen have given since 1998 the terrorists were on the brink of military defeat or at least stalemate - the only reason they came to the table was that the military phase of their campaign was over. However when they got to the table peace, which in many people's eyes was slowly coming about anyway, was "bought" at a price which allowed them to effectively take control of large swathes of Northern Ireland by increasing their muscle and influence whilst making their oppostiton less effective. The situation in 1998 was already better than 1988 and that improvement particualrly if the government had will as well as the way could have continued. That is the significance of the new (sic) Labour government in 1998. Does the ends therefore justify the means? In my opinion no. If The Agreement had brought about an end to paramilitarism for good perhaps but as Trimble has been telling Frank Millar it has failed to do so and in many areas the paramilitaries are stronger if less combative than in 1998.

You either resign in disgust or get on with making the best of it and supporting the decision of your party colleagues

good for you willow!-the best attack on Jim Dillon, Ivan Davis, and the other anti Donaldson members of Lagan valley Unionists who failed to deselect him in 2001 and for the assembly.

And as for Rubicons being crossed, you are forthright in exposing Trimble, Empey and the rest who said that the Agreement was past and we should all rally round the party, including those who had voted against it as dissemblers. Refreshing honesty. Remind me what happened the man who crossed the Rubicon again. Wasn't he stabbed to death by his trusty lieutenants? Hmmmm....

What a pity you spoil all the good work with the "bad deal better than no deal" argument for 1998. Its that kind of defeatism which plagued the Unionist community for a decade. Add it to personal ambition (which UUP negotiator's telling argument for acceptance was "But it's my last chance"?)and the main reasons for the failure quickly become apparent.

Of course if we'd all packed up and left in 1998 then the UUP would have collapsed that year, instead of its inexorable Arafat-like decline (BTW good riddance)into a permanent vegetative state as a precursor to inevitable and imminent death. Might have been better for everyone actually.

You either resign in disgust or get on with making the best of it and supporting the decision of your party colleagues

good for you willow!-the best attack on Jim Dillon, Ivan Davis, and the other anti Donaldson members of Lagan valley Unionists who failed to deselect him in 2001 and for the assembly.

And as for Rubicons being crossed, you are forthright in exposing Trimble, Empey and the rest who said that the Agreement was past and we should all rally round the party, including those who had voted against it as dissemblers. Refreshing honesty. Remind me what happened the man who crossed the Rubicon again. Wasn't he stabbed to death by his trusty lieutenants? Hmmmm....

What a pity you spoil all the good work with the "bad deal better than no deal" argument for 1998. Its that kind of defeatism which plagued the Unionist community for a decade. Add it to personal ambition (which UUP negotiator's telling argument for acceptance was "But it's my last chance"?)and the main reasons for the failure quickly become apparent.

Of course if we'd all packed up and left in 1998 then the UUP would have collapsed that year, instead of its inexorable Arafat-like decline (BTW good riddance)into a permanent vegetative state as a precursor to inevitable and imminent death. Might have been better for everyone actually.

And the Party Officers who were guilty of the same crime - it is these double standards that have led to the decline of the Party which cann be reversed but only when this whole situation is addressed

You either resign in disgust or get on with making the best of it and supporting the decision of your party colleagues

And not forgetting the AGM Resolution in 2000 about the name of the RUC is presumably another exception to this rule.....

davidbrew

You may be right that a better deal was possible in 1998. I don't know. But you had your chance to convince party colleagues not to accept it in 1998 and you failed. Once it was agreed and voted on in a referendum there was no going back. Better, then, to work with what had been negotiated and make the best of it, rather than hopelessly wasting efforts trying to overthrow that which couldn't be overthrown and damaging the party in the process.

Ten whole lines without once addressing the main issue raised about Lagan Valley or the RUC with Nelsonian vision like that Willowfield could be the next UUP leader

Lagan Valley? Donaldson shouldn't have been in the UUP to be selected: he should have resigned long before than; failing that, he should have been expelled; and failing that, the party should have been able to deselect those candidates who opposed party policy.

As for Davis, he should have been disciplined for standing against the party.

What was the RUC issue?

UUC AGM Resolution 2000 when the Council resolved not to enetr the Executive until the name RUC had been restored

Was it not overturned by a subsequent resolution?

Only impliedly and surely according to you its opponents should "either resign in disgust or get on with making the best of it and supporting the decision of your party colleagues" or does that rule only apply to those who don't share your outlook?

Yes, of course the opponents should have got on with making the best of it. I've no doubt that's what they did: they certainly didn't seek to undermine the party because of it.

I didn't get the sense that the IRA was on it's last legs in 1998. True, I think the security situation had "improved" to what was called an "acceptable level of violence", but this is no way to live.

Every life lost is a waste, and without peace, political stability and decisive political leadership our economy will continue to decline. We will fail to attract inward investment, those that can will leave and those that can't will live in fear of increased taxes and disappearing pensions.

The UUP initiative was a courageous act to reach beyond the lose-lose scenario. It was not perfect, but then what is? I understood the objections raised by those that voted no, I also understood that it was a risk, but I voted for the agreement then and I would do so again for the simple reason that nobody (not Mr. Donaldson nor Mr. Robinson)has yet to offer a viable alternative (i.e. one that all sides can accept).

Despite it's difficulties the agreement has not been without its successes. The security situation has improved, the principle of consent has been enshrined in the constitutional issue and the absolute requirement for the IRA to dissarm receives vocerifous and widespread support. Any future agreement is likely to be based upon the GFA.

I wait with interest the outcome of the DUP's negoitations. If they can improve the agreement great, if they can come up with a new agreement fine, but if we end up with political stalement then we will not be able to tackle the problems facing our society and this will lead to long term decline in our standard of living and threatens the future of Northern Ireland itself.

Si if the DUP improves on the Belfast Agreement is that the UUP finished?

The Agreement was not, in my view, about "peace": that is entirely in the hands of the terrorists.

It was about political accommodation which was and is necessary, regardless of what the terrorists are up to.

There is, however, an interface between the "peace process" and the political process caused by the facts that nationalists vote for terrorist parties and power-sharing and commitment to exclusively peaceful means are foundations of political accommodation.

nobody (not Mr. Donaldson nor Mr. Robinson)has yet to offer a viable alternative (i.e. one that all sides can accept).

It is debatable whether unionists accept the Agreement - most may have accepted it at the time but only because they were misled about what it involved (they were told Willowfield that it was about peace not political accomodation) but now clearly the majority of unionists have tasted the pudding have rejected it - does that mean it is no longer viable?

Willowfield
The UUP is facing a stern challenge. What does it stand for? The DUP will move into the centre ground and unless the UUP can articulate a position which clearly differentiates itself from the DUP, the UUP have a problem. In my view, the UUP should campaign on the Economy, Education, Secular politics if they want to win the election. They should claim the GFA as a victory for them, and if the DUP adopted it, then this reinforces the notion.

The electorate of course will still have the ultimate say and time is short.

Peter Brown
Regardless of the merits of the current arrangements, if we want a political solution in the short to medium term, it will be on the basis of the GFA. If there is a viable alternative, let's hear it, but you have to get everybody to agree to the changes. I think this will take a considerable amount of time (years) to do this and meantime the economy is destroyed, taxes are increased and negoitating postion of the Unionist people is weakened by a deteriorating economy, and the exodus of young people to GB.

You miss my point MU - surely The Agreement itself is no longer viable ny your criteria if it is no longer accepted by all sides. I agree that stalemate is in no-ones interests but The Agreement now represents a missed opportunity to resolve the deadlock because the unionist community was misled about it and is now understandably sceptical about its improvement or even replacement.

Peter Brown

It is debatable whether unionists accept the Agreement - most may have accepted it at the time but only because they were misled about what it involved (they were told Willowfield that it was about peace not political accomodation) but now clearly the majority of unionists have tasted the pudding have rejected it - does that mean it is no longer viable?

They may have rejected it, but it's all in vain. There's no way unionists can get rid of it on their own, and the DUP pretending that was possible was terribly misleading and was done purely for selfish electoral advantage.

Having said it was anti-Agreement, the DUP has now become pro-Agreement, taking part fully in the review of the Agreement and trying to tidy up its loose ends. They even negotiated with the Provos, having condemned the UUP for doing so in the past.

You miss my point MU - surely The Agreement itself is no longer viable ny your criteria if it is no longer accepted by all sides.

But it is accepted by all sides!

MU

The UUP is facing a stern challenge. What does it stand for? The DUP will move into the centre ground and unless the UUP can articulate a position which clearly differentiates itself from the DUP, the UUP have a problem. In my view, the UUP should campaign on the Economy, Education, Secular politics if they want to win the election. They should claim the GFA as a victory for them, and if the DUP adopted it, then this reinforces the notion.

I agree.

Willow-how many times do we have to say it- a new Agreement is not the same Agreement.

If you are married and your wife understandably decides to ditch you for a newer model, he will have many similarities to yourself-teeth, knees, and a lower intestine amongst them. There will also be certain differences-noticably the inclusion of a functioning brain in the newer model- which clearly distinguish it from the original clapped out version.

You might contend that Mrs Willow is somehow still an advocate for being married to you because she is married to another male human being, but most people will recognise that she has gravitated to something improved, advanced, and better-someone who doesn't use his backside to talk out of.

Now if she had said she was leaving you for a sheep (calm down Peter)then you could criticise her when she didn't, just as you could criticise the DUP if they had said they wanted no Agreement with nationalists, or with Dublin. They haven't.

MU
Good post. Won't happen. The UUP is incapable of evolving into a modern secular liberal party, even if was prepared to take a leap of faith. You'll see more of this nonsense of trying to be tougher than the DUP on the Provos by Michael the Undertaker and Deadly Dermot. They haven't even the guts to break the Orange link, even though only about 10 Orangemen support Trimble now.They're floundering just like the Tories, but without much less padding to survive the lean years.History may show that Lord Haughey's philanthropy staved off the inevitable until the centenary of the UUC had passed, but after he's in the Lords why throw his money away on a hopeless case? Or if he really has to , what about investing in Leeds United?

davidbrew

Willow-how many times do we have to say it- a new Agreement is not the same Agreement.

Well, if the new agreement was going to be substantially different, then you might have a case to argue. But it's not.

DB

You can bluster all you like with your 'Fancy Dan' legal speak, there will be no New Agreement, the voters out there know what NEW means and it isn't twiddling around with the GFA and gving it a thin coat of whitewash.

If I tell my friends I have got a new car, and then turn up in the old one resprayed with the clock turned back and the pistons re bored, they will know extactly what I have done, got the same car as I always had.

Your party members on the ground and people who voted for you are getiing restless already they see what is going on they are not blind.... the GFA is here to stay..... you know it and they know it.... the only question is what con will the DUP try to put over this time to conceal their actions.

'Course, if the DUP had negotiated all this seven years ago, they wouldn't need a new Agreement.

The big question is, will they run away again this time?

NAR
but that's just the point-it it's only the old car resprayed then the DUP are full of very stupid people who have painted themselves into a corner for short term gain in a mssive gamble that the electorate will overlook the past. There hasn't been a lot of evidence from the DUP to date to suggest they're that dumb, although there has been a lot of government and UUP inspired spin to worry the voters. The DUP already had sufficient advantages in terms of their generation structure and membership base two years ago to be confident that they would overtake the UUP sooner rather than later anyway-they didn't need to energise the base vote unlike the UUP, and the disillusioned UUP voters were always going to gravitate to them after dallying with Bob etc. In short, they have had no need to expose themselves to the risk of their current stance if winning elections was their only goal. Likewise they presumably have some reason to believe thay will achieve some success. And if they can, Trimble should have been able to. So everything the DUP get is ipso facto a failure of Trimble's negotiating shortcomings.

In short..
If it is a new model with improved spec it is up to the electorate to judge if it is worth buying. But even if it's a Volvo , instead of the Jag we would all like, it's still better than the clapped out Kia Trimble sold us.

I think that's an admission by DB that the DUP will indeed settle for a respray and an upgrade of the stereo.

So DB means the exact opposite of what he said? You habve mistaken him for a CURRENT member of the UUP leadership not the former Party officer he now is Willowfield....

Why are you in the UUP?

Look further up this thread.... i think we've been over this ground

Well I think it was a good initiative from SF in condemning IRA graffiti ....

... silence and dirty looks....

Oh did I interrupt something ?

Am I on the wrong thread ?

You honestly expected a thread on this site to remain on topic from start to finish - you are niave enough to be an Ulster Unionist Party negotiator ;-p Oh I forgot I mustn't speak ill of the esteemed and cherished leader or mention or nuclear programme.....

To get right back on topic, which started about Michael Agnews calls for Republican Graffitti to be removed in Ballymena....

This morning, Michael Agnews house was raided by the PSNI - why do they always feel the need to do this at dawn??

Michael Agnew has been the target of a sustained Loyalist murder campaign, including sophisticated pipe bombs placed under his car.

Gerry Kelly has commented that "The actions of the PSNI this morning are part of a deliberate attempt to justify these attacks.

The actions of the PSNI are further endangering the life of Michael Agnew. It is in stark contrast to the lack of action against the unionist murder gangs that are operating with impunity throughout the North Antrim and East Antrim areas.

"This raid is a clear example of political policing. It is an extension of the loyalist murder campaign. It is evidence of the ongoing existence of collusion between loyalists and the PSNI and will only offer further encouragement to those who have targeted Michael Agnew because he is a Sinn Fein representative.

"I again challenge all political parties to come out and condemn the actions of Loyalist paramilitaries in this area and indeed throughout the six counties. The actions of the PSNI today are also a stark and direct challenge to the SDLP and I want to reiterate my challenge to the SDLP policing spokesperson Alex Attwood to come out into the open and have a public debate on policing."

Gerry K sounds as if he is laying down smoke .

Davros. Thats an unworthy response.

I know Michael Agnew personally and for the PSNI to raid his house at dawn this morning was a travesty, for him and for his family.

As Gerry Kelly points out, this was a very political act on behalf of the PSNI. What really was the purpose and motivation?

What do you honestly imagine the real purpose of this raid was? Please reply honestly and bear in mind the fact that this mans life has been threatened, bear in mind where he lives, and bear in mind that his was the house where Loyalists planted a pipe bomb not so long ago: BBC Report . Do the UVF really need this 'encouragement' from the PSNI? Then you wonder why Nationalists don't have confidence in the PSNI?

Trying the link again

Come on Liam. I have posted my support for Mr Agnew in the past. I too feel it is odd that he was raided. I was objecting to the rather hysterical and counter-productive outburst by Mr Kelly.

Let's mention a few things that Mr Kelly could have brought into play ...

There were OTHER raids- I read somewhere there were circa a dozen. Mr Agnew wasn't singled out as implied. Why were there raids ? Because of intelligence reports that dissidents were going to attack PSNI. IF SF were on the Policing boards they could raise their concerns in a manner that might actually acheive something other than Gerry Playing to his gallery and the unionist community
switching off ...because once again Mr Hyde has appeared on the scene. But Gerry has lost any chance of people like me supporting SF - because by his rant he has driven us into an Us vs Them corner. I'll happily sit with The Dr Jekylls of your party in a corner - but I'll be damned if I'll join Gerry Kelly with his crap about this raid being evidence of police collusion with loyalists.

That's my honest take on it.

Here

"outburst by Mr Kelly"?

Come on Davros - the wrong here was committed by the PSNI.

I am glad you have supported Michael Agnew in the past. I have heard of no other raids this morning but I do know that the very notion that his house would be raided in connection with 'dissident activity' is ridiculous and absurd.

The PSNI know that very well too. That is why their actions were disgraceful, outrageous and very dangerous.

That is why Republicans cannot have any faith in this police force. That is why we must hold out to get policing RIGHT.

Can you really not understand that?

Liam - You might not have heard of other searches, But I'll bet the farm that Gerry Kelly had ;)

And by not giving a fair, calm and balanced response Gerry Kelly has not only in effect misinformed people like you, he has polarised something that you and I could and would have easily reached agreement upon. That sort of thing ripples throughout the communities.

The below report puts his outburst into context.

Police search link to 'rebel' threats

By Nevin Farrell
12 November 2004

A major police operation in Ballymena today which involved a security alert was connected to recent dissident republican threats against PSNI officers in the town.

A series of searches took place from early morning and upwards of 15 Land Rovers were involved in the operation which centred on homes in the Fisherwick, Dunclug and Dunfane areas.

A security alert was sparked at one of the houses searched this morning at Fisherwick Crescent and Army bomb disposal experts were called in to deal with a suspicious object which police said later turned out to be a commercial firework.

A PSNI spokesman said: "Police have been carrying out a number of searches in Ballymena today in connection with serious crime. Search activity will be continuing throughout the day. So far there have been no arrests and nothing has been found."

Sinn Fein claimed it was "harassment" and said that by early morning at least six homes of republicans were searched.

The party's Ballymena representative Michael Agnew said his home was one of those searched and said police said they were looking for explosives, guns, ammunition and scanning gear.

He said: "This is harassment against young nationalists. I have been calling for calm in Ballymena in recent times and spoke out against graffiti for example and this is the way I'm repaid."

For weeks police had thrown a ring of steel round Ballymena as they mounted road checks and helicopters often flew overhead at night and the wearing of body armour was reintroduced for officers.

I repeat : my beef is not with the reasonable questions that could and should be asked of the police - preferrably through the police boards, it's with the hysterical and counter-productive outburst by Gerry Kelly.

....there have been no arrests and nothing has been found.

The dogs on the street could have told them that!

Gerry Kelly called this 'security operation' for what it was and he was right to do so.

Your description of it as an "hysterical and counter-productive outburst" is based only on your own views of Gerry Kelly as a politician.

You are too easily ignoring the real wrong that was done in Ballymena this morning to a good man and his family.

As I said Liam, you have been forced by his posturing into a corner.

"The party's Ballymena representative Michael Agnew said his home was one of those searched and said police said they were looking for explosives, guns, ammunition and scanning gear."

what an outrage! To imagine that ANYONE in SF/IRA might know something about illegal guns.Whatever next? HM Customs asking them about smuggled ciggies?

Get a life Liam. If plod wasn't looking for criminals at the homes of those "inextricably linked" with criminals (that's what the Provies are, you know) then we'd have something to be worried about.

davidbrew

Get real - this is clearly a political act. The days are over when the RUC was a tool of the Unionist state.

We are in the 21st century you know, the RUC has gone, the B specials have been disbanded, no more UDR.

Seems some of the boys in the PSNI haven't been informed.

"As I said Liam, you have been forced by his posturing into a corner."

What a particularly daft comment Davros.

Whatever Liam, whatever.

aye right shaypaul
let's not look to the contacts of criminals for information about crime. And while we're at it let them keep 15% of their guns to keep them occupied. The only political act is to turn a blind eye to the Provo criminality-which doesn't seem to concern you.

davidbrew

Criminality of all shades concerns me, that's why we need a no-political police service.

As Patten said :

We need to take the politicians out of policing, and take the policemen out of politics.

Incapacity of Unionists to do this for decades created the conditions for the mess we are in.

and we need to take the criminals out of politics and the "politicians" out of crime.

Incapacity of republicans to do THIS for decades created the conditions for the mess we are in

and we need to take the criminals out of politics and the "politicians" out of crime.

Incapacity of republicans to do THIS for decades created the conditions for the mess we are in