Mick

Without any answers from the political parties, and with Gerry Adams continuing to maintain that any agreement between democratically elected representatives must be subjected to a final decision by the IRA, I'd suggest the report only reflects the BBC optimism for a deal.

Pete, I'm not in the least suggesting that this is definative. Just putting up the stuff as it comes up. I note in JMB's file for this weekend's FT he makes no mention of this 'leak', even though it was filed early enough for him to have seen it.

The best advice is to read, but treat with caution.

There will not be any shadow Executive. Trimble fell into that trap. The DUP will not take office until the IRA has wholly disbanded, the bottom line,

God Save The Queen.

peteb

with Gerry Adams continuing to maintain that any agreement between democratically elected representatives must be subjected to a final decision by the IRA

The IRA can only decide what it is going to do. If anybody is giving them a veto over progress it is not Gerry Adams but the people who insist that there can be no progress without decommissioning.

Gerry Adams would be quite willing to sign up to a deal that ignored the IRA. But Paisley would not.

Duly noted, Mick.

Henry

Well you have regurgitated Gerry's official line almost completely.

Quite frankly, it's nothing more than spin. If we accept the line, and many do not, that to consult the IRA he has to go elsewhere, then it is his decision to sequence that in a manner that is designed to maintain the self-promotional mythology of the IRA.

The problem is it places not just any resultant democratic deal subservient to the wishes of the IRA, but also SF - those SF members who profess democratic credentials should be concenred at that as well.

Pete,

It is the unionist parties who have placed the IRA central to any future movemenyt in the political process, Henry is merely highlighting that fact.

Unionists want to deal with the democratically elected politicians of SF in their own terms. In that respect they have woven the IRA into the substance of the negotiations. SF are therefore are engaging with the IRA on the unionists terms for progress.
Bit late now to start complaining of the obvious stymie this places on decision making.

Pat

The reply I posted to henry is equally applicable to your comments.

Peteb

and your point is ?

Or have you some veto on everything else posted.

Why, precisely, do the DUP need photos? After all, the dogs in the street know what's happening.

They're needed to show the final victory of Unionism/the British state in Ireland.

Because the Republicans could see no other method of reversing the undemocratic settlement imposed in 1921, the game was always up when they couldn't win a military victory.

So with the arms they're giving up any pretence to breaking up the sectarain statelet. Worse still, they are going into coalition with the most reactionary forces in Ireland - pure Bushites.

The question is whether the vague promise of going into coalition with the Dublin Mafia - who, as it happens, are also in hock to the US, they will have something to keep their demoralised and defeated rank and file in line.

The writing has been on the wall for socialists and republicans in SF for a long time now. It's time they left this circus.

David Coen

Worse still, they are going into coalition with the most reactionary forces in Ireland - pure Bushites.

What republicans are doing is sharing power with the other great tradition on the island. It is for them to decide who represents them.

No other republican leadership in history has even come close to an agreement with Unionism. Not Pearse, not Collins, not DeValera, not Goulding.

If Paisley comes in behind the Agreement we will have, for the first time ever, a deal with the support of the vast majority of unionists and the vast majority of nationalists (aka the Irish people)

So with the arms they're giving up any pretence to breaking up the sectarain statelet.

But

the game was always up when they couldn't win a military victory.

You appear to be advocating an armed struggle which you don't believe can succeed. That is an extraordinary poition to hold. That is actually a disgraceful position to hold.

Anyone who thiks they can take up an armed struggle against this agreement better be aware that we are not talking her about a forced settlement like partition or direct rule. We are talking about the settled will of the people of Ireland who accept, indeed embrace, the consent principle as part of our Agreement.

I agree with the logic of your post Henry. It does also roundly condemn the insurgents of 1916 ...who againts the wishes of the vast majority of Irish people took up arms knowing that they couldn't win.

Davros

Pearse believed that what they were doing and their own deaths would inspire the people to support the republic he proclaimed and expel the British. He was proved correct.

The unionists had already at that stage introduced the gun into Irish politics by taking up illegal arms against Home Rule.

Henry- presumably the dissident repblicans believe that they too will get retrospective approval ....

Davros

You should also note that the view that an armed struggle could not be successful was expressed by David, not me. I just pointed out that if he believed that he shouldn't advocate armed struggle.

My opposition to armed struggle is based on my support for the agreement. Even if an armed struggle was going to be successful I still believe the Agreement is a better way.

Henry, I wasn't having a pop at you - honest.

"Unionists want to deal with the democratically elected politicians of SF in their own terms. In that respect they have woven the IRA into the substance of the negotiations. SF are therefore are engaging with the IRA on the unionists terms for progress."

The Unionist politicians believe that SF/IRA are one and the same. They need the IRA to change or even go away. The reason that SF is treated differently is because of the relationship with the IRA. It is farcical to think that a deal could be done without the IRA playing a role in getting their political wing into government.

Three points: my remarks were directed at socialists and republicans within the Republican Movement. They should leave.

On the point about the Agreement being "the settled will of the ... vast majority of Unionists and Nationalists(aka the Irish People)", you can count majorities any way you like, but the historical fact is that partition was imposed against the will of the majority of the people of Ireland - voting as a single country.

You are right about the Stormont Agreement: the Unionists, backed by Britain's military power, are about to impose partition on Ireland once again.

I don't advocate a return to armed struggle: that clearly couldn't win given the military balance of power. But that doesn't mean that the Republican leadership should go into coalition with the most reactionary elements on the island.

Their foreign partners are Bush and Blair once again, as in the 1920's, engaged im imperialist war in Iraq and elsewhere.

David Coen

But that doesn't mean that the Republican leadership should go into coalition with the most reactionary elements on the island.

Do you mean we should refuse to share power with unionists?

the historical fact is that partition was imposed against the will of the majority of the people of Ireland - voting as a single country.

Yes it was. But here we are and thequestion is where do we go from here.

I don't advocate a return to armed struggle

And you don't advocate power sharing. So what do you like? Direct rule with Fianna Fail input? Or is there an alternative I'm missing?