Form these words in a familiar phrase; "straws", "at" and "clutching". This part of the new agreement has already been discused at length here and it was clear that this is a complete red herring. If I was in the UUP, I'd be more worried about May and the political tsunami in unionism.

New agreement? What new agreement is that?

Keith.

Correct.

curses! foiled again... and we'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky kids-

(well michael obviously gets his politics from the cartoon channel)

How many of those who voted against the Agreement, or for the DUP in 2003 and 2004, did so on the basis of ministerial accountability I wonder?

How many of these people voted for the DUP content with the prospect of Sinn Fein/SDLP MPs sitting in Dail Eireann?

Care to answer the questions chaps?

from the article:

> How many of these people voted for the DUP

> content with the prospect of Sinn Fein/SDLP

> MPs sitting in Dail Eireann?

I still don't understand why any unionist would care who sits in Dail Eireann.

The Dail can not pass legislation for NI.

Michael

"How many of those who voted against the Agreement, or for the DUP in 2003 and 2004, did
so on the basis of ministerial accountability I wonder?"

Ministerial accountability isn't mentioned in the Belfast Agreement. You will have to look at the Northern Ireland Act (1998) for that. So it would have been fairly difficult for people to have voted against the Belfast Agreement on that basis. However, in 2003 and 2004, the DUP made it clear that accountability (both internal and on N-S relations) and decomissioning were central issues. If you didn't hear, it's because you choose not to.

"How many of these people voted for the DUP content with the prospect of Sinn Fein/SDLP MPs sitting in Dail Eireann?"

They can go and sit wherever they want. Even as non-voting members of a committe that meets twice a year. No Unionist will go near the Dail, it is non-executive and an irrelevance.

Of course, it would be absurd to have people from NI parties sitting in the Dail, but multi-millionaire former Fianna Fail Senators are welcomed with open arms into the Upper Chamber by the UUP. Care to comment old chap?

I should say that the Act came after the referendum, it would therefore have been impossible for people to make a judgement.

However, in 2003 and 2004, the DUP made it clear that accountability (both internal and on N-S relations) and decomissioning were central issues. If you didn't hear, it's because you choose not to.

I didn't say you didn't raise it, I'm saying how many people voted on that issue as a priority - it was clearly a greater priority in your negotiations than the Belfast Agreement itsself.

Eddie Haughy was a nationalist and is now a unionist, it has happened before Chris and it will happen again.

The Dail speaking rights issue is not about legalisation, it’s about representation. The proposal does two things, it undermines the sovereignty of Westminster in Northern Ireland, and is tantamount to re-partition of Northern Ireland by giving Northern Ireland representation in a foreign parliament. It is highly dangerous to the unionist position, much much more so that articles 2 and 3.

Christopher Stalford

Ministerial accountability isn't mentioned in the Belfast Agreement.

Er, it is. There are several pages about it under "Democratic Institutions in Northern Ireland", including, at paragraph 24: "Ministers will have full executive authority in their respective areas of responsibility, within any broad programme agreed by the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly as a whole".

But that is really beside the point. You are arguing that, since it wasn't (as you claim) in the Agreement, then people didn't vote against the Agreement on the basis of accountability.

So you are in agreement with Michael Shilliday: "accountability" was not the reason people were opposed to the Agreement.

"I'm saying how many people voted on that issue as a priority - it was clearly a greater priority in your negotiations than the Belfast Agreement itsself."

It was a priority for us. We put it to the voters. The voters voted for us. Therefore it is also a priority for the voters.

"Eddie Haughy was a nationalist and is now a unionist, it has happened before Chris and it will happen again."

When did he retract his earlier comments? Does he now regret describing the Anglo-Irish Agreement as a new dawn or is that now the official position of your party?

Has Andrew Hunter apologised for voting for the AIA in Parliament?

You also put water charging based on capital values to the electorate, I'll bet they don't agree with that.

"But that is really beside the point. You are arguing that, since it wasn't (as you claim) in the Agreement, then people didn't vote against the Agreement on the basis of accountability."

The implementation of the Belfast Agreement came out of the Northern Ireland Act. The Agreement was the broad-strokes the Act filled in the detail. The Devil is in the detail.

People had many reasons for voting against the Agreement. I see no point in arguing over why they did. Maybe Michael should conduct a poll.

Has Andrew Hunter apologised for voting for the AIA in Parliament?

Yes. Now maybe you could answer my question.

When? He asked me to vote for him but i didn't see any apology in the local paper.

So you're saying that the DUP's problem was not with the Agreement, but the Northern Ireland act? Now that is news....

"So you're saying that the DUP's problem was not with the Agreement, but the Northern Ireland act? Now that is news...."

Don't be so childish. There are problems in both the Agreement and the Act. If you bothered reading above you would see that I said, the Agreement was the broad strokes, the Act was the detail.

Christopher Stalford

"But that is really beside the point. You are arguing that, since it wasn't (as you claim) in the Agreement, then people didn't vote against the Agreement on the basis of accountability."

The implementation of the Belfast Agreement came out of the Northern Ireland Act. The Agreement was the broad-strokes the Act filled in the detail. The Devil is in the detail.

People had many reasons for voting against the Agreement.

So you accept that accountability was not one of the main reasons for opposition to the Belfast Agreement.

Why, then, did the DUP focus all its negotiations on accountability?

I see no point in arguing over why they did.

Why's that? Surely the DUP's supposed "fair deal" should be judged against how far they have rectified those parts of the Agreement that people were most unhappy with?

I don't recall many (any?) complaints about "accountability" in the "No" campaign.

When?

At the launch of the "No" Campaign in the Ulster Hall. Doesn't get much more public that that. In front of about 2,500 people. Now for the third time, did Eddie Haughey retract his previous comments.

And that the Devil is in the detail! Therefore you agree with the broad principles of the Agreement, in your own words therefore the Belfast Agreement.

Don't be so childish. There are problems in both the Agreement and the Act. If you bothered reading above you would see that I said, the Agreement was the broad strokes, the Act was the detail.

And what have the DUP done about the problems in the Agreement?

"And that the Devil is in the detail! Therefore you agree with the broad principles of the Agreement, in your own words therefore the Belfast Agreement."

No. I disagreed with the broad strokes and the detail was worse. For example, in 1998 I disagreed with the notion of Martin McGuinness in government, after six years of the Belfast Agreement, I now disagree with the notion of Martin McGuinness in government and exercising unnaccountable executive power. Reasons for opposing something can change over time.

Michael.

Could you please now answer the question. This is the fourth time I've asked.

But the DUP signed up to amendments to the Agreement that would still allow Martin McGuinness to be in government!!

Are you now opposing DUP policy?

But Peter Robinson told me that he agreed with the principles of the Agreement..........

So you're now saying you'll oppose Martin McGuinness in Government period? I'll remember that

Did the near-deal endorsed by the DUP include a clause barring Martin McGuinness from office?

I don't recall it.

I think it would be fair to say that the DUP in the past kinda summed up their opposition to everything that was happening as opposition to 'the Agreement.'

I don't think that it is really a point to say that by not specifying the NI Act, that the DUP weren't criticising it too. 'No to the Agreement' is a kind of political shorthand. It is a campaign slogan as much as an actual document.

However, while the DUP may have mentioned concerns about accountability etc in the past, they were never really 'pushed' as major issues in the way, say, decommissioning was. I know of one Strand One issue that Peter Robinson obviously had a hand in changing that the DUP only expressed concerns about once.

In fact, I would say it is only since the publication of 'Devolution Now' earlier this year, that we have really known what bugged the DUP about the GFA. Surprisingly, it wasn't as much as most people expected, although the political aspects of the 'comprehensive agreement' agreed to by the DUP, if ever implemented, could still leave us on shaky ground.

But Peter Robinson told me that he agreed with the principles of the Agreement..........

As defined by the Secretary of State. If you're going to quote at least quote accurately.

Answer the question regarding Haughey, please.

Willowfield

I agree entirely with the approach that the party has taken. I think we've played the Shinners off the field and I think confidence is higher in the Unionist community than at any time before.

If you'll excuse me gentlemen, as much as banging my head against a brick wall and trying to persuade you of that which you choose not to see appeals to me, dinner with my new wife appeals more!

Au revoir!

PS. Michael, the answer is there if you look hard enough. The question isn't going to go away.

Oh, that was a very strident letter, Michael! Are you standing for election or something?

:o)

Christopher Stalford

I agree entirely with the approach that the party has taken.

But that approach allows for Martin McGuinness to hold office. Why the U-turn?

And why do you agree with an approach that allows 99% the Agreement to remain intact, despite your declared opposition to said Agreement?

Why have you - and the DUP - done a U-turn on their opposition to the Belfast Agreement?

You old cynic Gonzo! No, I'm not standing for any election.

The Shinners must be rubbing their hands together with glee watching the unionists fight to topple and undermine each other rather than working together to secure their common objectives.

Absolutely.

The DUP's primary aim has always been to beat the UUP rather than to work for the safeguarding and strengthening of the Union.

Their post-1997 behaviour - mock opposition to negotiations with PSF and mock opposition to the Agreement; followed by negotiations with PSF and endorsement of a slightly-amended Agreement as soon as they beat the UUP - has proved this beyond doubt.

Willowfield, yes but now the shoe is on the other foot, and you're treating the DUP the way they treated you prior to last November.

Christopher, in the assembly election campaign the DUPes promised a new agreement, they promised to tear up the GFA, have they done so.

As to the fuss about about speaking rights in the Dail, this will allow Sinn Fein MP's to represent their constituents in Dublin as opposed to London, the fact that the DUPes are down playing the significance of this just demonstrates the lenghts they will go to get power

Roger

Willowfield, yes but now the shoe is on the other foot, and you're treating the DUP the way they treated you prior to last November.

How did the DUP treat me prior to last November?

I meant "you" collectively, but if we're going to get into silly pedantry I can't be arsed.

Is there any chance that both unionist parties could be honest with their voters and admit that they have both signed up for the same agreement.

Or are they really going to go before the voters loudly accusing each other of sell-outs on the basis of the tiny details that now seperate them.

Well Henry, I think it is mostly the duppers being dishonest after breaking most of their last election pledges.

On a more interesting point, hows discontent within the republican community going? This all gives me a good mask doesn't it? What about the decommissioning issue?

"This all gives me a good mask doesn't it?"

sorry. that ought to read - This all gives YOU a good mask doesn't it?

unionist-observer

On a more interesting point, hows discontent within the republican community going?

As one of the contented ones I'm probably not the guy to ask. Read The Blanket if you want to see how the tiny minority are thinking.

What about the decommissioning issue?

Have you noticed the price of photographs recently? ;-)

its only the tiny minority who are opposed to giving up the armed struggle AGAINST the constitution of the IRA which states there can be no end to the armed struggle until a united socialist Ireland is achieved - You are doing an awfully good job of disguising this united socialist Ireland Henry.

Now don't insult our intelligence Henry, other than the vocal ones - Sands, McKevitt etc there are plenty of other republicans who don't support the agreement or even the way Sinn Fein have evolved from a fund raising body for the IRA into the one pulling the strings.

Decommissioning is the one thing that Gerry can't concede, am I right?

uo

Sands, McKevitt etc there are plenty of other republicans who don't support the agreement or even the way Sinn Fein have evolved

There's more than two but unless they run for election we won't know how many

the constitution of the IRA which states there can be no end to the armed struggle until a united socialist Ireland is achieved

I'm not au fait with that document. Link?

Decommissioning is the one thing that Gerry can't concede, am I right?

Of course you are. It's a matter for the IRA. Gerry Adams has a responsibility to use what influence he has to bring it about. So far he has been quite sucessful and I wish him well in his future efforts.

"There's more than two but unless they run for election we won't know how many"

I know there is more than two, but they are not likely to run for election given that they and the rest of the Real IRA don't believe in the ballot box, their message is in violence, such as the recent firebomb attacks in Newry, Lisburn, Ballymena to name but a few, I heard on the news today about another device that had been found in Newry - does that sound like they are satisfied?

"I'm not au fait with that document. Link?"

I wouldnt have thought there would be copy of the IRA constitution on the web, why don't you ask one of your colleagues in Sinn Fein/IRA, I'm sure they would know.

"Of course you are. It's a matter for the IRA. Gerry Adams has a responsibility to use what influence he has to bring it about. So far he has been quite sucessful and I wish him well in his future efforts."

I applaud Adams efforts to civilise the terrorists however I think its slightly hypocritical of Adams and co to attack Trimble for not being able to carry all of unionism when it is clear that Gerry can't carry all of republicanism.

oh yeah, also the fact McKevitt is still in jail in the republic might also hinder him running for election!

Chris said,"I disagreed with the broad strokes and the detail was worse. For example, in 1998 I disagreed with the notion of Martin McGuinness in government, after six years of the Belfast Agreement, I now disagree with the notion of Martin McGuinness in government and exercising unnaccountable executive power. Reasons for opposing something can change over time."

Chris, when did martin McGuinness cease being an IRA commander during the last six years.Whend id the provos cease to be a terrorist organistation and where in your agreeemnet does it call on the Provos to disband or stand down its members?

Gerry can't carry all of republicanism.

You don't get 100% in any situation. But the vast majority of republicans are behind the Sinn Fein position.

I wouldnt have thought there would be copy of the IRA constitution on the web, why don't you ask one of your colleagues in Sinn Fein/IRA, I'm sure they would know.

You're the one quoting from it so I assume you have access to a copy. I didn't even know the IRA had a constitution.

oh yeah, also the fact McKevitt is still in jail in the republic might also hinder him running for election!

I remember some dissidents complaining that they had no one to vote for in Belfast because Eamonn McCann was running in Derry. Maybe by the next election they wil realise that they could run themselves.

You should ask Martin McG for a copy of this Constitution, after all he didn't want to break his oath to his fellow comrades at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

Adams might have a copy too, since he is on the Army Council - thats the head of the IRA for those of you who don't know.

Adams and the rest of Sinn Fein/IRA will hold onto their guns until they get what they want. Much too valuable to give up.

Can the DUP be trusted with the Union. Of course not. Many could be protestant dissenters just as well, or with an more inflated sense of martyrdom, in a United Ireland.

If you check in the chaplain's records in the main British army and Territorials, as opposed to the local militia, you may find that there are relatively few free P's about.

They are trying to maintain a sense of Protestant supremacy, and if they fail again politically, as they must in a secular UK, they have their inner world to fall back on. Its heads they win their salvation, tails they maintain the union maybe.

Jonty asks: "Chris, when did martin McGuinness cease being an IRA commander during the last six years.Whend id (sic) the provos cease to be a terrorist organistation and where in your agreeemnet does it call on the Provos to disband or stand down its members?"

Your criticism and outrage about McGuinness's moral character would be a little more believable if you hadn't supported the Ulster Unionist Party at every turn.

They supported the Provo's in government when they were armed and active and now have the gall to accuse the DUP of the same, even though we haven't had one day of Sinn Fein in government during our watch. Until the process of decomissioning is complete, the organisation stood down and public confidence is restored in that process through photographic evidence, the prospect of Sinn Fein in government any time soon is remote.

What an irony that all those Trimble-ites who supported prisoner releases, the destruction of the RUC and massive concessions to Sinn Fein in the past, should now be getting exercised over such a significant issue as a Dail committee. Pathetic.

Roger asked Willow: "Willowfield, yes but now the shoe is on the other foot, and you're treating the DUP the way they treated you prior to last November."

Perhaps Willow would care to offer a response?

Mr. Swann

"As to the fuss about about speaking rights in the Dail, this will allow Sinn Fein MP's to represent their constituents in Dublin as opposed to London"

They already represent their constituents in Dublin - they lobby the Eire Prime Minister, they attend meetings at the Irish Foreign Office, they can table parliamentary questions and motions if they so wish - given that they have representatives in the Dail that is their entitlement.

But the suggestion that some tin-pot committee, set up by the Irish government that will meet twice a year, if even that, and at which SF/SDLP MP's will have speaking but not voting rights is a major threat to the Union is a ridiculous claim. You know this. That the Ulster Unionists should attack us over spmething which was agreed during their watch also demonstrates the depths to which they have plummeted.

Grow up Mr. Swann.

Roger

I meant "you" collectively, but if we're going to get into silly pedantry I can't be arsed.

It's not silly pedantry: I need to know what you mean before I can respond.

Who is the collective "you" to whom you refer?

Henry94

Is there any chance that both unionist parties could be honest with their voters and admit that they have both signed up for the same agreement.

The UUP has already made the point, but I don't think there is any chance of the DUP admitting it. It is too humiliating for them.

Christopher Stalford

An answer to my 4.10pm of yesterday would be welcome. Or are you trying to avoid the reality of your conversion to the Agreement?

Aquifer

"They are trying to maintain a sense of Protestant supremacy, and if they fail again politically, as they must in a secular UK, they have their inner world to fall back on. Its heads they win their salvation, tails they maintain the union maybe."

Thats obviously it!

Willowfield.

I opposed the Belfast Agreement in 1998. I oppose it today.

Now maybe you would answer the question.

"You're the one quoting from it so I assume you have access to a copy. I didn't even know the IRA had a constitution."

You don't seem to know your own movement very well Henry, might I suggest a bit more research before you run for Belfast city council next time!

"Grow up Mr. Swann."

At the tender age of 20, Stalford is telling people to grow up....hehe

U_O/Rebecca Black

I'm actually 21, not that thats relevant to the issue. My grow up comment was made in relation to the lack of perspective or common sense detcted in Mr. Swann's contribution.

"I opposed the Belfast Agreement in 1998. I oppose it today."

stalford just doesn't oppose the nice pink fluffy DUP version of the GFA!

yeah, because its not like you'd ever lack perspective or common sense. Its not like you'd ever make a comment to someone calling them disgusting for socialising with republicans....is it?

"stalford just doesn't oppose the nice pink fluffy DUP version of the GFA!"

Obviously a master of wit an repartee Ms. Black.

Its not like you'd ever make a comment to someone calling them disgusting for socialising with republicans....is it?

It is digusting for someone who calls themselves the Chairman of a Unionist Association (supposedly) to go out boozing with Provos. Just like its disgusting that you should have got them to sign the constitution of your society.

Now please stop this Unionist_Observer nonsense, and post under your own name.

But the suggestion that some tin-pot committee, set up by the Irish government that will meet twice a year, if even that, and at which SF/SDLP MP's will have speaking but not voting rights is a major threat to the Union is a ridiculous claim. You know this.

Why does the DUP appear to not have a problem with this? This is representation in Dublin something you would have thought they would have opposed, being the extreme Unionist Party.

The chairman of Sinn Fein in TCD like the chairman of every other political society in TCD signed my petition, thats all, I did not go out drinking with him.

However, I do have friends that are republicans and I have enjoyed many evenings in the pub debating politics and life with them - its interesting this socialising business, you should try it yourself sometime!

"But the suggestion that some tin-pot committee, set up by the Irish government that will meet twice a year, if even that, and at which SF/SDLP MP's will have speaking but not voting rights is a major threat to the Union is a ridiculous claim."

Probably but what about
Plan A -sending down a few DUPERS to tell the republic to fuck off and mind its own business
OR
PLAN B Nip down and ask for some money (no representation without taxation??)
OR
PLAN C come over all sorrowful and ask the ROI to reactivate the boundary commission and (weeping tears) suggest that each community should have as far as possible its dearest wish and (sighing with regret and hand wringing)suggest repartition and resettlement(with compo)

Stand back and watch the shit fly

"its interesting this socialising business, you should try it yourself sometime!"

I do - just not with the political wing of the IRA. I now see what your party colleagues mean when they say "It's a shame about Rebecca, she's spent too long down South and turned native"

Oh dear, I've said too much.

you are fairly pathetic Christopher, I was very almost in your year in Queens doing history with politics. I am very glad I changed my mind and went to TCD when I see what the products of a primary degree at qub are like.

Anyway, maybe I have said too much, I have a train to Dublin to catch today, why I might even socialise with republicans tonight, shock, horror.

LOL @ Rebecca! Don't get your tutu in a twist!!

when faced with such ridiculous comments, I am afraid I very much get my tutu in a twist.

Anyway, Happy New Year to all, look forward to more debating in 2005.

I opposed the Belfast Agreement in 1998. I oppose it today.

But you said that the AGreement was the broad principles of the deal, and Peter Robinson said the DUP accept the broad principles...which is it Chris?

Christopher, you are correct to say that the Shinners raise issues of concern in Dublin, but informally, this concession by the DUPes will allow them to do so formally, as of fight, for a party obsessed by symbolism this is a significant change.
Reference your comments about my 'growing up', when the time comes I will be only to happy to recommend a good razor.
Finally, you’ve had months to find out, do the Robinsons have one London flat or two?

Christopher Stalford

I opposed the Belfast Agreement in 1998. I oppose it today.

But earlier you said you supported the DUP position: the DUP has endorsed the Agreement, albeit in slightly amended form.

So it's not true to say that you oppose it today.

Anyway, please could you respond to my points. You said you opposed the Agreement because it allowed Martin McGuinness to hold office. You also said you supported the DUP approach. Yet that approach allows for Martin McGuinness to hold office. Explain the inconsistency.

And why do you agree with an approach that allows 99% the Agreement to remain intact, despite your declared opposition to said Agreement?

Now maybe you would answer the question.

What question?

Chris, well socializing with the provos is hardly worse than socialising with those connected to the UDA/UVF is it (and on public money no less) ? Ah but of course, loyalist paramilitaries are "understandable". Got ya.

Willowfield, I still think you're being pedantic but I'll bite. Between the signing of the GFA all the way up to last November, the DUP attacked the UUP's direction in an infantile and unconstructive way which from my perspective probably did damage the union and certainly damaged the image of unionism in the UK and abroad. Now that the DUP are flavour of the month, the UUP have switched to the same tactics. Every time someone from the DUP posts on here you guys seem to be pretty much trying to undermine them.

There are more constructive things that you could be doing, one thing that would be really interesting would be if the DUP's historic connection to paramilitarism was addressed by the UUP. Maybe now that we've got Chris Stalford's attention he could tell us when Ian Paisley last spoke with Andy Tyrie after everything went wrong in 1978/79. Or when William McCrea is going to get disciplined for taking a stage with Billy Wright. Well Chris ?

Michael

"But you said that the AGreement was the broad principles of the deal, and Peter Robinson said the DUP accept the broad principles...which is it Chris?"

When did I say the Agreement was the broad principles of the deal? The Secretary of Stae defined the "fundamentals of the Agreement" as (a) Committment to power-sharing (b) some form of N-S and (c) committment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means (at least that's how I remember it)

Those "fundamentals are so broad that any deal can include them. We've been over this old ground before and you've been corrected before. Clearly ignorance is bliss.

"But earlier you said you supported the DUP position: the DUP has endorsed the Agreement, albeit in slightly amended form."

That is a lie and you are a liar.

Roger

"Ah but of course, loyalist paramilitaries are "understandable". Got ya."

I've never claimed that. But if you wan't to talk about paramiltary connections and mainstream Unionism, why concentrate on the late sevnties and McCrea, lets talk about the here and now.

Which political party appointed Gary McMichael to the Civic Forum, when the UDA ceasefire was broken down? Which political party walked side-by-side into the Forum talks with the political representatives of the loyalist paramilitaries (including the now exiled John White)? Which political party has representatives on the Loyalist Commission? Which political party has been courting David Ervine in order to get him into their assembly group?

Remember Roger, everytime you point the finger, there are three pointing back!

Mr Swann

Just for your benefit, I repeat: the suggestion that some tin-pot committee, set up by the Irish government that will meet twice a year, if even that, and at which SF/SDLP MP's will have speaking but not voting rights is a major threat to the Union is a ridiculous claim

It seems to me that Mr Shilliday seems totally oblivious to the fact that all the things he objects to were in actual fact discussed and largely settled quite some time ago, long before the DUP came to the negotiating table.

The extra North / South bodies were actually in the Good Friday Agreement and Mr Paisley has a letter from tony Blair stating that the release of the murderers of Jerry McCabe and speaking rights for Northern MPs (not just SDLP / Sinn Fein but also Unionists if they have the courage to grab that particular stick) were all dealt with prior to the recent discussions and were not part of the DUP`s comprehensive deal.

Aside from that I actually fail to see quite how the DUP can stop Northern Nationalists from attending the Dail if the Dail so permits it. What course of action are you condoning here?
All such things are quite clearly side deals between Sinn Fein and the Irish Government and there is absolutely nothing the DUP or indeed the UUP can do about it. Get with reality...but then again that is the UUP`s problem. Living in cloud cookoo land when it is in fact in the face of it`s own demise.

"Maybe now that we've got Chris Stalford's attention he could tell us when Ian Paisley last spoke with Andy Tyrie after everything went wrong in 1978/79. Or when William McCrea is going to get disciplined for taking a stage with Billy Wright. Well Chris ? "

I would hate to bring up the issue of the Loyalist commisssion which the Unionists participate in.......

When did I say the Agreement was the broad principles of the deal?

Right here:

The Agreement was the broad-strokes the Act filled in the detail.

Sitting on the Loyalist Commission is hardly the same as passing info on someone you don't like to the local UDA now is it Chris/Alan?

Michael

And I said I opposed both the broad strokes and the detail. What a moron.

Have you thought of an answer re. Lord Ballyedmond yet?

"Sitting on the Loyalist Commission is hardly the same as passing info on someone you don't like to the local UDA now is it Chris/Alan?"

Who did that?

No its not.

As a councillor it may be hard to take a line against well resourced heavies with guns, but I'd like to hope they were trying.

Like the SDLP and WP did for years, to their everlasting credit.

What's that noise? Silence from Shilliday? Surely not! Name names if you're so confident of what you're saying.

I see you can't provide an answer to any of the questions I have posed above. I will onblige you. The answer to all of them is the UUP.

The UUP appointed McMichael to the Civic Forum, after the good people of Lagan Valley sent him packing. The UUP walked into the Forum Talks flanked by the loyalist paramilitary parties (perhaps thats why they agreed to prisoner releases: at the behest of their pals). The UUP has representatives on the Loyalist Commission and the UUP are busy whoring themselves to Davy Ervine (including the offer of a ministry) in order to get him into their assembly group.

Aquifer

The SDLP profited politically for years off the back of PIRA violence. Don't be so naive as to pretend otherwise.

Christopher, sorry to be repetitive but since you obviously read my last thread, what about the Robinson’s and their £40 000 London accommodation allowance, one flat or two?

I don't know and I don't care.

Christopher Stalford

That is a lie and you are a liar.

It's not a lie and I am not a liar. Please retract the accusation.

The DUP has endorsed the Agreement, albeit in slightly amended form. Any fool can see that.

Now, less of your avoidance tactics: respond to the point. You said you opposed the Agreement because it allowed Martin McGuinness to hold office. You also said you supported the DUP approach. Yet that approach allows for Martin McGuinness to hold office. Explain the inconsistency.

And why do you agree with an approach that allows 99% the Agreement to remain intact, despite your declared opposition to said Agreement?

What about Trimble's Peace Prize money? Where did that go?

Willowfield

You are a liar and I will not withdraw. I did not support the Agreement in 1998, I do not support it today. I oppose Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin or any other member of Sinn Fein being in government until the IRA is totally disbanded and stood down.

That is a much stronger position than the Belfast Agreement. Hardly a slight amendment.

The other guff about 99% (how exactly do you measure a percentage of an international agreement?) is your opinion, nothing more. Belive it or not Willowfield, your opinion isn't holy writ.

So long, farewell, Auf Wiedersehn, Goodbye!

Christopher, are you comparing a sum of money awarded as a prize to the £40 000 claimed by Mr and Mrs Robinson to cover the cost of what is effectively overnight accommodation in London for one year.

What I can't understand is that if their party colleagues can provide themselves with suitable accommodation for between 18K - 20K why does it cost the Robinsons the same them when I assume they share, are double beds that much more expensive or are the Robinson's being greedy?

Christopher Stalford

You are a liar and I will not withdraw.

I'm not a liar. On the contrary, I tell the truth, unlike you who pretends to oppose the Agreement while endorsing 99% of it.

I did not support the Agreement in 1998, I do not support it today.

But you're on record as endorsing the DUP, who signed up to 99% of the Agreement when they gave support to the "comprehensive agreement" or whatever it was called.

I oppose Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin or any other member of Sinn Fein being in government until the IRA is totally disbanded and stood down.

Why, then, do you support the "comprehensive agreement", which makes provision for any member of the Provos to be in government while the PIRA remains intact?

(PS. You said earlier that you opposed Martin McGuinness in office. I notice your opposition is now conditional.)

That is a much stronger position than the Belfast Agreement. Hardly a slight amendment.

But such a position is not contained in the "comprehensive agreement".

The other guff about 99% (how exactly do you measure a percentage of an international agreement?) is your opinion, nothing more. Belive it or not Willowfield, your opinion isn't holy writ.

So how much would you say has been changed? 10%?
Accepting 90% of that which your party vowed to "bury" isn't very impressive.

Chris, I hope you're not now going to run away from the debate just as it's getting interesting.

The associations between the UUP and the PUP&UDP are things I'm well aware of. I was wondering if there could be clarification from you (or your party) on the matter. For example DUP councillor Bobby McKee (once Mayor of Larne) is a former member of the UVF who has refused to apologize or "repent" for his past - "I make no apology for my past; people get caught up in the emotion of the time." (link). Yet he remains a member of the DUP.

I wonder what aspect of the DUP former UVF men and convicted rioters find attractive ?

unionist observer

You don't seem to know your own movement very well Henry, might I suggest a bit more research before you run for Belfast city council next time!

I can assure you I have no intention of running for Belfast City or any other council and I never have. I think you are confusing me with someone else.

"He was convicted of riotous behaviour but later left the UVF and denounced the organisation."

ohh look what jumped out.............umm

Row over MBE for former UVF chief
Sinn Fein fury at Queen's honour

By Jonathan McCambridge
jmccambridge@belfasttelegraph.co.uk

31 December 2003
A MAJOR row today threatened to overshadow the New Year's Honours list after a self-confessed former UVF commander was awarded an MBE.

The Mayor of Larne, Bobby McKee - who has a conviction for riotous behaviour - said today his contribution to local government had "outweighed his past" as he was awarded the honour which will see him travel to St James' Palace in the summer.

However, Sinn Fein has attacked the decision to grant the local politician an MBE and has described it as "total hypocrisy".

Bobby McKee, now a DUP councillor, has openly admitted his involvement in the setting up of the Larne Defence Force in the early 1970s, which then became part of the UVF.

He was convicted of riotous behaviour but later left the UVF and denounced the organisation.

He has admitted training people to use arms but said he left after the UVF "changed tactics" and embarked on a bombing campaign.

He lost a leg in an IRA bomb in 1972. His other leg was later amputated due to injuries he received in the explosion.

Mr McKee today said he was "delighted and humbled" by his MBE and defended his right to receive the accolade.

He said: "What I did is in the past, it was over 30 years ago; I have turned that corner and left it behind.

"I make no apology for my past; people get caught up in the emotion of the time. My disability is a result of my past - this accolade shows how far I have come."

He added: "There are always people who are going to be digging up the past but the people who are responsible for giving me this honour have obviously looked at this and decided there is merit in leaving the past behind.

"I am 62 now and I would hope that my contribution to local government and working for the disabled over the years has outweighed my past.

"I would like to think this award has been given to me because of the work I have done for the disabled over the years. I will accept it with pride."

Mr McKee has been a Larne councillor since 1987 and has served as Mayor for the past two years. He has spent much time promoting the rights of the elderly and disabled.

He was also a founding member of the Northern Ireland Amputees' Association.

Mr McKee was also this year embroiled in a bitter internal party dispute after his brother, councillor Jack McKee, was snubbed by DUP chiefs in his bid to be an East Antrim Assembly candidate.

The entire East Antrim party association was suspended in the row. Jack McKee, who stood as an independent with the support of his brother and other DUP councillors, has since resigned from the party.

Sinn Fein representative Martin Meehan slammed the award of the MBE to a former UVF man.

He said: "It is total hypocrisy if Mr McKee accepts this award. It will make a laughing stock of the whole process."

It's funny how the Party Business of the DUP can remain relatively Private:

"Mr McKee was also this year embroiled in a bitter internal party dispute after his brother, councillor Jack McKee, was snubbed by DUP chiefs in his bid to be an East Antrim Assembly candidate.

The entire East Antrim party association was suspended in the row. Jack McKee, who stood as an independent with the support of his brother and other DUP councillors, has since resigned from the party."

A divided party?

Was a similar situation with the UUP in Lagan Valley with Ivan Davis.

BTW - Isn't Sammy Wilson from East Belfast?

Eddie Haughy was a nationalist and is now a unionist, it has happened before Chris and it will happen again.

true Michael-David Trimble was once a Unionist before becoming a new irelander :0)

BTW hearty congrats to Ivan Davis on his OBE for political services- probably the last bauble Trimble could wring out of Blair for his shabby clique of yes men ( what now for poor Jack Allen?)-except of couirse for his own peerage after the loss of Upper Bann in May

However, I do have friends that are republicans and I have enjoyed many evenings in the pub debating politics and life with them - its interesting this socialising business, you should try it yourself sometime

hey Rebecca- perhaps the Jews should have gone out for a pint with their SS guards after thre liberation of Auschwitz-they were probably great crack after a few jars too. No doubt the victims and the families of the deceased who might question your judgment in having friends involved in a criminal and murderous conspiracy are just being stuffy too. It's no wonder you are pro-Agreement- you must have no moral compass whatever.

You don't deserve to be at University if you can't use your befuddled brain to understand the true nature of republicans- education's supposed to help you acquire judgment and to develop character- time to open your eyes to your friends-especially if they send you to the bar with nice new Northern bank £20 notes

The DUP will operate the GFA because the sovereign British Parliament says so, or is their Unionism provisional?

David Brewster are these the same Republicans your party were going to put permanenlty in government here?

Chris Stalford said, "draw. I did not support the Agreement in 1998, I do not support it today. I oppose Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin or any other member of Sinn Fein being in government until the IRA is totally disbanded and stood down.

That is a much stronger position than the Belfast Agreement. Hardly a slight amendment."

Chris this is a much stronger position thatn your party, it is not a provision of the Comprehensive agreement.

Looks like your out of step with The DUP once again remember your remarks 3 days prior to "Devolution Now"?

Until the IRA decomissions all of it's terrorist arsenal and Sinn Fein renounces the use of violence, I am not in favour of Sinn Fein being in any government - committee-style or any other style for that matter.

This has always been the DUP position.

Christopher Stalford on February 3, 2004 09:00 PM

Then your party released the details of its corporate assembly, requiring no decommissioning, without even telling the members of its executive. Either that or you werent listening.

Eithe way your once again out of step with your party. Sort it out Chris

DB writes : "perhaps the Jews should have gone out for a pint with their SS guards after thre liberation of Auschwitz"

It could have been a lot worse David - the Jews could have organized a rally and had SS members on the podium.

Chris opposed the Agreement since 1998, but the DUP couldn't tell us what it wanted until 2004. Given the DUP's tolerance of about 95% of the Agreement, it surely illustrates that the GFA could have been nailed down in 1998/9 if the DUP had not chickened out of the negotiations?

Gonzo - I totally agree.

The DUP wanted to wait around to see what way the wind was going to blow.

The DUP never really decided where they were or where they were going next, until 2001, when they fiercly ate into the UUP and Trimble and played the blame game.

They knew that if things didn't work out they could make a major poltical advance after the 1st Assembly.

Had they actually been serious about creating peace in N.I. they would have stayed in the talks for the sake of Unionism.

One thing was clear in 1998, Sinn Fein where going to play a major part in the Government and politics of N.I. - Thank you Tony Blair!

Try as he might, not even Tony can tell the electorate how to vote. Sometimes I wonder if nationalists vote Sinn Fein just to be pedantic....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1423133,00.html

- Good comment piece in the Sunday Times today by Alan Ruddock.

Comment: Alan Ruddock: Would it be rude to mention terror at Sinn Fein’s party?

David Burnside also had a piece The IRA laughs all the way to and from the bank

"The best secretary of state Northern Ireland has had in the past 30 years was Roy Mason, an Englishman. He did not try political initiatives; he got on with governing the place during a very tough period.

The best chief constable of the RUC in the past 30 years was Sir Kenneth Newman, also an Englishman. He defended his force, providing it with backing, support and equipment when these were most badly needed and, above all, he resisted political interference. How different from the tireless efforts endlessly to put Humpty Dumpty back on the wall at Stormont.

So prime minister, for me, no more peace summits. We will settle for boring, honest government, reform of local administration and a crushing onslaught from a rebuilt police service to destroy the criminal mafia of the republican movement and loyalist paramilitaries."

"You don't deserve to be at University if you can't use your befuddled brain to understand the true nature of republicans- education's supposed to help you acquire judgment and to develop character- time to open your eyes to your friends-especially if they send you to the bar with nice new Northern bank £20 notes"

really David? You must write to Trinity and tell them that one of their students who by the way averages high 2:1s in her course is not worthy or intelligent enough to be there.

By the way, did you not hear about some of the northern bank notes turning up in Dundonald - that well known bastion of republicanism!

By the way, did you not hear about some of the northern bank notes turning up in Dundonald

If we are thinking of the same notes, since shown to be legit.

Quite possibly Davros, I was away at the weekend so I have fallen behind with my news.

The Dundonald notes did indeed transpire to be legit. It turns out that the Northern Bank had issued some notes from the same serial number group that had been stolen.

It's great hearing Burnside lecturing us about paramilitarism. Has he any more plans to have more exploratory meetings with loyalist paramilitaries or write articles for their publications (at least the UDR were honourable enough to do the right thing)..

Burnside's plan to keep Sinn Fein out of Stormont by giving more power to the Councils has one flaw, how do you keep the Shinners from gaining control of the Councils west of the Bann?

Rebecca
I'm sure that by what pass for academic standards today you are very intelligent-just not very wise, which was my point, that you either couldn't or wouldn't understand. Isn't it interesting how you are silent on the moral duplicity of your republican friends and instead your first reaction is try to pass off the blame for the bank robbery from the IRA? Why it's almost like you're giving them cover. So, a fairly typical UUP Nelson's eye being turned there.

Just because someone socialises with you doesn't mean that he/she isn't perceiving you as one of Lenin's "useful idiots" -do you ever ask them about the spying on TD's the running of Dublin docks smuggling,or even-at the risk of being thought bad mannered- the victims from your community which they created? Thought not

"My resignation came about because I and my colleagues felt that the DUP in East Antrim was being infiltrated by paramilitaries. We made the party officers and the executive aware of this on several occasions, but it would seem our worries and concerns fell on deaf ears."

"When I saw paramilitaries becoming involved in this Assembly election, helping to put up posters or standing at school gates, I felt that vindicated the worries that I and my colleagues had had as such I have no regrets for the stand that I have taken."

Cllr. Jack McKee, Larne Times, 18th December 2003.

David

I am not trying to pass off the blame for the robbery, I just don't think it is wise to make any assumptions about who did it. In all honestly it probably was the IRA but going by one of the corner stones of British justice, innocent until proven guilty.

"Just because someone socialises with you doesn't mean that he/she isn't perceiving you as one of Lenin's "useful idiots" -do you ever ask them about the spying on TD's the running of Dublin docks smuggling,or even-at the risk of being thought bad mannered- the victims from your community which they created?"

I think you are mistaking the concept of political allies with friendship. Most of the people I am friends with and socialise with are not my political allies. You don't have to agree with someones politics to be friends with them.

Loyalist Commission don't look quite so bad seeing your own members think your party is a paramilitary ridded group eh Chris/Brewster!

Rebecca-I am quite clear as to the distinction- you can have political allies you dislike; you should not wish to have friends who are members of a criminal conspiracy, unless you have an amoral/non-judgmental view of their beliefs.

Sillyboy
be very careful about pointing fingers about paramilitaries, given your party's history-particularly in Belfast. Yet again you seem incapable of advancing an argument beyond the usual "You're just as bad as us" jibes, which is hardly a position to be proud of-but then that's all you've got left.

I don't remember saying you're as bad as us, you're quite clearly worse! McKee, Barnes, both roughly in the past 12 months. No smoke without fire.

I think you are showing your gaping holes in your knowledge of nationalists and republicans.

Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean they are pro-violence

Michael

Let me make my position clear. I condemn paramilitarism completely and utterly. There is no place for politically-motivated/sectarian violence in a democratic society. You on the other hand, are on record as having said you would welcome David Ervine into the Ulster Unionist Party.

Your party leader, not a councillor, not some local bod who didn't know what he was playing at.

Your LEADER - The "Rt. Hon" (as if he would know the meaning of the word honourable) David Trimble MP MLA (Nobel Lauraete, no less) appointed Gary McMichael to the Civic Forum.

The connections between the Ulster Unionists and paramilitaries runs to the very top and I could talk a little about Belfast, but I choose not to (at this point anyway).

Rebecca Black

Speaking as someone who was left without a father because of the behaviour of republican thugs from the "Lower Ormeau", I hope you will excuse my intolerance/ignorance/moral revulsion, by your luvving it up with a bunch of Provos down south. It's a shame we can't all be as urbane as you when considering these matters.

David Brewster is entirely correct, it's no wonder you're pro-Agreement, you clearly have no sense of right and wrong whatsoever.

Christopher

I condemn paramilitarism completely and utterly.

Why, then, did you fail to condemn the Castelreagh councillor who invited loyalist terrorist representatives to her mayoral inauguration ceremony?

I also note your failure to respond to earlier points that I made. Perhaps you missed them?

I did not support the Agreement in 1998, I do not support it today.

But you're on record as endorsing the DUP, who signed up to 99% of the Agreement when they gave support to the "comprehensive agreement" or whatever it was called.

I oppose Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin or any other member of Sinn Fein being in government until the IRA is totally disbanded and stood down.

Why, then, do you support the "comprehensive agreement", which makes provision for any member of the Provos to be in government while the PIRA remains intact?

Ah Willowfield, loyal Trimble lap-dog, at least attempt to show some imagination.

I do endorse the DUP, but we have not signed up to 99% of the previous dispensation. That is merely your opinion, and it is innacurate.

If provision exists for Sinn Fein in government while the IRA remains intact why hasn't an executive been formed? Oh yes, because the DUP has held firm to it's committments.

Of course it's a bit ironic that you supported an executive being formed with a completely intact IRA three times in the past, but now see fit to attack others on the basis that you think it might happen in the future, which incidently, it won't. Just how much of a hypocrite are you?

The position is clear - until the IRA is completely stood down, violence given up for good and all arms decommisioned SF/IRA will not be in any executive.

Oh but of course, the Ulster Unionists were putting the Provos to the test. Please.

Wasn't there some fuss about Ruth Patterson's High Sherrif do?

Gary McMichael is not and never has been a terrorist, David Ervine has renounced violence and expressed regret at his actions, which is more than can be said about the Barnes case and your East Antrim colleagues.

Shilliday

The Barnes case? Who exactly are you talking about? Come on Shillers, nail your colours to the mast. If you dare.

And it worked didn't it? You would have led us straight to joint authority in 1998.

If I had Parliamentary privilege, I'd be singing it, but I don't. Nonetheless I know that you know who I'm talking about, and I know that you know its true.

Christopher

I am very sorry to hear about your father, I hate paramiliiarism (on both sides might I add). However not all republicans are pro-violence and just as many republicans as unionists are disgusted by violence.

as for my sense of what is right or wrong, my family backround has brought me up to respect people of different backrounds

"You would have led us straight to joint authority in 1998."

Pathetic Empey-speak from Shillers. "If you don't buy into this deal joint authority lies around the corner." Continue like that and you end up negotiating one form of a United Ireland because it isn't as bad as another one on offer. Even amongst the Young Unionists the defeatism that has corrupted the senior party is present.

I happen to believe in the validity of the Unionist argument. Clearly Shillers you don't.

As for McMichael, I never claimed he was a terrorist, but he was associated closely with them. Just like Mitchell McLaughlin. I seem to remember your party getting very exercised over him.

"my family backround has brought me up to respect people of different backrounds"

Even murderers?

excercised or excited stalford?

This is all very ironic given the position your party is adopting recently - what about Garda McCabes widow and children?

so you reckon every single republican is a murderer then Christopher?

Your leader and terrorism have been very strongly linked Chris.........

The unionist argument put to the electorate is insumountable, put to HMG in 1998 DUP attitude is a very weak argument. Are we in joint authority because of the Belfast Agreement? Are we closer or further away from a united ireland?

Bertie Ahern has a decision to make on that one. I hope those reponsible for the McCabe murder rot in jail. Of course if it had been up to me they would have swung from the end of a rope.

Given that your party supported the release of hundreds of terrorists onto our streets, I don't think your in any position to lecture anyone.

"so you reckon every single republican is a murderer then Christopher?"

If they are members of Sinn Fein they happily associate themselves with the murder of innocent people and have profited from it politically. Until the IRA disappears from the equation they are a different-class of political party. I view them with utter contempt.

I could respond to that by saying at least my party leader didn't start the troubles.......making a song and dance about a tricolore displayed in a SF office on the Falls road? Alot more people might be alive today if he hadn't.

You've come a long way since then, haven't yous?

and after they are respectable public representatives presumably?

they represent 26% of Northern Irish people, they cannot be ignored no matter how much we might wish to ignore them. Face reality.

Shilliday

"Your leader and terrorism have been very strongly linked Chris........."

Less so than yours. And please don't start wittering on about the UWC strike, because every Unionist politician who opposed Sunningdale was involved in it.

Protestant Volunteers, Ulster Resistance, Third Force..............much less desireable people than Gary McMichael were in those collections.

Rebecca

How surprising that a Unionist (supposed) activist would blame Ian Paisley for starting the troubles rather than the violent insurrectionists in the IRA. Pathetic. BTW, the law that made it illegal to fly foreign flags was passed by the UUP-controlled Stormont Parliament.

"they represent 26% of Northern Irish people, they cannot be ignored no matter how much we might wish to ignore them. Face reality."

Oh I've come face-to-face with the realities of life in Northern Ireland and I didn't do it by jumping on the first train to Dublin and sitting around hypothesising with a bunch of Provos. No mandate can legitimise the murder of innocent people. I'm sure Rebecca you would have fitted comfortably into the Weimar Republic ruling elite - "These Nazi's are awful people but we must do business with them"

Right so Christopher how do you propose to get a settlement in Northern Ireland that will work without including 26% of the population?

Rebecca

I'm not Northern Irish, I'm Ulster-British.

By getting one that will include 74% of the population. Sinn Fein cannot be allowed to hold the process to ransom. You clearly disagree.

Shillers

I'm sure Gary'll be pleased that at least one young Turk in the UUP thinks of him as "desireable". Personally I don't see the attraction myself, but each to their own.

Au revoir!

I am trying to work out what the DUP position on IRA criminal activity is, since Mssrs Brewster and Stalford appear a lot more concerned about it than the party leadership was last month.

Peter Robinson was reportedly "unperturbed" about the lack of any statement in the 'comprehensive agreement' concerning IRA criminal activity (he and a party spokesman both seemed only concerned with decommissioning in the Irish Times article, which I blogged last month).

If so, what reason does the DUP have for complaint now? After all, the DUP was party to these negotiations and has apparently agreed to give the IRA a license to rob banks without political sanction - the Northern job does not constitute a ceasefire breach and could have been easily carried out without real guns, for example (assuming it was the IRA, which hasn't denied it, if you examine the unofficial statement it issued carefully).

I can't see how this could be interpreted in any other way, unless it was just poor negotiating.

Do the DUP members regret not insisting upon such a provision now?

I know many people would welcome Messrs Brewster and Stalford's tough line on IRA criminality, so I'd like to ask them if they feel let down by the fact that Peter Robinson didn't feel it worth nailing down in the talks?

did I say you were Northern Irish? I don't give a flying fart if you consider what you consider yourself

So you reckon a deal that discludes SF will work? What about the civil war that will ensue afterwards? The SDLP cannot be looked upon to represent the majority of nationalists anymore, you'll end up back in a unionist dominated parliament like in the 1970s....and we all know all well that ended up? They are part of the problem, they have to be part of the solution.

hasty retreat by stalford

Unionist Observer and Henry94,
from your discussion earlier in the thread:
Ed Moloney wrote that one of the general orders of the IRA is that no volunteer can sign up to any agreement which would refrain from the use of weapons to get rid of British rule in Ireland.

"So it (GFA) was against the IRA's constitution. Sinn Fein was given a special dispensation, but nevertheless the issue has been one which has caused caused enormous problems within the republican movement."

Davidbrew,
why do you equate republicans with Waffen SS death camp guards. Is this how you view all republicans or just Irish ones? Does this explain the refusal to shake Bertie Ahern's hand by the DUP leader? Are Irish people determining their own destiny so offensive to you and your ilk? I suppose when you cross the border you do so with wax in your ears and a peg on your mouth.

I believe the last people on this island to be called fascists by a British PM were from the unionist community.

Guess again Rebecca.

Your coment above demonstrates exactly what is wrong the the modern UUP. You don't seem to think that negotiations should be characterised by attempting to advance the cause of your own community, but rather they should be concerned with placating your enemy (in order to avoid civil war?????). This is the problem - the UUP was in the business of negotiating favourable terms of surrender.

Another possible up-shot of jettisoning the Provos from the political process could be that it persuades them to finally abandon violence in order to be admitted as equal partners.

There is no doubt that appeasement has failed, maybe it's time to try something different.

"Are Irish people determining their own destiny so offensive to you and your ilk?"

No. People that murder in the name of Ireland are.

"discludes"

For someone with a high 2.1 average that's pretty poor!

Christopher, unlike you I can remember Ian Paisley on TV ranting and raving about things that now are of no consquence, for instance the flying of a Tricolour inside a building on the Falls Road, I aslso remember him in the Ulster Hall sporting a red beret, I also remember the Third Force patroling the roads of Drumbo, I also remember him at Drumcree telling the mob that it was a matter of life and death, it was for one police officer, and I also remember the sometimes daily death toll, was it worth it given the position Paisley now adopts, remember if the Provos had provided photos he would be heading for power with Martin all mention of disbandment having been dropped

Mr. Swann

"remember if the Provos had provided photos he would be heading for power with Martin all mention of disbandment having been dropped"

I don't believe that at all. I think the posi