Poor man I hope he has ear plugs

He has but he's not allowed to say how many. But you know how many ears he has so you should be able to figure it out.

'But you know how many ears he has so you should be able to figure it out.'

LOL. Although, if it were Paisley we were talking about I could think of at least one other area that could make judicious use of a plug!

Good luck to the General I'll say a wee prayer for him that he gets over his ordeal with the Anti Christ.

Tight control?

Why would the IRA, those great champions of peace and democracy, need to keep themselves under control? I thought in this New Jerusalem, they were committed to non-violence?

Of course the Volunteers mightn't want to jeopardise those hundreds of jobs in the "community sector" which the government will create for them perhaps thats why the need to curb their murderous tendancies for a wee while.

At least the IRA have ended thier campaign, Loyalists on the other hand continue to MURDER nad create MAYHEM strange that don't you think.

I think the so-called Loyalists are scum who should be rounded up and thrown into prison.

Ended their campaign?

When did they say that?

Have they abandoned their right to murder people in the name of a United Ireland, or do they still reserve the right to take up arms when they don't get what they want?

Pity the DUP and UUP didn't feel the same considering thier cosy chats on the North and West Belfast Forum don't you think ?

and what about those who egg them on GF? Who share platforms with them, whilst apparently not doing business with terrorists? Who march men up to the top of the hill, to have them wave guns in the air?
What is their responsibility in this?

I'm very tired of this one way traffic of criticism, with a token "oh the loyalists are scum too.... but back to the IRA now..." Any chance of focussing on reality and not prejudice in this thread?

Going by his perfromance yesterday it looks like the general needs a hearing aid, not ear plugs!

I disagree with the existence of the North and West Belfast Parades Forum. No Unionist public rep should be anywhere near it or the Loyalist Commission, which the DUP has no part in.

As for the argument in terms of hillsides or whatever, I personally believe each individual has to take responsibility for their own actions and have never bought into this old shite about "I was agood fella until I heard Paisley/Bill Craig/some other person at a rally ...."

Circles, why dont you persuade this individual Uionist instead of resorting to the use of pathetic rhetoric. Being sceptical of the motives and actions of the IRA is not evidence of prejudice, no matter how easily the word rolls off the tongue of natioanlists like your good self.

Ginfizz

Ended their campaign?

When did they say that?

July

"The leadership of Oglaigh na hEireann has formally ordered an end to the armed campaign.

Watch the statement read by a former IRA prisoner
This will take effect from 4pm [1600 BST] this afternoon.

All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms.

All Volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means.

Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever. "

Having answered your points, perhaps now you will address my question posted above?

Henry

So they no longer reserve the right to murder their opponents?

Thats all very well GF - and I am 100% in favour in an exchange of ideas rather than an exchange of artillery. But how can I persuade you that the IRA have gotten rid of their weapons? I believe it, and the people I know believe it, and many are extremely worried about it, but the prevailing attitude is that it is the right thing to do and that there is absolutely no way back.

Now the question that bothers us is - why, even when there is no prospect of a united ireland, loyalist paramilitaries are still heavily armed and extremely active, the largest democratic party in the 6 counties is unionist and the IRA is a veterans club are we still treated as a pariah? Is it just because we are not loyal to the queen? Is it because we are catholics? Just what is the crack here?

Is it cause I is Catholic?

Circles

These questions would have been easier to resolve had the IRA been prepared to allow decomissioning to take place on the terms set down by the Unionist leadership. I appreciate that the brave men of the IRA had a problem with that, but if they were sincere, they would have allowed the maximum publicity. If Unionists had have seen guns being piled up and axle-grinders going to work on them, I believe firmly the community I am from would have been much more prepared to see a return to Stormont.

That has not happened. The IRA has done enough to satisfy the governments and not enough to satisfy the Unionist community. Any return to Stormont will now been viewed as a further concession rather than a positive development. The IRA hung Trimble out to dry, now they are attempting to humiliate the DUP.

Ginfizz - don't you think that decomissioning on the DUP's terms would have been an impossible proposition to sell to hardliners within the IRA?

Is this not the reason why events were choreographed precisely as they were yesterday?

I understand the series of events which would allow the inventory of IRA arms which have been put beyond use is a completion of decommissioning by all the relevant armed groups, given that all we need to satisfy Mr. Paisley and the rest of the NO men, is the UVF.UDA.LVF.REDHAND. And most importantly in respect to the DUP the ULSTER RESISTANCE, to decommission totally or in the case of the skeptics all arms in their possession, then the so called transparency sought by the doubters will be satisfied. Decommissioning has now been proven what Nationalists always suspected a red herring, an excuse not to get inclusive politics an attempt to denigrate those voters who vote en masse for Sinn Fein, Unionism are stuck in 1690 mentality, Nationalism has moved on and left them trailing in their wake, can they catch up,,,NOT while they have dinosaurs leading them politically.

Victor

I bow to your superior analysis of what makes Unionism tick. You've really called the situation just right. We just don't want a Catholic about the place, we want Bombay Street all over again and want a re-introduction of the Penal Laws. You're just so on the ball, I can't even attempt to answer your salient and compelling logic.

Merry

Perhaps so, but if the IRA had been genuinely sincere in wanting to moving things forward that is what would have happened.

Any return to Stormont will now been viewed as a further concession rather than a positive development.

In your view Stormount is a consession to Natioalists! Crazy!!

If the IRA were insincere they wouldn't have decommissioned at all! How about the sincerity of the DUPs armed wing can we have some transparency when they decommission?

Victor

No that is not my view. I think it would be a positive development all round. The problem is that it will be viewed as a concession by the Unionist community because decomissioning has not been carried out in the way required. At least attempt to read the posts before responding.

Victor

The Democratic Unionists don't have an armed wing. You're being quite silly now. Perhaps a wee lie down and a rest is called for.

Ginfizz - why is this all one way traffic anyway? Why do republicans have to constantly satisfy unionists, whilsts unionists can basically do what they want?
Is it a peace process (i.e. sides slowly moving towards one another) or an abject surrender the unionist leadership want.
If it is the former, why don't they actually join the process?
If it is the latter, why do they not have the to come out and say so? That they have no interest in dialogue and only want to see the sack cloth and ashes (or is that what the good Dr meant?)
Republicans are ready for dialogue - why are the loyalists not?

Ginfizz

The opportunity for pictures is gone so whatever assurances are required by unionists will have to come in another way. Unionists have previously shown a lot of faith in the IMC so I'm sure their reports will help if, as expected, they confirm that there is no IRA activity.

So how long without IRA activity do you think it will take before we can get back to power-sharing?

Henry

I appreciate the point re. the IMC, but I really cannot see the Unionist community being ready for a return to devolved government for at least a year - maybe longer. It is incumbent upon the government to demonstrate to Unionists that they are getting something out of all of this - Nationalists had confidence building measures in the past, Unionists now require them. A good start would be the scrapping of 50-50 recruitment.

HMG want the Unionists in government with Sinn Fein - what are they going to give us to get us there?

Ginfizz-I beg to differ! ULSTER RESISTANCE
A Loyalist paramilitary style organisation which was formed on 10 November 1986 by Ian Paisley, then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), Peter Robinson of the DUP, and Ivan Foster.The group was organised in nine 'battalions' and members wore a red beret.In November 1988 there was an arms find in County Armagh and the subsequent arrest of a former DUP election candidate brought accusations of links between DUP politicians and armed paramilitary groups.
Clearly a link or armed groups, remember wee peter marching into the Ulster hall with his wee beret? Unionists are talking about honesty and transparency, lets start with a little honesty from those within that camp, it would help don't you think?

HMG want the Unionists in government with Sinn Fein - what are they going to give us to get us there?

"It is incumbent upon the government to demonstrate to Unionists that they are getting something out of all of this - Nationalists had confidence building measures in the past, Unionists now require them. A good start would be the scrapping of 50-50 recruitment."

Why? In what way does this undermine the union GF?

I really do not see the relevance in this - unless of course it has less to do with the union and more to do with re-establishing a >90% protestant quota in the police force (having one community policing the other).

It is clear to the world that hardline Unionists in NI just simply dont want to move on let alone share power. I completly understand peoples's contempt for the IRA and distrust fo SF, most people I know in both the Republic and NI share such opinions however the deal was about moving on. That doesnt mean forgeting the past but at least dealing with it and understanding that terrible things happened across the community and not to perpetuate the misery on each new generation. Do the Unionists want a normal community? with normal politics? normal sport? normal cultural festivals? or are they forever going condem their community to live in a political and cultural ghetto? forever to be seen as the great bore of the western world?

Ginfizz

A year and some bribes then?

On 50:50 recruitment have you considered the possibility that a deal on policing could see a major increase in Catholic applicants which could without the quota system see even more Catholics getting in that otherwise would.

Fair enough folks. Unionists are all bloodthirsty hateful bastards who just don't want Nationalists exercising power under any circumstances. You can believe that stereotype if you want, or you can accept that for hundreds of thousands of people the peace process has been viewed as an entirely one-way street in favour of Sinn Fein.

Unionists need to see that they are getting some benefit from the process. This can be delivered by HMG through various means - it is up to HMG to assuage the concerns of the Unionist community. The IRA could have done a great deal to help by agreeing to maximum publicity. They choose not to do so for their own reasons.

Nationalists accuse Unionists of begrudgery, but when Unionists look for some gains of their own nationalists such as our friend Victor tell us to shut up and be satisfied with our lot.

Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever. "

hmmm- ask Geoff Commander about that one Henry

Henry

Absolutely. If the IRA has gone away. The major reason for preventing Nationalists from joining the PSNI will have been removed. Institutionalised discrimination against Protestants can therefore be ended.

If someone who is a Catholic applies to join the police and is more qualified than someone who is a Protestant they should get the job. They should get it on merit, not on what church they go to.

darthrumsfeld

hmmm- ask Geoff Commander about that one Henry

The Irish government, rightly, asked the Sinn Fein delegation about that and were satisfied that those responsible for that dispicable and cowardly attack were not part of the Republican Movement.

All I can tell you is that if I had any information about it I would go directly to the police with it.

Henry

"A year and some bribes then?"

Why not? It's about time the Unionists were given something.

Ginfizz-Far from asking you to "shut up" I have been seeking in my last number of posts to hear from you! I have noticed you are quite capable in selective responses, but avoid the issue when it suits.....
The DUP has an armed wing in Ulster Resistance don't you agree?
There arms are still being used today on the streets of the North, don't you agree?
What have Nationalists got from the GFA that Unionists haven't?
and heres one who would you trust most Ian Paisley or Harold Good?

Henry94

No problem with the number of Catholics joining the PSNI. SF on the policing boards and a large increase in catholic applicants wouldn't Ginfizz on me in the slightest (Soory bad pun !)

but like many unionists, I've always been uncomfortable with positive discrimination especially when that means that a service which needs fresh recruits each year can't get them just because they didn't get enough Catholic applicants.

Equal opportunity, best man/woman for the job and all that but when your local nick hasn't enough officers to deal with the type of crime which makes all our lives miserable (robbery, drugs, car theft, etc..) the 50-50 Patton policy seems incredibly short-sighted.

I understand what it seeks to address and will look forward to the day when it is unnecessary but perhaps even before they join the policing boards SF could extend the "war is over" message by at least declaring that Catholics who wished to join the PSNI have nothing to fear.

We need more decent policemen and women; their religion is (or should be) irrelevent.

Baldrick

"Unionists need to see that they are getting some benefit from the process"

A thousand assault rifles, 20-30 HMG's, flame throwers, denators, rocket launchers, hand guns, semtex - all out of the hands of "anti-unionist" terrorists. Do you think unionists have gotten no benefts from the peace process?

baldrick

but like many unionists, I've always been uncomfortable with positive discrimination

I'm sure you will understand if I allow myself a wry smile at that statement.

Baldrick
"but like many unionists, I've always been uncomfortable with positive discrimination"

In GB's police forces too? Or just the PSNI? Just curious.

"Unionists need to see that they are getting some benefit from the process."

Surely this would actually require unionists to engage in the process - which to date they have failed miserably in.
I'm not trying to be deliberately obstructive here, but if unionist parties continue to block progress why should they be rewarded? For calling the governments liars and traitors? For calling for street barricades ending in riots then washing their hands of it?

(I have huge problems anyway with the governments stick / carrot, one side played off against the other approach to the peace process anyway - it continues to make things extremely difficult)

Maca

"A thousand assault rifles, 20-30 HMG's, flame throwers, denators, rocket launchers, hand guns, semtex - all out of the hands of "anti-unionist" terrorists."

Unionists should be grateful that an illegal terrorist organisation has decided to hand in its weaponry and stop killing us? You obviously ascribe to the Peter Hain school of thought.

Correction - they haven't handed in their weaponry - that's the problem.

Ginfizz

Unionists should be grateful that an illegal terrorist organisation has decided to hand in its weaponry and stop killing us?

You could stop pretending you don't know it happened.

'Correction - they haven't handed in their weaponry - that's the problem.'

Your correction is noted. They put them beyond use.

Ginfizz, what does unionists want? I'm sure a list (50 or so pages long) will come tripping off your tongue.

What sweetners are they looking for. I, we, would love to know. What sweeties will it take before unionists allow the people of NI to run their own country?

Fair enough folks. Unionists are all bloodthirsty hateful bastards who just don't want Nationalists exercising power under any circumstances. You can believe that stereotype if you want, or you can accept that for hundreds of thousands of people the peace process has been viewed as an entirely one-way street in favour of Sinn Fein.

Easy now Ginfizz - you do have a point, and unionists have every right to feel short changed. But they are at the very least partly responsible. They have been so utterly predictable that is was easy for republicans to out manouvre them. Take this 'we want photo's charade'. The rug was so easily pulled from under the DUP on this that it makes you wonder what is the story with their much lauded strategists.

The biggest problems republicans encountered in recent times were not challenges posed by unionists, but by the Irish Government due to the actions of their own members. The winding-up of the IRA culminating in what I believe is for all intents and purposes full-decommissioning came from Dublin and to a lesser extent London pressue. Clearly, as the Columbia 3 shows, we don't win them all, but unless unionism is prepared to take republicans on in a meaningful political way they will repeatedly lose out.

But I suspect that DUP is going to remain fixated with photo's - this time it going to be hoping for photo's to emerge showing IRA weapons that weren't decommissioned, so they can say 'told you so'. At the moment, a few morons keeping small arms for 'personal protection' aside, I don't think they'll find any.

I don't know what has happened - another problem.

Ginfizz "Unionists should be grateful that an illegal terrorist organisation has decided to hand in its weaponry and stop killing us?"

Well Unionist should at least be grateful that what they demanded is happening. Then perhaps they could persuade their mates to stop killing catholic working people

Ginfizz
So destroying all these weapons was absolutly NO benefit?? None whatsoever?? Not even a teeney weeney bit? You sure? Absolutly positive?

"they haven't handed in their weaponry - that's the problem."

They weren't supposed to. They have destroyed them i.e. they don't work anymore.

Personally, if I was a nationalist, i'd be pretty happy to see some unionist weapons taken off the streets. But hey, that's just me.

"It's all a big lie so it is" says Big Ian (not a direct quote more a paraphrase)

Not that I'm surprised he thinks that. Within about 30 secs of the DUP press conference they had already moved on to the "other" IRAs out there as the new hurdle. Perhaps this is just a case of being careful what you wish for because sometimes it isn't all it's cracked up to be. If the DUP really think the Commission are lying and so are the witnesses then they should use some of that transparency they are so fond of and say so but they won't because they know they're not. Right now they are merely clutching at straws because they know the pressure is on them.

"Unionists need to see that they are getting some benefit from the process"

Currently the benefit that unionists need ( indeed what we all need) from the process is the decommissioning of loyalist arms. The question has to be asked - What are those arms now for? When will the loyalist paramilitaries genuinely make contact with De Chastelain and agree modalities?

More important than that, however, is how is the process to be triggered? If nothing is done, then nothing will be done. We've had a number of weeks filled with despicable violence that has only served to reinforce the position of the loyalist paramilitaries. We need the political parties to turn their full attention to loyalist arms and squeeze the paramilitiaries until they give - and the unionist parties have to lead that move jointly.

With regard to Big I's "its all lies so it is" - it reminds me of an article I was reading this morning about the Flat Earth Society in the states.

Paisley is refusing to lead from the front.

Asked whether he could see himself in government with Sinn Féin, he said: "We will not be doing it." He said he represented the people and it would be the people who decided whether republicans would be in government.

Ginfizz must be to busy compiling his list.

It amuses me somewhat that some unionists are claiming it's their turn to get the rewards.

The very reason that nationalists needed concessions of late is because, in the past, not only did unionists (some unionists) get all the sweeties, but they were given the whole chocolate factory.

"The very reason that nationalists needed concessions of late is because, in the past, not only did unionists (some unionists) get all the sweeties, but they were given the whole chocolate factory."

You can't seriously believe that.

Paisley is now claiming that the witnesses were appointed solely by the IRA - his logic is that neither the two Governments nor the IICD claim to have appointed them.

Didn't Harold Good say something about being approached by someone who had been involved in the peace process? My money's on Jonathan Powell.

Mind you, who cares who nominated them - surely the point is whether they are people of integrity.

The DUP's gripes smack of a certain amount of desperation. I suspect they know that reliance on the argument that "we don't know that ALL the weapons are gone" does not hold water. Even if they had got their photos, preferred witnesses and inventory, they couldn't be sure that all the weapons had been dealt with.

My feeling is that we are seeing stalling tactics until a two or three IMC reports have been issued.

'You can't seriously believe that.'

Yes, and more.

When do you think you'll be finished compiling your wish list for unionism, as I requested earlier?

1. Destruction of RUC
2. Release of prisoners
3. Dismantling of security installations
4. 50-50 Recruitment
5. Amnesty for OTR's
6. North South bodies
7. Funding for Irish language, culture etc.
8. Places in executive without decomissioning
9. Removal of Union Flag from public buildings except on certain days
10. Parades Commission

Hang on, Ginfizz, you're suggesting you want the destruction of the RUC.

Sorry it doesn't exist. I'll try again, what do unionists want now?

What will it take for unionists to allow the people of NI to govern themselves?

smcgiff

Why should I publish such a list of demands? So you can go through it and take the debate off on all sorts of tangents? Don't think so sunshine!

The central pint remains unaltered. Unionists feel as though the peace process has been of no practical benefit to them as a community, that it has been an entirely one-way street in favour of Sinn Fein. The government needs to act to reverse that perception otherwise further Unionist co-operation will be lost.

smcgiff: its easy - just negate everything GF said, and that'll do for starters.

Or maybe thats being unfair. Then again, how fair was it to have a police force where >90% of the police came from one side of the community? How fair is it to force parades along routes where they are not welcome? How fair is it to fly what is essentially a foreign flag for many people from the buildings of their local govenrment? etc. etc.

personally i accept that full (as full as it gets) decomissioning has happened. but if nationalists are wondering why unionists arent quite won over by the way decomissioning was done. would they be won over if loyalist decomissioning was done in the same way?

ie, the uda / uvf etc met the general in secret. and put weapons 'beyond use' nobody really knowing what this involved. the public was not allowed to know what weapons where involved, how many etc. infact no details of anything was given to the public. no proof that anything had actually happened. the general was not allowed to say anything except that 'alot of weapons were put beyond use' . he also admitted that the uda / uvf probably still had some weapons. the only witness was a protestant cleric. the person selected by the paramilitaries was the Rev Ian Paisley. the reverend was only allowed to say 'alot of weapons were put beyond use' he could not confirm or deny anything else.

would nationalists feel that they no longer had any threat from the uda /uvf ?

This discussion is going nowhere. Once again the nationalists who dominate this website have shouted down a differing opinion. Goodbye.

Dr Snuggles,

I believe that SF could not have wished for a better response from the DUP. Okay, they could have predicted it, but there would always be some doubt that the DUP were capable of learning and deprive them of the political victory.

It’s hard to see how a considerable portion of unionism couldn’t be thinking that their political leaders are bereft of ideas or input. What they have long suspected is now clearer than ever. The whole world (ironically, with the exception of portions of the ROI media) takes a different view to them.

Now that the UUP have been ditched and the DUP are in power there’s no longer any internal scapegoat. Can unionism go back to the UUP or how much more proof will it take the DUP have no answers.

Frankly it’s a ballsup.

"Unionists feel as though the peace process has been of no practical benefit to them as a community, that it has been an entirely one-way street in favour of Sinn Fein."

As much as I hate repetition GF - unionist politicians have ensured that unionist people have not benefitted from the peace process by deliberately keeping them OUT of the peace process. If yer not in ya can't win - and if they are not in the process why should the government act?

1. Destruction of RUC ah Renaming of the said force!
2. Release of prisoners..Loyalist and Republican hardly a consession now!
3. Dismantling of security installations-No need for them if the war is over, is there!
4. 50-50 Recruitment..to what, the Police force ah, would you rather it stayed as it was, one sided and non representative of all?
5. Amnesty for OTR's..the same would apply to Loyalists NOT a consession to one side or the other but more to both!
6. North South bodies.common sense approach on a shared Island!
7. Funding for Irish language, culture etc.Funding for Ulster Scots/Orange parades ..and I seem to remeber recently funding for Loyalist Bonfires where paramilitary gans roamed with undecommissioned guns!!
8. Places in executive without decomissioning..DECOMMISSIONING has taken place and more than once, more than could be said for Ulster Resistnce guns!
9. Removal of Union Flag from public buildings except on certain days..nowhere in the UK does the Union flag fly constantly but here in the North, it flys doesn't it?
10. Parades Commission..who's decisions have angered both sides hardly a consession again,
and to cap it all, each and every thing you listed was negotiated and voted for by both Unionists and Nationalists, nothing in your shopping lists stands up Gin, how about a reponse to Loyalist weapons? Particularly those belonging to the red Beret brigade ?

Leeds Castle?

Unionists are a part of the process, it doesn't stop the government from rodgering us at every opportunity. Maybe if we had bombed the hell out the place for thirty-odd years they would be prepared to listen to us - alas, all we ver relied upon were votes at election time, not that that counts for jack!

Dontcha just hate when the unionists spit the dummy? Even GF has that habit. Surely people should have the courage of their convictions, rather than throwing a huff.

Eranu: If the IMC said their weapons were destroyed, I would believe that the were destroyed. Not feeling threatened would come with tiem and trust, but to buzild that up, I would be all for talks.

Well, that and the B-specials, UDR, RUC, UVF, UDA, RHC, LVF, RIR, etc. etc. GF

Now back to the contribution - what has been the positive contribution of unionism to the peace process? What particular initiative have they shown? or indeed have they ever shown initiative? So far they have only ever moved to block -reacting to ewhatever is going on but never being positively pro-active

"Unionists feel as though the peace process has been of no practical benefit to them as a community, that it has been an entirely one-way street in favour of Sinn Fein."

I'm a unionist and I certainly don't feel that way. The peace process has delivered:

1. Unprecedented inward foreign inward investment (creating 31,000 jobs since 1998)

2. A boost for the tourism sector (four-fold increase in visitors)

3. The ending of the IRA as an armed force

4. The ending of the Republic's constitutional claim to Northern Ireland

5. The tacit acceptance of partition by nationalists and republicans

6. A monumental drop in the number of sectarian murders

7. The return to NI of around 20,000 ex-pats who had left (not OTRs!)

8. A vastly improved and stable relationship between the UK and Ireland.

9. Exports doubled.

10. Drop in unemployment from 17% to 5%

I would certainly not suggest that prisoner releases were welcome, or that the outside-the-agreement return of OTRs is welcome. But neither am I naive enough to believe that a peace process was ever going to be a bed of roses for everyone.

Many unionists accept that some of what are termed "concessions" (limiting Union flag flying) are simply moves toward recognition of two traditions. Equality measures are far too often misrepresented as "one-way streets". Very many unionists are sophisticated enough to realise that.

The greatest failure of unionism has been in its leadership, especially that of the DUP, which seems fixated with spinning a negative line to its own voters.

None of this, by the way, is intended to suggest who are the bad guys or the good guys. I'm not interested in that nonsense, nor in winning the game, rather than the debate. I'm simply giving my opinion in an attempt to contextualise the peace process as regards unionism. Perhaps I'm in a minority of unionists, but it is a voice that is barely, if ever heard.

With all due respect folks, slugging each other off makes you as ridiculous and useless as those you criticise.
About the 50/50 recruitment, I see it rather as a temporary measure until a more levelled status quo has been achieved and then the best qualified gets the job.
Gin Fizz is not making a frantic position if he points out that there are not enough recruits at the moment. And for the time being it seems that not just the IRA has a problem with confident building measures.

eranu
"would they be won over if loyalist decomissioning was done in the same way?"

I'd be quite satisfied if it was done in the same way. Your example however was NOT the same way. If the IICD & a catholic & protestant cleric (Paisley does not count for too-obvious-to-be-stated reasons) witnessed the act, as they have done with the IRA, then i'd be inclined to believe them and i'd be delighted that more weapons were taken out of the hands of terrorists/criminals.

circles

perhaps if the "peace" process was not so blatantly designed to hollow out the union then those who support that union could be, indeed should be, positive about it. As things stand I expect unionist politicians to do their level best to frustrate the nationalist agenda.

maca, ok replace same with similar. after all the IRA dictated how they would decommision so why not the loyalists? if the loyalists decided that only one protestant minister (big ian) would witness it then thats what people would have to accept. if nationalists wanted someone else then it would be tough. thats how unionist requests were handled by SF/IRA.
i was just trying to illustrate that it wasnt done very well to inspire the confidence that unionists had wanted.

dr snuggles, i totally agree with you. you are the voice of sanity ! :)

Pakman - r.e. hollowing out the union, see Dr Snuggles post.

and Dr S - thanks for the post :o)

Ginfizz, which part of "exclusively peaceful means" do you not understand?

"perhaps if the "peace" process was not so blatantly designed to hollow out the union then those who support that union could be, indeed should be, positive about it. As things stand I expect unionist politicians to do their level best to frustrate the nationalist agenda."

Pakman, if Nationalists have gotten more from this process it is only because they were - and remain - at a clear disadvantage in NI society. They are still only 15% of the PSNI - admittedly an improvement from 7% before the GFA - and studies continue to show they are twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants - in spite of the propaganda of the Loyalist terror groups to the contrary.

For years and years Unionist politicians both in the DUP and UUP ranted about "the principle of consent", despite the fact that Nationalists like me always felt that this was based on an artificial majority in 1920. In that context, I consider the enshrinement of the principle of consent i.e. that NI remains in the UK while a majority of its people want that, to be a significant concession by Nationalism, including the removal of the also much-criticised Articles 2 and 3. Northern Catholics made the concession of agreeing to Loyalist butchers being let out of prison also.

In that context, I think it is entirely fair to argue that the GFA is based on equality, rather than being "designed to hollow out the union then those who support that union could be". The GFA makes it clear that the Union can only end if a majority in NI vote for that, and polls show this is going to be a very long time, if ever. And it's called democracy anyway, and idea alien to certain people.

eranu
"replace same with similar"

No. Why would we do that? Selecting Paisley as a witness is not the same as selecting Father Alec Reid. If the IRA has asked Gerry Adams to be a witness then you would have a point. You can't explain your lack of confidence by comparing to a situation that didn't happen.

I agree it wasn't done well. But what's your problem with Fr.Reid or Rev.Good. Does that fact that they were chosen by the IRA make them liars?

Pakman i agree entirely but unionist should tell thruth they have and will at every step attempt to frustrate any attempts to bring about a united ireland. This is no problem but dont tell us that they need confidence built and these obstacles are put there for genunine reasons. Unionist do not want to share power and would be more than happy to have stormount of the sixties back. Thats gone and republicans will fight and battle every day to create a united ireland.

Dr.Snuggles..yours is the true voice of unionism.
I salute you.
J.Kelly
"Thats gone and republicans will fight and battle every day to create a united ireland."
By outwitting, out maneouvring, out smarting ,and out-flanking the DUP, and through force of arguement,and persuasion it will be achieved.
There ought not to be any republican worried that because the guns are gone, we've lost.

maca, i dont have a problem with fr. reid and rev good. i believe their word and integrity 100%, thats why i said "personally i accept that full (as full as it gets) decomissioning has happened." at the start of my post.
the point of throwing big ian in there was just to show that SF/IRA didnt give unionists a choice. if they had thrown them the bone of having someone they had nominated as a witness there probably would have been a better response.

SL
you a spot on but if unionist would admit to themselves and the rest of the world there actions and blocking is about defending the union they themselves might have a better chance of stopping a united ireland.

the picking of the witnesses is a smokescreen for the dup to hide behind. they are annoyed that once again republicans have out manourved tham and they need some cover.

Spirit Level - Pakman et al

I'm a unionist by choice but strangely (unlike so many posters to this thread) I am more concerned with the practical issues of life for myself and my kids than fears of a "hollowed out Union".

I personally believe that unless the Unionist parties find a new direction were every viewpoint and policy must first be filtered through a "does this strengthen or weaken the union" test, then they will remain an irrelevance to me and many other "natural unionist" voters. Frankly I care about the water and rates bills that are coming my way a damn sight more than I care about a stronger or weaker Union.

And personally, I hold the lack of Unionist leadership (which must now unfortunately be acknowledged as resting with the DUP) for the fact that we don't have locally elected Minister's and MLAs working to oppose such policies.

The growing apathy of people like myself with a frankly, 19th century view of life, the world and those Anti-christ worshipping papists South of the border, will inevitably mean a declining Unionist vote with the DUP wrapping itself more, desperately in the Union Jack as their vote also marginalises into hardline working class areas.

I think that given enough time and "Peace" the nationalist vote may well fragment too as they begin to look at issues rather than always reaching for their own "green tinted glasses". But UI is a clear aspiration and I don't see it losing out to the same degree.

Regardless - Unionism, - God Save the Queen, Sashes & Bowler hats, 11th Night bonfires and all that - is currently bankrupt and has no relevence to my daily life or aspirations - That is the challenge for Unionism to address if it wants to have a future.

Baldrick

PS - and no I didn't vote Alliance last time - I just didn't vote!

It would now seem that the DUP have decided that the "other IRAs" must also decommission before they are prepared to talk about going into Government with Sinn Fein, even though Sinn Fein have no connection or influence with these "other IRAs".

First we heard Mrs Dodds telling us all that we had to simply accept that Unionist terrorists are part and parcel of the Unionist community and it didn't matter if they decommissioned or not. Yesterday we had her husband Nigel telling us all that it doesn't matter if the Unionist terrorists keep their guns as they will not be in government. Yet at the same time the DUP has and will continue to put the unionist terrorist frontmen into local Government positions i.e. Lord Mayor of Belfast and other Cities and towns in the North.

The DUP can't have it both ways, they can't vote unionist terrorist front men into positions of power and then try to tell the world they are Democrats and at the same time refuse to share power with Sinn Fein now the PIRA have stood down. Sinn Fein have the vote of the Nationalist people, a vote which will grow stronger and can not be ingored forever

Is it just me who thinks Peter Robinson is just waiting for the demise of Paisley?

Baldrick
With your views on how unionism and how it manifests itself has no relevance to your life it strikes me that you are the sort of unionist that nationalist and republicans need to engage with to try and persuade that a united ireland is not just a nationalism/identity issue. A united ireland would imo benefit everyone who lives on this island and especially those of us who live in the north and that includes the so-called border counties. Economically it cannot be refuted that for a population of just over 4.5 million two of everthing is value for money.

A united ireland would have the ability to attract outside investment without the obstacle of different currencies, a different tax system and the list goes on and on.

Should decision on the way forward be based on the how the benefit everyone not on how the impact on the union.

Baldrick time to come up with a cunning plan!

Economically it cannot be refuted that for a population of just over 4.5 million two of everthing is NOT value for money.

seems to me a general consenus is emerging. DUP are offering smokescreens and mirrors as J kelly suggests, its not what ordinary unionists want like baldrick; and pat recognises that they can't have it both ways.
DUP are bluffing, but we've let them get away with it.. soon we gonna have to call that bluff once and for all.

spoon it will need to be good to beat the adams cunning plan

baldrick

with constitutional certainty proper politics will develop along right left lines which will challenge the economic illiterates of the provisional movement more than anyone else. As for your daily life the currency you earn, the interest rates on your savings and mortgage, the taxes you pay to name but few are all contingent on the Union. Perhaps you should think a little more before you opt out of the next election.

What is the problem here?

This is obviously the better deal that the DUP said that they would negotiate way back during the last assembly elections.

I'm waiting to hear whether it was their huff or their bluff that got called.

If it was a mistake for the main Unionists parties to focus so much on weapons is it a mistake for the nationalist consensus to do so now as well?

Might it be be a good time for Gerry Adams/Mark Durcan/The ROI government to make some joint announcement that though Unionist arms caches need to be accounted for and removed from circulation eventually, there has been enough delay in the peace process.

Would that gesture of trust help Unionism or will it simply allow the internal feuding to continue until guns are turned on Taigs again?

The truth is that ANY peace process was necessarily going to be at unionists expense since any settlement would be primarily concerned with righting historical wrongs and the generational effects of discrimination and the lack of social justice. Pre-'94 ceasefire was as good as it got for unionism, hence Molyneaux's 'destabilising' comment. The IRA campaign was the fig leaf which unionist parties could hide behind, plus it had the added beauty of absolving them of any blame for the sectarian policies of the old Stormont parliament which led to the conflict in the first place.

Unionists have resisted change since 1969, firstly because their opponents were fenians, then because they were fenians with guns, and now it seems we're back to the original reason. So in a way it is 1969 all over again but this time with the realisation that the Northern Ireland state will be fundamentally changed. And therein lies the crux: can the NI state handle equality? If you're a Protestant reared on tales of how the state belongs to you, what's the point in having a state where equality and social justice are the order of the day?

Moderate and progressive unionists genuinely believe in equality for all within the UK, but they're outnumbered by hardliners who see concessions to catholics under every stone and the bit by bit dismantling of the NI state. What their argument boils down to is what's the point in having this state if it isn't discriminatory towards Protestants? Or to paraphrase Gene Hackman in Mississippi Burning when telling a story about his dad, 'if you aren't better than a catholic who are you better than?'

Millie, It' interesting that you mention "Mississippi Burning" and I think that you've hit on a cultural nugget. In the South pre civil rights, no matter how poor a white you were, you took comfort in that you weren't black. No matter how poor or uneducated, ie "white trash", a black man still had to step off the side walk into the gutter when you passed by. Is there something of this in NI? I'm not teeing up any argument, I realy don't know. It's interesting Dr Snuggles (who really is a gem) brings up cutting down flying the Union Jack. Same dynamic here flying Confederate Flag in the past. Before anyone thinks I'm comparing NI to Mississippi in 1964, don't get yer shorts in a wad, b/c I'm not, but I do see interesting correlations.

I dont think there would be too many complaints if the General decommissioned Big Ian - peace would be a whole lot closer if his guns were silenced.

I dont think there would be too many complaints if the General decommissioned Big Ian - peace would be a whole lot closer if he was embedded in blue circle!

Can I ask those "soft unionists" for whom the usual unionist trappings are unimportant, if they really feel that the current unionist parties actually serve their interests?

What is it that stops you from voting the SDLP? What would it take to start?

Not really Ch, most of NI is pasty, pasty white and apart from tatoos, badges and sashes it would not be immediately apparent what religious backround you came from.

Of course NI is a small place and everyone in an area knew everyone else so the prejudice was applied in employment terms and in every interaction with government authority (housing for instance).

I suppose the most obvious signs of the division were that local services, amenties and institutions were better funded in Protestant areas (the location of the newish University of Ulster in Coleraine rather than Derry was a particular sore point in its day) and that there was a a great deal of gerrymandering in northern electoral constituencies. As a Texan you should be familliar with that thanks to Tom "Untoucable" DeLay's "reforms" of the texas senate district boundaries. What a guy.

Millie

"If you're a Protestant reared on tales of how the state belongs to you, what's the point in having a state where equality and social justice are the order of the day?"

Oh yes I remeber manies a night on my mothers knee being told Ulster belonged to me and no matter how poor I was, I would always be superior to my Catholic fellow countrymen. What a f**king ridiculous thing to say. Maybe you were taught the history of Northern Ireland by a NORAID representative I dont know, but I can assure you I know of not one single Unionist who displays the mentality which you describe.

Listen up folks. You are not black South Africans, this is not South Africa/the American South and Unionists are not Afrikaans/Dixie Racists!

Just reading through the thread for the first time - top man Dr Snuggles - I so so wish we had a unionist leadership that spoke your kind of language.

Yoda - not sure I like to be called "soft" but I know what you mean. For many years I have felt totally unrepresented by all shades of Unionisim. Voting SDLP is an alternative worthy of serious consideration but I have resisted because (although they are extremely nice !) they are, at the end of the day, Irish Nationalists and I am not.

I dream that one day a social democratic unionist emerges who has no links with the "traditional" aspects of unionism and, instead, takes inspiration from the pluralist dynamic and tolerant society that is modern day Great Britain and who has a positive attitude to all things Irish.

"What is it that stops you from voting the SDLP? What would it take to start?"

As a moderate, left-leaning prod with no real emotional attachment to the union, orangeism etc, I would be happy to vote SDLP if it wasn't for one essential thing: they are a catholic nationalist party who are out to advance the interests of their own community and have nothing to say to mine. This isn't a "themens are getting everything" argument. I'd love to vote for a genuinely cross-community, social democratic party, but at the moment the SDLP ain't one. I'd just be changing sides.

Note the same people who say the IRA have completed decommissioning are the same people who said they were behind the NIB robbery. So riddle me this - why are they only right when they have something bad to say about the IRA?

G-man and Patrick:

Thank you both for your contributions. Apologies if my poor wording of "soft" was a problem. Both of you seem to draw the line at what you see as the SDLP's attachment to "Irish nationalism."

If "Irish nationalism" could be expanded or reworked, is there anything that you would like to see included in that redefinition that would make it possible for you to say that a party like the SDLP could represent you?

Is there any ground for hoping for such a possibility at all?

It makes me angry to hear the Reverend Dr. Bigot bleat on about transparency and the danger the PIRA poses to the wider unionist community when people in Papa Docs own constituency, who would once see that organisation as their protectors, are still being attacked for being catholics. Isn't it about time the man showed some shred of Christian decency and allowed the full implementation of peace ?

The only guns remaining in Irish politics are unionist/loyalist, many of which were brought to Ireland by Paisleys own Ulster Resistence.

Whilst that man lives and breathes the cup of Ulster will remain half full.

It's not the SDLP's "nationalism" as such that I have a problem with. I regard myself as Irish - there are two states in Ireland, and both of them are, geographically at least, Irish - and would have no problem with a united Ireland if that's what people voted for.

My problem is one I regularly struggle to make myself understood about. The SDLP is, historically, a party that exists to advocate the interests of the catholic/nationalist community, and fair enough, the catholic/nationalist community has needed an advocate and John Hume, in particular, did the job very well. However as an advocate for the catholic/nationalist community it necessarily doesn't speak for or to the protestant/unionist community.

I want to vote for a party that will advocate the interests of my community, in terms of employment, education, taxes, health, housing and so on, which none of the unionist parties have the slightest interest in doing. I would dearly love to vote for a party that advocates the interests of both communities in those areas, but if I were to vote SDLP I would be voting for a party which advocates the interests of the "other" community and not mine, which would, as I have said, be changing sides.

Not to say I haven't thought about it, and indeed done it - I voted for Hume in several European elections, partly because I admire the man, and partly in a vain attempt to get Paisley off the top of the poll. I even enquired about joining the SDLP at one point, but I couldn't get past the "don't speak to or for protestants" thing.

I have no idea whether I've expressed myself any clearer, but I'm trying.

Loyalists don't need to worry about SF/IRA. It's the people who live in Republican areas who need to worry about SF/IRA isn't it?

Thanks, Patrick.

I once had a coffee with Jack Hermon some years after he retired but well before his present illness, he told the story of how he had stopped meeting Paisley in his office, the reason was that the Doc would leave a meeting with Hermon and at his own front gates miss-quote him, ever since then I have taken Paisley's version of events with a pinch of salt!

Is that the same Jack Herman who ran the shoot to kill gangs.
Of the RUC.

Just curious.

pol,

Jack Hermon didn't run the shoot to kill gangs in the RUC - one of his Assistant Chief Constables did. Eventually it will emerge which one it was.

Did Jack Hermon not run the RUC.

If you agree, well how can you say he didn't run the shoot to kill gangs within that organisation.

Where does the buck stop.

pol,

While I agree Hermon is certainly responsible for the actions of his officers that doesn't mean he actively participated in the running of the gangs.

After the Anglo-Irish agreement came into effect civil servants in the north were in regular contact with civil servants in the south. Once that happened a tremendous amount of information began to flow out of NI (I'm not talking classified or sensitive material - things like institutionalised discrimination in NIs civil service etc). One of the things the Irish govt found out was that one of the RUCs ACCs was up to his neck in collusion. They could never find out who it was (or at least never revealed they knew) but that is why the British govt would not promote any of the RUC ACCs to the position of CC.

Interesting stuff !

Any links to any stories regarding this.

Perhaps Paisley's doubts about de Chastelain are the result of a dodgy family-tree connection, i.e. maybe the Doc's done some research and discovered the disturbing fact that the good General has Irish Catholic blood in him. Ridiculous? Probably, but I remember John Stalker's book about his investigations into the early 80's shoot-to-kill, and he said when he met John Hermon for the first time, the Chief Constable more or less hinted that they'd run a 'credit check' on him, so to speak, and found that Stalker had a great-great-great grandmother (or something like that) of Irish Catholic extraction. Anyway, Hermon's point was that Stalker's lineage may have made him susceptible to Irish nationalist sympathies and that this should in no way cloud his objectivity into the investigation. Stalker thought this was an extremely bizarre point to make but reassured the CC that his investigation would be conducted in an impartial manner.

Yoda

Sorry for the delay - watching Bob Dylan on the box.

I have mulled over the SDLP option for some years. I too am a long standing admirer of John Hume although it is a shame that his successor is unable to offer the same clarity of vision and leadership. I was/am impressed by SDLP's concept of a UI which, as I understand it, proposes that NI would initially remain a self governing region of a UI and that Irish Brits could retain rights to British nationality etc. This seems an honest and constructive attempt to reach out to the Brit population in NI. I certainly wouldn't rule out voting SDLP in the future.

That said, I remain unconvinced that a UI is necessarily a better answer - having lived all my life in the UK (including several years in GB) it just seems more "familiar".

Also, I know it's becoming a cliche but I really do think that Sinn Fein have put back the cause of a UI - ordinary punters just can't stand the thought that they might get what they want.

Robert Keogh

I'm not talking about collusion.
I was referring to the shoot to kill policy that was carried out by members of the RUC.
The same RUC that Hermon controlled.
To say he was not involved, or even that he new nothing about what was going on is a little bit dis ingenious.

To G man and Patrick. As a left leaning 'prod' myself, who doesn't live in NI any more, but who has lots of family still there, I appreciate your dilema in terms of who to possibly vote for. I assume you have never considered the Greens? When thinking about this I do think that Irish nationalism has failed in a sense if it doesn't represent or potentially represent all the people of NI. But then it's not the responsibility of Irish nationalists if political unionism has always adopted more right wing positions on broader social issues that its voter base would typically support if they lived in a more 'normal' political entity. This is also the legacy of British rule in Ireland.

Patrick, G-man and micktvd,

Very interesting replies. Eye opening. Thanks.

Anyone else?

pol,

I'm not talking about collusion.

You are entirely correct. The shoot to kill policy is distinct from the collusion between security services and loyalism later but I am persuaded by the terminology Cory used when formulating his reports. Google up the Finucane report for details. In essence the shoot to kill is just one step in the road from Kitson to Nelson. Collusion seems the best term to cover the lot of it.

I was referring to the shoot to kill policy that was carried out by members of the RUC.
The same RUC that Hermon controlled.
To say he was not involved, or even that he new nothing about what was going on is a little bit dis ingenious.

I agree with you and I'm not trying to say he didn't know what was going on. The truth is in the Stalker, Samson and Stephens I, II and III reports which will be released some time this side of never. My memory could probably be refreshed but as I recall the shoot to kills were down to the Inner Force which permeated the RUC. The govts knew that it went as high as one of the ACCs. Hermon didn't need to be part of the conspiracy for it to succeed. If I'm wrong I'm always happy to be corrected.

G-man
"ordinary punters just can't stand the thought that they might get what they want."

But they won't get what they want. They might get a UI but not the type of UI that they want.

"Very interesting replies. Eye opening. Thanks.

Anyone else?"

I think that many people have been confounded by the question of who to vote for. I believe that the Labour Party should organise here. It is our only opportunity of seeing a cross-community Party arise that has no baggage. We need to see the Labour Parties in the UK and the Republic agree to joint membership in NI and support its development.

The issue of partition is something that can be dealt with at a referendum. We need to deal with inward investment, education, health, poverty and equality issues on a sustained basis. We need to bring together progressive people and the trade unions to work together. We should not be dividing people up into green and orange.

The main obstacle to organisation is the SDLP. We have just read why the SDLP cannot act as a Social Democratic Party because it is a self proclaimed nationalist party. It cannot hope to represent all of the people. Yet it clings to its membership of the Socialist International and the PES for a credibility it does not deserve.

It is interesting, too, that at the Labour Party Conference this week the SDLP are holding a fringe meeting on a UI, while local Labour members are holding one on integrating migrant workers. Let's keep it real.

"It is our only opportunity of seeing a cross-community Party arise that has no baggage. We need to see the Labour Parties in the UK and the Republic agree to joint membership in NI and support its development.
"

Really? What about the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats, which I understand stand in NI elections? Anyway Labour and the SDLP are sister parties, explaining why Labour doesn't stand in NI.

" was/am impressed by SDLP's concept of a UI which, as I understand it, proposes that NI would initially remain a self governing region of a UI and that Irish Brits could retain rights to British nationality etc. This seems an honest and constructive attempt to reach out to the Brit population in NI. I certainly wouldn't rule out voting SDLP in the future. "

I could accept this (while preferring a unitary-state), but if it happened I would like it if the border of the autonomous Northern zone was changed so most of the Nationalist areas would come under direct-rule.