# Presidents UK state visit



## cremeegg (9 Apr 2014)

While I am not entirely comfortable with this state visit.  Too many feathers for my taste! 

I do think that we could not have a better representative than Michael D.

Not just from the candidates at the last election, but out the entire population of Irish public life, I do not think there is anyone better to represent Ireland


----------



## blueband (9 Apr 2014)

what about david Norris! ;-)


----------



## Purple (9 Apr 2014)

blueband said:


> what about david Norris! ;-)



Birds of a feather...


----------



## DB74 (9 Apr 2014)

SLAM - there's the sound of Brendan closing this thread


----------



## RainyDay (11 Apr 2014)

Michael D is a good president, but the breathy, hagiographic coverage by RTE has been more than a little over the top. I switched off when they tried to detail the intense importance of the President's 5 second pause at the monument to Mountbatten.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Apr 2014)

That picture of the Q smiling up at and shaking warmly the hands of the man who would have acclaimed the murder of her uncle was to me the most sickening sight of this whole peace process.


----------



## blueband (14 Apr 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That picture of the Q smiling up at and shaking warmly the hands of the man who would have acclaimed the murder of her uncle was to me the most sickening sight of this whole peace process.


 well in fairness he had to smile and warmly shake her hand too, cant have been easy for either of them but that's what has to be done in a peace process, enemies shake hands and try to put the past behind them.


----------



## cork (14 Apr 2014)

The murder of an old man (Mountbatten) was no-way political buta cowardly act terrorism that also killed the young lad on the boat.


----------



## Gerry Canning (15 Apr 2014)

Cork. 

I agree with you that the Killings at Mullaghmore were nothing but murder.
Duke. 
May be sickening , but Mr Mc Guinness actuallly believes that the 2000+ deaths were a sad but acceptable outcome to get us to this day? Go figure?
I find it strange that it took 30 years and 2000+ deaths to get Sinn Fein to sign up in the Agreement to accept Partition? Go figure?
Rainy Day. 
I suppose it was a wee bit over the top, but had you lived in N Ire in 70,s 80,s 90,s To now see this visit , is monumental.
It is easy now to wonder what all the fuss is about , but God we do not want to revisit a return to the murder/mayhem/mutilations of that era.
I see the visit as the natural acknowledgment of the  friendship of 2 familys that were torn by infighting, fuelled by a cancerous hatred, engendered by dogmatic positions .


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Apr 2014)

GC

It is interesting to speculate that if RTE/Pat Kenny/Miriam had chosen McGuinness as our president instead of Michael D would this visit have happened?

I don't think so and not because McG would veto it but surely it would be too much to ask that the Q should actually fete someone so stained in the murder of her own uncle.


----------



## Gerry Canning (15 Apr 2014)

Dear Duke , 

She probably would have , 
Remember she is the mouthpiece of a Government that eventually accepted that Bloody Sunday in Derry was plain murder,and by inference Bloody Sunday was a huge catylst and a justification 
for the ongoing sadness of the {troubles}
That same UK government let Queen acknowledge in her visit the Easter Rising.
The Plain People of Ireland clearly decided that {the war} is long over.
The citizens of UK knew the Irish to be their friends.

After so so many years we have come to a happy cknowledgment of our positions.

We still have a few backwoodsmen in Real IRA etc that are still poisioned but hopefully they will stop.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Apr 2014)

My dearest GC,

Your take that what happened that Sunday in Londonderry was a "catalyst" for the next 25 years of IRA terror is an interesting one.

But let gets the facts clear. BS was a defining moment for sure. It led the British Government to realise that the old Stormont set up was beyond redemption. Within about a year they imposed the fair solution we now know, power sharing executive, Council of Ireland etc. But there was a problem, the Catholics of NI rejected Grisly, Martie and their mates at the ballot box. The solution was a real threat to their continued relevance and so they accelerated the campaign forcing the collapse of the power sharing government and sustained the campaign for another 2,000 deaths until one day they noticed that they were doing rather well at the polls and they said to themselves "we'll have that Sunningdale deal after all".

I am sure glad that RTE chose our presie for left to the people we may just indeed have the appalling scenario of a terrorist representing us on the world stage.


----------



## Purple (15 Apr 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> My dearest GC,
> 
> Your take that what happened that Sunday in Londonderry was a "catalyst" for the next 25 years of IRA terror is an interesting one.
> 
> ...


It is unfair, it say the least, to ignore the Unionist opposition to Sunningdale. 
The day after the agreement was announced the UDA and UVF formed the Ulster Army Council. Faulkner resigned as leader in early 1974, to be replaced by an anti-agreement Unionist (whose name escapes me) and a general strike was  called by the Unionists in May. The United Ulster Unionist Council (the umbrella group for anti-agreement Unionists) said that the result of the 1974 general election (in which only one pro-agreement MP was elected) was a democratic rejection of the agreement, which it was. They then stated that they would bring down the Sunningdale Executive and Assembly by any means necessary. 
It is fair to say that Unionist opposition to the agreement was much stronger and more widespread than Nationalist opposition and was the major factor in the collapse of the agreement.


----------



## Purple (15 Apr 2014)

It's also worth noting that the Executive powers of the Council of Ireland  under Sunningdale were limited to Tourism and little else.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Apr 2014)

Purple, that is the conventional narrative I agree. I see it differently. As a Catholic living in West Belfast I couldn't believe we were getting equal citizenship in my lifetime. But this was not what the IRA were fighting for, they wanted the total destruction of the northern state.  This was an absolutely intolerable situation for the majority population. If the IRA had declared a ceasefire having far surpassed the aims of the civil rights movement we would have saved 2000 lives and we would have a NI today much more at ease with itself.


----------



## Latrade (16 Apr 2014)

There's a scene in Futurama where Cubert Farnsworth has the epitheny that the Pizza Express space ship doesn't travel through space, it stays stationary and moves space around it. 

It struck me as an odd concept being stuck stationary as the entire Universe shifts around you. Then you see opinions on politics and especially the North and it all makes sense.


----------



## Purple (16 Apr 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Purple, that is the conventional narrative I agree. I see it differently. As a Catholic living in West Belfast I couldn't believe we were getting equal citizenship in my lifetime. But this was not what the IRA were fighting for, they wanted the total destruction of the northern state.  This was an absolutely intolerable situation for the majority population. If the IRA had declared a ceasefire having far surpassed the aims of the civil rights movement we would have saved 2000 lives and we would have a NI today much more at ease with itself.



Sunningdale  was gone by May 1974. Who knows what the IRA would have done, or what their political and popular support would have been, if the Unionists had engaged positively with Sunningdale (as the SDPL did). The "conflict" could, and most probably would, have been over far sooner.

The IRA gained support from the perception, based mainly on reality, that Northern Ireland was run for the benefit of the Protestant majority.
When that reality changed between the mid 80's and early 90's the possibility of peace increased dramatically.
Injustice and inequality in Northern Ireland now is due to a legacy of that tribalism, not the current laws or governance.


----------



## cremeegg (16 Apr 2014)

Sorry guys but tragic as the history of Northern Ireland is, it is not the only issue in the relationship between England and Ireland.

The predominant theme has been England's use of its greater resources to control and exploit Ireland.

Michael D was the prefect person to put this in its proper perspective. His reference to his father's role in the war of independence seemed note perfect to me.

It would have been much more difficult for Martin McGuinness to address the issue successfully although I think he would have tried to do so.

As for David Norris well I simply cannot imagine how he would have dealt with the history of Irish English relations. Thanked them for bringing us cucumber sandwiches perhaps.

Sean Gallagher ? Dana? 

I think we are lucky to have had Michael D.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Apr 2014)

cremeegg said:


> Dana?


Dana would have thanked them for all kinds of everything

_Purple_,  War and Peace in NI has for the last 50 years at least been at the behest of extreme republicans.  Loyalist violence was a reaction.  British security policy was a reaction.  The hunger strikes propelled the IRA onto the electoral radar.  It was not improving conditions for Catholics in the 80s and 90s that coaxed them to end the war it was that the ballot box started to look more attractive to them personally than the bullet.


----------



## RainyDay (16 Apr 2014)

cremeegg said:


> As for David Norris well I simply cannot imagine how he would have dealt with the history of Irish English relations. Thanked them for bringing us cucumber sandwiches perhaps.


Brilliant.


----------



## Purple (28 Apr 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_,  War and Peace in NI has for the last 50 years at least been at the behest of extreme republicans.  Loyalist violence was a reaction.  British security policy was a reaction.  The hunger strikes propelled the IRA onto the electoral radar.  It was not improving conditions for Catholics in the 80s and 90s that coaxed them to end the war it was that the ballot box started to look more attractive to them personally than the bullet.



I have no first hand experience of dealing with the IRA or their splinter groups(just more criminal gangs) or living in Northern Ireland while they murdered and intimidated people of all persuasions so I'll bow to your opinions on that.

I do find the West-Brit preening and lick-spittle fawning by many of our leaders sickening. I have nothing against the UK; I visit there for work and holidays regularly and think it's a great country but I'm Irish. I am proud that I live in a republic and I don't want to forget or ignore our history or see it morphed into a revisionist view where we are really part of the greater British family, wayward children seeking to reconcile with our parents.


----------



## bullbars (29 Apr 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> War and Peace in NI has for the last 50 years at least been at the behest of extreme republicans.  Loyalist violence was a reaction.  British security policy was a reaction.  The hunger strikes propelled the IRA onto the electoral radar.  It was not improving conditions for Catholics in the 80s and 90s that coaxed them to end the war it was that the ballot box started to look more attractive to them personally than the bullet.



This is just plain wrong. Don't try to portray your personal take on history as fact. You've spouted this deluded and bigoted view before and it's still as disgusting as ever.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Apr 2014)

bullbars said:


> This is just plain wrong. Don't try to portray your personal take on history as fact. You've spouted this deluded and bigoted view before and it's still as disgusting as ever.


Now you know what happens Garda Commissioners when they use language like that. 

Which bit is "disgusting"? Do you remember the 90's peace process. It was all about - "will the IRA really stop the war?". This was not a two sided thing - people weren't asking "but will the British give up the war?". They were not even asking "will the Loyalists stop?". That was despite the fact that in terms of body count the Loyalists were up there with the IRA. The Loyalists were almost an irrelevance - if the IRA stopped everybody would stop. And so it came to pass.

Or do you take issue with my assertion that the U-turn by Republicans since Sunningdale was in response to their new found electoral standing? Maybe that wasn't the whole reason, maybe it had finally dawned on them that the campaign was going nowhere - Basque ETA style. 

What cannot be disputed is that the GF settlement was available from 1974 if only the IRA had seized it. 25 years of this war are assuredly the responsibility of the IRA and gained Catholics not one jot.


----------



## RainyDay (29 Apr 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> War and Peace in NI has for the last 50 years at least been at the behest of extreme republicans.  Loyalist violence was a reaction.  British security policy was a reaction.


So Bloody Sunday was a reaction to what, specifically? And interment, what was that a reaction to?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Apr 2014)

RainyDay said:


> So Bloody Sunday was a reaction to what, specifically? And interment, what was that a reaction to?


Look the descent of NI into bloody violence in 1969 was essentially a Catholic uprising. Before everybody screams - I have a certain sympathy for that uprising. My point is that there can be no sympathy for the continuation of that uprising post 1974. 

The 1998 settlement, which everybody acclaims as the righting of all Catholic grievances, was available in 1974. The IRA spurned it. These are the facts. What might be in dispute is what changed their minds - for it sure wasn't any noticeable improvement in the settlement.


----------



## Delboy (29 Apr 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Look the descent of NI into bloody violence in 1969 was essentially a Catholic uprising. Before everybody screams - I have a certain sympathy for that uprising. My point is that there can be no sympathy for the continuation of that uprising post 1974.
> 
> The 1998 settlement, which everybody acclaims as the righting of all Catholic grievances, was available in 1974. The IRA spurned it. These are the facts. What might be in dispute is what changed their minds - for it sure wasn't any noticeable improvement in the settlement.



'a certain sympathy'...how quaint. It's very clear where your 'sympathies' sit


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Apr 2014)

Delboy said:


> 'a certain sympathy'...how quaint. It's very clear where your 'sympathies' sit


That hurt


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Look the descent of NI into bloody violence in 1969 was essentially a Catholic uprising. Before everybody screams - I have a certain sympathy for that uprising. My point is that there can be no sympathy for the continuation of that uprising post 1974.
> 
> The 1998 settlement, which everybody acclaims as the righting of all Catholic grievances, was available in 1974. The IRA spurned it. These are the facts. What might be in dispute is what changed their minds - for it sure wasn't any noticeable improvement in the settlement.



You simply cannot ignore the reaction of the Unionists to Sunningdale. Their opposition was vociferous and all encompassing. It was they that brought it down, not Republicans or the IRA. 
Pre-Sunningdale Unionist rule was the Northern Ireland  equivalent of Apartheid; unequal representation, unequal economic opportunity, unequal access to justice. There was a sectarian police force and judiciary, a sectarian government and sectarian access state services.


----------



## Sunny (29 Apr 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Look the descent of NI into bloody violence in 1969 was essentially a Catholic uprising. Before everybody screams - I have a certain sympathy for that uprising. My point is that there can be no sympathy for the continuation of that uprising post 1974.
> 
> The 1998 settlement, which everybody acclaims as the righting of all Catholic grievances, was available in 1974. The IRA spurned it. These are the facts. What might be in dispute is what changed their minds - for it sure wasn't any noticeable improvement in the settlement.



Who claims the 1998 Agreement was the righting of all Catholic grievances? I have never heard it described as such. 

The climate for the 1998 Agreement was completely different to the climate in 1974. As mentioned elsewhere, Unionist opposition was even stronger to the Sunningdale Agreement with an open rebellion against the Unionist Leadership leading to formation of the new Unionist Party and Worker Protests in support of bringing it down. The Dublin and Monaghan bombings were also carried out in opposition to the Agreement so I am not sure how you can simply blame the Republicans for the failure of the Agreement.

Of course it was a lost opportunity and there were countless lives destroyed by the subsequent 20 years of violence and nobody can defend the IRA's actions over that period but the simple fact is that no-one in Northern Ireland was ready for peace in the 1970's and even the 1980's. The republican and loyalist scum still enjoyed huge public support within their communities and there was very little cross community work in place to ensure the success of something like the Sunningdale Agreement. There is also the small fact that there is no way the Irish people would have changed Articles 2 & 3 of the Constitution in the 1970's.  Sunningdale was a good Agreement at the wrong time.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2014)

Good post Sunny. Unfortunately Northern Ireland remains a sectarian state-let and while children are educated in parallel sectarian school systems that won't change. The main, but not only, culprit for that situation is the Catholic Church. They strongly oppose Catholic children going to anything other than Catholic schools. Kids who play together from early childhood are less likely to kill each other when they get older.

I hate Nationalism and jingoism, flag waving and patriotism, Monarchy and misty-eyed history, and all the crap that goes with it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Apr 2014)

_Sunny_, I agree that was a good post. I agree with most of it. I was being tongue in cheek on the merits of GF, slagging off the hypocrisy of the IRA who claim it as a wonderful achievement brought about by their obscenely extended "war".

As I have explained to _Purple_ before, his narrative on the blame for bringing down Sunningdale is the orthodox one. Having been there on the ground (and I am not claiming any superiority in the debate on that count) and as someone who thrilled at the civil rights movement etc. and was equally thrilled that the Brits imposed Sunningdale, I was disgusted (Callinan style) that the IRA, backed by the Haughey "copperfasten partition" cabal, in Dublin were determined to destroy it.


----------



## bullbars (9 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> What cannot be disputed is that the GF settlement was available from 1974 if only the IRA had seized it.



The Unionist/ British governments could have given people equal rights from the outset, instilled a fair and open police force and faced the fact that gerrymandered elections weren't ethical, but then again, you'd think those oppressed would just accept it and take their place in the system. One can be quite bothered when the peasants wish to better themselves.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> That picture of the Q smiling up at and shaking warmly the hands of the man who would have acclaimed the murder of her uncle was to me the most sickening sight of this whole peace process.


Or as the reigning monarch, she realises that thousands have suffered worse than her and that personal bitterness has no place in reconciling past wrongs. A concept you seem determined to ignore along with the realities and well documented facts ad infinitum.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 May 2014)

bullbars said:


> The Unionist/ British governments could have given people equal rights from the outset, instilled a fair and open police force and faced the fact that gerrymandered elections weren't ethical, but then again, you'd think those oppressed would just accept it and take their place in the system. One can be quite bothered when the peasants wish to better themselves.


Haughey, Blaney, Boland et al couldn't give a toss about the "oppressed people" in the six counties. Indeed when they saw the potential for a real political breakthrough by Garret Fitzgerald they rejected it outright as "copperfastening" partition. 

Come to think of it, I don't really blame Gerry and Marty for their rejection of a fair settlement in 1974. But I do blame Haughey and his cohorts who had armed and nurtured the Provos and who were extremely keen that their frankenstein would continue to thrive.

So I include an additional twist to my narrative as to why the Provos changed their minds 25 years and 2,000 lives later. It was not just because their electoral star was in the ascendant but also because their sponsors in Dublin had lost their ascendancy.


----------



## Marion (9 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> GC
> 
> It is interesting to speculate that if RTE/Pat Kenny/Miriam had chosen McGuinness as our president instead of Michael D would this visit have happened?
> 
> ...


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 May 2014)

*Why was essentially the same settlement acceptable to the IRA 25 years and 2,000 lives after it had been firmly rejected by them?*


As someone truistically commented, "because the time wasn't right". But why was the time not right then but was right 25 years later?

1. I have already alluded to the fact that IRA/Sinn Fein were in the electoral wilderness back in 1974 so a political settlement threatened to freeze them out. But there was more to it. The "uprising" had been successful beyond nationalist dreams. There was euphoria in West Belfast evidenced by "Tocaigh ar La" slogans blazoned on gable walls. There was a feeling that one final push and the Brits would throw in the towel. Even Paul McCartney sung "give Ireland back to the Irish". The civil rights movement of 1969 had been long replaced by the 50 year elephant in the room - the national question. Paisley shouted that "NI was on the window ledge of the union". The IRA thought they could get more and Paisley believed them, not without cause.  The IRA's sponsors in Dublin also believed this. It was not the right time.

That explains why 1974 was not the right time. Why was 25 years later the right time for the same thing?

2. IRA/Sinn Fein were now a significant electoral force thanks mainly to the hunger strike. The Ballot box/Bullet dynamic had changed dramatically so far as the IRA were concerned.

3. War weariness. The euphoria of 1974 had given way to a realisation that the Brits were not going to cave in to the next push. The Brits themselves talked about an "acceptable level of violence" in NI.

4. The Dublin sponsors of the Provos had lost ascendancy. The Provos were on their own.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 May 2014)

Marion said:


> Duke of Marmalade said:
> 
> 
> > GC
> ...


----------



## Marion (9 May 2014)

SG had no chance of winning. The Bookies do not always get it right! 

I don't know any person who would have voted for him. 

I certainly did not vote for the presidency based on an RTE presentation.

You give too much credence to a couple of celebrity journalists.

Marion

BTW: I am not a labour supporter per se.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 May 2014)

Marion said:


> SG had no chance of winning. The Bookies do not always get it right!
> 
> I don't know any person who would have voted for him.
> 
> ...


Marion,  I think most people believe that the Frontline programme had a decisive influence.  That doesn't necessarily mean that RTE deliberately manipulated the result.  But your belief that the people are totally uninfluenced by TV coverage would not be shared by the candidates themselves.


----------



## bullbars (11 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Haughey, Blaney, Boland et al couldn't give a toss about the "oppressed people" in the six counties. Indeed when they saw the potential for a real political breakthrough by Garret Fitzgerald they rejected it outright as "copperfastening" partition.
> 
> Come to think of it, I don't really blame Gerry and Marty for their rejection of a fair settlement in 1974. But I do blame Haughey and his cohorts who had armed and nurtured the Provos and who were extremely keen that their frankenstein would continue to thrive.
> 
> So I include an additional twist to my narrative as to why the Provos changed their minds 25 years and 2,000 lives later. It was not just because their electoral star was in the ascendant but also because their sponsors in Dublin had lost their ascendancy.



Nothing of this added false opinion is relevant to what I stated. Adding your own twists just highlights that you're just making it up as you go along.


----------



## Marion (11 May 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Marion,  I think most people believe that the Frontline programme had a decisive influence.  That doesn't necessarily mean that RTE deliberately manipulated the result.  But your belief that the people are totally uninfluenced by TV coverage would not be shared by the candidates themselves.



Of course we don't know how many people who watched this RTE programme actually voted. 

I'm sure the candidates are sufficiently biased.  

But, I accept your general premise that some people may have been influenced by the RTE programme.


Marion


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 May 2014)

Marion said:


> Of course we don't know how many people who watched this RTE programme actually voted.
> 
> I'm sure the candidates are sufficiently biased.
> 
> ...


I was more saying that candidates in general jump at the possibility of a TV appearance, presumably on the assumption that TV matters. 

It was not just the Frontline program itself, it was that the news coverage from then till election day was dominated by the Frontline humiliation of SG. As to whether this was mischief on the part of RTE is a matter of litigation or at least a formal complaint, I think, but certainly the ultimate winner from that Frontline debacle would, coincidentally or otherwise, have been the liberal media's favourite.


----------



## Marion (11 May 2014)

Just to be clear who do you mean by Liberal Media? 

If , you are suggesting the Irish Times what percentage of the population who voted for MDH reads the Irish Times?

I suppose what I am trying to convey is that the media had some responsibility for the outcome, but not total responsibility.

Marion


----------

