# Martin McGuinness RIP



## Betsy Og (21 Mar 2017)

Bit of a shock this morning, hadn't been following the story lately but didn't think he was terminally ill or that it would be this quick. I started by reading the victims & families reaction, understandably many want to point out some grim realities, and there's no arguing with that.

One point that comes through in many articles, and which I'd agree with, is that in fairness to him when he did turn the corner he did seem to give it his all in the pursuit of peace and, current Stormont wrangles notwithstanding, that has been a remarkable success. Also probably fair to say that his militarist background (as opposed to Gerry who only did cake sales, that sort of thing...) was significant in minimising the split when SF/IRA went on the path to peace.

Many saying the truth has died with him - not sure how much of that is really the case - was there that much he alone knew? There's also the possibility that he has given info to a family member or whoever to contribute to a possible future truth & reconciliation process.  But I guess if there's ever to be such a process they'd want to get cracking in the next 5-10 years or a lot of the 'actors' will have departed.

A really bad week for Derry it has to be said, condolences to both families (& all victims families too).


----------



## Ceist Beag (21 Mar 2017)

Nicely put Betsy. I think history will remember him more for the good work he did in the peace process but it is important to remember the victims and their families too. I think Colin Parry was quite fair in this tribute to Martin. I think there can be no arguing that he was a hugely significant player in the North and that once he did turn the corner as you say, he achieved a lot of good for the people of Northern Ireland.

RIP Martin.


----------



## thedaddyman (21 Mar 2017)

Mixed views on him to be honest. Speaking as someone who had his office desk blown to pieces in the Bishopsgate bombing and who heard 2 other bombs go off when I lived there, (one only a hundred yards away on the next street) I'm not prone to much sympathy for anyone from the IRA.

However I admire the fact that McGuiness accepted that what they were doing was wrong and his part in the peace process was vital and how he changed as a person. He is a fundamental reason why Northern Ireland has changed beyond recognition in the last 10-15 years and that deserves a lot of respect. I do wish though that he and the rest of his comrades could have been more open and honest about their part in "the struggle". There are a lot of families here, in the North and in GB who have been denied closure as a result.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Mar 2017)

thedaddyman said:


> However I admire the fact that McGuiness accepted that what they were doing was wrong



I am not sure that he did. He recognised that it was unproductive, that it was not achieving his objectives, that it was causing hurt to many people. My understanding is that he never said that the actions of the IRA before the ceasefires were wrong.

For my part I think he was a great man. He had vision, which he pursued tirelessly, and he persuaded other to that vision. Great improvements came about to life in Northern Ireland, and he was a major element in that change.


----------



## thedaddyman (21 Mar 2017)

cremeegg said:


> I am not sure that he did. He recognised that it was unproductive, that it was not achieving his objectives, that it was causing hurt to many people. My understanding is that he never said that the actions of the IRA before the ceasefires were wrong.
> 
> For my part I think he was a great man. He had vision, which he pursued tirelessly, and he persuaded other to that vision. Great improvements came about to life in Northern Ireland, and he was a major element in that change.



Wrong could indeed mean ineffective and unproductive. He had a vision in the 2nd half of his career but we should not forget when we eulogise him that he also had a vision in the first half of his life which was very different and people died because of that first vision which he and others had.


----------



## Vanessa (21 Mar 2017)

At least he had the honesty to admit his IRA involvement unlike Pinnochio


----------



## Betsy Og (21 Mar 2017)

I note in any commentary from "the other side" there's zero acknowledgement of the initial causes of the conflict. You'd swear everything was dandy until the IRA started shooting and bombing. Another assessment might say it was so horribly mismanaged at every step that it was inevitable something was going to have to give. But anway....... we're better now.......


----------



## Vanessa (22 Mar 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> I note in any commentary from "the other side" there's zero acknowledgement of the initial causes of the conflict. You'd swear everything was dandy until the IRA started shooting and bombing. Another assessment might say it was so horribly mismanaged at every step that it was inevitable something was going to have to give. But anway....... we're better now.......


There was a British policy in the late 19th century called "killing Home Rule with kindness" which led to Land Reform  Education reform etc in Ireland. It was reasonably successful in so much as Home Rule demand died for some time. Admittedly the Parnellite  split and the fact that the Irish Party did not hold the balance of power were also very important factors.
If after 1922 the Unionist majority had the foresight to treat the minority equally in housing employment education it is likely that Northern Ireland would not have gone the way it did. Westminster washed it hands of the North after 1922 and the South was too busy killing each other to do anything


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Mar 2017)

Vanessa said:


> If after 1922 the Unionist majority had the foresight to treat the minority equally in housing employment education it is likely that Northern Ireland would not have gone the way it did.


Saw an interesting clip of Martin.  This is long after the equality agenda had been more or less implemented in NI. He was arguing that the political path (which he was then following) was not enough.  It needed the "cutting edge of the IRA to force an all Ireland socialist republic", his words.  Possibly if unionists had the courage to ignore nationalist hostility the likes of Martin would never have had a chance to wage such a long war, who knows?  But I agree Westminster should have taken a more direct role and much earlier.

I note that the priest (bishop) at Casey's funeral mass made quite a big play about that gentleman's perceived failings.  I will be interested to see if there is any reference by the priest (bishop, pope?) at Martin's funeral to his responsibility, indirect possibly, for such things as the Enniskillen massacre and the ordering of 10 young men to starve themselves to death.


----------



## Adecco (22 Mar 2017)

thedaddyman said:


> However I admire the fact that McGuiness accepted that what they were doing was wrong....



But did he though? I didn't read that anywhere.

As I understand it the reason SF/IRA changed tact was a strategic one .... rather than some moral reasons.
i.e. They felt the ballot would be a more effective way to reach their goals rather than the bullet.

There's no doubt had they continued to believe the bullet was more effective then they would have continued with that strategy instead. (There is certainly no evidence to believe otherwise)

Make no mistake - this change in direction was purely to suit their own needs rather for the good of society in general.

I also believe that pushing for peace when he had influence was the least he could do. SUrely anyone in their right mind would do the same ! He's getting far too much credit for doing something that most sane people would do in the same position.
I for one think commentators are WAY too lenient on him. He was responsible for some mind boggling atrocities. The man has a lot of blood on his hands.


----------



## Adecco (22 Mar 2017)

Vanessa said:


> At least he had the honesty to admit his IRA involvement unlike Pinnochio



He didn't have any choice - he was jailed for it ! He may well have denied it had there been no proof against him. We never will know.

What we do know though is that he only admitted being in the IRA for a small period of time and also claimed he was never a member of the army council - whereas it is widely documented that this is untrue.
He also claims he had no advance knowledge of the Eniskillen bombing - even though again widely reported that he most likely sanctioned it.

So a definite touch of pinnochio about him


----------



## Firefly (22 Mar 2017)

Adecco said:


> As I understand it the reason SF/IRA changed tact was a strategic one .... rather than some moral reasons.



I think the IRA knew the game was up - MI5 had infiltrated the upper echelons at that stage and the identity of Stakeknife came out a few years later..


----------



## Vanessa (22 Mar 2017)

Firefly said:


> I think the IRA knew the game was up - MI5 had infiltrated the upper echelons at that stage and the identity of Stakeknife came out a few years later..


The first ceasefire which ended with the Canary Wharf bombing occurred because of British demands on total decommissioning of IRA arms before negotiations. The IRA would not agree and broke the ceasefre. This would indicate that they werent accepting that the game was up and that they had the capability to hit London. Their operations had become tighter and werent as compromised as much as they were in the 80s by the supergrasses and Diplock Court. 
Following the second ceasefire they had to decommission when Michael McDowell threatened to walk. But at that point the IRA/Sinn Fein leadership could see how power sharing was forming and knw that if they went back to war it would be a long struggle with neither side winning


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Mar 2017)

Vanessa said:


> The first ceasefire which ended with the Canary Wharf bombing occurred because of British demands on total decommissioning of IRA arms before negotiations. The IRA would not agree and broke the ceasefre. This would indicate that they werent accepting that the game was up and that they had the capability to hit London. Their operations had become tighter and werent as compromised as much as they were in the 80s by the supergrasses and Diplock Court.
> Following the second ceasefire they had to decommission when Michael McDowell threatened to walk. But at that point the IRA/Sinn Fein leadership could see how power sharing was forming and knw that if they went back to war it would be a long struggle with neither side winning


Exactly and this underlines _Adecco's _point. The "peace process" was not a result of any sudden movement in the needle on the IRA's or Martin's moral compass. This was no Pauline conversion. It was a strategic recognition that the "armed struggle" was going nowhere and that with the growing electoral support for Sinn Fein/IRA an arrangement ala Sunningdale would suit very nicely indeed.  Pity these slow learners, including Martin, were responsible for so many deaths (directly or indirectly through the loyalist retaliations) before the penny dropped.


----------



## cremeegg (22 Mar 2017)

Vanessa said:


> The first ceasefire which ended with the Canary Wharf bombing



The first IRA ceasefire (it was referred to as the Truce) began on 26 June 1972 as a prelude to the Cheyne Road talks. Adams and McGuinness were two of the Republican representatives. It broke down on 9 July 1972.


----------



## Purple (22 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Possibly if unionists had the courage to ignore nationalist hostility the likes of Martin would never have had a chance to wage such a long war, who knows?


 Possibly if they didn't run a Unionist State for a Unionist People for 50 years and defecate all over the Catholics they wouldn't have had to deal with any Nationalist hostility at all. 



cremeegg said:


> The first IRA ceasefire (it was referred to as the Truce) began on 26 June 1972 as a prelude to the Cheyne Road talks. Adams and McGuinness were two of the Republican representatives. It broke down on 9 July 1972.


Yep, he and Adams were trying to move the "Struggle" towards politics since then. That doesn't mean that they did't have blood on their hands but lets no pretend they are on their own in that in the Northern Ireland state-let. The Unionists had their own terrorist groups as well as their own police force, their own reservists and the weight of the British security forces behind them. While the Army generally acted as an honest broker the RUC/UVF/SAS/MI5 cesspool was very much on the wrong side of the law.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Mar 2017)

Purple said:


> Yep, he and Adams were trying to move the "Struggle" towards politics since then.


Then?  1972?  I referred above to a TV interview given by Martin in 1985.  1985 was when Garret persuaded Mrs T to sign up to the Anglo Irish Agreement, a total anathema to Sinn Féin/IRA and of course their main benefactor Charles Haughey.  I repeat  that Martin articulated very clearly the strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box - "_the cutting edge of the IRA_" was essential to achieve an all Ireland socialist republic.  Thankfully he is right in that assessment, only armed insurrection will achieve that goal.

But let's go back to 1972 when you allege, my dear _Purple_, that Grisly and Martin were trying to move the struggle towards politics.  Oh so wrong.  They absolutely dreaded politics at that stage as they had nil electoral support (despite that 50 years of oppression).  The electoral tide turned after those 10 young men died on a hunger strike, for the prolongation of which Grisly and Martin must bear a heavy responsibility.  Anyway that dates the strategic shift from the Armalite more in the direction of the ballot box, but of course still riding both horses as explained by Martin in aforementioned interview.

_Purple _you seem to subscribe to a narrative re the treatment of northern catholics which is known in the North as "mopery":  Most Oppressed People Ever  For what its worth the lot of northern catholics throughout those 50 years was greatly superior to that of the majority of citizens in the Free State and that's before we consider the treatment of unmarried mothers and their babies etc. in that utopia.


----------



## Vanessa (22 Mar 2017)

cremeegg said:


> The first IRA ceasefire (it was referred to as the Truce) began on 26 June 1972 as a prelude to the Cheyne Road talks. Adams and McGuinness were two of the Republican representatives. It broke down on 9 July 1972.


If you want complete accuracy the first IRA ceasefire known as the Truce commenced 11th July 1921. The ceasefire in 1972 involved the organisation known as the Provisional IRA


----------



## Purple (22 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Then?  1972?  I referred above to a TV interview given by Martin in 1985.  1985 was when Garret persuaded Mrs T to sign up to the Anglo Irish Agreement, a total anathema to Sinn Féin/IRA and of course their main benefactor Charles Haughey.  I repeat  that Martin articulated very clearly the strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box - "_the cutting edge of the IRA_" was essential to achieve an all Ireland socialist republic.  Thankfully he is right in that assessment, only armed insurrection will achieve that goal.


 It is reasonable to suggets that he was saying that to keep the IRA on side. I don't know where you get the idea that CJH was the IRA's main benefactor.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But let's go back to 1972 when you allege, my dear _Purple_, that Grisly and Martin were trying to move the struggle towards politics.  Oh so wrong.  They absolutely dreaded politics at that stage as they had nil electoral support (despite that 50 years of oppression).  The electoral tide turned after those 10 young men died on a hunger strike, for the prolongation of which Grisly and Martin must bear a heavy responsibility.  Anyway that dates the strategic shift from the Armalite more in the direction of the ballot box, but of course still riding both horses as explained by Martin in aforementioned interview.


He had to ride both horses in order to get them both to go in the same direction.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> you seem to subscribe to a narrative re the treatment of northern catholics which is known in the North as "mopery":  Most Oppressed People Ever


 Nope, but it was basically an apartheid state.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> For what its worth the lot of northern catholics throughout those 50 years was greatly superior to that of the majority of citizens in the Free State and that's before we consider the treatment of unmarried mothers and their babies etc. in that utopia.


 A different point which would require hours and beer to discuss properly.


----------



## Vanessa (22 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Then?  1972?  I referred above to a TV interview given by Martin in 1985.  1985 was when Garret persuaded Mrs T to sign up to the Anglo Irish Agreement, a total anathema to Sinn Féin/IRA and of course their main benefactor Charles Haughey.  I repeat  that Martin articulated very clearly the strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box - "_the cutting edge of the IRA_" was essential to achieve an all Ireland socialist republic.  Thankfully he is right in that assessment, only armed insurrection will achieve that goal.
> 
> But let's go back to 1972 when you allege, my dear _Purple_, that Grisly and Martin were trying to move the struggle towards politics.  Oh so wrong.  They absolutely dreaded politics at that stage as they had nil electoral support (despite that 50 years of oppression).  The electoral tide turned after those 10 young men died on a hunger strike, for the prolongation of which Grisly and Martin must bear a heavy responsibility.  Anyway that dates the strategic shift from the Armalite more in the direction of the ballot box, but of course still riding both horses as explained by Martin in aforementioned interview.
> 
> _Purple _you seem to subscribe to a narrative re the treatment of northern catholics which is known in the North as "mopery":  Most Oppressed People Ever  For what its worth the lot of northern catholics throughout those 50 years was greatly superior to that of the majority of citizens in the Free State and that's before we consider the treatment of unmarried mothers and their babies etc. in that utopia.


The Socialist Republic seems to have gone off the list except where the party formerly known as AAAPBP are the opposition. Of course socialism and equal distrbution of wealth wouldnt be the most popular i n South Armagh or along the Clogher Valley


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (22 Mar 2017)

Purple said:


> It is reasonable to suggets that he was saying that to keep the IRA on side. I don't know where you get the idea that CJH was the IRA's main benefactor.
> 
> He had to ride both horses in order to get them both to go in the same direction.
> 
> ...



Three shots on goal there, _Purple_, let's see if I can save them.

The most underestimated episode of the whole Troubles is the Arms Trial.  CJH and his cronies financed and supplied the Provisional IRA at their formation.  Without this support from elements in the highest echelons of a foreign state Grisly and Martin could never have launched such a "successful" and sustained  terrorist campaign from a few housing estates in Belfast and Londonderry.  However I agree that by 1985 Gaddaffi was probably a more significant benefactor than CJH.

Verdict:  I saved it but I had to tip it off the crossbar.  There might be a rebound.

You portray a picture of Martin as a virtuous infiltrator of the IRA.  Pretending to support their campaign of murder but secretly plotting to convert them to the ways of peace.  I doubt if that defense  was tried at Nuremberg.

Verdict:  I don't know why I dived, this one was going a mile wide.

The catholics in particular wanted and still want to live and be educated separately.  There was never any public ban on the use by catholics of public amenities etc.  Invoking apartheid comparisons is of course a central feature of mopery.

Verdict:  right into the arms of the goalkeeper.


----------



## jjm (22 Mar 2017)

What is your take on one man one vote


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Mar 2017)

jjm2016 said:


> What is your take on one man one vote


The system that brought us Brexit and Trump. I'm not a fan. I think there should be a licensing system which should aim to deny deplorables the licence to vote.


----------



## Ceist Beag (23 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You portray a picture of Martin as a virtuous infiltrator of the IRA. Pretending to support their campaign of murder but secretly plotting to convert them to the ways of peace. I doubt if that defense was tried at Nuremberg.


Or maybe Martin believed that the only way to get the serious political dialogue going was via the IRA campaign. Do you really think the current situation in Northern Ireland would have happened had there been no IRA campaign?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Mar 2017)

Ceist Beag said:


> Or maybe Martin believed that the only way to get the serious political dialogue going was via the IRA campaign. Do you really think the current situation in Northern Ireland would have happened had there been no IRA campaign?


"GFA is Sunningdale for slow learners" - Seamus Mallon. In 1972 Martin was part of the IRA negotiating team who failed to agree peace with the British government.  The British went ahead and implemented Sunningdale despite  the IRA's fierce rejection of such a settlement.  The catholic insurgency of 1969 was probably necessary to get where we are today but the 25 years of terrorist war from 1973 to 1998 in pursuit of an all Ireland socialist republic was utterly futile and immoral IMHO.


----------



## cremeegg (23 Mar 2017)

Purple said:


> He had to ride both horses in order to get them both to go in the same direction.



Brilliant.

As for the Duke talking to himself, its almost worth the subscription fee all on its own.


----------



## cremeegg (23 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> "GFA is Sunningdale for slow learners" - Seamus Mallon. In 1972 Martin was part of the IRA negotiating team who failed to agree peace with the British government.  The British went ahead and implemented Sunningdale despite  the IRA's fierce rejection of such a settlement.  The catholic insurgency of 1969 was necessary to get where we are today but the 25 years of terrorist war from 1973 to 1998 in pursuit of an all Ireland socialist republic was utterly futile and immoral IMHO.



Was it Martin McGuinness that toppled Sunningdale ?


----------



## Firefly (23 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> ...the 25 years of terrorist war from 1973 to 1998 in pursuit of an all Ireland _socialist _republic was utterly futile and immoral IMHO.



I'd be more worried of a socialist republic than the IRA itself


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Mar 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Was it Martin McGuinness that toppled Sunningdale ?


Sunningdale had no chance of cross community acceptance with the continued terrorist campaign of the IRA.  The main difference when Sunningdale was rolled out 25 years later was that the IRA were onside.  The ownership of the 73-98 extension of the Troubles lies firmly with republicans.  Unless one places the objective of an all Ireland socialist republic on a moral plain above all else the human misery endured during that period was pointless and inexcusable.

I note your enjoyment of my pensées.  You owe your thanks to _Purple _who provoked these thoughts by the originality of his assertion that throughout those 25 years Martin was a "peace fifth columnist" within the ranks of the IRA, disingenuously praising their achievements at Enniskillen etc. but all the time plotting to betray them to the peace process.  _Purple _might be right, it would go some way to explain Grisly and Martin's passion to have a Truth recovery process to reveal these facts, currently known only to a select few cognoscenti like _Purple_.


----------



## Purple (23 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Three shots on goal there, _Purple_, let's see if I can save them.
> 
> 
> The most underestimated episode of the whole Troubles is the Arms Trial.  CJH and his cronies financed and supplied the Provisional IRA at their formation.  Without this support from elements in the highest echelons of a foreign state Grisly and Martin could never have launched such a "successful" and sustained  terrorist campaign from a few housing estates in Belfast and Londonderry.  However I agree that by 1985 Gaddaffi was probably a more significant benefactor than CJH.



Do you seriously think that the entire Cabinet didn’t know about the whole sordid affair? I agree that it was despicable and was a major contributor to the growth of the IRA but I don’t buy the idea that it was CJH and his mates acting alone.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> You portray a picture of Martin as a virtuous infiltrator of the IRA.  Pretending to support their campaign of murder but secretly plotting to convert them to the ways of peace.  I doubt if that defense  was tried at Nuremberg.


 No, he started off as a murdering terrorist but bought in to the idea of constitutional politics quite early on. I’m sure there was no catharsis, no road to Damascus experience.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> The catholics in particular wanted and still want to live and be educated separately.  There was never any public ban on the use by catholics of public amenities etc.  Invoking apartheid comparisons is of course a central feature of mopery.


 The Catholic Church’s opposition to joint education was a major contributor in prolonging the conflict but when you choose to ignore the sectarian nature of the Protestant government prior to Sunningdale, the Protestant police force treating Catholics as their enemy, and the myriad of other factors which negatively impacted the lives of Catholics you weaken your argument.

There was and is no justification for the actions of the IRA but presenting the Protestant government and Protestant Statelet as if they were innocent parties is to grossly misrepresent the truth. 

The Ulster Protestant Volunteers, founded by the good Reverend, stood with the UVF and the RUC while they all stoned Catholic houses during the Battle of the Bogside. The collusion between the RUC and MI5 and their SAS attack dogs was rampant and resulted in the murder of many IRA men (no harm in my book) as well as innocent civilians. 

The SAS murder of 16 year old John Boyle in 1978 is particularly striking. John had found a IRA weapons cache in a graveyard beside his home. He told his father who went straight to the police. The RUC told MI5 who had the SAS wait to ambush the IRA. The next morning John went back to see if the Cache was still there and was shot numerous times in the back by the SAS. His father ran to the scene and was arrested. The SAS were never named and never convicted even though the Judge at their trial seriously questioned the truthfulness of their evidence. Adrian Weale, author and former Military intelligence officer, wrote a book about covert operations by British forces and laid out the truth of what happened. He was called into the MoD and made to edit his book before publishing it. Ed Moloney wrote about it in the Irish Times at the time.

When your State treats you as their enemy it is hard not to see them as your enemy.


----------



## Purple (23 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Sunningdale had no chance of cross community acceptance with the continued terrorist campaign of the IRA. The main difference when Sunningdale was rolled out 25 years later was that the IRA were onside. The ownership of the 73-98 extension of the Troubles lies firmly with republicans. Unless one places the objective of an all Ireland socialist republic on a moral plain above all else the human misery endured during that period was pointless and inexcusable.


Again, you ignore that it was Unionism, more than Nationalism, which brought down Sunningdale.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I note your enjoyment of my pensées. You owe your thanks to _Purple _who provoked these thoughts by the originality of his assertion that throughout those 25 years Martin was a "peace fifth columnist" within the ranks of the IRA, disingenuously praising their achievements at Enniskillen etc. but all the time plotting to betray them to the peace process. _Purple _might be right, it would go some way to explain Grisly and Martin's passion to have a Truth recovery process to reveal these facts, currently known only to a select few cognoscenti like _Purple_.


You have formed an incorrect conclusion as to what my opinions is of Martin McGuinness. Everything which you have built on that error is also incorrect.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Mar 2017)

_Purple _this thread is about Martin McGuinness.  You take a much more sympathetic view of his role than I do, dating his conversion to peaceful means back to 1972 when he was a 22 year leading light in the IRA and clearly opposed to any peace settlement with the British that maintained partition.
I recognize that  in pursuing a contrary narrative I may be  seen to minimize the undoubted failings of the protestant parliament and its people.  But just to put the record straight I think the catholic insurgency of 1969 including the role of armed republicanism in it was justified.  I am firmly of the view that the horrific extenuation of violent resistance in pursuit of an all Ireland socialist republic was unjustified, for reasons already stated and I am afraid that I am also of the view that a young radicalised Martin McGuinness had a large part to play in that regard. 

But yes the mature Martin McGuinness made a positive contribution. I also think, given his strong religious and clean living background, he acted in a moral way by his own lights.   I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not condone or sanction the likes of Enniskillen.  RIP


----------



## Purple (23 Mar 2017)

I agree with all of that.
In my opinion his journey towards peaceful means started in 1972 but it was a long journey with many a pause and diversion.


----------



## Vanessa (23 Mar 2017)

Purple said:


> I agree with all of that.
> In my opinion his journey towards peaceful means started in 1972 but it was a long journey with many a pause and diversion.


While Martin had an important role in 1972 he wouldnt have the influence that people like O Conaill O Bradaigh Seamus Twomey and Joe Cahill had. They were also up against Unionist dogmatics like Craig and Paisley who as usual were the puppeteers for Andy Tyrie and John McMichael.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not condone or sanction the likes of Enniskillen.  RIP


 Dunno about that TBH. Think I read somewhere that it was a Leitrim unit that messed it up and were disbanded after but bottom line is that if you put big bombs in crowded areas without adequate warnings then innocent people die. Even in the Omagh case there were warnings albeit they made such a bags of it that it increased the death toll. I dont think there was any warning of any description in Enniskillen. Hard to believe a man in his position did not know that was 'going down'. So while I respect what McGuinness achieved in the end, and I think in different circumstances other than the ones handed to him he might well have been a right honourable gent, I do think he deserved to be tarred with the all the worst of the deeds of the Provos. Sure you could say the triggermen were just following orders, the buck has to spot with the men at the helm.


----------



## Vanessa (23 Mar 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> Dunno about that TBH. Think I read somewhere that it was a Leitrim unit that messed it up and were disbanded after but bottom line is that if you put big bombs in crowded areas without adequate warnings then innocent people die. Even in the Omagh case there were warnings albeit they made such a bags of it that it increased the death toll. I dont think there was any warning of any description in Enniskillen. Hard to believe a man in his position did not know that was 'going down'. So while I respect what McGuinness achieved in the end, and I think in different circumstances other than the ones handed to him he might well have been a right honourable gent, I do think he deserved to be tarred with the all the worst of the deeds of the Provos. Sure you could say the triggermen were just following orders, the buck has to spot with the men at the helm.


If he had the position of influence as alleged certainly no murder, bombing etc went on in Derry without he giving the go ahead. This would include the barbaric death of Patsy Gillespie and murder of the census collector Joanne Mathers


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Mar 2017)

Oh dear, I see the occasional dyslexia has struck with the buck having to spot, like that time I sold my soul to Santa.....

Just watched the news, delighted a) Arlene Foster turned up & was welcomed, b) Gerry talking about extending the hand of friendship to Unionists - so hopefully that will give a slightly better vibe as they try to put a government together. Put it this way it was a helluva lot better than berets, dark glasses and volleys over the coffin.


----------



## Vanessa (23 Mar 2017)

Adams in his graveyard speech said "Martin McGuiness was 150% right"
150%!! Looks like Gerry still hasn't cracked the old economics lark.


----------



## Firefly (24 Mar 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> Hard to believe a man in his position did not know that was 'going down'.



I was thinking about that last night and I agree. In any small to medium company for example, the top man/woman would be well aware of any new permanent hire for example, and with the IRA I would imagine any permanent killing would also have to get the nod from the top.


----------



## Purple (24 Mar 2017)

Vanessa said:


> Adams in his graveyard speech said "Martin McGuiness was 150% right"
> 150%!! Looks like Gerry still hasn't cracked the old economics lark.


What do you expect; he's a socialist.


----------



## cremeegg (24 Mar 2017)

150% right, permanent killing, oh dear, oh dear.


----------



## thedaddyman (27 Mar 2017)

Firefly said:


> I was thinking about that last night and I agree. In any small to medium company for example, the top man/woman would be well aware of any new permanent hire for example, and with the IRA I would imagine any permanent killing would also have to get the nod from the top.



Wasn't that a standard IRA "excuse" if someone went a bit too far?, it wasn't sanctioned by the IRA Army Council.


----------



## Vanessa (27 Mar 2017)

thedaddyman said:


> Wasn't that a standard IRA "excuse" if someone went a bit too far?, it wasn't sanctioned by the IRA Army Council.


Otherwise known as a "systems failure" a phrase commonly used in Ireland nowadays


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Mar 2017)

I see the Teashop is still banging on about how a customs border would endanger the "peace process".  Make no mistake this danger, if it exists, comes from one side only.  It seems that border customs checks were part of mopery.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2017)

I don't know what you mean Duke.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Mar 2017)

Its his usual trope. Everything in Ni would be great if only the taigs would stop feeling sorry for themselves and buck up.

mopery = most oppressed people ever


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Mar 2017)

Purple said:


> I don't know what you mean Duke.


Folk endure customs checks throughout the world.  But it seems that to reintroduce the same in NI could be so upsetting to the Most Oppressed People Ever that they just might go back to blowing up Remembrance Day services.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Folk endure customs checks throughout the world.  But it seems that to reintroduce the same in NI could be so upsetting to the Most Oppressed People Ever that they just might go back to blowing up Remembrance Day services.


Yep, or shopping streets in Dublin and Monaghan. 
I don't think the Unionists are the most oppressed people in the world though. The Nationalists were very oppressed when the Unionists ran things but since Her Majesty's Government took over direct rule things improved. I don't understand why Nationalists want devolved government at all; anything that keep Ms. Foster and her bigoted friends out of power is a good thing. The same for the Unionists; why let terrorists and murderers into power, though the Unionists did manage to sideline the Shinners almost completely so maybe that made it okay.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Mar 2017)

Didn't want to start another thread and thought this the best place to make my point.  And my point is that only a most delicate flower like the MOPE could ever threaten the peace over the mere imposition of a customs border.  Possibly Henda doesn't believe there is any serious threat but is using this as leverage to ensure the best chance for the continuation of an invisible (soft?) border.  That must be it, fair enuff.

I agree that I never understood the enthusiasm of unionists in particular for a power sharing devolved solution.  Might be simply professional politicians looking after their job prospects.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Possibly Henda doesn't believe there is any serious threat but is using this as leverage to ensure the best chance for the continuation of an invisible (soft?) border. That must be it, fair enuff.


That's my view as well.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Folk endure customs checks throughout the world.  But it seems that to reintroduce the same in NI could be so upsetting to the Most Oppressed People Ever that they just might go back to blowing up Remembrance Day services.





Purple said:


> Yep, or shopping streets in Dublin and Monaghan.



Taken together these posts seem to suggest that the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were the work of republican paramilitaries.

Although no one has ever been convicted for these events, they would appear to have been a joint undertaking of the British Army led by Robert Nairac and the UVF.

There has never been any suggestion that republicans were involved.


----------



## PMU (30 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Didn't want to start another thread and thought this the best place to make my point.  And my point is that only a most delicate flower like the MOPE could ever threaten the peace over the mere imposition of a customs border.  Possibly Henda doesn't believe there is any serious threat but is using this as leverage to ensure the best chance for the continuation of an invisible (soft?) border.  That must be it, fair enuff.



On the point of a customs border, it's my understanding that the customs border posts were erected not by HMG or by the Stormont Administration but by the Customs & Excise branch of the Revenue Commissioners on 1 April 1923. I think Sir Edward Carson made a speech in Stormont decrying this. The 'hard border' didn't initially come from the UK but from us, or rather our precursor, the Irish Free State.

Also there is no reason to believe the UK wishes to establish a 'hard border'. However, as an EU member state the EU rules on the management of external borders will apply to Ireland once the UK exits. These are provided for by art 67 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provides for a common policy on external border control. So the 'hard border' isn't a UK issue; it's an EU issue and Ireland will presumably swing in with EU rules.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Mar 2017)

My dear _cremeegg _(looking forward to Easter?)  I did not at all interpret _Purple _in the way you suggest.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Mar 2017)

PMU said:


> our precursor, the Irish Free State.



The "Republic of Ireland" is the "Irish Free State", the name was changed in the 1940s but there was no refounding of the state.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Taken together these posts seem to suggest that the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were the work of republican paramilitaries.
> 
> Although no one has ever been convicted for these events, they would appear to have been a joint undertaking of the British Army led by Robert Nairac and the UVF.
> 
> There has never been any suggestion that republicans were involved.


Good clarification and also my understanding of what happened.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> My dear _cremeegg _(looking forward to Easter?)  I did not at all interpret _Purple _in the way you suggest.



just have to decide stick or pin this year.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2017)

cremeegg said:


> The "Republic of Ireland" is the "Irish Free State", the name was changed in the 1940s but there was no resounding of the state.


It was changed in 1937 when we enacted a new constitution. The Free State had the British king as head of state and a Governor General in residence representing the Crown. The Republic of Ireland is a Republic with an elected President as the head of State. They are very different things. We remained in the Commonwealth until 1948 when John A. Costello pulled us out, removing the last faint hope of a united Ireland.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Mar 2017)

The name "Republic of Ireland" was adopted under the Republic of Ireland Act in 1948.

Costello was in such a rush to adopt the name that he announced it from Canada.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Mar 2017)

The present constitution was adopted in 1937, it is unclear who was head of State between 1937 and 1948. 

Google tells me that Foreign ambassadors were received by "The King of Ireland" a chap based in London called Windsor.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2017)

cremeegg said:


> The present constitution was adopted in 1937, it is unclear who was head of State between 1937 and 1948.
> 
> Google tells me that Foreign ambassadors were received by "The King of Ireland" a chap based in London called Windsor.


True, between 1937 and 1948 we were just called "Ireland" and while we had a President it was unclear he he or Georgie boy was head of State. As the Brits were bigger and more important other countries stuck with the status quo. We became a Republic in 1948 however we stopped being the Free State in 1937.


----------



## PMU (30 Mar 2017)

cremeegg said:


> The "Republic of Ireland" is the "Irish Free State", the name was changed in the 1940s but there was no refounding of the state.


This is totally incorrect. The Irish Free State / _Saorstát Éireann _was established on 6 December 1922 by the Irish Free State Constitution Act of 1922 (UK) and the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act 1922 (Dáil Éireann), subsequent to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921. Following its adoption by referendum in July 1937 the new constitution Bunreacht na hÉireann came into force in December of that year. Under art 4 of the Constitution "The name of the State is _Éire_, or, in the English language, _Ireland_.". The Irish Free State came to an end with the coming into force of the new constitution  which also repealed the constitution of the Irish Free State.     The constitution did 'refound' the state as "a sovereign, independent, democratic state.", whereas under the previous constitution it was "a co-equal member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.".

The 'Republic of Ireland' is a football team. However, when Ireland left the British Commonwealth, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 provided that "Ireland may be officially described as the Republic of Ireland", but it didn't change the name of the State from Éire / Ireland.  So Republic of Ireland is a descriptor but not the name of the State in Irish law.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2017)

PMU said:


> The 'Republic of Ireland' is a football team. However, when Ireland left the British Commonwealth, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 provided that "Ireland may be officially described as the Republic of Ireland", but it didn't change the name of the State from Éire / Ireland. So Republic of Ireland is a descriptor but not the name of the State in Irish law.


I like making that point to English people. I also point out that the country is not called Eire unless you are speaking in Irish.


----------



## PMU (30 Mar 2017)

Purple said:


> I also point out that the country is not called Eire unless you are speaking in Irish.


I don't want to get too technical but you really should put the accent over the first 'e' in Éire; otherwise it means a heavy weight or a burden.


----------



## Firefly (30 Mar 2017)

PMU said:


> I don't want to get too technical but you really should put the accent over the first 'e' in Éire; otherwise it means a heavy weight or a burden.



Or something before the words "..yeah boy" in Cork to announce one's feelings of incredulity


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Mar 2017)

cremeegg said:


> just have to decide stick or pin this year.


Ahh we obviously come from similar backgrounds.  In my youth I was foolishly a stickie. I wonder does _Purple _know what we are talking about


----------



## Betsy Og (30 Mar 2017)

How about this one; the UK sets its border as the island of Britain. Easy to police, flights & ferries only. Norn Iron remains part of the UK but not for immigration or customs purposes (albeit genuinely Nordie goods of course don't pay duty, so that's beef, pork, chicken, Bushmills &.........(help me out here...) & as citizens they just show the passport no more than an Irish person coming into an Irish airport. I'm sure no-one would abuse it by making the North a clearing house for Britain.... far too upstanding for that sort of thing....

The UK is used to this stuff, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, all 1 foot in for this reason and 1 foot out for the other.

Maybe the EU hordes from Romania or whoever was "spoiling" Britain will flock to the North for contentment.... have me doubts..... but anyway when there's a United Ireland (gulp) they'll all be legal.

So problem solved...until Scotland leaves...

I know you think its a barmy suggestion, but there's going to have to be some version of it. What's to stop those dreadful EU citizens coming to Ireland (as is their right), getting on a bus or train to Belfast, then getting a flight or ferry to UK. De facto either a) Britain isnt bothered or b) they check people leaving the North to go to "the mainland" and turn them back. Do they then bother to drop them over the border - so they can come back to have another cut at it?, I doubt it. So de facto the hard border is the island of Britain. You heard it here first....


----------



## Purple (31 Mar 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ahh we obviously come from similar backgrounds.  In my youth I was foolishly a stickie. I wonder does _Purple _know what we are talking about


I'm aware of them and the broad details but it is something I am interested in learning more about.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Mar 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> You heard it here first....


For people movement this has already been mooted and will probably be the ultimate solution. Goods are a different matter.  The EU will want to impose tariffs on Brit goods.  Would they trust the Brits to impose these internally? Would NI folk want tariffs on mainland imports?  In effect NI would be in EU and subject to EU Court.  Hard to see unionist acceptance of that.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Mar 2017)

Purple said:


> I'm aware of them and the broad details but it is something I am interested in learning more about.


By the 1960s the IRA had gone all leftie.  Like most young folk I was leftie too and had sneaking sympathy.  They were wholesome terrorists confining themselves to electricity pylons and stuff.

They were perceived to have let down the Mope community when the RUC ran amok in 1969. In any case folk like CJH had no time for the leftie "official" IRA.  The Provos were born with their much more traditional nationalist views and with less fussiness about playing by Queensbury rules in their activities.  The Official IRA quickly called a permanent ceasefire and produced such luminaries as Pronsius and Gilmore (I think).

Strangely somewhere along the way the Provos themselves lurched leftwards, possibly Grisly and Martin had something to do with that.

The Official IRA stuck their Easter lilies to their lapels with gum.  The Provos used pins.  Never wore an Easter lily myself though.

Reminiscence:

I remember being questioned by the Brits around the time of internment. They asked me did I sympathise with the IRA.  I was in a room with no windows facing two uniformed soldiers and a bare electric light bulb (I kid you not).  This was difficult to answer.  A straight denial would have no credibility coming from a young male mope and would probably lead straight to the waterboard.  So I said I had sympathy with the Official IRA's objectives.  Clever what!  Not sympathy with their methods just their objectives.  It also greatly helped that the Stickies had recently announced their ceasefire and were clearly not enemy No 1 of the Brits.


----------



## Betsy Og (31 Mar 2017)

You could have told 'em you wanted to remove all the sources of conflict.....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Mar 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> You could have told 'em you wanted to remove all the sources of conflict.....


NI without sources of conflict!?  That sounds like the Final Solution and final solutions have something of a bad name.


----------



## Betsy Og (31 Mar 2017)

That phrase is burnt into my brain from the time of the GFA negotiation (when I had a more intense interest in the sit-ye-ation)... "the reality of the sit-ye-ation" was another one, as was "walking the Queens highway"... n'er a mention of a 'cudgel' anymore either.....


----------



## Purple (31 Mar 2017)

Betsy Og said:


> You could have told 'em you wanted to remove all the sources of conflict.....


In those days that meant getting all the "Brits" to go "Home".


----------



## Gerry Canning (5 Apr 2017)

Martin had a choice in the 70,s to go peaceful civil rights ,ie John Hume route , he chose another path .
Ian Paisley had a choice in the 70,s to accept civil rights or Rabble rouse with NO Surrender .

It took both 30 + years and 3000 + deaths to realise that their ways were wrong and to come to friendship.
I am happy they both became peace givers , but its a pity they didn,t mature earlier.


----------



## cremeegg (6 Apr 2017)

Its a tidy and a decent thought Gerry, but it wasn't John Hume that brought about the Good Friday Agreement. If Martin McGuinness became a capable and dedicated no 2 to John Hume in the 70s, other forces would have lead the Republican movement. Who knows to what end. Indeed their public rewarded SF in the recent elections for a perceived hardening in their attitude to the DUP.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Apr 2017)

cremeegg said:


> If Martin McGuinness became a capable and dedicated no 2 to John Hume in the 70s, other forces would have lead the Republican movement. Who knows to what end.


"I was acting under orders" was a stock Nuremberg defence. I don't know if anyone tried "if it wasn't me someone else would have done it".

Gerry I admire your applying parity of esteem (or disteem) but I am not sure there really is parity.  For sure, Republicans and Loyalists share parity in wrecking GFA 1 but consider the respective motives:

Republicans had no electoral mandate and power sharing held no benefits for them.  They reasoned that if violence can get us this far let's push on for a United Ireland.

Loyalists also had no electoral mandate.  They reasoned that if IRA violence can get this far, it's continuation could well lead to a United Ireland. Time to call halt.

So who is mainly to blame for the pointless extenuation of the conflict which caused the lion's share of the deaths and maiming in the so called Troubles?


----------



## Betsy Og (6 Apr 2017)

On a related theme, what do people make of this Brexit "hard border could lead to a return to the troubles" suggestion/innuendo. Seems to me to be total nonsense, fair enough try it on if it gets us/UK a better deal but I don't seriously see it as a risk.

I acknowledge it will be a pain, and maybe it kinda felt like a united Ireland when you had to notice the road signs or your mobile reception to notice the change, and there could be traffic delays, & occasionally opening your boot and what not might be some 'nostalgia' you'd rather not experience, but that still seems an awful long way from taking up a gun and firing it at ....who?


----------



## cremeegg (6 Apr 2017)

I would have agreed with you until Michael Howard started talking about going to war with Spain over Gibraltar.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...territory-brexit-eu-theresa-may-a7664246.html

I think the Brits are having a nervous breakdown.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Apr 2017)

_Betsy_-_og_ I have been making that point and concluded along with _Purple_ that it was a bluff by Henda to increase Ireland's leverage.  So far it seems to be working.

_creme_-_egg_ that is a truly astonishing piece from Howard.  I feel fairly certain now that this Brexit thing will cut up ruff, very ruff

The historical fact is that GB has no friends, rather it inspires lots of resentment with its arrogance, of which Brexit is the latest illustration.  Let's look around and see this resentment, some more veiled than others.

France: okay allies in WWI and II but the rivalry of centuries simmers beneath the surface and France really resents that the English language has left French for dead in terms of universal usage.

Germany: how can they possibly forget the drubbing of above mentioned wars.

Southern Europe: the animosity dates back to the Reformation.  Spain has this special issue with Gibraltar and Italy supported (possibly not officially) Argentina over the Malvinas.

Poland: here could have been a grateful friend from WWII but since it is precisely to keep out Poles that the divorce is being sought, Poland and other Eastern European states will have the least goodwill of all towards GB.

Then there's lil' old Ireland.  The head says we should want our neighbour to get a good deal,  but the heart and 800 years of mopery trumps that.  Brits will be watching carefully for a stab in the back from this quarter.

Did I say no friends?  Well that's wrong.  GB has one very dear friend and that is its WASP offshoot, the US and especially US Trump.

The US is not going to allow GB have its nose rubbed in it by France and Germany.  Wait and see that €350bn back bill for German defence coming back on the table in a soft repeat of just how the US bailed  out GB at the last minute in the two wars.

But surely despite Howard's amazing comments this will not lead to physical war

All the same GB will be at the table with a gun in its pocket in the shape of its nuclear weapons.  How right the French were to barge themselves into the nuclear club.

The big winner in all this is Putin's Russia.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The big winner in all this is Putin's Russia.


They are the big winner in just about everything that has happened internationally over the last few years.


----------



## cremeegg (7 Apr 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Poland: here could have been a grateful friend from WWII but since it is precisely to keep out Poles that the divorce is being sought, Poland and other Eastern European states will have the least goodwill of all towards GB.



While the idea of gratitude toward Britain as an ally in WW2 certainly does exist in Poland it is difficult to understand why.

Britain did nothing to help Poland that I am aware of during the war, and after the war shamefully abandoned the country to Stalin. It also returned thousands of Polish servicemen to the tender mercies of the post war regeime, http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v1/v1n4p371_lutton.html if you are interested.

Poland on the other hand made a huge contribution to the British war effort. While the popular British stereotype is to mock the Polish cavalry charging the German panzers, the contribution of Polish airmen to the RAF is often over looked. In fact the most experienced pilots and the most successful squadrons in the Battle of Britain were Polish.

The vandalism against the Polish cultural centre in Hammersmith was one of the most shameful (although obviously relatively minor) episodes in recent British history.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 May 2017)

I see Arlene Foster has used the B word to describe Michelle O'Neill.  Yes, she called her a (can I say this on a family show?)...Blonde

SF are, rightly, incensed at this latest victimisation of the Nationalist community, so I guess that's goodbye to power sharing.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2017)

Arlene Foster reminds me of the old sketches that Les Dawson did in drag...


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 May 2017)

Arlene seemed in that interview with the _Sindo _that she had a hang-up that she wouldn't win a beauty contest with Michelle.  She complained of social media speculating that she might be a man. I would have thought that the ultimate complement


----------



## cremeegg (17 May 2017)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see Arlene Foster has used the B word to describe Michelle O'Neill.  Yes, she called her a (can I say this on a family show?)...Blonde



No, no. I think that Arlene was merely correcting Tommy Tiernan.

You see Tommy thought that Arlene kept Friesians on her farm in Fermanagh,

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...my-tiernan-joke-about-arlene-foster-1.3062553

whereas in fact the breed she keeps is the Blonde d'Aquitaine.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 May 2017)

SF can deny it all they like but from what I see Michelle does seem to be...well, blonde. I'm sure they have a genuine explanation, but let's hear it.


----------

