"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement

The point was that everything that could be realistically achieved had been achieved in Sunningdale, that's why GFA was dubbed Sunningdale for slow learners. Also, this was in the context of RA being on a rampage in '73 & '74, there was no question of a peace dividend for unionists, so the UWC strike was a relatively easy sell. If Provisional SF had done their gun bargaining in '73 instead of '98 they probably would have improved on Sunningdale and there was a fair chance it would have stuck - DUP opposed GFA too remember.

But PSF demanded a 32 county socialist republic, entirely on their terms, as is the PSF way it's just about what they want, not what voters want or would benefit society. All this dragging out of decommissioning eroded UUP, it suits PSF to be facing DUP, easier rally the sectarian headcount. So other than the silence of the guns we eventually got, I'm not sure what PSF has to offer beyond historical rewriting.

As for Dublin & Monaghan, collusion between Loyalists & elements of the security forces, it was the Omagh of its day, but neither event would be justification for 'armed struggle'. There's no justice or resolution, just more innocent blood. I've read Don Mullan's book on Dublin & Monaghan, the botched investigation and treatment of the families was (& is) a disgrace.
Once again Young Betsy, I'm with you all the way.

From their own perspective I suppose the PIRA had no choice but to continue their campaign. Unlike GFA the Provos stood to be big, big losers out of an internal peace arrangement in 1974. There were no prisoner releases and no Northern Bank pension fund. Added to that there was a sense that one more push would see the Brits Out. They had after all conceded an awful lot in 4 years. I remember the gable walls in West Belfast where I lived at the time - "Victory in '74/Tiochfaidh ár lá". SF the political wing were quite irrelevant.

So whilst the PIRA rejection of Sunningdale was understandable by their own terms so too was the stiff unionist resistance from all sections of that community. Here they had lost so much or perceived to have done so in such a short space of time and still it wasn't enough. And they too were apprehensive that one more shove would see Westminster push them off the ledge.

And neither side were entirely wrong in that calculus. Garret Fitzgerald in his memoirs records that he was extremely fearful that Wilson would pack his bags. And this itself gives lie to @WolfeTone's narrative. If the British were equal perpetrators of the Northern misery why would Garret (and all right thinking people) be afraid of a British withdrawal?
 
Last edited:
so too was the stiff unionist resistance from all sections of that community. Here they had lost so much or perceived to have done so in such a short space of time and still it wasn't enough. And they too were apprehensive that one more shove would see Westminster push them off the ledge.
If Unionist had embraced Sunningdale didn't it have the potential to stabilise NI? (albeit with the RA on full output, only to a limited degree), whereas bringing it down meant all the cards up in the air again? I'm sure prisoner releases would have been a given if RA/PSF has been on board (esp. considering the interned weren't even convicted).

If Paisley hadn't shouted down Terence O'Neill the whole unfortunate business could have been avoided before it had begun - I realise there's a bit of 'aunt with alternative anatomy' about this whole discussion, but its important not to let the PSF narrative have a free run, the younger electorate either don't know or don't care, so before we know it it'll be 'Gerry was in the GPO in 1916' :D
 
@WolfeTone Given the atrocious behaviour of the British Army, as documented by yourself, was Garret Fitzgerald wrong and, with the benefit of hindsight of course, would we have been much better off if Harold Wilson had packed his bags in 1974? In fact, in your opinion and again with the benefit of hindsight would it have been better if the BA had not intervened in the first place in 1969?

My take is that the two communities of NI owe the 1,114 members of the British security forces who lost their lives an immense debt of gratitude for keeping them from a communal bloodbath of Balkan or Rwandan proportions. (Reminder that in the words of James Prior this sacrifice was with no selfish strategic or economic interest on behalf of the British.)
Indeed the people of the whole island owe a debt of gratitude for being saved from the bloody civil war that CJH and his buddies craved.
 
Last edited:
It is remarkable, all the same, that Unionists feared the IRA for four decades but now seem to fear democracy even more. Given the Paisleyite rhetoric coming from so many Unionist politicians now, echoes of Hugh 'Roaring' Hanna who opposed the Home Rule Bill in an equally raw display of opposition to what then passed for democracy, is the Unionist commitment to democracy as self serving and limited as that of the tribe with which they share their benighted statelet?
 
Lots to pack in there.

Sunningdale

"Sunningdale for slow learners", yes, to a large extent. Ironically, Seamus Mallon, who is attributed with this quip was also one of the slow learners. As @Duke of Marmalade testifies in his comment there were to be no prisoner releases, and internment without trial was still in place. There was no SF or IRA party to the agreement so the political parties may as well have been playing Scrabble for all the IRA cared. Without any representation, without any prisoner releases and without an end to internment of (mostly) Catholics without trial, why on earth would the IRA even be interested in Sunningdale? So that their prisoners could continue to rot in jail for a long time? This is just naivety.

As it happens, it was Loyalists that crashed the agreement. Not that they had representation either, but the concept of a Council of Ireland with Southern Ireland was a bridge to far (slow learners).
It would take, some 23yrs later, a woman NI secretary to cut through the indignation of the "we will never talk to terrorists" brigade (more slow learners) and provide an impetus in directing the political framework on a path that had real hope of sustaining.
Mo Mowlam did more in two years as NI Sec to bring about an end to the conflict than all others before put together. British and Irish governments have always known the dynamic of the prisoner issue, but were impotent in managing it politically. She taught everyone a lesson, one that was regrettably absent at Sunningdale.

Decommissioning

There is no doubt SF sought to squeeze as much as possible, but that is the nature of politics. But not without good reason. This is where the leadership and strategic prowess of Adams and McGuinness deserves its recognition. As far back as 1996, Mitchel McLaughlin then chairperson of SF recorded in an interview that the aim of SF was to get rid of the IRA. (Source: Peter Taylor 'Provos: SF and the IRA') . In order to do this, Adams/McGuinness had to make progress on the political front. That they did, prisoner release, political negotiation, RUC disbanding etc and they brought the republican community along with them, in ever increasing numbers
But the greatest strategic triumph of all was getting into government with UUP without arms decommissioning. Some may opine that Trimble and UUP were suckered and duped by SF, perhaps so. But the critical element is that while Trimble may have crossed the rubicon and gone into government, outside Paisley beat the drum of traitor, and it is resonated louder and louder within Unionism.
Even if the IRA had decommissioned, the risk of Paisley rising to the ascendancy of political unionism outside the political structures remained. Not having signed up to GFA, he could have refused power-sharing with SF and crashed the GFA , just like Sunningdale before. Adams/McGuinness would have been humiliated and republicanism in turmoil.
Instead, as Adams wrote explicitly at the time of first Stormont suspension, "the Paisley deal is the only deal". With Paisley signed up to a power-sharing arrangement, in return for decommissioning, there was no political unionist block left that was strong enough to crash GFA the way Sunningdale was crashed (slow learners anyone?)

when the RA stopped it all stopped

It is the nature of a ceasefire, yes. The political impetus being driven by Bill Clinton, Hume, Reynolds.
Adams, McGuinness, Kelly, Slab Murphy, Martin Ferris now outflanked the militant McKevitt on the IRA AC and the political wing of SF/IRA had the ascendency over the militant wing.
I want the past left in the past so I've zero interest in lauding former gunmen and bombers

Nobody is asking you to laud over former gunmen and bombers. Although it would have been hard to avoid with the state commemorations of 1916 a few years back. I think Thomas Clarke, an indiscriminate bomber of bridges and train stations, was afforded another bridge to be named after him by President D Higgins.

The gaslighting is by the media. The Seamus McElwaine memorial occurs every year, attended by SF representatives of one sort or another. The media pay little attention, if at all. The only reason this memorial got traction is because it was a high profile rep like Matt Carty.
Carty, probably sensing an election in the not too distant future, was playing to his base support in the region.

How are we going to move on if SF want to keep glorifying and trying to justify the dark deeds of yore

And yet we continue to glorify the past dark deeds of 1916-1921
Garret (and frightened thinking people) be afraid of a British withdrawal

Garret being frightened, does not make Garret correct. The same "now is not the time" brigade are still holding that line.
Given the atrocious behaviour of the British Army, as documented by yourself, was Garret Fitzgerald wrong and, with the benefit of hindsight of course, would we have been much better off if Harold Wilson had packed his bags in 1974?

We don't have the benefit of hindsight because Harold Wilson did not pack his bags.
But to indulge the hypothetical scenario, ideally, the Irish Army should have moved into the Nationalist area's. Failing that UN Peace-keepers.
While the BA did halt the pogroms against Catholics, it was a temporary reprieve as we know how they would choose to gun-down the innocents in due course.

In fact, in your opinion and again with the benefit of hindsight would it have been better if the BA had not intervened in the first place in 1969?

Absolutely. The Irish Army in Nationalist areas would have been better. Or UN peace-keepers.
 
That is nigh eve beyond belief. I feel embarrassed for having engaged with you on this, I've had enough.

Ok, I misconstrued. I was basing it on your hypothetical scenario of HW packing his bags (ie British withdrawal). I see you are asking on the basis of the non-hypothetical scenario.

There is no doubt that the BA deployment was a benefit for all at the outset. But it became quickly apparent, under the direction of RUC, that they were not a neutral force. Evidenced by their open brutality, and their sustained covert war for 20yrs and more.
 
Ok, I misconstrued. I was basing it on your hypothetical scenario of HW packing his bags (ie British withdrawal). I see you are asking on the basis of the non-hypothetical scenario.

There is no doubt that the BA deployment was a benefit for all at the outset. But it became quickly apparent, under the direction of RUC, that they were not a neutral force. Evidenced by their open brutality, and their sustained covert war for 20yrs and more.
Okay, I'm back. Personally, being a young catholic on the ground in 1969, the arrival of British troops was an enormous relief. The catholic population were under attack from loyalist forces. The idea of Lynch's army invading Belfast to fight those forces is just unconscionable. Mind you Lynch did rattle his sabre, moving troops to the border, I suppose to appease CJH and his pals.

I accept that the British had some responsibility for allowing the situation to develop, going right back to partition and allowing a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people, and so had a moral duty to address it. By and large they did address it. Far more British security forces died than IRA terrorists, and I stand by my assertion that the whole island owe the former an enormous debt. Garret Fitz was right, a British withdrawal would have unleashed a nightmare on the whole island.
 
Last edited:
Personally, being a young catholic on the ground in 1969, the arrival of British troops was an enormous relief. The catholic population were under attack from loyalist forces. The idea of Lynch's army invading Belfast to fight those forces is just unconscionable.

The language is insightful. You paint a picture of a population living under siege and in fear (you've referenced Rwandan, Balkans also).
There is no doubt who, at that time the outright aggressors were?
And while it was a relief for Catholics when BA arrived, how must it have felt when they turned their guns on those the set out to protect?

From one perspective, the BA allowed themselves to be played naively right into the hands of the IRA. No doubt influenced in no small part by directions and information from their friends in the RUC.
From another perspective, considering how you have described matters, who could blame the Catholic population for rising up in arms in such circumstances ? I couldn't.

Arlene Foster spoke of the 'evil' that was Séamus McElwain. She said she felt the same about him today as she did when she a small child and he attempted to kill her father 40yrs+ ago.
Who could blame her? I certainly couldn't.

The naivety in these discussions is that the communities of Ballymurphy and Derry and elsewhere are expected to feel different and move on with regard to BA atrocities committed against their loved ones, not just today, but should have done so when Sunningdale was signed!

We've been down this road before. The question why was the IRA campaign sustained so long?
Simplifying it, the absence of trust, lack of political will to compromise, presence of political will to inflict defeat, and a deep hatred.
Once violence erupts, it is anyone's guess what direction it will take and for how long.
 
WT, sure of course prisoner releases weren't part of Sunningdale since the Republican movement took no part - c'mon man. And it's not that the Brits wouldn't talk, they'd met t'lads at Cheyne Walk in London before then, only to be told 32 county socialist republic or nothing.

So the deal was there to be done if republicans interested. Put another way, was the extra 25 years of bloodshed worth it? Everything was lost and nothing won, as the song says.
 
sure of course prisoner releases weren't part of Sunningdale since the Republican movement took no part - c'mon man

Kind of critical point though?
Similarly the Council of Ireland that repulsed Unionists would manifest itself again in another form under the Anglo Irish agreement, and again under GFA.
Was the Unionist resistance to this worth it?

And it's not that the Brits wouldn't talk, they'd met t'lads at Cheyne Walk in London before then, only to be told 32 county socialist republic or nothing.

Well, it wasn't exactly a 32 county socialist republic they were demanding from the British at those talks. They were seeking commitment to a British troop withdrawal and guarantee that the future of Ireland be determined by the Irish people alone (which to their mind would be a 32CSR).
The British side were committed to the people of NI determining their future.
The IRA, under leadership of MacStíofán obviously rejected this.


So the deal was there to be done

The deal was there to be done in the context of being able to sell the terms of the deal to their base.
In 1972 this was not plausible in any way shape or form, let's be realistic. Ballymurphy, Derry, Internment etc were on-going raw wounds in the psyche of Republican base. Let alone that in 'ordinary' times they lived in a sectarian state that punched down on them.

Put another way, was the extra 25 years of bloodshed worth it?

Of course it wasn't worth it. But it naive, in my view, that it was wholly sustained by the IRA alone. The British government, via its agents or its part, adopted policies of criminalisation, covert war, collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, etc... the culmination being the dirty protest and hunger strikes.

To say that all trust between IRA and British government had eroded is an understatement. In itself, sustainig the cycle of violence.
 
Last edited:
Re prisoner releases, as I said that would absolutely have been on the cards, you can't knock Sunningdale on that basis since republicans didn't engage it in.

"The British side were committed to the people of NI determining their future.
The IRA, under leadership of MacStíofán obviously rejected this."

But ultimately SF signed up to exactly that (the people of NI determining their future). The reality of sityeation, as they say, is that barring Rwandan style ethnic cleansing there was never going to be a UI without the people of NI voting for it, and callous and all as the Brits are they couldn't watch that happen on their doorstep in the 1970s - so, sure. I'm naive that bloodlust shouldn't have driven on the Provos, doesn't make their actions justified though, & if I'm naive by God they were naive thinking they'd ever bomb their way to a UI. Yes, they weren't the only actors on the scene, and even if they'd signed up for Sunningdale there'd have been provocation from loyalists and some security elements, but I do think it would have ultimately prevailed.

An interesting question is that if the RA were justified in the Long War, what's wrong with the cause of dissident republicans now?, surely its PSF/PIRA who have sold out the purity of the cause, the flame that was lit in 1916.....(some suitable imagery & craw thumping, sure y'know yourself....), why was a 1972 'betrayal' acceptable in 1998, some slow learning perchance?
 
@WolfeTone you can keep your fantasy for all I care. But I won’t let you twist my own personal narrative. On August 15th 1969 I went to Mass (feast of the Assumption, I went those days).
The priest informed us that overnight the Protestant mobs backed by the RUC had attacked Catholics and that 4 were killed. He went so far as to say that if it wasn’t for the resistance of the IRA It would have been much worse. It was scary, I’ll say even though I lived about 2 miles from the nearest Prod. What a relief when the BA arrived and what a relief it should be to everyone on this island to this day that they persisted.
So no, sorry to disappoint, I was not in a community under seige but for that one day it was scary for me.

Do you ever question in your narrative of British atrocity and near pogrom against the Catholic community the dogs that weren’t barking? Mainstream Southern politics. The EU. The US. In fact other than the usual MOPE moans of a section of Mary Robinson’s diaspora international criticism of British activity in NI was extremely muted.
 
Last edited:
Slow learners

- IRA were slow learners in thinking that they force a British military withdrawal by arms. They couldn't.

- British government were slow learners in thinking they could criminalise and defeat the Republican movement. They couldn't.

- British military/intelligence were slow learners in thinking they could turn nationalist communities against IRA by running a covert war supplying loyalists with weapons, intelligence and cover. They failed.

- British and Irish gov were slow learners in thinking a political settlement could be achieved without a settlement of the prisoners issue and without their representatives at the table. It couldn't.

- Paisley and Loyalism were slow learners in that "Ulster say No!" could sustain indefinitely. It couldn't.

The IRA could not have signed up to Sunningdale because they were not part of the negotiation, and their primary demands of a British military withdrawal and recognition of the right of whole of Irish people alone to determine their future (1972, their demands were not a 32CSR) were not part of that agreement.

Even if somehow the IRA did tacitly acknowledge Sunningdale was the way forward, drop their arms, there was still the small matter of Paisley and Loyalist community who were firmly entrenched in the Ulster say No, No Surrender mode to accept the terms of Sunningdale. Meaning Sunningdale was dead with or without IRA on board. Fast forward to GFA and power-sharing and decomissioning. Until the Paisley block of Unionism/loyalism was prepared to sign up and compromise then the IRA, cognisant of what became of the Sunningdale agreement on foot of the Ulster Workers Council strike, held onto their weapons.



My point is that GFA is Sunningdale is for slow learners, but slow learners comes in a number of forms.
 
- British government were slow learners in thinking they could criminalise and defeat the Republican movement. They couldn't.
The British Government didn't try to criminalise and defeat the Republican movement. They, along with everyone else, criminalised and tried to defeat that minority which used terrorism to further their aims while co-opting the term "Republican Movement" to themselves.
 
@WolfeTone you can keep your fantasy for all I care.

What are you talking about? What you are outlining is the very narrative that I understand matters to be!

If I figure you correctly, your beef is about "quantity, and even quality" of atrocity?

I have no qualms in recognising that the Provos were the single most aggressive protaganists in the conflict. Far more so than the BA in terms of death counts. But that that somehow is something the populations of Belfast and Derry should be grateful for? That that somehow eases the raw emotion that followed BA atrocities is really infantile thinking.

But if your measurement of who the goodies and baddies are based on quantity of death counts then you will see from the Wiki source I gave you that the conflict was not a one-way street. This is the false narrative peddled by yourself and others.

Purely on a death count, out of 3,532 people killed, The Provos are attributed with 1,705 deaths, or 48% of the deaths. So when doing your homework this evening, you might let me know who was responsible for the other 1,827 deaths, or 52% of the deaths - the bogeyman?
 
Last edited:
The British Government didn't try to criminalise and defeat the Republican movement. They, along with everyone else, criminalised and tried to defeat that minority which used terrorism to further their aims while co-opting the term "Republican Movement" to themselves.

Ok were into the semantics here. The "Republican Movement" being the political and military organisations of SF and IRA that adopted the term "Republican Movement" for themselves and which, as far as I'm aware, was the universally adopted term applied when talking about SF and IRA.
 
Back
Top