Comments on The Pensive Quill: Eriu is our Queen

Thanks for that!

2013-03-21T12:47:29.834Z

Thanks for that!

Simon, a mistake or a case of where the party lea...

2013-03-21T12:40:30.065Z

Simon,

a mistake or a case of where the party leadership knew exactly where it would end up? I think all the traces are there in the history that would allow us to conclude that it was on the internal solution course for quite a while.

That the party might reflect your opinion at least has not acted as an inhibitor to your very useful contributions on this site. We have an eclectic mix!

AM- I think Sinn Fein's biggest negotiating mi...

2013-03-21T11:54:47.915Z

AM- I think Sinn Fein's biggest negotiating mistake was the triple lock veto after St.Andrews. There are many other issues apart from the present topic, like the "our turn now, your turn next" style of filling public positions like the police ombudsman and look where that got us. But they are still the party closest to my viewpoint.

Simon, I understand. And while I agree this, nev...

2013-03-21T11:40:33.495Z

Simon,

I understand.

And while I agree this, nevertheless, is the sort of problem that arises when things are left open ended when dealing with the Brits.

SF was too eager to get into office and dived to suck the truncheon. It even undermined its negotiating position by manipulating such a large endorsement of the leadership position on the move. That merely convinced its opponents that the leadership could sell snow to the eskimos that made up the rank and file. The leadership could not say after that 'we have a difficult base that will challenge us if you push us too far.' The Brit and unionist response? It was a variation of an old song - Keep on sucking.

AM- Sorry, I find it hard to explain. Position...

2013-03-21T10:52:44.394Z

AM-

Sorry, I find it hard to explain.

Position A is the time pre-GFA when they proactively prosecuted people.
Position B is post GFA when they didn't proactively prosecute people.
Position C is the position close to an Amnesty which would strengthen and make formal the position of no prosecutions.

We moved from A to B after the GFA. Then whilst at B they negotiated to go to C. So logic tells us if that fails and with no other agreement made we should stay at B.

Ho ho! Maybe it makes sense in my head only. That's possible. Many things only make sense to me... :)

Simon, not really sure what that means.

2013-03-21T08:36:19.981Z

Simon,

not really sure what that means.

AM "The opposite was more likely given that o...

2013-03-21T01:13:19.015Z

AM "The opposite was more likely given that once things had settled in the absence of all bases covered there would be a certain reversion to form."

I only meant that when there was a culture of no prosecutions and then there were negotiations to harden that culture and then those talks failed the only reason to go back on the existing culture was spite. I know it's a reversion to form but the decision isn't based on fairness or logic. If we are in position A and move to position B and, when there, we negotiate to get to C from B it implies we'll go back to B not to A if the negotiations fail.

Simon, I too doubted that the Bloody Sunday kille...

2013-03-19T21:07:25.815Z

Simon,

I too doubted that the Bloody Sunday killers would be prosecuted. Now I am not so sure. I still feel it will be to no positive end because the only verdict that will be returned if a guilty one will be of manslaughter The Brits will then trumpet to the world that is troops did not murder on Bloody Sunday.

I don’t think it was SF intent to strike an agreement that would allow its own to be prosecuted. But the outworking is that this is precisely what they struck. I think there were two turning points at which SF failed to turn on this matter: the GFA and the policing arrangement. I understand It was explained very clearly to SF leaders in private by senior British security figures that they were not completely out of the woods on questions of prosecution. Despite the annoyance it produced SF still did not plug the gaps.

You are right – there is enough evidence to suggest that the pre GFA actors were going to be allowed to go quietly into the night. But when we interviewed Hugh Orde in 2004 he seemed clear that investigation of pre-GFA actors was going ahead. I think he was not too eager on it but it was what he was tasked to do by the politicos.

In fact such discussion should have strengthened the implied agreement even if the deal failed.

I can’t see how that follows. The opposite was more likely given that once things had settled in the absence of all bases covered there would be a certain reversion to form.

Surely wounds are best healed by truth and reconciliation not re-opened by one-sided prosecutions?

I have never been one of those people that have bought into the idea that truth reconciles. Even now it is being used for recrimination. I think it reconciles people with the fate of their loved ones but not necessarily with those that killed then. They might still want adequate recognition of that loss and might prefer punishment as a means of reconciliation with their loss.

Another political prisoner has had his licence rev...

2013-03-19T20:53:03.159Z

Another political prisoner has had his licence revoked by the British. He has been found guilty of nothing yet he now finds himself severing the remaining portion of a previous sentence. And who will raise the vioce on his behalf? What nationalist politician will have the balls to challenge this decision? Because something is cloaked in legality doesn't make it fair or just. Internment by decree/licence is on the increase and not a word has been spoken against it by the self appointed champions of the new political order.

AM- I thought I'd leave a follow up comment as...

2013-03-19T20:34:14.263Z

AM- I thought I'd leave a follow up comment as I thought about the political risk that would have been taken if the State forces were given the amnesty in the absence of any proper mechanism for dealing with the past. Such a risk would be almost impossible to take but it's frustrating when you witness bad political judgment on all sides which has left us with no credible way of dealing with the past.

AM- "I think the SDLP saw it as a way to sque...

2013-03-18T22:08:30.967Z

AM- "I think the SDLP saw it as a way to squeeze SF and SF, who were alert to the danger of not doing it felt it might be step too far given the fact that state actors would have got off including the Bloody Sunday killers." I interpreted the reasoning behind it the same way but I'd be very surprised if the Bloody Sunday killers were sentenced. Although it's not impossible it is extremely unlikely. The same goes for the rest of the state force's trigger happy protagonists. I know SF couldn't expose themselves by accepting the deal with the SDLP going against it, which is why I included both parties in my question.

I disagree to some extent with "It struck an agreement that allowed its own to be prosecuted." I disagree because before the deal was discussed there was an implied acceptance of no further prosecutions of pre-1998 actors. It didn't necessarily mean that without a deal it would revert to that allowance being abandoned. In fact such discussion should have strengthened the implied agreement even if the deal failed. The abandonment of the status quo was akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water which I suspect the British government did to punish Sinn Fein's scuppering of the express deal and the accompanying protection which would have been given to State killers.

Explaining to the families of those killed by the British the reasoning behind an acceptance of a deal- the unlikelihood of successful prosecutions against those responsible and a push towards some sort of truth and reconciliation process (which necessarily has to include State actors) would maybe give those families and all other victims of the Troubles closure. Many of the families were calling for the truth not prosecutions. Surely wounds are best healed by truth and reconciliation not re-opened by one-sided prosecutions?

Simon, Personally I think Sinn Fein and the SD...

2013-03-18T20:48:29.588Z
Simon,

Personally I think Sinn Fein and the SDLP should've accepted the general amnesty idea which came along after Weston Park and would've included all offences including those by state actors as let’s face it they've got an effective amnesty anyway.

While I agree I think the SDLP saw it as a way to squeeze SF and SF, who were alert to the danger of not doing it felt it might be step too far given the fact that state actors would have got off including the Bloody Sunday killers.

I suppose that vacuum leaves a truth process or a proper reconciliation forum in the dust. Surely something like an amnesty or a less encompassing nolle prosequi towards pre-Good Friday Agreement offenders coupled with a truth process is essential to peace? We've seen the danger of how things like the flag protests can spiral out of control.

I think it showed the strategic bankruptcy of SF. It struck an agreement that allowed its own to be prosecuted. The outworking of the process demonstrates the extent to which the IRA campaign failed. More could have been gained from it but this lot were more concerned in political careers than political progress.

Simon: I know what you mean. Good luck in your sea...

2013-02-04T23:45:55.534Z
Simon:
I know what you mean.
Good luck in your search for the truth, You will never Find it in any British Parliament , nor, within SF.
I simply print it all out, Read and digest it, then I make a jigsaw of it all, then cut it up with my electric jigsaw, and then Read it again, arrow points to MI5. They run the British Parliament. Logging off now, the other half is helping me to my chair lift. lol

FFS, what next, is wee willie frazer right?. '...

2013-02-04T23:35:38.029Z
FFS, what next, is wee willie frazer right?.

'Horsemeat' found in Polish beef at Irish burger plant.

Poor Shergar, prime beef!.

Shergar Meat? Is this the anti treaty money scam?

Apologies, I should have read a bit deeper. Accor...

2013-02-04T23:28:12.545Z
Apologies, I should have read a bit deeper. According to the Wed 16th May 2012 response by Eamon Gilmore to a question by Dessie Ellis in the Dail it was because there wasn't support in the Assembly for para. 20 and the only party to support it, Sinn Fein had issues with parts of it. So Hain couldn't put it through Westminster. I suppose there is logic to this.

I have read all the links you have put up itsjustmacker, I'm not trying to be contrary just trying to get my head around the entire scenario.

Simon: Hain withdrew the bill from Parliament ...

2013-02-04T22:56:56.455Z
Simon:

Hain withdrew the bill from Parliament because there wasn't support in Parliament not because he didn't support it.

You understand wrong Simon, he blamed SF for not agreeing to certain parts of it, and DUP, for not supporting it. He was using both of them as an excuse because those in the corridors of whitehall, known as the suits,MI5 told him it had to go, MI5 done exactly the same when the british secretary stood in Parliament and stated, There are Solicitors in Northern Ireland who are favouring the IRA, INFO HE RECEIVED FROM MI5.
I have Posted a transcript on TPQ of a question in the Dail regarding the Weston Park Agreement Para 20, and the Reply received (By Letter).

You are going on about legalities, they have gone out the window, George W Bush was the first person to mention the word, "NEW WORLD ORDER", and that's what is being created today, a UNITED STATES OF EUROPE, run by the most powerful billionaires in the world for there own benefit, powered by there secret service Intel Corp, which in Britain is MI5/MI6.

Itsjustmacker- The Irish government didn't hav...

2013-02-04T21:52:18.794Z
Itsjustmacker- The Irish government didn't have to renege on the spirit of para. 20.

It may have been a joint agreement but if one party derogates the other party doesn't have to. In fact unilateral adherence to para.20 was and is an option open to the Irish government. I don't want to get bogged down in detail but, as I understand it Hain withdrew the bill from Parliament because there wasn't support in Parliament not because he didn't support it.

Simon: It was the British who reneged on it, the ...

2013-02-04T21:18:09.519Z
Simon:

It was the British who reneged on it, the Irish Government had to do the same, because it was a joint document, The Irish Government should have kicked up a fuss about it and stated, "It was a legally Binding document signed by both Governments.

READ THIS:

Classified as an OTR (On the Run) following the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 Gerry McGeough’s arrest was a direct result of the withdrawal of paragraph 20 of the Weston Park Accord 2001 by the former British Secretary of State Peter Hain on 11th January 2006.

para 20 Peter Hain

I just did a little digging and found that Weston ...

2013-02-04T21:04:05.083Z
I just did a little digging and found that Weston Park Para. 20 was scrapped because it didn't have the support of Parliament. That must be why the governments and the political parties later suggested a wider amnesty to include state forces.

Surely this area needs revisited?

I suppose that vacuum leaves a truth process or a proper reconciliation forum in the dust. The recent flag protests are apparently due, to some extent, to the HET's focus on loyalists over the past while. Without a proper method of closure the discontent on all sides will fester. Surely something like an amnesty or a less encompassing nolle prosequi towards pre-Good Friday Agreement offenders coupled with a truth process is essential to peace? We've seen the danger of how things like the flag protests can spiral out of control.

Eamon O'Cuiv was talking about Para. 20. How ...

2013-02-04T20:51:25.312Z
Eamon O'Cuiv was talking about Para. 20. How can a party to an international agreement unilaterally renege on one of the most important parts of that agreement?

The answer to that is if the other parties to that agreement don't protest against the unilateral derogation the derogating party will do what it likes.

Simon Its doe's still stand. except paragraph...

2013-02-04T20:27:56.566Z
Simon

Its doe's still stand. except paragraph 20.

AM. Itsjustmacker.- From today's news. Eamon ...

2013-02-04T19:25:04.125Z
AM. Itsjustmacker.- From today's news. Eamon O'Cuiv TD thinks the Weston Park agreement should still stand. Can one party to an international agreement annul an important part of that agreement? I suppose they can as there is no sanction for reneging.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0204/1224329605840.html

itsjustmacker- thanks for that. The HET was set u...

2013-01-28T19:04:27.083Z
itsjustmacker- thanks for that. The HET was set up before Hain's statement about the removal of paragraph 20. The same logic applies in any case no matter what the timeframes.

Personally I think Sinn Fein and the SDLP should've accepted the general amnesty idea which came along after Weston Park and would've included all offences including those by state actors as lets face it they've got an effective amnesty anyway.

Simon: Once paragraph 20 of the weston park accor...

2013-01-27T14:56:48.429Z
Simon:

Once paragraph 20 of the weston park accord was dropped by Peter Hain, HET jumped on the band wagon, but, they were secretly doing this anyway.
Read this Gerry mc Geough to be released on the 29th jan 2013

Maybe Paragraph 20 of the Weston Park deal was ann...

2013-01-27T13:46:09.212Z
Maybe Paragraph 20 of the Weston Park deal was annulled by Peter Hain in 2006 but how could he do this unilaterally? This suggests that there was a nod and a wink regarding some offenders. Perhaps on the other hand it was akin to the British governments attitude to "internal housekeeping" and they kept away from arresting certain people to avoid rocking the boat?

The HET was set up before paragraph 20 was annulled and was an obvious contradiction. Maybe from Weston Park in 2001 they worked paragraph 20 to keep Sinn Fein on board and to get the DUP on board in 2005 they set up the HET perhaps not pursuing people whose arrests would upset Sinn Fein and thus keeping both major parties happy.

Comments on The Pensive Quill: Eriu is our Queen

Thanks for that!

Simon, a mistake or a case of where the party lea...

AM- I think Sinn Fein's biggest negotiating mi...

Simon, I understand. And while I agree this, nev...

AM- Sorry, I find it hard to explain. Position...

Simon, not really sure what that means.

AM "The opposite was more likely given that o...

Simon, I too doubted that the Bloody Sunday kille...

Another political prisoner has had his licence rev...

AM- I thought I'd leave a follow up comment as...

AM- "I think the SDLP saw it as a way to sque...

Simon, Personally I think Sinn Fein and the SD...

Simon: I know what you mean. Good luck in your sea...

FFS, what next, is wee willie frazer right?. '...

Apologies, I should have read a bit deeper. Accor...

Simon: Hain withdrew the bill from Parliament ...

Itsjustmacker- The Irish government didn't hav...

Simon: It was the British who reneged on it, the ...

I just did a little digging and found that Weston ...

Eamon O'Cuiv was talking about Para. 20. How ...

Simon Its doe's still stand. except paragraph...

AM. Itsjustmacker.- From today's news. Eamon ...

itsjustmacker- thanks for that. The HET was set u...

Simon: Once paragraph 20 of the weston park accor...

Maybe Paragraph 20 of the Weston Park deal was ann...