In an article in the Guardian, Gerry Adams has called upon the IRA to disarm.



Is this an attempt at political survival? Or an honest effort at advancing the process?

I do honestly think that from the begining of the Good Friday agreement the onlyones with real hopes and interest on it has been Sin Feinn.

The IRA has in numerous ocassions dissarmed, and it is unfair blames and accusations from the unionists that have broken the cease fires.

In this case the unfair and unprofessional blaming of the Northern Bank Robbery without evidence.

How easy it is to blame the IRA and put all the political weight on them.

However this call must have some political thinking behind it. Becaue after all the elections are up and coming!!

well sorry, the ceasefire is still there at the moment lol :lol:

The article does have unionist leanings and it's description of the IRA is unflattering at best. However, the question whether the republican population will continue to accept and suport the SF/IRA is valid.

I don't know that SF had any choice in issuing the statement, considering their battered reputation and the aforementioned looming elections. Or...

Am I overestimating the politcal damage of recent events? Is SF the only game in town? Meaning the republican voters will support them at the polls, because there is no other viable option?

If so, the statement was made for other reasons. The issue is getting some play in the US, where the SF suffered recent snubs from public supporters. One wonders whether this statement is an attempt to bolster support on the international stage.

Indeed, the elections. Let's not forget that at the moment Sinn Fein is the biggest republican party in the North... I don't think Adams would like to loose that position, just because IT IS a good position for affirmed republicans. I already stated some weeks ago in another post that blaiming immediately the IRA -even before a trial!- was undoubtely an effort from the Irish and British political establishments to discredit Sinn Fein... <_<
It's all about perception in politics, the truth often doesn't matter that much. Perception is too often seen as reality by people and politicians are very aware of that. And well, let's be honest: Those fools mixed up in that pub brawl and killing McCarthney were certainly not of the brightest. :wacko: Political opponents -and ennemies- are just waiting for such an occasion to occur! It's a gift from heaven for them!
As members of Sinn Fein -or the IRA- they had better kept calm instead of killing somebody who -in the end- was somebody of the same side... :angry: They should've read the green book better, me thinks... :(
I hope the IRA does FOR NOW stop its armed struggle, just to see how Sinn Fein can influence things through the political way. But giving up armed struggle definitely as long as the British aren't off the island? I can't imagine the majority of republicans could agree with that! I couldn't anyway... :ph34r:

What's for sure, is that there's something going on there... and it might be much more clever than it seems...

Never underestimate a politician who spent his political life in opposition. They have one great advantage: huge patience...
Well, let's hope good things come out of it! Anyway, there's one fact about Gerry Adams: He certainly isn't a lousy politician and you most certainly can't say he isn't committed... I have a great deal of respect for that man. The things he accomplished... :)

As a summary:
Like they say it in French: "Reculer pour mieux sauter" (Stepping back so to jump better)...

The prevailing opinion seems to be that SF will continue to enjoy popular support, and would have even without the the statement.

Why then, was it made?

Hardliners will accuse him of betrayal, and moderates will say he didn't go far enough. What does the movement gain by taking this position?

Post Script: I think that it was the right thing to do.

MPs vote to suspend Sinn F�in allowances

More criticism of Sinn F�in in the EP

Credibility? In Ireland as internationally...

Don't forget the moderates are SDLP-voters... So it's not only about Irish nationalism or Republicanism. It's also about maintaining Sinn F�in as the biggest republican party in the North, what's not to be considered lightly with those electoins coming up...
Sinn F�in are indeed losing public support because of the McCartneys, let's not forget that. The unionists won't have much advantage in that, it's the SDLP...

(IMG:http://dynimg.rte.ie/00001e4b0b2.jpg)

I have nothing more to add...

If, as the graphic suggests, SF is a new voice in Europe, what are they saying? And, are they saying it loud enough?

A supplementary question, would the republican cause be strengthened by increased support for the "moderate" SDLP?

1.

The EU is a very complex construction... I truly believe they could be a new voice in Europe. The fact is only Irish citizens can vote Sinn F�in executives into European Parliament. I, as a Belgian, can't vote for Sinn F�in for the European Parliament (EP). As European, you can only vote -at this moment- for politicians out of your own country. As Ireland is a small European country you can wonder how loud Sinn F�in really can say things in the EU and the EP.
I'm a Sinn F�in supporter and not only for their republicanism: They also stand for equal chances and opportunities between every human being, black or white, man or woman, upper class or working class etc. Now, I could write a lot about Sinn F�in here, but I would make it far too long. I think it would be wiser if you would read their manifestos yourself:

All their manifestos...

Their manifesto for the European elections. A view on how Europe should evolve...

Manifest about Ireland (i.e. 26 counties)

And last but not least: Their vision on North-Ireland (6 counties)



2.

Well, I'll answer this with a personal -and limited of course- view.
Would an increased support for the SDLP mean strenghtening the Republican cause? Well, not necessarily: If it would be at the cost of unionist parties, then of course it would... :rolleyes: Now, if it would be at the cost of Sinn F�in, than I very much doubt so... Fact is, they may have done good things but I consider them more as the weaker brother of Sinn F�in. They always had a greater electorate than SF until last year, but I consider SF has realised far more by putting more force on their demands -for example by means of the IRA- an republicanism. The British authorities knew what truly lived at the republican side through SF and their succes. Forming governments was soly a matter privileged to the SDLP... I think SF is a better party to negociate with the British, I also think they have the most idealists in their ranks. And a good dose of that is sometimes good in a political world where everything turns around maintaining seats and power... I personally consider SF the best party to head Ireland to unification -at last- and this as fast as possible... :)

Now, I hope that was satisfactory Bill... ;)

If you want my opinion, and with all the respect I have for the SDLP, they won't ever get anywhere. Let Sinn Fein try their luck on that. The Moderates only ever suceed in postponning things, sometimes make things a little easier to live, but never really get what they want, because they tend to forget the ultimate aim. That's the one good thing with extremism (and fanatism in a sense), they never forget their aim.

I never considered Sinn F�in an extremist party, you know Charlotte... Most certainly when you read their manifestos and policies... If you consider unificating Ireland a extreme measure, well then of course...
I just think they do it the 'right' way...

Do I consider them as extreme? no, but they're always labelled as such : maybe because they never forget their aim...