• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.




Tony Blair Admitted That GFA Concessions Were Driven By IRA Bombing Campaign.

TruthInTheNews

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
1,629
I finally got around to reading the autobiography of Tony Blair. Of course there is a chapter on the Northern Ireland peace process which is quite startling in some passages. Blair says that the GFA concessions were made to Nationalists in return for an end to the IRA bombing campaign. There is nothing in the book to indicate that concessions were made to Nationalists simply because it was the right thing to do. Blair also says that the SDLP felt ignored because they had no weapons of their own to use as a negotiation tool and that Unionists felt that the GFA was just a serious of concessions made to Nationalists in order to appease the IRA.

That's a rather different opinion to the one espoused by FF/FG/Lab and Independent Newspapers which is that the GFA would have happened anyway without any pressure from the IRA. Well that is not what TB is saying.

Should the IRA be given credit for the concessions made to Nationalists in the GFA? What do you think?

Page 170
.

'The SDLP thought that they often got ignored because they were too busy dealing with Sinn Fein. “If we had weapons you'd treat us more seriously” was their continual refrain'.

Page 181.

It seemed to me that the first principle was really what was called the principle of consent. I a majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted to unite with the South then there would be unity, but until then Northern Ireland would be part of the United Kingdom. It was this principle that Republicans would not accept historically, arguing that the partition of Ireland was constitutionally invalid and that the island as a whole should be treated as the voting constituency. Obviously this meant that peace was impossible. So they had to be brought to accept the principle of consent, explicitly or implicitly.


The question then was: on what basis and on what principles would Republicans accept it? The answer, which then underpinned the formation of the Good Friday Agreement was peace in return for power-sharing and equality, i.e. the IRA war would end if there was a government in Northern Ireland which was truly representative of all parts of the community and there was genuine equality of Protestants and Catholics alike. Hence the need for reform of the police and the courts and hence the acknowledgement of the Irish language. Those wanting a united Ireland would have to accept partition, at least until they were in the majority: but in return, within a divided Ireland, they would receive fair and equal treatment and recognition of the aspiration to a United Ireland. Hence also the North-South bodies.

Page 185.

I remember once talking to a group of Unionists some time after the Good Friday Agreement. One of them said to me – 'Tell me what we have really got out of this agreement' I said: 'The Union. That's pretty big, don't you think?'. In other words, the basis of the deal meant that the principle of consent was avowed; and so long as the majority desired it, the Union would remain. That, after all was the raison d'etre of Unionism. But he didn't really see it like that. He just saw a string of concessions to being 'the men of violence' to stop what they should never have been doing anyway.
 


InsideImDancing

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
21,959
Tell us something we don't know..

It was all a response to the PIRA.

Sunningdale, Anglo-Irish agreement, the GFA, all of it.

Otherwise, what else was it? The goodness of their hearts? The SDLP or the Irish Govt? Really. :)
 

Man or Mouse

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
7,110
Tell us something we don't know..

It was all a response to the PIRA.

Sunningdale, Anglo-Irish agreement, the GFA, all of it.

Otherwise, what else was it? The goodness of their hearts? The SDLP or the Irish Govt? Really. :)
Indeed.

Good job we kept a few pikes in the thatch too, just in case like.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,201
I don't take anything stated by Phony Tony, seriously.
 

Levellers

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
14,167
London was on the verge of losing their financial centre to Frankfurt due to the bombing campaign.
 

between the bridges

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
45,759
Does he mention the Ra being defeated by the average industry expense account...
 

Just Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
3,792
It's not really a surprise. Several Brits said the same thing on a recent BBC documentary to commemorate the Canary Warf bomb.

And the year before when Peter Taylor did a documentary on 'who won the war', he asked James Prior, former Tory secretary of state for the six counties, if the IRA was a terrorist organization... Prior paused for several seconds before saying "that's a very difficult question to answer". Predictably unionists were furious (as were their ideological soul-mates in the Free State, I'm sure)

The Brits are a bit more honest than Free Staters once the propaganda war is over, you have to give them that.

The Staters have never really got out of the 1970s or the poisonous mindset of Conor Cruise O'Brien.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,639
It's not really a surprise. Several Brits said the same thing on a recent BBC documentary to commemorate the Canary Warf bomb.

And the year before when Peter Taylor did a documentary on 'who won the war', he asked James Prior, former Tory secretary of state for the six counties, if the IRA was a terrorist organization... Prior paused for several seconds before saying "that's a very difficult question to answer". Predictably unionists were furious (as were their ideological soul-mates in the Free State, I'm sure)

The Brits are a bit more honest than Free Staters once the propaganda war is over, you have to give them that.

The Staters have never really got out of the 1970s or the poisonous mindset of Conor Cruise O'Brien.
How could anyone think they are not?
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,162
The reality is - when you look at the decline in support for a UI - that on balance Unionism has benefited more constitutionally eg the principle of consent - but that on human rights Catholics have benefitted more by being treated more equally. After all when your excluded De facto from the police and when soldiers can shoot you in the back and then get off because of Tories campaigning for you and letter writing campaigns in the Tory press, by definition getting equality is a major concession by the Establishment and it's disturbing that anyone in Unionism would consider that a concession.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,733
London was on the verge of losing their financial centre to Frankfurt due to the bombing campaign.
Yep! Lives didn't matter, but when the financial centre was under threat, everybody sat up and took notice.
 

Just Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
3,792
How could anyone think they are not?
Because not everyone is conditioned by the Sunday Independent, the Daily Mail and the Sun.
 

between the bridges

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
45,759
Anywho Irish Republicans relying on the words of British PM to confirm to themselves alone that they won something...


Lmfao.
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,337
I finally got around to reading the autobiography of Tony Blair. Of course there is a chapter on the Northern Ireland peace process which is quite startling in some passages. Blair says that the GFA concessions were made to Nationalists in return for an end to the IRA bombing campaign. There is nothing in the book to indicate that concessions were made to Nationalists simply because it was the right thing to do. Blair also says that the SDLP felt ignored because they had no weapons of their own to use as a negotiation tool and that Unionists felt that the GFA was just a serious of concessions made to Nationalists in order to appease the IRA.

That's a rather different opinion to the one espoused by FF/FG/Lab and Independent Newspapers which is that the GFA would have happened anyway without any pressure from the IRA. Well that is not what TB is saying.

Should the IRA be given credit for the concessions made to Nationalists in the GFA? What do you think?

Page 170
.

'The SDLP thought that they often got ignored because they were too busy dealing with Sinn Fein. “If we had weapons you'd treat us more seriously” was their continual refrain'.

Page 181.

It seemed to me that the first principle was really what was called the principle of consent. I a majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted to unite with the South then there would be unity, but until then Northern Ireland would be part of the United Kingdom. It was this principle that Republicans would not accept historically, arguing that the partition of Ireland was constitutionally invalid and that the island as a whole should be treated as the voting constituency. Obviously this meant that peace was impossible. So they had to be brought to accept the principle of consent, explicitly or implicitly.


The question then was: on what basis and on what principles would Republicans accept it? The answer, which then underpinned the formation of the Good Friday Agreement was peace in return for power-sharing and equality, i.e. the IRA war would end if there was a government in Northern Ireland which was truly representative of all parts of the community and there was genuine equality of Protestants and Catholics alike. Hence the need for reform of the police and the courts and hence the acknowledgement of the Irish language. Those wanting a united Ireland would have to accept partition, at least until they were in the majority: but in return, within a divided Ireland, they would receive fair and equal treatment and recognition of the aspiration to a United Ireland. Hence also the North-South bodies.

Page 185.

I remember once talking to a group of Unionists some time after the Good Friday Agreement. One of them said to me – 'Tell me what we have really got out of this agreement' I said: 'The Union. That's pretty big, don't you think?'. In other words, the basis of the deal meant that the principle of consent was avowed; and so long as the majority desired it, the Union would remain. That, after all was the raison d'etre of Unionism. But he didn't really see it like that. He just saw a string of concessions to being 'the men of violence' to stop what they should never have been doing anyway.
I suspected the PIRA had something to do with the GFA from the outset.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top