Gerry Adams exposed , his lies demolished at brothers rape trial

[littlebabyjesus]

that is because now and again i find myself dealing with an idiot. i said i didn't think you understood the dynamics of the conflict, you replied that you think you understand something of the dynamics of the paramilitaries. but not, i note, the dynamics of the conflict.

Ah, so you're just interested in nitpicking, not in anything substantial? I don't come to this with fixed, finished opinions. There is lots I don't know.

 

[likesfish]

Embarresment mosty.
To close to home to hoist down the union jack and retreat.
The irish state completely unable to take control of the north even if they wanted too.
So keeping the mayhem under 5000 deaths rather than in the tens of thousands seemed like a plan

 

[Pickman's model]

Ah, so you're just interested in nitpicking, not in anything substantial? I don't come to this with fixed, finished opinions. There is lots I don't know.

so i see. i'll do you a more substantial answer later.

 

[Casually Red]

maybe as a residue in some of the older tory types.

after the free state was formed Britain's pride was already bruised, holding onto the fourth field was little more than an embarrassing reminder, not exactly something to boast or take pride in.

furthermore that would still not make it imperialism, imperialism isn't just about countries conquering other countries, it's a specific analysis based on the interests of national capitals, not the whims of pseudo feudal old Tory lords.

Again completely wrong, they did boast about their achievement with some pride. Most notably Lord Birkenhead, who cackled about indirectly controlling one part of Ireland while directly controlling the other, all with a great economy of English lives . Their pride wasnt bruised in the slightest, their policy years earlier had already been partitioned Home Rule, which is what the Irish ultimately got . Just as decades later the policy best suited to their interests was devolved power sharing at Stormont, which is what they got .

 

[littlebabyjesus]

so i see. i'll do you a more substantial answer later.

Can't help yourself, can you?

 

[Casually Red]

basically, instead of merely insisting imperialism is what keeps the British state in the North, why don't you explain it, lay out for all us stooges what the UK state and ruling classes gain from maintaining the Union? Furthermore if the 6 counties are worth having how come the South has no interest in reclaiming them?

i already did this at length on a previous thread. In response you did a vicky pollard..yeah but no but yeah..but no..shouted some anarchist slogans and then took a huff .
Anyways what your after doing there is very silly . Youve insisted theres no British interests to protect in Ireland, and to back it up quoted Anthony McIntyre saying Britain doesnt need to hold territory to protect those interests . Interests you insist dont exist to begin with . So youve completely contradicted yourself.
McIntyre is of course doing his usual end of history schtick . Like Fukuyama before him committing the howler that the prevailing status quo of today will be the permanent status quo of the futture . The British state certainly isnt that short sighted.

While hes good at analysing aspects of recent history what hes woeful at is suggesting any way forward, indeed he insists there simply isnt one .Whether peaceful or armed, nationalist or socialist. He insists everyone else fall foul to his own personal brand of defeatism, and maybe become a blogger scrutinising the past to avoid having to deal with the future. Or a well paid consultant for Tom McFeely..who knows.
I had the misfortune one night about 8 years ago to attend a public meeting on the way forward to find him sitting at the top table , glass of Brandy in hand, glibly and somewhat arrogantly insisting there simply wasnt one and everyone should just accept that and go home . Needless to say he never got invited to address another one from that day since.

And on his point about republican engagement with unionism he neglects to mention the pertinent facts. Republicans sought engagement with unionism throughout, engagement most certainly took place. Feakle was a reality, Eire Nua and unionist engagement with it was a reality, the process aimed at securing a joint statement between the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries calling for a British withdrawal was a reality..and was just weeks away from being issued before certain parliamentarians with links to the British intelligence services deliberately wrecked it , just as Feakle had been deliberately wrecked shortly before that.
And the most obvious bar to engagement is so obvious it shouldnt need explaining . Unionists see no need whatsoever to engage with republicans so long as the union is safe . While Britain protects the union with all its military and diplomatic might they can simply hide behind it . Its only when republicans have put the future of the union in doubt that unionists fear for their interests and seek engagement .
In 1997 98 it was very different though . Britian and its US allies ensured that before any unionists had to sit at a table their opponents had already abandoned their political position due to the preconditions which were an entry fee to the talks . From that point on unionists were just dealing with gerry adams and martin mcguinness, not the republican position . That was gone .
McIntyres more than aware of this . Hes also more than aware that if there was no British occupation of Irish territory thered be no stormont either, and no unionist parties. So his point is more than a bit ridiculous on that score , as is yours.

 

[Pickman's model]

Can't help yourself, can you?

you have it arse about tit.

 

[Pickman's model]

To stretch the comparison, the loyalist paramilitaries of the 1960s, killing uppity Catholics to keep the Catholic community subdued, were like the KKK. So a closer equivalent situation in the US would have been federal troops coming in to protect black people from lynching, but then turning on black people who are demonstrating, and hanging around to help the local authorities enforce certain aspects of segregation, some among the federal troops even cooperating secretly with the KKK, although officially they still remain steadfastly opposed to them.

i'm not getting the impression you know much about the ku klux klan, tbh. do you mean the first kkk or the second kkk - or a later incarnation? the second kkk, as detailed in books like 'behind the mask of chivalry', was a much more formidable organisation, in its day, than either its earlier or later cousins.

Here, the comparison breaks down, admittedly, as the nationalist community in NI did not want to be part of the UK anyway, so when uk forces arrive and are hostile, they are easily identified as the enemy. I can understand why people wanted to take up arms to defend their communities. And with the British army there as the enemy too, what other solution could there be except the expulsion of the British?

But now we've slipped into fantasy-land, perhaps without realising it: you think you can overthrow the powerful majority? How? The leadership of the IRA seized an opportunity to take control of the nationalist community and start a war in their name - an unwinnable war, the point of which was not so much the winning as the doing, and what doing it gave you?

and how would you say the ira leadership (which ira? which leadership?) 'took control' of the nationalist community? and anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of 'the orange state' would know that long before the unionist leadership of the six county statelet had declared war on its nationalist population. while this was not always hot, the special powers act was permanent, there were a range of 'official' unionist/loyalist vigilante gangs - the 'a', 'b' and 'c' specials, of whom the 'b's had the longest existence; see michael farrell's 'arming the protestants'. it was very much an apartheid state. in addition, i would be interested if you could expand on why you believe there was an unwinnable war - after all, the british state left four-fifths of ireland after markedly fewer deaths: approximately 1,500.

At least ETA, in their fight against Franco, knew that there were many around Spain who shared their belief that the Franco regime was illegitimate. That wasn't the case with the UK, not in the same way. Even killing Thatcher would not have been the same as killing Carrero Blanco. The IRA's fight was from the start as futile as the fight of those in ETA who continued their campaign after Franco was gone - never going to achieve any of its stated larger political aims, and delaying the achievement of other civil rights aims, such as a Basque police force to replace the hated Guardia Civil, which still hasn't totally been achieved.

I would argue that ETA's activities in the late 70s/1980s delayed reforms in the Basque Country that would have come much more quickly without ETA. ETA opposed the socialist govt of the 1980s, as the IRA opposed the Labour govt of the 1970s. In both cases, the paramilitaries provoked the governments into a reaction against them. That does look to me like a deliberate attempt to prolong the conflict for the sake of prolonging it. I'm not excusing what Spain/Britain did, btw - the reactions of both Gonzalez and Wilson/Callaghan were appalling and also counterproductive (and anti-democratic). That can be a tactic - to provoke the state into terrible anti-democratic actions that will see support for you grow - but I'm struggling to think of an example from history of that tactic working, tbh, except in a non-violent setting: the civil disobedience tactic of the movements led by Gandhi or Martin Luther King. If you use violence to provoke the response, you just make it politically impossible for the govt to compromise with you.

you ignore the fact that it was, er, a labour government which ordered troops into the six counties. it would perhaps be a good idea if you went and did some reading instead of pontificating on the basis of inadequate data. there's a grand bibliography available at the CAIN site, http://cain.ulster.ac.uk/bibdbs/bibliography/index.html

 

[revol68]

in addition, i would be interested if you could expand on why you believe there was an unwinnable war - after all, the british state left four-fifths of ireland after markedly fewer deaths: approximately 1,500.

Maybe cause of the presence of nearly a million protestants who wished to maintain the union...
You might be able to force British troops out with a few bombs and shootings but not the unionist population.
The tendency of republicans and leftists to reduce the unionist population to stooges of imperialism is where it all goes tits up.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe cause of the presence of nearly a million protestants who wished to maintain the union...
You might be able to force British troops out with a few bombs and shootings but not the unionist population.
The tendency of republicans and leftists to reduce the unionist population to stooges of imperialism is where it all goes tits up.

so what you're saying is that the ira could have won the war but they wouldn't have won the peace. incidentally, it's hard to see people demanding an association with the british state as wholly progressive. perhaps you could expand on how you see the unionist population.

 

[framed]

Maybe cause of the presence of nearly a million protestants who wished to maintain the union...
You might be able to force British troops out with a few bombs and shootings but not the unionist population.
The tendency of republicans and leftists to reduce the unionist population to stooges of imperialism is where it all goes tits up.

You view the communities as fixed and permanent. There was never anything like one million Protestants 'who wished to maintain the union'. Many Protestants, like my mother's family for example, were as indifferent to the union as they were to the republic.

The idea that republicanism must win over one million Protestants in order to achieve a united Ireland is pure hokum. All republicanism ever had to do was split them and create a significant pro-United Ireland minority within them. Easier said than done, of course, and on that one point I agree with you. The republican strategy is, on paper, an ideal one. Unfortunately, it has all to often been implemented by a tactically inept leadership who put short term personal/political ambitions before long-term goals.

The Shinners now believe that they are back on track with their gradualist top-down attempts at 'unity' between the sectarian camps. They've missed the point completely that it is the people of no property, Protestant and Catholic, whose concerns republicanism should be addressing.

 

[Buckaroo]

You view the communities as fixed and permanent. There was never anything like one million Protestants 'who wished to maintain the union'. Many Protestants, like my mother's family for example, were as indifferent to the union as they were to the republic.

The idea that republicanism must win over one million Protestants in order to achieve a united Ireland is pure hokum. All republicanism ever had to do was split them and create a significant pro-United Ireland minority within them. Easier said than done, of course, and on that one point I agree with you. The republican strategy is, on paper, an ideal one. Unfortunately, it has all to often been implemented by a tactically inept leadership who put short term personal/political ambitions before long-term goals.

The Shinners now believe that they are back on track with their gradualist top-down attempts at 'unity' between the sectarian camps. They've missed the point completely that it is the people of no property, Protestant and Catholic, whose concerns republicanism should be addressing.

Class War.

 

[Pickman's model]

strange there's been no reply from revol68 or littlebabyjesus

 

[co-op]

Of course the imperialist nature of the "occupation" is never properly explained, mostly because it is fantasy and rhetoric. NI is a tax sink to the UK, if they could ditch it tomorrow they would, unlucky for them they can't.

This is kind of the nub of the question isn't it? Why did (does) the British State care so much about NI?

But simply to say, "it wasn't making them money therefore it can't be imperialism" doesn't do the job. There are and always have been, a whole bundle of political, economic and ideological bases to imperialist ventures and my God NI is mired in them for the UK state. And of course many of these are historical ones that no longer really obtain but have dug the British into certain positions which are hard to get out of. And most of the senior military actors in the late 60s were men who had been in the army almost since the original partition, this was actually personal to them.

45 years ago when the British state leapt into action in NI there were a whole range of reasons for it to obsess about NI even though it was - materially - surely not that important.

1) There was a narrative of imperial decline - based on historical fact, the end of empire the shrinking of British influence. Obvious but easily forgotten now, for the British ruling class this - as individuals - was a profoundly shameful and painful experience, a political and economic degradation in the eyes of the world. There were important elements of the British state and army that were looking to draw a line somewhere. Moreover most of the major global liberation struggles had taken the form of national-liberation struggles, post-colonial ones, and for Britain to fight and win one of these (a la Malaya) was really important.

2) There was a narrative (just beginning) of 'social' decline, mainly based on a change in the balance of economic power in favour of the UK working classes through TU activity. The barbarians were at the gate. There was the rise of 'hooliganism' of all stripes - and in places like Derry this was seen as becoming politicised, separately from anything the PIRA or SF were up to - the whole DYH categorisation (I don't know much about this but I find the name interesting). Again, there was a line needing to be drawn. The 70s in particular was a time of pretty open class war in the UK and the vision of a more-or-less openly leftist armed rebellion in working class ghettos within the borders of the UK was one that was always going to need to be utterly stamped out.

3) 45 years ago anti-catholicism was still a defining feature of elite ideology in Britain - I remember when Pope John Paul II was selected and suddenly there was a glasnost on that one because he was anti-Soviet and Polish, but that came much later.

4) the collapse of traditional industry and its complete replacement by a finance and service economy was all incomprehensible in 1970. We were still being exhorted to Buy British and there was public scandal about "our" companies being outperformed by foreign ones - so NI's industrial base, hopelessly old-fashioned as it now looks, was still a prize to fight for. There was plenty of statist thinking on the right in those days, saving "our" industries, anti-EEC etc.

I could rattle on, my point is that the fact that Britain wasn't making a profit on the NI account doesn't mean this wasn't an imperialist adventure carried out for imperialist reasons. This whole "they'd (we'd) have got rid of it if they (we) could but no one else wanted it" line is one that the UK elite, especially the liberal-media part of it pushed repeatedly through the whole conflict but it's crap (and it's essentially racist too, you know what the Irish are like rolleyes/snigger).

The UK state never sought any policy of trying to "rid itself" of NI, ever. Important elements of it obsessed about keeping it in the UK. Irrational? Yes - to a lefty (or even, embarrassingly, to a social-democrat or liberal which is why the usually very slick and confident UK media struggled so hard with this issue), but ideologically coherent and politically utterly necessary from an imperialist pov. despite the fact that the whole campaign was a massive PR disaster abroad. My experience was that when I was abroad, the whole war was seen as part of a British problem, not an Irish one.

 

[likesfish]

It was more a policy of ignoring NI then panic when it all blew up.
Then trying to keep the chaos at bay.

 

[Casually Red]

This is kind of the nub of the question isn't it? Why did (does) the British State care so much about NI?

But simply to say, "it wasn't making them money therefore it can't be imperialism" doesn't do the job. There are and always have been, a whole bundle of political, economic and ideological bases to imperialist ventures and my God NI is mired in them for the UK state. And of course many of these are historical ones that no longer really obtain but have dug the British into certain positions which are hard to get out of. And most of the senior military actors in the late 60s were men who had been in the army almost since the original partition, this was actually personal to them.

45 years ago when the British state leapt into action in NI there were a whole range of reasons for it to obsess about NI even though it was - materially - surely not that important.

1) There was a narrative of imperial decline - based on historical fact, the end of empire the shrinking of British influence. Obvious but easily forgotten now, for the British ruling class this - as individuals - was a profoundly shameful and painful experience, a political and economic degradation in the eyes of the world. There were important elements of the British state and army that were looking to draw a line somewhere. Moreover most of the major global liberation struggles had taken the form of national-liberation struggles, post-colonial ones, and for Britain to fight and win one of these (a la Malaya) was really important.

2) There was a narrative (just beginning) of 'social' decline, mainly based on a change in the balance of economic power in favour of the UK working classes through TU activity. The barbarians were at the gate. There was the rise of 'hooliganism' of all stripes - and in places like Derry this was seen as becoming politicised, separately from anything the PIRA or SF were up to - the whole DYH categorisation (I don't know much about this but I find the name interesting). Again, there was a line needing to be drawn. The 70s in particular was a time of pretty open class war in the UK and the vision of a more-or-less openly leftist armed rebellion in working class ghettos within the borders of the UK was one that was always going to need to be utterly stamped out.

3) 45 years ago anti-catholicism was still a defining feature of elite ideology in Britain - I remember when Pope John Paul II was selected and suddenly there was a glasnost on that one because he was anti-Soviet and Polish, but that came much later.

4) the collapse of traditional industry and its complete replacement by a finance and service economy was all incomprehensible in 1970. We were still being exhorted to Buy British and there was public scandal about "our" companies being outperformed by foreign ones - so NI's industrial base, hopelessly old-fashioned as it now looks, was still a prize to fight for. There was plenty of statist thinking on the right in those days, saving "our" industries, anti-EEC etc.

I could rattle on, my point is that the fact that Britain wasn't making a profit on the NI account doesn't mean this wasn't an imperialist adventure carried out for imperialist reasons. This whole "they'd (we'd) have got rid of it if they (we) could but no one else wanted it" line is one that the UK elite, especially the liberal-media part of it pushed repeatedly through the whole conflict but it's crap (and it's essentially racist too, you know what the Irish are like rolleyes/snigger).

The UK state never sought any policy of trying to "rid itself" of NI, ever. Important elements of it obsessed about keeping it in the UK. Irrational? Yes - to a lefty (or even, embarrassingly, to a social-democrat or liberal which is why the usually very slick and confident UK media struggled so hard with this issue), but ideologically coherent and politically utterly necessary from an imperialist pov. despite the fact that the whole campaign was a massive PR disaster abroad. My experience was that when I was abroad, the whole war was seen as part of a British problem, not an Irish one.

in my view the issue is primarily strategic, not least because thats what one of Britains top geo political strategist defines it as. The guy who lectures the generals and the brigadiers as to why British geo political policy is what it is and was what it was . And since his seminal work on the latest phase of anglo Irish relations was written ,the British state has since located its fallback military intelligence headquarters to Co Down, allocating with it at least 15 percent of its overall military intelligence resources, including budget and personnel.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/24/mi5-ira-dissidents

a quick look through that article will put this disinterested bollocks to rest And remember this is supposed to be peacetime .

Its a massive underground state of the art facility. Its presence has similarities to Pakistans geopolitical relationship to afhanistan, as a necessary last redoubt in the face of an unforeseen military disaster. Indeed it had been the British plan to relocate its military and command structure to Ireland in the face of a nazi invasion. The geo political relationship doesnt seem to have changed.

Theres also the feared domino effect of the union breaking asunder if any constituent part leaves, as candidly admitted to by Jack Straw when he was British Home secretary. And the fear that if that happened Britian ..in reality England..could lose its permanent seat on the UNSC .

And on the economic front you need only look at the balance of trade between Britian and the Irish market as a whole. The Irish market remains saturated with British products and firms . That trade dominance is reliant on a close political relationship with the Irish elites. That close political relationship is defined by the amount of political influence Britian retains in Ireland. And its political influence is retained by occupying Irish territory and ensuring the prevailing politics accross the country is subservient to that occupation and British interests in general. Its a neo colonial relationship that ensures strategic as well as economic benefits for the British state and its ruling class.

 

[Casually Red]

so what you're saying is that the ira could have won the war but they wouldn't have won the peace. incidentally, it's hard to see people demanding an association with the british state as wholly progressive. perhaps you could expand on how you see the unionist population.

potential anarchists !!

 

[Casually Red]

this is a very thorough and informative read of the British establishments take on Irelands geo political importance to the British state, and why that has been an enduring importance in the past and will continue to be in the future . It also explains the reality of the Belfast agreement of 1998 and why its so important to British interests, and why its politically important forBritain to continually pretend Ireland isnt .
Professor Sloan refers to this politically necessary lie as a dualism .
Its just a fancy professors word for a lie .

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZhAXt8bPF8MC&pg=PA326&lpg=PA326&dq=geopolitics of anglo irish relations&source=bl&ots=ld8gBdRLeB&sig=SkM0CdX5vbzG-DfP-crdNEUS46E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QdOGUs6QNtOShgfupIGgDA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=geopolitics of anglo irish relations&f=false

 

[miktheword]

Theres also the feared domino effect of the union breaking asunder if any constituent part leaves, as candidly admitted to by Jack Straw when he was British Home secretary. And the fear that if that happened Britian ..in reality England..could lose its permanent seat on the UNSC .

wrt this bit, I seem to recall NATO calling Ireland the 'yawning gap' and emphasising its need to be kept in house. Also, there's the factor that the continued presence gives good military training for British troops to counter any future revolutionary movement that may occur (we can but hope!) Two quotes come into my head at this early hour, one on the domino, (John Biggs Davidson maybe, he of Monday Club, anti everything, perhaps: the alliterative, 'if we lose in Belfast, we may have to fight in Birmingham, Bradford and Brixton'

but also, one of the strands of the Tory hierarchy said I think,
(if?)we have to leave (its?) without being seen to leave....

apologies, for not sourcing the quotes, maybe others can...

 

[co-op]

Theres also the feared domino effect of the union breaking asunder if any constituent part leaves, as candidly admitted to by Jack Straw when he was British Home secretary. And the fear that if that happened Britian ..in reality England..could lose its permanent seat on the UNSC .

The thing is I doubt whether England, without Scotland and NI would really lose much in this arena of international councils (eg UNSC or the Council of Ministers in Europe) - but this is based on the role that the British political establishment has managed to establish for itself in the past 30-40 years. Back in the 60s when the British establishment was (from their point of view) desperately trying to manage a catastrophic decline in their global role and stem its continuance, it wasn't at all clear that Britain had any role at all in the upper chambers of the UN or anything else ('we' weren't even granted an entry-level role in the EEC/EU at that time).

Now I think a solo England might well be able to retain the various roles that Britain currently claims, but this is with the benefit of hindsight. And when England was making its NI choices in the 60s and 70s this was far from clear.

 

[likesfish]

Mi5 put its fallback hq in belfast as figured it was probably the least likely place to suffer from a 9/11 style attack.
Too much competitionperhaps

 

[Idris2002]

wrt this bit, I seem to recall NATO calling Ireland the 'yawning gap' and emphasising its need to be kept in house. Also, there's the factor that the continued presence gives good military training for British troops to counter any future revolutionary movement that may occur (we can but hope!) Two quotes come into my head at this early hour, one on the domino, (John Biggs Davidson maybe, he of Monday Club, anti everything, perhaps: the alliterative, 'if we lose in Belfast, we may have to fight in Birmingham, Bradford and Brixton'

but also, one of the strands of the Tory hierarchy said I think,
(if?)we have to leave (its?) without being seen to leave....

apologies, for not sourcing the quotes, maybe others can...

Enoch Powell was convinced that the assassination of Airey Neave was done with the connivance of the CIA, who were hoping that a united Ireland would join NATO. . .

 

[Casually Red]

wrt this bit, I seem to recall NATO calling Ireland the 'yawning gap' and emphasising its need to be kept in house. Also, there's the factor that the continued presence gives good military training for British troops to counter any future revolutionary movement that may occur (we can but hope!) Two quotes come into my head at this early hour, one on the domino, (John Biggs Davidson maybe, he of Monday Club, anti everything, perhaps: the alliterative, 'if we lose in Belfast, we may have to fight in Birmingham, Bradford and Brixton'

but also, one of the strands of the Tory hierarchy said I think,
(if?)we have to leave (its?) without being seen to leave....

apologies, for not sourcing the quotes, maybe others can...

Thanks for that . But as Sloans book makes clear the most important quotes derive not from individual politicians but from cabinet committees, notably the 1949 administration...a labour one iirc, and the 1972 green paper ...others have yet to be released. Namely that no matter what the circumstances it cant be envisaged how withdrawing from Ireland can ever be in the interests of Britain, or more relevantly its ruling class .

And to take your highlighting of its troops being uniquely trained and equipped in counter insurgency roles, we can take that even further post 1998. Britain has assumed even more importance as a player alongside US ambition as both have been going around the world flogging their Irish peace process as a template for conflict resolution . A template which sees anti imperialist parties abandon their sovereignty in return for ethnic and sectarian carve ups and jobs for the boys . With gobshites like Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams in tow, to tell the natives of the benefits to be had from being tamed and becoming collaborators in the violation of their own national sovereignty .

Tony Blair gets appointed Middle east peace envoy on the back of his Irish peace process. The PSNI RUC..with their unique links to British military intelligence.. gets invited in all over the world to help train police forces there, thanks to their unique role in resolving conflicts and apparent peace making . Not hard to see how that opens many doors for British interests on a global scale. So for anyone to be claiming the British elites would love to leave Ireland, with absolutely no evidence to back that up only their own hazy impressions, all i can say to that is its a tribute to the propaganda efforts of the British ruling elite. Whether its tory or labour who occupy the seats of power . The policy is the same regardless because so are the perceived interests.

 

[Casually Red]

The thing is I doubt whether England, without Scotland and NI would really lose much in this arena of international councils (eg UNSC or the Council of Ministers in Europe) - but this is based on the role that the British political establishment has managed to establish for itself in the past 30-40 years. Back in the 60s when the British establishment was (from their point of view) desperately trying to manage a catastrophic decline in their global role and stem its continuance, it wasn't at all clear that Britain had any role at all in the upper chambers of the UN or anything else ('we' weren't even granted an entry-level role in the EEC/EU at that time).

Now I think a solo England might well be able to retain the various roles that Britain currently claims, but this is with the benefit of hindsight. And when England was making its NI choices in the 60s and 70s this was far from clear.

The english ruling class could conceivably find itself in a sitution where its immediate neighbours,namely scotland and Ireland, dont really give a toss about its interests and have no interest in playing ball as regards its geo political defence interests. If it cant exercise influence to dominate its own hinterland it cant really expect to be afforded any global role. England will be of less use to NATO if it cant guarantee strategic dominance and compliance over that end of europe. While on the one hand its a role the British state demands of itself, on the other hand its the role that its NATO partners demand of Britian and expect to see upheld.

 

[TopCat]

Sentenced to 16 years. I hope he rots.

 

[Pickman's model]

there's surely a caption competition to be had with that picture.

 

[Casually Red]

there's surely a caption competition to be had with that picture.

just cut and paste any empty sinn fein slogan concerning imperialism, resistance, peace or socialism and put it under it for ironic effect

 

[DaveCinzano]

Has anyone else noticed how Gerry's twitter feed has gone all third person and press releasey recently? None of the weird weather updates, what-I'm-having-for-breakfasts or half-time scores that his feed used to be chock full of.

 

[likesfish]

The UN and others like working with ex RUC/PSNI as they have experiance of operating under high threat and not resorting to shooting beating everybody who looks at them funny.
They also havnt been accused of running drugs or sex slaves or molesting goats you see getting a good rep with the UN is difficult

 

[Citizen66]

Has anyone else noticed how Gerry's twitter feed has gone all third person and press releasey recently? None of the weird weather updates, what-I'm-having-for-breakfasts or half-time scores that his feed used to be chock full of.

Dunno, don't use twitter. Is it any good?