Mandelson was also a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so perhaps kudos should be given to him for the peace in Northern Ireland!! In his time there, he managed to p*** off all sides, so well done to him for being above any bias!!!
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Mandelson was also a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so perhaps kudos should be given to him for the peace in Northern Ireland!! In his time there, he managed to p*** off all sides, so well done to him for being above any bias!!!
I used probably as I think it was what Corbyn said at the time, and maybe they needed to keep it quiet for the process, but maybe because of public opinion as is ably demonstrated by Corbyn being demonised for doing the same thing publicly
Weasel Words maybe, but I'd say a bit strong as he was talking to representatives of a political party and maintaining the basic principle of jaw jaw
But it had nothing to do with him. If he was demonised for it, then rightly so at the time, because rather than helping, he would have directly been threatening the process by doing so openly.
He was talking to, and actively supporting the IRA. It would be very charitable (not to mention dishonest) to suggest that there is a clear demarcation between SF and the IRA, but even if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt and claim that there is, he was still talking to the IRA.
Now if this was to sort out peace, then where was his meetings with the loyalist parties/paramilitaries? Surely to broker peace he'd quite like to stop the UFF slaughtering people as well?
The fact that all this time later he's happy to change a narrative in order to make himself and his party more electable says everything I need to know about his principles
That's exactly what he was! He believed totally that the British state should be pacifist, his mates shooting 6 month old babies in the head? Well just casualties of war innit?
As thr elected representative of a London constituency with a large Irish immigrant population, I think it’s fair to say he had every right to pursue the goal of a just and peaceful settlement to a conflict that affected many of his constituents. Hardly his fault if the government of the time was secretly disregarding it’s own public statements on the issue.
And for the record, it’s association with the IRA notwithstanding, Sinn Fein is a legitimate political organisation which has had MPs and TDs elected to Westminster and the Dail since 1919. When Corbyn was meeting (openly) with Gerry Adams, electoral politics were increasingly being prioritised under the latter’s leadership of Sinn Fein.
And his meetings with Linda Quigley and Gerry MacLochlainn?
He was meeting with Adams regularly in the 1980s. At that point, that's stepping way, way out of his lane in terms of being a representative of a London constituency. It wasn't illegal, but it would be very generous to suggest it was advisable.
Either way, it's odd how much justification needs to be constantly made for Corbyn and his slightly "unusual" habits. If you feel the need to constantly try and justify someone's actions, it's most often because actually they're doing something wrong.
Actually, tell you what. I'll ask Peter next time I see him what his thoughts on it all are. He's far, far, far, far, better informed than all the rest of us put together on this.
I'm wondering if Corbyn's open meetings went some way to deflect notice from the back channel contacts.
I think that would be an incredibly generous read. He wouldn't have known about the back channel routes, for a start.
Instead of asking Peter (I have no idea who Peter is btw, sorry), why not ask Jeremy Corbyn’s constituents what they think? That’s how democracy is supposed to work, isn’t it?
Peter Taylor. My father in law. Basically the Attenborough of this stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Taylor_(journalist)
An informed, knowledgeable comment would be welcome No doubt he's able to give far greater insight than any of us on here.
I wonder who knew what? Or if we'll ever know.
Also this which has been posted several times before.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...y-of-mi5-and-mi6-and-road-to-peace-in-ireland
Okay, so I just called Peter. Seems I'm in the wrong (to a degree) and others in the right (to a degree).
He said that Corbyn, to a certain point did make a contribution to the peace process in the 80s. The IRA/Sinn Fein through Adams were talking to Hume and other sympathetic voices on the Labour benches (including Corbyn) to try and sound out and build support for a political solution. Long term, that was always Adams' desire.
He doesn't think there's any way Corbyn would have been aware of the back channel chats that were happening (and that were the absolute key to unlocking the road to the Good Friday agreement) as they were only known to a tiny handful of people, but that it would be legitimate to say he played a small part in creating an atmosphere in which Sinn Fein could see a route to the table to pursue a political route.
He said that it shouldn't be overplayed at all what part he had, but that he was one of a number of people that deserved a degree of credit in this.
He said that Corbyn, to a certain point did make a contribution to the peace process in the 80s. The IRA/Sinn Fein through Adams were talking to Hume and other sympathetic voices on the Labour benches (including Corbyn) to try and sound out and build support for a political solution. Long term, that was always Adams' desire.
He doesn't think there's any way Corbyn would have been aware of the back channel chats that were happening (and that were the absolute key to unlocking the road to the Good Friday agreement) as they were only known to a tiny handful of people, but that it would be legitimate to say he played a small part in creating an atmosphere in which Sinn Fein could see a route to the table to pursue a political route.
He said that it shouldn't be overplayed at all what part he had, but that he was one of a number of people that deserved a degree of credit in this.
Nothing to do with Brian Clough then? Shame, Cloughie would have sorted out Northern Ireland while simultaneously winning England the World Cup.
My serious point still stands imo. As an elected MP, Corbyn is answerable to his constituents, not to the media who universally castigate him at every turn.
And his meetings with Linda Quigley and Gerry MacLochlainn?
He was meeting with Adams regularly in the 1980s. At that point, that's stepping way, way out of his lane in terms of being a representative of a London constituency. It wasn't illegal, but it would be very generous to suggest it was advisable.
Either way, it's odd how much justification needs to be constantly made for Corbyn and his slightly "unusual" habits. If you feel the need to constantly try and justify someone's actions, it's most often because actually they're doing something wrong.[/QUOTE]
Ryan Manning, Jack Stephens to name two
Thanks for that, it answers my query and puts Corbyn's part in context. I don't hold with the shrill hysteria of Corbyn hatred across media and social media disgraces.
It seems to me a united Ireland becomes more likely whether it will be sooner or more probably later, if at all in my lifetime, remains to be seen.
I don't understand this read. What he very clearly wanted was for people to stop shooting each other. He just believed that friendship was the path to peace rather than blame. I just find it sad that - in this world of self-interest among politicians - people are so desperate to attack Corbyn for making decision based on his ideology and not his pocket.
When you try to calm someone down who is looking to fight, you do it through kindness not through more shouting.
If he was making decisions based on his ideology he'd at least have the guts to come out and say
"Listen lads I fully believe in a united Ireland, I don't care if its achieved via the bomb or the ballot box, as long as the British state gets a bloody nose. I don't care if that's metaphorical or there's dead soldiers and police in the street (the ****ers probably wouldn't vote for me anyway)
He and his hard left contemporaries have clearly articulated their thoughts on the British in NI (see good old Diane and John's quotes above. Why are people so desperate to portray it as anything else?