| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:18 - May 22 with 1555 views | HARRY10 |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:14 - May 22 by lowhouseblue |
i asked a question. you know those things with question marks at the end. no trap just a question. |
And here's one for you
How many beans make five ?
Not of any real relevance, but as it's a question it conveniently avoids me posting up a reasoned reply. |  | |  |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:18 - May 22 with 1549 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:14 - May 22 by lowhouseblue |
i asked a question. you know those things with question marks at the end. no trap just a question. |
They can't do it. Rommers has bailed. Gobby Libby has been asked the same questions. |  |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:22 - May 22 with 1532 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:18 - May 22 by HARRY10 |
And here's one for you
How many beans make five ?
Not of any real relevance, but as it's a question it conveniently avoids me posting up a reasoned reply. |
And here's another question for you.
Had a right wing Tory MP invited members of Britain First to the House of Commons just a week after the murder of Jo Cox and flaunted them in front of her Labour colleagues, would you have condemned the MP as a terrorist supporter or somebody who was interested in opening peaceful dialogue with an extreme right wing terror organisation? | |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:24 - May 22 with 1525 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:18 - May 22 by GlasgowBlue |
They can't do it. Rommers has bailed. Gobby Libby has been asked the same questions. |
That's twice in the last 15 minutes you've called me out.
I came, I highlighted your hypocrisy, and I left.
You tried to pretend I laughed at the people bombed. I showed I didn't, highlighted your underhand tactics, and off I went.
And here you are calling me out again as I check the thread. |  |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:26 - May 22 with 1521 views | HARRY10 |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:18 - May 22 by GlasgowBlue |
They can't do it. Rommers has bailed. Gobby Libby has been asked the same questions. |
Ah, glad you have dropped by Glassers ... with this new found interest in folk not answering questions
As Blue Peter might have had - here's one you dodged earlier ... bothe being your claims
"The polls didn't shift in Labour's favour after the launch of their election manifesto. They started to shift after the publication of the Tory manifesto."
or
"he's just launched a popularist manifesto and I would imagine internal polling is showing him around the 32-34% mark "
So which one of your claims do you stand by ? | | | |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:27 - May 22 with 1515 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:24 - May 22 by The_Romford_Blue |
That's twice in the last 15 minutes you've called me out.
I came, I highlighted your hypocrisy, and I left.
You tried to pretend I laughed at the people bombed. I showed I didn't, highlighted your underhand tactics, and off I went.
And here you are calling me out again as I check the thread. |
Hypocrite!!
http://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/406114/3623741/mi5-opened-a-file-on-corbyn-over-ira-
Now nearly an hour ago I asked you some questions. You had replied to all my other posts within a minute but I'll give you the benefit that you may have been offline. Now you are here are you prepared to actually give your own answers? | |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:28 - May 22 with 1516 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 17:34 - May 22 by GlasgowBlue |
Working actually. He did not unequivocally condemn the IRA. Corbyn brought in "both sides who laid the bombs". He was asked specifically to condemn the IRA.
Anyway, moving on. Each one of you contributions to this thread has been to criticise my posting style. This is becoming a feature for you lately, whether it be me or other posters.
You rarely give an opinion on the subject. Just the posters involved.
So some questions for you:
Do you believe that somebody who shares a platform with IRA bombers, stands for a minute's silence for dead IRA bombers and praises both their cause and their murderers, is showing support?
Do you believe that somebody who says "I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for a united Ireland" is showing support?
Do you believe that somebody who invites representatives of IRA bombers to the House of Commons, against the wishes of the Labour leader, just weeks after they have murdered 5 innocent people is showing support?
Do you believe that somebody who shares a stage with a wanted IRA murderer who is on the run from the British police is showing support?
Do you believe that a man who is on the editorial board of Labour London Briefing that published an article praising the Brighton bombing, a joke saying “What do you call four dead Tories? A start.” and another that mocked Norman Tebbit who was dug out of the rubble of the Grand Hotel, saying: “Try riding your bike now, Norman.” is showing support?
Instead of giving another critique on my posting style how about answering those questions and giving me an honest opinion. |
I hadn't seen this until now.
Funny how now you are saying I rarely give an opinion on a subject when less than a week ago you were referring to me as an attention seeker.
And I'd stuck up for you in the past and thought that was out of order. So I decided at that moment, I'd give as good as I got.
You are a hypocritical bore. | |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:29 - May 22 with 1509 views | The_Romford_Blue |
I was offline to be fair.
I'll answer them now... | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:29 - May 22 with 1501 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:28 - May 22 by The_Romford_Blue |
I hadn't seen this until now.
Funny how now you are saying I rarely give an opinion on a subject when less than a week ago you were referring to me as an attention seeker.
And I'd stuck up for you in the past and thought that was out of order. So I decided at that moment, I'd give as good as I got.
You are a hypocritical bore. |
Are you prepared to answer? | |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:31 - May 22 with 1493 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:26 - May 22 by HARRY10 |
Ah, glad you have dropped by Glassers ... with this new found interest in folk not answering questions
As Blue Peter might have had - here's one you dodged earlier ... bothe being your claims
"The polls didn't shift in Labour's favour after the launch of their election manifesto. They started to shift after the publication of the Tory manifesto."
or
"he's just launched a popularist manifesto and I would imagine internal polling is showing him around the 32-34% mark "
So which one of your claims do you stand by ? |
Only if you answer this one.
http://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/406188/3623062/labour-tory-gap-now-single-figures-in | |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:33 - May 22 with 1484 views | Dolly2.0 |
Someone answered this. They should where you literally used the phrase "internal polling". |  |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:34 - May 22 with 1481 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 17:34 - May 22 by GlasgowBlue |
Working actually. He did not unequivocally condemn the IRA. Corbyn brought in "both sides who laid the bombs". He was asked specifically to condemn the IRA.
Anyway, moving on. Each one of you contributions to this thread has been to criticise my posting style. This is becoming a feature for you lately, whether it be me or other posters.
You rarely give an opinion on the subject. Just the posters involved.
So some questions for you:
Do you believe that somebody who shares a platform with IRA bombers, stands for a minute's silence for dead IRA bombers and praises both their cause and their murderers, is showing support?
Do you believe that somebody who says "I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for a united Ireland" is showing support?
Do you believe that somebody who invites representatives of IRA bombers to the House of Commons, against the wishes of the Labour leader, just weeks after they have murdered 5 innocent people is showing support?
Do you believe that somebody who shares a stage with a wanted IRA murderer who is on the run from the British police is showing support?
Do you believe that a man who is on the editorial board of Labour London Briefing that published an article praising the Brighton bombing, a joke saying “What do you call four dead Tories? A start.” and another that mocked Norman Tebbit who was dug out of the rubble of the Grand Hotel, saying: “Try riding your bike now, Norman.” is showing support?
Instead of giving another critique on my posting style how about answering those questions and giving me an honest opinion. |
My opinion is obvious from this thread Glassers. I don't like getting involved in political spats with experienced posters such as yourselves as you contrive to make words of mine different to what they are.
You in this thread claimed that I laughed at people killed by bombs. I'd hope you know that's obviously not the case. So why say that?
I think Corbyn wanted to have a peaceful negotiation with them. I think anything he did at the time was to try to keep on the good side of the IRA to help with negotiations. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer kind of thing.
So no I don't think he supported the IRA at all nor a 'terrorist sympathiser'
I'm not even a Corbyn fan (based on his trident policy) but I have to disagree with him being a terrorist sympathiser.
Question for you.. do you now admit I never laughed at the bombed people as you've insinuated? | |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:35 - May 22 with 1466 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:33 - May 22 by Dolly2.0 |
Someone answered this. They should where you literally used the phrase "internal polling". |
No he didn't. Where did I mention Labour?
Why would the Torygraph put out the Corbyn story based on internal Labour polling/
People should read he post again. | |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:37 - May 22 with 1449 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:34 - May 22 by The_Romford_Blue |
My opinion is obvious from this thread Glassers. I don't like getting involved in political spats with experienced posters such as yourselves as you contrive to make words of mine different to what they are.
You in this thread claimed that I laughed at people killed by bombs. I'd hope you know that's obviously not the case. So why say that?
I think Corbyn wanted to have a peaceful negotiation with them. I think anything he did at the time was to try to keep on the good side of the IRA to help with negotiations. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer kind of thing.
So no I don't think he supported the IRA at all nor a 'terrorist sympathiser'
I'm not even a Corbyn fan (based on his trident policy) but I have to disagree with him being a terrorist sympathiser.
Question for you.. do you now admit I never laughed at the bombed people as you've insinuated? |
You lol'd at me taking the subject seriously. You can't change that.
Now I asked a series of yes or no questions. Please answer them.
Also. Can you provide any evidence that he held any peace negotiations with them? [Post edited 22 May 2017 18:38]
| |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:41 - May 22 with 1431 views | HARRY10 |
Here
"22:07 - May 19 by GlasgowBlue
"He has been hovering around the 28-31% mark for a few weeks but he's just launched a popularist manifesto and I would imagine internal polling is showing him around the 32-34% mark which would reduce the Tories majority to about 70. "
or maybe you will try and weasel out of it by claiming the subject, Corbyn referred to as He, is not actually what the internal polling refers to. | | | |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:43 - May 22 with 1426 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:37 - May 22 by GlasgowBlue |
You lol'd at me taking the subject seriously. You can't change that.
Now I asked a series of yes or no questions. Please answer them.
Also. Can you provide any evidence that he held any peace negotiations with them? [Post edited 22 May 2017 18:38]
|
No I won't be answering any more questions until you admit to, as you do, twisting my words.
I don't like debating with people like you for the reason of exactly what you have done. Everyone else can see that I have not laughed at the subject at all. I laughed at your hypocrisy. | |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:49 - May 22 with 1398 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:34 - May 22 by The_Romford_Blue |
My opinion is obvious from this thread Glassers. I don't like getting involved in political spats with experienced posters such as yourselves as you contrive to make words of mine different to what they are.
You in this thread claimed that I laughed at people killed by bombs. I'd hope you know that's obviously not the case. So why say that?
I think Corbyn wanted to have a peaceful negotiation with them. I think anything he did at the time was to try to keep on the good side of the IRA to help with negotiations. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer kind of thing.
So no I don't think he supported the IRA at all nor a 'terrorist sympathiser'
I'm not even a Corbyn fan (based on his trident policy) but I have to disagree with him being a terrorist sympathiser.
Question for you.. do you now admit I never laughed at the bombed people as you've insinuated? |
Twisting your words? It's here in B&W.
Callis: I enjoy the way people talk about the IRA whilst denying the reason they existed to begin with.Corbyn did more to build that bridge than Thatcher did, yet Corbyn continually branded a synpathiser for talking to them.
GB: Jesus Christ. I'm out of here before I say something I'll regret.
Romford: Lol. And you say I take this place too serious
OK it seems you won't answer those questions and I am bailing form this thread. It's getting repetitive.
I'll leave you with two articles. One from a Tory Publication and another from Labour Uncut. Two sides of the political divide. These will be my last contributions to this thread and the same things are getting said.
1. From the Spectator.
Jeremy Corbyn should not be allowed to rewrite the history of his support for the IRA
Something remarkable is happening in British politics right now. Something rotten and disgusting too. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal (sic) opposition, is trying to rewrite history. Here is what Corbyn said to Robert Peston at the weekend:
“I do make the point that if you are to develop a peace process in the Middle East or anywhere else in this world for that matter, you have to have serious conversations and negotiations with all the forces involved. […] Listen, the Northern Ireland parallel is sometimes a bit overplayed by nevertheless it is an important one. The successive British governments thought there was a military solution in Northern Ireland. They spent millions of pounds, thousands of troops, and hundreds of lives were lost in pursuing a military conflict in Northern Ireland. Ultimately it was resolved, so far, by a political process which had respect for the traditions of both communities if you like, in Northern Ireland and we reached a compromise, we reached a settlement, we reached a political process. That, surely, is an interesting model. That required meetings between people who profoundly disagreed with each other, who adopted methods that both sides profoundly disagreed with, but nevertheless a settlement was reached. Had we started from that process rather than trying to get a military solution we might have saved a lot of lives.”
The audacity of this interpretation of Anglo-Irish history, and of Corbyn’s small part in that story, is as astonishing as its dishonesty.
It cannot be said too often that there is nothing intrinsically objectionable about supporting the idea of a united Ireland. But if you did — or still do — support that goal you had a choice. You could ally yourself with the SDLP or you could chum around with Sinn Fein and the IRA. The choice mattered because it was a choice between decency and indecency, between constitutional politics and paramilitary politics. Corbyn, like his Shadow Chancellor, made his choice and chose indecently.
There is no room for doubt about this and no place for after-the-fact reinterpretations of Corbyn’s ‘role’ in the Irish peace process. That role was limited to being a cheerleader for and enabler of the Republican movement. No-one who was seriously interested in peace in the 1980s spoke at Troops Out rallies. The best that could be said of those people was that they wanted ‘peace’ on the IRA’s terms. In other words, they wanted the IRA to win.
If that had not been the case, if they had been interested in an actual settlement, they would not — as Corbyn did — have opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They would not have denounced John Hume and the SDLP as craven sell-outs. They would not have insisted that the armed struggle was a vital part of getting the Brits out of the northern Irish statelet.
But these people did do that. All of that and more. Corbyn’s assessment of the conflict gets it precisely backward. The people who thought there was a military solution to the problem were the people who thought they could bomb and murder Ulster out of the United Kingdom. It was Corbyn’s friends and allies in the Republican movement who thought this.
As it happened, there was a military/intelligence solution to the conflict. Or, at least, a military settlement was a necessary condition for an eventual — if necessarily imperfect — political settlement. And the truth is that the IRA lost. It was the IRA who were brought to the negotiating table, not the British government. It was the IRA who were defeated, not the British government. It was the IRA who discovered that the price of continuing the armed struggle could no longer be sustained. It was the IRA who were forced to capitulate, compelled to abandon their past positions and accept terms laid down by their opponents.
The irony, of course, is that in return for admitting the war was over (and lost) the Republican movement was given a larger share of the spoils of peace. So much so, in fact, that it sometimes seemed as though they had in fact prevailed. The IRA and Sinn Fein were given victories on emotionally-important but substantively-insignificant matters such as prisoner releases and decommissioning but this came at the price of total and complete intellectual capitulation. Northern Ireland would continue to exist and it would remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as its people so desired that constitutional status quo to continue.
The principle of consent, previously anathema to the Republicans, was non-negotiable and, despite everything they had previously believed, Sinn Fein and the IRA signed-up to it. On the biggest issue of all, the one that was the notional ’cause’ of the conflict in the first place, the Republican movement lost. And it wasn’t even close. Today, nearly a quarter of a century after the Downing Street Declaration, a united Ireland seems as far away as ever.
Peace, even a qualified, messy, peace, only became possible when the IRA and Sinn Fein recognised they could not win. That was the only precondition for negotiations that really mattered, the only thing whose absence thwarted a settlement that could otherwise have been reached years before. The people who were waging the war had to realise they had lost. When they did, peace became plausible. At that point we could talk.
Had the IRA, pace Corbyn, ‘started from that position rather than trying to get a military solution we might have saved a lot of lives‘. But they didn’t start from that position and their enablers on the British far-left gave them no encouragement to do so. On the contrary, in fact. At the very best, you might say that the far-left regretted terrorist atrocities while thinking them ‘understandable’. But you should never mistake that regret for condemnation and you should always remember that the people responsible for the shootings and the bombings were not, indeed could never be, the people doing the shooting and the bombing.
As late as 1998 John McDonnell opposed the peace process, telling An Phoblacht that “An assembly is not what people have laid down their lives for over thirty years. We want peace, but the settlement must be just and the settlement must be for an agreed and united Ireland.”
Fifteen years previously, Corbyn was a member of the board of Labour Briefing, a fringe magazine for diehard leftists that unequivocally supported the IRA’s bombing campaign. Corbyn organised the magazine’s mailing-list and was a regular speaker at its events. In December 1984, the magazine“reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” noting that its “overwhelming priority as active members of the British labour movement is to fight for and secure an unconditional British withdrawal”. Only “an unconditional British withdrawal, including the disarming of the RUC and UDR, will allow for peace in Ireland. Labour briefing stands for peace, but we are not pacifists”. Moreover, “It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it”. That being so, discussions with the SDLP and the Irish government were, at best, a distraction. Only Sinn Fein and the IRA spoke for Ireland. Labour Briefing explicitly opposed the SDLP, preferring instead to endorse the republican terrorist campaign.
This was published a few weeks after the Brighton bombing. A bombing designed to assassinate the British Prime Minister. As far as Labour Briefing was concerned, the Prime Minister was a legitimate target. Condemning the bombing showed that the Labour party had lost its ‘political nerve’. The Corbynite left, however, was made of sterner stuff. As Labour Briefing had previously written: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”
Jeremy Corbyn didn’t help bring peace to Northern Ireland, he helped delay it by enabling those who bore primary responsibility for the violence. Now he and his supporters wish to rewrite history, the better to pretend Corbyn was somehow ‘ahead of the curve’. He was no such thing. His vision of peace did not advocate compromise and dialogue. If it had he might have spent more — or some — time speaking with Unionists and other parties with whose analysis he disagreed. But his vision did not do this and so he did not ‘engage’ with anyone in this fashion. No amount of whitewash can cover up this stain upon his record, his worldview and his judgement.
This is the man Labour chose to lead their party. That is their choice, of course, but the rest of us are entitled to make choices too. Not the least of which is choosing to insist that what happened in the past really did happen.
2. Labour Uncut
The idea that Jeremy Corbyn laid the foundations for peace in Northern Ireland is total fantasy
The other day I was informed that, along with every other person from Northern Ireland, I was wrong about the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Irish peace process. Rather than being the product of improbable, bewildering, and exhausting negotiations between at least five different parties, it was actually Jeremy Corbyn who “set up peace in Northern Ireland”. This was though I’d never heard any other Northern Irish person before last month utter Corbyn’s name in gratitude, anger, or even at all.
I was directed to an interview with Corbyn (relevant clip) where, along with mentioning his commendable work on the Birmingham Six and some dubious comments on Irish history generally, Corbyn says:
“During the 1980s… we built up regular contacts with Sinn Fein, we were condemned by our own Party Leadership for so doing… and we were proven to be right. In the end, even Margaret Thatcher recognised that there had to be some kind of political settlement in Ireland, that militarily it wasn’t going to be possible, and eventually this became the Good Friday Agreement after the 1997 election.”
How this became “Corbyn set up peace in Northern Ireland” in his supporter’s understanding remains unclear. He is however not the only one to believe this — surprisingly many people are under the impression that Corbyn’s involvement in Northern Irish politics has been not only significant but beneficial.
Corbyn himself makes a politically magical leap from Thatcher’s change in policy and the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, but he does at least avoid claiming outright that his talks were the basis for the Agreement, unlike Owen Jones and other Corbyn supporters.
This was however all before a frankly bizarre interview Corbyn conducted with BBC Radio Ulster where, as the leading candidate for the Labour leadership and our potential offer of Prime Minister to the British people, Corbyn five times refused to explicitly condemn the IRA and equated the British army with a non-state terrorist organisation that murdered British civilians as a matter of policy.
For the record, Corbyn’s involvement with Troops Out (the main Irish Republican organisation in Britain); his hosting of members of Sinn Féin in Parliament mere weeks after the Brighton bombing in which his fellow MPs were murdered; and his willingness to publicly talk and be associated with Sinn Féin whilst supporting their political goal of a United Ireland when the IRA had not yet implemented a ceasefire were, at best, without consequence in the peace process, and at worst, a spoiler. Corbyn’s talks did not produce anything of the framework upon which the Good Friday Agreement and the rest of the peace process was built.
More important than the political theatre Corbyn engaged in is the fact that Corbyn has not been consistent in his support of the efforts made by Britain to encourage dialogue and the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Most notably, he voted against the critically important 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement, saying:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given [i.e. Unionist]? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the twenty-six counties, and those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.
This is not the argument of a lonely peacemaker, working to achieve dialogue with an intransigent IRA, but that of someone who deferred to Sinn Féin’s then-policy on Irish issues. Hence why Corbyn’s refusal to condemn the IRA this week was so worrying — it would be one thing if he was spectacularly naïve and earnestly did just believe that “all bombings were bad”, but the fact he opposed the peace process when Sinn Féin also opposed the peace process indicates he wasn’t interested in a “political settlement” which would have ended those bombings as soon as possible. Most objectionably, whilst nowadays Corbyn claims to be ahead of Thatcher in attempting a political settlement, he neglects to mention he opposed and voted against Thatcher’s most important contribution to peace when she negotiated the Anglo-Irish Agreement!
In particular, these views of Corbyn’s should raise concerns for any Labour member who supports the Northern Irish peace process. Unionists would reasonably find it difficult to view a Corbyn government as a neutral broker given his record, and even if he failed to act on his principles it would place the already stressed process under extreme pressure. And this is not even considering the worst case scenario of what would happen if Corbyn forced the Republican policy he supports upon Northern Ireland.
Despite all this, it is however easy to understand why Corbyn’s involvement in Northern Ireland appeals to his supporters, even though they don’t understand the conflict. Corbyn’s “talking to Sinn Féin” followed by the Good Friday Agreement over a decade later superficially looks like an example of Labour — and specifically, the hard left of Labour — wielding power despite being out of power.
It’s a lullaby, told to soothe those anxious about the real and well-founded concern a Corbyn-led Labour party would be unable to ever form a Labour government. This is a shame, as our work on the Good Friday Agreement and in securing additional steps in the Northern Ireland peace process is one of the sparkling achievements of the New Labour government.
Those looking at Corbyn’s candidacy with Northern Ireland in mind should remember two things: First, Corbyn’s record is that of an advocate for Sinn Fein and their policy, not that of a peacemaker as some of his supporters claim. Second, it was by being in government, not hosting luncheons with bombers in opposition, that Labour could make a peace in Northern Ireland. | |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:52 - May 22 with 1388 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:41 - May 22 by HARRY10 |
Here
"22:07 - May 19 by GlasgowBlue
"He has been hovering around the 28-31% mark for a few weeks but he's just launched a popularist manifesto and I would imagine internal polling is showing him around the 32-34% mark which would reduce the Tories majority to about 70. "
or maybe you will try and weasel out of it by claiming the subject, Corbyn referred to as He, is not actually what the internal polling refers to. |
Where did I mention lABOUR internal polling?
The Tories had the heads up Corbyn was recovering in the polls from their own internal and turned to their friends at the Telegraph.
And with that I'm going home. [Post edited 22 May 2017 18:52]
| |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:53 - May 22 with 1389 views | Archer4721 |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:49 - May 22 by GlasgowBlue |
Twisting your words? It's here in B&W.
Callis: I enjoy the way people talk about the IRA whilst denying the reason they existed to begin with.Corbyn did more to build that bridge than Thatcher did, yet Corbyn continually branded a synpathiser for talking to them.
GB: Jesus Christ. I'm out of here before I say something I'll regret.
Romford: Lol. And you say I take this place too serious
OK it seems you won't answer those questions and I am bailing form this thread. It's getting repetitive.
I'll leave you with two articles. One from a Tory Publication and another from Labour Uncut. Two sides of the political divide. These will be my last contributions to this thread and the same things are getting said.
1. From the Spectator.
Jeremy Corbyn should not be allowed to rewrite the history of his support for the IRA
Something remarkable is happening in British politics right now. Something rotten and disgusting too. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal (sic) opposition, is trying to rewrite history. Here is what Corbyn said to Robert Peston at the weekend:
“I do make the point that if you are to develop a peace process in the Middle East or anywhere else in this world for that matter, you have to have serious conversations and negotiations with all the forces involved. […] Listen, the Northern Ireland parallel is sometimes a bit overplayed by nevertheless it is an important one. The successive British governments thought there was a military solution in Northern Ireland. They spent millions of pounds, thousands of troops, and hundreds of lives were lost in pursuing a military conflict in Northern Ireland. Ultimately it was resolved, so far, by a political process which had respect for the traditions of both communities if you like, in Northern Ireland and we reached a compromise, we reached a settlement, we reached a political process. That, surely, is an interesting model. That required meetings between people who profoundly disagreed with each other, who adopted methods that both sides profoundly disagreed with, but nevertheless a settlement was reached. Had we started from that process rather than trying to get a military solution we might have saved a lot of lives.”
The audacity of this interpretation of Anglo-Irish history, and of Corbyn’s small part in that story, is as astonishing as its dishonesty.
It cannot be said too often that there is nothing intrinsically objectionable about supporting the idea of a united Ireland. But if you did — or still do — support that goal you had a choice. You could ally yourself with the SDLP or you could chum around with Sinn Fein and the IRA. The choice mattered because it was a choice between decency and indecency, between constitutional politics and paramilitary politics. Corbyn, like his Shadow Chancellor, made his choice and chose indecently.
There is no room for doubt about this and no place for after-the-fact reinterpretations of Corbyn’s ‘role’ in the Irish peace process. That role was limited to being a cheerleader for and enabler of the Republican movement. No-one who was seriously interested in peace in the 1980s spoke at Troops Out rallies. The best that could be said of those people was that they wanted ‘peace’ on the IRA’s terms. In other words, they wanted the IRA to win.
If that had not been the case, if they had been interested in an actual settlement, they would not — as Corbyn did — have opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They would not have denounced John Hume and the SDLP as craven sell-outs. They would not have insisted that the armed struggle was a vital part of getting the Brits out of the northern Irish statelet.
But these people did do that. All of that and more. Corbyn’s assessment of the conflict gets it precisely backward. The people who thought there was a military solution to the problem were the people who thought they could bomb and murder Ulster out of the United Kingdom. It was Corbyn’s friends and allies in the Republican movement who thought this.
As it happened, there was a military/intelligence solution to the conflict. Or, at least, a military settlement was a necessary condition for an eventual — if necessarily imperfect — political settlement. And the truth is that the IRA lost. It was the IRA who were brought to the negotiating table, not the British government. It was the IRA who were defeated, not the British government. It was the IRA who discovered that the price of continuing the armed struggle could no longer be sustained. It was the IRA who were forced to capitulate, compelled to abandon their past positions and accept terms laid down by their opponents.
The irony, of course, is that in return for admitting the war was over (and lost) the Republican movement was given a larger share of the spoils of peace. So much so, in fact, that it sometimes seemed as though they had in fact prevailed. The IRA and Sinn Fein were given victories on emotionally-important but substantively-insignificant matters such as prisoner releases and decommissioning but this came at the price of total and complete intellectual capitulation. Northern Ireland would continue to exist and it would remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as its people so desired that constitutional status quo to continue.
The principle of consent, previously anathema to the Republicans, was non-negotiable and, despite everything they had previously believed, Sinn Fein and the IRA signed-up to it. On the biggest issue of all, the one that was the notional ’cause’ of the conflict in the first place, the Republican movement lost. And it wasn’t even close. Today, nearly a quarter of a century after the Downing Street Declaration, a united Ireland seems as far away as ever.
Peace, even a qualified, messy, peace, only became possible when the IRA and Sinn Fein recognised they could not win. That was the only precondition for negotiations that really mattered, the only thing whose absence thwarted a settlement that could otherwise have been reached years before. The people who were waging the war had to realise they had lost. When they did, peace became plausible. At that point we could talk.
Had the IRA, pace Corbyn, ‘started from that position rather than trying to get a military solution we might have saved a lot of lives‘. But they didn’t start from that position and their enablers on the British far-left gave them no encouragement to do so. On the contrary, in fact. At the very best, you might say that the far-left regretted terrorist atrocities while thinking them ‘understandable’. But you should never mistake that regret for condemnation and you should always remember that the people responsible for the shootings and the bombings were not, indeed could never be, the people doing the shooting and the bombing.
As late as 1998 John McDonnell opposed the peace process, telling An Phoblacht that “An assembly is not what people have laid down their lives for over thirty years. We want peace, but the settlement must be just and the settlement must be for an agreed and united Ireland.”
Fifteen years previously, Corbyn was a member of the board of Labour Briefing, a fringe magazine for diehard leftists that unequivocally supported the IRA’s bombing campaign. Corbyn organised the magazine’s mailing-list and was a regular speaker at its events. In December 1984, the magazine“reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” noting that its “overwhelming priority as active members of the British labour movement is to fight for and secure an unconditional British withdrawal”. Only “an unconditional British withdrawal, including the disarming of the RUC and UDR, will allow for peace in Ireland. Labour briefing stands for peace, but we are not pacifists”. Moreover, “It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it”. That being so, discussions with the SDLP and the Irish government were, at best, a distraction. Only Sinn Fein and the IRA spoke for Ireland. Labour Briefing explicitly opposed the SDLP, preferring instead to endorse the republican terrorist campaign.
This was published a few weeks after the Brighton bombing. A bombing designed to assassinate the British Prime Minister. As far as Labour Briefing was concerned, the Prime Minister was a legitimate target. Condemning the bombing showed that the Labour party had lost its ‘political nerve’. The Corbynite left, however, was made of sterner stuff. As Labour Briefing had previously written: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”
Jeremy Corbyn didn’t help bring peace to Northern Ireland, he helped delay it by enabling those who bore primary responsibility for the violence. Now he and his supporters wish to rewrite history, the better to pretend Corbyn was somehow ‘ahead of the curve’. He was no such thing. His vision of peace did not advocate compromise and dialogue. If it had he might have spent more — or some — time speaking with Unionists and other parties with whose analysis he disagreed. But his vision did not do this and so he did not ‘engage’ with anyone in this fashion. No amount of whitewash can cover up this stain upon his record, his worldview and his judgement.
This is the man Labour chose to lead their party. That is their choice, of course, but the rest of us are entitled to make choices too. Not the least of which is choosing to insist that what happened in the past really did happen.
2. Labour Uncut
The idea that Jeremy Corbyn laid the foundations for peace in Northern Ireland is total fantasy
The other day I was informed that, along with every other person from Northern Ireland, I was wrong about the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Irish peace process. Rather than being the product of improbable, bewildering, and exhausting negotiations between at least five different parties, it was actually Jeremy Corbyn who “set up peace in Northern Ireland”. This was though I’d never heard any other Northern Irish person before last month utter Corbyn’s name in gratitude, anger, or even at all.
I was directed to an interview with Corbyn (relevant clip) where, along with mentioning his commendable work on the Birmingham Six and some dubious comments on Irish history generally, Corbyn says:
“During the 1980s… we built up regular contacts with Sinn Fein, we were condemned by our own Party Leadership for so doing… and we were proven to be right. In the end, even Margaret Thatcher recognised that there had to be some kind of political settlement in Ireland, that militarily it wasn’t going to be possible, and eventually this became the Good Friday Agreement after the 1997 election.”
How this became “Corbyn set up peace in Northern Ireland” in his supporter’s understanding remains unclear. He is however not the only one to believe this — surprisingly many people are under the impression that Corbyn’s involvement in Northern Irish politics has been not only significant but beneficial.
Corbyn himself makes a politically magical leap from Thatcher’s change in policy and the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, but he does at least avoid claiming outright that his talks were the basis for the Agreement, unlike Owen Jones and other Corbyn supporters.
This was however all before a frankly bizarre interview Corbyn conducted with BBC Radio Ulster where, as the leading candidate for the Labour leadership and our potential offer of Prime Minister to the British people, Corbyn five times refused to explicitly condemn the IRA and equated the British army with a non-state terrorist organisation that murdered British civilians as a matter of policy.
For the record, Corbyn’s involvement with Troops Out (the main Irish Republican organisation in Britain); his hosting of members of Sinn Féin in Parliament mere weeks after the Brighton bombing in which his fellow MPs were murdered; and his willingness to publicly talk and be associated with Sinn Féin whilst supporting their political goal of a United Ireland when the IRA had not yet implemented a ceasefire were, at best, without consequence in the peace process, and at worst, a spoiler. Corbyn’s talks did not produce anything of the framework upon which the Good Friday Agreement and the rest of the peace process was built.
More important than the political theatre Corbyn engaged in is the fact that Corbyn has not been consistent in his support of the efforts made by Britain to encourage dialogue and the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Most notably, he voted against the critically important 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement, saying:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given [i.e. Unionist]? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the twenty-six counties, and those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.
This is not the argument of a lonely peacemaker, working to achieve dialogue with an intransigent IRA, but that of someone who deferred to Sinn Féin’s then-policy on Irish issues. Hence why Corbyn’s refusal to condemn the IRA this week was so worrying — it would be one thing if he was spectacularly naïve and earnestly did just believe that “all bombings were bad”, but the fact he opposed the peace process when Sinn Féin also opposed the peace process indicates he wasn’t interested in a “political settlement” which would have ended those bombings as soon as possible. Most objectionably, whilst nowadays Corbyn claims to be ahead of Thatcher in attempting a political settlement, he neglects to mention he opposed and voted against Thatcher’s most important contribution to peace when she negotiated the Anglo-Irish Agreement!
In particular, these views of Corbyn’s should raise concerns for any Labour member who supports the Northern Irish peace process. Unionists would reasonably find it difficult to view a Corbyn government as a neutral broker given his record, and even if he failed to act on his principles it would place the already stressed process under extreme pressure. And this is not even considering the worst case scenario of what would happen if Corbyn forced the Republican policy he supports upon Northern Ireland.
Despite all this, it is however easy to understand why Corbyn’s involvement in Northern Ireland appeals to his supporters, even though they don’t understand the conflict. Corbyn’s “talking to Sinn Féin” followed by the Good Friday Agreement over a decade later superficially looks like an example of Labour — and specifically, the hard left of Labour — wielding power despite being out of power.
It’s a lullaby, told to soothe those anxious about the real and well-founded concern a Corbyn-led Labour party would be unable to ever form a Labour government. This is a shame, as our work on the Good Friday Agreement and in securing additional steps in the Northern Ireland peace process is one of the sparkling achievements of the New Labour government.
Those looking at Corbyn’s candidacy with Northern Ireland in mind should remember two things: First, Corbyn’s record is that of an advocate for Sinn Fein and their policy, not that of a peacemaker as some of his supporters claim. Second, it was by being in government, not hosting luncheons with bombers in opposition, that Labour could make a peace in Northern Ireland. |
Mega yawn. |  | | |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 19:00 - May 22 with 1368 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:49 - May 22 by GlasgowBlue |
Twisting your words? It's here in B&W.
Callis: I enjoy the way people talk about the IRA whilst denying the reason they existed to begin with.Corbyn did more to build that bridge than Thatcher did, yet Corbyn continually branded a synpathiser for talking to them.
GB: Jesus Christ. I'm out of here before I say something I'll regret.
Romford: Lol. And you say I take this place too serious
OK it seems you won't answer those questions and I am bailing form this thread. It's getting repetitive.
I'll leave you with two articles. One from a Tory Publication and another from Labour Uncut. Two sides of the political divide. These will be my last contributions to this thread and the same things are getting said.
1. From the Spectator.
Jeremy Corbyn should not be allowed to rewrite the history of his support for the IRA
Something remarkable is happening in British politics right now. Something rotten and disgusting too. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal (sic) opposition, is trying to rewrite history. Here is what Corbyn said to Robert Peston at the weekend:
“I do make the point that if you are to develop a peace process in the Middle East or anywhere else in this world for that matter, you have to have serious conversations and negotiations with all the forces involved. […] Listen, the Northern Ireland parallel is sometimes a bit overplayed by nevertheless it is an important one. The successive British governments thought there was a military solution in Northern Ireland. They spent millions of pounds, thousands of troops, and hundreds of lives were lost in pursuing a military conflict in Northern Ireland. Ultimately it was resolved, so far, by a political process which had respect for the traditions of both communities if you like, in Northern Ireland and we reached a compromise, we reached a settlement, we reached a political process. That, surely, is an interesting model. That required meetings between people who profoundly disagreed with each other, who adopted methods that both sides profoundly disagreed with, but nevertheless a settlement was reached. Had we started from that process rather than trying to get a military solution we might have saved a lot of lives.”
The audacity of this interpretation of Anglo-Irish history, and of Corbyn’s small part in that story, is as astonishing as its dishonesty.
It cannot be said too often that there is nothing intrinsically objectionable about supporting the idea of a united Ireland. But if you did — or still do — support that goal you had a choice. You could ally yourself with the SDLP or you could chum around with Sinn Fein and the IRA. The choice mattered because it was a choice between decency and indecency, between constitutional politics and paramilitary politics. Corbyn, like his Shadow Chancellor, made his choice and chose indecently.
There is no room for doubt about this and no place for after-the-fact reinterpretations of Corbyn’s ‘role’ in the Irish peace process. That role was limited to being a cheerleader for and enabler of the Republican movement. No-one who was seriously interested in peace in the 1980s spoke at Troops Out rallies. The best that could be said of those people was that they wanted ‘peace’ on the IRA’s terms. In other words, they wanted the IRA to win.
If that had not been the case, if they had been interested in an actual settlement, they would not — as Corbyn did — have opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They would not have denounced John Hume and the SDLP as craven sell-outs. They would not have insisted that the armed struggle was a vital part of getting the Brits out of the northern Irish statelet.
But these people did do that. All of that and more. Corbyn’s assessment of the conflict gets it precisely backward. The people who thought there was a military solution to the problem were the people who thought they could bomb and murder Ulster out of the United Kingdom. It was Corbyn’s friends and allies in the Republican movement who thought this.
As it happened, there was a military/intelligence solution to the conflict. Or, at least, a military settlement was a necessary condition for an eventual — if necessarily imperfect — political settlement. And the truth is that the IRA lost. It was the IRA who were brought to the negotiating table, not the British government. It was the IRA who were defeated, not the British government. It was the IRA who discovered that the price of continuing the armed struggle could no longer be sustained. It was the IRA who were forced to capitulate, compelled to abandon their past positions and accept terms laid down by their opponents.
The irony, of course, is that in return for admitting the war was over (and lost) the Republican movement was given a larger share of the spoils of peace. So much so, in fact, that it sometimes seemed as though they had in fact prevailed. The IRA and Sinn Fein were given victories on emotionally-important but substantively-insignificant matters such as prisoner releases and decommissioning but this came at the price of total and complete intellectual capitulation. Northern Ireland would continue to exist and it would remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as its people so desired that constitutional status quo to continue.
The principle of consent, previously anathema to the Republicans, was non-negotiable and, despite everything they had previously believed, Sinn Fein and the IRA signed-up to it. On the biggest issue of all, the one that was the notional ’cause’ of the conflict in the first place, the Republican movement lost. And it wasn’t even close. Today, nearly a quarter of a century after the Downing Street Declaration, a united Ireland seems as far away as ever.
Peace, even a qualified, messy, peace, only became possible when the IRA and Sinn Fein recognised they could not win. That was the only precondition for negotiations that really mattered, the only thing whose absence thwarted a settlement that could otherwise have been reached years before. The people who were waging the war had to realise they had lost. When they did, peace became plausible. At that point we could talk.
Had the IRA, pace Corbyn, ‘started from that position rather than trying to get a military solution we might have saved a lot of lives‘. But they didn’t start from that position and their enablers on the British far-left gave them no encouragement to do so. On the contrary, in fact. At the very best, you might say that the far-left regretted terrorist atrocities while thinking them ‘understandable’. But you should never mistake that regret for condemnation and you should always remember that the people responsible for the shootings and the bombings were not, indeed could never be, the people doing the shooting and the bombing.
As late as 1998 John McDonnell opposed the peace process, telling An Phoblacht that “An assembly is not what people have laid down their lives for over thirty years. We want peace, but the settlement must be just and the settlement must be for an agreed and united Ireland.”
Fifteen years previously, Corbyn was a member of the board of Labour Briefing, a fringe magazine for diehard leftists that unequivocally supported the IRA’s bombing campaign. Corbyn organised the magazine’s mailing-list and was a regular speaker at its events. In December 1984, the magazine“reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” noting that its “overwhelming priority as active members of the British labour movement is to fight for and secure an unconditional British withdrawal”. Only “an unconditional British withdrawal, including the disarming of the RUC and UDR, will allow for peace in Ireland. Labour briefing stands for peace, but we are not pacifists”. Moreover, “It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it”. That being so, discussions with the SDLP and the Irish government were, at best, a distraction. Only Sinn Fein and the IRA spoke for Ireland. Labour Briefing explicitly opposed the SDLP, preferring instead to endorse the republican terrorist campaign.
This was published a few weeks after the Brighton bombing. A bombing designed to assassinate the British Prime Minister. As far as Labour Briefing was concerned, the Prime Minister was a legitimate target. Condemning the bombing showed that the Labour party had lost its ‘political nerve’. The Corbynite left, however, was made of sterner stuff. As Labour Briefing had previously written: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”
Jeremy Corbyn didn’t help bring peace to Northern Ireland, he helped delay it by enabling those who bore primary responsibility for the violence. Now he and his supporters wish to rewrite history, the better to pretend Corbyn was somehow ‘ahead of the curve’. He was no such thing. His vision of peace did not advocate compromise and dialogue. If it had he might have spent more — or some — time speaking with Unionists and other parties with whose analysis he disagreed. But his vision did not do this and so he did not ‘engage’ with anyone in this fashion. No amount of whitewash can cover up this stain upon his record, his worldview and his judgement.
This is the man Labour chose to lead their party. That is their choice, of course, but the rest of us are entitled to make choices too. Not the least of which is choosing to insist that what happened in the past really did happen.
2. Labour Uncut
The idea that Jeremy Corbyn laid the foundations for peace in Northern Ireland is total fantasy
The other day I was informed that, along with every other person from Northern Ireland, I was wrong about the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Irish peace process. Rather than being the product of improbable, bewildering, and exhausting negotiations between at least five different parties, it was actually Jeremy Corbyn who “set up peace in Northern Ireland”. This was though I’d never heard any other Northern Irish person before last month utter Corbyn’s name in gratitude, anger, or even at all.
I was directed to an interview with Corbyn (relevant clip) where, along with mentioning his commendable work on the Birmingham Six and some dubious comments on Irish history generally, Corbyn says:
“During the 1980s… we built up regular contacts with Sinn Fein, we were condemned by our own Party Leadership for so doing… and we were proven to be right. In the end, even Margaret Thatcher recognised that there had to be some kind of political settlement in Ireland, that militarily it wasn’t going to be possible, and eventually this became the Good Friday Agreement after the 1997 election.”
How this became “Corbyn set up peace in Northern Ireland” in his supporter’s understanding remains unclear. He is however not the only one to believe this — surprisingly many people are under the impression that Corbyn’s involvement in Northern Irish politics has been not only significant but beneficial.
Corbyn himself makes a politically magical leap from Thatcher’s change in policy and the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, but he does at least avoid claiming outright that his talks were the basis for the Agreement, unlike Owen Jones and other Corbyn supporters.
This was however all before a frankly bizarre interview Corbyn conducted with BBC Radio Ulster where, as the leading candidate for the Labour leadership and our potential offer of Prime Minister to the British people, Corbyn five times refused to explicitly condemn the IRA and equated the British army with a non-state terrorist organisation that murdered British civilians as a matter of policy.
For the record, Corbyn’s involvement with Troops Out (the main Irish Republican organisation in Britain); his hosting of members of Sinn Féin in Parliament mere weeks after the Brighton bombing in which his fellow MPs were murdered; and his willingness to publicly talk and be associated with Sinn Féin whilst supporting their political goal of a United Ireland when the IRA had not yet implemented a ceasefire were, at best, without consequence in the peace process, and at worst, a spoiler. Corbyn’s talks did not produce anything of the framework upon which the Good Friday Agreement and the rest of the peace process was built.
More important than the political theatre Corbyn engaged in is the fact that Corbyn has not been consistent in his support of the efforts made by Britain to encourage dialogue and the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Most notably, he voted against the critically important 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement, saying:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given [i.e. Unionist]? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the twenty-six counties, and those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.
This is not the argument of a lonely peacemaker, working to achieve dialogue with an intransigent IRA, but that of someone who deferred to Sinn Féin’s then-policy on Irish issues. Hence why Corbyn’s refusal to condemn the IRA this week was so worrying — it would be one thing if he was spectacularly naïve and earnestly did just believe that “all bombings were bad”, but the fact he opposed the peace process when Sinn Féin also opposed the peace process indicates he wasn’t interested in a “political settlement” which would have ended those bombings as soon as possible. Most objectionably, whilst nowadays Corbyn claims to be ahead of Thatcher in attempting a political settlement, he neglects to mention he opposed and voted against Thatcher’s most important contribution to peace when she negotiated the Anglo-Irish Agreement!
In particular, these views of Corbyn’s should raise concerns for any Labour member who supports the Northern Irish peace process. Unionists would reasonably find it difficult to view a Corbyn government as a neutral broker given his record, and even if he failed to act on his principles it would place the already stressed process under extreme pressure. And this is not even considering the worst case scenario of what would happen if Corbyn forced the Republican policy he supports upon Northern Ireland.
Despite all this, it is however easy to understand why Corbyn’s involvement in Northern Ireland appeals to his supporters, even though they don’t understand the conflict. Corbyn’s “talking to Sinn Féin” followed by the Good Friday Agreement over a decade later superficially looks like an example of Labour — and specifically, the hard left of Labour — wielding power despite being out of power.
It’s a lullaby, told to soothe those anxious about the real and well-founded concern a Corbyn-led Labour party would be unable to ever form a Labour government. This is a shame, as our work on the Good Friday Agreement and in securing additional steps in the Northern Ireland peace process is one of the sparkling achievements of the New Labour government.
Those looking at Corbyn’s candidacy with Northern Ireland in mind should remember two things: First, Corbyn’s record is that of an advocate for Sinn Fein and their policy, not that of a peacemaker as some of his supporters claim. Second, it was by being in government, not hosting luncheons with bombers in opposition, that Labour could make a peace in Northern Ireland. |
Only in your head does that prove that I laughed at the actual bombings being taken seriously.
You should be very dissapointed with yourself on reflection that you've even gone there Glassers. Poor form. | |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 19:05 - May 22 with 1360 views | noggin |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 19:00 - May 22 by The_Romford_Blue |
Only in your head does that prove that I laughed at the actual bombings being taken seriously.
You should be very dissapointed with yourself on reflection that you've even gone there Glassers. Poor form. |
Sounds like GB is losing his mind over this. |  |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 19:11 - May 22 with 1344 views | giant_stow |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:53 - May 22 by Archer4721 |
Mega yawn. |
He's provided two well thought out and argued pieces and that's your answer?! That'd not to say that gb shouldn't leave Romford alone as that was just silly.
I'd be interested in what callis, harry10, groehort etc have to say in reply.... [Post edited 22 May 2017 19:13]
|  |
| |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 19:13 - May 22 with 1343 views | Bluesquid |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 17:46 - May 22 by Dolly2.0 |
"Opposing violence and war has been "the whole purpose of his life". He prominently opposed the invasion of Iraq and war in Afghanistan, NATO-led military intervention in Libya, military strikes against Assad's Syria, and military action against ISIS, and served as the chair of the Stop The War Coalition. Corbyn has criticised Britain's close ties with Saudi Arabia and British involvement in Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. He has called for Tony Blair to be investigated for alleged war crimes during the Iraq War."
"In 2013, Corbyn was awarded the Gandhi International Peace Award for his "consistent efforts over a 30-year parliamentary career to uphold the Gandhian values of social justice and nonâ€violence." |
"Opposing violence and war has been "the whole purpose of his life". He prominently opposed the invasion of Iraq and war in Afghanistan, NATO-led military intervention in Libya, military strikes against Assad's Syria, and military action against ISIS, and served as the chair of the Stop The War Coalition. Corbyn has criticised Britain's close ties with Saudi Arabia and British involvement in Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. He has called for Tony Blair to be investigated for alleged war crimes during the Iraq War."
And that is exactly why they don't want him in. | | | |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 19:14 - May 22 with 1342 views | HARRY10 |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:52 - May 22 by GlasgowBlue |
Where did I mention lABOUR internal polling?
The Tories had the heads up Corbyn was recovering in the polls from their own internal and turned to their friends at the Telegraph.
And with that I'm going home. [Post edited 22 May 2017 18:52]
|
Before answering the question you agreed, no wonder you are a Tory.
Even more of a confirmation that you share the same slippery way with words is your claim now.... that the internal poll was ACTUALLY a Tory poll.
Rather odd that you didn't state that at the time and that those poll ratings were already published.
And I'm not too sure why "The Tories had the heads up Corbyn" either. Nor why you should refer to his poll ratings as recovering, given that it would imply that he had once held a similar rating. He had not, and the 30-32 rating had been achieved the week before this supposed 'recovery'.
I suspect as with much else you simply make up stuff, like Trump, not expecting others to hold you to it. | | | |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 19:50 - May 22 with 1297 views | brazil1982 |
| Mi5 opened a file on Corbyn over IRA links on 18:17 - May 22 by GlasgowBlue |
Had my arse handed to me? This isn't a game. I know people who have been bombed by the IRA.
Why not go the whole hogg and put lol at the end?
I'll put the same questions to you as I did Rommers. Perhaps you'll actually answer them rather than playing your childish games.
Do you believe that somebody who shares a platform with IRA bombers, stands for a minute's silence for dead IRA bombers and praises both their cause and their murderers, is showing support?
Do you believe that somebody who says "I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for a united Ireland" is showing support?
Do you believe that somebody who invites representatives of IRA bombers to the House of Commons, against the wishes of the Labour leader, just weeks after they have murdered 5 innocent people is showing support?
Do you believe that somebody who shares a stage with a wanted IRA murderer who is on the run from the British police is showing support?
Do you believe that a man who is on the editorial board of Labour London Briefing that published an article praising the Brighton bombing, a joke saying “What do you call four dead Tories? A start.” and another that mocked Norman Tebbit who was dug out of the rubble of the Grand Hotel, saying: “Try riding your bike now, Norman.” is showing support?
Will you answer? Let's see. |
You can't argue with that; I find it rather odd Corbyn fans insist he didn't support the IRA.
What I find disturbing is voters willing to put him in power. A bit like Town fans voting for Steve Bruce as Manager with Chris Sutton as Assistant. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
