Anglo-Irish Agreement: Bertie re-writes history!

[edifice.]

Martin Mansergh, who advised Haughey, throughout this time made reference on the Haughey documentary that he among others were wrong in opposing the AIA. It was a rare success story for the FitzGerald government and should have been recognised. I think oppostion to it was wrong. I would assume most FFers feel the same.

In what way do you mean the AIA successful?

[CJH]

This is possibly the worst thread ever started by BarryW, and considering tht everything he writes on this site is unadulterated ************************e, that's saying something.

thegeneral has criticised the AIA pretty succintly. (Isn't it funny that Garrett failed to achieve his aims with the AIA, just as he failed with the economy and his beloved 'liberal agenda'? Well done Garrett.) I actually disagree with him when it comes to the AIA, I think it was a disastrous waate of paper, that miraculously managed to p1ss off much of republican Ireland and most of loyalist Ulster. As I've said before, the only benefit accruing from it was that the unionists, in their unceaseless stupidity, actually thought that the presence of a few Irish pen-pushers in Belfast would hasten the destruction of the union, thereby giving Bertie a massive negotiating chip for the GFA. But as thegeneral points out, those of us with a FF persuasion on this site don't feel the need to check with party HQ before we express an opinion on something.

But let's get back to this charge of hypocrisy on Bertie's, and FF's, part. How is changing an opinion on something 20 years later hypocritical? If a party says something at one moment in time, does this mean that it's position must be fixed for eternity? Will FG be offering taxi drivers and eircom shreholders refunds next time round. If they don't, won't this be HYPOCRISY

I can think of a few examples of obvious political hypocrisy in Irish politics in the past. I wonder can you too. For example, what about in 1992 going before the electorate swearing no government with DL, and then two years later hopping into bed with them? Can you remember who did that, Barry? I'll give you a clue; it wasn't FF. Or let's go back a bit further in time. Which party campaigned before the 1948 election on the promise of keeping the link with the commonwealth, only to ditch it one year later? That's right...FG! What a shock! Even Garrett the Great, the Magnificent, the Omnipotent, admitted that he felt uneasy about such breathtaking, well, hypocrisy.

I'm beginning to worry about you Barry. You used to entertain me, and I even had some perverted sense of admiration for your complete inability to think for yourself or present a reasoned, thought-out argument. But you've got a bit caried away in the last few months. Do you have any other interest that semi-normal blokes have, you know, sport, girls, TV, art, music, reading etc?? Your life appears to consist of posting ever-increasingly anti-FF or anti-SF rants on this site, often based on whatever trash has appeared in the Sindo this week. Seriously mate, chill out. FF aren't that bad, and FG aren't that great. I fear to think what will happen to you in 2007 when your beloved blushirts fail yet again to get into government, and all your hopes and dreams in Enda are cruelly dashed. There's more to life than politics, and there is sure as hell more to life than Fine Gael.

[Gladstone]

In an article penned by Bertie Ahern in the Irish Times last week, our most noble leader said this:

Twenty years ago, my predecessor, Dr Garret FitzGerald, signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was a shaft of light at a time of despair with no end to the violence in sight.

The incredible hypocrisy of such a statement seems lost on the man.
Cast your mind back to when that agreement was signed. Ahern was one of Fianna Fails’ most senior members. He was front bench spokesman on Labour; Vice President of Fianna Fail, and a former Government Chief Whip.

Has he forgotten that Fianna Fail, of which he was such a senior member at the time, vociferously opposed that Agreement on every level?
They proceeded to whip up hysterical scare-mongering on all sorts of issues from the dilution of the prospects of Irish unity, to fears over cross-border policing.

Fianna Fail’s strongest objection was against what he contended were the constitutional implications of that agreement.
They denounced the first article of the agreement affirming “that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland”.
Ironically, this is now the foundation stone of the Good Friday Agreement, which Ahern and FF claim as THEIR finest achievement !!

FF said:
“For the first time ever, the legitimacy, which is contrary to unification, has been recognised by an Irish Government in an international agreement. From our point of view it gives everything away. It confirms the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom and it confirms that there would be no change in the status without the consent of the Northern Unionists”

All of this was OPPOSED by FF in 1985, but is now central to the GFA.

FF policy towards the 1985 may be summed up neatly with these comments from Haughey:
What these foolish men are proposing to us, represents an insidious and dangerous threat to our future security because, up until now, we were able to administer our own security police as an independent and sovereign nation.”

Haughey and FF contended that the concessions gained in the Agreement were:
“in return for the support he had given British policy”
(the old “Garrett is a West Brit” line)

And let's not forget: Fianna Fail (Ahern among its leadership) sent Brian Lenihan to the US to canvass support against the 1985 Agreement. In other words, FF canvassed AGAINST the possibility of peaceful settlement in the North. The single greatest act of TREASON ever committed by mainstream Irish politicians.

And now Bertie thinks that the 1985 Agreement was "a shaft of light at a time of despair" (!!!!)

Bertie’s forgetfulness as regards recent history is astonishing. It illustrates breathtaking arrogance on his part, or incredible stupidity – or both.

I thought FF and FG just opposed each others ideas good idea or not? Afterall its the only thing that makes them diffrent.

[thegeneral]

thegeneral has criticised the AIA pretty succintly. (Isn't it funny that Garrett failed to achieve his aims with the AIA, just as he failed with the economy and his beloved 'liberal agenda'? Well done Garrett.) I actually disagree with him when it comes to the AIA, I think it was a disastrous waate of paper, that miraculously managed to p1ss off much of republican Ireland and most of loyalist Ulster. As I've said before, the only benefit accruing from it was that the unionists, in their unceaseless stupidity, actually thought that the presence of a few Irish pen-pushers in Belfast would hasten the destruction of the union, thereby giving Bertie a massive negotiating chip for the GFA. But as thegeneral points out, those of us with a FF persuasion on this site don't feel the need to check with party HQ before we express an opinion on something.

My good colleague CJH, even from a distant shore, echoes great sense in his post. I will focus on this component.

First of all thank you for disagreeing with me and therefore demonstrating the independent thought among FF posters on here I'm not so sure CJH at the time it was wrong to oppose it in my view. And to answer Edifice's point as well as your own at least it gave the government some input into the running of the north. I certainly don't feel, like Barry, that everything since has sprung from it, indeed I think I've criticised its failings pretty succinctly.

[thegeneral]

quote="BarryW"

[quote:3ul77ht0]The aim of his article is to defend the Peace Process. He mentions the Anglo-Irish Agreement in a context which shows that he believes it was integral to everything that came after it (ie. the successes of North-South co-operation)
Why mention it otherwise??

He indicates that the AIA is an integral part of the Peace Process - a process which he regards as HIS greatest achievement. Despite the fact that he opposed the AIA on every single level, and levelled unfair and downright false accusations against the Government of the day.
In this article, you'd swear he agreed with it from day 1
Thats how he's rewriting history

[/quote:3ul77ht0]

Having read all three pages of the article, and not just one sentance, that I printed off, that's a load of balloney.

[DOD]

But all that aside, DOD - isn't it the hypocrisy to say, re. the AIA:

1985: "We cannot pretend that this agreement will improve things, when patently it will not. We cannot pretend it is wonderful when we know it is a disaster"
2005: "a shaft of light at a time of despair"

It probably is. Then again I don't put much stock in what FF say in relation to the six counties anyway.

[hiding behind a poster]

How is changing an opinion on something 20 years later hypocritical? If a party says something at one moment in time, does this mean that it's position must be fixed for eternity?

So presumably, CJH, the next time John O'Donoghue or some other buffoon goes on a rant about some aspect of FG/Labour economic policy in the 1982/87 coalition, and tries to scare the electorate into thinking that the same thing will inevitably happen again, even though its 20-25 years later, you'll be the first to put him right?

[DOD]

How is changing an opinion on something 20 years later hypocritical? If a party says something at one moment in time, does this mean that it's position must be fixed for eternity?

That's strange logic from someone who, on another thread, criticised SF for changing their positions over the years.

[west_brit]

UCD+Umbrella=WEST BRIT

Crowbar+Dole queue=Shinner.

[CJH]

That's strange logic from someone who, on another thread, criticised SF for changing their positions over the years.

Big difference between changing one policy, and ditching fundamental 'principles' for political expediency.

So presumably, CJH, the next time John O'Donoghue or some other buffoon goes on a rant about some aspect of FG/Labour economic policy in the 1982/87 coalition, and tries to scare the electorate into thinking that the same thing will inevitably happen again, even though its 20-25 years later, you'll be the first to put him right

Not the same thing at all. It's perfectly legitimate, if hardly very convincing, to say, "Look what this shower did 20 years ago, they'll do it again if you let them back in."
The equivalent to what BarryW is saying would be if FF found some aspect of FG/Lab policy from the mid-80s and showed how it had changed in the meantime, and then accused them of gross hypcorisy. Nobody would take them seriously if they did that, but it won't happen, because there is nobody as desperate as Barry in FF