President of Ireland or President of the Republic of Ireland?

[WolfeTone]

A sort of thought experiment to tease out that it would not go down at all well with her masters in West Belfast.

The premise here is your belief that MLM has 'masters' in West Belfast.
There is no doubt that WB represents hallowed turf for SF. But the idea that MLM is being directed is simply farcical at this point.

But as with all thought experiments maybe the reality would have been different than one might think and her absence would have raised no fuss at all with the retirement cumann - what do you think?

If she had declined to attend then for sure it would cause a fuss. No different I'm sure if the current manager of any organisation declined to attend the funeral of highly respected and revered member of that organisation.
If Bertie popped his clogs would it cause a fuss in FF if MM declined to attend his funeral.
Ditto Leo and Enda.
Of course it would.
Obviously Storey was not leader of SF but he was a leader of the IRA.

You didn't answer my question. Would it bother you if MLM was in any way answerable to the retirement cumann?

Yes it would. But she is not, so it's all moot.
She is answerable to the SF Ard Comhairle. It is normal party practice. FG, FF, Labour et al have all got their party structures too.

Don't you think the members of the Ard Chomhairle, experienced and committed Republicans in their own right, would feel a bit put out if MLM had to confer with the retirement cumann on policy direction also?

I mean, what would be the point, they all more or less agree the same fundamental principles ending British rule in Ireland.

Do tell, what do you think would happen to MLM, leader of the largest political organisation in Ireland, if she fell foul of the aging talking shop that is the retirement cumman?

 

[Baby boomer]

The premise here is your belief that MLM has 'masters' in West Belfast.
There is no doubt that WB represents hallowed turf for SF. But the idea that MLM is being directed is simply farcical at this point.

Do tell, what do you think would happen to MLM, leader of the largest political organisation in Ireland, if she fell foul of the aging talking shop that is the retirement cumman?

Well, it is beyond doubt that Mairtin O Muilleoir, SF Minister for Finance believed he had 'masters' in West Belfast. His 2017 email to Ted Howell seeking approval to sign off on the RHI scheme is on the record. Howell is the very epitome of the "shadowy figure" in the SF background.

 

[cremeegg]

Oh, I thought that killed children. Am I wrong? Johnathan Ball and Tim Parry

Yes the IRA killed children

Yes the British killed children. Julie Livingstone and Paul Whitters to name two.

They have both stopped that now in NI. You continued harking back to those times is at best a distraction from a discussion of the current situation.

 

[WolfeTone]

Well, it is beyond doubt that Mairtin O Muilleoir, SF Minister for Finance believed he had 'masters' in West Belfast. His 2017 email to Ted Howell seeking approval to sign off on the RHI scheme is on the record. Howell is the very epitome of the "shadowy figure" in the SF background.

Granted, I will concede the point of appearance here. It does not look good.

But the substance of the matter? That is another thing. What Ó Múilleoir was doing was nothing worse than a Minister asking a hired political advisor for advice before signing off on a public policy document.
Of course Howell was not registered as a political advisor. Given his association with IRA leadership I can hear the tremors of indignation if he were formally registered as an official advisor.
Given his track record as a trusted go-between between IRA and British government his standing in Republican circles as a political strategist is clearly regarded highly.

But I concede the optics are not great. No more than say the leadership of the DUP meeting with proscribed loyalist gangs for 'discussions' on the NI Protocol.

I digress, back to Howell and Ó Múilleoir. The scandal as I recall was over advice on whether to sign off on a public policy scheme in a power-sharing arrangement with DUP.
As it transpired the scheme was fundamentally flawed.
A political scandal, yes. But this is a far cry from the sinister and subversive threat that some would like to portray. In essence it was (unarmed) IRA man advises SF Minister to sign off on a public policy document administered by the DUP.

I've seen GP medical contracts being leaked to rival organisations and cabinet leaks of makey-up jobs that can cause as much political scandal.
Subversive and a threat to the institutions of the State? I don't think so.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Yes it would. But she is not, so it's all moot.
She is answerable to the SF Ard Comhairle. It is normal party practice. FG, FF, Labour et al have all got their party structures too.

I am glad that you would have a difficulty with MLM being answerable to WB hard men. I think she is to an extent but I also think that in the 26 counties at least she could get away with confronting them. It is hard to believe that a Rathgar girl really empathises with some of the deplorable acts sanctioned by those said WB hard men. Anyway as I said, whilst the whiff of Kingsmills type massacres attaches to her it is our greatest safeguard against her getting into government, which I agree on the democratic arithmetic she should be - God help us if she got rid of that whiff she would be Teashop or whatever the Gaelic feminine of that is.

 

[WolfeTone]

I think she is to an extent but I also think that in the 26 counties at least she could get away with confronting them.

With respect, confront them over what?

Let's take a step back. The notion of hard WB men pulling the strings of SF leadership needs to be taken in context.
All political parties listen to their base, or risk losing it.
The critical element is the substance of any influence on MLM leadership.
If the WB are advocating to MLM to implement policies that they believe will eventually drive a collapse of NI and into a UI then I don't think there is anything radical about it that. I think SF are quite open and public about wanting to see a UI.
So if, for instance the IRA hardmen are agitating MLM to push for a University in Derry, a joining of motorway between Dublin and Belfast. High speed rail between Dublin and Belfast, joined up health services, promoting Irish language in NI etc, etc, then what is the problem with that?

The only problem I would forsee is agitating to undermine the security of State through the threat of military force.
There is no evidence of this. There is no need for this. A political path to achieve the aims of Irish Republicans exist. Only the undermining of that path through subversive means threatens a return to violence.

 

[Purple]

Yes the IRA killed children

Yes the British killed children. Julie Livingstone and Paul Whitters to name two.

They have both stopped that now in NI. You continued harking back to those times is at best a distraction from a discussion of the current situation.

The British, child killers or otherwise, aren’t seeking to run this country. Therefore I am less concerned about their credentials.

You said that we must be in possession of different historical facts when I said that SF/IRA killed children. Those same people are now running SF and the rest of SF are unapologetic supporters of the ones who shot and blew up children.

 

[WolfeTone]

The British, child killers or otherwise, aren’t seeking to run this country. Therefore I am less concerned about their credentials.

You said that we must be in possession of different historical facts when I said that SF/IRA killed children. Those same people are now running SF and the rest of SF are unapologetic supporters of the ones who shot and blew up children.

The British do run this country, or part of. In case you hadn't noticed its called NI. A place that was nowhere in the minds of the revolutionarys from 1798 to 1916, it wasn't even in the small print.
And the people who do run this part of the country are unapologetic for the children killed by their own particular brand of hero's. As in 2016 the President of Ireland naming (yet another) public landmark after Thomas Clarke, who along with his merry band of indiscriminate bombers murdered a 14yr old school boy in England.
You know this but you cannot reconcile it with your views today so you do what the rest of the political establishment and complying media do, you ignore it.
Just as they hone in on Brian Stanley for his 'outrageous' remarks on Warrenpoint but ignore the brutal savagery and butchering of Kilmichael.
Just as they hone in on the brutality of Kingsmill but like to brush Dunmanway under the carpet.
Just as they offer up Jean McConville as the depths of viciousness that PIRA stooped to they cover up for 50yrs the viciousness of the British Army, its media, our media, when it came to the murder of Joan Connolly.

It's what Fintan O'Toole was referring to last week about FG. They place themselves up front and centre as the good guys, as the party of law and order. So when they do wrong, well, it's not really them doing it.
It's the same approach applied today with regard to our troubled past.
That 1916 and the subsequent war for partition was heroic. And questioning the lack of a mandate, the legitimacy of war, the butchery of Kilmichael, Dunmanway, the rejection of the Dáil of a declaration to go to war etc, etc, it is just ignored.

It is ignored because it exposes the reality of the very means used to establish this State.

 

[Purple]

@WolfeTone, the British run part of this Island, as is the wish of the majority of the people who live there, but this country, Ireland, is not ruled by them
The rest is just more of the usual whataboutery.
Do you really think Fintan O'School is going to write anything good about parties of the centre in this country?
We're just lucky he waves down from above the clouds at us scum the odd time.

 

[WolfeTone]

@Purple your disdain for SF and IRA and its responsibility for the deaths of innocent children is laudable.
Pity you don't hold that same disdain for ALL child killers and not just selective child killers.
But I suspect you know it will blow a hole in your core belief system.

You and Mary Lou McDonald, honestly I cannot tell the difference.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@WolfeTone I see you have “taken a step back” from your earlier expressed discomfort at the possibility of the retirement cumman calling any shots with MLM. On reflection and “in context“ you now see that you would be entirely happy with the “substance“ of that influence.
I hope you would at least welcome full transparency on that score. At the very least a credit upfront in their manifesto stating “All aspects of this manifesto have been submitted for approval to the PIRA Army Council.”

 

[Purple]

You and Mary Lou McDonald, honestly I cannot tell the difference.

Touché

 

[Purple]

@Purple your disdain for SF and IRA and its responsibility for the deaths of innocent children is laudable.
Pity you don't hold that same disdain for ALL child killers and not just selective child killers.
But I suspect you know it will blow a hole in your core belief system.

You and Mary Lou McDonald, honestly I cannot tell the difference.

None of the other child killers are seeking to run this country.
I remember being at FF's WolfTone commemoration in Bodenstown as a child (my father was a rabid FF'er, still is really). I was on the cover of The Phoenix, behind CJH. Even then, as a 9 year old, I found the hypocrisy of condemning the IRA while glorifying our bloody past distasteful. That said it was and is different since the IRA is nothing more than a criminal gang and was just that, even when I was a child.

If the people who killed prisoners to artillery shells and blew them up were still alive and running for office, or if those now running for office glorified those people and their actions, I would have the same problem with them that I do with SF/IRA.

 

[Baby boomer]

Granted, I will concede the point of appearance here. It does not look good.

But the substance of the matter? That is another thing. What Ó Múilleoir was doing was nothing worse than a Minister asking a hired political advisor for advice before signing off on a public policy document.

It doesn't look good because it isn't good! And he wasn't asking for advice - he was asking for approval. Different thing entirely. If you read the email, there's an unmistakable tone of deference that is truly remarkable coming from a Minister for Finance to a mere advisor - unless of course he was more boss than advisor.

But I concede the optics are not great. No more than say the leadership of the DUP meeting with proscribed loyalist gangs for 'discussions' on the NI Protocol.

The DUP action is also wrong, both "optically" and in reality. It's also classic whataboutery and spin-doctor speak to try and use it to justify or contextualise the SF stuff.

I digress, back to Howell and Ó Múilleoir. The scandal as I recall was over advice on whether to sign off on a public policy scheme in a power-sharing arrangement with DUP.
As it transpired the scheme was fundamentally flawed.
A political scandal, yes. But this is a far cry from the sinister and subversive threat that some would like to portray. In essence it was (unarmed) IRA man advises SF Minister to sign off on a public policy document administered by the DUP.

I've seen GP medical contracts being leaked to rival organisations and cabinet leaks of makey-up jobs that can cause as much political scandal.

More spin, whataboutery and distraction. I have to admit - you're good at this!

Subversive and a threat to the institutions of the State? I don't think so.

Unelected (unarmed) IRA man with rights of approval and veto on Government policy. And you think that's ok?????

 

[Purple]

Unelected (unarmed) IRA man with rights of approval and veto on Government policy. And you think that's ok?????

But don't you know that that's exactly the same as giving a meaningless cushy UN job to a former colleague. Get with it!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@WolfeTone I think you should back off the "no harm in SF taking advice from the retirement cumman" motif. @Baby boomer has certainly destroyed you on that one. I think that even your hero, FOT, from time to time bashes the unholy SF/IRA alliance.
You are on safer ground with your argument "we are all bad eggs, why pick on SF?"

 

[WolfeTone]

It doesn't look good because it isn't good! And he wasn't asking for advice - he was asking for approval.

Yes, so here is the 'offending' text of the email.
"Would you be content if I were to sign off the business plan on Wednesday afternoon?”
Ó Múilleoir contends it was the" Wednesday afternoon" that he sought approval for ie - "is there anything else that needs to be considered before I sign off on this document?"
An inquiry into the matter found different, that there was at the minimum deference to an unelected authority.

Either way, what are we talking about here? This is the type of dialogue and communication that occurs regularly and routinely between government ministers and their paid political advisors. It is commonplace.

What it is not, is some subverted effort by SF and IRA to undermine and overthrow the political institutions through violent means. That is what the Michael McDowells would like you to believe when in the cold light of day this was SF signing off on a public policy document administered by the DUP. So unless you want accuse the DUP of being in situ with the IRA to overthrow NI then you should accept it for what it is. A storm in teacup, alá GP medical contracts leaked to a competing party or cosy, makey-up public appointments offered to friends.
All of which are wrong, but in the context of the propaganda of the IRA bogey men coming to get you, as Michael McDowell and others here would have you believe, it is not.

 

[Purple]

What it is not, is some subverted effort by SF and IRA to undermine and overthrow the political institutions through violent means.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they will do that. The concern is that the Shinners answer to what is in effect a criminal gang and they will have undue influence on the levels of power when the Shinners are running things.

Asking for approval from paid political advisor with a background in politics is a concern. Asking for approval from a paid advisor with direct connections to a criminal gang with a proud history of killing children and ignoring the democratic will of the people, which is headquartered in a different country, is a much bigger concern.

 

[WolfeTone]

in effect a criminal gang

I would hazard that in order to be a criminal gang you need to be engaged in criminality.
Do you accept the assessments of Gardai and PSNI that PIRA members are engaged in democratic programs of a peaceful nature?

 

[Baby boomer]

Either way, what are we talking about here? This is the type of dialogue and communication that occurs regularly and routinely between government ministers and their paid political advisors. It is commonplace.

Commonplace? Hardly! In a normal party, advisors advise and Ministers decide. That's not what's going on here. The man who needed to be made content is calling the shots (if you pardon the expression, ahem.)

Now, if this were an isolated incident, yeah, you could write it off as unfortunate. Poor choice of words, under time pressure, that sort of thing. But put it beside, just to take a few examples:

- the Bobby Storey funeral, at the height of Covid restrictions, with paramilitary homage style dress and behaviour.

- Mary Lou and Conor Murphy at odds over the Paul Quinn murder, with the former wearing her best deer in headlights look when confronted with Murphy's words on live TV.

- David "tiocfaidh ar lá" Cullinane

- the Kingsmills bread stunt.

- more allegations of bullying than every other party put together.

- Brian Stanley's tweet

- the treatment of Maria Cahill

- the unique level of personal abuse coming from SF supporters on social media.

and you've got a pattern. You will of course say that every single one of the above can be explained away, nothing to see here, all parties do stuff, etc etc.

But when you put it all together, it's a compelling basis to say SF is different. It's not just another party.