13 2 mins 14 yrs

paisleysign466.jpgTen years ago – Ian Paisley’s DUP (along with my Party at that time, the UKUP) refused to sign up in any way to the Belfast Agreement. At that time, Paisley was vehement in his opposition to it, and during the years that followed – right up to the elections of last March 2007 – he continued to INSIST the DUP opposed the provisions of the Belfast Agreement. Yes.

So, isn’t it cute to see the great man sign a copy of the Belfast Agreement? Now relax – it was only for charity, and it was in Cork – rebel county. Dr Paisley laughed it all off by saying this was the only time he would ever put his name to "that" document. But why? It is a fact that his rancid party of third rate moral relativist Lundy’s have indeed fully signed up to the Belfast Agreement and now happily sit in power with Martin McGuinness  – the man who it is alleged authorised the Poppy Day bombing at the cenotaph in Enniskillen.

Paisley has become a larger than life joke figure – and travelling around Northern Ireland I see an awful lot of graffitti spelling out how some people view the mighty DUP – Lundy’s to a man. The writing is literally on the wall for the DUP – and the longer they share power with terrorists the worse things will get for them.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

13 thoughts on “PAISLEY THE TRAITOR SIGNS UP…

  1. Traitor is a very strong word for someone who is acting on the basis of a mandate? Who is he betraying? The UK? Overwhelming support for the Agreement. Ireland? Overwhelming support for the Agreement? Northern Ireland? Overwhelming support for the Agreement. Unionists? Overwhelming support for the Agreement.

    David

    The use of the word traitor by people who refuse to accept the democratic wishes of every conceivable view of what constitutes "the people" is somethibng the dissidents on both sides have in common. Having streched the political consensus as wide as possible it is unfortunate that there are a small minority on both sides who think they know better than the rest of us. But they are the ones with the questions to answer. They are the ones wedded to the failures of the past.

  2. Henry,

    But is he? At what point did the DUP say it would work the Belfast Agreement? Traitor seems a very apt choice of word to me.

    Aas for the "democratic wishes" of the people being respected, the Belfast Agreement legislates to reward evil – why should I respect that? Those wedded to the failures of the past are the same [people who think appeasement brings a just peace.

  3. If appeasement before WW2 has seen Hitler disarming, commiting himself to exclusively democratic and peaceful means and accepting that a majority living in a disputed area had to decide on any change there would never have been a war.

    There is nothing wrong with agreement once you get the right deal.

  4. Henry94 –

    That Paisley is a traitor to his cause is beyond question. A lifetime’s cause was trashed in exchange for the baubles of power, even if that meant power with his sworn enemies, those who have murdered thousands of innocents.

    But you mention a mandate, so you’re talking of legal treason. He still may be. A mandate is irrelevent; treason is treason, no matter how many give it the nod. The GFA is clearly a temporary stop on the road to Northern Ireland seceding from the United Kingdom. That you want it, that some voted (even unwittingly) for it is irrelevent. That is the end point, the GFA is intended to get us there.

    Northern Ireland is part of the Crown. To attempt in any way to remove the sovereign authority of the Crown from all or part of the Kingdom is illegal. It transgresses the Treason Felony Act 1848, which specifically outlaws any attempt to deprive the Crown of its countries or dominions.

    So the question comes down to the purpose of the GFA. If it isn’t a step on the road to secession, what were republicans voting for?

  5. Pete Moore posted:

    It transgresses the Treason Felony Act 1848, which specifically outlaws any attempt to deprive the Crown of its countries or dominions.

    In that case the Government of Ireland Act 1920 (setting up the Free State) and all the subsequent grants of independence to the colonies were also treasonous.

    What garbage you write.

  6. Pete

    Treason is a crime so what you term "legal treason" really means politics you don’t agree with.

    What were republicans voting for? A compromise to end the violence. We still want a united Ireland but it can only come about if the people in Northern Ireland vote for it.

    Is it you position that if the people of Northern Ireland vote for a united Ireland it still should not happen? That is the implication of this

    To attempt in any way to remove the sovereign authority of the Crown from all or part of the Kingdom is illegal.

    Most of Ireland was not allowed peacefully leave the political and monetary union known as the UK when we voted to do so. We had to shoot our way out. That was a mistake Britain should learn from.

  7. Yes Peter, these treason laws are problematic, aren’t they? Not to mention requiring that the rule of law is maintained.

    Henry94 –

    It’s intrigiung, the arrogance of the republican who’s so lacking in any self-awareness he probably doesn’t begin to see it. There you are, peace is the word, sticking to democratic principles, let the people decide, asking if Britons voting for a united Ireland ought to result in a united Ireland.

    Forget about asking the Irish south of the border if they want you. I assume your vote in NI is a one way deal, that if that vote is ever held and you get your way, that’s it for all time, yes?

  8. Pete

    You didn’t answer the question which leads me to suspect (correct me if I am wrong) that you do not accept in principle the right of the people of Northern Ireland to vote themselves out of the union.

    But just because you didn’t answer my question is no reason for me not to answer yours.

    I assume your vote in NI is a one way deal, that if that vote is ever held and you get your way, that’s it for all time, yes?

    Yes.

  9. "There you are, peace is the word, sticking to democratic principles, let the people decide, asking if Britons voting for a united Ireland ought to result in a united Ireland."

    What are you wittering on about?

    The Principle of Contempt is enshrined in an international treaty (and the Irish Constitution) so we all have to live with it.

  10. Henry94 –

    As yes, I did forget that you’d asked a question. No, I don’t believe that NI should secede, even if a majority vote for it.

    If republicans want to live in the Republic, they should move to the Republic.

  11. "If republicans want to live in the Republic, they should move to the Republic."

    I used to hear people ring in to Talkback to say the same thing. How I laughed!

  12. Pete

    I appreciate the clarity. I suggest that yours is a common position amoungst anti-Agreement unionists and while Sinn Fein in government is hard to swallow it is by no means the real problem with the agreement from that point of view.

  13. Henry94 –

    Maybe it isn’t the problem with the GFA from that point of view, but I don’t look at the GFA from that point of view. I object to any terrorist sitting in government in the UK, whatever side they thought they were batting for. The principle is that simple.

Comments are closed.