Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SO UNHAPPY AT the prospect of Sinn Féin as a political force were Fine Gael in 1985 that they even lobbied Charles Haughey to their side, according to papers released under the 30-year-rule by the National Archives.
The abstentionist policies of Sinn Féin (ie their elected officials did not attend either the Dáil or the House of Commons in the UK) had not dulled their popularity 30 years ago – in the 1985 Northern Irish local elections Sinn Féin did remarkably well for a party that refused to practice parliamentary politics, something Gerry Adams did little to hide his delight about.
Click here to view a larger image
Click here to view a larger image
Fine Gael / Labour spent most of 1985 building up to the landmark Anglo Irish Agreement (AIA) in November of that year.
Sinn Féin’s sniping from the sides meanwhile about what a disaster engaging with the British government might prove to be was not well received by the Irish government. In this the party was joined by the Unionists who were very mistrustful of the process. But in Sinn Féin’s case they were on the Irish government’s doorstep.
Since 1984 the government had actively followed a policy of non-acknowledgement when it came to Sinn Féin due to their backing of the IRA in Northern Ireland. As the year progressed and the AIA began to take shape they were even asked by their British counterparts as to how exactly their embargo on contact with Sinn Féin worked in practice:
Click here to view a larger image
Click here to view a larger image
Click here to view a larger image
Then Sinn Féin announced that it wanted to use Dublin’s Mansion House, seat of the Lord Mayor of the city, for its November 1985 Ard Fheis.
Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald was not best pleased. “The spectacle of Sinn Féin’s annual conferences, at which unequivocal support is consistently given to the IRA’s campaign of violence, is abhorrent to the government,” he told a company director in a letter from the time. Sinn Féin had used the Dublin building in 1984 (and would do so again in 1986), but in 1985 the Fine Gael leader made it his personal mission to see that they were banned from the building.
Click here to view a larger image
Unfortunately the use of the building came under the remit of Dublin City Corporation (the forerunner of Dublin City Council) and the government had no mandate to intervene. But sitting Dublin City councillors did. As such FitzGerald sought an all-party consensus on the issue as a means of exerting pressure towards the building being made unavailable for the Sinn Féin conference. Hence the below letter to Charlie Haughey.
Click here to view a larger image
“Dear Charlie… I understand that the members of the City Council would have the the power to direct Corporation management not to make the Mansion House available to Sinn Féin… Obviously the value of such a motion would be considerably greater if it could be a cross party initiative,” he wrote.
Would you consider bringing this matter to the attention of the Fianna Fáil councillors?
As matters transpired, the tactic didn’t work and the Sinn Féin conference went ahead at the Mansion House anyway.
And the main topic of the meeting? Abstentionism, a vote on which to abolish same being narrowly defeated by 161 to 181 votes with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness abstaining.
This we know because the government had a confidential memo of the goings-on at the Ard Fheis prepared:
Click here to view a larger image
Cloak and dagger stuff in 1985 and no mistake.
As for abstentionism itself? Sinn Féin voted to abandon the policy at the following year’s conference leading to a split in the party.
See National Archives file 2015/89/61
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Amnesty and others should be ashamed of themselves coming out with this kind of gift wrapped propaganda for Russia, theres only one side commiting war crimes and it aint Ukraine
@Buí agus Gorm: The rules of international humanitarian law are there to protect everyone. If you deny one side’s responsibilities you open up the Pandoras box. And a breach of international humanitarian law is not necessarily a war crime. War crimes are reserved for serious breaches. And you are right: the only war crimes that I have seen have come from the Russian side. But Amnesty should not be ashamed for standing up for international law.
@Nicholas McMurry: every rule is being broken by Russia who cares about the Russian pow’s getting a bit of a video taken of them they are getting off lightly.
@Nicholas McMurry: agreed. To put it simply, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Hang on a minute, they are not POW’s as Herr Putin has said it is not a “war”
I wonder if “organised” groups like paid Syrian mercenaries or Chechen terrorists are to be treated as POW’s? Given their track records of brutality and human rights abuses, they should be shot out of hand.
@Paul Shepherd: mercenaries are not entitled to combatant nor prisoners of war status afforded under the Geneva Convention. As for ‘terrorists’ if they are members of a local opposition, clearly identifiable and openly carrying weapons they are entitled to such status.
@D. Memery: I’m sure their victims will be relieved that their human rights will be respected.
@Paul Shepherd: perhaps you should direct your critism at the authors of the convention and the International Red Cross so! If you read the link you will note that although mercenaries are not entitled the combatant status they are permitted to be detained and tried for any crimes committed under civilian law.
If some dude came to my country and attacked my family n friends and then I captured him. I wouldn’t be caring if some yolk from the UN thought filming him was degrading. To be honest i probably wouldnt be keeping him alive in the first place.
@Rob Gale: What is the point in defending our values if we don’t have any?
I’m sorry but did Russia worry about all the innocents they have killed in cold blood? Women, children, the old and the sick. And those soldiers looked like middle Eastern blokes that joined up.
@Roy Dowling: oh b1. te me you @$$ wipe. I’m not gender biased I’m on the side of those unable to defend themselves. Why are there such €€jits here making such immature uneducated comments in the middle of a conflict.
@Anna Carr: hopefully I’ll never get close enough to you to b1.te you. People like you are why are to the problems of this world. You expect all men capable to defend themselves but no women are capable to defend themselves. Makes it more gender bias on your side.
I think Ukraine needs to take the high ground and not engage in tactics Putin would use.
Civilians didn’t sign up to the Geneva convention to protect Russian invaders. When this goes full guerilla warfare those sad phone calls will be public executions.
The general perception is that Putin started a war. I would suggest cautiously that Putin started an invasion. By way of Ukraine’s defence, a war began. Compare this war to the US troops exiting Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda (although already largely present with the country) carried out an invasion. Not a war. While I admire Zelenskyy’s bravery and hope the best for him, I can’t help but think he’s not being realistic in meeting Putin halfway. That Ireland voted to fast-track Ukraine into the EU will only stoke the fire. But then Ireland is just an EU provincial government. France / Netherlands who both vetoed the move is a tad more realistic.
have your say