introducing this thread, Mick (Fealty) wrote: "Thomas
Gore believes the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement
offers the Republican movement the opportunity to
finally realise its long term ambition of uniting
the Irish people."
seems to me, however, that, due largely to some
weak writing on Mr. Gore's part, Mick has reached
the wrong conclusion here and that the following
excerpts more fairly indicate what Mr. Gore meant
on that point:
not a republican, but even if I were I have no
doubt I would consider the Good Friday Agreement
to have been primarily designed as an exit route
from the vicious, costly and counter-productive
cycle that physical force had become. Not a crushing
defeat, certainly not a victory (maybe not even
an honourable draw) - but an escape hatch.
The Good Friday Agreement became both the
route map and the vehicle towards that end.
Gore essentially and merely importunes: give up
militancy, Republicans, and just try to talk Unionists
into accepting a 32-county state. He concludes:
"[Republicans] may fail in their efforts of
course but when was the chance, or even probability,
of failure ever a legitimate excuse for not trying?"
this message signals something rather less than
an "opportunity [for the Republican movement]
to finally realise its long term ambition of uniting
the Irish people." Mr. Gore is just saying
that, after the militancy ends, Republicans will
be at liberty to talk about reunion.
Gore might have added that, if they'd like, Republicans
will also be free to bay at the moon, to their hearts'