MLA Resigns

[Liam Lynch]

A Sinn Féin MLA has resigned from the party. Gerry McHugh was elected to Fermanagh District Council in 1993 and after standing in the 1997 Westminster election for Sinn Féin was elected as a member of the Assembly in 1998. Gerry is a life member of the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association (NIAPA). A former POW, Gerry lost his Assembly seat to running mate Tom O’Reilly in 2003, but was successfully re-elected in 2007. Gerry iwas Party Spokesperson for Agriculture and Ethnic Minority Issues. He is also Deputy Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and a member of Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in the Assembly.

In today's Irish News, McHugh said that he was "increasingly disillusioned by the undemocratic nature of the party and the wholly top-down dictation within it" , expressed concern that "the direction Sinn Féin is taking is more about appeasement of British rule and administrating British rule", and criticised the built-in unionist veto within the Assembly. Referring to recent revelations about the levels of British intelligence operations in the North, he said that "the fact that the PSNI is being used for political policing here should be a major concern for everyone here."

He also intends to retain his Assembly seat as an independent Republican is quoted that he intends to organise a series of meetings in the New Year to give people a chance to discuss matters which are a priority for them.


edited to remove link - no links to other forums allowed.

[elle]

another one bites the dust? I am glad that someone who reisgns from PSF is telling the truth and not using the 'family reasons' card

[duggie-89]

yea its a sad day

[Comrade Ryan]

yea its a sad day

It's a sad day when a long standing republican has to leave the movement he loved and served loyally because “the direction Sinn Féin is taking is more about appeasement of British rule and administrating British rule”.

It is also a sad day when the SF commentator John O'Dowd cannot accpet the genuine reasons for the man resigning and instead insinuates that it is really for personal reasons. Wake up people!

This taken together with the sameful way Cllr. Bernice Swift was treated for telling the truth about DPP's, namely that they are ineffectual and toothless, spells trouble in Fermanagh. Glad to see he is retaining his seat, and if Bernice goes I hope she keeps hers too. Let them be a rallying point for the disillusioned.

[robertemmett]

would sme one like to count the numbers
of
cumann members.
councillors north and south
and now MLAs

resigning from sinn fein

it not all the happiness and light that Gerry would make out.

[Comrade Ryan]

Not much comment on this....hmmm.

[Daithí]

I am glad that someone who reisgns from PSF is telling the truth and not using the 'family reasons' card

Please elaborate on this comment.

would sme one like to count the numbers
of
cumann members.
councillors north and south
and now MLAs

resigning from sinn fein

it not all the happiness and light that Gerry would make out
At the end of the day only a small number have left.
Also, there is a damn large number of members, that have a mandate.
And to answer your question, it would be in the high thousands anyway.

[duggie-89]

yea i agree there will be alot of members but more importantly its a big party which has a mandate and will continue to use that mandate. but its still ashame tat members left but the movement must move on.

[Daithí]

yea i agree there will be alot of members but more importantly its a big party which has a mandate and will continue to use that mandate. but its still ashame tat members left but the movement must move on.
Of course it's a shame.

[Liam Lynch]

Invariably though its only the elected reps who resign which are brought to the publics attention.

[Daithí]

Invariably though its only the elected reps who resign which are brought to the publics attention.

I don't think it's a public issue if an individual member steps down. Moreso, who wants to report it.

[Comrade Ryan]

I don't think it's a public issue if an individual member steps down. Moreso, who wants to report it.

I think that was the point really. That whilst there may only seem a small number of Reps going there are a lot of ordinary people going/gone which go below the radar, so the problems for SF are more significant than these headliners alone.

[MarkyMark]

hmmm. I recall a large number of people walking out in 1997. Sinn Fein since then has increased its support hugely, and continues to do so. I dont think people should be worried about a few councilors or MLA's.

[Daithí]

I think that was the point really. That whilst there may only seem a small number of Reps going there are a lot of ordinary people going/gone which go below the radar, so the problems for SF are more significant than these headliners alone.
Again, insignificant. This won't halt the fastest growing party.

[duggie-89]

hmmm. I recall a large number of people walking out in 1997. Sinn Fein since then has increased its support hugely, and continues to do so. I dont think people should be worried about a few councilors or MLA's.

yea SF is the larest growing party and we continue to gain support but the loss of a few cllrs and mla's needs attention because otherwise we need to look at why their levaing and why they haven't seen the light so to speak.

[elle]

Please elaborate on this comment.


of course, most of the PSF members who have left recently have cited 'family reasons' as why they were leaving, I am glad to see someone finally leaving and saying the real reason. That he, like others are disallusioned with the party. Its a sad day when people who have dedicated thier lives to the cause need to leave because the party is under a dictaorship

[Mellows1922]

of course, most of the PSF members who have left recently have cited 'family reasons' as why they were leaving,

Who are you talking about ? Please be specific.

The people I remember citing family reasaons are people like Nicky Kehoe who did not leave the party, merely took a step back from their elected rep positions.

[Mellows1922]

Not much comment on this....hmmm.

I'm not sure what kind of comment you would expect ?

It's sad when any comrade feels for whatever reason they can not remain within the party.

[Liam Lynch]

hmmm. I recall a large number of people walking out in 1997. Sinn Fein since then has increased its support hugely, and continues to do so. I dont think people should be worried about a few councilors or MLA's.

But as more people leave the perception between what Sinn Fein used to stand for and what they actually stand for becomes more apparent. Celebrating the growth of Sinn Fein is the same as celebrating the growth of Fianna Fail.

[Comrade Ryan]

I'm not sure what kind of comment you would expect ?

It's sad when any comrade feels for whatever reason they can not remain within the party.

Maybe some comment from SF posters saying that the party needs to take these events seriously and not the usual, won't make any difference ****e that we usually get.

Although I hope they don't do too much correcting as for us on the outside its always nice to link up with the recently departed. More to work on the alternative strategy. :eusa_clap:

[Comrade Ryan]

Again, insignificant. This won't halt the fastest growing party.

Keep dreaming. You feel that losing elected reps and many grass roots activists is insignificant. What an arrogant high ground you must inhabit. This is the exact arrogance that disgusts many genuine republicans I know.

[Mellows1922]

Maybe some comment from SF posters saying that the party needs to take these events seriously and not the usual, won't make any difference ****e that we usually get.

The party has taken events seriously, the party in the six is in a strong position, it's not as if there is not ongoing debate and discussion at all levels all the time. When big steps are taken there will always be a small amount who fell those steps may be the wrong steps and sometimes it takes people a little longer to realise they are not happy with the steps that have been taken.

It is an absolute shame that some members feel they must leave the party and every person who resigns is a loss, but the reality is it is only a very small number who have felt they could not remain within the Movement.

In the twenty six, there has been a root and branch look at the structure of the party and where we move forward from here, it has been a fully transparant and democratic analysis of where we are and where we need to be. Every voice was head and this notion of dictatorship just doesn't stack up.

Sinn Fein are a political party with membership mandated political positions. I understand people sometimes get frustrated that they are unable to go against those membership mandated positions but those positions are the positions that the party have taken.

If members of RSF, the IRSP or the 32CSM spoke publicly against party position would they get a pat on the back ? I don't think so.

Party position is what it is, there is nothing dictatorial in nature in expecting your elected reps support the membership mandates positions of the party.

[Liam Lynch]

If members of RSF, the IRSP or the 32CSM spoke publicly against party position would they get a pat on the back ? I don't think so.

But its how the position is arrived at that is in question. All the main policies concerning the peace process were arrived at in private negotiations with the British etc. The membership were not part of policy formulation but had to vote on policy as submitted by the leadership which in turn became de facto votes of confidence in that leadership. Policy formulation needs to be independent of that.

[Mellows1922]

But its how the position is arrived at that is in question. All the main policies concerning the peace process were arrived at in private negotiations with the British etc. The membership were not part of policy formulation but had to vote on policy as submitted by the leadership which in turn became de facto votes of confidence in that leadership. Policy formulation needs to be independent of that.

I'm pretty sure policy formulation occurs in the same way within the 32CSM, RSF, IRSP.

Policy is debated and discussed at length involving everybody within the party and then a motion is tabled to the Ard Fheis.

[Liam Lynch]

I'm pretty sure policy formulation occurs in the same way within the 32CSM, RSF, IRSP.

Policy is debated and discussed at length involving everybody within the party and then a motion is tabled to the Ard Fheis.

But its not in PSF. Was Hume/Adams ever discussed? Even the Special Ard Fheisenna are called, not to formulate a policy, but to vote on one already formulated and agreed with the British etc. And the problem is that if you succeed in voting down such a policy you vote no confidence in your leadership. And that plays a major part in determining how people vote in such cases.

[Mellows1922]

But its not in PSF. Was Hume/Adams ever discussed? Even the Special Ard Fheisenna are called, not to formulate a policy, but to vote on one already formulated and agreed with the British etc.

The policy or change in policy is formulated in advance through months of analysis and debate at all levels of the party. The results of that internal debate are then placed into motions that are put to the party to decide upon.

And the problem is that if you succeed in voting down such a policy you vote no confidence in your leadership. And that plays a major part in determining how people vote in such cases.

I don't believe it does, I believe my comrades are strong enough to strike down a motion they do not agree with. Certainly there may be small numbers of people who will vote on personality rather than content, but delegates are instructed to vote in the manner that the cumann decides after long and hard debate so this negates the influence of those who may wish to vote on personalities alone.

[Liam Lynch]

[QUOTE]The policy or change in policy is formulated in advance through months of analysis and debate at all levels of the party. The results of that internal debate are then placed into motions that are put to the party to decide upon.



Like Hume/Adams?

I don't believe it does, I believe my comrades are strong enough to strike down a motion they do not agree with. Certainly there may be small numbers of people who will vote on personality rather than content, but delegates are instructed to vote in the manner that the cumann decides after long and hard debate so this negates the influence of those who may wish to vote on personalities alone.

But why should important policy decisions be linked with votes of confidence in leadership? Why should that leverage be brought to bear? Without raising the issue specifically it was the same when Adams told the 1986 Ard Fheis that a vote against the motion was a vote against the IRA. The same card is still being played.

[manus1916]

it's a shame that people who gave most of their lives to the stuggle are just cast aside and treated as though their were only a number

when lets face it the movement offered no coping mechanisms for members to get used to the huge u turns in republican policy that have happened in a relativly short period of time so it's to be expected

it's hard to stay on board when you see no evidence of moving towards the republic and your
multi-homed republican socialist leader is opening the new york stock exchange with big ian :chair:
telling the strikers to get back to work and sneaking in water charges:wall:

fair play to ya Gerry you were'nt the first and you won't be the last

the truth shall set you free

[Mellows1922]

Like Hume/Adams?

Nothing that may have been in Hume/Adams was party policy until the party voted to make it so.

But why should important policy decisions be linked with votes of confidence in leadership? Why should that leverage be brought to bear? Without raising the issue specifically it was the same when Adams told the 1986 Ard Fheis that a vote against the motion was a vote against the IRA. The same card is still being played.

I don't believe it is though, I believe the party have supported changes in strategy because they believed a change in strategy was required to progress the struggle, not because they disagreed with those changes and stayed silent out of a misguided sense of duty to make sure the leadership don't look bad.

[robertemmett]

just into the house, have missed the news all day.

but just to say- good man gerry. well done for taking a stand, cannot have been easy to do being such a high elected official. so he has my repect.

sinn fein is in a tailspin over this.

i notice over at chris gaskin's Balrog bog site, he hasn't mentioned it all.

the backroom boys are probably still working out how to spin this one away.

[Daithí]

of course, most of the PSF members who have left recently have cited 'family reasons' as why they were leaving, I am glad to see someone finally leaving and saying the real reason. That he, like others are disallusioned with the party. Its a sad day when people who have dedicated thier lives to the cause need to leave because the party is under a dictaorship
Who are you referring to citing Family Reasons? For what possible reason would they lie?
The party is not under a dictatorship. The Ard Comhairle is elected by members all across the country, and have a mandate.
Iam too lazy to write the rest, so I'll just out it, you're full of ****.

[Liam Lynch]

[QUOTE]
Nothing that may have been in Hume/Adams was party policy until the party voted to make it so.


Which serves my point, Hume/Adams was the basis upon which the leadership proceeded with the peace process. The membership was not consulted as to policy formation because the leadership had already acted irrespective of them on a point of fundamental importance, namely the acceptance of the unionist veto. To vote against the direction was to vote against your leadership. That was the vista which confronted people; get rid of Adams and co. or proceed with them irrespective of your views on where they were taking you.


I don't believe it is though, I believe the party have supported changes in strategy because they believed a change in strategy was required to progress the struggle, not because they disagreed with those changes and stayed silent out of a misguided sense of duty to make sure the leadership don't look bad.

So why wasn't the membership consulted on strategy prior to its implementation? Does the leadership not trust the members instincts on this process to the point that they'd consult them concerning the formulation of policy?

[Mellows1922]

Which serves my point, Hume/Adams was the basis upon which the leadership proceeded with the peace process. The membership was not consulted as to policy formation because the leadership had already acted irrespective of them on a point of fundamental importance, namely the acceptance of the unionist veto. To vote against the direction was to vote against your leadership. That was the vista which confronted people; get rid of Adams and co. or proceed with them irrespective of your views on where they were taking you.

And if people did not support that direction they said so, the fact is the majority did support that direction, for valid and legitimate reasons, but you refuse to accept that so you peddle this story about the poor eejit halfwit Republicans codded up the eyeballs by Gerry and the boys and then too afraid to speak up.

It was not about voting to support the leadership, it was about voting to support a strategy that the membership had thought long and hard about, and discussed at great length.

You chose not to support that strategy and that is fine, it was your free decision to make, just like it was mine and my comrades to make too.

There was no unilateral acceptance of a Unionist veto by the leadership as you say. The GFA was only accepted once the party accepted it, anything before that was just hypothetical discussion.

So why wasn't the membership consulted on strategy prior to its implementation? Does the leadership not trust the members instincts on this process to the point that they'd consult them concerning the formulation of policy?

There is no decisions taken that are not discussed at length and in great depth throughout all levels of the party.

Formulation of strategy has to begin somewhere, and once strategy ideas appear the membership is consulted fully, it is the debate and discussion throughout the party that ultimately formulates the eventual final shape that strategy will take.

Motions don't just appear out of thin air, they are built around the responses that flow from the party once strategy ideas have been presented.

[Daithí]

I'd like to say that Gerry had been a member of the party for years, and he is well up on SF policies in relation to issues like policing. The special ard fheis took place before he allowed his name to be put forward for Assembly elections. This is why he was elected. He did not raise ANY of the issues he had with the party AT ALL.

[Nijinsky]

I didnt think Gerry was a former POW. Anyone able to clarify this?

[MarkyMark]

I didnt think Gerry was a former POW. Anyone able to clarify this?

he was interned in 1973 in Long Kesh

[Liam Lynch]

[QUOTE]And if people did not support that direction they said so, the fact is the majority did support that direction, for valid and legitimate reasons, but you refuse to accept that so you peddle this story about the poor eejit halfwit Republicans codded up the eyeballs by Gerry and the boys and then too afraid to speak up.


The only one treating republicans like halfwits is Adams because he wouldn't trust them with voting on the formulation of strategy instead trusting the herd instinct by getting them to endorse decisions he already made on their, and yours, behalf. Who got to debate the Hume/Adams Document?


It was not about voting to support the leadership, it was about voting to support a strategy that the membership had thought long and hard about, and discussed at great length.

If the Special Ard Fheis rejected the proposals would the leaderships position be untenable?


You chose not to support that strategy and that is fine, it was your free decision to make, just like it was mine and my comrades to make too.

You were only free to vote on whether to support what had already been decided.

There was no unilateral acceptance of a Unionist veto by the leadership as you say. The GFA was only accepted once the party accepted it, anything before that was just hypothetical discussion.

Hume/Adams accepted and that was endorsed by the IRA leadership.



There is no decisions taken that are not discussed at length and in great depth throughout all levels of the party.

Accept issues contained in Hume/Adams.

Formulation of strategy has to begin somewhere, and once strategy ideas appear the membership is consulted fully, it is the debate and discussion throughout the party that ultimately formulates the eventual final shape that strategy will take.

But strategies didn't appear, decisions already taken did.

Motions don't just appear out of thin air, they are built around the responses that flow from the party once strategy ideas have been presented.

Again you're not presented with ideas you're presented with fait acomplis.

[Dílseacht]

This is no surprise really!!

The SF setup in Fermanagh, regarding cumanns and activists has taken a hit in recent times, and most of it before the Ard fheis incidently.

With Gerry McHugh leaving and Bernice Swift suspended its easy to forget that Cllr Poilin O Cathain and Cllr Joe Cassidy have also left the party in recent years. There is also talk of one other seriously considering his position at the minute. Was chatting to Joe Cassidy a wee while ago about his leaving and he said it was for the same reasons as McHugh stated here. Local grass roots had very little to so with decision making and the Leadership were taking ALL decisions and telling the hoi polloi what to do.

As for McHugh, i wish him all the best.

[robertemmett]

the policing decision was presented as a fait acomplis.
eg.
the sf website contained for some months before the ard fheis an article by declan kearney on why sf should join the cops- no room was given for the counter argument.

eg and the public debates, key people were placed around the halls to speak throughout the meeting to create the impression of full support.

the complete humilation of one old man who dared to disagree with the love in in newry gave those sf members who disagreed the clear message.

the debates were stage managed to ensure the least possible dissent.

in family meetings, senior ra men were wheeled in to intimidate those younger members or those who had not been in prison. the typical line went..... "i was in the kesh for X number of years, who the **** are you to question me"

never once was the power of police or dpps discussed in any real detail. with such a legalistic document a line by line decontruction was required but this never happened at local level.

and in cumann structures, where for long years the members sit back and dont question the decision of the local chairs or the leadership, total faith was placed in them that things would be ok.

and at the ard fheis itself, delegates were appealed to on numerous occasions to change thier vote if they been delegated to vote aginst it. this is despite them being delegated, delagated to vote against it.


so it is little wonder that policing sliped through.

[Comrade Ryan]

I'd like to say that Gerry had been a member of the party for years, and he is well up on SF policies in relation to issues like policing. The special ard fheis took place before he allowed his name to be put forward for Assembly elections. This is why he was elected. He did not raise ANY of the issues he had with the party AT ALL.

Selection Conventions took place before the Special Ard Fheis. Gerry was selected to run before this decision.

[Mellows1922]

The only one treating republicans like halfwits is Adams because he wouldn't trust them with voting on the formulation of strategy instead trusting the herd instinct by getting them to endorse decisions he already made on their, and yours, behalf. Who got to debate the Hume/Adams Document?

Hume/Adams was never adopted by the party as policy, a lot of what it may have contained did later go on to become policy but by that stage it has seen plenty of rigerous discussion and debate.

If the Special Ard Fheis rejected the proposals would the leaderships position be untenable?

If the membership overwhelmingly rejected a major strategy position that has been put forward by the leadership then I think that leadership would probably become untenable yes.

But I also don't think the membership, or at least the vast majority of them, are willing to put their conscience ahead of their loyalty to leadership.

It's an easy get out to say that controversial motions are passed because the membership don't want to dissapoint the leadership or that the membership don't want to vote against the leadership.

In my experience, people vote on what they believe to be the correct move not because they are looking at the top table afraid to vote how they really feel.

On the flip side of your contention, it could be equally argued that the leadership have never lost a vote because they are completly in tune with the mood of the grassroots of the party.

You were only free to vote on whether to support what had already been decided.

No, it hadn't been decided until the vote was taken, it was the vote that decided if the party would persue that strategy. Up to that point it was simply an idea that had been floated.

It's not like people turned up to the Ard Fheis with no idea what was on the clár. A lot of debate and discussion occured beforehand, for a long time beforehand, it was this debate and discussion that formulated what would be presented to the party for decision.

Hume/Adams accepted and that was endorsed by the IRA leadership.

The IRA did not endorse any Unionist veto, they agreed to explore the possibility of an alternative strategy for reunification that did not involve armed resistance.

But strategies didn't appear, decisions already taken did.

Decisions are only meaningful once the membership have spoken, until then they are just strategy ideas.

Again you're not presented with ideas you're presented with fait acomplis.

And again you are talking as if people stroll up to an Ard Fheis with no idea what is on the horizon. A lot of debate and discussion about these strategies and ideas take place beforehand, the membership is fully aware and involved in what is happening. It is not fait acomplis that are presented, it is ideas and strategies, these ideas and strategies are then digested within the membership, who ultimately decide if they are ideas and strategies they can support.

[Liam Lynch]

[QUOTE]Hume/Adams was never adopted by the party as policy, a lot of what it may have contained did later go on to become policy but by that stage it has seen plenty of rigerous discussion and debate.

Exactly, the leadership ran with it as policy without consulting the membership. The entire basis of Hume/Adams was predicated on two points; Sinn fein would endorse the Unionist veto whist both governments would become persuaders for unity. The problem being of course that unlike a vague issue of persuasion endorsing the unionist veto was more concrete and could not be withdrawn once given.



If the membership overwhelmingly rejected a major strategy position that has been put forward by the leadership then I think that leadership would probably become untenable yes.

But I also don't think the membership, or at least the vast majority of them, are willing to put their conscience ahead of their loyalty to leadership.

And obviously your leadership thinks differently because they continue to treat your members as an entity to merely endorse whatever it is that they put before them.

It's an easy get out to say that controversial motions are passed because the membership don't want to dissapoint the leadership or that the membership don't want to vote against the leadership.

Its also an easy way to get them passed. Why not address the issue at an Ard Fheis where no leadership is present and the issue of voting for or against them does not arise?

In my experience, people vote on what they believe to be the correct move not because they are looking at the top table afraid to vote how they really feel.

But you didn't get to vote at all on whether a leadership should adopt specific stances merely a vote on a fait acompli.

On the flip side of your contention, it could be equally argued that the leadership have never lost a vote because they are completly in tune with the mood of the grassroots of the party.

Which would be grand if they actually consulted the grassroots on major shifts of direction before they actually take them.



No, it hadn't been decided until the vote was taken, it was the vote that decided if the party would persue that strategy. Up to that point it was simply an idea that had been floated.

But the leadership not only had decided on this direction they actually negotiated with the British based on it. No vote was waited for.

It's not like people turned up to the Ard Fheis with no idea what was on the clár. A lot of debate and discussion occured beforehand, for a long time beforehand, it was this debate and discussion that formulated what would be presented to the party for decision.

After the fact. Always after the fact. And the choreography with the British was so blatantly obvious in order to influence the vote.



The IRA did not endorse any Unionist veto, they agreed to explore the possibility of an alternative strategy for reunification that did not involve armed resistance.

The IRA leadership endorsed the Hume/Adams proposal. That proposal accepted the Unionist veto.



Decisions are only meaningful once the membership have spoken, until then they are just strategy ideas.

No, they are not. They are negotiations positions.



And again you are talking as if people stroll up to an Ard Fheis with no idea what is on the horizon. A lot of debate and discussion about these strategies and ideas take place beforehand, the membership is fully aware and involved in what is happening. It is not fait acomplis that are presented, it is ideas and strategies, these ideas and strategies are then digested within the membership, who ultimately decide if they are ideas and strategies they can support.

Back to Hume/Adams, and god knows what else.