» Thursday, February 3, 2005

Northern Ireland

Asked whether we thought Martin McGuiness’ comments this morning threatened a return to violence, the PMOS said no. It was fair to say that withdrawing from the decommissioning commission at times of difficulty was something the IRA had done before. Most recently after the breakdown in 2003. Therefore to that extent we had not been surprised. It was important to say that the Government was not seeking confrontation with Sinn Fein, we did recognise the contribution that both Sinn Fein and the IRA had made to the Peace Process. Equally however it was our duty to tell the facts as they were. In this case the facts were that the IRA did carry out the robbery and that was in direct contradiction of what the Good Friday agreement was all about.

Put to him that Martin McGuiness seemed to be threatening a return to violence, the PMOS said that we did not believe that was imminent. Elsewhere Mr McGuiness had indicated that he didn’t think it was imminent either. Let us be very clear about this, the people of Ireland, both North and South had voted in 1998 for a complete end to paramilitary activity which included criminal activity. That is what the Government believed should happen. Asked if by imminent, the Government thought that a return to violence might be a possibility in the long term, the PMOS said that we did not believe it was something people should be worried about at this stage.

Asked if the Peace Process was breaking down, the PMOS said no it was not. If we went back to last December, we had had the prospect of the DUP and Sinn Fein sharing power. That did not happen for various reasons. No one was pretending that the robbery was anything other than a setback, but in terms of the vast number of issues which in 1998 we set out to resolve, they were all resolved apart from one single issue. That was continued IRA activity. Therefore what we had to do was resolve that issue. Asked to comment on the Taoiseach’s view that the Sinn Fein leadership were aware of the robbery before it occurred, the PMOS said that as we had said before and was our view, it was inconceivable given the sophistication of the robbery and its implications that it was not known about within the highest level of the Republican leadership. Asked if it was likely, as the Taoiseach had suggested, that IRA had been behind other robberies, the PMOS said that there was evidence of other IRA activity and the Chief Constable had spoken about that in the past.

Asked of Gerry Adams had indicated to the Prime Minister when they met at Chequers, that this statement was a likely development, the PMOS said no.

Asked if the Chief Constables had indicated to the Prime Minister whether there would be any prosecutions, and if there weren’t any wouldn’t it leave the Chief Constables’ statements open to the charge of being baseless accusations, the PMOS said that he recognised the legitimate question being asked. First of all we had to recognise that this was not just the opinion of the Chief Constable but a view which had been reached after a very careful investigation. Secondly it was a view which was independently held by the Garda in Dublin in terms of their investigation and what they knew as well. Therefore it was not just an idle opinion but rather a view based on very careful consideration. As the Chief Constable had indicated, he was fully aware of the significance of the statements he had made; they were not statements he made lightly. In terms of prosecutions that was an entirely a matter for the investigating authorities. They would take the time and resources necessary to decide how to proceed. In short while of course we wanted to see progress and quickly as possible, it was both our responsibility and the wisest course of action to let the Police proceed at their own speed. Equally it would be wrong for us not to indicate where we thought the investigations were pointing.

Briefing took place at 11:00 | Search for related news

1 Comment »

  1. In most criminal investigations it is common for the investigating authorities to establish the identity of the perpetrators, charge them and convict them as necessary. They rarely comment on on-going investigations for various reasons.

    In this case we have the government and the Chief Constable shooting their mouths off about who they "think" is guilty, while no arrests have been made or seem likely. In most other cases that I can think of that would all add up to obstructing the course of justice, as well as interfering with an ongoing investigation.

    But that’s ok; as we all know by now, one rule for them, etc etc…

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 4 Feb 2005 on 2:05 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


February 2005
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Jan   Mar »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh