I'd say he set things back a few months through his blundering and misguided interference. Everything was teed up prior to Blair assuming power and then the IRA thought, "Wow, if this Blair wanker is anything like this Corbyn wanker, we could be quids-in". So progress was lost and had to be regained. What do I win?
You haven’t backed up your answer with reference to learned text. SHOW YOUR WORKING. In the meantime, that is at odds with @Portboys sturdy evidence. What is it like living life, making decisions and forming opinions based on what you are spoon fed by the MSM and British state, and not having the ability for free thought and research?
Evidence! LOL. Yeah, OK, Mr Easily-Pleased. We are going with the theory that Corbyn, a back-bencher, unregarded and disliked by the PLP leadership for decades, was the power behind the throne that secured the GFA? Sorry, gonna need more than an anecdote typed in a slightly different font to make me swallow that little pill of pure fantasy.
If you were Gerry Adams and you were contacted to arrange a meeting with a representative of the British government, who are you going to respond most favourably too? A sympathiser or an antagonist? If you are the British Government and you want to succeed, who are you most likely to send? A sympathiser or an antagonist?
Send who you like but unless it is someone who is likely to have the ear of government (or at the very least, someone whose stock isn't one-step up from that of a Sinn Fein MP), you are probably wasting your time. You'd send someone you trust. Go on. Tell me that Corbyn was seen as someone the UK Government trusted.
Obviously, he was trusted. He was a labour MP as part of a Labour Government. Obviously he didn’t trust George Galloway, who also has Irish sympathies. I do have a problem with your attitude towards MPs you disagree with. You seem to be unable to recognise that they are there because a lot of people voted for them. So when you dismiss Nicola Sturgeons views in really quite patronising or abusive terms you do so in a way which gives the impression that it’s only the opinion of “that Sturgeon(insert abusive word here) when in fact you are doing the same to about 50% of those who vote. You seem unable to understand that she is only saying what a lot of Scots believe. You may believe NI should be British my there and many Irish people who believe that NI should be Irish. They elect Sinn Feinn MPs
I have here a stack of Daily Mail issues dating back to 1945 and none of them mentions that Corbyn was trusted by the Labour Government. No, but seriously - Labour Management trusted Corbyn? When it's a matter of record that he voted against his own party more times than he showed off Diane Abbott to his mates? Pull the other one. I am entirely comfortable with you having a problem with this. Weird, innit? Huh? Are you suggesting that I have no idea how elections work? How very dare you! Ah, going to have to pop your little outrage bubble here. I dismiss The Sturgeonator not because she says what "a lot" of Scots believe but because she seeems to ignore what a lot - a majority, in fact - of Scots voted for. I do admit, that is a real bugbear with me - hence my current raging "dislike" for the Conservative Party. It's a democracy thing, I guess.
I think you will find she gets close to 50% of the vote. On an issue by issue basis she has the support of The Greens and often labour and the libdems. @finm has listed many such examples. I don’t get excited about your lack of respect for the views of the people of Scotland. I have a problem with it because it’s people like you who frustrate a collegiate approach to relations between Scotland and rUK. It’s British Imperialism to the end, no matter the cost. It is the effect of that lack of respect that I have a problem with.
