"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement

First, there is sometimes a tendency to relate to events of the revolutionary period of 100yrs ago as a having some sort different set of values and morals.
The problem with your moral contortionism is that it is irrelevant in the context of the political ambitions of your Party as what happened 100 years ago is not an obstacle to Irish Unity. What happened 20-50 years ago is.
In any negotiations about a united Ireland FF or FG having a heritage of insurrection and conflict doesn't matter. SF having a leadership which engaged in conflict and terrorism does.
Seamus Mallon said we should hasten slowly towards a united Ireland so that we don't do to the Unionists what the Unionists did to the Nationalists.
 
as what happened 100 years ago is not an obstacle to Irish Unity.

You are kidding right?
The events of 100yrs that partitioned the country is not an obstacle to Irish Unity.
This is just ridiculous.

In any negotiations about a united Ireland FF or FG having a heritage of insurrection and conflict doesn't matter.

Says who? Unionists? Take a day off will ya!

SF having a leadership which engaged in conflict and terrorism does.

Michelle O'Neill, Martin McGuinness, is that the leadership that Unionists share power with in NI?

Amazing really isn't it, Unionists share power with SF but it is anathema to them to share power with FF or FG on an All Ireland basis, and you think SF is the obstacle.
 
You are kidding right?
The events of 100yrs that partitioned the country is not an obstacle to Irish Unity.
This is just ridiculous.
You're being obtuse, at best.
In a negotiation for a united Ireland the historical events of 100 years ago will not be an obstacle to progress. The political events of 20-50 years ago will, especially when the people who ordered the bombs and the shootings are seeking to pull the strings on one side of the table.

Michelle O'Neill, Martin McGuinness, is that the leadership that Unionists share power with in NI?

Amazing really isn't it, Unionists share power with SF
Yes, it is. It's aa great testimony to the Unionists.
but it is anathema to them to share power with FF or FG on an All Ireland basis, and you think SF is the obstacle.
Knowing the SF will probably be in power soon is an obstacle.
 
In a negotiation for a united Ireland the historical events of 100 years ago will not be an obstacle to progress.

Please, the events of 100yrs ago that brought about partition are no longer an obstacle!
The naivety of this view is beyond comprehension.
The inference is that Unionists would be quite willing to engage in a UI if it were not for those nasty Shinners (that they already share power with).

The ingrained bigotry of being governed in a country that is predominantly Catholic has evaporated has it? Because I'm pretty sure you have cited that bigotry on a number of occasions in this thread?
 
Please, the events of 100yrs ago that brought about partition are no longer an obstacle!
Is that what you think?
The naivety of this view is beyond comprehension.
I agree.
The inference is that Unionists would be quite willing to engage in a UI if it were not for those nasty Shinners (that they already share power with).
Maybe to you and others who have been brainwashed by the Shinner cult.
The ingrained bigotry of being governed in a country that is predominantly Catholic has evaporated has it? Because I'm pretty sure you have cited that bigotry on a number of occasions in this thread?
This country is predominantly secular. I think that's more of a problem for the DUP but not for younger liberal protestants. Having some criminal who killed or tried to kill your parents grinning at you from the other side of the table is more of a problem for Unionists.
 
Ah @Purple you are 23yrs behind the times. The All Party talks that led to GFA had all sorts on either side of the table that were part of the murderous conflict. I figure you can point to Adams & Co, but there was also UVF bomber David Ervine and his associates and serial murderer Billy Hutchinson sitting around the table.

But they somehow managed to cobble together an agreement towards taking the gun out of Irish politics.

I appreciate you are entitled to your view but the 'obstacle' you cite has no standing when Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley were quite capable of governing together.
Then Michelle O'Neil and Arlene Foster. Now Jeffrey Donaldson.
If there is one person I admire greatly on the Unionist camp it is Jeffrey. I didn't like him when he walked out of talks over IRA weapons but in hindsight we owe him a debt of gratitude for making this a cornerstone of any power-sharing agreement.

Nowadays it is the profound matters of the British sausage, and invisible sea borders washing around as 'identity politics'. It provokes the ire of loyalism who cannot fathom what the Dublin government have done to them. Poor Leo and Simon, they did not see this coming at all.

But I see Jeffrey has not walked away yet. I'm inclined to think if Jeffrey can stomach it, then as the leader of Unionism, so can his followers.
 
@WolfeTone we aren't quite on different sides of this merry-go-round I think we are sufficiently distant that there's not much common ground so maybe we should stop the ride and go on our merry way...
 
@WolfeTone How much did the IT pay you for this article?
 
The Irish language is an important part of Protestant heritage

Linda Ervine gives a brief summary of how intertwined the Irish language is with Protestant culture.
A fascinating lady, Wolfie.
You know me and my takeaways. Well my takeaway is that the Irish Language, even a UI these days, should not elicit such fierce rejection by the unionist community that even their leader can't bring himself to say Teashop. Why so? Linda herself states the obvious - SF weaponisation, such as currying me yoghurt all over the floor of the Assembly.
 
Why so? Linda herself states the obvious - SF weaponisation, such as currying me yoghurt all over the floor of the Assembly.

Ah Duke, you are missing the salient point in all of this.
Why would the expression of Protestant culture and heritage in the Assembly by the Shinners be taken as weaponisation of that culture?

The reality is of course, it is only weaponised by those who are blinkered into thinking it is, as Ervine says, an affront to their Britishness.

The cúpla focal is routinely bandied about in the Dáil and has on occasion reared its head in the European Parliament. Everyone just gets on with it, no offence taken by anyone. Only in the small European enclave of the North East of Ireland is such resistance shown to the expression of Gaelic culture. A culture that at its core is as Protestant as it is Catholic.

"When people denigrate Irish as a republican interest, they are showing profound ignorance of the complexities of their own history, and that honestly makes me sad and frustrated.”
" for me it is not only a journey into a language but also a journey of healing and reconciliation”.

- Ervine

Could you imagine Duke, if greater tolerance and respect were afforded to everyones traditions and cultures at high political office how that may begin to chip away at the ancient tribal divisions?
 
Good Article by Newton Emerson in today's Irish Times on what the political posturing and rhetoric around a United Ireland actually means.
It strikes me that aa "Should we have a United Ireland" referendum would be like the British one asking "Should we leave the EU".

As long as the options are as follows I'd be all for it;
  • Yes
  • No
  • It depends
 
Any notions of a United Ireland with the Tricolour, Bunreacht na hÉireann and Amhrán na bhFiann as official symbols and law are pie in the sky.
Not without bloodshed anyway. And perhaps before any prospective referendum on a UI it needs to be reaffirmed by everyone that flags and anthems and constitutional arrangements, whatever form they take, are not worth shedding one more drop of blood.
I think it's actually written somewhere that a UI can only be achieved through exclusively peaceful and democratic means that has been resoundingly endorsed by the Irish people.

I don't have the Emerson article but I accept it is reasonable. One thing I don't accept is this persistent focus on SF when it comes to a UI. SF has a base of 15% of electoral support north and south. They may be the loudest voice in the room as far as a UI go, but it's the other 85% that need to plug into the discussion.
Unionism can put its head in the sand if it wants but make no mistake, it is the political strategy of Unionists, not SF, that has propelled the UI discussion to top of the political charts by their persistence in seeking a hard Brexit that the people of NI never voted for.
Unionists destabilised the UK by refusing to accept the HR parliament, achieved through exclusively peaceful and democratic means, in 1914. Unleashing a century of militant Irish Republicanism.

They are destabilising it further by pursuing a hardline on NI Protocol. They are ready to resist constitutional change further having not signed up to the principle of self-determination (DUP).

The other parties FF/FG/SDLP/Labour, and the trade union movement, civil society and religious orders, the business sector, volunteer sector, sporting organisations etc, etc need to get on board the discussion and ask themselves, are they prepared to change the flag, change the anthem?
 
Any notions of a United Ireland with the Tricolour, Bunreacht na hÉireann and Amhrán na bhFiann as official symbols and law are pie in the sky.
I agree with you. In that case my vote would change from "It depends" to "No".
Yep. But if it's just down to talking until everyone agrees then it will never happen.
Emerson's article points out that the Parties are dancing around the black hole that is the details of what a United Ireland will look like and are all attempting to push each other in. The Shinners are the Sumo masters in that context. They are the most vociferous but refuse to get into details, saying only that everything must be on the table but refusing to say what their position is on specific issues.
Does anyone expect anything different? They would be crazy to engage.

Why would vested interest groups in the business and employment sectors be in the conversation?
 
Yep. But if it's just down to talking until everyone agrees then it will never happen.

True, that is why a referendum in favour of a UI should merely set the principle of a UI. It would obligate London and Dublin to prepare for reunification. Whoever wanted a stake in what it would look like would need to pitch their tent in negotiations.
They are the most vociferous but refuse to get into details, saying only that everything must be on the table but refusing to say what their position is on specific issues.

Standard political posturing for any negotiation. You don't start conceding your position before your opposition has even agreed to enter negotiation.
They did this to great effect with IRA arms decommissioning. Not until the DUP, bringing the broad consensus of Unionism (something that Sunningdale and Anglo Irish Agreement failed to do) had agreed a deal to enter government were any weapons to be put beyond use.

Why would vested interest groups in the business and employment sectors be in the conversation?

Because a smooth transition to a UI is in everyone's interests.
As an example, I know a fair few non-politically alinged people. Anti-Shinners, but no allegiance to any party. Put them in Croke Park or Aviva when Ireland are playing and they are practically bible-belting the national anthem. They are repulsed at the idea that Amhrán na bhFiann would ever be replaced as the national anthem.
These people need to be engaged to prepare for inevitable changes. The last thing we want is to stoke nationalist flames. Won't be easy, but getting past flags and anthems would be a start.
 
I think to get a majority vote in the 6 there will have to be some "concessions" up front. I use " " because tbh I don't think its a big deal to change the flag and anthem. The union flag will still fly where it currently files, likewise the tricolour. In 2021 does it really matter???, from anything i hear our northern friends are more bothered about the NHS and free at the point of access healthcare, maybe personal tax rates. If you say the unionist tradition will be respected then you can't turn around and say....but of course you'll have our flag and anthem...in a language you have recently been conditioned to fear....

If this is some great negotiation, what have unionists to offer us? The vote will either go for or against (we make the changes to get to that 50% +1), if its for then that's that innit, 32 county bye bye UK. I'd say that's as much as we can ask them to put up with. I'd set up a repatriation scheme - that might be seen as provocative - but it's basically "if you want to go go, if you're staying then row in with the rest of us cos we're not humouring this nonsense ("stakeholders" - i.e. giving a voice to paramilitaries who have no electoral support) in perpetuity".

Other than 4th green field and a sense of obligation/guilt to northern nationalists I see nothing in it for the 26 to take on the 6. This palaver about "only when Ireland is united will our country flourish" is pure horse manure, the 6 as they currently exist are a dead weight, and while I'd vote to take it on (because it's the only long lasting resolution) I'll be praying it doesn't drag us under.
 
I agree. They are a social, economic and political basket case. I think to get a majority vote in the 6 there will have to be some "concessions" up front. I use " " because tbh I don't think its a big deal to change the flag and anthem. The union flag will still fly where it currently files, likewise the tricolour. In 2021 does it really matter
Same here. The National Anthem was actually written in English. Singing it in Irish was part of the makey-up Irishness we invented after Independence in order to create a non-British national identity.
from anything i hear our northern friends are more bothered about the NHS and free at the point of access healthcare, maybe personal tax rates.
Yep, if the Shinners were really interested in a united Ireland they'd put structural reform of the Health Service which reduced waste and overall spending while improving services at the heart of their agenda, along with committing to reducing the higher rate of marginal tax.
 
Hang on, Sin

hang on, would that not require Sinn Fein to make some decisions and take ownership of a problem instead of constantly giving out and moaning??
 
I will throw this out there.

The best way to a UI, imo, through exclusively peaceful and democratic means, is to revert back to the last time the country was united as one political and economic entity and there was no such thing as paramilitaries and the talk of violent insurrection was practically non-existent or extreme fringe thinking of little relevance.

I revert to 1909 when Queen Victoria was paraded through the packed streets of Dublin, of native admirers and loyal subjects in one United Ireland.

The usurpation of the democratically achieved parliament for Ireland, through threats of violence from newly formed paramilitary of Ulster Volunteers, was the catalyst of rebellion, guerrilla warfare, partition, civil war, social disorder, and the 25yr conflict.
Good riddance 20th century Ireland.

Personally I think sectarianism is the root of all this conflict. Partition has only served to perpetuate that sectarianism, on both sides of the conflict.

A UI, one political parliament, with fundamental guaranteed constitutional ties to the British monarch, as members of the EU, with constitutional protections for identity and culture, traditional flags and emblems.

An Irish national anthem - Danny Boy
Irish national flag - Harp, Shamrock and Crown.


After that, we all just get on with the normal business of managing our social and economic affairs through normal parliamentary affairs.

Whats not to like?