David McKittrick; These protests are NOT over the flag.

oscarBravo

ardmacha wrote: »

The usual amoral symmetry argument. There is no need for the city hall to be decked out like an Orange Hall, so flying it would be wrong and right people should oppose it strongly.

sure joe wrote: »

as chance would have it, it was a democratic decision, but you are right it would be the right decision regardless as it was only ever flying all year to provoke nationalists and keep them in their place

In other words, the actual nationalist argument in favour of not flying the flag year-round is "we don't want it flying year-round".

Which is fair enough - just please have the integrity to stop talking about it being a democratic decision, as if that has anything to do with it.

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

In other words, the actual nationalist argument in favour of not flying the flag year-round is "we don't want it flying year-round".

Which is fair enough - just please have the integrity to stop talking about it being a democratic decision, as if that has anything to do with it.

Have you ever been to Northern Ireland?

Both the Union Jack and the Tricolour are used to mark territory.

Neither are neutral flags in Northern Ireland.

Belfast City hall is a virtual shrine to Unionism.

My idea is flying the St Patrick's Cross which represents Ireland on the Union Jack or no flags at all. I would prefer no flags at all.

maccored

I am a bit confused. The general republican ideal was, as you correctly point out - no flag. But, in compromise, agreed to the flying of the flag in line with other parts of the uk.

Alliance proposed it and others went along with it - even though some wanted the whole thing changed altogether, they still agreed to it. Isnt that a 'democratic decision'?

oscarBravo wrote: »

In other words, the actual nationalist argument in favour of not flying the flag year-round is "we don't want it flying year-round".

Which is fair enough - just please have the integrity to stop talking about it being a democratic decision, as if that has anything to do with it.

SoulandForm

No the shinners wanted BOTH flags.

maccored wrote: »

I am a bit confused. The general republican ideal was, as you correctly point out - no flag. But, in compromise, agreed to the flying of the flag in line with other parts of the uk.

Alliance proposed it and others went along with it - even though some wanted the whole thing changed altogether, they still agreed to it. Isnt that a 'democratic decision'?

maccored

both flags or no flags. either or. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=H2DT8dmSv9I#t=98s )

maccored

preferably the option without the union jack in it.

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

Have you ever been to Northern Ireland?

Both the Union Jack and the Tricolour are used to mark territory.

Neither are neutral flags in Northern Ireland.

Belfast City hall is a virtual shrine to Unionism.

My idea is flying the St Patrick's Cross which represents Ireland on the Union Jack or no flags at all. I would prefer no flags at all.

All of which is fair enough, and none of which has anything whatsoever to do with my point. If you're unclear as to what my point is, I suggest reading my posts again. They're all written in English.

maccored wrote: »

I am a bit confused. The general republican ideal was, as you correctly point out - no flag. But, in compromise, agreed to the flying of the flag in line with other parts of the uk.

Alliance proposed it and others went along with it - even though some wanted the whole thing changed altogether, they still agreed to it. Isnt that a 'democratic decision'?

Yes. It's a democratic decision.

I'll spell my point out for you again, since you seem to have managed - I have no idea how - to miss it the first few times.

If you're going to claim democracy as a justification for supporting this decision, and as a reason to condemn those who are protesting against it, that's a valid view to hold - the view that a decision arrived at by a democratically-elected city council is one that should be implemented without protest. It logically follows that if a democratically-elected city council arrived at a decision that you found offensive or troubling, then you should accept that decision in the same way that you believe unionists and loyalists should accept this one.

If, on the other hand, you admit - as others in this thread have done - that they accept this democratic decision because they agree with it, but would reject other democratic decisions that they disagree with, then we can (by a process of algebraic simplification) delete democracy from the equation, and point out that they are, in fact, only supportive of decisions they agree with.

As it happens, this appears to be a point of common ground between them and their loyalist brethren: they are only supportive of decisions they agree with too.

maccored

oscarBravo wrote: »

and as a reason to condemn those who are protesting against it

Ah - theres the problem. I think you misunderstand. People condemn those out rioting and raiding houses in the middle of the day. No one condemns them just because they disagree. Its how they show that disagreement.

Plus, lets be honest, nationalists didnt win either, considering the north is meant to be democratic yet will only fly the flag of one side - but did they go off on a wobbler and start riots over it?

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

All of which is fair enough, and none of which has anything whatsoever to do with my point. If you're unclear as to what my point is, I suggest reading my posts again. They're all written in English.

And I replied that I would not support rioting over a reserve of the decision.

Loyalists would go crazy over NO flags- much more than they have under the situation so they wouldnt consider no flags fair enough. I dont know how they how they react to the flying of the St Patrick's Cross.

The reason they are reacting the way they are is that Belfast City Hall was always seen as a shrine for Unionist dominance- but that was the very reason the flag had to come down from flying all the time. The City Hall should belong to everyone.

SoulandForm

Look oscar Loyalism kicked off the last troubles and they are trying to kick off another round.

Republicans of all stripes have been extremely restrained. You should be praising them for that.

Thomas_I

oscarBravo wrote: »

... It's very simple: if you wouldn't accept a democratic decision on a topic you felt strongly about, then don't be such a hypocrite as to demand that others accept a democratic decision on a topic that they feel equally strongly about.

That´s the whole point in dealing with democratic decisions and that´s what most people in NI either have to learn or get accustomed to. It proves that the decades of the "Stormont dictatorship" and the direct rule from London during the troubles have left little or even no room to the people for experiencing democracy with its adventages and disadventages.

It´s one thing to go on the streets to protest against an democratic made decision and by doing so there is no guarantee that this leads to a change of that decision. The other way to alter it is to get and use the tooles within the democratic rules which means to get a majority in the council or to have a referendum to alter the aforesaid decision. But this takes some time and in the meantime the people opposing that decision have to live with the democratic reached compromise and bear it. That´s the core of democracy which leads often to compromises in decisions.

Thomas_I

oscarBravo wrote: »

In other words, the actual nationalist argument in favour of not flying the flag year-round is "we don't want it flying year-round".

Which is fair enough - just please have the integrity to stop talking about it being a democratic decision, as if that has anything to do with it.

The decision has been made by the Belfast City Council which is the legitimate place to decide over that issue, therefore it is a democratic decision because it came to it by a casting vote held by elected representatives of the people of Belfast. The result of that vote is the outcome of a simple democratic process and nothing else.

If you can´t accept it it´s your right to do so, but to deny that it went through a democratic process is plain wrong. The "actual nationalist argument" doesn´t matter because it´s just their opinion which made their elected counciliors to vote in favour of the motion. The only thing that counts is their vote and the majority they got from that vote on the motion.

Lingua Franca

Thomas_I wrote: »

It´s one thing to go on the streets to protest

...and another thing to throw bricks and petrol bombs. I get the impression that loyalists don't know how to protest, probably because they've never had to. Shutting down roads outside hospitals and throwing missiles at their own people isn't garnering them any goodwill. If they can get 4000 thugs on the streets causing a scene you'd think they'd be able to get 10 times that with a single weekly well placed rally.

sure joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

All of which is fair enough, and none of which has anything whatsoever to do with my point. If you're unclear as to what my point is, I suggest reading my posts again. They're all written in English.

Yes. It's a democratic decision.

I'll spell my point out for you again, since you seem to have managed - I have no idea how - to miss it the first few times.

If you're going to claim democracy as a justification for supporting this decision, and as a reason to condemn those who are protesting against it, that's a valid view to hold - the view that a decision arrived at by a democratically-elected city council is one that should be implemented without protest. It logically follows that if a democratically-elected city council arrived at a decision that you found offensive or troubling, then you should accept that decision in the same way that you believe unionists and loyalists should accept this one.

If, on the other hand, you admit - as others in this thread have done - that they accept this democratic decision because they agree with it, but would reject other democratic decisions that they disagree with, then we can (by a process of algebraic simplification) delete democracy from the equation, and point out that they are, in fact, only supportive of decisions they agree with.

As it happens, this appears to be a point of common ground between them and their loyalist brethren: they are only supportive of decisions they agree with too.

this is unreal. how many times are you going to keep asking the same question. its been answered to death. the decision to remove the flag was a democratic one. were republicans out rioting to have it removed. did they suffer for yearsunder it. are they glad its gone. what would you like the answer to be. republicans are bad. unionists are good. the fact is rmoving a devisive flag from a building which should represent everybody is a good thing and that is why people voted democratically to remove it.

getz

SoulandForm wrote: »

Look oscar Loyalism kicked off the last troubles and they are trying to kick off another round.

Republicans of all stripes have been extremely restrained. You should be praising them for that.

you meen like republicans have refused to allow the union flag to be flown over enniskillen town hall for the last 20 years,

sure joe

getz wrote: »

you meen like republicans have refused to allow the union flag to be flown over enniskillen town hall for the last 20 years,

thats fair enough. this is the flag of a people and army who have oppressed them for hundreds of years. they hate it. havethey been flying the tricolour to atagonise the unionist

getz

sure joe wrote: »

thats fair enough. this is the flag of a people and army who have oppressed them for hundreds of years. they hate it. havethey been flying the tricolour to atagonise the unionist

this is a country that is british,and untill its voted otherwise ,it will stay british ,the union flag,like the tricolour is in ireland,is supposed to be flying on certain days on british goverment buildings,enniskillen council do not fly it,for what reason i do not know,maybe because last time it was put up,the town hall was bombed,if that isent antagonism ,i do not know what is,personally i think those who are on the streets rioting should be rounded up and locked up.

maccored

getz wrote: »

this is a country that is british,and untill its voted otherwise ,it will stay british ,the union flag,like the tricolour is in ireland,is supposed to be flying on certain days on british goverment buildings,enniskillen council do not fly it,for what reason i do not know,maybe because last time it was put up,the town hall was bombed,if that isent antagonism ,i do not know what is,personally i think those who are on the streets rioting should be rounded up and locked up.

this isnt about enniskillen though

Also - it could be that damn democracy rearing its ugly head again, as the locals apparently seem to be mainly nationalist - http://www.irelandbyways.com/top-irish-peninsulas/irelands-northwest/enniskillen-environs/

However, 67% of the current population is registered as Roman Catholic, and a majority of locals vote for Nationalist and / or Republican representatives.

maccored

'democracy' ... thats a bit of a dirty word at present.

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

this is a country that is british,and untill its voted otherwise ,it will stay british ,the union flag,like the tricolour is in ireland,is supposed to be flying on certain days on british goverment buildings,enniskillen council do not fly it,for what reason i do not know,maybe because last time it was put up,the town hall was bombed,if that isent antagonism ,i do not know what is,personally i think those who are on the streets rioting should be rounded up and locked up.

What is missing in the thinking of Unionists is the fact that the GFA bestows special status on NI, it is not wholly British and not wholly Irish either. It is imperative that both identities construct a society that fairly reflects the shared identities. Beligerent displays like this one are not and should not, be allowed in the spirit of the agreement. Seems to me a simple acceptance of the fact (that the Union Jack is an antagonistic emblem if used in this way) would be a huge leap forward. It is no accident that we are plunging into an abyss here.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is missing in the thinking of Unionists is the fact that the GFA bestows special status on NI, it is not wholly British and not wholly Irish either. It is imperative that both identities construct a society that fairly reflects the shared identities. Beligerent displays like this one are not and should not, be allowed in the spirit of the agreement. Seems to me a simple acceptance of the fact (that the Union Jack is an antagonistic emblem if used in this way) would be a huge leap forward. It is no accident that we are plunging into an abyss here.

i think you will find the loyalists think the same about the tricolour that the republicans wave in the name of ireland,me i am all for a shared ireland,as long as citizens of the republic are prepared to pay their part of the cost in running that mixed up part of the country.

Thomas_I

getz wrote: »

... me i am all for a shared ireland,as long as citizens of the republic are prepared to pay their part of the cost in running that mixed up part of the country.

Do you have some more explanations about that?

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

i think you will find the loyalists think the same about the tricolour that the republicans wave in the name of ireland,me i am all for a shared ireland,as long as citizens of the republic are prepared to pay their part of the cost in running that mixed up part of the country.

It's 'mixed up' because it isn't a normal society. Robinson and Nesbitt need to realise (and I think they now do) that you can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. This crisis lies firmly at their door.

Thomas_I

maccored wrote: »

'democracy' ... thats a bit of a dirty word at present.

It´s no dirty word at all. The "dirt" is on the side of these thugs using the Union Flag as a stick to assault Police men and by doing so, bringing the flag down on the ground. They´ve no respect for their own flag because if they had, they´d behave different. A bunch of ignorants.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's 'mixed up' because it isn't a normal society. Robinson and Nesbitt need to realise (and I think they now do) that you can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. This crisis lies firmly at their door.

for once we both agree on the same thing,only i was thinking of the sinn fein MPs refusing to sit in parliament to represent their constituents,what was it,run with the ....

VinLieger

Thomas_I wrote: »

Do you have some more explanations about that?

Well the fact that UK parliament have to subsidise NI every year is one explanation, were already ****ed economically why take on the money pit up north?

getz

Thomas_I wrote: »

Do you have some more explanations about that?

just responding to happyman 42 quote by the GFA.its not wholly british and not wholly irish,then they should share the costs ?

Thomas_I

VinLieger wrote: »

Well the fact that UK parliament have to subsidise NI every year is one explanation, were already ****ed economically why take on the money pit up north?

That´s their duty, I suppose. I see no reason (except in the case of Irelands unification) for why the citizens of the RoI should pay for a part of the Irish Island which isn´t part of their own state at all. As long the British keep it, as long they´re obliged to pay for it.

gallag

Thomas_I wrote: »

That´s their duty, I suppose. I see no reason (except in the case of Irelands unification) for why the citizens of the RoI should pay for a part of the Irish Island which isn´t part of their own state at all. As long the British keep it, as long they´re obliged to pay for it.

But not fly the British flag?

Thomas_I

getz wrote: »

just responding to happyman 42 quote by the GFA.its not wholly british and not wholly irish,then they should share the costs ?

I don´t see it that simple as that. The GFA has its terms and conditions to run a shared government, but I don´t believe that it says anything in any way that NI would be such thing like an "external associated country to the UK".

I also think that you´d hardly find many people in the RoI willing to pay for NI.