Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Quite how is a party focussed on 1800 as a 'legacy issue' is less about 'clinging to the past' (and remember that that's the 'latest chapter' of a long list of perceived historic injustices for SF) than Unionists - who simply wish to retain the current status quo? There's some serious doublethink at play there alright.

Try and get over the fact that they mentioned 1800 in the document and understand what they are saying.
SF are way way down the road in terms of forging new relationships that will change the situation. Including dealing with partition and it's ongoing legacies. They, like me, believe that unless that issue is dealt with then conflict will arise again.

Unionists, cling onto a relationship which is a thing of the past, they can no longer depend on the permanency of that relationship because of the GFA. Their political leaders refuse to countenance what that means for them. In that regard they need to take a leaf out of SF' book, who by their actions (handshake, dinner etc) have opened a wide ranging debate within republicanism.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

So are Native North Americans still living with and dealing with the legacy of the partition of their continent. None of that means that anything is going to change over there no more than anything is going to change over here.

A few posters have made reference to the fact that they don't need to convince loyalists/unionists, that they only need to convince the pragmatic middle. Well, this I would like to see because all of the evidence at the moment would suggest to the pragmatic middle that they are far better off with the status quo than with a united Ireland.

Relax, sit back, do nothing. What do I care, it has nothing to do with me.
But just open your eyes and look at all the people who McG and Adam are convincing.
I was glad to hear Tim Parry this morning saying that he had invited McG to address the organisation he heads. McG accepted and impressed them all of his bona fides. Now add Mr Winsdor and all the movers and shakers he has met and impressed this week.
As I say...way way ahead while Unionist are still looking back in anger.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Try and get over the fact that they mentioned 1800 in the document and understand what they are saying.
SF are way way down the road in terms of forging new relationships that will change the situation. Including dealing with partition and it's ongoing legacies. They, like me, believe that unless that issue is dealt with then conflict will arise again.

Unionists, cling onto a relationship which is a thing of the past, they can no longer depend on the permanency of that relationship because of the GFA. Their political leaders refuse to countenance what that means for them. In that regard they need to take a leaf out of SF' book, who by their actions (handshake, dinner etc) have opened a wide ranging debate within republicanism.

Unionists support the current status of NI. The current status is not of the past, it's of the present. And SF didn't just 'mention' 1800 in their document - they derive their entire constitutional basis on it. Unionists have been engaging with the Irish state, and it's presidents, for many years now - SF are rather late to that game in comparison.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Unionists support the current status of NI. The current status is not of the past, it's of the present. And SF didn't just 'mention' 1800 in their document - they derive their entire constitutional basis on it.

Has partition ended? Do it till have a legacy? Lets park the silliness Alastair.

Unionists have been engaging with the Irish state, and it's presidents, for many years now - SF are rather late to that game in comparison.

But the problem was their refusal to engage with their fellow citizens in and equal and non discriminatory way. That, they had to taught and forced to do.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Has partition ended? Do it till have a legacy? Lets park the silliness Alastair..

The silliness is in pretending that Unionist ideology is framed in the past, while Republican is not - it's quite clear that the Unionist position is rather less driven by the past than SF's is. And partition is the preference of the majority at present, so no, it's not ended.

Happyman42 wrote: »

But the problem was their refusal to engage with their fellow citizens in and equal and non discriminatory way. That, they had to taught and forced to do.

You do a merry dance of evasion there - SF are only playing catch-up with regard to civil engagement with the head of state of the 'other camp'.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The silliness is in pretending that Unionist ideology is framed in the past, while Republican is not - it's quite clear that the Unionist position is rather less driven by the past than SF's is. And partition is the preference of the majority at present, so no, it's not ended.

Who said that they were not framed in the past? The problem is 'partition' still very much in the present as you say, identifying it's root is not 'living in the past'. Not one person McG met this week is under any illusion that he still wants, and is working towards a UI.
Your point is meaningless.

My point about Unionism still clinging to a relationship which no longer exists in the way that it did and no longer supports their supremacy(not publicly anyhow) still stands. You only need to look at and understand their anger whenever anybody tries to normalise life in NI.

You do a merry dance of evasion there - SF are only playing catch-up with regard to civil engagement with the head of state of the 'other camp'.

Well, they are doing a hell of a better job than Unionism is. Which is also my point.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who said that they were not framed in the past? The problem is 'partition'

Not a problem for most.

Happyman42 wrote: »

still very much in the present as you say, identifying it's root is not 'living in the past'.

Oh, but it is. The GFA established that the issue of partition was framed by the current desires of the people of NI - nothing about 1800, or any other historical underpinnings there.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not one person McG met this week is under any illusion that he still wants, and is working towards a UI.
Your point is meaningless.

You think the long line of Unionists and Loyalists who have met, eaten with, and shaken the hands of various Irish Presidents, have been shy about making their preference for the Union, clear? That SF are belatedly entering civil dialogue with the British State is great, but let's not pretend that they're anything other than the dead enders in that process.

Happyman42 wrote: »

My point about Unionism still clinging to a relationship which no longer exists in the way that it did

You might want to check on that. As far as I can tell, NI is still part of the UK, and that arrangement is acknowledged and respected by all but a tiny minority.

Happyman42 wrote: »

and no longer supports their supremacy(not publicly anyhow) still stands.

1969 called and want's its' talking point back. There's been no unionist supremacy since the Brits took over running the place.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You only need to look at and understand their anger whenever anybody tries to normalise life in NI.

Are you back to flegs? How is removing national flags from municipal building 'normalisation'? I'm not on board with their protests, but I can clearly see it's not an issue of 'normalisation'.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well, they are doing a hell of a better job than Unionism is. Which is also my point.

At engaging with them 'un's heads of state in a civil fashion? They certainly have not.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Not a problem for most.

BUT it is a problem for the party we are talking about. :rolleyes:

Oh, but it is. The GFA established that the issue of partition was framed by the current desires of the people of NI - nothing about 1800, or any other historical underpinnings there.

It established the right to aspire to a United Ireland.
How do you 'Unite' something that hasn't been 'partitioned'?

You are as they say 'meeting yourself coming back' you are spinning that hard.

You think the long line of Unionists and Loyalists who have met, eaten with, and shaken the hands of various Irish Presidents, have been shy about making their preference for the Union, clear? That SF are belatedly entering civil dialogue with the British State is great, but let's not pretend that they're anything other than the dead enders in that process.

It was Marty's acceptance of the invite that got the coverage, it is him that is coming across as the reasonable democratic politician who is forward looking.
The only publicity that Unionists can get themselves is bad publicity at the moment. They should be very concerned about that. But they seem to be still in love with belligerence and huffing.

You might want to check on that. As far as I can tell, NI is still part of the UK, and that arrangement is acknowledged and respected by all but a tiny minority.

And we both know that that arrangement is only temporary. There is a difference in being a temporary employee and a permanent one.[

1969 called and want's its' talking point back. There's been no unionist supremacy since

You might want to tell a few Unionist politicians that.

Karl Stein

Happyman42 wrote: »

It was Marty's acceptance of the invite that got the coverage, it is him that is coming across as the reasonable democratic politician who is forward looking.

Especially so when you consider Mrs Windsor's pinning of medals on the murderers of his neighbours (Bloody Sunday) not long after their victims were buried. Now that's something that won't rear its ugly head in the mainstream fawning media on either side of the Irish Sea.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

BUT it is a problem for the party we are talking about. :rolleyes:

So what? My point is that the party we are talking about are 'clinging to the past'. Most people really don't care, and are focussed on what people want now.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It established the right to aspire to a United Ireland.

Aspirations don't generally have anything to do with rights, and I didn't see anything stopping those aspirations for years beforehand.

Happyman42 wrote: »

How do you 'Unite' something that hasn't been 'partitioned'?

It was only united under British rule in the first place. I'm guessing that's not what you're aiming for? My point, which I'm sure you understood, was that the issue is now entirely framed by the principle of consent - and all the historical baggage is essentially irrelevant - despite the SF obsession with it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It was Marty's acceptance of the invite that got the coverage,

Yep - because everyone else moved on years ago. Someone has to be the noteworthy dead-enders I guess.

Happyman42 wrote: »

it is him that is coming across as the reasonable democratic politician who is forward looking

Better late than never.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The only publicity that Unionists can get themselves is bad publicity at the moment

Not really.

Happyman42 wrote: »

They should be very concerned about that. But they seem to be still in love with belligerence and huffing.

I'm sure they're not, because it's not actually the case.

Happyman42 wrote: »

And we both know that that arrangement is only temporary. There is a difference in being a temporary employee and a permanent one.

You've some imagination. Best of luck with that.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

Especially so when you consider Mrs Windsor's pinning of medals on the murderers of his neighbours (Bloody Sunday) not long after their victims were buried. Now that's something that won't rear its ugly head in the mainstream fawning media on either side of the Irish Sea.

In fairness, McGuinness has never demonstrated much of a problem with lauding murderers either. I'm loving the bitterness though - "fawning media".

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who said that they were not framed in the past? The problem is 'partition' still very much in the present as you say, identifying it's root is not 'living in the past'. Not one person McG met this week is under any illusion that he still wants, and is working towards a UI.
Your point is meaningless.

My point about Unionism still clinging to a relationship which no longer exists in the way that it did and no longer supports their supremacy(not publicly anyhow) still stands. You only need to look at and understand their anger whenever anybody tries to normalise life in NI.

The present is partition. There will be no change to the status of Northern Ireland unless a majority of people both North and South vote for a change in that status.

The past is romantic dreams of a united Ireland. The last vestiges of that dream died with the surrendering of arms by the IRA.

The future is finding ways of deepening North/South and East/West co-operation within the existing constitutional framework, recognising cultural traditions on both sides and building an integrated society.

You see, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with partition, neither is there anything intrinsically wrong with a United Ireland, not even anything wrong with the South rejoining the UK. It is the will of the people who decide these things.

Talking about the roots of partition is living in the past.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

I'm loving the bitterness though - "fawning media".

How can an observation be bitter?

Karl Stein

Godge wrote: »

You see, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with partition.

So if Scotland wants to leave the union and a group of (let's call them) Scotlanders concentrated in Aberdeenshire, Angus, Banffshire, Kincardinshire, Moray and Nairnshire decided they'd ship in 25 thousand rifles and threaten a campaign of mass terrorism against the entire population of Scotland if they didn't get to stay within the union you'd say 'well, there's nothing wrong with that'.

Up the garden with you and your mental gymnastics.

Oh and you should drop the 'IRA-surrendered-its-weapons' line - it's infantile and embarrassing besides being wrong.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

By demonstrating bitterness. It's pretty straightforward.

How exactly? Be specific. Own your words.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

How exactly? Be specific. Own your words.

You applied a pejorative, well out of bounds of it's appropriateness - indicating resentment. Happy now, or would you like to continue playing silly buggers?

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

You applied a pejorative,

Yes.

well out of bounds of it's appropriateness

Says who?

indicating resentment.

Resentment towards what?

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

So if the Scotland wants to leave the union and a group of (let's call them) Scotlanders concentrated in Aberdeenshire, Angus, Banffshire, Kincardinshire, Moray and Nairnshire decided they'd ship in 25 thousand rifles and threaten a campaign of mass terrorism against the entire population of Scotland if they didn't get to stay within the union you'd say 'well, there's nothing wrong with that'.

Up the garden with you and your mental gymnastics.

I think you'll find that it's you who are engaged in mental gymnastics. Partition has been democratically mandated by the people of this island, right up to the point where a majority within NI, and separately, in this state decide otherwise. That's a pretty clear indication that a majority have no intrinsic issue with the partition that currently applies.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

Yes.



Says who?



Resentment towards what?

Silly buggers it is then. Why not apply some critical written comprehension?

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

Partition has been democratically mandated by the people of this island, right up to the point where a majority within NI, and separately, in this state decide otherwise. That's a pretty clear indication that a majority have no intrinsic issue with the partition that currently applies.

Almost a century later and has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Must.
Try.
Harder.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

Silly buggers it is then. Why not apply some critical written comprehension?

Here's what you said.

I'm loving the bitterness though

You have failed to demonstrate how I was being bitter.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

Almost a century later and has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Must.
Try.
Harder.

You had no point beyond dissembling. The GFA made the mandate of the populace on partition clear - it's there with the consent of the people.

Must ignore troll.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

Here's what you said.



You have failed to demonstrate how I was being bitter.

Run along now. You've become boring.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

You had no point beyond dissembling. The GFA made the mandate of the populace on partition clear - it's there with the consent of the people.

Again, what has that got to do with how partition was 'achieved' by the threat of mass terrorism?

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

Again, what has that got to do with how partition was 'achieved' by the threat of mass terrorism?

Unlike Irish independence, you mean? :rolleyes:

R P McMurphy

alastair wrote: »

I think you'll find that it's you who are engaged in mental gymnastics. Partition has been democratically mandated by the people of this island, right up to the point where a majority within NI, and separately, in this state decide otherwise. That's a pretty clear indication that a majority have no intrinsic issue with the partition that currently applies.

When was partition democratically mandated by the people of this island?

alastair

R P McMurphy wrote: »

When was partition democratically mandated by the people of this island?

May 22nd 1998

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

Unlike Irish independence, you mean? :rolleyes:

1. Whataboutery.
2. Apples and oranges.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

1. Whataboutery.
2. Apples and oranges.

Wind and baggery.