The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

As someone said, the GFA was Sunningdale for slow learners, those slow learners being on both sides of the divide, so why would I have had a problem with it?

Unionists/Loyalists brought down the Sunningdale Agreement. Don't bother with your 'both sides' thing.

Furthermore, the GFA ensured that we gave up our unjustifiable claim on the North

It was perfectly justified seeing as even the British themselves never considered the gerrymandered state a permanent solution to the Irish question.

the repeal of Articles 2 and 3 meant we could take a normal place in the world.

It remains codified in the constitution, it was watered down in return for Britain's acceptance that the future of the contested region was a matter for the people that live in Ireland alone without external impediment.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I think Reynolds was a very underestimated Taoiseach, hard done by in the end.

As someone said, the GFA was Sunningdale for slow learners, those slow learners being on both sides of the divide, so why would I have had a problem with it?

Furthermore, the GFA ensured that we gave up our unjustifiable claim on the North, the repeal of Articles 2 and 3 meant we could take a normal place in the world.

Well you don't know your NI history anyway. It was unionist opposition, violence and the loyalist general strike caused it to fail. That got the IRA campaign going.

It was Seamus Mallon who said the GFA was Sunningdale for slow learners.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Where did I say we shouldn't be proud of being Irish???

All I said is that we should acknowledge that the Irish culture and Irish nation are not the only ones with entitlement to this island. At the end of the day nationhood in the 21st century does not rely on territory no matter how many "republicans" tell you otherwise.

Well, equally, Unionists are not the only ones with entitlements in Northern Ireland. The Irish Gov. have bent over backwards to make unionists feel good about themselves (such as tolerating Lord Laird when he was head of the Ulster Scot agency charge for a taxi from Belfast to Dublin because he would get a bit of ridicule on the train when wearing his kilt!) Then there was the building of the interpretative centre at the Boyne and funding for Orange Lodges.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Well you don't know your NI history anyway. It was unionist opposition, violence and the loyalist general strike caused it to fail. That got the IRA campaign going.

It was Seamus Mallon who said the GFA was Sunningdale for slow learners.

The S. A. didn't have the relevant people at the table and is different to the GFA.

The statement makes no sense when you drill down into it. It came from an inveterate whinger called Seamus Mallon, who has spent his retirement jumping up and down shouting 'what about my place in history'.
Mallon and the rest of the SDLP did all they could to thwart Hume's inspired initiative and disassociated themselves from it as a party, until it started bearing fruit of course. :rolleyes:

The people (who are the ones that matter) know only too well who the leaders in northern Ireland are and have rewarded them with their votes.
That simple reality sticks in the craw of Unionists and a few people here too.

munsterlegend

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/unionists-fearful-that-ni-electoral-boundary-changes-may-boost-republican-seats-36104047.html

The Unionists not great fans of democratic change when it doesn't suit. A return to gerrymandering will be on the wishlist.

munsterlegend

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Except the language isn't growing, it is dying, kept barely alive.

http://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/presspages/2017/census2016summaryresults-part1/


The population grew by 3.8%

The number of people who could speak Irish fell by 0.7%, decreasing from 41,4% of the population to 39.8%. Given that this figure includes those who can say "An bhfuil cead agam dul go dti an leithreas", that is a very worrying figure for the future of the language.

8,068 Irish language forms were completed in Census 2016 compared with 8,676 in Census 2011.

73,803 said they speak it daily outside the education system, a fall of 3,382 on the 2011 figure. That is a miserable 1.7% of the population. Only 20,586 (27.9%) lived in Gaeltacht areas.

612,018 Irish residents spoke a foreign language at home - Polish probably has more people using it outside the education system than Irish.

What do the figures tell us? Irish is in terminal decline in the Gaeltacht areas and the figures are only maintained by a small number of people in urban areas speaking it at home.

Those are the harsh truths of the census figures and no amounts of waving the green flag and pretending things are different will hide the essential image of a dead language.

All the more reason it should be protected.

What other heritage and historical things would the blanch regime not protect or maintain?

I suppose Blanch would also have a difficulty on spending for people with disabilities. They are after all
a very shall minority and with medical advances declining further. In the blanch world they would not be worthy of any protection on a cost benefit rational. The same with rights for gay people which would be in line with Unionist forward thinking. All that costly changing of the law would be an outrage of an expense.

The Irish language has a history long before the Unionist settlers up north and should and will be protected. Just like Unionism rejected Nationalists in power initially , eventually they saw the light. It will be the same for the Irish language and to resist it is folly and counter productive.

blanch152

munsterlegend wrote: »

I suppose Blanch would also have a difficulty on spending for people with disabilities. They are after all
a very shall minority and with medical advances declining further. In the blanch world they would not be worthy of any protection on a cost benefit rational. The same with rights for gay people which would be in line with Unionist forward thinking. All that costly changing of the law would be an outrage of an expense.

The Irish language has a history long before the Unionist settlers up north and should and will be protected. Just like Unionism rejected Nationalists in power initially , eventually they saw the light. It will be the same for the Irish language and to resist it is folly and counter productive.

Equating disability rights and gay rights to the Irish language movement is just as bad as Gerry Adams comparing himself to Mandela and Martin Luther King. There is no comparison and a pity that the debate has sunk to this.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Equating disability rights and gay rights to the Irish language movement is just as bad as Gerry Adams comparing himself to Mandela and Martin Luther King. There is no comparison and a pity that the debate has sunk to this.

He isn't equating disability or being gay. He is equating the provision of rights to minority groups.

You are simply being a cultural thug - 'if I see no value in it, then it has no value'.
You would last a wet week in a democracy.
You and unionists have to learn to not be suprematists. .

munsterlegend

blanch152 wrote: »

Equating disability rights and gay rights to the Irish language movement is just as bad as Gerry Adams comparing himself to Mandela and Martin Luther King. There is no comparison and a pity that the debate has sunk to this.

You place no value on the Irish language which is a great pity and displays either a lack of appreciation or a lack of confidence in our shared Irish culture. Look at Wales which is similar in population and they have no issues recognising the importance of their language. Why should NI be different due to a sectarian view? The Act is coming and miss foster knows there is no way out on this one.

We all know the reality of what the Unionist state was like for nationalists. I doubt Mary McAleese or Liam Neeson can be described as extremists in their description of it and the problem is this attitude exists to this day in sections of Unionst thinking. It will be a great day when there is a non unionist as first minister whether it be sf,sdlp or alliance when the penny might eventually drop those days are long over.

blanch152

munsterlegend wrote: »

You place no value on the Irish language which is a great pity and displays either a lack of appreciation or a lack of confidence in our shared Irish culture. Look at Wales which is similar in population and they have no issues recognising the importance of their language. Why should NI be different due to a sectarian view? The Act is coming and miss foster knows there is no way out on this one.

The Welsh kept their language, we didn't until it was artificially revived in the 20th century. Even then, it has only been artificially revived in the North since the early years of this century.

munsterlegend wrote: »

We all know the reality of what the Unionist state was like for nationalists. I doubt Mary McAleese or Liam Neeson can be described as extremists in their description of it and the problem is this attitude exists to this day in sections of Unionst thinking. It will be a great day when there is a non unionist as first minister whether it be sf,sdlp or alliance when the penny might eventually drop those days are long over.

There are very few posting on here who know the reality of what the Unionist state was like for nationalists. All they know is the guff of ould fellas in the corner telling them about the bad old days. Maybe you did live through those days and can give us your personal memories. Either way it doesn't matter because it is long gone.

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

The Welsh kept their language, we didn't until it was artificially revived in the 20th century. Even then, it has only been artificially revived in the North since the early years of this century.

So what are you suggesting here? SF cave on the issue of language? And by extension, any other caveats of Irish identity or customs which will inevitably arise down the road in the political sphere, considering the north is the Irish part of the UK? So to compromise is to rule under Unionist constraints and this should go on indefinitely? How do you think this would go down in Scotland, Wales, Catalonia etc etc. You're basically telling half the community to stick their culture, identity, customs when in an official capacity....or certainly that's how it will be viewed amongst that community, and you use every angle to try and justify it. That can only lead to further anger and resentment of what they already view as a failing political system, one in which they were told was built on the principle of equality for all.

But you don't really care. In reality, as a southern unionist (a proclaimed "nationalist") you just want to see unionism continue to lord their once privileged position over these uppity nationalists who dare ask for parity of esteem. Isn't it funny how protestants in Ireland once identified as Irish and British before partition, and could embrace both? Just like the Scottish and Welsh unionists today. Yet Irish unionists today want to revoke any association with Ireland. To any rational person, that's where the impasse lies

munsterlegend

blanch152 wrote: »

The Welsh kept their language, we didn't until it was artificially revived in the 20th century. Even then, it has only been artificially revived in the North since the early years of this century.






There are very few posting on here who know the reality of what the Unionist state was like for nationalists. All they know is the guff of ould fellas in the corner telling them about the bad old days. Maybe you did live through those days and can give us your personal memories. Either way it doesn't matter because it is long gone.

So it's all guff according to you.The fact that hunger strikers were elected by a community while in jail says it all about the Unionist state. They must have been spouting some guff to get all those votes. When Peter Robinson is acknowledging it was a cold house it must have been frozen solid. Of course you say it is long gone whatever that actually means or acknowledges. You can't just change entrenched distrust and hatred in a generation.Mary McAleese had a point when she stated that Protestants were taught to hate their neighbour and the attitude still prevails in DUP and certain unionist thinking.

The language had to be saved after years of oppression. Thankfully it was and we are a richer country culturally as a result. Yes Sinn Fein are using the Irish language for political purposes which is what political parties do having listened to their electorate. There will be no backing down and Foster knows this. She has as Eamon Mallie stated alienated the nationalist community and will now reap her just rewards .

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

The Welsh kept their language, we didn't until it was artificially revived in the 20th century. Even then, it has only been artificially revived in the North since the early years of this century

No they didn't. Welsh was nearly wiped out and was in a worse state than Irish up to recently. The Welsh Language Society was founded in 1962. They started reviving it in the 70s (wasn't taught in schools prior to that) and they have been extremely successful in reviving the language there.

There are very few posting on here who know the reality of what the Unionist state was like for nationalists. All they know is the guff of ould fellas in the corner telling them about the bad old days. Maybe you did live through those days and can give us your personal memories. Either way it doesn't matter because it is long gone.

I'd say there are plenty of people who know what NI was like for nationalists - its well documented.

You need to listen to what the likes of Jeffrey Donaldson, Sammy Wilson & Gregory Campbell to know that its not all gone.

FrancieBrady

The argument (such as it is) is that those who identify as Irish (having watched the remaining rump of belligerent unionism, cut funding, ignore existing legislation, block and disparage ) should ignore all of that and give in to the rump of belligerent unionism in order to feel better about themselves.

blanch152

The Golden Miller wrote: »

So what are you suggesting here? SF cave on the issue of language? And by extension, any other caveats of Irish identity or customs which will inevitably arise down the road in the political sphere, considering the north is the Irish part of the UK? So to compromise is to rule under Unionist constraints and this should go on indefinitely? How do you think this would go down in Scotland, Wales, Catalonia etc etc. You're basically telling half the community to stick their culture, identity, customs when in an official capacity....or certainly that's how it will be viewed amongst that community, and you use every angle to try and justify it. That can only lead to further anger and resentment of what they already view as a failing political system, one in which they were told was built on the principle of equality for all.

But you don't really care. In reality, as a southern unionist (a proclaimed "nationalist") you just want to see unionism continue to lord their once privileged position over these uppity nationalists who dare ask for parity of esteem. Isn't it funny how protestants in Ireland once identified as Irish and British before partition, and could embrace both? Just like the Scottish and Welsh unionists today. Yet Irish unionists today want to revoke any association with Ireland. To any rational person, that's where the impasse lies

There are actually two separate points that I am making and they are getting confused.

(1) I personally don't believe that the Irish language remains an important part of Irish culture or what it means to be Irish anymore, no more than sean-nos singing is a significant part of Irish music anymore. I understand that this is a controversial view to some, but it is sincerely held. Incidentally, my personal opinion is the Ulster Scots has as little meaning to Northern culture as the Irish language which was completely dead in Northern Ireland by the mid-1970s so I am non-partisan in that regard.

(2) Notwithstanding my personal opinion on the value of either language, I recognise that there are many in both communities for whom either language carries a great symbolism even though they have both been artificially revived in Northern Ireland. I also recognise ironically that many nationalists share my view of Ulster Scots (see plenty of the posts in this thread from republican-minded posters) and that many unionists share my view of Irish. Ultimately, I agree with you on the parity of esteem issue - hence my call for a Minority Languages Act, that in a non-sectarian way recognises the importance to both communities of their heritage.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There are actually two separate points that I am making and they are getting confused.

(1) I personally don't believe that the Irish language remains an important part of Irish culture or what it means to be Irish anymore, no more than sean-nos singing is a significant part of Irish music anymore. I understand that this is a controversial view to some, but it is sincerely held. Incidentally, my personal opinion is the Ulster Scots has as little meaning to Northern culture as the Irish language which was completely dead in Northern Ireland by the mid-1970s so I am non-partisan in that regard.

(2) Notwithstanding my personal opinion on the value of either language, I recognise that there are many in both communities for whom either language carries a great symbolism even though they have both been artificially revived in Northern Ireland. I also recognise ironically that many nationalists share my view of Ulster Scots (see plenty of the posts in this thread from republican-minded posters) and that many unionists share my view of Irish. Ultimately, I agree with you on the parity of esteem issue - hence my call for a Minority Languages Act, that in a non-sectarian way recognises the importance to both communities of their heritage.

A standalone ILA actually de-politicises it. Because finding and respect would no longer be contentious.
There is only one side politicizing the language.

Who has cut funding, ignored existing legislation and disparaged it at any oppurtunity?

Nobody has a problem with Ulster Scots getting protection.

munsterlegend

Good article by Fergus Finlay in the examiner. It does look like the British are engineering a way to cut the link slowly.


http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/fergus-finlay/is-britain-bordering-on-conceding-that-it-will-leave-northern-ireland-458769.html