Irish Language Act in the North: Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just because you see the word 'legitimacy' in the GFA and you know the meaning of it, does not mean what you think it does.

Here it is again:



WHere does that say they 'recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland'.

Exactly! It doesn't say that at all. :rolleyes:

"
"recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority"

The choices are, british rule, irish rule or an independent state. All are legitimate if that is the will of the majority and by signing the GFA recognised all options as legitimate.

"Whatever choice" is the key phrase.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

"
"recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority"

The choices are, british rule, irish rule or an independent state. All are legitimate if that is the will of the majority and by signing the GFA recognised all options as legitimate.

"Whatever choice" is the key phrase.

They simply did not.

The recognised the legitimacy of the majority to choose.

They didn't recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland. You simply cannot shoehorn that in there, because it isn't there.

That is the wet dream of those who dream about SF capitulating on everything they believe in.

The Republican party has always refused to take its seats and vote in Parliament because it will not swear allegiance to the Queen or recognise the legitimacy of Britain’s rule over Northern Ireland.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/leo-varadkar-sinn-fein-seats-westminster-hard-brexit-abstentionist-a8231281.html

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The recognised the legitimacy of the majority to choose.

They didn't recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland.

They recognised the legitimacy of the majority's choice of British rule in Northern Ireland.

They say they don't recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Northern Ireland, but that's precisely what some of us are taking issue with: the cakeism of claiming to be committed to the GFA while rejecting the reality of what it says.

You'll disagree with this, but that's because it doesn't seem to have crossed your mind that maybe not everything Sinn Féin say is gospel truth.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They simply did not.

The recognised the legitimacy of the majority to choose.

They didn't recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland. You simply cannot shoehorn that in there, because it isn't there.

That is the wet dream of those who dream about SF capitulating on everything they believe in.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/leo-varadkar-sinn-fein-seats-westminster-hard-brexit-abstentionist-a8231281.html

So SF recognise the choice of british rule as legitimate but not british rule itself , well that makes perfect sense

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

They recognised the legitimacy of the majority's choice of British rule in Northern Ireland.

They say they don't recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Northern Ireland, but that's precisely what some of us are taking issue with: the cakeism of claiming to be committed to the GFA while rejecting the reality of what it says.

You'll disagree with this, but that's because it doesn't seem to have crossed your mind that maybe not everything Sinn Féin say is gospel truth.

You are mistaking your opinion of it with the truth.
The truth being that they have not recognised the legitimacy of British rule.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So SF recognise the choice of british rule as legitimate but not british rule itself , well that makes perfect sense

Yes, just as someone can recognise the right of the majority to abortion but not the rightness of abortion.

Getting any clearer for you?

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, just as someone can recognise the right of the majority to abortion but not the rightness of abortion.
Getting any clearer for you?

Its a good analogy, but you can't compare them directly. Accepting the legitimacy of something is not the same as agreeing with something.

FF and FG also aspire to a UI, but they accept the legitimacy of NI's current status. How does the SF position differ from theirs?
If SF have accepted the GFA, I don't see how there can be any difference.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, just as someone can recognise the right of the majority to abortion but not the rightness of abortion.

Getting any clearer for you?

Problem here is you not understanding what legitimacy means in a political context.

The definition is clear. And SF agreed to it. They signed on the dotted line whatever spin they put on it doesn't change what the GFA says.

The British are the Ultimate authority over NI , that is the legitimate choice of the majority of NI. SF validated this by signing the GFA.They don't like it but they signed up for this and are now part of the infastructure of partion.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

Its a good analogy, but you can't compare them directly. Accepting the legitimacy of something is not the same as agreeing with something.

FF and FG also aspire to a UI, but they accept the legitimacy of NI's current status. How does the SF position differ from theirs?
If SF have accepted the GFA, I don't see how there can be any difference.

Do a bit of work.

Accepting the majority view that Irish Water has a legitimate right to charge for water does not mean I accept the legitimacy of water charges.

In fact I can legitimately and legally fight water charges long after the vote.


Loads of examples where accepting that a majority have decided something does not mean I that I accept that something.


Does this really need to be explained anymore?

Charles Babbage

Legitimate has two meanings. One is legal, the holocaust was legal for instance. The second meaning is morally right. British rule in NI is clearly legal but not moral.

Francie, think you need to read the definition again;

"In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime"

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

SF have accepted than NI is part of the UK.

They acceded to a devolved administration in an attempt to move the political centre-of-gravity away from Westminster/Britain and they've never made a secret that the GFA is, for them, a vehicle (with no reverse gear) that's destination is a United Ireland.

oscarBravo wrote: »

They recognised the legitimacy of the majority's choice of British rule in Northern Ireland.

British rule... Sounds kind of imperialist that. BRITISH RULE! Can't you just hear that in being said in a Jacob Rees Mogg accent?

No Republican has ever accepted British Rule in Ireland. See above.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, think you need to read the definition again;

"In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime"

Again the clause in the agreement does not refer to the 'authority, governing law or a regime'

It refers to the legitimacy of the majority view.

Shoehorn away, you are just looking a bit silly at this stage.

Can you find any SF or republican publicly accepting the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland...don't waste more of your time...you won't.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

They acceded to a devolved administration in an attempt to move the political centre-of-gravity away from Westminster/Britain and they've never made a secret that the GFA is, for them, a vehicle (with no reverse gear) that's destination is a United Ireland.




British rule... Sounds kind of imperialist that. BRITISH RULE! Can't you just hear that in being said in a Jacob Rees Mogg accent?

No Republican has ever accepted British Rule in Ireland. See above.

I don't think even Jacob Rees would posit such a ridiculous claim.

oscarBravo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

They acceded to a devolved administration in an attempt to move the political centre-of-gravity away from Westminster/Britain and they've never made a secret that the GFA is, for them, a vehicle (with no reverse gear) that's destination is a United Ireland.

Either they're committed to it or they're not. If they want the destination to have legitimacy, the journey has to have legitimacy.

The Agreement says that what the people of Northern Ireland want has legitimacy. You seem to be saying that that's only fully true when the people of Northern Ireland happen to want what Sinn Féin want. That's not commitment; that's two-faced dishonesty.

British rule... Sounds kind of imperialist that. BRITISH RULE! Can't you just hear that in being said in a Jacob Rees Mogg accent?

I don't see how it sounds any more imperialist than "Irish rule", but then I've never really understood the Republican inferiority complex.

No Republican has ever accepted British Rule in Ireland. See above.

"We are fully committed to the GFA, apart from the bit about legitimacy, unless it's the legitimacy of what we believe in, in which case the Agreement is sacrosanct. Themuns can't have legitimacy."

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again the clause in the agreement does not refer to the 'authority, governing law or a regime'

It refers to the legitimacy of the majority view.

Shoehorn away, you are just looking a bit silly at this stage.

Can you find any SF or republican publicly accepting the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland...don't waste more of your time...you won't.

Doesn't matter what they , they signed the GFA.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Either they're committed to it or they're not. If they want the destination to have legitimacy, the journey has to have legitimacy.

The Agreement says that what the people of Northern Ireland want has legitimacy. You seem to be saying that that's only fully true when the people of Northern Ireland happen to want what Sinn Féin want. That's not commitment; that's two-faced dishonesty. I don't see how it sounds any more imperialist than "Irish rule", but then I've never really understood the Republican inferiority complex. "We are fully committed to the GFA, apart from the bit about legitimacy, unless it's the legitimacy of what we believe in, in which case the Agreement is sacrosanct. Themuns can't have legitimacy."

Back we go to the limbo dancing.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It refers to the legitimacy of the majority view.

The majority view is that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Therefore, British rule (sorry JT, didn't mean to startle you with those terrifying words) is legitimate until the majority view states otherwise.

Can you find any SF or republican publicly accepting the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland...don't waste more of your time...you won't.

Of course not. They want to eat their cake and have it: to claim that they're fully supportive of the GFA, while denying what that means in reality.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Back we go to the limbo dancing.

Says the man who waxes Jesuitical over the many nuanced meanings of the word "legitimacy" rather than accept that there's even the faintest possibility that anything Sinn Féin say could ever conceivably be untrue.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Doesn't matter what they , they signed the GFA.

If the majority vote for SF in an election, do you become a supporter of SF? Or do you accept their democratic mandate but continue to object to their policies?

You are not dealing with this anomaly in what you are claiming.

As I said earlier - the dreaming that goes on. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

The majority view is that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Therefore, British rule (sorry JT, didn't mean to startle you with those terrifying words) is legitimate until the majority view states otherwise.

Again, profoundly wrong. 'I accept that the majority view it that way. End of'

Of course not. They want to eat their cake and have it: to claim that they're fully supportive of the GFA, while denying what that means in reality.

It doesn't mean that. It means that they accept the legitimacy of the majority to have that view. End of'.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the majority vote for SF in an election, do you become a supporter of SF? Or do you accept their democratic mandate but continue to object to their policies?

You are not dealing with this anomaly in what you are claiming.

As I said earlier - the dreaming that goes on. :rolleyes:

"In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime"

The regime in this case is Westminister/UK. SF have accepted their authority under the GFA.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Says the man who waxes Jesuitical over the many nuanced meanings of the word "legitimacy" rather than accept that there's even the faintest possibility that anything Sinn Féin say could ever conceivably be untrue.

There aren't many meanings to the word legitimacy and I never waxed anything like that.

There is a sentence in which the word legitimacy is used.

You are bluntly refusing to take on board what that sentence is referring to and it is NOT referring to the legitimacy of British rule, it is referring to the 'legitimacy of the majority to want British rule'.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the majority vote for SF in an election, do you become a supporter of SF? Or do you accept their democratic mandate but continue to object to their policies?

Do I get to loudly and repeatedly insist that a SF government has no legitimacy?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It doesn't mean that. It means that they accept the legitimacy of the majority to have that view. End of'.

The Agreement doesn't say that the parties accept that majorities can have views. That would be a pretty trivial and pointless agreement. It says that the legitimate status of Northern Ireland is what the majority want it to be.

Francie, I can tell you're pathologically incapable of conceding this point, but you're wrong. There's no way in hell a treaty was lodged with the UN boldly stating that the parties accept each other's right to hold different views. The entire point of the Agreement is that both parties accept that the legitimate status of Northern Ireland is whatever the majority of its people want it to be.

You're taking the Republican view that "only my side can possibly have legitimacy - I respect the right of others to be wrong, but what they want is necessarily illegitimate by virtue of not being what I want."

That's not only a breathtakingly arrogant perspective, it's self-evidently untrue. Irish rule (sorry if I startled anyone else with my imperialism there) is no more inherently legitimate than British. Legitimacy of government comes from the acceptance of the governed.

All parties to the GFA signed up to the legitimacy of whatever the people decided. One of those parties wants to claim to be supportive of that, while also arguing that it will only be legitimate when it agrees with their aims.

I could no more convince a young-Earth creationist of the validity of evolution than convince you that anything other than your personal beliefs could possibly have legitimacy, but strongly holding a belief doesn't make it true, and Sinn Féin are being two-faced here.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

"In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime"

The regime in this case is Westminister/UK. SF have accepted their authority under the GFA.

That is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going na na na.

Goodnight.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do I get to loudly and repeatedly insist that a SF government has no legitimacy?



The Agreement doesn't say that the parties accept that majorities can have views. That would be a pretty trivial and pointless agreement. It says that the legitimate status of Northern Ireland is what the majority want it to be.

Francie, I can tell you're pathologically incapable of conceding this point, but you're wrong. There's no way in hell a treaty was lodged with the UN boldly stating that the parties accept each other's right to hold different views. The entire point of the Agreement is that both parties accept that the legitimate status of Northern Ireland is whatever the majority of its people want it to be.

You're taking the Republican view that "only my side can possibly have legitimacy - I respect the right of others to be wrong, but what they want is necessarily illegitimate by virtue of not being what I want."

That's not only a breathtakingly arrogant perspective, it's self-evidently untrue. Irish rule (sorry if I startled anyone else with my imperialism there) is no more inherently legitimate than British. Legitimacy of government comes from the acceptance of the governed.

All parties to the GFA signed up to the legitimacy of whatever the people decided. One of those parties wants to claim to be supportive of that, while also arguing that it will only be legitimate when it agrees with their aims.

I could no more convince a young-Earth creationist of the validity of evolution than convince you that anything other than your personal beliefs could possibly have legitimacy, but strongly holding a belief doesn't make it true, and Sinn Féin are being two-faced here.

There's no way in hell a treaty was lodged with the UN boldly stating that the parties accept each other's right to hold different views

The agreement is full of that.

The right to aspire to Irish Unity for example. The right to an ILA
Do Unionists now hold those views dear?

Again, your view that they are being two faced is an opinion. Which you are legitimately entitled to hold. But I and all republicans, not just SF totally disagree with it.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are bluntly refusing to take on board what that sentence is referring to and it is NOT referring to the legitimacy of British rule, it is referring to the 'legitimacy of the majority to want British rule'.

Think about what you're saying, Francie. Think about it. Stop reciting the creed and think.

You're arguing that, prior to the Good Friday Agreement, the parties to that Agreement did not accept the legitimacy of the other parties holding different views to them.

You're arguing that the entire point of the Agreement is that the various parties have reluctantly agreed to accept that it's OK for people to want different things.

You're arguing that the only legitimacy bestowed by a treaty signed by two sovereign governments and lodged with the UN is the legitimacy of a political preference.

If you think that that makes more sense than the interpretation of literally everyone who isn't an Irish Republican - that the Agreement recognises the legitimacy of the consequences of the majority's choice - I honestly don't know what else to say to you.

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Agreement says that what the people of Northern Ireland want has legitimacy. You seem to be saying that that's only fully true when the people of Northern Ireland happen to want what Sinn F want. That's not commitment; that's two-faced dishonesty.

The GFA is a grand exercise in what Henry Kissinger would describe as 'constructive ambiguity'. David Trimble claimed it copper-fastened the so-called union.

Republicans claimed it as an agreement that was a road-map to a UI. It is to its reader what they want it to be on the face of it but at its core it is a one way road and that road doesn't lead to London.

I don't see how it sounds any more imperialist than "Irish rule"

Ireland doesn't really have a history of planting Flags in places and claiming them for its President.

but then I've never really understood the Republican inferiority complex.

Pop psychology? Cool. No idea what a 'Republican inferiority complex' is.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going na na na.

Goodnight.

Your posts reminded me of this opinion piece

Adams sold defeat as victory in career based on illusion

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/adams-sold-defeat-as-victory-in-career-based-on-illusion-36584577.html

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The right to aspire to Irish Unity for example.

Come on, Francie. On what planet do you need a treaty to recognise the legitimacy of wanting something?

If a majority in Northern Ireland voted for unification, and the unionist community argued that unification has no legitimacy - the aspiration does, but unity doesn't - would you doff your cap and salute the cleverness of their argument?

Or would you switch sides like a shot and start loudly insisting that it's the implementation of the wishes of the majority that enjoys legitimacy, once they have the good sense to agree with you?