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

Havockk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wouldn't wrap my chips in an article by Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Well, yes I do feel I went too far by implying she was a serious commentator. And to be fair I think the other was Ben Lowry so...

Red_Wake

Havockk wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

This was explained to you - the agreement placed the DUP under the no obligation to support or introduce an ILA. Nobody has said their blocking of it is right, it's been repeatedly judged as acting in bad faith.

What has been said is that the DUP has acted in bad faith, but that leaving the wiggle room through which they were able to wriggle out of the initial agreement, SF has been politically naive. 

When signing an agreement, very careful attention should be paid to what has been agreed, and what has been left out, as expecting enemy parties to go beyond their explicit obligations is setting yourself up for later trouble. This is a general lesson in politics that goes beyond NI.

I'm saying the act of signing the document obviously indicates their agreement to everything that was included. To cherry pick after is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

In which case they agreed it was ok for the British Government to introdue an ILA. Which still places them under no obligation to do so once the power to do so was devolved back to NI.

You're looking at the spirit of the agreement, rather than the exact wording. Only the latter can you expect parties which are fundamentally bad actor to be adhere to. Relying on the former is political naivete.

Havockk

Red_Wake wrote: »

In which case they agreed it was ok for the British Government to introdue an ILA. Which still places them under no obligation to do so once the power to do so was devolved back to NI.

You're looking at the spirit of the agreement, rather than the exact wording. Only the latter can you expect parties which are fundamentally bad actor to be adhere to. Relying on the former is political naivete.

Either way, it's had the same political effect. I can only commend the DUP for doing SF's work for them. They have even managed to turn my hardcore SDLP voting father into a shinner of late.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

Nonsense, this past fortnight I've read more than one serious commentator, Ruth Dudley being one, who explicitly stated that SF desire for Unity was essentially the problem.

The SF desire for unity is not a problem at all. The problem is their failure to accept the legitimacy of British rule over Northern Ireland. This would include taking their seats in Westminister.

Havockk wrote: »

I'm saying the act of signing the document obviously indicates their agreement to everything that was included. To cherry pick after is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

After all, as you point out, when you sign up to something, cherry-picking is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's awfully generous of them. Did it cause them a great deal of heartache and soul-searching before they decided to grudgingly allow other people to want things?

I've asked you several times now: on what frigging planet is an international treaty required before wanting something is considered legitimate? Be careful with phrases like "British rule", there are sensitive souls around here.

I'm struggling to think of a rational response to your argument. I've typed several things and deleted them all. You seem to be of the view that if Sinn Féin accept the legitimacy of British rule, that they somehow lose any right to campaign for a change in the status quo. It's such a bizarre argument that it's hard to know how to counter it.

Which again fails to deal with the issue.

The complete abscence of anything but 'your opinion' of a phrase in the GFA which states that they accept the legitimacy of the majority wanting to be ruled by Britain.

Which does not mean they accept the legitimacy of British rule.

Just as if I accept the legitimacy of the majority wanting FG to rule does not mean I accept FG as a legitimate ruling party. (I do by the way, I am just illustrating the point you refuse to deal with)

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

The SF desire for unity is not a problem at all. The problem is their failure to accept the legitimacy of British rule over Northern Ireland. This would include taking their seats in Westminister.



After all, as you point out, when you sign up to something, cherry-picking is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

Well, it sounds to me like you would like SF to perform political harikiri, it's a fairly transparent point of view if you forgive me. I'd love to see the DUP dissolve but I know it's not going to happen (yet).

My other argument there would be to ask just what the SDLP achieved in all it's time taking their seats in parliament? There may have been the odd victory but I can name none off the top of my head. And when it came to the moment when their vote actually would have counted?? Well Gerry Fitt let us all down (and look where that has led us today).

And I also think there is a world of difference between reneging on an agreement and holding an abstentionist position, which is a completely legitimate political position. It's not as if they are pulling wool over anyone's eyes.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The SF desire for unity is not a problem at all. The problem is their failure to accept the legitimacy of British rule over Northern Ireland. This would include taking their seats in Westminister.



After all, as you point out, when you sign up to something, cherry-picking is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the GFA or subsequent agreements about accepting the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland.
In fact it could be seen as a way map to allow democracy to function were a significant number of the population do not accept the legitimacy of British rule.


Still waiting for somebody to point to the newspaper columns that heralded this Paulian conversion of republicans.

Junkyard Tom

Havockk wrote: »

They have even managed to turn my hardcore SDLP voting father into a shinner of late.

It's really weird. They've done little but antagonise the nationalist population in the last number of years. It's as if they feel that their precious union is unassailable despite the demographic (and probable economic) freight train heading towards them.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The complete abscence of anything but 'your opinion' of a phrase in the GFA which states that they accept the legitimacy of the majority wanting to be ruled by Britain.

Which does not mean they accept the legitimacy of British rule.

I really wish there was some form of words that would make it clear to you what a load of utter tripe you're spouting.

Look: Sinn Féin have taken seats, and accepted ministerial positions, in a devolved regional Assembly of the United Kingdom, set up by the 1998 Northern Ireland Act - an Act of the British Parliament.

Now, they can say that they reject the legitimacy of British rule, but everyone who isn't a slavish disciple of the Sinn-Féin-are-the-only-political-party-in-history-who-have-never-lied religious dogma can see that that's - to put it kindly - a pretty hollow thing to say.

If someone sets up a business in your town and gives you a job, and you show up every morning for work and cash your cheque every weekend, all the while loudly proclaiming that you refuse to accept the legitimate right of that person to own a business - well, you can draw your own conclusions as to what those proclamations are worth.

I know that nothing can persuade you of this. I know that there isn't a power in the universe that could convince you that Sinn Féin are, like all political parties, capable of speaking with forked tongue. What's bizarre is the way you act like I'm the one talking nonsense here.

Just as if I accept the legitimacy of the majority wanting FG to rule does not mean I accept FG as a legitimate ruling party. (I do by the way, I am just illustrating the point you refuse to deal with)

But what does that even mean? You present the idea of refusing to accept legitimacy as if it's just a completely random and inconsequential thought; a throwaway remark.

What are the practical ramifications of your hypothetical refusal to accept the legitimacy of FG as a ruling party? Do you refuse to obey laws enacted by that government? Do you fail to appear in response to a court summons, because the Minister for Justice is a FG member?

Or is it just meaningless rhetoric? Is your idea of refusing to accept the legitimacy of something nothing more than a completely empty political gesture?

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's fascinating and all, but it has nothing to do with anything I've said. I recognise the right of anyone to want to change the status of Northern Ireland, or - for that matter - to keep it the same. I also recognise that Northern Ireland is a legitimate part of the United Kingdom at the moment, and at some point in the future may be a legitimate part of the Republic of Ireland.

What I'm not doing is arguing that it's somehow morally impossible for one community's view to be legitimate, because that would be arrogant and stupid.

Whether you find it fascinating or not is neither here nor there.
What is relevant is that nowhere in the GFA or the MPA is there a requirement for SF to recognise Westminster`s right to rule NI.

SF have, by signing the MPA recognised the right of the majority to decide. Something the DUP have not put their signature to.
That to me, if not stupid, is totally arrogant.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I really wish there was some form of words that would make it clear to you what a load of utter tripe you're spouting.

Look: Sinn Féin have taken seats, and accepted ministerial positions, in a devolved regional Assembly of the United Kingdom, set up by the 1998 Northern Ireland Act - an Act of the British Parliament.

Now, they can say that they reject the legitimacy of British rule, but everyone who isn't a slavish disciple of the Sinn-Féin-are-the-only-political-party-in-history-who-have-never-lied religious dogma can see that that's - to put it kindly - a pretty hollow thing to say.

If someone sets up a business in your town and gives you a job, and you show up every morning for work and cash your cheque every weekend, all the while loudly proclaiming that you refuse to accept the legitimate right of that person to own a business - well, you can draw your own conclusions as to what those proclamations are worth.

I know that nothing can persuade you of this. I know that there isn't a power in the universe that could convince you that Sinn Féin are, like all political parties, capable of speaking with forked tongue. What's bizarre is the way you act like I'm the one talking nonsense here. But what does that even mean? You present the idea of refusing to accept legitimacy as if it's just a completely random and inconsequential thought; a throwaway remark.

What are the practical ramifications of your hypothetical refusal to accept the legitimacy of FG as a ruling party? Do you refuse to obey laws enacted by that government? Do you fail to appear in response to a court summons, because the Minister for Justice is a FG member?

Or is it just meaningless rhetoric? Is your idea of refusing to accept the legitimacy of something nothing more than a completely empty political gesture?

Well, if you had just admitted at the start that it is just your opinion of what SF are doing and had not tried first to pretend that a clause in the GFA represented SF accepting the legitimacy of British rule we might not be at this point.

Nice row back all the same. Here is another journalist stating the obvious and still current stance of republicans (who by the way contribute to the society just like other taxpayers and are fully entitled to be paid for politically representing their constituents.)

Sinn Féin’s objection to entering the Commons chamber is ideological, stemming from its refusal to recognise the legitimacy of British authority in Northern Ireland.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-abstention-policy-means-party-will-stand-but-never-sit-in-westminster-1.2202418

And you could talk until the cows come home about the 'practical ramifications' of political ideologies, so maybe open a thread on it.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

The SF desire for unity is not a problem at all. The problem is their failure to accept the legitimacy of British rule over Northern Ireland. This would include taking their seats in Westminister.



After all, as you point out, when you sign up to something, cherry-picking is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

What agreement is it you seem to believe SF have signed that compels them to accept the legitimacy of British rule over NI ?

oscarBravo

charlie14 wrote: »

What is relevant is that nowhere in the GFA or the MPA is there a requirement for SF to recognise Westminster`s right to rule NI.

You seem to be working as hard as Francie to miss the point.

Sure, there's nothing in the GFA that says "anyone who signs up to this agreement recognises Britain's sovereignty over Northern Ireland", because the Agreement makes it clear that sovereignty over Northern Ireland is a matter for its people to decide, and signing up to the Agreement is tacit acceptance of that fact.

Sinn Féin can claim to be committed to the principles of the GFA; and they can also claim that British rule in Northern Ireland has no legitimacy. The problem is that they're contradicting themselves in the process, because the GFA clearly legitimises British rule in Northern Ireland.

SF have, by signing the MPA recognised the right of the majority to decide. Something the DUP have not put their signature to.
That to me, if not stupid, is totally arrogant.

You won't find me arguing against the idea that the DUP are stupid and arrogant. My point isn't about the DUP at all, I'm merely pointing out that Sinn Féin are guilty of doublespeak, and their supporters are guilty of wilful blindness to that fact.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, if you had just admitted at the start that it is just your opinion of what SF are doing...

No. Stop there. You don't get to manufacture from whole cloth a completely fallacious interpretation of what I've said and then gloat about how I've rowed back.

I notice you carefully avoided the key point, which is that Sinn Féin sit in a regional Assembly of the United Kingdom, established by an Act of the British Parliament.

If it suits you to pretend that that's consistent with rejecting the legitimacy of British rule in Northern Ireland, then you pretend away - but have the intellectual honesty not to accuse me of rowing back from anything while you bask in your own fantasies.

I never cease to be amazed at the bizarre acts of self-deception required to be a Sinn Féin supporter.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. Stop there. You don't get to manufacture from whole cloth a completely fallacious interpretation of what I've said and then gloat about how I've rowed back.

I notice you carefully avoided the key point, which is that Sinn Féin sit in a regional Assembly of the United Kingdom, established by an Act of the British Parliament.

If it suits you to pretend that that's consistent with rejecting the legitimacy of British rule in Northern Ireland, then you pretend away - but have the intellectual honesty not to accuse me of rowing back from anything while you bask in your own fantasies.

I never cease to be amazed at the bizarre acts of self-deception required to be a Sinn Féin supporter.

They sit on a regional assembly in THEIR OWN country and do not swear allegiance to a foreign monarch.

You did row back to just giving an opinion on what SF are doing after starting out by saying it was implicit in a phrase of the GFA.

Status of Northern Ireland
The agreement acknowledged:

*that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom;

*that a substantial section of the people of Northern Ireland, and the majority of the people of the island of Ireland, wished to bring about a united Ireland.

*Both of these views were acknowledged as being legitimate.

*For the first time, the government of the Republic of Ireland accepted in a binding international agreement that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom.

* The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland was also amended to implicitly recognise Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom's sovereign territory,

From wiki.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Status of Northern Ireland
The agreement acknowledged:

*that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom;

*that a substantial section of the people of Northern Ireland, and the majority of the people of the island of Ireland, wished to bring about a united Ireland.

*Both of these views were acknowledged as being legitimate.

*For the first time, the government of the Republic of Ireland accepted in a binding international agreement that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom.

* The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland was also amended to implicitly recognise Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom's sovereign territory,

From wiki.

Yes, they are legitimate views, apart from getting excited when you see the word 'legitimate' what is your point?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They sit on a regional assembly in THEIR OWN country and do not swear allegiance to a foreign monarch.

A regional Assembly OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, established by an Act of the BRITISH PARLIAMENT. Which, according to you, that Parliament had no legitimate right to establish - but they take their seats anyway.

I get that you can tell yourself whatever it is you need to hear in order to convince yourself that Sinn Féin are, uniquely among political parties, guided by a pure and unwavering adherence to principles. To anyone who isn't drinking the Kool-Aid, their hypocrisy is self-evident.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

A regional Assembly OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, established by an Act of the BRITISH PARLIAMENT. Which, according to you, that Parliament had no legitimate right to establish - but they take their seats anyway.

I get that you can tell yourself whatever it is you need to hear in order to convince yourself that Sinn Féin are, uniquely among political parties, guided by a pure and unwavering adherence to principles. To anyone who isn't drinking the Kool-Aid, their hypocrisy is self-evident.

A regional assembly of elected Irish MLAs.

Again, that is no statement of acceptance of the legitimacy of British rule.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not really, no. We had a constitutional amendment to relinquish our sovereign claim to Northern Ireland.

By doing so, the people of Ireland - not just the government, but the people - formally recognised the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom. Some people can't bring themselves to do that, because Reasons - but their dogma has no more bearing on reality than that of a flat-Earther.

No, not really. Britain does not have a codified constitution so no requirement for a referendum to repeal, either the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, or the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973.
Both were repealed by an act of parliament, and replaced by the Northern Ireland Act of 1998.

Under the Northern Ireland act of 1998 Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom until or unless a majority vote in a referendum determines otherwise.
At which point Northern Ireland would be no longer be part of the United Kingdom.

Havockk

charlie14 wrote: »

No, not really. Britain does not have a codified constitution so no requirement for a referendum to repeal, either the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, or the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973.
Both were repealed by an act of parliament, and replaced by the Northern Ireland Act of 1998.

Under the Northern Ireland act of 1998 Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom until or unless a majority vote in a referendum determines otherwise.
At which point Northern Ireland would be no longer be part of the United Kingdom.

That was a huge concession by the UK when you think about it. Articles 2 and 3 are actually no longer important in any way because they no longer mattered, only the result of a future referendum, which SF were smart enough to delay (yes I know there were some half hearted calls).

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A regional assembly of elected Irish MLAs.

Again, that is no statement of acceptance of the legitimacy of British rule.

We've clearly reached the point where you're just going to keep ignoring any facts that contradict your carefully-constructed worldview, so there's no point discussing it further.

charlie14 wrote: »

No, not really. Britain does not have a codified constitution so no requirement for a referendum to repeal, either the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, or the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973.
Both were repealed by an act of parliament, and replaced by the Northern Ireland Act of 1998.

Under the Northern Ireland act of 1998 Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom until or unless a majority vote in a referendum determines otherwise.
At which point Northern Ireland would be no longer be part of the United Kingdom.

I have no quibble with any of that. Northern Ireland is legitimately a part of the UK until its people decide otherwise, at which point it will be legitimately a part of the Republic of Ireland. Outside of Republican "let's play make-believe" la-la land, those are objective facts.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

We've clearly reached the point where you're just going to keep ignoring any facts that contradict your carefully-constructed worldview, so there's no point discussing it further.

I am debating your world view Oscar...and seriously, it really is just a 'view'.

Francie, do you accept that under the GFA that NI is a legitimate part of the UK? That partition is legitimate?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, do you accept that under the GFA that NI is a legitimate part of the UK? That partition is legitimate?

No.

I accept that the majority want it to be for now.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to be working as hard as Francie to miss the point.

Sure, there's nothing in the GFA that says "anyone who signs up to this agreement recognises Britain's sovereignty over Northern Ireland", because the Agreement makes it clear that sovereignty over Northern Ireland is a matter for its people to decide, and signing up to the Agreement is tacit acceptance of that fact.

Sinn Féin can claim to be committed to the principles of the GFA; and they can also claim that British rule in Northern Ireland has no legitimacy. The problem is that they're contradicting themselves in the process, because the GFA clearly legitimises British rule in Northern Ireland. You won't find me arguing against the idea that the DUP are stupid and arrogant. My point isn't about the DUP at all, I'm merely pointing out that Sinn Féin are guilty of doublespeak, and their supporters are guilty of wilful blindness to that fact.

I feel you are working even harder to miss the point.

SF did not sign the GFA. The only signatories were the British and Irish governments.
In accepting the GFA, SF accepted what the British accepted in their own 1998 Northern Ireland Act.
That it would remain in British control until or unless a majority decided otherwise by referendum.
Their was nowhere in the GFA or the MPA that SF recognised Britain had a right to control Northern Ireland.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am debating your world view Oscar...and seriously, it really is just a 'view'.

Sure. To a flat-Earther, a globe Earth is just a view. To a young-Earth creationist, evolution is just a theory. To an American conservative, climate change is a conspiracy theory. And, to an Irish republican, the idea of countries having legitimacy over their territory is a question of personally-held beliefs, not objective fact.

There's no arguing against religious dogma.

oscarBravo

charlie14 wrote: »

In accepting the GFA, SF accepted what the British accepted in their own 1998 Northern Ireland Act.
That it would remain in British control until or unless a majority decided otherwise by referendum.

If Britain has no legitimate right to govern Northern Ireland, how can the Northern Ireland Act have any legitimacy?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No.

I accept that the majority want it to be for now.

Cut and paste from SF website

*(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;

*, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;

*(v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people

*. (1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

If Britain has no legitimate right to govern Northern Ireland, how can the Northern Ireland Act have any legitimacy?

By its own wording it only has legitimacy until or unless a majority decides otherwise.
At which point the Northern Ireland Act would be an irrelevance.