blanch152 wrote: » It could equally be argued that the refusal to entertain a Minority Languages Act is petty.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What solution does a 'constitutional nationalist' have that doesn't involve one side acquiescing again? Serious question.
blanch152 wrote: » I don't know, it is quite clear now that Sinn Fein will only accept complete acquiescence from the DUP and have no interest in moderating their stance or in compromise. As I suggested already in this thread, if Sinn Fein were to hold fast on same sex marriage (appealing to gay Unionists) and abortion (appealing to liberal Unionists) while compromising on a Minority Languages Act, they would show that they can represent the interests of both communities are not just a sectarian remnant like the DUP. I hold out little hope that Sinn Fein will have the maturity to reach out to the other community like that but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised.
blanch152 wrote: » I hold out little hope that Sinn Fein will have the maturity to reach out to the other community....
FrancieBrady wrote: » SF like their supporters, expect the GFA and it's subsequent agreements to come into force. They are under no obligation to acquiesce or wait any longer.
blanch152 wrote: » Thomas__ wrote: » That´s already the case, when you apply for a job in the civil service, you have to know Irish. But for TDs, it won´t work unless the majority of the TDs would start to debate in Irish only. I can´t imagine this would ever happen. tomwaterford wrote: » Tbf I think you're getting paid by the state, it's not unreasonable to expect you to learn irish In nearly 20 years as a civil and public servant before I left, I never used a word of Irish.
Thomas__ wrote: » That´s already the case, when you apply for a job in the civil service, you have to know Irish. But for TDs, it won´t work unless the majority of the TDs would start to debate in Irish only. I can´t imagine this would ever happen.
tomwaterford wrote: » Tbf I think you're getting paid by the state, it's not unreasonable to expect you to learn irish
blanch152 wrote: » FrancieBrady wrote: » SF like their supporters, expect the GFA and it's subsequent agreements to come into force. They are under no obligation to acquiesce or wait any longer. Never asked them to acquiesce, just to compromise. An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins.
blanch152 wrote: » Never asked them to acquiesce, just to compromise. An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins.
Thomas__ wrote: » Sounds fair to me.
FrancieBrady wrote: » blanch152 wrote: » Never asked them to acquiesce, just to compromise. An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins. You ask them to throw away something that was already agreed so the Unionists can win what exactly? What do unionists lose by the existence of an Irish Language act?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Thomas__ wrote: » Sounds fair to me. No it isn't on a lot of levels. Ordinary rights for LGBT people should never be bartered for, what kind of precedent does that set? Blanch has still not explained why a constitutional nationalist is so anxious to save the blushes of people who are just engaging in cultural bigotry here. He could start by explaining what harm an already agreed standalone Language act is going to do to a unionist.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No it isn't on a lot of levels. Ordinary rights for LGBT people should never be bartered for, what kind of precedent does that set?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Blanch has still not explained why a constitutional nationalist is so anxious to save the blushes of people who are just engaging in cultural bigotry here. He could start by explaining what harm an already agreed standalone Language act is going to do to a unionist.
Thomas__ wrote: » I think that there is some misunderstanding."An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins." Reading this quoted line, it is perceived in my view as addressing the reality in regards of how the Irish language is really used in daily live by the people in the whole of the Island of Ireland. Seen from that angle, it sounds as sustainable compromise in regards to NI. On the other hand, your argument is as well reasonable in regards of the DUP who has to stick to agreements once concluded. But I also know that the DUP can´t be trusted and that party is unreliable and ruthless imo (they´ve delivered proof for that by themselves and latest in the scandal that ended up in the break up of the past NI govt leading to new elections with a result that there isn´t still a new NI govt formed yet).
FrancieBrady wrote: » Can anyone explain to me what unionism loses by allowing a standalone Language Act that has been previously agreed before the sudden interest in Ulster Scots (see the absence of any concern for U-S in Ian Paisley's objections in 2007) If you can frame what it is they lose I think you will arrive at what exactly the core of the problem is. Because in my opinion all they will 'lose' is a sense of supremacy.
blanch152 wrote: » Nobody has suggested bartering rights for LGBT people, that is another red herring thrown out by you.
You really don't get the imperative of compromise and reaching mutually acceptable outcomes in the context of Northern Ireland.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Thomas__ wrote: » I think that there is some misunderstanding."An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins." Reading this quoted line, it is perceived in my view as addressing the reality in regards of how the Irish language is really used in daily live by the people in the whole of the Island of Ireland. Seen from that angle, it sounds as sustainable compromise in regards to NI. On the other hand, your argument is as well reasonable in regards of the DUP who has to stick to agreements once concluded. But I also know that the DUP can´t be trusted and that party is unreliable and ruthless imo (they´ve delivered proof for that by themselves and latest in the scandal that ended up in the break up of the past NI govt leading to new elections with a result that there isn´t still a new NI govt formed yet). Can anyone explain to me what unionism loses by allowing a standalone Language Act that has been previously agreed before the sudden interest in Ulster Scots (see the absence of any concern for U-S in Ian Paisley's objections in 2007) If you can frame what it is they lose I think you will arrive at what exactly the core of the problem is.Because in my opinion all they will 'lose' is a sense of supremacy.
Thomas__ wrote: » Your last line hits the nail on the head and this is what it is all about on their side. Nothing else and they still refuse to acknowledge that their times of "supremacy" are long gone. What can´t be solved politically, is to be tried in a court case. Question is whether the court would take it on for trial. The minds of the DUP leaders are closed for compromise, despite the fact that they are to stick to the concluded agreement, so there is perhaps no other way than to drag them to court to make them comply with with what they agreed themselves before. I know, dealing with the Dinosaurs Ulster Party is an ordeal, more so as they are the political arm of the OO and I suspect that the members of the latter are all behind that mischief. One has just recall all their demonstrations and street actions from recent years they´ve took to the streets in regards to "defend and uphold their culture".
blanch152 wrote: » What is lost on many nationalists is that you can't replace supremacy by one with with supremacy by the other. That is the essence of why an Irish Language Act just doesn't work. It is also why a united Ireland is a pipedream. A functioning Northern Ireland with a greater degree of joint sovereignty from the UK and Ireland is the long-term solution, despite what many on both sides wish for. A lot of people are still a long way from realising this.
blanch152 wrote: » Thomas__ wrote: » Your last line hits the nail on the head and this is what it is all about on their side. Nothing else and they still refuse to acknowledge that their times of "supremacy" are long gone. What can´t be solved politically, is to be tried in a court case. Question is whether the court would take it on for trial. The minds of the DUP leaders are closed for compromise, despite the fact that they are to stick to the concluded agreement, so there is perhaps no other way than to drag them to court to make them comply with with what they agreed themselves before. I know, dealing with the Dinosaurs Ulster Party is an ordeal, more so as they are the political arm of the OO and I suspect that the members of the latter are all behind that mischief. One has just recall all their demonstrations and street actions from recent years they´ve took to the streets in regards to "defend and uphold their culture". What is lost on many nationalists is that you can't replace supremacy by one with with supremacy by the other. That is the essence of why an Irish Language Act just doesn't work. It is also why a united Ireland is a pipedream. A functioning Northern Ireland with a greater degree of joint sovereignty from the UK and Ireland is the long-term solution, despite what many on both sides wish for. A lot of people are still a long way from realising this.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are a 'nationalist'..
FrancieBrady wrote: » A 'nationalist' who seems willing to barter/ignore/swap nationalist aspirations so that everyone 'wins' something. (how achieving rights (LGBT And same sex) you should be automatically entitled to in any decent modern secular state can be seen as 'winning' beats me).
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yet you have yet to outline what unionism 'loses' if an Irish Language act becomes a reality.
blanch152 wrote: » Yes, I am a nationalist, but I don't want a United Ireland over anyone's dead body or at a cost to this island in terms of society or economy. That makes me a realist. Of course I support the aspiration to a united Ireland in the Constitution, but that Constitution now recognises the reality that there is no longer a claim for a United Ireland. I could desperately wish that Shamrock Rovers will win the Champions League and support them every year in the hope that they will do so, but the realist in me knows it is very unlikely to happen - that doesn't make me any less of a supporter. Neither does my real acknowledgement that a united Ireland is a pipedream make me any less a nationalist.
You don't seem to understand my point at all. The winning for Sinn Fein is in the ability to demonstrate to parts of the Unionist vote, particularly the progressive elements - LGBT and women's rights - that Sinn Fein is a party for all the people of Northern Ireland and that it is prepared to compromise on some issues (Irish Language Act) for those people. Do you not realise how powerful that would be?
It is interesting that you see these debates in terms of what either side loses, I much prefer to see these issues in terms of everyone gaining.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You my friend are not a 'nationalist' you are with that attitude closer to a partitionist. .
blanch152 wrote: » There is a thread elsewhere in this forum where they talk about how political debate in the US is devalued by how people try to label others they disagree with as if this somehow adds to their argument. Here it is:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104202119&postcount=12 "But it's practically a national pastime in the US to segregate and pit people against one another. Slot people into little boxes. She's an African-American, bisexual, atheist, liberal, urbanite Sanders-supporter, whereas I'm an Hispanic, conservative, christian, rural Trump-supporter. You see it in their media and in online discussion all the time. Step one in any debate is to stick labels on the other guy so you know who you're up against. Everyone has labels. Which ultimately creates division, gives everyone their own unique little flag to rally under. " You could actually take that description and apply it to how many nationalists debate Northern Ireland. Not only do they rule out encompassing Unionists within a solution, they reject different views of nationalism if they are not fully in agreement with everything that SF stand for. Labelling people as partitionists or "nationalists" in inverted commas in order to disregard their argument is a handy way of avoiding uncomfortable truths. Rather than call me a partitionist, explain the alternative and how I am wrong.
A united Ireland does not have to be rejected because of temporary economic cost or even a societal one if it is for the betterment of everyone in the long term. Which is the very essence of 'nationalism'.
FrancieBrady wrote: » blanch152 wrote: » There is a thread elsewhere in this forum where they talk about how political debate in the US is devalued by how people try to label others they disagree with as if this somehow adds to their argument. Here it is:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104202119&postcount=12 "But it's practically a national pastime in the US to segregate and pit people against one another. Slot people into little boxes. She's an African-American, bisexual, atheist, liberal, urbanite Sanders-supporter, whereas I'm an Hispanic, conservative, christian, rural Trump-supporter. You see it in their media and in online discussion all the time. Step one in any debate is to stick labels on the other guy so you know who you're up against. Everyone has labels. Which ultimately creates division, gives everyone their own unique little flag to rally under. " You could actually take that description and apply it to how many nationalists debate Northern Ireland. Not only do they rule out encompassing Unionists within a solution, they reject different views of nationalism if they are not fully in agreement with everything that SF stand for. Labelling people as partitionists or "nationalists" in inverted commas in order to disregard their argument is a handy way of avoiding uncomfortable truths. Rather than call me a partitionist, explain the alternative and how I am wrong. You will have to show me how I 'disregarded' your argument. I have taken your argument on and countered it: A united Ireland does not have to be rejected because of temporary economic cost or even a societal one if it is for the betterment of everyone in the long term. Which is the very essence of 'nationalism'. And I specifically didn't call you a 'partitionist' I said your attitude was 'closer to a partitionist' than a nationalist for the reason outlined above.I wouldn't worry too much, I get called/labelled a 'member of SF' and a 'supporter of terrorists' all the time by some here when I am neither. Could you answer some of the questions now?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You will have to show me how I 'disregarded' your argument. I have taken your argument on and countered it: And I specifically didn't call you a 'partitionist' I said your attitude was 'closer to a partitionist' than a nationalist for the reason outlined above. I wouldn't worry too much, I get called/labelled a 'member of SF' and a 'supporter of terrorists' all the time by some here when I am neither. Could you answer some of the questions now?
Thomas__ wrote: » I´m with you there, one doesn´t has to be a Shinner in order to support achieving the aim of a UI.
blanch152 wrote: » A partitionist is a term of abuse, not a political label.
steddyeddy wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » The last number of pages reading back on them is really funny and full of so much fear for 'The Prod'. From where I live I don't recognize these stereotypes of Ulster Unionists. It really is bizarre. Anyone actually from NI on here? Ulster unionists are not representative of prods. They make up the vast vast minority.
A Little Pony wrote: » The last number of pages reading back on them is really funny and full of so much fear for 'The Prod'. From where I live I don't recognize these stereotypes of Ulster Unionists. It really is bizarre. Anyone actually from NI on here?
Thomas__ wrote: » FrancieBrady wrote: » Thomas__ wrote: » I think that there is some misunderstanding."An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins." Reading this quoted line, it is perceived in my view as addressing the reality in regards of how the Irish language is really used in daily live by the people in the whole of the Island of Ireland. Seen from that angle, it sounds as sustainable compromise in regards to NI. On the other hand, your argument is as well reasonable in regards of the DUP who has to stick to agreements once concluded. But I also know that the DUP can´t be trusted and that party is unreliable and ruthless imo (they´ve delivered proof for that by themselves and latest in the scandal that ended up in the break up of the past NI govt leading to new elections with a result that there isn´t still a new NI govt formed yet). Can anyone explain to me what unionism loses by allowing a standalone Language Act that has been previously agreed before the sudden interest in Ulster Scots (see the absence of any concern for U-S in Ian Paisley's objections in 2007) If you can frame what it is they lose I think you will arrive at what exactly the core of the problem is.Because in my opinion all they will 'lose' is a sense of supremacy. Your last line hits the nail on the head and this is what it is all about on their side. Nothing else and they still refuse to acknowledge that their times of "supremacy" are long gone. What can´t be solved politically, is to be tried in a court case. Question is whether the court would take it on for trial. The minds of the DUP leaders are closed for compromise, despite the fact that they are to stick to the concluded agreement, so there is perhaps no other way than to drag them to court to make them comply with with what they agreed themselves before. I know, dealing with the Dinosaurs Ulster Party is an ordeal, more so as they are the political arm of the OO and I suspect that the members of the latter are all behind that mischief. One has just recall all their demonstrations and street actions from recent years they´ve took to the streets in regards to "defend and uphold their culture".
A Little Pony wrote: » Bizarre statements really. I have been in Orange halls plenty of times in my life, met people in the Orange, good decent people who from my experience never talked politics anytime I met them in and around the scene. Just normal every day folk. From all the people I know I don't know one person who wants Protestant supremacy over anyone, hell if anything attendance to Church and religion in general is falling rapidly within that community. I don't know one person who attends church or believes in a God be it family or friends or has any supremacy beliefs, actually family is now tied into a Catholic family because of a marriage who are actually religious. Never once have I seen any issues or anyone trying to 'rule' over them. It seems some people on this thread are stuck in a time warp believing it is 1798 or the early 20th century on here. Most on here obviously don't have a clue what daily life is like in Northern Ireland compared to what it was even 20 years ago, it's hugely different socially from my experience. I could name multiple things which are different since my time growing up in the early 90s.
