Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stormont power sharing talks

1…911131415

Comments

  • #302
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,116 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    blanch152 wrote: »
    It could equally be argued that the refusal to entertain a Minority Languages Act is petty.

    After the fact. Honour the agreement for an ILA already in place.


  • #303
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    What solution does a 'constitutional nationalist' have that doesn't involve one side acquiescing again? Serious question.

    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.


  • #304
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,629 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.

    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.

    How a constitutional anything could tolerate democratically reached agreements being reneged on, flabbergasts me.

    Why a nationalist would want to see a party denigrate his language, place roadblocks in front of legislation that hurts no-one, only bigots, flabbergasts me even more.

    And now you wish to see LGBT and others discriminated against by a fundamentalist suprematist party, used as pawns in your elaborate scheme to get unconstitutional foot draggers off the hook??? :confused:


  • #305
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,116 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I hold out little hope that Sinn Fein will have the maturity to reach out to the other community....

    You're trying to mask your contempt for Nationalists/Republicans behind calls for SF to reach out to liberal Unionists. They've already tried that and it was returned with sneering and bigotry by the DUP.

    423463.png

    Liberal unionists have Alliance to vote for yet the DUP remain the largest Unionist party who, along with the UUP, block legislation on cross-community non-partisan issues like marriage equality and reproductive rights.


  • #306
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    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.
    I don´t think that those of your former colleagues serving in Gaeltacht Areas would say the same, if some of the locals would speak Irish only.


  • #308
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    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.

    Sounds fair to me.


  • #309
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,629 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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?


  • #310
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,629 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.


  • #311
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    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.

    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).


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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?

    Nobody has suggested bartering rights for LGBT people, that is another red herring thrown out by you.


    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.



    You really don't get the imperative of compromise and reaching mutually acceptable outcomes in the context of Northern Ireland.


  • #313
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,629 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.


  • #314
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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.


    By the same token, can you explain what Sinn Fein will lose by the incorporation of Irish language provisions into a Minority Languages Act?


  • #315
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,629 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Nobody has suggested bartering rights for LGBT people, that is another red herring thrown out by you.

    Of course it is bartering.
    Unless you don't think LGBT should have those rights automatically?

    Do you agree with the DUP position on LGBT and same sex rights?






    You really don't get the imperative of compromise and reaching mutually acceptable outcomes in the context of Northern Ireland.

    The problem here as any 'constitutional' citizen would know, is that 'mutually accepted outcomes' have already been agreed. And one supposedly constitutional party and it's supporters have decided to renege on that.

    After years of accepting the imperatives of the GFA an impasse has been reached. It could well have been any number of other points on the road to 'normality', it just happens to be that a Language Act has brought it to a head.

    Can you explain how a standalone Language Act in Ireland, Scotland or Wales culturally damages anyone?
    Or failing that, tell us what Unionism 'wins' here, if everyone 'wins'.


  • #316
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    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".


  • #317
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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.


  • #318
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    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.

    How is having an Irish Language act supremacy??


  • #319
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,629 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.

    You are a 'nationalist'. 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)

    Yet you have yet to outline what unionism 'loses' if an Irish Language act becomes a reality.


  • #320
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    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.

    Unless you´re going to explain by more details what you mean by "joint sovereignty for the UK and Ireland'" in regards to the status of NI in the UK´s devolvement of powers, which means limited selfgovernance, I´m sorry to say but that sounds more of a pipedream than the prospect of a UI emerging from a UK that is falling apart by an independent Scotland in the foreseeable future.

    The Shinners do have their faults and I wouldn´t trust them as far as I can spit either, but the most discredited party in the whole of the Island of Ireland at the present is clearly the DUP, they´re worse than any FFer in the Republic. There is no other party in NI than the DUP who works against progress that much like them and since this woman has taken over from Mr Robinson, the ability of that party to rule NI along with SF in powersharing only got worse and it´s the DUP who is not co-operating. It is the DUP who is responsible for the last scandal that led to the break up of the NI govt. The Shinners got the blame for many things, in this present situation, the blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the DUP and Mrs Foster as their leader. It is them fussing around about this Irish language subject and the question what they have to lose is more than just. They only fear losing face to their own bigots who vote for them in the first place. There is no other reason for that which would give some rational and reasonable justification for refusing to implement it. It´s nothing but the usual never ending tit-for-tat silly game the Unionists are still running. They always find anything to stir up discontent, whether it´s that damn UJ at the top of BCC, banned routes for the OO marches or "lack of respect" towards Orangemen culture. It´s always the same with them, they behave like little children that don´t get their way. It´s really already tedious with them.


  • #321
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You are a 'nationalist'..

    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.

    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).

    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?

    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Yet you have yet to outline what unionism 'loses' if an Irish Language act becomes a reality.


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,629 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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 my friend are not a 'nationalist' you are with that attitude closer to a partitionist.
    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'.
    But that wasn't why I was questioning your nationalist credentials.



    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?


    This is not a SF only issue. The SDLP support all the above as do the Alliance.

    Do all of them need to compromise to save the blushes of the unionist parties?
    What happens when the next roadblock goes up (there have been multiple ones since the GFA) barter some other right to save you and them confronting the reality? That religious fundamentalism and cultural bigotry have no place in a 'peace process'.

    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.

    So be my guest, tell us what people who should automatically have these rights and those who signed an agreement already, that enshrined their rights would be gaining by giving in to cultural bigotry and religious fundamentalism. .

    You might start by explaining exactly what unionism is losing, because as I said, therein lies the rub.


  • #323
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You my friend are not a 'nationalist' you are with that attitude closer to a partitionist.
    .

    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.


  • #324
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,629 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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?


  • #325
    Thomas__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Thomas__


    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?

    The usual way it always goes, just because people neglect the fact that the other non-Unionist parties are supporting a UI as well. It´s always SF vs Unionists. I´m with you there, one doesn´t has to be a Shinner in order to support achieving the aim of a UI.


  • #326
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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?

    A partitionist is a term of abuse, not a political label.


  • #327
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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.

    I agree, I will never vote for Sinn Fein but I would also welcome a United Ireland.


  • #328
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,629 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    A partitionist is a term of abuse, not a political label.

    No it isn't. When used with a small 'p' it is exactly the same as a nationalist with a small 'n'. A description of a state of mind.

    You can take anything as a term of abuse if you so wish. It wasn't meant as one.

    Now can you deal with the questions asked?


  • #329
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    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.
    Vast majority of Protestants in the state are Unionist. It's just a fact.


  • #330
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    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".
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,629 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.

    So why are so many rights being blocked for religiously fundamentalist reasons?
    As you say most Protestants are unionist and they elect the people who are doing that again and again.
    Yet Blanch reckons nationalists will be 'bigger' in stature if they compromise/acquiese to open religious fundamentalism.


Advertisement