nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

jimd2

Probably not a popular opinion as most I speak to are fully in favour of Sinn Fein's strategy ref the Irish Language Act in the North.

However I think that they have possibly scored a major own goal in insisting on the imposing of the Irish Language Act. I think they have handed the DUP a Get Out Of Jail ard with regards to Devoltion and, allied to not taking their Westminister seats have allowed the sitution develop where the British government will not act to impose their will on the DUP.

So the DUP seem to be getting what they wanted - a return to direct rule from London and, linked in to Brexit this must be against the overall nationalist.

Regarding the Irish Language Act, in my opinion a lot of the stuff s bells and whistles such as signage and will do very little to really increase the use of Irish in the North. I think Sinn Fein thought they were in a stronger position than they were and thought this would be easier to get than it was.

However I hink the price they look to be payin is too much but they have gone too far and cannot back down now especially with a new leader. So major wn goal from Adams and co..

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Professor Moriarty

cycle4fun wrote: »

I could not care less how it is spelt, any more than the spelling of a slogan the 9/11 attackers may have used during their attacks.

Yes, that was obvious. Personally, if I'm going to use a language other than English, I make a point of trying to spell the words properly. It's a matter of respecting other nationalities, their language and their culture. But that's just me.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

I could not care less how it is spelt, any more than the spelling of a slogan the 9/11 attackers may have used during their attacks.

It means 'Our day will come'. As dangerous or innocuous as you want it to be.

So take offence if you want to. ML clarified to adamantly say that none was intended.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

For some unfortunate people, it was the last words they ever heard. So not appropriate for the leader of a political party to end her speech with. I knew then that was the end of a possible deal the following week. How right I was proved.

How do you know it was the last words anybody heard? Have you a hotline to the after world here or just being typically sensationalist?

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

True, and I may be incorrect here, but the one person with the most to lose in all of this is Arlene Foster. Who with Direct Rule would be the ultimate turkey that voted for Christmas.

As I said I may be incorrect, but is it not a stipulation that the leader of the DUP must be an elected representative?
If so, then with Stormont dissolved and her not being a Westminster MP, she would no longer be in a position to lead the DUP.

Nope. They would all still be MPs.
More so than SF in some ways, because at least they would still be attending the relevant parliament.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It means 'Our day will come'. As dangerous or innocuous as you want it to be.

So take offence if you want to. ML clarified to adamantly say that none was intended.

That is known as an unpology

"The facade of an apology created by uttering obligatory words of remorse devoid of actual regret, contrition, or even an admission of guilt."
("When saying you're sorry is unavoidable, the unpology is a Republican's best friend!")

Not sure who put the Republican reference in there, but it wasn't me.
I won't argue with it though

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do you know it was the last words anybody heard?

On the laws of probability, based on a few survivors memories from countless PIRA attacks during the troubles.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

That is known as an unpology

Not sure who put the Republican reference in there, but it wasn't me.
I won't argue with it though

She didn't even begin to apologise for saying it. Why would she, it's an inocuous phrase picked on by those who could find nothing else. The 'sulphur sniffers' I think I'll christen them

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She didn't even begin to apologise for saying it. Why would she, it's an inocuous phrase picked on by those who could find nothing else. The 'sulphur sniffers' I think I'll christen them

Yeah, like balancing a loaf of Kingsmill bread on your head is also a totally innocuous activity.

McMurphy

recedite wrote: »

That is known as an unpology

Not sure who put the Republican reference in there, but it wasn't me.
I won't argue with it though

Your very own definition contradicts what you're implying - do you realise that?

The facade of an apology

McDonald issued no apology whatsoever, in fact she did the complete opposite, and stood over her choice of words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFeC92bVZkk

Stop trying to rewrite history and imply that she said something you wished she said - you'll only end up looking foolish when shown up

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

Yeah, like balancing a loaf of Kingsmill bread on your head is also a totally innocuous activity.

Yes it can be, if you have a history of silly joking. And no history of sectarian taunting of victims.

If you insist on being offended, maybe not.

cycle4fun

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

McDonald issued no apology whatsoever, in fact she did the complete opposite, and stood over her choice of words.

No surprise therefore the party with the most MP's in N. Ireland do not want to deal with her. What a silly woman McDonald is.

recedite

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

McDonald issued no apology whatsoever, in fact she did the complete opposite.
Stop trying to rewrite history ..

I agree she did not apologise. She clarified why people like Arlene were wrong to be offended, and why everyone was wrong in thinking the Chucky phrase was associated with the the PIRA campaign of the past, when in fact it refers to Mary Lou's vision of the future.

Now that's what I call a first class unpology. She's the one rewriting history.
Arlene carries the scars, she cannot forget so easily.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She didn't even begin to apologise for saying it. Why would she, it's an inocuous phrase picked on by those who could find nothing else. The 'sulphur sniffers' I think I'll christen them

Once again the chasm in understanding between the two sides in the North is shown up by the crass defence of the sectarian remarks of Mary Lou. The failure to understand how divisive that phrase is explains an awful lot.

Until both sides learn how to tone down the offensive language, and until people stop trying to defend it, there will be little hope for long-term reconciliation.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

No surprise therefore the party with the most MP's in N. Ireland do not want to deal with her. What a silly woman McDonald is.

They did deal with her, to the point of getting May and Varadkar to Belfast only for the backroom boys to say Never.

McMurphy

recedite wrote: »

I agree she did not apologise.

So she couldn't have possibly made an "unpology" - therefore (and not for the first time on the thread) you've been posting stuff you either know not to be true, or are just badly informed of.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They did deal with her, to the point of getting May and Varadkar to Belfast ...

I do not think Arlene Foster invited either May or Varadkar to Belfast or told them a deal was done

cycle4fun

recedite wrote: »

Arlene carries the scars, she cannot forget so easily.

If Mary Lou Mcdonalds father was shot in Rathgar, if MaryLou's school bus was attacked, if friends of MaryLous family were atr a Rememberence service in Enniskillen Rathgar when 11 people were killed, I doubt if Arlene would use a phrase associated with the attackers.

McMurphy

cycle4fun wrote: »

I do not think Arlene Foster invited either May or Varadkar to Belfast or told them a deal was done

Sure you didn't think any mainstream unionist would make statements that might be viewed as antagonizing to nationalists or republicans a week ago either.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

I do not think Arlene Foster invited either May or Varadkar to Belfast or told them a deal was done

It's totally naive to think that they were not getting signals from the various sides.

Arlene has no power, it was clear at the Brexit negotiations and even clearer now.
If a similar thing happened with ML and SF you would be squealing IRA Army Council controlling things.

We will probably get an ILA now when these backroom boys wrinkle out another billion or more.
It's done and dusted imo, one way or another.

cycle4fun

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Sure you didn't think any mainstream unionist would make statements that might be viewed as antagonizing to nationalists or republicans a week ago either.

Of course mainstream unionist leaders make statements nationalists do not like, but they do not say"up the UVF, no surrender"

spoonerhead

Sinn Fein haven’t really done anything wrong. I don’t follow the party but they’ve definitely attracted young people my age 18-21 to vote for them, says a lot really. I think they’re clever, sometimes that’s overlooked because they’re seen as an ‘agenda’ party. But unlike the DUP they’ve had a better track record making big internal decisions the last 8-10 years.

McMurphy

cycle4fun wrote: »

Of course mainstream unionist leaders make statements nationalists do not like, but they do not say"up the UVF, no surrender"

A few days (7th of Feb) earlier than McDonalds seemingly offensive slogan.

Paisley Jr, was shouting exactly that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqprgtLeqnA

I await your deflection and goalpost shifting.....

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's totally naive to think that they were not getting signals from the various sides.

Looks like the Shinners misled May and Varadker, because when Foster was asked why May was there (in N.Ireland) she replied "you will have to ask her that", or words to that effect.

It has backfired on the shinners now anyway, everyone but their hardcore supporters can see through them. An own goal, as the OP says.

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

Looks like the Shinners misled May and Varadker, because when Foster was asked why May was there (in N.Ireland) she replied "you will have to ask her that", or words to that effect.

It has backfired on the shinners now anyway, everyone but their hardcore supporters can see through them. An own goal, as the OP says.

A private members bill on SSM under direct rule will be met with a free vote in the HOC, did you miss that today Cycle? It's as simple as that.

Rights will be delivered, because it is RIGHT.

And EVERYONE knows that a deal is possible, if the backroom belligerents stay out of it. The DUP are the party on the backfoot here, big time.

cycle4fun

spoonerhead wrote: »

But unlike the DUP they’ve had a better track record making big internal decisions the last 8-10 years.

Their 6 MP's, unlike the DUPs 10, do not attend the parliament they are elected to attend. Still, you have a point, I suppose if the 2 Healy Raes did not attend the Dail they would not be missed too much either.

cycle4fun

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And EVERYONE knows that a deal is possible, if the backroom belligerents stay out of it.

And EVERYONE knows that a deal is possible, if the Sinn Fein stop blackmailing and politicising a language which is not used much even here in the Republic ( only some thousands of people bothered filling out the census forms as gaelige in the last census here ).

FrancieBrady

cycle4fun wrote: »

And EVERYONE knows that a deal is possible, if the Sinn Fein stop blackmailing and politicising a language which is not used much even here in the Republic ( only some thousands of people bothered filling out the census forms as gaelige in the last census here ).

Nobody buys the fearmongering/political grandstanding by unionists anymore, not even the DUP. They had an agreement on paper after all. They just are not ready/have not winkled a few more bob out of it yet.

Won't be long though.

Charles Babbage

cycle4fun wrote: »

And EVERYONE knows that a deal is possible, if the Sinn Fein stop blackmailing and politicising a language which is not used much even here in the Republic ( only some thousands of people bothered filling out the census forms as gaelige in the last census here ).

SF represent public opinion in general, it is those living in the 17th century who are creating the politicisation. If they were civilised the issue would not be contentious.

jimmycrackcorm

spoonerhead wrote:

Sinn Fein havenâ€™t really done anything wrong. I donâ€™t follow the party but theyâ€™ve definitely attracted young people my age 18-21 to vote for them, says a lot really. I think theyâ€™re clever, sometimes thatâ€™s overlooked because theyâ€™re seen as an â€˜agendaâ€™ party. But unlike the DUP theyâ€™ve had a better track record making big internal decisions the last 8-10 years.

I think Gerrys teddy bear tweeting was a definite positive in garnering the younger vote.

But the problem with the attraction is that same vote isn't as inclined to actually walk to the polling stations to actually cast it. Then by the time they get into their thirties, with mortgages and kids to pay for, SFs tax and spend policies aren't going to be as appealing when they're the ones who will have to pay for that.

But clearly in the North, on a policy basis, SF are powering ahead of the DUP. SSM for example is going to be eventually brought in.

However I stand to be corrected; perhaps it is impossible to be a Gay unionist...

charlie14

cycle4fun wrote: »

For some unfortunate people, it was the last words they ever heard. So not appropriate for the leader of a political party to end her speech with. I knew then that was the end of a possible deal the following week. How right I was proved.

It was a political slogan, no more or less than the connotations contained in Ian Paisley Snr`s "No Surrender" for nationalists or Foster`s "crocodiles".
Attempting to dress it up as anything else is nothing but faux outrage imo.

You would be proven correct if you were in a world where 2 + 2 = 5.
The simple truth is that Forster was committed to doing the deal, (otherwise, May especially, would not have been within a hundred miles of Belfast let alone Varadkar), but the 10 usual suspects abroad in Westminster full of their own importance pulled the plug on her.