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

Edward M

recedite wrote: »

As I pointed out, there is one for new (immigrant) citizens, but not one for people born here, or people elected to the Dail.

We had a situation once where SF were not allowed to speak on the national broadcaster RTE. I'm not saying that was fair, but I think an oath of allegiance to the state for anyone wanting to be elected to the state parliament is fair and reasonable.
And implementable.

What does that mean though?
Is it that you want swearing an allegiance to this state that seeking a UI would not be acceptable after you swear?
If not then I really don't see the point in your proposal.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

As I pointed out, there is one for new (immigrant) citizens, but not one for people born here, or people elected to the Dail.

We had a situation once where SF were not allowed to speak on the national broadcaster RTE. I'm not saying that was fair, but I think an oath of allegiance to the state for anyone wanting to be elected to the state parliament is fair and reasonable.
And implementable.

In the context you are posting that is for immigrants wishing to become citizens and thus being able to vote.

When we in the Republic have survived without an oath for the past 85 yrs why do you believe we need to clutter up the constitution with another referendum proposal that not only would be divisive, difficult to word, and likely to fail anyway that faik has not been proposed by anyone in the intervening 85 yrs.
To me it simply comes across as nothing other than some sort of sideways swipe at SF because they will not bend the knee to a British monarch.

recedite

I have no problem with SF aspiring to rule over a UI, but in the meantime if they want to participate in democratic politics, and stand for election as either MPs or TDs they should be prepared to swear an oath of allegiance to the relevant state/parliament.
They have getting off lightly in Dublin because nobody has ever asked them to do it, Unlike the situation in Westminster. Which partly goes back to some unresolved questions in civil war politics which gave rise to the FF and FG parties. Some things were best left unsaid.

However, since the Good Friday Agreement, the 26 counties has given up its claim of ownership over the 6 counties. That's my understanding of the position anyway.

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

To me it simply comes across as nothing other than some sort of sideways swipe at SF because they will not bend the knee to a British monarch.

I don't care about that. I want to see them bend the knee to a 26 county RoI.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

I don't care about that. I want to see them bend the knee to a 26 county RoI.

And if they don't?

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And if they don't?

Then presumably they would want to adopt the same principled position of abstentionism that they have adopted north of the border.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

Then presumably they would want to adopt the same principled position of abstentionism that they have adopted north of the border.

They don't absent themselves from the Dail though. Does that not mean that like every other party they have 'bent the knee' (as you put it in a quaintly monarchist way)

recedite

No, I think nobody has asked them that awkward question. Whether they recognise this 26 county state as fully legitimate.

If they were not asked to swear that oath at Westminster, would they then be in a position attend that parliament? I know you are saying their abstentionism is for different reasons; out of a respect and non-interference in a foreign parliament.
But your answers to oscarBravo on that issue are less than convincing.

It seems to me a more like a stubborn pride and a refusal to bend the knee to what they see as an illegitimate regime occupying their country.
I simply ask, do they see the 26 county state in the same terms?

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

No, I think nobody has asked them that awkward question. Whether they recognise this 26 county state as fully legitimate.

If they were not asked to swear that oath at Westminster, would they then be in a position attend that parliament? I know you are saying their abstentionism is for different reasons; out of a respect and non-interference in a foreign parliament.
But your answers to oscarBravo on that issue are less than convincing.

It seems to me a more like a stubborn pride and a refusal to bend the knee to what they see as an illegitimate regime occupying their country.
I simply ask, do they see the 26 county state in the same terms?

Nothing to do with me really. SF have answered Oscar themselves, see link to Danny Morrison article.

Why would you only ask SF if you accept that every other TD attending has 'bent the knee'?

And why would it be an 'awkward question', as far as I know SF have dealt with dropping their abstention from the Dail many times. Google it and you will find the answers.
Are you that desperate for a stick to beat them with?

recedite

I think SF split over the issue in the past. And the faction that dropped the abstentionist policy within RoI have never had to face up to an actual oath of allegiance to this 32 county state.

And I'm not saying it should apply just for SF TDs.
I said..

recedite wrote: »

Most countries would have some form of oath of allegiance to "the state".
We should introduce an oath for all TDs wanting to enter the Dail; allegiance to the state, and no support for criminal activity.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

I think SF split over the issue in the past. And the faction that dropped the abstentionist policy within RoI have never had to face up to an actual oath of allegiance to this 32 county state.

And I'm not saying it should apply just for SF TDs.
I said..

Well, all I can say is belt away.

I think it is safe to say that by attending they have no legitimate reason to absent themselves.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

I don't care about that. I want to see them bend the knee to a 26 county RoI.

You might want to check out the definition of that R in RoI.

There is no requirement in this Republic to bend the knee.
Nor by definition should there be in any republic.

Article 17 of the 1922 constitution was the last oath we had, again to a monarch, but FF abolished that in 1933, not replacing it with anything so I doubt you would get much support there.
FG never proposed replacing it either, and considering we survived through the fascist period without one and their links to the Blueshirt movement, I cannot see them supporting one now either.

Best advise I can give you is give it up.
It is so transparent at this point that after running out of road as to why you believe SF should bend the knee to a hereditary monarch, you now want them to bend the knee to something regardless of who or what it is.

FrancieBrady

charlie14 wrote: »

You might want to check out the definition of that R in RoI.

There is no requirement in this Republic to bend the knee.
Nor by definition should there be in any republic.

Article 17 of the 1922 constitution was the last oath we had, again to a monarch, but FF abolished that in 1933, not replacing it with anything so I doubt you would get much support there.
FG never proposed replacing it either, and considering we survived through the fascist period without one and their links to the Blueshirt movement, I cannot see them supporting one now either.

Best advise I can give you is give it up.
It is so transparent at this point that after running out of road as to why you believe SF should bend the knee to a hereditary monarch, you now want them to bend the knee to something regardless of who or what it is.

I think it may be a refusal to accept SF and other republicans view that the 26 counties is a temporary arrangement.

Which he/she is quite entitled to reject. Partitionists are human too have the right to freedom of thought too.

FrancieBrady

Further proof, if it were needed that the DUP cannot be trusted at the moment.
Leadership change is needed before any deal can be made.

http://eamonnmallie.com/2018/03/dup-account-talks-not-stacking-eamonn-mallie-brian-rowan/

Junkyard Tom

Getting back to the question in the title I would say that, on the contrary, the DUP has been scoring own goal after own goal for months and years.

DUP support for Brexit has contributed to a disUnited Kingdom, has brought the idea of a UI to the fore of the public-consciousness more than ever. The DUP's mockery, sneering and petty behaviour towards the Irish language compounded by the blocking of an the ILA has energised the nationalist electorate and will aid a revival of interest in the language.

As for those who say that SF should take their seats in Westminster? That's an utterly clueless suggestion. Elected Irish Republicans swearing an oath to a British monarch? What planet are you living on if you think that SF would do this?

On top of all this with SF out of Stormont and no nationalist politicians in Westminster they can sit back and watch the Brexiteers steering HMS Britannia (with their DUP lackeys shovelling coal into the boilers) straight towards the Brexit Iceberg.

Good loser

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Getting back to the question in the title I would say that, on the contrary, the DUP has been scoring own goal after own goal for months and years.

DUP support for Brexit has contributed to a disUnited Kingdom, has brought the idea of a UI to the fore of the public-consciousness more than ever. The DUP's mockery, sneering and petty behaviour towards the Irish language compounded by the blocking of an the ILA has energised the nationalist electorate and will aid a revival of interest in the language.

As for those who say that SF should take their seats in Westminster? That's an utterly clueless suggestion. Elected Irish Republicans swearing an oath to a British monarch? What planet are you living on if you think that SF would do this?

On top of all this with SF out of Stormont and no nationalist politicians in Westminster they can sit back and watch the Brexiteers steering HMS Britannia (with their DUP lackeys shovelling coal into the boilers) straight towards the Brexit Iceberg.

The logic of SF attending at Westminster - whatever protocols have to be gone through - in the context of the current, crucial Brexit debates is inescapable.

Not to do so is potty in the extreme.

The logic of the SF position is that they would refuse (are refusing) to help abort the Brexit project because of a vanity obsession with an outmoded piece of trivia.
They show an outrageous disregard for the economic well being of their electors.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

The logic of SF attending at Westminster - whatever protocols have to be gone through - in the context of the current, crucial Brexit debates is inescapable.

Not to do so is potty in the extreme.

The logic of the SF position is that they would refuse (are refusing) to help abort the Brexit project because of a vanity obsession with an outmoded piece of trivia.
They show an outrageous disregard for the economic well being of their electors.

An outmoded piece of trivia that the British insist on, but no matter.

As to the rest, no matter how often people insist on posting this Brexit argument the facts, like the figures, do not add up.

Are not the party who are really showing an outrageous disregard for the economic well being of their electorate the DUP ?
NI voted remain in the referendum 56% - 44% yet the DUP are supporting Brexit.

Junkyard Tom

Good loser wrote: »

The logic of SF attending at Westminster - whatever protocols have to be gone through - in the context of the current, crucial Brexit debates is inescapable.

If we pretend the spectacle of Irish Republicans swearing allegiance to British Royalty was possible have you considered the implications? SF would essentially become the SDLP and would be replaced by 'New Improved SF with added Republican-ness' fairly quickly.

The logic of the SF position is that they would refuse (are refusing) to help abort the Brexit project because of a vanity obsession with an outmoded piece of trivia.

Aside from the archaic Royal arse-kissing ceremony what exactly could 7 MP's bring to bear in Westminster? They'd be politically toxic for any party to schmooze up to and their votes would count for SFA. SF would be even more politically toxic than the DUP amazingly enough.

They show an outrageous disregard for the economic well being of their electors.

This is just bizarre. It's the DUP who are showing outrageous disregard for all the people in the north. SF MP's are elected because they abstain.

You seem entirely oblivious to the long-term strategy and goal of SF - a United Ireland free of British interference - to move the political centre-of-gravity away from Westminster/England/Britain not toward it.

SF are playing the long game here while the DUP 10 bask in the short-term glory of Westminster 'power' secure in their delusions that the 'Ulster' will always be 'British'.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If we pretend the spectacle of Irish Republicans swearing allegiance to British Royalty was possible have you considered the implications? SF would essentially become the SDLP and would be replaced by 'New Improved SF with added Republican-ness' fairly quickly.

Aside from the archaic Royal arse-kissing ceremony what exactly could 7 MP's bring to bear in Westminster? They'd be politically toxic for any party to schmooze up to and their votes would count for SFA. SF would be even more politically toxic than the DUP amazingly enough.

This is just bizarre. It's the DUP who are showing outrageous disregard for all the people in the north. SF MP's are elected because they abstain.

You miss the entirely the long-term strategy and goal of SF - a United Ireland free of British interference - to move the political centre-of-gravity away from Westminster/England/Britain not toward it.

SF are playing the long game here while the DUP 10 bask in the short-term glory of Westminster 'power' secure in their delusions that the 'Ulster' will always be 'British'.

And because of the intrinsic absurdity of partition Fine Gael and Fianna Fail (bar Michael's pathetic attempt to gain political advantage) are now on board the SF wagon.

Junkyard Tom

Good loser wrote: »

The logic of SF attending at Westminster - whatever protocols have to be gone through - in the context of the current, crucial Brexit debates is inescapable.

Here's a logical conclusion of this inescapable 'logic' you write of. One of the comments on an article about SF possibly sitting in Westminster on sluggerotoole.com:

Precisely what would happen in my estimation too.

Rodin

3. All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and
tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland,
the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic
communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of
Ireland.
4. In the context of active consideration currently being given to the UK
signing the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages, the British Government will
in particular in relation to the Irish language, where appropriate and where people so desire it:
• take resolute action to promote the language;
• facilitate and encourage the use of
the language in speech and writing in
public and private life where th
ere is appropriate demand;
• seek to remove, where possible, restrictions which would discourage or work against the maintenance or
development of the language;
• make provision for liaising with the Irish language community, representing their views to publicauthorities and investigating
complaints;
• place a statutory duty on the Department of Education to encourage and
facilitate Irish medium education inline with current provision for integrated education;
• explore urgently with the relevant British authorities, and in co-operation with the Irish broadcasting authorities, the scope for achieving more
widespread availability of Teilifis na Gaeilige in Northern Ireland;
• seek more effective ways to encourage and provide financial support for Irish language film and television production in Northern Ireland; and

The Irish Language is afforded special treatment in the Good Friday Agreement.
The Ulster Scots dialect is not.

The Shinners are merely trying to implement the GFA.
Whether they are going about it the right way is another matter.

Junkyard Tom

Rodin wrote: »

The Shinners are merely trying to implement the GFA. Whether they are going about it the right way is another matter.

Not just SF elected reps but every elected rep except those in the DUP/UUP. I haven't a word of Irish and have become interested in it and learned a lot about it since this issue has arisen albiet via the medium of English.

I recently learned how descriptively rich Gaelic/Irish place names are. I was fairly apathetic about the language but I'm now looking at night-classes for beginners, all thanks to this becoming a totemic issue.

I can only imagine the effect this hibernophobia is having on young people living in the north who have had an aspect of their heritage mocked, sneered at, and been subject to petty behaviour by unionists.

Well done the DUP.

Rodin

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Not just SF elected reps but every elected rep except those in the DUP/UUP. I haven't a word of Irish and have become interested in it and learned a lot about it since this issue has arisen albiet via the medium of English.

I recently learned how descriptively rich Gaelic/Irish place names. I was fairly apathetic about the language but I'm now looking at night-classes for beginners, all thanks to this becoming an totemic issue.

I can only imagine the effect this hibernophobia is having on young people living in the north who have had an aspect of their heritage mocked, sneered at, and been subject to petty behaviour by unionists.

Well done the DUP.

Curry my yoghurt....

While sectarianism and bigotry is tolerated at the highest levels, N.Ireland will never be sorted.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am neither defending or supporting it either. I am just repeating what SF themselves say about it.

Fine: then Sinn Féin are saying something that's self-evidently untrue, and you're mindlessly parroting it. You've had ample opportunity to argue the actual point and chosen not to.

charlie14 wrote: »

Are you advocating that, especially in constituencies where the majority favour abstentionism, voters should either abstain from voting or spoil their vote because they feel nobody is representing their wishes and have someone elected to represent them that is contrary to their wishes ?

Maybe you should try reading my posts before replying to them, because I didn't advocate anything at all.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fine: then Sinn Féin are saying something that's self-evidently untrue, and you're mindlessly parroting it. You've had ample opportunity to argue the actual point and chosen not to.

What is 'untrue' about it?

Pedantically you are probably right, if you ignore the reality. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is 'untrue' about it?

The bit where you claim not to want to interfere in a country's parliament, but then stand for election to that parliament. That's a self-evidently contradictory stance.

I'm not trying to explain quantum mechanics to you here, Francie. Your attempt to feign slack-jawed ignorance does you no credit.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

The bit where you claim not to want to interfere in a country's parliament, but then stand for election to that parliament. That's a self-evidently contradictory stance.

And that is precisely what I call being pedantic.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And that is precisely what I call being pedantic.

Oh, please. Would it kill you to admit that Sinn Féin said something that's not true? Are you really that slavish a disciple?

There are defences of abstentionism that aren't stupid. The claim that it's to avoid interfering in a foreign parliament is so self-evidently stupid that you really ought to be ashamed of trying to defend it.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, please. Would it kill you to admit that Sinn Féin said something that's not true? Are you really that slavish a disciple?

There are defences of abstentionism that aren't stupid. The claim that it's to avoid interfering in a foreign parliament is so self-evidently stupid that you really ought to be ashamed of trying to defend it.

Oscar, you are being pedantic.
We all know what it means pedantically, but that in effect, they will not interfere in the running of another country by sitting in it's parliament making decisions.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe you should try reading my posts before replying to them, because I didn't advocate anything at all.

I did, and your point appears to be that you believe SF should not put candidates forward for election to Westminster if they are not prepared to take their seats.

Feel free to correct me if I took you up wrong, but is that not what you are advocating ?