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

blackwhite · 06-03-2018 12:51AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They accept the democratic will of the people. Nowhere does it say, nor have I ever heard SF or a republican accept that the British presence in Ireland is legitimate.

Apart, of course, from when SF signed the GFA.

Or when all those republicans voted in favour of the GFA?

I’ll be honest Francie - I might have had you pegged as many things based on your posting history, but a dissident was never one of them

blackwhite · 06-03-2018 12:52AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can waffle away about it all you want. But this does not mean they accept the legitimacy of British rule.

They do recognise the legitimacy of what the majority have chosen for now though.

It takes a special level of cognitive dissonance to contradict yourself in the same post.

That cool-aid must be pretty damn strong

Junkyard Tom · 06-03-2018 01:09AM

As far as I'm aware SF didn't actually sign the GFA so this silly one-upmanship about them accepting British 'Rule' is probably moot.

blackwhite · 06-03-2018 01:34AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As far as I'm aware SF didn't actually sign the GFA so this silly one-upmanship about them accepting British 'Rule' is probably moot.

Are you trying to claim that Gerry Adams, Mitchell McLoughlin at al didn’t sign on behalf of Sinn Fein, but just as individuals? That’s a level of nonsense that is surprising even for the BS spouted by some of your fellow travellers on here

Junkyard Tom · 06-03-2018 02:09AM

blackwhite wrote: »

Are you trying to claim that Gerry Adams, Mitchell McLoughlin at al didn’t sign on behalf of Sinn Fein, but just as individuals?

No I'm saying that as far as I'm aware (I stand to be corrected on this) the GFA was signed by the two governments and endorsed by the SDLP, UUP, SF and Alliance and was rejected by the DUP.

That’s a level of nonsense that is surprising even for the BS spouted by some of your fellow travellers on here

What? What's with the aggressive tone? Did I hurt your feelings or something?

According to Michael Gove:

www.cps.org.uk/files/MichaelGove.pdf

FrancieBrady · 06-03-2018 07:44AM

blackwhite wrote: »

It takes a special level of cognitive dissonance to contradict yourself in the same post.

That cool-aid must be pretty damn strong

It's is true of almost every election held in a democracy.

Cool aid as right!

FrancieBrady · 06-03-2018 07:46AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As far as I'm aware SF didn't actually sign the GFA so this silly one-upmanship about them accepting British 'Rule' is probably moot.

I had to point this out before on here.
The GFA is an agreement between governments.

FrancieBrady · 06-03-2018 07:50AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Think about what you're saying, Francie. Think about it. Stop reciting the creed and think.

You're arguing that, prior to the Good Friday Agreement, the parties to that Agreement did not accept the legitimacy of the other parties holding different views to them.

You're arguing that the entire point of the Agreement is that the various parties have reluctantly agreed to accept that it's OK for people to want different things.

You're arguing that the only legitimacy bestowed by a treaty signed by two sovereign governments and lodged with the UN is the legitimacy of a political preference.

If you think that that makes more sense than the interpretation of literally everyone who isn't an Irish Republican - that the Agreement recognises the legitimacy of the consequences of the majority's choice - I honestly don't know what else to say to you.

I can argue that in my reality the UUP agreed effectively to the legitimacy of the Irish government's involvement in northern Ireland...but of course they didn't.

Your opinion...is YOUR opinion Oscar, it doesn't become fact however.

blackwhite · 06-03-2018 08:53AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No I'm saying that as far as I'm aware (I stand to be corrected on this) the GFA was signed by the two governments and endorsed by the SDLP, UUP, SF and Alliance and was rejected by the DUP.

What? What's with the aggressive tone? Did I hurt your feelings or something?

According to Michael Gove:

www.cps.org.uk/files/MichaelGove.pdf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I had to point this out before on here.
The GFA is an agreement between governments.

If a DUP representative tried to pull such lies to weasel out of what they’ve signed up to the SF cheerleaders on here would explode with outrage.

The GFA has two elements, and intergovernmental agreement signed by the Irish and UK governments, and a multi-party agreement signed by the two Govts and most of the major NI political parties - excluding the DUP. lienand twist all you want - but not even SF themselves will try and pretend that they didn’t sign this agreement

Section 2 of the multi-party agreement is laid out below. Maybe you want to side with the dissidents and reject the GFA (which you are free to do) but you can’t rewrite history simply because you don’t like it.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:

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

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Irelandüs status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

(v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Edward M · 06-03-2018 09:00AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I had to point this out before on here.
The GFA is an agreement between governments.

Gerry Adams signed the original agreement I think, the DUP, as far as I'm aware, was the only party to oppose the GFA I think also.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-21221389

blanch152 · 06-03-2018 10:36AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No I'm saying that as far as I'm aware (I stand to be corrected on this) the GFA was signed by the two governments and endorsed by the SDLP, UUP, SF and Alliance and was rejected by the DUP.

What? What's with the aggressive tone? Did I hurt your feelings or something?

According to Michael Gove:

www.cps.org.uk/files/MichaelGove.pdf

Very interesting.

If Sinn Fein are arguing that the DUP must implement an Irish Languages Act because it is in the GFA (even though the DUP rejected the GFA) but that Sinn Fein haven't accepted the legitimacy of British rule because it is in the GFA (even though SF endorsed the GFA) does anyone else think that there is a lot more than a little doublespeak and doublethink going on here from Sinn Fein?

Does their hypocrisy have no limits?

FrancieBrady · 06-03-2018 10:39AM

blackwhite wrote: »

If a DUP representative tried to pull such lies to weasel out of what they’ve signed up to the SF cheerleaders on here would explode with outrage.

The GFA has two elements, and intergovernmental agreement signed by the Irish and UK governments, and a multi-party agreement signed by the two Govts and most of the major NI political parties - excluding the DUP. lienand twist all you want - but not even SF themselves will try and pretend that they didn’t sign this agreement

Section 2 of the multi-party agreement is laid out below. Maybe you want to side with the dissidents and reject the GFA (which you are free to do) but you can’t rewrite history simply because you don’t like it.

The DUP never endorsed the GFA.

Btw, the only other significant group who say that SF have accepted the legitimacy of British rule are 'dissidents'. You guys are on message with them. Nice one!

blanch152 · 06-03-2018 10:41AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can argue that in my reality the UUP agreed effectively to the legitimacy of the Irish government's involvement in northern Ireland...but of course they didn't.

For possibly the first time ever, I agree with you. By endorsing the GFA, the UUP did indeed agree to the legitimacy of the limited role for the Dublin government in the affairs of Northern Ireland as set out in the GFA. I would guess from a unionist point of view that it was a small price to pay for the effective surrender of the IRA, the acceptance of the legitimacy of British rule by the nationalist community and the removal of the territorial claim from the Irish constitution.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Your opinion...is YOUR opinion Oscar, it doesn't become fact however.

Some things are facts, including what is in the GFA and what Sinn Fein signed.

blanch152 · 06-03-2018 10:41AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP never endorsed the GFA.

So they are not bound by the requirement to bring in an ILA.

Why did you spend pages and pages and weeks of posts to argue the opposite then?

maccored · 06-03-2018 10:48AM

blanch152 wrote: »

People on here let the DUP off with it?????

What are you talking about?

How do people on here have the power to let the DUP off with anything?

because the likes of yourself and others do nothing but whinge whinge whinge about one side. pretty obvious what I was on about really.

Chips Lovell · 06-03-2018 10:56AM

Let's cut out the personal remarks please. If you're starting any post with something along the lines of "people like you..." you're off to a bad start.

Be nice.

Thanks.

06-03-2018 10:57AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP never endorsed the GFA.

Btw, the only other significant group who say that SF have accepted the legitimacy of British rule are 'dissidents'. You guys are on message with them. Nice one!

SF and republicans who voted for the GFA have accepted the legitimacy of British rule in NI, the dissidents are right, unlike the dissidents i don't see anything wrong with that.

Red_Wake · 06-03-2018 11:35AM

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP never endorsed the GFA.

So they are not bound by the requirement to bring in an ILA.

Why did you spend pages and pages and weeks of posts to argue the opposite then?

Iirc his claim is that it was in the St Andrews Agreement that the DUP agreed to an ILA.

Where this falls down is that the St Andrew Agreement obliges the British Government to introduce an ILA, and not the DUP. As this power was devolved back to NI via Stormont, the British Government no longer had the means to make good on their agreement.

As the DUP was not named as a party obliged to introduce an ILA, they can block the introduction of an ILA without breaking their side of the St Andrews Agreement.

Acting in bad faith definitely, but acting in bad faith is part and parcel of politics in NI.

Francie seems to gloss over these facts though.

FrancieBrady · 06-03-2018 11:35AM

jh79 wrote: »

SF and republicans who voted for the GFA have accepted the legitimacy of British rule in NI, the dissidents are right, unlike the dissidents i don't see anything wrong with that.

Find me a SF person saying that then. Or even a few column inches of press saying that SF have had a Paulian conversion bigger than that of Paul himself.

FrancieBrady · 06-03-2018 11:55AM

Red_Wake wrote: »

Iirc his claim is that it was in the St Andrews Agreement that the DUP agreed to an ILA.

Where this falls down is that the St Andrew Agreement obliges the British Government to introduce an ILA, and not the DUP. As this power was devolved back to NI via Stormont, the British Government no longer had the means to make good on their agreement.

As the DUP was not named as a party obliged to introduce an ILA, they can block the introduction of an ILA without breaking their side of the St Andrews Agreement.

Acting in bad faith definitely, but acting in bad faith is part and parcel of politics in NI.

Francie seems to gloss over these facts though.

The British Gov agreed to an ILA at St Andrews

06-03-2018 12:10PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Find me a SF person saying that then. Or even a few column inches of press saying that SF have had a Paulian conversion bigger than that of Paul himself.

Action speak louder than words and SF approved, promoted and convinced republicans to vote for an agreement that recognised the legitimacy of British rule in NI.

Red_Wake · 06-03-2018 12:21PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Iirc his claim is that it was in the St Andrews Agreement that the DUP agreed to an ILA.

Where this falls down is that the St Andrew Agreement obliges the British Government to introduce an ILA, and not the DUP. As this power was devolved back to NI via Stormont, the British Government no longer had the means to make good on their agreement.

As the DUP was not named as a party obliged to introduce an ILA, they can block the introduction of an ILA without breaking their side of the St Andrews Agreement.

Acting in bad faith definitely, but acting in bad faith is part and parcel of politics in NI.

Francie seems to gloss over these facts though.

The British Gov agreed to an ILA at St Andrews

Yes, this was stated in my post, and when the power to introduce one was devolved to Stormont, they were no longer able to make good on their promise, but the DUP were under no obligation to introduce or support an ILA.

FrancieBrady · 06-03-2018 12:23PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

Yes, this was stated in my post, and when the power to introduce one was devolved to Stormont, they were no longer able to make good on their promise, but the DUP were under no obligation to introduce or support an ILA.

Who said they were? I didn't.

The British still are though.

Havockk · 06-03-2018 12:24PM

jh79 wrote: »

Action speak louder than words and SF approved, promoted and convinced republicans to vote for an agreement that recognised the legitimacy of British rule in NI.

I remember the early/mid 90's well. Bad times indeed, in fact it was 93 I had just walked into the schoolyard when a loyalist gunman shot a teacher dead, just because he was in SF. Everyone was just sick of it, I had been born into it and knew nothing other than the 'troubles'. In 98 I voted for the GFA, not to respect 'British Legitimacy' just to put an end to it.

McMurphy · 06-03-2018 12:59PM

I've been reading that an agreement had indeed been reached within the DUP, and it was senior loyalists with links to the UDA and the UVF who ultimately rejected it.

Boards resident unionists and ABSF posters would go into melt down if the shoe was on the other foot, if SF pulled the rug from under an agreement because the (delete where appropriate) "surrendered/defeated/still active/left the stage" army council had rejected an agreement.

If true (and it certainly evidence to support the notion an agreement had been reached) then the question in the OP has been answered.

Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal? - No, it would appear that the DUP have

oscarBravo · 06-03-2018 01:00PM

Havockk wrote: »

In 98 I voted for the GFA, not to respect 'British Legitimacy' just to put an end to it.

That's completely understandable. Many of us swallowed our revulsion at the idea of amnesty for terrorists and voted for the GFA just to put an end to it all.

But that's not really the point. The point is the collective delusion that allows people to argue that the GFA doesn't mean something just because they don't like what it means. Like those people who insist that the Republic has a territorial claim over Northern Ireland, despite the fact that we explicitly voted to amend the Constitution to replace that claim with an aspiration.

British sovereignty over Northern Ireland is legitimate. That's not an opinion, it's a matter of international law. Some - possibly most - Irish Republicans seem to participate in a collective delusion that their deeply-held religious convictions about the legitimacy of that sovereignty in some way affects that objective reality, but it doesn't.

So, Sinn Féin can claim not to recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom. They make this claim while (occasionally) taking their seats in a devolved administration of the United Kingdom; they make this claim while being paid in pounds sterling for the jobs they do (or don't do) in that administration.

Outside of the sort of eyeroll-inducing mental gymnastics that require us to believe that an intergovernmental agreement was required solely to guarantee the legitimacy of people's right to hold an opinion, it's universally understood that the whole point of the GFA is to give legitimacy to whatever form of rule is decided upon by the people of Northern Ireland.

Republicans can't admit that, of course - it would be blasphemous. But their inability to admit it doesn't make it untrue.

Havockk · 06-03-2018 01:42PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's completely understandable. Many of us swallowed our revulsion at the idea of amnesty for terrorists and voted for the GFA just to put an end to it all.

But that's not really the point. The point is the collective delusion that allows people to argue that the GFA doesn't mean something just because they don't like what it means. Like those people who insist that the Republic has a territorial claim over Northern Ireland, despite the fact that we explicitly voted to amend the Constitution to replace that claim with an aspiration.

British sovereignty over Northern Ireland is legitimate. That's not an opinion, it's a matter of international law. Some - possibly most - Irish Republicans seem to participate in a collective delusion that their deeply-held religious convictions about the legitimacy of that sovereignty in some way affects that objective reality, but it doesn't.

So, Sinn Féin can claim not to recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom. They make this claim while (occasionally) taking their seats in a devolved administration of the United Kingdom; they make this claim while being paid in pounds sterling for the jobs they do (or don't do) in that administration.

Outside of the sort of eyeroll-inducing mental gymnastics that require us to believe that an intergovernmental agreement was required solely to guarantee the legitimacy of people's right to hold an opinion, it's universally understood that the whole point of the GFA is to give legitimacy to whatever form of rule is decided upon by the people of Northern Ireland.

Republicans can't admit that, of course - it would be blasphemous. But their inability to admit it doesn't make it untrue.

Well, nudge nudge, wink wink, as it were Oscar. Of course everyone can read between the lines but as long as they are not out killing and bombing and playing it politically then I can't say I have a problem with that.

FrancieBrady · 06-03-2018 01:53PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's completely understandable. Many of us swallowed our revulsion at the idea of amnesty for terrorists and voted for the GFA just to put an end to it all.

But that's not really the point. The point is the collective delusion that allows people to argue that the GFA doesn't mean something just because they don't like what it means. Like those people who insist that the Republic has a territorial claim over Northern Ireland, despite the fact that we explicitly voted to amend the Constitution to replace that claim with an aspiration.

British sovereignty over Northern Ireland is legitimate. That's not an opinion, it's a matter of international law. Some - possibly most - Irish Republicans seem to participate in a collective delusion that their deeply-held religious convictions about the legitimacy of that sovereignty in some way affects that objective reality, but it doesn't.

So, Sinn Féin can claim not to recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom. They make this claim while (occasionally) taking their seats in a devolved administration of the United Kingdom; they make this claim while being paid in pounds sterling for the jobs they do (or don't do) in that administration.

Outside of the sort of eyeroll-inducing mental gymnastics that require us to believe that an intergovernmental agreement was required solely to guarantee the legitimacy of people's right to hold an opinion, it's universally understood that the whole point of the GFA is to give legitimacy to whatever form of rule is decided upon by the people of Northern Ireland.

Republicans can't admit that, of course - it would be blasphemous. But their inability to admit it doesn't make it untrue.

You cannot admit that your view is predicated on a sentence that has the word legitimacy in it and nothing else.

Laughable, when, as shown, even an English newspaper wouldn't try and fabricate around it.

Edward M · 06-03-2018 02:24PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Outside of the sort of eyeroll-inducing mental gymnastics that require us to believe that an intergovernmental agreement was required solely to guarantee the legitimacy of people's right to hold an opinion, it's universally understood that the whole point of the GFA is to give legitimacy to whatever form of rule is decided upon by the people of Northern Ireland.

Republicans can't admit that, of course - it would be blasphemous. But their inability to admit it doesn't make it untrue.

The GFA gives credibility to SF and its ideals though.
SFs main ideal is a UI and their stance on that hasn't changed or been expected to change by anything in the GFA.
There is a clear text in the agreement supporting an ILA and that is being reneged upon by the DUP, who weren't a party to the agreement in the first place.
While I would feel SF are wrong to stay out of governing because of it, I think that they have a legitimate argument and a legitimate right to argue it.
Calling them to be the main culprit's in this just SF bashing without giving due consideration to the DUPs absolute abhorrence with having to deal with SF in any circumstance.
Personally and with all things taken in to consideration and looking objectively at the situation as it has developed since the GFA, I would lean towards favouring SFs reasoning than the DUPs.

Red_Wake · 06-03-2018 02:44PM

Edward M wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

Outside of the sort of eyeroll-inducing mental gymnastics that require us to believe that an intergovernmental agreement was required solely to guarantee the legitimacy of people's right to hold an opinion, it's universally understood that the whole point of the GFA is to give legitimacy to whatever form of rule is decided upon by the people of Northern Ireland.

Republicans can't admit that, of course - it would be blasphemous. But their inability to admit it doesn't make it untrue.

The GFA gives credibility to SF and its ideals though.
SFs main ideal is a UI and their stance on that hasn't changed or been expected to change by anything in the GFA.
There is a clear text in the agreement supporting an ILA and that is being reneged upon by the DUP, who weren't a party to the agreement in the first place.
While I would feel SF are wrong to stay out of governing because of it, I think that they have a legitimate argument and a legitimate right to argue it.
Calling them to be the main culprit's in this just SF bashing without giving due consideration to the DUPs absolute abhorrence with having to deal with SF in any circumstance.
Personally and with all things taken in to consideration and looking objectively at the situation as it has developed since the GFA, I would lean towards favouring SFs reasoning than the DUPs.

How can they renege on an agreement they didn't make?

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

Comments