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

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

The SF desire for unity is not a problem at all. The problem is their failure to accept the legitimacy of British rule over Northern Ireland. This would include taking their seats in Westminister.

After all, as you point out, when you sign up to something, cherry-picking is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

Well, it sounds to me like you would like SF to perform political harikiri, it's a fairly transparent point of view if you forgive me. I'd love to see the DUP dissolve but I know it's not going to happen (yet).

My other argument there would be to ask just what the SDLP achieved in all it's time taking their seats in parliament? There may have been the odd victory but I can name none off the top of my head. And when it came to the moment when their vote actually would have counted?? Well Gerry Fitt let us all down (and look where that has led us today).

And I also think there is a world of difference between reneging on an agreement and holding an abstentionist position, which is a completely legitimate political position. It's not as if they are pulling wool over anyone's eyes.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's awfully generous of them. Did it cause them a great deal of heartache and soul-searching before they decided to grudgingly allow other people to want things?

I've asked you several times now: on what frigging planet is an international treaty required before wanting something is considered legitimate? Be careful with phrases like "British rule", there are sensitive souls around here.

I'm struggling to think of a rational response to your argument. I've typed several things and deleted them all. You seem to be of the view that if Sinn Féin accept the legitimacy of British rule, that they somehow lose any right to campaign for a change in the status quo. It's such a bizarre argument that it's hard to know how to counter it.

Which again fails to deal with the issue.

The complete abscence of anything but 'your opinion' of a phrase in the GFA which states that they accept the legitimacy of the majority wanting to be ruled by Britain.

Which does not mean they accept the legitimacy of British rule.

Just as if I accept the legitimacy of the majority wanting FG to rule does not mean I accept FG as a legitimate ruling party. (I do by the way, I am just illustrating the point you refuse to deal with)

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

Nonsense, this past fortnight I've read more than one serious commentator, Ruth Dudley being one, who explicitly stated that SF desire for Unity was essentially the problem.

The SF desire for unity is not a problem at all. The problem is their failure to accept the legitimacy of British rule over Northern Ireland. This would include taking their seats in Westminister.

Havockk wrote: »

I'm saying the act of signing the document obviously indicates their agreement to everything that was included. To cherry pick after is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

After all, as you point out, when you sign up to something, cherry-picking is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

Havockk

Red_Wake wrote: »

In which case they agreed it was ok for the British Government to introdue an ILA. Which still places them under no obligation to do so once the power to do so was devolved back to NI.

You're looking at the spirit of the agreement, rather than the exact wording. Only the latter can you expect parties which are fundamentally bad actor to be adhere to. Relying on the former is political naivete.

Either way, it's had the same political effect. I can only commend the DUP for doing SF's work for them. They have even managed to turn my hardcore SDLP voting father into a shinner of late.

Red_Wake

Havockk wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

This was explained to you - the agreement placed the DUP under the no obligation to support or introduce an ILA. Nobody has said their blocking of it is right, it's been repeatedly judged as acting in bad faith.

What has been said is that the DUP has acted in bad faith, but that leaving the wiggle room through which they were able to wriggle out of the initial agreement, SF has been politically naive.

When signing an agreement, very careful attention should be paid to what has been agreed, and what has been left out, as expecting enemy parties to go beyond their explicit obligations is setting yourself up for later trouble. This is a general lesson in politics that goes beyond NI.

I'm saying the act of signing the document obviously indicates their agreement to everything that was included. To cherry pick after is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

In which case they agreed it was ok for the British Government to introdue an ILA. Which still places them under no obligation to do so once the power to do so was devolved back to NI.

You're looking at the spirit of the agreement, rather than the exact wording. Only the latter can you expect parties which are fundamentally bad actor to be adhere to. Relying on the former is political naivete.

Havockk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wouldn't wrap my chips in an article by Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Well, yes I do feel I went too far by implying she was a serious commentator. And to be fair I think the other was Ben Lowry so...

Professor Moriarty

Havockk wrote: »

Nonsense, this past fortnight I've read more than one serious commentator, Ruth Dudley being one, who explicitly stated that SF desire for Unity was essentially the problem.

I wouldn't wrap my chips in an article by Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Havockk

Red_Wake wrote: »

This was explained to you - the agreement placed the DUP under the no obligation to support or introduce an ILA. Nobody has said their blocking of it is right, it's been repeatedly judged as acting in bad faith.

What has been said is that the DUP has acted in bad faith, but that leaving the wiggle room through which they were able to wriggle out of the initial agreement, SF has been politically naive.

When signing an agreement, very careful attention should be paid to what has been agreed, and what has been left out, as expecting enemy parties to go beyond their explicit obligations is setting yourself up for later trouble. This is a general lesson in politics that goes beyond NI.

I'm saying the act of signing the document obviously indicates their agreement to everything that was included. To cherry pick after is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

But the GFA, the internationally recognised agreement is only signed by the two governments.
The multi party agreement is basically just the bones of how the institutions aspired too in the GFA will be established and operate.

For people to say SF signed the GFA by pointing to the multi party agreement is incorrect.
To follow that line it would mean that the DUP do not accept the GFA because they did not sign the multi party agreement

Legally speaking, there's no such thing as the GFA.
There's the British-Irish Agreement and there's the Multi-Party Agreement, which are two interdependent agreements.

The Irish Government, The British Government, and Sinn Féin's own website, all take that the phrases "Good Friday Agreement", "Belfast Agreement", "Stormont Agreement" or "Good Friday Accords" to mean both agreements together.
The only place I've seen anyone dispute that the Multi-Party Agreement is part of the GFA is a small rump of SF supporters on here (some of whom were abusing other posters over "semantics" in the past week :rolleyes:) - because they think that the name of the agreement means that Sinn Féin actually didn't agree to the clauses in it, despite them signing up to the agreement!

Red_Wake

Havockk wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

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

They signed the damn thing, yet here we have people falling over themselves to find any loophole for the DUP to squeeze out of their responsibilities.

I have never and would never sign up to something that I had no notion of upholding. The very idea that the DUP should be allowed to not abide by the agreement they signed up to is an affront to democracy.

This was explained to you - the agreement placed the DUP under the no obligation to support or introduce an ILA. Nobody has said their blocking of it is right, it's been repeatedly judged as acting in bad faith.

What has been said is that the DUP has acted in bad faith, but that leaving the wiggle room through which they were able to wriggle out of the initial agreement, SF has been politically naive.

When signing an agreement, very careful attention should be paid to what has been agreed, and what has been left out, as expecting enemy parties to go beyond their explicit obligations is setting yourself up for later trouble. This is a general lesson in politics that goes beyond NI.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Not a single person disagrees with the notion that SF are perfectly entitled to campaign politically to change the right of Westminister to rule Northern Ireland. Similarly, I can campaign politically for Dublin to become a municipality of France if I want.

However, what all of those who have subscribed to the GFA have accepted is the legitimacy of the rule of the British over Northern Ireland. There may well be a belief or a wish that that legitimacy is temporary and will end, but it is accepted. That is why we in the South had to drop our territorial claim.

Nonsense, this past fortnight I've read more than one serious commentator, Ruth Dudley being one, who explicitly stated that SF desire for Unity was essentially the problem.

Havockk

jm08 wrote: »

'Brits'!

This still goes on, but all is fair in love and football

Havockk

Red_Wake wrote: »

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

They signed the damn thing, yet here we have people falling over themselves to find any loophole for the DUP to squeeze out of their responsibilities.

I have never and would never sign up to something that I had no notion of upholding. The very idea that the DUP should be allowed to not abide by the agreement they signed up to is an affront to democracy.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

The GFA was signed by two sovereign governments that while a present majority wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom but not necessarily in perpetuity should that majority change.
I do not see anywhere in the GFA where there was any caveat to prevent SF politically attempt to charge that majority, or to accept the right of Westminster to rule Northern Ireland.
Afaik neither is it a requirement in the Multi Party Agreement.

Not a single person disagrees with the notion that SF are perfectly entitled to campaign politically to change the right of Westminister to rule Northern Ireland. Similarly, I can campaign politically for Dublin to become a municipality of France if I want.

However, what all of those who have subscribed to the GFA have accepted is the legitimacy of the rule of the British over Northern Ireland. There may well be a belief or a wish that that legitimacy is temporary and will end, but it is accepted. That is why we in the South had to drop our territorial claim.

Edward M

Red_Wake wrote: »

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

They aren't I suppose, but the agreement is being reneged on.
Neither govt is prepared to push the DUP, one needs them to stay in power, the other is afraid it might blight their brexit negotiations.
Anyway, as it stands and taking all things into consideration, the wrong party is being castigated over the executive not returning.
As the DUP don't want it in the first place it suits them to keep this current situation going, even direct rule.
The biggest threat to the GFA and democracy in NI are the DUP IMO, and if using any chance of bashing SF was taken out of the situation, most people would see this.

[Deleted User]

I've no idea if SF had to physically sign the GFA but they did endorse it and republicans who voted for the GFA enshired into law the legitimacy of British rule in NI. It's clearly stated in the agreement. Whoever the majority want as rulers of NI are the legitimate authority.

oscarBravo

charlie14 wrote: »

The British also repealed the Government of Ireland Act under the terms of the GFA

You do realise they replaced it with the Northern Ireland Act?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What has this to do with SF not recognising the legitinacy of British rule in Ireland.

They recognise the legitimacy of a majority to want that for now.

That's awfully generous of them. Did it cause them a great deal of heartache and soul-searching before they decided to grudgingly allow other people to want things?

I've asked you several times now: on what frigging planet is an international treaty required before wanting something is considered legitimate?

If they recognise the legitimacy of British rule them they might as well shut up shop.

Be careful with phrases like "British rule", there are sensitive souls around here.

I'm struggling to think of a rational response to your argument. I've typed several things and deleted them all. You seem to be of the view that if Sinn Féin accept the legitimacy of British rule, that they somehow lose any right to campaign for a change in the status quo. It's such a bizarre argument that it's hard to know how to counter it.

Let me try this: Fine Gael are currently in government in the Republic. We'll assume for the sake of argument that, while disagreeing with their policies, Sinn Féin recognise the legitimacy of FG's current reign. Does that mean that they might as well fold up the party, because once they've accepted the legitimacy of a FG government, they can't ever campaign for a change?

You are limbo dancing again Oscar and avoiding the clear issues.

I'm not avoiding anything. I'm confronting head-on your insistence on peering at the world through the narrowest of prisms and loudly protesting at the very idea that any other point of view could even exist.

charlie14 wrote: »

The GFA was signed by two sovereign governments that while a present majority wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom but not necessarily in perpetuity should that majority change.
I do not see anywhere in the GFA where there was any caveat to prevent SF politically attempt to charge that majority, or to accept the right of Westminster to rule Northern Ireland.
Afaik neither is it a requirement in the Multi Party Agreement.

That's fascinating and all, but it has nothing to do with anything I've said. I recognise the right of anyone to want to change the status of Northern Ireland, or - for that matter - to keep it the same. I also recognise that Northern Ireland is a legitimate part of the United Kingdom at the moment, and at some point in the future may be a legitimate part of the Republic of Ireland.

What I'm not doing is arguing that it's somehow morally impossible for one community's view to be legitimate, because that would be arrogant and stupid.

charlie14 wrote: »

For the same reason the British parliament repealed the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

Not really, no. We had a constitutional amendment to relinquish our sovereign claim to Northern Ireland.

By doing so, the people of Ireland - not just the government, but the people - formally recognised the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom. Some people can't bring themselves to do that, because Reasons - but their dogma has no more bearing on reality than that of a flat-Earther.

jm08 wrote: »

Obviously, no one cares what nationality your girlfriend has.

She does.

Its different in NI where one side defines themselves as Irish and another side define themselves as British (with nationalists telling unionists they were Irish and Unionists telling nationalists they were Brits). GAA players from the south used to sledge northerners as well by calling them 'Brits'!

OK, but we didn't negotiate an intergovernmental treaty so that people would stop calling each other names.

Ireland recinded its right to the territory of Northern Ireland.

Yes. And, by doing so, recognised the legitimacy of another country's claim to that territory, until such time as things change.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Does your girlfriend come from a disputed region of Denmark that seen several decades of conflict where some of her neighbours were shot dead on the street by what some Danish people viewed as a foreign army, for little more than trying to obtain their civil rights?

She comes from a country that was occupied by the Nazis, so we can have a pissing contest if you like, but it would be pointless: the point is that we didn't have a treaty to allow people to think things. We had a treaty between two sovereign countries that formally recognises the legitimacy of one of those countries' claim over a territory, and also formally recognises that that legitimate claim may change in the future.

As much as it suits some people to claim that their political views are the only ones that could ever possibly have legitimacy, that's not how the world works.

charlie14

jm08 wrote: »

Obviously, no one cares what nationality your girlfriend has. Its different in NI where one side defines themselves as Irish and another side define themselves as British (with nationalists telling unionists they were Irish and Unionists telling nationalists they were Brits). GAA players from the south used to sledge northerners as well by calling them 'Brits'!

Ireland recinded its right to the territory of Northern Ireland.

The British also repealed the Government of Ireland Act under the terms of the GFA

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

No - you've got it wrong I'm afraid.

The SF page has the full text included as a PDF. http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/goodfriday.pdf

The agreement between the two Governments contains only 4 Articles, and is included as an Annex to the Multi-party agreement (page 33 onwards only).
The two agreements together form the GFA - you cannot have one without the other, and the two are dependent on each other. Both agreements refer to each other, and both attach the other agreement as Annex 1 to their own text.

The Multi-Party Agreement, which is the one signed by the major political parties of NI (with the exception of the self-excluded DUP), is the one that sets out nearly all of the details.

British Govt website has the same BTW - but without the odd watermark that's on the SF verison
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf

But the GFA, the internationally recognised agreement is only signed by the two governments.
The multi party agreement is basically just the bones of how the institutions aspired too in the GFA will be established and operate.

For people to say SF signed the GFA by pointing to the multi party agreement is incorrect.
To follow that line it would mean that the DUP do not accept the GFA because they did not sign the multi party agreement

McMurphy

oscarBravo wrote: »

My girlfriend defines herself as Danish. There's no treaty lodged with the UN recognising her right to do so.

If the point of the GFA was merely to give people the right to think things, why did we in the Republic amend our Constitution?

Does your girlfriend come from a disputed region of Denmark that seen several decades of conflict where some of her neighbours were shot dead on the street by what some Danish people viewed as a foreign army, for little more than trying to obtain their civil rights?

jm08

oscarBravo wrote: »

My girlfriend defines herself as Danish. There's no treaty lodged with the UN recognising her right to do so.

Obviously, no one cares what nationality your girlfriend has. Its different in NI where one side defines themselves as Irish and another side define themselves as British (with nationalists telling unionists they were Irish and Unionists telling nationalists they were Brits). GAA players from the south used to sledge northerners as well by calling them 'Brits'!

If the point of the GFA was merely to give people the right to think things, why did we in the Republic amend our Constitution?

Ireland recinded its right to the territory of Northern Ireland.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

My girlfriend defines herself as Danish. There's no treaty lodged with the UN recognising her right to do so.

If the point of the GFA was merely to give people the right to think things, why did we in the Republic amend our Constitution?

For the same reason the British parliament repealed the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

Just a quick scan of that, but from my understanding of the GFA it is only signed by the British and Irish governments and is the internationally recognised agreement covered in the Table of Contents 1-11.

The Declaration of Support is a separate multi party agreement and is the agreement that Edward M posted signed by SF.
As I said, I just had a quick scan, but this appears to be the only agreement signed by SF and while it recognises the rights of the majority, (and it may be in there but I missed it), I do not see where it recognises the right of British government to rule NI.

No - you've got it wrong I'm afraid.

The SF page has the full text included as a PDF. http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/goodfriday.pdf

The agreement between the two Governments contains only 4 Articles, and is included as an Annex to the Multi-party agreement (page 33 onwards only).
The two agreements together form the GFA - you cannot have one without the other, and the two are dependent on each other. Both agreements refer to each other, and both attach the other agreement as Annex 1 to their own text.

The Multi-Party Agreement, which is the one signed by the major political parties of NI (with the exception of the self-excluded DUP), is the one that sets out nearly all of the details.

British Govt website has the same BTW - but without the odd watermark that's on the SF verison
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf

charlie14

jm08 wrote: »

Doing a google search for images of Belfast Agreement only shows up Blair & Bertie signing anything.

http://www.thejournal.ie/15-years-ago-today-the-good-friday-agreement-was-signed-865342-Apr2013/#slide-slideshow5

Anything I have seen on it is the same.
It was only signed by the two governments.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

Exactly what rights of the majority do you think it recognises? Are you subscribing to Francie's view that a treaty has been signed by two sovereign governments and lodged with the UN in order to recognise the right to have an opinion?

The GFA was signed by two sovereign governments that while a present majority wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom but not necessarily in perpetuity should that majority change.
I do not see anywhere in the GFA where there was any caveat to prevent SF politically attempt to charge that majority, or to accept the right of Westminster to rule Northern Ireland.
Afaik neither is it a requirement in the Multi Party Agreement.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

My girlfriend defines herself as Danish. There's no treaty lodged with the UN recognising her right to do so.

If the point of the GFA was merely to give people the right to think things, why did we in the Republic amend our Constitution?

What has this to do with SF not recognising the legitinacy of British rule in Ireland.

They recognise the legitimacy of a majority to want that for now.

If they recognise the legitimacy of British rule them they might as well shut up shop.

You are limbo dancing again Oscar and avoiding the clear issues.

oscarBravo

jm08 wrote: »

A right to define themselves as either Irish, British or both.

My girlfriend defines herself as Danish. There's no treaty lodged with the UN recognising her right to do so.

If the point of the GFA was merely to give people the right to think things, why did we in the Republic amend our Constitution?

jm08

oscarBravo wrote: »

Exactly what rights of the majority do you think it recognises? Are you subscribing to Francie's view that a treaty has been signed by two sovereign governments and lodged with the UN in order to recognise the right to have an opinion?

A right to define themselves as either Irish, British or both.

jm08

charlie14 wrote: »

Just a quick scan of that, but from my understanding of the GFA it is only signed by the British and Irish governments and is the internationally recognised agreement covered in the Table of Contents 1-11.

The Declaration of Support is a separate multi party agreement and is the agreement that Edward M posted signed by SF.
As I said, I just had a quick scan, but this appears to be the only agreement signed by SF and while it recognises the rights of the majority, (and it may be in there but I missed it), I do not see where it recognises the right of British government to rule NI.

Doing a google search for images of Belfast Agreement only shows up Blair & Bertie signing anything.

http://www.thejournal.ie/15-years-ago-today-the-good-friday-agreement-was-signed-865342-Apr2013/#slide-slideshow5