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

There's a lot of point scoring going on about the fact they're under British rule, for shame on an Irish website really.
The ideal of the foundations of this state was that eventually it would lead to a united Ireland.
The situation of course that financially that might never be able to happen, but as an ideal I would think the majority of Irish would certainly still want it.
Its a funny thing to watch the fact that they're under British rule being used as a tool to rub Sinn Fein faces in it, and by definition their voters north and south.
SF are a two faced party, but which party isnt?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Cut and paste from SF website

*(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;

*, 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 Ireland's 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;

*(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

*. (1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.

Again, what is your point?

I accept that is what the majority want for now just like SF.

oscarBravo

charlie14 wrote: »

By its own wording it only has legitimacy until or unless a majority decides otherwise.
At which point the Northern Ireland Act would be an irrelevance.

OK, so until that time, British rule in Northern Ireland is legitimate?

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, what is your point?

I accept that is what the majority want for now just like SF.

The present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate.....

Spin away... NI is legitimately part of the UK.

oscarBravo

Edward M wrote: »

There's a lot of point scoring going on about the fact they're under British rule, for shame on an Irish website really.

I have no quibble with people's desire to see Northern Ireland no longer under British rule. My argument is against the idea that such rule is illegitimate.

SF are a two faced party, but which party isnt?

I'll make no claim that any political party isn't two-faced. I'm arguing against the idea that somehow SF are exempt.

Havockk

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have no quibble with people's desire to see Northern Ireland no longer under British rule. My argument is against the idea that such rule is illegitimate.

I'll make no claim that any political party isn't two-faced. I'm arguing against the idea that somehow SF are exempt.

Ghandi thought British rule in India was illegitimate, what's the big deal?

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so until that time, British rule in Northern Ireland is legitimate?

By legitimate are you asking if I believe SF accept British rule while a majority accept it as legitimate? Yes I do.

Do I believe that SF accept that Britain is the legitimate rulers of Northern Ireland? No I do not, nor do I see there is any onus on them to do so.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate.....

Spin away... NI is legitimately part of the UK.

In the opinion of the majority.

I don't have the same opinion as the majority.

It's really not that hard to understand.

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

The present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate.....

Spin away... NI is legitimately part of the UK.

That is the present wish. Should that change as detailed in Britain`s own Northern Ireland Act 1998, then it no longer would be a part of the UK.
That is basically the GFA in a nutshell.
There is no spin in that, and even Britain leaving the EU would not change that.

FrancieBrady

Havockk wrote: »

Ghandi thought British rule in India was illegitimate, what's the big deal?

SF and republicans must capitulate fully.
It's a standard nirthern Unionist position.

[Deleted User]

charlie14 wrote: »

That is the present wish. Should that change as detailed in Britain`s own Northern Ireland Act 1998, then it no longer would be a part of the UK.
That is basically the GFA in a nutshell.
There is no spin in that, and even Britain leaving the EU would not change that.

I know, both the present and any future changes in sovereignty are legitimate as long as that is what the majority of the people of NI (remain in the UK) or the majority of the people of the entire Island (reunification) want.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In the opinion of the majority.

I don't have the same opinion as the majority.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Your opinion doesn't change its legitimacy from legal / political science perspective.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Well they made good progress on that front!

Yeh, even a FG Taoiseach is talking about a UI.

Well played de Unionists. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Your opinion doesn't change its legitimacy from legal / political science perspective.

You need to stop getting excited when you see the word 'legitimacy' and read the rest of the sentence. 'Context' I believe it is called.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, even a FG Taoiseach is talking about a UI.

Well played de Unionists. :rolleyes:

Actually deleted that post. On reflection unnecessarily anatagonistic.

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

I know, both the present and any future changes in sovereignty are legitimate as long as that is what the majority of the people of NI (remain in the UK) or the majority of the people of the entire Island (reunification) want.

The really interesting thing I find about the GFA, the subsequent changes to the Republic constitution and the replacement of the British acts of 1920 and 1973 and their replacement with the 1998 act, is that where our constitutional claim was always a dead end of nothing but aspiration on unification, the GFA and the subsequent British 1998 act is a road-map to unification.
I`m not surprised the DUP didn`t sign the Inter Party Agreement.
They may be thick, but they aint that thick not to have seen that.

FrancieBrady

charlie14 wrote: »

The really interesting thing I find about the GFA, the subsequent changes to the Republic constitution and the replacement of the British acts of 1920 and 1973 and their replacement with the 1998 act, is that where our constitutional claim was always a dead end of nothing but aspiration on unification, the GFA and the subsequent British 1998 act is a road-map to unification.
I`m not surprised the DUP didn`t sign the Inter Party Agreement.
They may be thick, but they aint that thick not to have seen that.

Isn't it ironic that they are finding their backs to the wall increasingly as a result of it anyway.

Junkyard Tom

This discussion is a good example that there is a level of constructive ambiguity in the GFA. For Unionists, at the time at least, the GFA was sold as a copper-fastening of the union and for Republicans it is a vehicle to end British rule jurisdiction and deliver a UI. So who is correct in their assumption?

In its primacy the GFA is a legally binding international agreement that confirms that it is for the people of Ireland north and south 'without external impediment' to decide on a UI. That 'without external impediment' statement is the requirement that the British Government remains neutral on the matter and futher to this:

It will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

www.britishirishcouncil.org

Perhaps that's why the DUP were against the GFA and in 2018 are aching for direct rule that they considered a betrayal in 1972.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A regional assembly of elected Irish MLAs.

Again, that is no statement of acceptance of the legitimacy of British rule.

Technically, a regional assembly of elected UK MLAs.

Politically, Northern Ireland is not part of Ireland.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

This discussion is a good example that there is a level of constructive ambiguity in the GFA. For Unionists, at the time at least, the GFA was sold as a copper-fastening of the union and for Republicans it is a vehicle to end British rule jurisdiction and deliver a UI. So who is correct in their assumption?

In its primacy the GFA is a legally binding international agreement that confirms that it is for the people of Ireland north and south 'without external impediment' to decide on a UI. That 'without external impediment' statement is the requirement that the British Government remains neutral on the matter and futher to this:

It will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

www.britishirishcouncil.org

Perhaps that's why the DUP were against the GFA and in 2018 are aching for direct rule that they considered a betrayal in 1972.

In my opinion (and it is only an opinion) this was the British withdrawal.
They gave up the ghost to get this agreement over the line.
What unionism dare not admit is that in the GFA the British are saying they no longer care. They will offer no defence of the union when a majority vote.

That effectively means they see Irish Unionists as 'other'

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Technically, a regional assembly of elected UK MLAs.

Politically, Northern Ireland is not part of Ireland.

I thought it was called the Northern Ireland Assembly. Irish MLA's elected to a Northern Irish Assembly.

charlie14

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

This discussion is a good example that there is a level of constructive ambiguity in the GFA. For Unionists, at the time at least, the GFA was sold as a copper-fastening of the union and for Republicans it is a vehicle to end British rule jurisdiction and deliver a UI. So who is correct in their assumption?

In its primacy the GFA is a legally binding international agreement that confirms that it is for the people of Ireland north and south 'without external impediment' to decide on a UI. That 'without external impediment' statement is the requirement that the British Government remains neutral on the matter and futher to this:

It will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

www.britishirishcouncil.org

Perhaps that's why the DUP were against the GFA and in 2018 are aching for direct rule that they considered a betrayal in 1972.

100% correct imho.
The GFA is riddled with ambiguity but if there is one thing crystal clear from it and the subsequent British act of parliament it is the commitment from the British on the acceptance that a majority vote can change the status of NI.
I imagine that did not go down well with the DUP in particular, but other than refusing to sign the Multi Party Agreement there was nothing they could do about it.

The closeness in the last Belfast Assembly vote I would say really spooked them and the 10 in London in particular, with it not affecting their positions, were keen to ensure the Assemble stays in-operational plus all the cross border institutions associated with the GFA.
They DUP in Westminster in particular are more than happy to go back to direct rule hoping the GFA will go away.

It would be ironic that if there is a hard border due to their support for the Tories on Brexit, the economic fallout in NI could actually be the cause of a majority voting for unification.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

Technically, a regional assembly of elected UK MLAs.

Politically, Northern Ireland is not part of Ireland.

You're the first I've heard say it that way. It implies that there are members elected from the UK in general, which isn't the true depiction of it really.
Its a regional assembly of elected NI MLAs.
Technically also, any member with an Irish passport is also viewed as IRISH, so it could be said it has Irish members!

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I thought it was called the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Yes. As in "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Irish MLA's elected to a Northern Irish Assembly.

Is there a legal requirement that they be Irish?

Havockk

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. As in "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Is there a legal requirement that they be Irish?

I didn't think we could delve deeper into the semantic/pedantic well. I was wrong

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. As in "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Is there a legal requirement that they be Irish?

They are UK MLAs.

[Deleted User]

charlie14 wrote: »

It would be ironic that if there is a hard border due to their support for the Tories on Brexit, the economic fallout in NI could actually be the cause of a majority voting for unification.

Any economic fallout could cause those down south to vote against reunification especially if brexit causes a slow down in our economy also.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

They are UK MLAs.

Far as I can see they are Irish MLA's sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly which is a part of the UK until a majority decides otherwise.

The UK is a fabricated union of several nations.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. As in "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Is there a legal requirement that they be Irish?

Also known as Tionól Thuaisceart Éireann or in Ulster-Scots as Norlin Airian Assemblie I believe.

If nothing else that alone shows how the EU rated Ulster-Scots as nothing more than an English dialect.

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

Any economic fallout could cause those down south to vote against reunification especially if brexit causes a slow down in our economy also.

If there was a referendum on the border it would be a matter for the population of Northern Ireland, not the Republic.