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

Junkyard Tom

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.

Nah. During the height of the troubles in the 1980's those against a UI in the south, which was not exactly flush with cash, numbered 16% of the electorate. After the GFA that fell to 8%.

If Brexit goes badly the British will be looking to save money very quickly. There's a wee part of Ireland that costs them several billion GBP a year that, with a bit of a push, could probably be off-loaded quickly enough.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Nah. During the height of the troubles in the 1980's those against a UI in the south, which was not exactly flush with cash, numbered 16% of the electorate. After the GFA that fell to 8%.

If Brexit goes badly the British will be looking to save money very quickly. There's a wee part of Ireland that costs them several billion GBP a year that, with a bit of a push, could probably be off-loaded quickly enough.

They have left already by dint of signing the GFA and unionism knows that by dint of clinging on to the coat-tails.

The south will not turn their backs again in a plebiscite imo. It may be the only thing to save us in many ways. Hence Leo's bid over Brexit.

[Deleted User]

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Nah. During the height of the troubles in the 1980's those against a UI in the south, which was not exactly flush with cash, numbered 16% of the electorate. After the GFA that fell to 8%.

If Brexit goes badly the British will be looking to save money very quickly. There's a wee part of Ireland that costs them several billion GBP a year that, with a bit of a push, could probably be off-loaded quickly enough.

I think the chances of a no vote down south are extremely slim but Irish civil servants did go for a two tier pay system rather than take a small pay cut so you never know when money is involved.

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

I think the chances of a no vote down south are extremely slim but Irish civil servants did go for a two tier pay system rather than take a small pay cut so you never know when money is involved.

I'd be fairly confident a UI would become an international project rather than one that would fall on the lap of Dublin alone.

The British would love to be rid of it so would want it to work. The EU would want Ireland to remain the 'good student' and an example of EU cohesion. The Americans would swing in behind it too I reckon.

Charles Babbage

jh79 wrote: »

I think the chances of a no vote down south are extremely slim but Irish civil servants did go for a two tier pay system rather than take a small pay cut so you never know when money is involved.

Fake news. Irish civil servants had paycuts of up to 20% which have not yet been fully restored.

[Deleted User]

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Fake news. Irish civil servants had paycuts of up to 20% which have not yet been fully restored.

Up to 20% is small, especially when increments canceled some of it out, compared to the private sector.

The unions or their members didn't give a damn about "equal pay for equal work" ( or whatever the slogan they use now is) when they sold out new entrants in the Landsdowne Road Agreement.

blackwhite

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I'd be fairly confident a UI would become an international project rather than one that would fall on the lap of Dublin alone.

The British would love to be rid of it so would want it to work. The EU would want Ireland to remain the 'good student' and an example of EU cohesion. The Americans would swing in behind it too I reckon.

I’d be hesitant to rely on any American or UK money in the event of re-unification, but I’d agree that the EU would likely step in somehow.

TBH, if a border poll came about following Brexit, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some elements of the Brexiteers turn on their DUP bedfellows, with the argument around costs to subsidise a statelet that “doesn’t want to be part of the union anyway”. Not the hardcore “Rule Britannia” brexiteers of course, but elements of the “we’re paying too much for Europe” crowd could quite easily turn anti-unionist if the financial argument was pushed.

American money would be very much dependent on who was in the White House. The current regime (or a like-minded one) isn’t likely to send significant funds overseas without some strategic benefit for themselves.

Edward M

blackwhite wrote: »

I’d be hesitant to rely on any American or UK money in the event of re-unification, but I’d agree that the EU would likely step in somehow.

TBH, if a border poll came about following Brexit, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some elements of the Brexiteers turn on their DUP bedfellows, with the argument around costs to subsidise a statelet that “doesn’t want to be part of the union anyway”. Not the hardcore “Rule Britannia” brexiteers of course, but elements of the “we’re paying too much for Europe” crowd could quite easily turn anti-unionist if the financial argument was pushed.

American money would be very much dependent on who was in the White House. The current regime (or a like-minded one) isn’t likely to send significant funds overseas without some strategic benefit for themselves.

Ireland is a strategic place of special interest for the US. I'd say money could be forthcoming if aid was needed.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pence-meets-american-troops-during-refuelling-stopover-in-shannon-1.3363056?mode=amp

ancapailldorcha

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Fake news. Irish civil servants had paycuts of up to 20% which have not yet been fully restored.

Dismissing points you disagree with as fake news is unacceptable here. If you wish to debunk someone else's point, please do it with a constructive argument.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

Ireland is a strategic place of special interest for the US. I'd say money could be forthcoming if aid was needed.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pence-meets-american-troops-during-refuelling-stopover-in-shannon-1.3363056?mode=amp

I wouldn't go so far as saying Ireland is a strategic place of special interest for the US.

It is much more in Ireland's interests than the US's interests that Ireland is used as a refuelling base. There are plenty of places that the US could as easily use in the UK.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I wouldn't go so far as saying Ireland is a strategic place of special interest for the US.

It is much more in Ireland's interests than the US's interests that Ireland is used as a refuelling base. There are plenty of places that the US could as easily use in the UK.

I would not see why the US would consider changing the refueling stop-over in Shannon for a British base post Brexit.
We are not a member of NATO unlike Britain and the US, (both founding members), so the fact that they choose Shannon rather than a fellow NATO member would to me at least indicate they recognise some strategic value in Shannon when compared to British bases.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

I would not see why the US would consider changing the refueling stop-over in Shannon for a British base post Brexit.
We are not a member of NATO unlike Britain and the US, (both founding members), so the fact that they choose Shannon rather than a fellow NATO member would to me at least indicate they recognise some strategic value in Shannon when compared to British bases.

Not being able to use Shannon would inconvenience the U.S, nothing more.

The likely anti-Irish reaction from the US establishment would cause us a lot more trouble than mere inconvenience.

That is the nature of the power relationship between Ireland and the U.S.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Not being able to use Shannon would inconvenience the U.S, nothing more.

The likely anti-Irish reaction from the US establishment would cause us a lot more trouble than mere inconvenience.

That is the nature of the power relationship between Ireland and the U.S.

Why would there be anti-Irish reaction from the US establishment due to the result of a 6 county referendum where a majority voted for unification ?

The DUP might not like it, but this isn`t the 19th century America of
"No Catholics or Irish need apply"

FrancieBrady

The US would be very keen to keep a base and friend outside of what is becoming an increasingly volatile UK, that may ultimately break up (IMO you are watching a slow break-up of the UK any which way)

[Deleted User]

charlie14 wrote: »

Why would there be anti-Irish reaction from the US establishment due to the result of a 6 county referendum where a majority voted for unification ?

The DUP might not like it, but this isn`t the 19th century America of
"No Catholics or Irish need apply"

I think if we used shannon as leverage to get funding to plug the hole in NI finances.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The US would be very keen to keep a base and friend outside of what is becoming an increasingly volatile UK, that may ultimately break up (IMO you are watching a slow break-up of the UK any which way)

Do SF approve of the US using Shannon?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Do SF approve of the US using Shannon?

Ask SF.

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

I think if we used shannon as leverage to get funding to plug the hole in NI finances.

Who even suggested using blackmail ?

Posters just pointed out that Shannon was of strategic value to the US.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ask SF.

From a quick google they don't approve of its use. Wonder would SF change their position on this if money was needed to fund reunification?

bobbysands81

blanch152 wrote: »

They are UK MLAs.

...sitting in Ireland.

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

From a quick google they don't approve of its use. Wonder would SF change their position on this if money was needed to fund reunification?

We have a present government minister that does not approve of its use

[Deleted User]

charlie14 wrote: »

Who even suggested using blackmail ?

Posters just pointed out that Shannon was of strategic value to the US.

My interpretation of what others may of meant by anti irish sentiment in the US. I wasn't involved in this strand of discussion not sure what the other poster means that was the best i could come up with.

Don't mind me being dipping in and out of the thread since it moved on from the legitimacy discussion.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

From a quick google they don't approve of its use. Wonder would SF change their position on this if money was needed to fund reunification?

I doubt they would.
I wouldn't either, I was just making the point that the US would probably be very interested in keeping us onside due to what is happening with 'their special relationship' dogsbodies.

The morals of capitalising on that are for another discussion.

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

My interpretation of what others may of meant by anti irish sentiment in the US. I wasn't involved in this strand of discussion not sure what the other poster means that was the best i could come up with.

Don't mind me being dipping in and out of the thread since it moved on from the legitimacy discussion.

Well at least you came up with something.
Which in fairness is more than the original poster came up with to explain why the US would suddenly go anti Irish in the event of unification.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Why would there be anti-Irish reaction from the US establishment due to the result of a 6 county referendum where a majority voted for unification ?

The DUP might not like it, but this isn`t the 19th century America of
"No Catholics or Irish need apply"

A wilful misinterpretation of my post or a genuine misunderstanding? I am not really sure.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106365493&postcount=759

This poster suggested using Shannon as leverage to get money from the US.

I pointed out that the US presence in Shannon was of more importance strategically to Ireland than to the US and that any attempt to use Shannon for money would cause anti-Irish sentiment.

How you conflate that to a united Ireland causing anti-Irish reaction in the US baffles me, but that has led to an unnecessary discussion.

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

A wilful misinterpretation of my post or a genuine misunderstanding? I am not really sure.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106365493&postcount=759

This poster suggested using Shannon as leverage to get money from the US.

I pointed out that the US presence in Shannon was of more importance strategically to Ireland than to the US and that any attempt to use Shannon for money would cause anti-Irish sentiment.

How you conflate that to a united Ireland causing anti-Irish reaction in the US baffles me, but that has led to an unnecessary discussion.

Just to point out i wasn't suggesting using Shannon it was just my interpretation of your post.

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Just to point out i wasn't suggesting using Shannon it was just my interpretation of your post.

And your intepretation was correct.

A different poster suggested that we could leverage US strategic interest in Ireland (i.e. Shannon) to get funding for a united Ireland. All I was saying was that a crass attempt like that was likely to backfire.

There is a certain amount of delusion out there that the US actually see Ireland as strategically important. We are a refuelling stopover, that is all.

Consider a haulier moving goods from Dublin to Cork and all around Ireland. The Supermacs at Exit 14 might be important to them as a stopover for fuel, driver rest breaks, etc. But if the owner of Supermacs refused to serve them or put up prices, they would just use somewhere else and would probably refuse to go back there again. That is how important Shannon is to the US.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

A wilful misinterpretation of my post or a genuine misunderstanding? I am not really sure.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106365493&postcount=759

This poster suggested using Shannon as leverage to get money from the US.

I pointed out that the US presence in Shannon was of more importance strategically to Ireland than to the US and that any attempt to use Shannon for money would cause anti-Irish sentiment.

How you conflate that to a united Ireland causing anti-Irish reaction in the US baffles me, but that has led to an unnecessary discussion.

If you are baffled then I am doubly so.
The poster you refer to agreed with another poster that Shannon is of strategic importance to the US.
Nowhere in either post you have highlighted did they mention or even suggest using that as leverage to encourage the US to provide funding in the event of unification.

Yet suddenly you are all over it suggesting anti Irish feeling due to the use of leverage on the US over Shannon when the only poster here who has mentioned leverage is yourself.

Not just baffling but utterly bizarre.

[Deleted User]

Edward M wrote: »

Ireland is a strategic place of special interest for the US. I'd say money could be forthcoming if aid was needed.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pence-meets-american-troops-during-refuelling-stopover-in-shannon-1.3363056?mode=amp

Charlie14, how would you interpret this post by Edward M?

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

Charlie14, how would you interpret this post by Edward M?

You appear to have missed the point here.

Both Edward M and blackwhite posted that they viewed Shannon as having strategic benefit for the US.
I do not believe that it is any great stretch if you believe that for it to follow that in countries that the US have strategic benefits then they look kindly on these countries in matters of foreign affairs.

What I am asking (and to date have received nothing but bluster) from Blanch152), is where in those two posts he/she got the idea that anything was suggested that would create this anti Irish feeling in the US to Irish unification.
Not alone that but why when he asked where he got that idea from, why did he/she comes back with his whole bluster about Shannon being used as leverage when nobody in any post even suggested it.