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

McMurphy

charlie14 wrote: »

You appear to have missed the point here.

A regular occurrence when it comes to threads that touch on nationalism/republicanism or Sinn Fein on these forums Charlie.

I posted this earlier in the week, it pretty much answers the question asked in the OP.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

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

There's not much appetite to discuss it though, and my only guess why - is because there's no political point scoring to be had against the shinners on it.

Instead - let's discuss the yanks and Shannon.

[Deleted User]

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

So lets say we go cap in hand for x millions or billion to plug the gap in the finances and the US ask why should they, we then say because we let you use shannon as a refueling stop.

Is that the gist of it? If they say no thanks is that the end of the conversation in your eyes and we let the US continue to use Shannon?

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

Where exactly did I post that? I haven't offered any opinion on Shannon in this thread - and I prefer if you didn't try and put words in my mouth

Edward M

In my post on shannon being of strategic benefit, I didn't intend it to mean that we could use it as leverage or a reason to insist on aid.
I intended it as a suggestion that because of it and other ties, the US might volunteer aid if a UI was to happen. I think they do tend to look favourably on countries that are helpful in ( as they view it as helping their security) assisting their armed forces.

Edward M

I m surprised this wasn't picked up on today before now. I can't access the full article as I'm not a subscriber.
From the gist of the start of it though, it seems the DUP did pull the plug on an agreement that was reached, or at least one of their own ministers seems to have said so.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/newton-emerson-arlene-foster-s-authority-is-ebbing-away-1.3418288?mode=amp

FrancieBrady

Edward M wrote: »

I m surprised this wasn't picked up on today before now. I can't access the full article as I'm not a subscriber.
From the gist of the start of it though, it seems the DUP did pull the plug on an agreement that was reached, or at least one of their own ministers seems to have said so.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/newton-emerson-arlene-foster-s-authority-is-ebbing-away-1.3418288?mode=amp

We knew that last week from Eamonn Mallie and SF.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

Have a look again at this post:

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

Let us leave aside what money is used for.

Poster says Ireland is of strategic interest (and that can only be Shannon) to the US, therefore money can be got.

Quite simply, my point is that a crass attempt to use strategic interest to get money would likely cause an anti-Irish backlash among the political establishment in the US. This is especially true for the current administration.

My point appears to have been willfully misinterpreted in a mischievous way to suggest that I have implied that a united Ireland would cause an anti-Irish backlash in the US. That misinterpretation been repeated no matter how many times I have clarified my point.

I am leaving it there so as not to get dragged down a pointless rabbit-hole.

McMurphy

Edward M wrote: »

I m surprised this wasn't picked up on today before now. I can't access the full article as I'm not a subscriber.
From the gist of the start of it though, it seems the DUP did pull the plug on an agreement that was reached, or at least one of their own ministers seems to have said so.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/newton-emerson-arlene-foster-s-authority-is-ebbing-away-1.3418288?mode=amp

I'm a subscriber - won't copy and paste the full article for fear of getting my knuckles wrapped over copyright infringements, but this would appear to be the meat in the sandwich.

Yes it'll make uncomfortable reading for some on here, but its what was always predicted.

One point to emerge definitively from the Stormont talks is that Sinn F has no objection to Foster returning as first minister. After Stormont’s collapse, when Foster’s recusal from office was supposedly a republican red line, the DUP insisted it could not let a rival party dictate who it would nominate to lead the executive. That issue of pride has evaporated, leaving Foster to be judged on her merits, which have turned out to be few and far between.

The collapse of the talks puts the restoration of Stormont back by months if not years, rendering Foster – an Assembly member – a lame duck for the duration.

The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) inquiry – the original reason Sinn F told the DUP leader to step aside – is due to summon Foster after Easter. This is likely to cause her significant embarrassment.

DUP support falling

The DUP had a superb Westminster election last June, recovering from the shock of its Assembly result three months previously when it was almost beaten by Sinn F. That had been an unanswerable riposte to Foster’s internal critics. However, a poll published this Monday, and conducted in late February after the Stormont talks fiasco, shows DUP support falling while Sinn F’s continues to rise .– both parties are once again neck and neck, and Foster’s main achievement appears undone

It is unclear if the person briefing against Foster objected to her doing a deal with Sinn F or failing to do a deal – but that may be irrelevant, even to them

The deal was so unquestionably mishandled, in terms of keeping DUP members and supporters informed, that this alone would be reason enough to want a change of leadership. Frankly, anyone else might be an improvement

.

The last point is interesting, the author is suggesting that whomever the senior DUP member is that's broken ranks and spilled the beans possibly did so either because they reached a deal with Sinn Fein, or because they didn't do the deal, but also - it may be irrelevant to them.

Could Fosters role be nearing it's end?

Also, never realised this point before.

The article disccuses who( if any) may step into her shoes.....

The DUP has never held a leadership contest: all three leaders in its history have been self-appointed or anointed. If someone was inclined towards disruptive creativity they might see the advantage of a proper debate on Foster’s replacement.

More on the loyalist leaders here.

One swallow does not make a summer, but the Nolan show source has not been alone. In a magazine interview also published this week, loyalist leader Jackie McDonald gave a plausible account of being briefed by the DUP on Irish language legislation in a Stormont deal. His contempt for the DUP leadership was painfully apparent. Foster had to address that in Brussels as well.

Who is Jackie McDonald?

And I'll leave it at this.

There is the sense of a dam breaking and, even more disastrously, of ridicule. Foster’s strangulated denials of the deal that never was have descended into farce, and in her persistence she has all the gravitas of an angry rabbit in the headlights.

Once authority starts ebbing away like this, it tends to vanish abruptly.

I will repeat - the party who appear to have shot themselves in the foot seems to be the DUP.

Tail trying to wag the dog it would appear.

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

So lets say we go cap in hand for x millions or billion to plug the gap in the finances and the US ask why should they, we then say because we let you use shannon as a refueling stop.

Is that the gist of it? If they say no thanks is that the end of the conversation in your eyes and we let the US continue to use Shannon?

Did you actually even read what i said or what the other two posters said ?

You can go with "lets say" on the same basis as Blanch152 was attempting to insinuate that posters suggested "leverage", but nobody even suggested "let say" or "leverage" in regards to Shannon other than yourself and Blanch.

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We knew that last week from Eamonn Mallie and SF.

No doubt, but it appears there's a crack appearing in the DUP now. As it used a quote from an unnamed DUP rep I thought it worthy of pointing this one out.

Havockk

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm a subscriber - won't copy and paste the full article for fear of getting my knuckles wrapped over copyright infringements, but this would appear to be the meat in the sandwich.

Yes it'll make uncomfortable reading for some on here, but its what was always predicted.

The last point is interesting, the author is suggesting that whomever the senior DUP member is that's broken ranks and spilled the beans possibly did so either because they reached a deal with Sinn Fein, or because they didn't do the deal, but also - it may be irrelevant to them.

Could Fosters role be nearing it's end?

Also, never realised this point before.

The article disccuses who( if any) may step into her shoes.....

More on the loyalist leaders here.

Who is Jackie McDonald?

And I'll leave it at this.

I will repeat - the party who appear to have shot themselves in the foot seems to be the DUP.

Tail trying to wag the dog it would appear.

Foster is also not one of the Westminster MP's. Her position was at Stormont. What does she do in the interim?

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

Where exactly did I post that? I haven't offered any opinion on Shannon in this thread - and I prefer if you didn't try and put words in my mouth

I wasn`t.

I was replying to a post by Blanch #779 where it looks as if he he appeared to believe you did with a link that included your post.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Have a look again at this post:

Let us leave aside what money is used for.

Poster says Ireland is of strategic interest (and that can only be Shannon) to the US, therefore money can be got.

Quite simply, my point is that a crass attempt to use strategic interest to get money would likely cause an anti-Irish backlash among the political establishment in the US. This is especially true for the current administration.

My point appears to have been willfully misinterpreted in a mischievous way to suggest that I have implied that a united Ireland would cause an anti-Irish backlash in the US. That misinterpretation been repeated no matter how many times I have clarified my point.

I am leaving it there so as not to get dragged down a pointless rabbit-hole.

That is quite a strange assumption to make.
That the only strategic Irish interest for the US can only be Shannon.

That is similar to hearing hoofbeats and automatically thinking zebras.
Military personnel may think strategically in terms of war. Politicians not so much.
Their strategic thinking is more vote orientated.
In the 2013 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S Census Bureau 33 Million Americans reported Irish ancestry.

But then perhaps that has nothing to do with American Presidents, Senators and Congress members visiting Ireland and being heavily involved in the 6 county issue in the past.
Perhaps they only came to sample the Guinness, but I would be inclined to go with hoofbeats and horses on it being votes than the hoofbeats and zebras of Guinness.

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm a subscriber - won't copy and paste the full article for fear of getting my knuckles wrapped over copyright infringements, but this would appear to be the meat in the sandwich.

Yes it'll make uncomfortable reading for some on here, but its what was always predicted.

The last point is interesting, the author is suggesting that whomever the senior DUP member is that's broken ranks and spilled the beans possibly did so either because they reached a deal with Sinn Fein, or because they didn't do the deal, but also - it may be irrelevant to them.

Could Fosters role be nearing it's end?

Also, never realised this point before.

The article disccuses who( if any) may step into her shoes.....

More on the loyalist leaders here.

Who is Jackie McDonald?

And I'll leave it at this.

I will repeat - the party who appear to have shot themselves in the foot seems to be the DUP.

Tail trying to wag the dog it would appear.

DUP is on a cliff edge, they could conceivably go into freefall if the electorate start to smell failure.

FrancieBrady

Edward M wrote: »

No doubt, but it appears there's a crack appearing in the DUP now. As it used a quote from an unnamed DUP rep I thought it worthy of pointing this one out.

Yep and Eamonn Mallie clearly had info from inside the DUP.

And he isn't letting sleeping dogs lie. Arlene will do well to survive.

charlie14

Havockk wrote: »

Foster is also not one of the Westminster MP's. Her position was at Stormont. What does she do in the interim?

I may be incorrect, but I seem to recall it is a requirement for leadership of the DUP that it must be an elected representative.

With direct rule then would the results of the Belfast Assembly not be null and void ?

McMurphy

The Belfast Telegraph (which I think we can all agree is generally a unionist leaning newspaper) has an article today which is squarely casting the blame on the DUP for the shambles in the north.

DUP mishandling of row makes future deal even less likely

The story of the deal that was nearly done is one the DUP has been trying to kill off since the Valentine's Day talks collapse.
Not only did it fail to strangle it at birth, but the tale has taken new twists and turns every day with the cast of characters rapidly expanding. Gregory Campbell, Edwin Poots, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, Arlene Foster, Dr Phiip Weir, and now Nigel Dodds have become embroiled in the story that just won't go away.

Blame for the mess the DUP finds itself in lies solely at the party's own door. From the get-go it ducked and dived around the existence of a draft agreement.

Sinn Fein took ownership of the story and drove the narrative. The DUP looked as if it had something big to hide, and that's because it did. The party negotiators were on course to agree to measures on the Irish language that would have their supporters shouting "sell-out!".

In what now can be clearly seen as a strategic disaster, the party did no preparatory work with its grassroots on the give-and-take that a return to power-sharing would mean. When those compromises began to leak into the media, the party buried its head in the sand and adopted a policy of "deny, deny, deny".

Unionist media outlets first, a disgruntled unionist electorate next?

Did the shinners shoot themselves in the foot? Not in my opinion.

I reckon the shinners played a blinder.

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The Belfast Telegraph (which I think we can all agree is generally a unionist leaning newspaper) has an article today which is squarely casting the blame on the DUP for the shambles in the north.

DUP mishandling of row makes future deal even less likely

Unionist media outlets first, a disgruntled unionist electorate next?

Did the shinners shoot themselves in the foot? Not in my opinion.

I reckon the shinners played a blinder.

Dodds categorically denied knowledge of it last week on BBC. What was he thinking, he must have known the story was out.

The arrogance of power?

Junkyard Tom

There might be internal ructions within the DUP but the 'if-themmuns-is-getting-something-we're-losing' unionist voter will keep voting DUP because a split in the Unionist vote will leave Sinn Fein as the largest party in the north which would mean a SF First Minister in Stormont.

Indeed it's only a matter of time before the DUP/UUP merge to keep a unionist party as the largest.

blackwhite

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm a subscriber - won't copy and paste the full article for fear of getting my knuckles wrapped over copyright infringements, but this would appear to be the meat in the sandwich.

Yes it'll make uncomfortable reading for some on here, but its what was always predicted.

The last point is interesting, the author is suggesting that whomever the senior DUP member is that's broken ranks and spilled the beans possibly did so either because they reached a deal with Sinn Fein, or because they didn't do the deal, but also - it may be irrelevant to them.

Could Fosters role be nearing it's end?

Also, never realised this point before.

The article disccuses who( if any) may step into her shoes.....

More on the loyalist leaders here.

Who is Jackie McDonald?

And I'll leave it at this.

I will repeat - the party who appear to have shot themselves in the foot seems to be the DUP.

Tail trying to wag the dog it would appear.

TBH - I’m surprised it’s taken so long for someone from the DUP negotiating team to break ranks - even if only anonymously.
They have to be fairly seething at being so badly undermined by their party.
If you’re given a mandate to negotiate a deal, you’d tend to expect to be allowed see it through.
I’d be shocked if we don’t hear a few more of the DUP negotiators make some “off the record” briefings over the next couple of weeks

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

I wasn`t.

I was replying to a post by Blanch #779 where it looks as if he he appeared to believe you did with a link that included your post.

You made a bare-faced claim that I made reference to Shannon being stretegically important - despite the fact that I never mentioned Shannon in any posts. I quoted your claim in the last post

Please stop lying about what I actually posted - it’s incredibly dishonest posting

blackwhite

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The Belfast Telegraph (which I think we can all agree is generally a unionist leaning newspaper) has an article today which is squarely casting the blame on the DUP for the shambles in the north.

DUP mishandling of row makes future deal even less likely

Unionist media outlets first, a disgruntled unionist electorate next?

Did the shinners shoot themselves in the foot? Not in my opinion.

I reckon the shinners played a blinder.

I always thought the Belfast Telegraph would have leaned more UUP than DUP - maybe there’s a hope that this (coupled with the DUPs Brexit stance) might shift some unionist support back to the UUP?

Havockk

blackwhite wrote: »

I always thought the Belfast Telegraph would have leaned more UUP than DUP - maybe there’s a hope that this (coupled with the DUPs Brexit stance) might shift some unionist support back to the UUP?

Doubt it. No one should think this will collapse the DUP vote for it will not. It will probably effect by a few percent and could well make SF the largest party when the executive reforms. In saying that it could well accelerate the decline in the next 5 years when the nationalist vote was expected to overtake it.

Edward M

blackwhite wrote: »

I always thought the Belfast Telegraph would have leaned more UUP than DUP - maybe there’s a hope that this (coupled with the DUPs Brexit stance) might shift some unionist support back to the UUP?

It might see a move against Foster, she looks weak from this now, not the strong woman she portrays herself as. She's been on the back foot since the executive collapse, her saving grace has been her power deal with May.
The DUP might well try to shore their support by electing a new leader. Who though?

Junkyard Tom

blackwhite wrote: »

I always thought the Belfast Telegraph would have leaned more UUP than DUP - maybe there’s a hope that this (coupled with the DUPs Brexit stance) might shift some unionist support back to the UUP?

Tweedle-dee Tweedle-dum. They'll merge in a few years time, and so they should, so unionism can be treated as one monolithic anti-progressive bloc.

Havockk

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Tweedle-dee Tweedle-dum. They'll merge in a few years time, and so they should, so unionism can be treated as one monolithic anti-progressive bloc.

This will never happen. There may be the odd defection but If you think there is hate between certain factions up here, the DUP/UUP divide is as deep and bitter as it gets. Always has been.

Junkyard Tom

Havockk wrote: »

This will never happen. There may be the odd defection but If you think there is hate between certain factions up here, the DUP/UUP divide is as deep and bitter as it gets. Always has been.

So if we picture the SF winning 33 seats in Stormont and the DUP winning 31 there won't be, at least, defections from UUP to the DUP to prevent a SF first minister?

That's a genuine question btw. I'm not familiar with the DUP/UUP divisions.

Havockk

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So if we picture the SF winning 33 seats in Stormont and the DUP winning 31 there won't be, at least, defections from UUP to the DUP to prevent a SF first minister?

That's a genuine question btw. I'm not familiar with the DUP/UUP divisions.

Yes could definitely see defections, Foster herself was a defector. I would expect more of a pact like what happened in Fermanagh last time out though (although that was only just agreed and nearly fell apart). More likely would just be a solidification of the DUP vote and a drop in UUP.

I think the division is just too deep, although I guess one can never say never, in an existential crisis like a potential UI/SF majority... well I suppose all bets are off. Part of it is religious, UUP would have traditionally been CoI, whilst Presbyterians would be DUP. Interestingly enough this is why Foster could become isolated given she is a CoI leader of a fiercely firebrand party and a former UUP'er.

FrancieBrady

It would be interesting: the UUP are still angry about being toppled. I would expect they would in the main be more inclined to try and become main Unionist party again. Consequently they would swallow having a SF first minister for a term or two.

I don't have much faith that they would be any less intransigent on the core issues though.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Did you actually even read what i said or what the other two posters said ?

You can go with "lets say" on the same basis as Blanch152 was attempting to insinuate that posters suggested "leverage", but nobody even suggested "let say" or "leverage" in regards to Shannon other than yourself and Blanch.

The connection was blatantly obvious.