billy few mates wrote: » Yeah but why now..? You haven’t had an Irish Language Act for the last twenty years or an Irish Language for the last eight hundred, it’s already been established that such an act will do nothing to enhance the lives of a single individual in the north and most people couldn’t give a fiddlers fcuk about it but now with Brexit the whole house is crumbling around you and it’s suddenly the most important thing in the world to Spin Feign...? Or am I missing anything here...? I understand the need for accountability and not letting the DUP ‘renege’ on their commitments (not letting anyone get away with it as Happyman used to say) but why now...?
Johnny Dogs wrote: » Once again, and has been pointed out numerous times, it isn't solely the wishes of SF to have an Irish language act, it is something all of the main party's want, and something the dup had agreed upon, but reneged upon. So, in essence what you're doing is suggesting that everyone else should be dancing to the dups tune, and letting them ride roughshod over everyone else for the greater good. Am I missing anything here?
Brendan Bendar wrote: » I have heard absolutely zero from any other party ref. the ILA. That should tell us something on this issue surely.
blanch152 wrote: » I am not blaming SF for the absence of an executive, there are plenty of people up there at fault, in their typical blunt approach.However, what I am saying is that there is an opportunity for Sinn Fein to drop their demands, get the Assembly up and running, and bring a domestic Northern Ireland focus to what is happening with Brexit. Unfortunately, an ILA has greater importance to them than Brexit.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » I have heard absolutely zero from any other party ref. the ILA.
SDLP has reiterated its support for the Irish language and a rights based Irish language act. Members voted for a motion that supports the establishment of a rights based Irish Language Act, which would include the establishment of the Office of an Independent Irish Language Commissioner. The motion was proposed by Mid Ulster MLA, Patsy McGlone and seconded by his colleague Councillor Martin Kearney.
Alliance Party leader Naomi Long has called on the British government to inject momentum in a new Stormont talks process after Easter as she warned the “window of opportunity” to get a deal is closing. More than 14 months after devolved government in Northern Ireland collapsed and five phases of talks later there is little trust left between the DUP and Sinn Féin. At the Alliance conference in the Stormont Hotel on Saturday, Ms Long said its new Next Steps Forward proposals document is a genuine attempt to create space politically in which broader agreement is possible and an Executive can be formed. Proposals in it include: Westminster reforming the petition of concern veto mechanism and legislating on the contentious issues of same sex marriage, legacy and an Irish language Act; multi-party talks led by a independent facilitator, and the convening of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
That should tell us something on this issue surely.
blanch152 wrote: » I am not blaming SF for the absence of an executive, there are plenty of people up there at fault, in their typical blunt approach. However, what I am saying is that there is an opportunity for Sinn Fein to drop their demands, get the Assembly up and running, and bring a domestic Northern Ireland focus to what is happening with Brexit. Unfortunately, an ILA has greater importance to them than Brexit.
blanch152 wrote: » The DUP have Westminister, don't need the Assembly, they are happy that there is no domestic limelight shining on their Brexit policies, why would they want to restore the Assembly? There is nothing to be gained from them, so why would I waste my time? On the other hand, there is a lot to be gained by nationalists, particularly in relation to Brexit, the most important issue for Northern Ireland since the GFA. Appealing to that logic of self-interest seems to be the correct option.
FrancieBrady wrote: » How about, the DUP dropping their blockades to equality in a number of key areas? Problem solved overnight and northern Ireland is a better place for all. Would that not be an inherently more natural and comfortable stance for a constitutional nationalist to have?
FrancieBrady wrote: » David Davis seems to think they are leading the Irish government on Brexit. Two agreements on an ILA have now been welched on. One by the British Government at St Andrew's and one at the talks to get the institutions up and running again. For a constitutional nationalist to blame SF for the absence of an executive is incredible tbh.
blanch152 wrote: » None of that addresses the points I made. If your number one objective is to stop Brexit or lessen the effects, then you pay whatever price necessary to get an Executive in place that gives you the authority to speak on the issue. Otherwise, you continue to sit on your hands, hurling from the ditch and pontificating from the high moral ground - but nobody will listen to you.
blanch152 wrote: » Like so many things in politics, it all depends on your perspective. If you take the view that Sinn Fein should hurl from the ditch and pontificate from the high moral ground, without actually having to make any decisions, then there wasn't an own goal. If you take the view that it is better for Sinn Fein to actually be in government and to take part in the devolved government, be able to have a say on Brexit from a position of authority, and take the image of power back from the DUP in Westminister, then yes, it was an own goal.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » Funny that you would mention perspective, because you seem to have missed a rather important aspect which i mentioned rather specifically in the post you quoted. What you're suggesting is that all other party's (not just Sinn Fein) should suck it up, and let one other party have the final say in things. That is not how democracy works. I can only imagine the outrage from you if all the other party's were forced to reluctantly go along with something only Sinn Fein wanted/didn't want "for the greater good". The days of the DUP riding roughshod over everyone else's wishes are over, and I would have expected anyone that supports fairness and democracy to support that. Especially constitutional nationalists. But then again, perspective.
and wanted to be introduced by all the other major party's in the north?
Johnny Dogs wrote: » Given that it has emerged that the DUP have lied about what they agreed, the question asked in the OP has been answered anyway. Did Sinn Fein score an own goal from the DUP reneging on something they had agreed to, and wanted to be introduced by all the other major party's in the north? Surely the answer is a big hefty resounding no.
blanch152 wrote: » There was nothing for McGuinness to forgive. There is an awful lot he needs to be forgiven for.
FrancieBrady wrote: » He had loads of opportunities to attack the idea that the IRA style themselves as Óglaigh na hÉireann but he chose the erection of a gravestone. Did Martin McGuinness forgive? Did he put aside grievances and go beyond what might be expected of him? He was a bigger man than Stack was in this context in fairness. There is a time and a place.
blanch152 wrote: » You know, Martin McGuinness was involved in the organisation that killed his father, and you are criticising him for not liking the wording on the headstone. Amazing.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Really, do we need to do this? 'Criticize or oppose fiercely and publicly.'https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/attack
blanch152 wrote: » You said he attacked the headstone: I haven't seen any evidence of him attacking the headstone or defacing it or damaging it. I have seen this:http://www.thejournal.ie/martin-mcguinness-headstone-3345470-Apr2017/ It is fair comment. Martin McGuinness was a convicted terrorist and self-admitted member of the IRA. That is known and proven truth. Really, that is "attacking the headstone"?
FrancieBrady wrote: » No suprise that you think the family of a SF man is not due any peace to grieve. I doubt the hissy fit about his grave affected Martin. I'm sure Mr Stack didn't realise that. :rolleyes:
FrancieBrady wrote: » He had no problem attacking the headstone of a recently dead father and husband and has never saw fit to apologise for his intemperate outburst.
blanch152 wrote: » People who defend Sinn Fein don't really get it, do they? Why would Austin Stack be a reasonable man, given the lies he was told for years and when some of the truth was finally revealed, most was kept hidden and Sinn Fein keep insulting his father's memory? Seriously?
Was that some innocent man?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Thing is, it isn't his view. It is a manufactured story to conform to his view. Who said she was going to go to the Stacks personally anyway?Austin Stack doesn't strike me as a reasonable man willing to accept an apology.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Lad is entitled to display his views ,Dogs. Not everyone like yourself thinks the Shinners can do no wrong. Letting yourself down, mate.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Lad is entitled to display his views ,Dogs.
Not everyone like yourself thinks the Shinners can do no wrong.
Letting yourself down, mate.
