The glorious 12th

Dytalus wrote: »

C'mon now. I understand your point (it's hardly like they'll be removing the English so it doesn't detract from their side of things), but the situation in NI does warrant concessions from both sides to keep the peace until the tensions are gone (if they ever will be).

Outright forbidding Irish signage is ridiculous and hardly in the spirit of reconciliation. But to counterbalance that if the majority in an area don't want it then maybe it's best not to put it up. Maybe if it starts going up in cities/towns (I think it's a bit much to do it street by street within, say, Derry but it may be necessary) those against it might realise it's not that big a deal and start to allow it in unionist areas.

Or maybe not. Point is NI is not like Ireland (or England, or really any of the countries on these isles), and progress on this sort of divided topic is going to have be done slowly if it's going to get done at all. That being said...

Those provisions are in the proposals I have seen. There is no onus if you don't want a street named in Irish.

downcow trying to make 'having to look at the Irish name for somewhere' the same as having to live with a triumphalist parade bullying it's way into your home area is ridiculous.

Source, please? Because the official stance states exactly the opposite to this, as I'm pretty sure you've been told before.

He has been given the documentation but still insists that this is what people want to do.

Dytalus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those provisions are in the proposals I have seen. There is no onus if you don't want a street named in Irish.

downcow trying to make 'having to look at the Irish name for somewhere' the same as having to live with a triumphalist parade bullying it's way into your home area is ridiculous.

Oh I totally agree (and if you've a link to those proposals handy I'd appreciate it. I know I've seen them before but I cannot for the life of me find them now). A sign is passive and well....it's a piece of static scenery. Parades are loud and, at the very least, incredibly distracting. They can cause all sorts of havoc with a town's daily happenings (even if only for a few hours). That's parades in general, never mind the uh... unfortunate history and events tied to some OO parades.

If the counter to "we don't want parades" is honestly "we don't want signs" then the whole debate has become awfully surreal.

janfebmar

downcow wrote: »

There will be people putting up Irish signage in unionist areas

And then discriminating against non Irish language speakers when it comes to state jobs and entrance to most of the universities here, like happened last time. Francie is thinking some will be persuaded to " up tents" to use his phrase. He still has not condemned the previous Provo attempt to persuade protestants along the border to up tents during the troubles, for example by attacking the school bus Arlene was in as a kid, or attempting to murder her father on another occasion.

In his fantasy N I roads will be named after Patriots, everyone will learn the national anthem "as gaelige" and everyone will learn the correct version of history, and how the brave pira liberated our land.

Dytalus wrote: »

Oh I totally agree (and if you've a link to those proposals handy I'd appreciate it. I know I've seen them before but I cannot for the life of me find them now). A sign is passive and well....it's a piece of static scenery. Parades are loud and, at the very least, incredibly distracting. They can cause all sorts of havoc with a town's daily happenings (even if only for a few hours). That's parades in general, never mind the uh... unfortunate history and events tied to some OO parades.

If the counter to "we don't want parades" is honestly "we don't want signs" then the whole debate has become awfully surreal.

https://cnag.ie/images/Acht_Gaeilge_%C3%B3_Thuaidh/15M%C3%812017_Pl%C3%A9ch%C3%A1ip%C3%A9is_ar_Acht_Gaeilge_%C3%B3_Thuaidh.pdf

You have people in the Unionist camp and here, completely misrepresenting what is required/proposed.

janfebmar wrote: »

And then discriminating against non Irish language speakers when it comes to state jobs and entrance to most of the universities here, like happened last time. Francie is thinking some will be persuaded to " up tents" to use his phrase. He still has not condemned the previous Provo attempt to persuade protestants along the border to up tents during the troubles, for example by attacking the school bus Arlene was in as a kid, or attempting to murder her father on another occasion.

My wife and children are 'protestants' living along the border. You have no idea what you are talking about.

citytillidie

janfebmar wrote: »

I'd say when it comes to sexuality there is not much difference between the young people on both sides. Young Catholics are generally in favour of contraception, unlike their church. People make up their minds on both sides.

To the best of my limited knowledge no houses went on fire. I disagree with flags being placed on bonfires, it is disrespectful to your neighbours. I wonder what percentage of fires have flags on them - is it true many do not? And what about the anti-internment anniversary bonfires, what% of them have flags?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/12/eleventh-night-bonfires-terraced-homes-gutted-as-blaze-sparked-b/amp/

And yet they still build bonfire's close to homes

blanch152 wrote: »

Us versus who? Them? Others? The problem with the UI fantasy is that it requires a victory over others.

The root of all the wars of the 20th century was the concept of our country to the exclusion of someone else.

Anyone in Northern Ireland who wants to be part of the Irish nation already can be thanks to the GFA which extended citizenship, so our duty is fulfilled.

You really need to answer the question you are asked. You are proposing a concept of stateless Irish nationhood. If the Irish nation did not have its own independnat state, then who would govern our affairs for us?

The maintenance of the union requires a victory over others too. The constitutional status quo is not morally superior to the proposed alternative. Either constitutional alternative is morally equivalant. It is a question of one or the other, and the deciding factor is the will of the majority of the people in NI. Currently we have one, becasue that is what the majority wills. If and when the majority will changes, then the other alternative will have to be implemented. Anything else would be the victory of the minority over the majority and the exclusion of the majority will in favour of the minority will.

Thanks to the GFA, if and when the majority chooses to change the constitutional status quo, it will happen. Anything else would be a serious deriliction of our duty.

Dytalus wrote: »

C'mon now. I understand your point (it's hardly like they'll be removing the English so it doesn't detract from their side of things), but the situation in NI does warrant concessions from both sides to keep the peace until the tensions are gone (if they ever will be).

Outright forbidding Irish signage is ridiculous and hardly in the spirit of reconciliation. But to counterbalance that if the majority in an area don't want it then maybe it's best not to put it up. Maybe if it starts going up in cities/towns (I think it's a bit much to do it street by street within, say, Derry but it may be necessary) those against it might realise it's not that big a deal and start to allow it in unionist areas.

Or maybe not. Point is NI is not like Ireland (or England, or really any of the countries on these isles), and progress on this sort of divided topic is going to have be done slowly if it's going to get done at all. That being said...

Source, please? Because the official stance states exactly the opposite to this, as I'm pretty sure you've been told before.

The danger in that approach is that it continues the ghettosiation of Northern Ireland, a tactic relied on by both the DUP and SF to keep their support strong.

If people actually mixed in schools, workplaces, streets, shops and local pubs, there wouldn't be as much support for the two extremes. The way that society is organised along sectarian lines in Northern Ireland only helps division.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The maintenance of the union requires a victory over others too. The constitutional status quo is not morally superior to the proposed alternative. Either constitutional alternative is morally equivalant. It is a question of one or the other, and the deciding factor is the will of the majority of the people in NI. Currently we have one, becasue that is what the majority wills. If and when the majority will changes, then the other alternative will have to be implemented. Anything else would be the victory of the minority over the majority and the exclusion of the majority will in favour of the minority will.

Thanks to the GFA, if and when the majority chooses to change the constitutional status quo, it will happen. Anything else would be a serious deriliction of our duty.

The constitutional status quo has democratic legitimacy so it is morally superior to all alternatives unless and until there is a democratic change of mind.

downcow wrote: »

There will be people putting up Irish signage in unionist areas

Of course there will, if the people living in that area want it.

janfebmar

blanch152 wrote: »

If people actually mixed in schools, workplaces, streets, shops and local pubs, there wouldn't be as much support for the two extremes. The way that society is organised along sectarian lines in Northern Ireland only helps division.

Correct, and it is the catholic Church who wants to have 2 different types of schools. The ne temere ruling also ensured over time the other side got diluted / reduced in numbers and was a form of bullying.

blanch152 wrote: »

The constitutional status quo has democratic legitimacy so it is morally superior to all alternatives unless and until there is a democratic change of mind.

Ok, and as set out in the GFA, if and when the democratic majority in NI changes its mind and chooses to join a UI, that will have to happen. It is not a fantisy, it is an integral part of peace in NI.

Dytalus

blanch152 wrote: »

The danger in that approach is that it continues the ghettosiation of Northern Ireland, a tactic relied on by both the DUP and SF to keep their support strong.

If people actually mixed in schools, workplaces, streets, shops and local pubs, there wouldn't be as much support for the two extremes. The way that society is organised along sectarian lines in Northern Ireland only helps division.

That's definitely a fear, and one I hadn't considered if I'm honest.

I'm torn on my desire to not intrude on people's freedoms....but also if NI is to ever improve and get past the divide that's riven it since its inception then mixing needs to happen and someone's got to be responsible for pushing each community outside its comfort zone to get things moving. But push too much and someone, somewhere, is going to react explosively and then we're into "one step forward, two steps back" territory.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

Us and them, always the way. I have criticised both sides in the North, uncomfortable for the "republicans" that an Irish person would do this as only rightthinking is allowed on the national question.

Us and them? Why are you bringing an 'Us and Them' concept into it? Sitting on the fence is fine, but sitting on the fence applauding one side and slating the other isnt exactly criticising both sides. Its not criticism thats required here - its progressive movement forward.

janfebmar wrote: »

And then discriminating against non Irish language speakers when it comes to state jobs.

Imagine a non-Irish speaker being discriminated against if they apply for a position that requires Irish language skills. It's like an applicant to be a press officer being descriminated against because they are illiterate or an applicant for an engineering position being descriminated against just becasue they don't know how to do maths. Terrible stuff alltogether, so much DISCRIMINATION!

If the public service is to provide a service in Irish, then suitably qualified staff will be required to provide that service. There is nothing unusual in the civil service deciding what skills and qualifications are required to fill the roles it has available. But God forbid that this normal practice should apply when it comes to filling roles needed to provide a service in Irish. *Clutches at pearls*

It's not like that exact system is what is used in other parts of the UK, no, its a sinister republicen plot so it is!

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Imagine a non-Irish speaker being discriminated against if they apply for a position that requires Irish language skills. It's like an applicant to be a press officer being descriminated against because they are illiterate or an applicant for an engineering position being descriminated against just becasue they don't know how to do maths. Terrible stuff alltogether, so much DISCRIMINATION!

If the public service is to provide a service in Irish, then suitably qualified staff will be required to provide that service. There is nothing unusual in the civil service deciding what skills and qualifications are required to fill the roles it has available. But God forbid that this normal practice should apply when it comes to filling roles needed to provide a service in Irish. *Clutches at pearls*

It's not like that exact system is what is used in other parts of the UK, no, its a sinister republicen plot so it is!

I see from the Sunday Times that the EP has once again postponed Irish language interpretation because there are not enough translators.

An EU official was quoted as saying something like it wasn't the purpose of official language status to revive a language.

The real genuine demand for services in Irish other than lip service is tiny.

blanch152 wrote: »

I see from the Sunday Times that the EP has once again postponed Irish language interpretation because there are not enough translators.

An EU official was quoted as saying something like it wasn't the purpose of official language status to revive a language.

The real genuine demand for services in Irish other than lip service is tiny.

Irish is an official language of the EU. As with most languages which were given that status there was an initial derogation so that the EU translation service can make the necessary preperations, recruit staff and so on. Malteese for example went through the same process recently. The derogation on Irish is due to end in the next few years. Recruitment of staff is ongoing, seems to be a little slower than anticipated, hence the delay, but these things happen. I read today that overall work to end the derogation on time is on track.

Irish, even though currently operating under a derogation, is not the least used of the official languages of the EU within the institutions.

Despite the demand for services in Irish being so small, the state is still failing to meet the demand that is there. Surely if demand is so small, it should not be too dificult or too onerous for the state to meet it? I get the feeling that any demand for services in Irish, no matter how small, would be too much for you.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Must be awful for you having to drive in the South or go through Dublin airport, you should get on to the European Court of Human Rights.Imagine having to look at another language. Shocking stuff.

Must be awful for you to have to look at UK national flag flying in the UK. you should get on to the European Court of Human Rights.Imagine having to look at a the national flag. Shocking stuff.

downcow wrote: »

Must be awful for you to have to look at UK national flag flying in the UK. you should get on to the European Court of Human Rights.Imagine having to look at a the national flag. Shocking stuff.

I haven't a single problem with the UK flag.
I have a problem with triumphalist taunting using ANY flag.

downcow wrote: »

Must be awful for you to have to look at UK national flag flying in the UK. you should get on to the European Court of Human Rights.Imagine having to look at a the national flag. Shocking stuff.

Is there any reason to fly the Union Jack every day over public buildings instead of on designated days as is the practice in the rest of the UK? What is the purpose of it? Some people clearly see it as triumphalism, is that the reason? I think it may be an expression of Unionist insecurity over the place of NI within the UK. Is there any other reason to insist on it, or to be upset at being brought into line with the rest of the UK? Really, I am just trying to learn and better understand the unionist community.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I haven't a single problem with the UK flag.
I have a problem with triumphalist taunting using ANY flag.

So you object to the tricolour on IRA coffins?

Odhinn

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Is there any reason to fly the Union Jack every day over public buildings instead of on designated days as is the practice in the rest of the UK? What is the purpose of it? Some people clearly see it as triumphalism, is that the reason? I think it may be an expression of Unionist insecurity over the place of NI within the UK. Is there any other reason to insist on it, or to be upset at being brought into line with the rest of the UK? Really, I am just trying to learn and better understand the unionist community.

...and they're right.

Odhinn wrote: »

...and they're right.

Perhaps, but I am curious to know if they themselves see it that way, or if they have another reason that they can put forward to justify it to themselves.

_blaaz

blanch152 wrote: »

The constitutional status quo has democratic legitimacy so it is morally superior to all alternatives unless and until there is a democratic change of mind.

The constutional staus quo expresses a desire for reunification??

To express support in the present constitional situation surely means you support reunification??(either that or you just taking p1ss :pac: )

Dytalus wrote: »

C'mon now. I understand your point (it's hardly like they'll be removing the English so it doesn't detract from their side of things), but the situation in NI does warrant concessions from both sides to keep the peace until the tensions are gone (if they ever will be).

Outright forbidding Irish signage is ridiculous and hardly in the spirit of reconciliation. But to counterbalance that if the majority in an area don't want it then maybe it's best not to put it up. Maybe if it starts going up in cities/towns (I think it's a bit much to do it street by street within, say, Derry but it may be necessary) those against it might realise it's not that big a deal and start to allow it in unionist areas.

Or maybe not. Point is NI is not like Ireland (or England, or really any of the countries on these isles), and progress on this sort of divided topic is going to have be done slowly if it's going to get done at all. That being said...

Source, please? Because the official stance states exactly the opposite to this, as I'm pretty sure you've been told before.

I have already posted sources but people keep asking. So maybe this we pic from twitter will prove beyond all doubt that iriash signs are already being put up where they are not wanted
https://twitter.com/dreamdearg/status/1103740591811321856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1103740591811321856&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joe.ie%2Fnews%2Froad-signs-ulster-bi-lingual-661099

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My wife and children are 'protestants' living along the border. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Francie, Catch yourself on. If you are now saying there was no campaign to drive protestants out then you really out of touch. Your statement just reminds me that Gerry was never in the IRA and doesn't have a beard

downcow wrote: »

I have already posted sources but people keep asking. So maybe this we pic from twitter will prove beyond all doubt that iriash signs are already being put up where they are not wanted
https://twitter.com/dreamdearg/status/1103740591811321856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1103740591811321856&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joe.ie%2Fnews%2Froad-signs-ulster-bi-lingual-661099

It proves nothing more than that a handfull of thugs found (stole?) some paint. How do you define "not wanted", Downcow? Is it a handfull of thugs being put out by it, or do the opinions of the people actually living in area count for something?