Bonniedog wrote: » I was referring to historical illiterates like yourself who clearly can't understand simple statements. GFA commits the two governments to " ...recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by 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." Sunningdale: "The Irish government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of people in Northern Ireland desired a change in that status." Hillsborough 1985 - "The two governments affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland." Perhaps our constitutional experts here will explain the difference?
The "unionist veto" in the GFA is exactly the same as it was in Sunningdale:
FrancieBrady wrote: » Change the goalposts when caught out. You were spouting this rubbish a while ago: Do you accept that this was rubbish of the highest order or not?
Edgware wrote: » Could you go through that again. I lost you at the first Quote
FrancieBrady wrote: » Bonniedog doesn't even know what the 'Unionist Veto' refers to. I posted the Hume piece to try and educate him.
Bonniedog wrote: » You are not very bright are you, young Francis? The "unionist veto" is the right to consent to change constitutional status of NI. It's still there. Only difference between 1973 is that erstwhile republicans are prepared to accept it and administer part of Ireland for the Brits.
The fundamental change that has taken place as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a change that is deeply and fully understood by every Unionist. What it means is that their exclusive hold on power has gone and is not coming back. The power of veto on British policy which they have always had, and which goes to the heart of our problem here, has gone and is not coming back.
Bonniedog wrote: » So the Provos did support Sunningdale but decided for the crack to keep killing people and having Volunteers killed for nothing for another 25 years? Genius. BTW,when the army surrendered Volunteers were told that the Brits would be gone "within five years." Don't know if you noticed this, but they are still here 22 years after the GFA. Genius. So now, the shinners run the 6 for the Brits, the IRA has surrendered and handed over all its weapons, and the party is dominated by people who wouldn't have had had anything to do with it 25 years ago. And no nearer a united Ireland than 1922. Pure genius. I wonder do they have a tip for the Derby?
Bonniedog wrote: » Am bored. So went to trouble not only of explaining what consent/veto means in context of the three agreements, but posting the relevant sections. You respond with meaningless quote from a man who unlike myself was often on the sauce! Hume was part of conning the shinners - or rather supplying Adams with enough to con them into the surrender. He was hardly going to say that in public! "By the way lads we rogered you sideways without the courtesy of a reach around." :-) You are even less coherent that a shinner TD, and that's saying something. Paper hat in the post :-)
Poor_old_gill wrote: » Only came onto this thread for the pathetic whataboutery, so thank you.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Don't like to see John Humes name dragged through the mud here, lads. The finest Republican since Collins.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Hume's solo run on foot of the Anglo Irish Agreement and Adams/SF's receptiveness to it was pivotal. For somebody to be so lazy as to not understand what the Unionist veto was and what the AIA did to it, is unforgiveable really. Hume deserves every plaudit he gets for what he did.
Bowie wrote: » You're cool with O'Leary though, who openly admires the Blueshirts?
Bonniedog wrote: » Are you an SF supporter? Has their degeneracy gotten so bad that people like you vote for them? To think that people like Bobby Sands died for this. A shame.
Mortelaro wrote: » https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1276801701316460544?s=19
Bonniedog wrote: » Another new Sinn Féin south Dublin councillor Dermot Richardson was given suspended sentence last October for an assault on his former wife's partner. Headbutted him and knocked two of his teeth out. Some set up down there it would seem! Strange mixture of people who should be in Greens or some other touchy feely party, and basically a gang of thugs.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Did Colum offer an opinion on why a party would deliberately embroil themselves in bad publicity? Like this proposal/nomination came across one of the white bearded old men in the Antrim hill's desk and he thought to himself...'what a brilliant idea to make the party look good, this will really advance our plot to take over the state...approved'. That how it works?
Mortelaro wrote: » Ha! It's a wonder you dont apply that kind of analysis to other parties,I don't think But yes it seems that's how it works
FrancieBrady wrote: » A wee political lesson for you here Mort...when wanting to have a go at a party, taking the word of a competitor politician is invariably shaky. You should ask yourself first, is somebody having a cheap shot? Which makes more practical sense, that the decision to propose Holohan was handed down from the party elders or simple taking the eye off the ball? Is SF deliberately hurting itself for some nefarious end or was a mistake made? Because IMO it was a mistake and those behind it are to be criticised.
Bonniedog wrote: » When a party has a record of inviting people to meet them in barns in north Mon and beating them to death with iron bars and cudgels with nails, the bar is not being set very high. Add that to the large number of rapists, child abusers, informers, and so on and you can see the yawning gap between them and nice guys like Ó Broin whose life is devoted to helping the homeless and helping old ladies cross the road to bingo.
Edgware wrote: » Hume and Mallon were the true Republicans unlike the Provos who want to ape the Unionist/Loyalist block who believed that 50% +1% is justification to claim a majority and discriminate against the 49%.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Always struck me,senior members of sdlp were compromised by mi5 and for this reason hume kept.them out of the loop in the intial peace talks
FrancieBrady wrote: » Mallon, along with Eddie O'Grady forced Hume to do a solo run in talks with SF. Stop the revisionism...know the history. Mallon was bitter about his own mistake and tried to blame everything and everyone else. Hume was the visionary and should get the credit. The rest of the SDLP tried to protect and promote the party above real peacemaking. The electorate didn't miss it and showed what they thought of the SDLP.
