The DUP refusing to let Sinn Fein have First Minister means a December Assembly Election. Will the numbers change in a fresh Election?
What parties seats are vulnerable or who might make gains in any constituencies ??
Yes, your government imposed it on you just like Brexit was imposed. Your late monarch signed it into law...your laws.
Governments do that all the time. Like they did on women's rights and Language rights and the traffic laws etc etc.
This isn't news.
So we are agreed he thinks it was imposed on the unionist community without their consent (and they don’t like it). It’s irrelevant whether it was imposed on the nationalists without there consent as their politicians have now given it their consent - indeed they have asked for its rigorous implementation
its a bit like saying that a United ireland will be imposed on both ni communities without their consent - we know what that riddle really means
"I do have regrets and a regret that I have is that in the same way Brexit was imposed on Northern Ireland without the support of both communities, the protocol was imposed on Northern Ireland without the support of two communities," he said.
Varadkar 'regrets' issues on way protocol implemented (rte.ie)
This is the local report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-northern-ireland-64342151
He is simply buttering up the DUP to accept the Protocol with a few tweaks. BTW he said 'over the heads of Unionist and Nationalists' and that is a criticism of your Government who proposed and signed it into law.
What utter nonsense. Her own party removed her eventually and the next guy too.
The power to remove a First Minister exists.
What do reasonable people think here. Is Leo speaking with integrity and is there a possibility he will shift his position towards a more fair evenhanded approach, which could lead to an election and the reestablishment of stormont.
certainly saying some more interesting stuff about the protocol being imposed over the heads of unionists. He seems to be a slow learner but I certainly did not expect the unionist community to be achieving as much change so quickly
You are simply backing up my point. They had zero power to remove her (unless of course her own party turned on her - fantasy stuff). I also said that they failed in their objective and you have also confirmed that.
Not surprised you don't know how you Exec works. Here you go...the 'power' to remove is there.
The Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), Alliance Party, People Before Profit (PBP), Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV), and the Green Party signed a ministerial exclusion motion under Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which would formally remove Foster from office.[25] Although the opposition had a majority in the subsequent motion of no confidence, the motion did not pass because of Stormont's cross-community procedures.[26] This section was intended for removing politicians from office if they became involved in paramilitary activities.
Colum Eastwood, SDLP leader, said that Foster "should follow the precedent set by her predecessor and resign to restore confidence in the office of first minister while these questions hang over her". UUP leader Mike Nesbitt called for the MLAs to "come together and protect the reputation of the institutions".[27]
After three hours of debate, a division was called and MLAs voted on the motion. Of the 75 members voting, 39 voted to exclude her from office, while 36 MLAs voted against. Although a 52% majority had thus supported the vote of no confidence, under Stormont rules, the vote was a cross-community vote that required the majority of nationalist MLAs and unionist MLAs to support it. 100% of nationalist MLAs, but only 29% of unionist MLAs, voted to exclude Foster, meaning that Foster survived the vote of no confidence.
The executive had zero power to make her stand aside. The only for sf was to collapse the entire institutions for 3 years and it completely failed on the objective you just outlined as they had to pack up their pride and come back in with her as FM. Indeed she would have been gone much sooner but for sf failed bullying tactics
SF asked that she stand aside(not her resignation) to allow a proper inquiry as others did too. When she wouldn't (with the support of other Unionist parties) SF collapsed the Executive and the inquiry took place.
The Executive had the power to make her stand aside.
my memory is hazy but I seem to remember that sf demand for re establishment of stormont was that Arlene would stand down as leader. Also something that the assembly had no direct influence over. Don’t see the difference.
It may be doing them harm. But holding an executive with no power to satisfy them, hostage is the problem. They should be holding the implementers and originators of the Protocol hostage.
I welcome the idea that the rules are to be changed btw.
Surely though you can see that the DUP can argue that the NI protocol implementation is doing them harm. So their abstention is legit in their eyes. Yes they are the authors partly of their own misfortune but we are where we are etc etc
Change the rules of the Belfast/ GFA - so that groupings other than nationalists or unionists can have a say. Then have a new assembly election. That'll clarify matters and hopefully shift the logjam.
Problem with that is we all suspect that neither the DUP nor SF would like this as it might weaken the 'them or us' campaign narrative and lead to a loss of seats and influence??
Abstention from the parliament that is doing you the harm is legitimate...however holding a parliament/executive that cannot change anything hostage to your demands is not.
The Executive could have intervened on Irish language and RHI but it cannot on the Protocol. IF the executive was allowed to vote on the Protocol, it would vote to keep it currently.
I'm puzzled Francie but abstention is a valid political strategy and has been used many times in democratic society.
It's not very productive for the citizens and they will have a choice in the next election as to how to respond.
But as the current rules allow, the DUP are doing nothing wrong.
Change the rules.
Ugh more deflecting whataboutery.
Im talking to YOU about YOUR vote, the fact you cant and wont answer without pointing fingers speaks volumes.
So just a thin excuse for finger-wagging then 'cos there isn't parity of offence in your eyes; at least be honest about it. But that you can't actually understand the point about the difference between core ideology and a functional lapse of morality or ethics means this will only go around in circles.
It's just a myoclonic jerk for you at this stage; what's that DUP bad? Oh well SF bad too WHAT ABOUT THEM?? Yes downcow, SF bad, but that wasn't the point being made. I think you know this, cos nobody's comprehension is that brittle, but anything for a dig. Think it's best I just put you on ignore 'cos this thread has no value getting sidetracked by your tedious Pavlovian ability to protest too much. Adios.
It’s really very simple.
I hold the dup significantly to blame for the protocol.
I believe the most effective use of my vote today to oppose the protocol is dup.
I might seem strange but it’s true.
Quite clear what I was challenged ie the attempt to paint the largest unionist party as somehow ‘badder’ that the largest nationalist party.
I detest some of the conservative positions taken by many within the dup around lgbt etc, but not quite as much as I detest the justification of murder ongoing in sf. I don’t like either. I don’t hear many in here expressing their disgust at O’Neill saying there was no alternative
So the NI Protocol is in the past and therefore doesn't answer the question as to why you might or might not vote for the DUP.
But you will support the DUB because of the NI Protocol
Well at least we know your thinking is beyond logical scrutiny.
I'm not unwilling to admit anything; but if you can show me where child abuse exists within the IDEOLOGY of Sinn Fein, I'll take your point. Instead you trotted out histrionic whataboutery about Sinn Finn - once again - while also again missing the entire point being I was making. I'll repeat: ideology. Nothing to do with the criminal or ethical failings of the party & members within. Sure they all are at that to one degree or another. Ideology. Ideology.
Actually no, I take it back: you just agreed with me that the DUP are religious fundamentalists, so your about-turn into a whatabout on Sinn Fein even more of a tedious time-waster - and without purpose except that impulsiveness to automatically have a dig in at The Other Side, lest the honour of Unionism be excessively besmirched by uppity folk South of the border.
Nick Watt on BBC Newsnight reporting Sunak May be willing to do deal on NI protocol without the DUP . If they didn’t like it, rules for Stormont could be changed.
How much capital is there in the 'threat to devolution' now?
I would imagine he would find little resistance to the idea among most on these islands TBH.
There is no party that has religiously motivated policy akin to the DUP on this island.
I think you all know this anyhow, and know that I have no desire to promote right wing politics in general, but sometimes my enemies enemy is where I will put my X. This article is a clumsy summary of why the FUP would get my X tomorrow https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/dup-erg-brexit-alliance-northern-ireland-protocol-rishi-sunak
You shared your outrage about the DUP. So goose, hanger and all that.
actually I don’t disagree that that the DUP are further along the ‘biggoted religious fundamentalist’ line than most parties in ni, but your unwillingness to see context and to admit the bigotry and prejudice of swathes of republicanism is glaring.
Once again you respond to a point of view I never made, and in a rush to whatabout into a soapbox about Sinn Fein, misunderstand the very point I was getting to.
Yes, I would consider religious fundamentalists and the broad social conservatism of the DUP to be along the more extreme ideological axis within this island's various political parties, left to right. The critical word this time you missed, is "ideology". Re-read my post without descending into another affront. Your rush to pillory other users for not sharing your outrage about the shinners is tiresome.
And attempt by undemocratic means to impose it on everyone else.
The very definition of bigoted religious fundamentalism.
One man's party of politicians who are "science denying, bigoted religious fundamentalists"
is another's group of "straight talking and honest/ fulfil my promises" public representatives.
You might not like Northern Presbyterians but in general they do live by an honest, hard working ethic based on traditional beliefs.
we really are going in circles now.
just be clear with me. Are you suggesting that the huge number of people who vote sf north and south believe that the murder of my civilian neighbour was justified and that the murder of children and babies should not be condemned outright?
if you answer is yes, then I can’t accuse you of hypocrisy in your statements about me. If you answer is no then……….
ps if your answer is yes, and you are correct, then we are all in big trouble
