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 ??
Blanch has made everything very clear there. I had posters laughing at me for suggesting dup did not commit to an ila in the SAA.
the facts are the facts.
I would content that an Irish language act will have an extremely negative effect on Irish language in ni. It will just draw it further into the divisive politics
As the Guardian says:
The DUP has been signing up to such deals on the language since 2007 but once again stalled when it came to their implementation.
ANy excuses for them is just excusing blatant cultural bigotry really.
The language of the document was written precisely that way so that the DUP wouldn't be committing to supporting an Irish Languages Act. You don't need an ILA to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language, there are many ways in which that objective can be achieved.
IF the drafters of the document wanted to commit the DUP to supporting an ILA, the document would have said exactly that. It didn't. It didn't even commit the British government to vote for one, only to introduce it to Westminister. These agreements say what they say and only that.
Come off it, how can you pretend that rejecting an Irish Language Act equates to work "to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language"?
That's total and utter nonsense and has to be called out as such.
There will be plenty who will try to disguise the DUP's bigoted rejection of anything Irish.
Nobody said that they agreed to it at St Andrew's. What was said was they signed an agreement that had within it a committment to an Irish Language Act.
Their a lá carte approach to agreements is now well established.
Allowing an Irish Languages Act is not necessarily the same thing as enhancing and protecting the development of the Irish language.
(1) There are people who dispute the effect of the ILA in the South, and argue it has set back the Irish language
(2) It could be done through a minorities languages act, not just an ILA.
Didn't they sign an agreement that stated the Stormont Executive would work "to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language"?
If so then why did they do they exact opposite, by not allowing the ILA?
Can you not see the point being made through your orange tinted lenses?
The Agreement didn't commit the DUP to supporting an Irish Languages Act. In fact, it explicitly differentiated between what the British Government would do in Westminister (introduce an Irish Languages Act) and what the Stormont Executive would do (work "to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language").
As with any agreement, any party is only responsible for their own commitments as part of that agreement. The DUP are not committed to supporting an Irish Languages Act, that is a fact. They are not committed to introducing one in Stormont, they are not committed to voting for one in Westminister.
...the DUP committed to introducing an ILA to Stormont
That was never claimed. What was claimed was that the DUP signed an agreement which included a provision to introduce an Irish Language Act. They were a party to that agreement
The Irish government signed the Maastrict Treaty which established the introduction of the Euro. Part of that agreement was that France (for example) would adopt the Euro. The Irish government obviously had no hand in implementing the adoption of the Euro in France. Are you seriously trying to claim that the Irish government didn't agree that France would adopt the Euro? Because that's as absurd an argument as downcow is making
Ah yes! Thanks Francie. It was bugging me over the last couple of days.
That's where I've heard the expression "our territory" before.
Nobody said that though. Downcow pivoted to that because he couldn't deny that the DUP and all parties + the Irish and the UK government signed an agreement that included a commitment to an ILA.
To be fair to downcow, the text is clear that the Westminister government would introduce an Irish Language Act and that the Executive would only work "to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language."
Nowhere in the text is the DUP committed to introducing an ILA to Stormont, so technically, downcow is correct on that issue. Twisting the language to mean the DUP committing to an ILA in Stormont is both untrue and provocative. In fact, the document doesn't even commit the British government to supporting such an Act in Westminister, only that it will introduce it. As parliament is sovereign, technically it could decide to vote down an ILA, and still be compliant with the St Andrews Agreement.
I’m not sure there behaviour was because the feared being thrown out of the Uk. More like it was blatant sectarianism and control freakery, undoubtedly not unrelated to what was happening to their kinfolk across the border. Both states operated from unreasonable sectarian mindsets
It is up there with Israel and South Africa as an example of a state with a siege mentality. That mentality has never diminshed as we can plainly see today.
I doubt very much that NI unionists accepted that staying in the UK would be temporary. But I suspect rather more of them you supposed feared that it would be temporary.
To be honest, Francie has made at least one point which is hard to deny; nothing about the history of NI from 1922 to 1972 suggests that its governing class was ever confident about the survival of the state.
Here is what I said:
Equality and parity of esteem legislation and legislation on the Irish language was agreed at St. Andrews among all those party's present. They all signed that agreement including the DUP.
The DUP blocked that legislation as best they could until the British government were forced to honour their committments to the St. Andrew's Agreement.
as I predicted to another poster, you turned that into re-iterating the DUP's excuses that they never agreed to Irish Language legislation at St. Andrew's. They did in fact, it is there in the Agreement in black and white.
And it came to pass regardless of the DUP's attempts to block it. Now they do their best to block implementation. Democrats? not a chance, this is their modus operandi as we can see from other Agreements and laws they refuse to implement.
It is not often mentioned, but there was also a class aspect to the gerrymandering and control that the Unionist elite organised.
Labour and Independent Unionist candidates representing working class Protestant and Catholic voters defeated Unionist candidates almost without exception under the PR system. The elite feared a split in the Protestant vote and the new system of voting eliminated that risk and made sure that Craig got his wish to make elections about that 'one issue'.
Agree completely. If I said all unionists were confident about there future in the Uk then I happily retract that.
what I am resisting is an argument that somehow unionists accepted that staying in the Uk was a temporary solution. If they convinced nationalist Ireland that that was their thinking, then that was a master stroke. If that helped keep us in the Uk, then fair play the the unionist spindoctors of 1921 - we could do with a few of them today.
I am also tired of this one francie. Everyone should be able to see that you are creating a fog of various agreements, letters, annex’s etc and continually refer to agreements and commitments governments made and imply that they were then the responsibility of the dup to enact.
I am finished with this circular argument also. Dup did not renege on a commitment they made around an ILA (fact)
Francie I was trying to bring to an end a monotonous circular argument. Unionists had just achieved a major victory. Confidence normally follows such. You are trying to align gerrymandering and I’ll treatment of the catholic minority as evidence unionists thought we would soon be in a United ireland. Surely that would be counterintuitive and we would be setting ourselves up for reprisals.
ps I didn’t ask us to agree, I suggested we move on in disagreement.
I am not spending any more energy on this.
I wouldn't assume that they were feeling confident. They knew what they wanted; they knew what they didn't want; and they knew what they didn't want had been staved off. But it didn't follow that they were confident that this state of affairs would endure - the attempt by the NI government to collapse the boundary review points to the opposite of confidence about this, surely? And, remember, when you're talking about the grassroots unionist community, you need to remember that in border areas that was the minority community — and they were very aware of that.
It may be a mistake in 1922 to speak of "the grassroots unionist community" as a coherent block. It's speculation on my part, but it's quite possible that, say, unionists in and around Belfast assumed that, with the relative wealth and industrial strength of Belfast as a foundation, NI was economically and politically secure and they derived comfort from this, while unionists in Fermanagh, Tyrone, etc might have been more affected by the risk that they would shortly find themselves in the Free State. And of course they would all have known unionists who already found themselves in the Free State, so this wasn't a remote or inconceivable scenario to them. Even if they also believed that a rump NI centred on Down and Antrim might endure, that wasn't necessarily a lot of consolation to them.
As we know, the creation of NI was very consciously a trade-off between maximising the area (and so the prosperity and viability) of NI and minimising the number of nationalists included within it — too many nationalists, and the political sustainability of the project is called into question. That's why a movement that identified as "Ulster Unionism" settled for six, rather than nine, counties. But I don't think it was a given that the balance they eventually struck - six counties - would turn out to the right balance. We know with hindsight that NI did survive; we can't project our hindsight back to them.
No, we won't 'agree' anything. You are wrong, the Unionist community was so fearful they altered the voting system and constituencies to maintain their Union - the
'one point of vital importance to the Ulster people'
Fact.
Firstly, apologies. It was Annex B I was referencing not 2.
I don't understand why you just don't read the actual signed agreement. That is the 'disingenuous' aspect to this. It's is all there in the document.
And it is why the British government was compelled to act when Unionists AGAIN blocked what had been agreed as far back as the GFA.
Following Executive failure to progress the legislation through the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland committed to bringing the legislation through Parliament, which will be delivered today.
In addition to the legislation, the UK Government has also announced the delivery of two of its own New Decade, New Approach commitments.
The Government is officially giving recognition to Ulster Scots as a National Minority under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, a status already accorded to Irish, Welsh and Scots, and since 2014, Cornish, among others.
The Government will also provide £4 million to An Ciste Infheistíochta Gaeilge, the Irish Language Investment Fund.
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Brandon Lewis said:
“The introduction of this Bill represents a significant milestone, not just in the continued delivery of New Decade, New Approach, but in laying down a new cultural framework for the people of Northern Ireland.
“This legislation is carefully balanced, as negotiated by all parties, to ensure everyone in Northern Ireland benefits.
“Not only will the legislation faithfully deliver on the measures within New Decade, New Approach, it will also, importantly, ensure the principles of respect and tolerance, as stated in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, continue to be realised.”
I think we need to agree to differ on that one. We have done it to death. Your post says zero to me about my community thinking we were only going to stay a few more years in Uk
No, they didn't in fact feel confident. They immediately set about changing the voting system and gerymandering boundaries to bolster their artificially created state. EG. The Derry constituency was extended to include a protestant unionist area to ensure a Unionist majority. Other examples include splitting a Catholic housing area into two different constituencies. Here is Craig expressing the 'fears' of his 'community'.
What I have been afraid of under the proportional representation system was that certain members might be returned to the House who in a crisis upon the one point of vital importance to the Ulster people, might not stand on which side it was intended they should stand when elected (Bell, 1976, p. 101).
Just saying it over and over again and having more numbers of posters doesn’t make you correct. Also your purpose in saying ‘more disingenuous posting’ should be clear to all!
This issue began from you saying that the dup had reneged on the SAA.
Annex 1 of The St Andrews Agreement was a letter from Tony Blair to Bertie Ahern on 13 October 2006. Annex 2 was a letter from Bertie Ahern to Tony Blair on 13 October 2006. Both letters were about their respective governments’ commitments on various issues related to Northern Ireland. The agreement did not give specific reference to these annexes.
I know you don’t like the chatbot offering his opinion on this matter, but here is my exchange with him - maybe he’s been bribed by Jamie Anyhow he is stating exactly what I understood, ie the dup did not renege on a commitment re ila
“Annex 1 was a letter from Tony Blair to Bertie Ahern, and Annex 2 was a letter from Bertie Ahern to Tony Blair. Both of these letters outlined the commitments that each government had made regarding various issues related to Northern Ireland. Despite their importance, the St Andrews Agreement did not specifically reference these annexes..
Q Were these commitments made by the political parties or just the governments?
(Bot) The commitments outlined in Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the St Andrews Agreement were made by the respective governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, rather than the political parties. The St Andrews Agreement was signed by the political parties in Northern Ireland and the governments of the UK and the Republic of Ireland, but the commitments outlined in the annexes were made solely by the governments.
Q Is it an indisputable fact the these two annex’s were not referenced on the agreement which the parties signed?
(Bot) Yes, it is an indisputable fact that the St Andrews Agreement, signed on 13 October 2006, did not specifically reference Annex 1 and Annex 2. While the agreement itself was signed by the political parties in Northern Ireland, as well as the governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, it did not make any specific reference to the two Annex’s.
Very clear post. I agree with it all except I may disagree about what ‘they ‘ means. If you are suggesting the grassroots unionist community were expected to be forced out of the Uk in the coming years then I would question that. The community had just managed to face down an major attempt to end the Uk membership - surely they would be of the opposite opinion ie feeling fairly confident about the creation of ni with a strong majority who wanted to remain
The UK certainly did exist in 1922; as downcow points out, it had existed since 1801 as "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". What happened in 1922 is that it split apart into two states, one of which ("the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland") was (and still is) accepted internationally as the successor state to the UK of GB & I.
There was a widespread expectation in 1922 that partition would not be permanent. The border was certainly not to be permanent; the Treaty included a provision to establish a boundary commission to redraw the border "in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants" . As three, and possibly four, out of the six counties of NI had a nationalist majority, it was widely expected that the redrawn border would result in a "rump" NI which would be simply too small to be economically or politically viable. This wasn't an expectation cherished just by nationalists; the government of NI refused to co-operate with the boundary commission in an attempt to frustrate the redrawing of the border, because they feared precisely this outcome.
In the event, this isn't what happened, of course, but we are concerned here with what people expected in 1922. They did expect, at a minimum, that a significant part of NI would be transferred to the Free State, and that this might well lead in the long term to the end of partition.
I posted that earlier, but apparently a chat bot is a more reliable source.
