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 ??
I'm only seeing now that Joe Biden told the NI party leaders that the US was wanting to triple investment in the region if power sharing is restored. Despite Donaldson stating that what Biden had to say "doesn’t change the political dynamic in Northern Ireland", will the DUP reconsider or will they squander the opportunity?
I get that unionists don’t want any kind of hardening of the GB/NI trade border. I think an open GB/NI border is a perfectly reasonable thing to want and unionists shouldn’t feel shy about agitating for it.
What’s not reasonable is to do that while simultaneously demanding or supporting hard Brexit because, whether you’re explicit about it or not, that’s an effective demand for a hard IRL/NI border, which I think would be much, much worse for NI.
I also think it’s a profoundly anti-GFA position to hold since it effectively opposes Irish feelings about the IRL/NI border and British feelings about the NI/GB border. It takes it as a given that one must yield to the other. This is fundamentally at variance with the shared space/parity of esteem principles and thinking which underlie the GFA. (I not in passing that it’s a position largely adopted by unionists who never liked the GFA and would be pleased to see it undermined.)
I also think that, tactically, it’s a serious error for unionism. British-identifying people are no longer a majority in NI; the union needs the support of the middle ground whose primary or sole identity is NI. A unionist position which treats British and Irish wishes/interests for NI as irreconcilable, calls for a Brexit in which they must conflict, demands that British wishes/interests be indulged at the expense of Irish wishes/interests, and wants to see the GFA undermined is going to be deeply unappealing to the very people whose support the union needs most.
It's because Brexiters weren't willing to "walk the walk" and have a crash-out Brexit that a hard Brexit on uniform terms across the UK wasn't politically possible. It was legally possible, but it would have involved the UK paying an economic, political and diplomatic price which no UK government, not even one dependent on hard Brexiters for continuance in office, regarded as acceptable. Even now, it's not legally possible but it is still practically possible — the UK government could repudiate the WA and the TCA and apply the laws in force in England to NI as well — but it's unthinkable that they would do that, for the same reason.
if your proposal is that Ireland should simply have accepted a hard border between NI and IRL — no, that's mad, Ted. One of the few things that was accepted at all times by everyone on all sides who wasn't psychotically deluded was that a hard NI/IRL border wasn't a workable or acceptable model of Brexit.
I disagree.
Firstly there is no set 'criterion' as British courts found in the McCord challenge. The SoS can call one at any time and does not have to present evidence for his/her decision.
And a referendum was called in Scotland when support for independence was only at 32%. That campaign was able to grow support dramatically once there was a White Paper.
The 73 ref is referenced by nobody these days such a sham was it.
@Francis McM "I have always condemned all terrorism"
Not on boards you haven't. It is a constant stream of anti Irish posts, , equating Ireland and its symbols repeatedly with terrorism
Here are some quotes from you
suppose not helped by Republicans putting the tricolour on the coffins of IRA bombers who bombed Protestants.
Soldiers song as the National anthem, by the use of the tricolour (same flag as Republicans used on coffins of bombers whose aim was to kill protestants
Many of those in Fermanagh have been victims of IRA violence and sectarianism, how do you expect them to react. Across Co Fermanagh,
I do not think the Tricolour is very inclusive of representing northern Protestants, when Republicans used the flag to drape coffins of bombers whose aim was to kill northern Protestants
Can you point to anywhere where you condemned British or Loyalist terrorism?
And don't tell me not to take the thread off topic. As you can see from the quotes above, you are constantly taking it off topic. I am only responding to your own posts. (and that is not to mention your posts over a few pages around Rugby ) . We were discussing Ben Lowry's article in the Newsletter , linked to by downcow. You decided to use that as another opportunity to talk about the PIRA.
I have seen people from both sides killed by terrorist and I condemn it all. But I am not so blinded as to the roles of politicians in encouraging terrorism. Living in Derry in the 60's and being terrorised by your own police force and army is hard to imagine. It is the thing of nightmares. But that is what happened.
True, whether you ever lived in Ireland was irrelevant. But I never met anyone who did live in this country for any length of time to be so unaware of loyalist and British terrorism on this island in the three decades from 1966
All perfectly legitimate questions and ones that should be directed to them (excepting the UUP and other moderate unionists who opposed Brexit).
Like many other Leave supporter in GB, the DUP and their voters seem to have placed their faith in the Brexit leadership and ignored the questionable claims they made and the obvious contradictions.
And, like it or not, the Brexit leadership were not promising a Schrödinger solution for NI at the time, so voters there do have grounds for complaint, since what the Brexit leadership has delivered is nothing like what they promised (for either part of the U.K.)
Yep. Very fair point.
The Dinosaurs Under Protection (DUP) voted for the ice age and then complained when it got too cold.
Apparently, and contrary to popular opinion, there is still one dinosaur wandering the corridors of power in Stormont late at night...
#Theyneversauras
Unionists do have legitimate grounds to be upset at their treatment by Brexiters since the supposedly sacrosanct referendum result was that the UK would leave the EU, not that GB would leave with a hard Brexit and NI would end up in a Schrödinger’s situation where it’s simultaneously in and/or out of the EU depending on which quantum mechanics situation applies! :-)
Why then did unionists vote for something that hadn't been thought through?
Why did unionists assume all would be rosy despite the "remoaners", the Irish, the EU and so many others telling them that this would cause problems?
Why did unionists listen to a party (the DUP) on a massively important issue when the party spent less than an hour deciding on which side to take?
Unionists do not have legitimate grounds for being upset at how the Brexiteers treated them. They are adukts and made their own mind up on what way to vote. If they did so without informing themselves on how the change would affect them, then that is completely on them!
He is quite possibly right since there were a number of terrorist organisations which sprang up at the end of the 60s/start of the 70s across Europe. Most of them had their heydays in the mid 70s to mid 80s and then gradually petered out. Most of them jacking it all in in the early to mid 90s in the aftermath of the demise of the Soviet Union and it’s east European quasi- empire.
It’s all very well to be fanatical about “the cause” in your mid 20s but roll the clock foward a quarter of a century or more and “being on the run” isn’t going to hold much appeal. At that stage, reaching an agreement to abandon your existing strategy and hanging around long enough to collect your pension is always going to look more attractive.
Polls at 40% means the idea is going nowhere. It’s miles off meeting the criterion to hold a referendum and would require a gigantic swing to alter it.
In fact, such numbers aren’t that far off the result of the 73 referendum on the border where circa 57.5% of the total electorate voted for the union and the circa 42.5% remainder did not (either as a result of boycotting it on fairly spurious grounds or because they did go out and vote (for a United Ireland).
I disagree with your analysis that a hard Brexit in which NI is treated in the same way as GB is not politically possible. It was possible just Brexiters weren’t willing to “walk the walk” to back up all their talk.
Ultimately I suspect no matter what protocol formula is applied, they will all prove inadequate, that they will endanger Ireland’s position within the EU and that our government has been able incredibly shortsighted in the strategy they have pursued as the risk of a failed strategy far outweighs the pleasing fantasy of trying to keep pretending the international frontier on this island isn’t an international frontier.
The Dublin and Jonathan bombings did receive assistance from the security services.
Maybe read Don Mullans book for a clear description events.
Now lets get back to duscussing the Stormont election!
Seeing as you ask, I have lived in Ireland my whole life. Not that it is relevant. I have always condemned all terrorism. The Dublin bombing was caused by extremist Loyalists. I do not believe it was "supported by UK forces" as those same UK forces caught and jailed so many thousands of those Loyalist paramilitaries. Anyway set up a separate thread on same if you want, please do not derail this thread.
Francis, did you ever live in Ireland.?
Are you aware of the deaths in the Dublin bombing. Caused by Loyalist terrorists supported by the UK forces?
Did you read Downcows link? Where Lowry wants us to imagine a history where there was no peace process ?
You seem to have a blind eye to certain terrorism, i.e. of the British kind.
All newspaper readership had dwindled as you say. Even you own An Phoblacht was a formerly weekly, and currently monthly "newspaper" published by Sinn Féin used to be hard copy, now it is only online only I think?
Incidentally the newsletter is the world's oldest English-language general daily newspaper still in publication, having first been printed in 1737. This is despite once being bombed by the PIRA, in 1972. " The paper reported at the time that "two false alarms were phoned in about another bomb just around the corner in Church Street; people were evacuated – towards the real bomb". It detonated at 11.58 am, three minutes after an accurate warning had been given about the bomb's whereabouts. Seven people died, and over 140 were injured (with some staff among the wounded). Nevertheless, the paper came out the next day."
Incredible history we have here in the island of Ireland, but most people are not even aware of half of it.
As someone else said one of the recurring motifs of the News Letter's editorial line today is to remind people of the scale of the paramilitary bloodshed during the Troubles. Not surprised you would prefer An Phoblocht than the Newsletter Francie.
Small wonder that Lowry's 'newspaper' readership has dwindled.
He lives in a sanitised Unionist bubble and routinely slants the facts to depict Unionism as blameless. The old victimhood complex in newsprint.
One of those slants is the idea that the 'British refused to negotiate' - they always negotiated, right through the conflict/war. This we know.
And 'an increased say for Dublin' is not a 'threat' it is already a reality.
It's sad that his opinions are not challenged by the likes of Nolan or the BBC, and typically lazy that RTE never challenge his so called 'journalism'.
Downcow, I have read the article you linked to, in the News letter, by Ben Lowry.
It is the most depressing reading I have viewed for a long time. An editor of a once respected paper doing little more than castigate everyone for giving in to "SF Blackmail over the irish Language" . And wondering if the whole peace process was a mistake
"I do think it is worth considering a parallel universe in which the UK had continued to refuse to negotiate with terror, and wonder if in that scenario the Provisional IRA would long ago have dwindled to little more than the dissidents of today. But there would have been much less of the cross-border political advance of Sinn Fein."
He talks about the big question for unionism being "new divide within unionism is going to be between those who support Stormont and those who think it so bad for the Union that direct rule is better regardless of government threats of an increased say for Dublin".
But the big question for unionist is, and always has been, , "Are unionist willing to share NI with the wider community including nationalist and others, or do they insist on it being their way or no way"
To be honest, Ben Lowry, a once respected commentator, sounds more like a rabid loyalist terrorist, and we have had enough of them in the past
Unionism is definitely in a confused place. I think there is no stomach for widespread violence. There is also no widespread desire for the return of stormont. Unionism has to have an internal discussion and we have to jettison those who are putting party ahead of the union. As with that recent link I posted, unionism need have no fear of the people of ni suddenly giving up on the union - that clearly isn’t going to happen. Whilst is was a big supporter of elections a few months ago, I think elections now would just complicate matters (for unionists). We don’t need a party on party battle at this time. We need space to decide best how to move forward.
this is a good piece today by Ben Lowry, from a paper and a person who was fervently pro GFA. Unionism has a conundrum. We have to ensure open borders within the Uk, while at the same time ensuring we don’t drive any of the healthy support among ni people away from being strong supporters of the union. We must be careful not to do what the Ira and republicanism has patently failed to do over the past 50 years
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/ben-lowry-unionists-need-to-reject-the-windsor-framework-and-think-how-best-to-go-forward-4088601
8 polls above the 40% mark. That is pretty incredible given there is no plan/white paper.
It seems ‘no real change’ may be the most likely outcome of the election. Here’s a fact check on UI support. Nothing is changing either way. I suppose this could still be true while more move to alliance, but I don’t see a big increase for them coming anytime soon
This is interesting. I am genuinely puzzled to know how support for Brexit comes to be regarded as a test of loyalty to the union. Even if there wasn't the tension between Brexit and the health of the union that I have already pointed (and that I think that tension has been plain to see pretty much from day 1) it seems to me that unionism should be in principle neutral about Brexit. If Brexit didn't itself undermine the union, a unionist should be able to support Brexit, or oppose Brexit, according to which policy he thinks will deliver the best results for the UK.
I get that, once the DUP has painted itself into a corner on this, it is difficult for them to face up to having made a mistake, and therefore its support for Brexit becomes entrenched. At that point support for Brexit might be a marker for loyalty to the DUP. But not loyalty to the unionist cause in general, or to the union.
I would imagine that a significant amount of voters (maybe even a majority) will vote for the candidate who is most likely to defeat the candidate who they really do NOT want to see elected. - A sad state of affairs.
Of course this is only my gut feeling and my opinion. As far as I'm aware no such exit poll has been done.
You would imagine that there are thousands upon thousands of extreme right wing, religious fundamentalist, bigoted, homophobic people in NI given the amount of votes for the DUP but that's not the case.
I can honestly say that anyone I've chatted to who've let me know that they've voted DUP have not displayed the above traits at all.
There are many many people who vote DUP who are disgusted by some of the quotes attributed to their MPs and MLAs and who want the massive advantage of access to 2 markets and who want Stormont up and running again.
This I agree with even though itS not comfortable for me to accept it is true. I am in company often where to oppose brexit makes you appear disloyal. This is a helpful way for people like me to frame it in such company ie that dup and TUV have prioritised brexit over the union. It’s a good challenge to them which I will use. You may say that it should be obvious but sometimes any of us can to to close to the wood to see the trees
While the internecine tribulations of Uniomism will be fascinating in the next election the real indicator will be the level of support for the WF or opposition.
Jeffrey will be closely watching how much support bleeds to the TUV and to the pro devolution UUP and Alliance before making any decisions.
Yeah, but there's a tension between those two positions. A hard Brexit in which NI is treated in the same way as GB is not politically possible — the cost to UK would be too great, so the UK government will not go there. So you can have hard Brexit, or you can have Brexit on uniform terms across the UK; you have to decide which of these two objectives you prioritise. A refusal to prioritise one over the other is effectively a decision to let someone else set the priority.
If we look at what they do rather than what they say, DUP have all along prioritised hard Brexit over the position of NI within the union, and they have aligned themselves with, and supported, GB politicians who also prioritise hard Brexit over the position of NI within the union. From a unionist point of view, this has been little short of disastrous, and its something that I think unionists are entitled to be very angry about. If the leading unionist party is not willing to prioritise the union and to demand that Westminster also prioritise it, who will?
My expectation for is same old, same old on all sides of the political spectrum.
I’d like to see an increase in votes for the Alliance across NI (not just in the constituencies that historically elected or still elect unionists). I fear that voters on both sides might increase the votes for the more extreme parties.
I see very little to no sign of the “normalisation” of politics in NI that the GFA was supposed to deliver when it was signed.
They presumably want NI to be treated the same as the rest of the U.K. wrt the EU which is - from their perspective - a reasonable position.
The DUP have been Eurosceptic down through the decades so their opposition to the EU isn’t a new thing.
So what do the DUP's supporters actually want them to do before they go back into government? If they want the UK Government to renegotiate the NIP again there seems zero chance of that. The DUP seem to be taking a win and presenting it is as a loss to their own supporters.
Just quoting what is actually being said in Unionism about the deal and responding to what actually happened.
You would admit yourself that Unionist opposition has not subsided but once the ERG got sidelined the UK has very firmly moved on. That just doesn't square with the DUP having much sway without the ERG.
Not gonna argue about it. It's all about how you see things I suppose.
The DUP seem to have kicked the ball on the WF down the road until after the Local Elections and there seems to be a lot of conflict within Unionism as that election approaches.
That is why I asked; How widespread would you say the quandary you are in, is? And which of the parties do you think will win most hearts and minds locally?
Oh I know you wouldn’t admit to thinking the dup achieved much. I have heard a number of nationalist politicians and republican commentators admitting that the dup done a ‘good’ job and achieved significant movement.
