Dáil Eireann & Co's involvement in the North

walrusgumble

As we have seen with the last two ceasefire in the North, an Taosiech has contributed with a British Prime Minister in talks with various parties in the North.

Last week on Questions and Answers, Ian Paisley Jnr crudely joked that we ie the south, should stay out of Northern Ireland Affairs. I had briefly mentioned in a previous thread that, well if it was ok for a british PM to intervene as their are people in NI who consider themselves as British, then surely there is a case for An Taoiseach to also intervene as their are also people in NI who consider themselves as Irish.

One member of the forum, however, correctly stated that the British PM intervention was justifible as after all NI is in the jurisdiction of the UK. Fair point. Howver, I got the impression (correct me if i am wrong) if people in BOTH communities in NI are not too impressed with members of Dail Eireann intervening. Now, I do apperpriate that certain members should not make proposals if they are unhelpful and they have damn all knowledge or understanding of the place.

I was wondering, for the sake of a debate, would it be possible if an objective and secterain/biggotted free debate could occur. The motion is, Is Dail Eireann and other various Nationalist or Irish groups from he South welcomed when dealing with various issues relating to Northern Ireland. If not can you please give a reason. If this debate gets more concerned with what happened in the past and gets abusive or personal, moderators, by all means close this thread. Please try to consider carefully everyone's view point and try not to misquote others. Please answer questions if direted towards you and try not to side step anyone who challenges you by been snooty. No one is claiming to be an expert here. cheers,

this is just out of interest, i initially see no problem with intervention. however, as things are now, and the possibility of getting things back on track, i think its up to the nationalist parties in the north to look after their communities and bring them towards a new stage in building bridges and earn the unionist communities trust and get on with things. dail eireann look after it own problems

walrusgumble

jesus lots of people well able to go on ra/uvf rants. when ask to make solutions to improve zilch. if the orginal post sounds naff, by all means be constructive and improve it.

Rebeller

My own impression is that Sinn Fein and other Nationalist/Republican parties were happy with Republic of Ireland government intervention in the early days of the peace process (it'd be more aptly called the "piece" process imo:D )

ROI involvement provided greater legitimacy to the parties and offered a valuable source of potential legitimate funding.

However, I think that the intention was always to use the sympathies of the ROI to get to a certain stage and then to go it alone. Irish government involvement is now seen as bureaucratic meddling and run-of-the-mill electioneering.

Following the changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution our government should no longer be devoting so many state resources to what is now effectively an internal Northern Ireland problem. Bertie and co are simply using "the North" as a means of showing us what hard work they're doing on our behalf. It's far easier to waffle to the press about devolution and peace process progress than deal with the major problems facing the Irish state in other more pressing areas (health etc).

Both sides in the North play to the gallery so to speak. I have the distinct impression that left to their own devices they'll come to a deal.

walrusgumble

good point. is the roi government's intervention effective any more, is it a case of leave them to their own devices now?

what about cross boarder committees, even more involvement with say business connections and programmes,partnerships (i am aware ya dont need the dail for that)

csk

walrusgumble wrote:

is the roi government's intervention effective any more, is it a case of leave them to their own devices now?

what about cross boarder committees, even more involvement with say business connections and programmes,partnerships (i am aware ya dont need the dail for that)

As Rebeller said in the early days the ROI government was needed to add legitimacy and while this has changed the ROI government still has very important role to play.

I think it's unfair to say that it has become uneffective, rather it has stalled with Sinn Féin/DUP failure to set up the assembly.

If Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin are to be believed then the Assembly is another "site of struggle" I think the ROI Government need to acknowledge this and take the intiative.

As you point out more cross border committees, more involment in business, more co-operation in infrastructure etc. is needed.

I also think the government need to deliver a green paper that outlines the plans for the north and address the fears of the Unionist community and outlines what the strategy for the next ten years are.
Obviously it wouldn't be suitable right on now for such a paper but whoever makes up the next government should be seriously considering this.

walrusgumble

strongly agree. that is why i put up this thread, as if i was a key td i would be cconsider changes and building unionist trust, particularily after the scumbags ruined the love ulster parade in dublin this year. you know the 100th yeat anniversary of 1916 is not that far away really. it be good to see progress has improved our relationship with the other side by then and have a stronger country.

mike65

It seems to me the government of Ireland is taking rather too much for granted about how we 'down here' think our government should spend its (possibly) valuable time and our money.

I don't think they are that interested in what Unionists think or feel about the process and its presumed implications - that is to say a happy-clappy "United Ireland" in which Gerry and Ian (jr) will walk arm in arm into Leinster House (when its sitting) and thrash out the issues of the day along with Bertie and co. A million pissed-off Unionists (and quite a few catholic non-nationalists too) may be the fact of the matter but I'm even more sure they hav'nt given a single moments thought to what 'southerners' want out of this process either beyond peace and prosperity for the North.

Mike.

walrusgumble

incidently if a united ireland occurred , mayb it be a good idea to have the house of parliament (dail) sitting in dublin for the first 6 months and in stormount belfast for the other 6.

anyway a united ireland is a long way away and i would rather see peace and politicial stability in the north than an united ireland. the boys in ni should prob do it on their own now and let dail help out when ever asked if actually needed. if i was a nationalist in the north there might be times were i would not be too keen on a td butting in on issues he has no concern in particularily if he barely spent time in ni

LordSutch

Seeing as Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK, I see no reason whatsoever why Dail Eireann should be poking their noses into UK affairs!

I suspect that our 'foreign minister' Dermot Ahearn is getting ideas above his station regarding the North's affairs, & he of all people should realise that meddling in Northern affairs is a dodgy past time that will start to unsettle many Unionists/ Loyalists, I do however think that its a very good thing that Dail Eireann were (are) working so closely with London on implementing the Good Friday Agreement, I also think that closer cooperation between North & South is a good & healthy thing that should be encouraged 'within reason'.

However ~ since 1998 we do now officially recognise that the North is part of the UK, & therefore any meddling in their affairs is probably not a good idea, specially as things are slowly simmering-down into some kind of normality (by their standards).

Glenbhoy

Seeing as Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK, I see no reason whatsoever why Dail Eireann should be poking their noses into UK affairs!

Is the purpose of exclamation mark here, to highlight the fact that your use of the word 'integral' is a piss-take? (presumably, sarcasm is difficult via text though).

I suspect that our 'foreign minister' Dermot Ahearn is getting ideas above his station regarding the North's affairs, & he of all people should realise that meddling in Northern affairs is a dodgy past time that will start to unsettle many Unionists/ Loyalists

Why 'foreign minister'? I don't understand why 'he of all people should realise', nor actually 'getting ideas above his station', care to explain?

A million pissed-off Unionists (and quite a few catholic non-nationalists too) may be the fact of the matter

I've often wondered where this assertion that there a quite a few 'catholic non-nationalists' comes from? Is it perhaps a relic from the old days when, the north was much more prosperous than the south, the perception may then have been that middle class catholics were happy to maintain the status quo. In my own extensive dealings with 'them up there' I've never come across one, they may exist, but if so, they'd be unlikely to vote for a nationalist party, so would have been classed as part of the one million pissed off unionists already referred to.
To answer your initial question Walrus, no, unionist groupings do not welcome intervention from free state groups (unless it comes with a handout, both communities up north are quite good at forgetting principles when there's money about, it must be the Ulster Scotch in them). Nationalist groups may pretend to welcome the staters, but deep down, I think they'd be as happy without them - imo they feel that since the unionist have the brits at the table (their historical 'big bro' if not anymore), then the taigs need a big brother there too (in the absence of the states (my da's gotta bigger gun than yours), they have to make do with Ahern (though that nose after a night on the bass would scare anyone)).
So overall, when the brits are there, the free state has to be there too, it's pyschological - and tbh it's probably necessary, would explain, but tis complicated, and i gotta run.

LordSutch

Glenbhoy wrote:

Is the purpose of exclamation mark here, to highlight the fact that your use of the word 'integral' is a piss-take? (presumably, sarcasm is difficult via text though).

Why 'foreign minister'? I don't understand why 'he of all people should realise', nor actually 'getting ideas above his station', care to explain?

I've often wondered where this assertion that there a quite a few 'catholic non-nationalists' comes from? Is it perhaps a relic from the old days when, the north was much more prosperous than the south, the perception may then have been that middle class catholics were happy to maintain the status quo. In my own extensive dealings with 'them up there' I've never come across one, they may exist, but if so, they'd be unlikely to vote for a nationalist party, so would have been classed as part of the one million pissed off unionists already referred to.
To answer your initial question Walrus, no, unionist groupings do not welcome intervention from free state groups (unless it comes with a handout, both communities up north are quite good at forgetting principles when there's money about, it must be the Ulster Scotch in them). Nationalist groups may pretend to welcome the staters, but deep down, I think they'd be as happy without them - imo they feel that since the unionist have the brits at the table (their historical 'big bro' if not anymore), then the taigs need a big brother there too (in the absence of the states (my da's gotta bigger gun than yours), they have to make do with Ahern (though that nose after a night on the bass would scare anyone)).
So overall, when the brits are there, the free state has to be there too, it's pyschological - and tbh it's probably necessary, would explain, but tis complicated, and i gotta run.

I thought Dermot Ahearn was Irish 'Foreign minister', am I wrong? and presuming that he is, then what I mean is that because he is the foreign Minister then he should not meddle in the affairs of another State, in this instance (the UK).

As regards Roman Catholics wanting to stay in the UK, thats quite understandable if you look very closely at the North & begin to get a feel of what life is like in that part of the UK, for starters 'Catholics' are not the down trodden people we are told they are, they also enjoy the many benefits of the NHS (I could write two pages on this subject alone) then there is car prices (no VRT), house prices, what about the huge benefits of the BBC (digital Radio + TV), the Pound, the Royal Mail, & do you honestly think that they would like to trade London for Dublin:eek:
I dont think so ..............................

You see Glennboy ~ Northeners are British people, & even on a superficial level this is Strongly reflected in Northern Surnames (Paisley, Trimble, Allistair, Irvine, McGuinness, McCartney) etc ...........................

Being "British" to many Northeners means that they are part of a much wider family of Scotland, England & Wales, and this in turn means that they are part of the 60 Million UK population.

As regards any of your comments regarding 'The Brits', you must always be aware that the vast majority of Northener's are British, and their flag is the Union flag, and as a matter of interest the constant abuse of the term 'Brits' has been curtailed in recent years (even by Sinn Fein) because Nationalists & Republicans are finally getting the message that (the actual population are the so-called Brits)!

Northeners also realise that the Celtic Tiger wont last for ever, and their day will come around again (economically speaking) within the UK.

Glenbhoy

ArthurF wrote:

I thought Dermot Ahearn was Irish 'Foreign minister', am I wrong? and presuming that he is, then what I mean is that because he is the foreign Minister then he should not meddle in the affairs of another State, in this instance (the UK).

He is foreign minister, correct. I presume that the title 'foreign' minister is precisely that, a title. The portfolio obviously includes liasing with the uk re NI? I'm not sure if you're aware, but when you travel north from Dublin, you will encounter a border, that is the land border between NI and ROI, one would expect a countries with shared land borders, not to mention shared idigenous peoples to co-operate.

As regards Roman Catholics wanting to stay in the UK, thats quite understandable if you look very closely at the North & begin to get a feel of what life is like in that part of the UK, for starters 'Catholics' are not the down trodden people we are told they are, they also enjoy the many benefits of the NHS (I could write two pages on this subject alone) then there is car prices (no VRT), house prices, what about the huge benefits of the BBC (digital Radio + TV), the Pound, the Royal Mail, & do you honestly think that they would like to trade London for Dublin
I dont think so ..............................

My original question asked where the assertion comes from based on my personal experience, your reply didn't answer that, instead it points to you having little or no experience of life in NI as compared to ROI, suffice to say, any economic indicators you care to name points to ROI having a much higher standard of living.

You see Glennboy ~ Northeners are British people, & even on a superficial level this is Strongly reflected in Northern Surnames (Paisley, Trimble, Allistair, Irvine, McGuinness, McCartney) etc ...........................

Yes, indeed a number of the surnames found in NI are of scottish origin (hardly surprising given the plantation), but would McGuinness and McCartney be British names??

Being "British" to many Northeners means that they are part of a much wider family of Scotland, England & Wales, and this in turn means that they are part of the 60 Million UK population.

I concur, the people who feel this way are collectively called 'unionists', it's quite a descriptive term when you think about it.

As regards any of your comments regarding 'The Brits', you must always be aware that the vast majority of Northener's are British, and their flag is the Union flag, and as a matter of interest the constant abuse of the term 'Brits' has been curtailed in recent years (even by Sinn Fein) because Nationalists & Republicans are finally getting the message that (the actual population are the so-called Brits)!

Please don't be under the impression that I only used the term 'brits' in a derogatory fashion, i also used the terms 'taigs' and 'free state'!! Once more we're into numbers, 'vast majorities' etc, yeah, I will suggest that you go off and have a wee look at the stats, you'll find it a little closer than you think.
In summation, perhaps you should inform yourself on this topic, then we can have a proper discussion, using real examples, actual numbers.....

LordSutch

The title of the thread is "Dail Eireanns involvement in the North" and I have stated why I think Dail Eireann should not be involved in their affairs, and I have no intention of getting into a slagging match over Tribal numbers ............... nuff said.

Sleepy

I'm of the belief that we have no business meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation and that our government's attempts to do so are a waste of tax-payer's money.

csk

Sleepy wrote:

I'm of the belief that we have no business meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation and that our government's attempts to do so are a waste of tax-payer's money.

You have heard of the Good Friday Agreement, right ?

Glenbhoy

ArthurF wrote:

The title of the thread is "Dail Eireanns involvement in the North" and I have stated why I think Dail Eireann should not be involved in their affairs, and I have no intention of getting into a slagging match over Tribal numbers ............... nuff said.

Perhaps you should have limited yourself to that previously and not bothered with that ill informed post in reply to my initial post?
Anyway, like yourself i couldn't be bothered arguing with you.

that our government's attempts to do so are a waste of tax-payer's money.

Yeah, and this govt. have never done that before!!

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

I'm of the belief that we have no business meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation and that our government's attempts to do so are a waste of tax-payer's money.

As a democrat, you will support the right of the people to decide if they have 'business meddling'?

Zambia

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6289065.stm

More meddling , excellent I am dying to hear Ian jrs reaction to this.

Lads the two countries share a border, either side should have an interest in the affairs of the other.

news for you

I'm a northie from Tyrone and hope the south continues to lend their support, increase links whatever. Some of you guys using the northern ireland is proper part of britain and so on seems a bit pro-british anti-republican to me. I know there are more unionists and there's nothing that can be done (unless you are like AJP Taylor and want the unionists to be shipped back to britain, but that's a bit extreme;)) , but it's almost excusing and forgetting what british foreign policy has been like at ireland, of course there are more unionists, you can thank the plantation for that (and forcing counties like tyrone into it, im not a big sinn fein fan, but when a county's 3 MPs are all sinn fein, it's not exactly as british as tea). Hell, even when we bought our land (off a protestant), the local unionists weren't exactly too pleased, tried their hardest to make sure we didnt get it, which is irrelevant i guess, but still, it shows how things dont change. Just because things are legal dont mean they're right.

news for you

Arthur wrote:

You see Glennboy ~ Northeners are British people, & even on a superficial level this is Strongly reflected in Northern Surnames (Paisley, Trimble, Allistair, Irvine, McGuinness, McCartney) etc ...........................

wtf, so where the hell did all the irish go? that doesnt make sense, of course there are overlaps in surnames (both settler and planter), but it doesnt work that oh you're in the north, you are a british person through and through, it's in your genes, and once you cross the border, all the irish people are born there. Or else you think that once the border came into place, all the irish suddenly became brits.