SINN FEIN Can Have it both ways on Policing.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

But is there any discussion in Republican circles about what concessions might be made to Unionists?

There is Lugha. We don't expect to have it all our way. We understand that a compromise would have to be made. It would take us both to sit down and discuss it. I would hope that unionists would still be able to claim themselves as British and carry a British passport, availing of the same rights as other British citizens. Others discussed the idea of re-joining the commonwealth.

I don't have all the answers on what concessions would have to be made - but it's certainly a topic worth discussing.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

There is Lugha. We don't expect to have it all our way. We understand that a compromise would have to be made. It would take us both to sit down and discuss it.

But everybody has sat down to discuss us. That's where the Good Friday agreement came from, leading to the two communities sharing power and allowing each to assert their own identity as British or Irish or Northern Irish or whatever. With a few tweaks here and there, isn't that the best solution than can be hoped for? A protestant state for a protestant people didn't work. Why do you suppose a Nationalist state will?

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

But everybody has sat down to discuss us. That's where the Good Friday agreement came from, leading to the two communities sharing power and allowing each to assert their own identity as British or Irish or Northern Irish or whatever. With a few tweaks here and there, isn't that the best solution than can be hoped for? A protestant state for a protestant people didn't work. Why do you suppose a Nationalist state will?

It wouldn't be a nationalist state. It would be a balanced and equal state, where even the Unionists would have more say than they do at the moment.

There are alot of things wrong with power-sharing, as the DUP veto many issues - which can cause instability at any point. It's not about asserting their identity, because they really don't have the free will to do so. It's the Union Jack that flies in the north - which clearly says to the Nationalist community that they are living under British rules.

Last year after Easter - staff members were wearing a Poppy and an Easter Lilly - those wearing Easter Lillies were asked to remove them. They went to the equality commission to discuss it, and not even came of it. Irish language speakers have no rights in the north. Under Irish unity, they would be protected. It's small things like these that happen everyday, that reaffirm to the nationalists that their cultural freedom is not protected.

You also have to factor in issues like unpopular foreign policy. Nationalists do not want to be associated with the likes of wars in Iraq, and would rather stay neutral - but whether they like it or not, their tax funds these wars.

The current arrangement is only ideal for Unionists, because they are still under the British Crown. It is not ideal for Nationalists, because they will be routinely only be thrown scraps - rather than have real equality. What I find slightly disturbing is the fact that if someone aspires for reunification, they are automatically upsetting the flow of things - Well, that was upset the day Britain partitioned the country under duress and the Irish people, as per the GFA have every right to end that partition under democratic conditions when the time comes. And if it does come - the Unionists won't be treated the same way nationalists were treated in an orange state.

POINTBREAK

dlofnep wrote: »

There are alot of things wrong with power-sharing, as the DUP veto many issues - which can cause instability at any point.

You also have to factor in issues like unpopular foreign policy. Nationalists do not want to be associated with the likes of wars in Iraq, and would rather stay neutral - but whether they like it or not, their tax funds these wars.

The current arrangement is only ideal for Unionists, because they are still under the British Crown. It is not ideal for Nationalists, because they will be routinely only be thrown scraps - rather than have real equality.


What I find slightly disturbing is the fact that if someone aspires for reunification, they are automatically upsetting the flow of things -

There are alot of things wrong with power-sharing, as the DUP veto many issues - which can cause instability at any point.
Jeez of course they do but Sinn Fein do the same thing. SF originally agreed to scrap the Parades Commission and then had to renege because they couldn't get their support to back them.

- but whether they like it or not, their tax funds these wars.
Thats not strictly true, since every penny of tax from all sources collected in NI stays in NI and even that is not enough to keep NI afloat. So we are not funding any wars.

The current arrangement is only ideal for Unionists, because they are still under the British Crown. It is not ideal for Nationalists, because they will be routinely only be thrown scraps - rather than have real equality.

40 years ago, yes........ today that doesn't stack up. This coalition is of no benefit to anyone and has delivered nothing. SF won't support the Unionist and Vice versa and neither party has the ability to negotiate to buy a bag of chips in chip shop. Look at the mess education is in because Ruane tried to ram her solution down the throats of the Unionists. The plain simple fact that agreement is required has apparently passed them by.

What I find slightly disturbing is the fact that if someone aspires for reunification, they are automatically upsetting the flow of things -

That statement is completely wrong. It has been agreed that if the majority want a U.I. so be it.

POINTBREAK

UTV are reporting significant progress on the talks. I can't see a deal myself because its at best a zero sum game, and someone will be seen as a loser.
If either come out as a loser the damage to their party may be insurmountable.
Henry Mc Donald says his column tomorrow is about big problems for SF in Tyrone where several republicans have left the party. I wonder how serious it is , but he was talking it up on TV.

POINTBREAK

http://twitter.com/EamonnMallie

dlofnep

POINTBREAK wrote: »

http://twitter.com/EamonnMallie

Cheers

POINTBREAK

dlofnep wrote: »

Cheers

The tweet that says .It looks like Robinson will have a bit of selling to do....... presumibily to his own hard liners is hopeful, but its a bad idea imo to have a break in the talks now. If he comes under pressure tomorrow he could come back on Monday and say no deal.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

Those bunch of wasters don't represent the popular opinion in the south. They would kick up a fuss, no matter what the cause if they had a chance.



In fairness - people aren't bothered about Unionists. You're using an extreme example, of a bunch of thugs who retaliated to another idiot in Willie Frazier - who he himself supported loyalist terrorists.

Could you imagine if a group from Dublin organised a march for shankill road? As if the same wouldn't occur there.



Never surrender to what? You're going to have to explain this to me. Surrender to reunification of Ireland that was partitioned without the will of the people? Surrender to the possibility of the people democratically opting to end partition in the future?

No, we can't surrender because we don't want to live under the Irish flag. We want to live under the British flag and British currency. William of Orange's spirt will live on and we will all die in the last ditch.

POINTBREAK

KeithAFC
The only way a United Ireland can come about is when the people of NI vote in favour of it. Currently 24% describe themselves as nationalists. Shouts of NO SURRENDER and bringing the Orange Order into the equation only serves one purpose. It makes United Ireland more likely and brings it closer, because you know what, that carry on drives ordinary people to vote for Sinn Fein because they are sick of it. The thinking is quite simple. These people do not want to share power they want to go back in time to when Catholics were 2nd class citizens.......... So make your mind up, behave like normal human beings and let us all work together to achieve some sort of peace and growth for NI OR keep doing what you are doing, recruiting for Sinn Fein.

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

No, we can't surrender because we don't want to live under the Irish flag.

Although you're more than happy to see Irishmen and Women live under a British flag.

KeithAFC wrote: »

We want to live under the British flag and British currency.

I'm sure you'd be heartbroken if Britain ever adopts the Euro.

KeithAFC wrote: »

William of Orange's spirt will live on and we will all die in the last ditch.

I'm sure you embody his spirit.

Happy Monday

dlofnep wrote: »

Of course it would. The vast majority of people in the south have no ill-will towards Unionists. We certainly wouldn't have created an instance where unionists were given lesser civil liberties, and we would not have gerrymandered with votes.

What makes you think otherwise?

During the conflict of 1919-21 IRA units took innocent Protestant families from their homes and murdered them in cold blood.

At Coolnacrease Co. Offaly, in West Cork and in South Armagh.
The IRA during the recent Troubles carried out similar actions.
This is why I am amazed that republicans talk of no ill will towards unionists after trying to blow them back into the sea.

It's these things that convinced unionists that no peace could be made with Irish republicans except on their own terms within the framework of a functioning British state.

Happy Monday

dlofnep wrote: »

It wouldn't be a nationalist state. It would be a balanced and equal state, where even the Unionists would have more say than they do at the moment.

There are alot of things wrong with power-sharing, as the DUP veto many issues - which can cause instability at any point. It's not about asserting their identity, because they really don't have the free will to do so. It's the Union Jack that flies in the north - which clearly says to the Nationalist community that they are living under British rules.

Last year after Easter - staff members were wearing a Poppy and an Easter Lilly - those wearing Easter Lillies were asked to remove them. They went to the equality commission to discuss it, and not even came of it. Irish language speakers have no rights in the north. Under Irish unity, they would be protected. It's small things like these that happen everyday, that reaffirm to the nationalists that their cultural freedom is not protected.

You also have to factor in issues like unpopular foreign policy. Nationalists do not want to be associated with the likes of wars in Iraq, and would rather stay neutral - but whether they like it or not, their tax funds these wars.

The current arrangement is only ideal for Unionists, because they are still under the British Crown. It is not ideal for Nationalists, because they will be routinely only be thrown scraps - rather than have real equality. What I find slightly disturbing is the fact that if someone aspires for reunification, they are automatically upsetting the flow of things - Well, that was upset the day Britain partitioned the country under duress and the Irish people, as per the GFA have every right to end that partition under democratic conditions when the time comes. And if it does come - the Unionists won't be treated the same way nationalists were treated in an orange state.

The Union Jack flys in the North as it has been agreed under the GFA that the North remains part of the UK.

Irish language speakers have full rights in the North - this is not SF's position.

SF can push for a reunification ballot any time it wants under the GFA.
It doesn't - because as a contributor has said it will get beaten out of the gate 70-30.

Exile 1798

Happy Monday wrote: »

This is why I am amazed that republicans talk of no ill will towards unionists after trying to blow them back into the sea.

When did this attempt at blowing into the sea happen?

Happy Monday wrote: »

It's these things that convinced unionists that no peace could be made with Irish republicans except on their own terms within the framework of a functioning British state.

Actually for 70 years Irish Nationalism through every possible peaceful means campaigned for just such peace under a British state. It was called Home Rule.

It was rejected time and time again by Britain and Irish Unionists. When it seemed the finally be accepted by London it was de-railed by the threats imposed by Unionist terrorists. These same terrorists went on to found the Northern Ireland state.

Happy Monday

Exile 1798 wrote: »

When did this attempt at blowing into the sea happen?

The Troubles 1969-1994.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Actually for 70 years Irish Nationalism through every possible peaceful means campaigned for just such peace under a British state. It was called Home Rule.

It was rejected time and time again by Britain and Irish Unionists. When it seemed the finally be accepted by London it was de-railed by the threats imposed by Unionist terrorists. These same terrorists went on to found the Northern Ireland state.

No - it was derailed only by WW1.
And the Irish parliamentary party held the balance of power at Westminster often during these years and as a result was in a position to wield a lot of leverage on Irish issues. The mistake that Redmond made in 1912 was to ignore the legitimate concerns of Unionists. What he should have done is sit down with them and come to an agreement on devolved power from London (remind you republicans of anyone) with the support of both major parties at Westminster.

dlofnep

Happy Monday wrote: »

The Union Jack flys in the North as it has been agreed under the GFA that the North remains part of the UK.

Of course - But it is still a foreign flag to the nationalist community, and not one that they identify with. Under British rule - it will always be foreign to them.

Happy Monday wrote: »

Irish language speakers have full rights in the North - this is not SF's position.

That's incorrect. They do not have full rights. They cannot operate at an official level through the Irish language. The language is also underfunded compared to the south, and the same level of accessibility is not there. Despite this, the Irish language is still greatly on the rise in the north - it should be nurtured further, but that's for another discussion.

Happy Monday wrote: »

SF can push for a reunification ballot any time it wants under the GFA.
It doesn't - because as a contributor has said it will get beaten out of the gate 70-30.

The time will come sooner or later. Nationalist votes have increased by 13% in the past 2 decades, and continue to increase. That's why hardline unionists like those within the TUV fear the GFA. You can check their official publications on the matter on their website.

POINTBREAK

dlofnep wrote: »

The time will come sooner or later. Nationalist votes have increased by 13% in the past 2 decades, and continue to increase. That's why hardline unionists like those within the TUV fear the GFA. You can check their official publications on the matter on their website.

You have used that figure of 13% a few times. Just out of interest where are you getting it from?
Second, the GFA mentions a referendum to decide on United Ireland, but doesn't provide any mechanism for calling for a referendum. The way the Assembly is set up now if SF demanded a referendum the DUP could just continually veto it. The unionists could also use the same tactic Nationalist used in the 1973 referendum and just boycott it, making it unworkable.
Its probably still a fair way off, but you would have thought they would have agreed the mechanism for a referendum in the GFA.... ffs.

dlofnep

POINTBREAK wrote: »

You have used that figure of 13% a few times. Just out of interest where are you getting it from?

The results of the assembly elections from 1982 to 2007.

POINTBREAK wrote: »

Second, the GFA mentions a referendum to decide on United Ireland, but doesn't provide any mechanism for calling for a referendum. The way the Assembly is set up now if SF demanded a referendum the DUP could just continually veto it.

That is true, but I don't think that they could stand over it - as if the mandate was there, there would be heavy pressure on them to push forward with it.

POINTBREAK wrote: »

The unionists could also use the same tactic Nationalist used in the 1973 referendum and just boycott it, making it unworkable.
Its probably still a fair way off, but you would have thought they would have agreed the mechanism for a referendum in the GFA.... ffs.

I think if the will is there - the way will come. Here's hoping. We can only speculate.

POINTBREAK

dlofnep wrote: »

I think if the will is there - the way will come. Here's hoping. We can only speculate.

The first thing that needs to happen before Ireland can become United is Northern Ireland has to become United.

At this moment in our history, to solve the problems of Northern Ireland the electorate voted an ultra uncompromising Unionist Party, the DUP, and an ultra uncompromising Nationalist Party, Sinn Fein into government to share power and work for the benefit of society, presumably.
Does that make any sense?
First, it is impossible for these two parties to work together for the benefit of society because if any one of them concedes anything at all to the other side, it is seen as weakness. The reason for that is because waiting in the wings are the even more extreme ultra uncompromising Unionist Party the TUV and on the Nationalist side the armed and dangerous Dissident IRA. Both of these players are for the moment out of the game, sitting on the subs bench, waiting to pounce on, and reap the benefits of any concessions the DUP or SF make to each other.
How do you like dem apples?

Exile 1798

Happy Monday wrote: »

The Troubles 1969-1994.

More detail required.

I'm not aware of any historian that holds the view that that the war in the North was an attempt to "blow Unionists back into the sea" as you say.

That falls fairly into the category of Loyalist mythology/propaganda.

Happy Monday wrote: »

No - it was derailed only by WW1.
And the Irish parliamentary party held the balance of power at Westminster often during these years and as a result was in a position to wield a lot of leverage on Irish issues. The mistake that Redmond made in 1912 was to ignore the legitimate concerns of Unionists. What he should have done is sit down with them and come to an agreement on devolved power from London (remind you republicans of anyone) with the support of both major parties at Westminster.

To say it was "derailed only by WWI" is simply inaccurate.

The Curragh mutiny, the threats of the UVF and the Ulster Convenient drive were all Unionist actions which made Home Rule impossible and that's to say nothing of the British governments previous obstruction.

Getting back to the original point you made when you said

Happy Monday wrote: »

It's these things that convinced unionists that no peace could be made with Irish republicans except on their own terms within the framework of a functioning British state.

The reality is that that option existed for 70 years. Unionists rejected it because they weren't willing to accept that their century's long reign at the top of Irish society was coming to end.

Stop blaming Nationalists for the nature of Irish Unionism.

dlofnep

POINTBREAK wrote: »

The first thing that needs to happen before Ireland can become United is Northern Ireland has to become United.

Or 50% +1

But I agree with you - communities need to build bridges and come together. The us versus them attitude is a serious obstacle.

POINTBREAK wrote: »

At this moment in our history, to solve the problems of Northern Ireland the electorate voted an ultra uncompromising Unionist Party, the DUP, and an ultra uncompromising Nationalist Party, Sinn Fein into government to share power and work for the benefit of society, presumably.

I feel that Sinn Féin have compromised quite a bit. Signing up for a policing service that still isn't clean with nationalists hurt them at a grassroots level.

POINTBREAK wrote: »

First, it is impossible for these two parties to work together for the benefit of society because if any one of them concedes anything at all to the other side, it is seen as weakness.

Your view is that it's all reactionary politics. I don't feel that is the case. I do see some reactionary positions - but the politics overall still comes directly from the heart of the movement. The alternative is unaccountable direct rule from Britain, which is not in the interests of the nationalist community at all. Power-sharing like this isn't something that's widely seen around the world - It was never going to be perfect, but they will have to make do with what they have for now - put egos aside, and get whatever needs to be done - done.

POINTBREAK wrote: »

How do you like dem apples?

Dem's some big apples.

POINTBREAK

dlofnep wrote: »

Your view is that it's all reactionary politics. I don't feel that is the case. I do see some reactionary positions - but the politics overall still comes directly from the heart of the movement.
The alternative is unaccountable direct rule from Britain, which is not in the interests of the nationalist community at all. Power-sharing like this isn't something that's widely seen around the world - It was never going to be perfect, but they will have to make do with what they have for now - put egos aside, and get whatever needs to be done - done.

It is only reactionary politics. That is all there is. The latest tonight is that the DUP and SF came to some agreement, but when the DUP tried to sell it to their pariamentary party it blew. Resignations were throw on to desks and it got really heated. Rumor says Robinson went into the meeting and said "back me or sack me", and they didn't do either. They came out and tried to put on a show of unity for the cameras, but from the looks on some faces it obviously wasn't happy families.
The mood on the ground from the electorate is disgust. Its obvious to everyone here that these two parties can not work together. I think both would suffer if an election was called.

POINTBREAK

DUP Economy Minister Sammy Wilson just lost it live on the radio. If you can get the Nolan Show, its well worth the effort. Nolan wiped him out.
Is this a the first sign of the DUP problems seeping into the Public domain.