David McKittrick; These protests are NOT over the flag.

BrensBenz

I've heard arguments that the Belfast riots are not about Belfast City Hall's new flag flying policy but it's very difficult for outsiders to find any logic to these riots. This quite well-argued stance vs. the thuggery seen on-screen just don't fit together.
Maybe, at the next council elections, and if the DUP and other Unionist parties can do a better job at persuading their people to vote, the flag will return to Belfast City Hall 24 / 7 / 365. Until then, displaying their Britishness in line with and as often as every other UK city will have to do.
Can we see a mass resignation of the city council to facilitate a new election and the overturning of this re-alignment with the rest of the UK or will images of thugs and their kids attacking and injuring the police and destroying their own community's property continue to be beamed across the world for years?

everdead.ie

Thomas_I wrote: »

Not quite so even handed, because CNN shows the Unionists rioting against the PSNI and that was cut out in the youtube video.

I´m not so sure that there are plenty of Catholics being happy to remain as part of the UK and consider themselves British. Not in NI. I rather believe that some of them would rather move to GB where it is not a great deal whether you´re a Catholic or Protestant.

1. Well i thought it was even handed due to the fact they just seemed to show what happened essentials PSNI blocked off the planned route.
2. Then protesters scattered in every direction.
3. Catholic/nationalist/resident starts throwing glass bottles at those passing kicks off a whole bout of rioting.
4. PSNI take ages to clear the streets.

Thomas_I

everdead.ie wrote: »

1. Well i thought it was even handed due to the fact they just seemed to show what happened essentials PSNI blocked off the planned route.
2. Then protesters scattered in every direction.
3. Catholic/nationalist/resident starts throwing glass bottles at those passing kicks off a whole bout of rioting.
4. PSNI take ages to clear the streets.

It went quite so from point 1 to 3 but the part where Unionists are rioting against the PSNI is not shown in the youtoube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxO-7UL70uI

Compare it to the original from CNN with the whole coverage of that report, which you´ve brought yourself on these boards in the first place

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/12/world/europe/northern-ireland-unrest/

As for point 4, I recommend that BBC News page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21012517

PSNI is rather in a very difficult situation themselves. At least that´s the impression I´ve got from the news during the past weeks. More interesting than the statement of the PSNI is the fact that the other, the "silence people" of Belfast airing their "voice" against these rioters. That´s some kind of progress in this whole mess.

everdead.ie

Thomas_I wrote: »

It went quite so from point 1 to 3 but the part where Unionists are rioting against the PSNI is not shown in the youtoube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxO-7UL70uI

Compare it to the original from CNN with the whole coverage of that report, which you´ve brought yourself on these boards in the first place

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/12/world/europe/northern-ireland-unrest/

As for point 4, I recommend that BBC News page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21012517

PSNI is rather in a very difficult situation themselves. At least that´s the impression I´ve got from the news during the past weeks. More interesting than the statement of the PSNI is the fact that the other, the "silence people" of Belfast airing their "voice" against these rioters. That´s some kind of progress in this whole mess.

I'm sorry I think we are agreeing with each other I was talking about the CNN video being even handed.

oscarBravo

BrensBenz wrote: »

Maybe, at the next council elections, and if the DUP and other Unionist parties can do a better job at persuading their people to vote, the flag will return to Belfast City Hall 24 / 7 / 365.

That's an interesting point. If, hypothetically, a future unionist majority council voted to reinstate year-round flying of the union flag, would those who applaud the current democratic decision not to fly it year-round be equally supportive of a democratic decision to do so?

gallag

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's an interesting point. If, hypothetically, a future unionist majority council voted to reinstate year-round flying of the union flag, would those who applaud the current democratic decision not to fly it year-round be equally supportive of a democratic decision to do so?

The republicans would riot, the people that defend the loyalists now would become outraged and call for the police to stop being so soft on them and the people now joyfully discrediting the loyalist protesters/rioters would be shouting about the right to protest and about police brutality.

karma_

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's an interesting point. If, hypothetically, a future unionist majority council voted to reinstate year-round flying of the union flag, would those who applaud the current democratic decision not to fly it year-round be equally supportive of a democratic decision to do so?

And was there trouble from nationalists when the flag did fly all the time?

I find this whole game of 'blame the nationalist' pretty pathetic.

oscarBravo

karma_ wrote: »

And was there trouble from nationalists when the flag did fly all the time?

I find this whole game of 'blame the nationalist' pretty pathetic.

That's a pretty defensive reply to a simple question, but it's not an answer.

sure joe

BrensBenz wrote: »

I've heard arguments that the Belfast riots are not about Belfast City Hall's new flag flying policy but it's very difficult for outsiders to find any logic to these riots. This quite well-argued stance vs. the thuggery seen on-screen just don't fit together.
Maybe, at the next council elections, and if the DUP and other Unionist parties can do a better job at persuading their people to vote, the flag will return to Belfast City Hall 24 / 7 / 365. Until then, displaying their Britishness in line with and as often as every other UK city will have to do.
Can we see a mass resignation of the city council to facilitate a new election and the overturning of this re-alignment with the rest of the UK or will images of thugs and their kids attacking and injuring the police and destroying their own community's property continue to be beamed across the world for years?

amazing. for years unionist politicans only policy was to not give in to violent thugs and to uphold the democratic wish of th people. is their new policy to give in to thugs and ignore the democratic wish of the people. considering this is such a trivial issue if the flag went back up to appease these thugs. surely that would give them false hope when real change comes about. when that happens will nationalists be able to depend on the psni to uphold the democratic will of the people fairly and justly or will the provos have to get the diggers out

GRMA

SF have a perfectly fair policy.

Equality, or neutrality. Both flags, or none. They compromised. Is that not what the GFA is supposed to be all about?

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

SF have a perfectly fair policy.

Equality, or neutrality. Both flags, or none. They compromised. Is that not what the GFA is supposed to be all about?

With respect, that's not an answer either.

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

With respect, that's not an answer either.

The flag is flown all year round at some Unionist dominated councils. Are republicans out rioting or up in arms?

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

The flag is flown all year round at some Unionist dominated councils. Are republicans out rioting or up in arms?

Still not an answer.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

If, hypothetically, a future unionist majority council voted to reinstate year-round flying of the union flag, would those who applaud the current democratic decision not to fly it year-round be equally supportive of a democratic decision to do so?

Hypothetically it would have been better if the UF hadn't been flying for 24/7/356 in the first place. Like it or not flags are used for territory marking in the north so the fact that the UF few over BCH 365 days a year was provocative to those elected to sit in BCH who do not identify with it.

Also, you're starting from the premise that all democratically arrived at decisions are equally virtuous which is wrong. Moving from synchronised flag flying with Britain (in itself being a compromise) back to provocative 24/7/365 flying would be just that - provocative.

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Still not an answer.

Its impossible to answer. Maybe they would; than again maybe they wouldnt.

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

Its impossible to answer. Maybe they would; than again maybe they wouldnt.

I really don't see what's so complicated about it. The decision has been defended on the grounds that it was democratically made. I strongly suspect that that's a cynical defence; I'm testing the sincerity of the defence by asking the same people who say the decision is valid because it's democratic whether they'd support a democratic decision they disagreed with.

As I suspected, support for democracy is qualified:

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Also, you're starting from the premise that all democratically arrived at decisions are equally virtuous which is wrong.

If you defend a democratic decision that you agree with, but decry a democratic decision that you don't agree with, then the fact that the decision is democratic is irrelevant, and it's cynical at best to claim that as a reason for supporting it.

SoulandForm

My support for democracy is qualified. I make no bones about that- and I suspect yours is too. I consider the late abortions that are carried out in the UK and the existence of the Royal Family absolutely immoral no matter that Im in a minority. However in the case of the flag going up again 24/7 well I wouldnt like it, but I wouldnt support riots over it. I would accept it.

But you only ask this question now as the Short Strand is being attacked by petrol bombs as a part of the Loyalist strategy of tension because you see Republicans as your enemy while you see Loyalists as just weird foreigners- its a sad attempt to deflect away from the reality of the situation as it is.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I really don't see what's so complicated about it. The decision has been defended on the grounds that it was democratically made. I strongly suspect that that's a cynical defence; I'm testing the sincerity of the defence by asking the same people who say the decision is valid because it's democratic whether they'd support a democratic decision they disagreed with.

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

...you see Republicans as your enemy while you see Loyalists as just weird foreigners...

Oh look. A personal attack in response to a reasoned argument.

How refreshingly new and different.

sure joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh look. A personal attack in response to a reasoned argument.

How refreshingly new and different.

what reasoned argument. would that be

SoulandForm

It wasnt meant as a personal attack, please forgive me that it came over that way.

But you do see Republicans as your political enemies dont you?

And you do see Loyalists as it least mildly eccentric foreigners dont you?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh look. A personal attack in response to a reasoned argument.

How refreshingly new and different.

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

It wasnt meant as a personal attack, please forgive me that it came over that way.

Fair enough. There's something awfully tiresome about being told what I think or believe, though.

But you do see Republicans as your political enemies dont you?

I don't have enemies, political or otherwise.

And you do see Loyalists as it least mildly eccentric foreigners dont you?

As someone who's not particularly into nationalism in general, I tend not to lump people with labels like "foreigners", and I don't think there's much to choose in terms of eccentricity between the various tribes in Northern Ireland.

oscarBravo

sure joe wrote: »

what reasoned argument. would that be

The one in my posts you clearly didn't bother to read.

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't have enemies, political or otherwise. As someone who's not particularly into nationalism in general, I tend not to lump people with labels like "foreigners", and I don't think there's much to choose in terms of eccentricity between the various tribes in Northern Ireland.

Oh come you have political opinions, you have expressed them about Shell in Mayo, are not the anti-Shell your political enemies?

Okay so you believe all nordies are equally eccentric, fair enough, but that doesnt mean you dont see Loyalists as eccentric while there are plenty of Republicans in the Republic of Ireland who you do oppose politically.

sure joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

The one in my posts you clearly didn't bother to read.

if its the one iam thinking of. then there was nothing reasonable about the question. it was ridiculously hypothetical, loaded and when people responded and you didnt like the answers you spat the dummy

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

Oh come you have political opinions, you have expressed them about Shell in Mayo, are not the anti-Shell your political enemies?

Having an opinion on someone's actions doesn't make them my enemies.

Okay so you believe all nordies are equally eccentric, fair enough, but that doesnt mean you dont see Loyalists as eccentric while there are plenty of Republicans in the Republic of Ireland who you do oppose politically.

Dude. You're still telling me what I think.

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Having an opinion on someone's actions doesn't make them my enemies

Yes it does- at least in a certain, but important, sense.

SoulandForm

Look if someone came on message board if they existed in those days after the Kingsmill massacre and said "well Loyalists would do the same you know" however correct the statement might be, you would think they were not exactly the most sensitive or copped on human being wouldnt you? Sorry oscar but your line of reasoning is dangerously close to that.

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

Yes it does- at least in a certain, but important, sense.

Only in the sense that perpetuates tribal divisions. I don't have political enemies. You can describe them as my enemies if you want to project your prejudices onto me, but don't claim to speak for me.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Look if someone came on message board if they existed in those days after the Kingsmill massacre and said "well Loyalists would do the same you know" however correct the statement might be, you would think they were not exactly the most sensitive or copped on human being wouldnt you? Sorry oscar but your line of reasoning is dangerously close to that.

The hell it is. All I'm doing is pointing out that it's intellectually dishonest to argue that the decision to stop flying the flag year-round should be accepted by the unionist community solely because it's a democratic one, if the person doing the arguing wouldn't be prepared to accept a similarly democratic decision to resume flying it year-round.

I understand that it's uncomfortable for some people being confronted with the brokenness of their own logic, but that discomfort doesn't magically repair the logic.

It's very simple: if you wouldn't accept a democratic decision on a topic you felt strongly about, then don't be such a hypocrite as to demand that others accept a democratic decision on a topic that they feel equally strongly about.

ardmacha

All I'm doing is pointing out that it's intellectually dishonest to argue that the decision to stop flying the flag year-round should be accepted by the unionist community solely because it's a democratic one, if the person doing the arguing wouldn't be prepared to accept a similarly democratic decision to resume flying it year-round.

The usual amoral symmetry argument. There is no need for the city hall to be decked out like an Orange Hall, so flying it would be wrong and right people should oppose it strongly.

The question is moot, the Unionist community have only been asked to have it fly according to protocol, not have it removed.

sure joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

Only in the sense that perpetuates tribal divisions. I don't have political enemies. You can describe them as my enemies if you want to project your prejudices onto me, but don't claim to speak for me.

The hell it is. All I'm doing is pointing out that it's intellectually dishonest to argue that the decision to stop flying the flag year-round should be accepted by the unionist community solely because it's a democratic one, if the person doing the arguing wouldn't be prepared to accept a similarly democratic decision to resume flying it year-round.

I understand that it's uncomfortable for some people being confronted with the brokenness of their own logic, but that discomfort doesn't magically repair the logic.

It's very simple: if you wouldn't accept a democratic decision on a topic you felt strongly about, then don't be such a hypocrite as to demand that others accept a democratic decision on a topic that they feel equally strongly about.

as chance would have it, it was a democratic decision, but you are right it would be the right decision regardless as it was only ever flying all year to provoke nationalists and keep them in their place

oscarBravo

ardmacha wrote: »

The usual amoral symmetry argument. There is no need for the city hall to be decked out like an Orange Hall, so flying it would be wrong and right people should oppose it strongly.

sure joe wrote: »

as chance would have it, it was a democratic decision, but you are right it would be the right decision regardless as it was only ever flying all year to provoke nationalists and keep them in their place

In other words, the actual nationalist argument in favour of not flying the flag year-round is "we don't want it flying year-round".

Which is fair enough - just please have the integrity to stop talking about it being a democratic decision, as if that has anything to do with it.

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

In other words, the actual nationalist argument in favour of not flying the flag year-round is "we don't want it flying year-round".

Which is fair enough - just please have the integrity to stop talking about it being a democratic decision, as if that has anything to do with it.

Have you ever been to Northern Ireland?

Both the Union Jack and the Tricolour are used to mark territory.

Neither are neutral flags in Northern Ireland.

Belfast City hall is a virtual shrine to Unionism.

My idea is flying the St Patrick's Cross which represents Ireland on the Union Jack or no flags at all. I would prefer no flags at all.

maccored

I am a bit confused. The general republican ideal was, as you correctly point out - no flag. But, in compromise, agreed to the flying of the flag in line with other parts of the uk.

Alliance proposed it and others went along with it - even though some wanted the whole thing changed altogether, they still agreed to it. Isnt that a 'democratic decision'?

oscarBravo wrote: »

In other words, the actual nationalist argument in favour of not flying the flag year-round is "we don't want it flying year-round".

Which is fair enough - just please have the integrity to stop talking about it being a democratic decision, as if that has anything to do with it.

SoulandForm

No the shinners wanted BOTH flags.

maccored wrote: »

I am a bit confused. The general republican ideal was, as you correctly point out - no flag. But, in compromise, agreed to the flying of the flag in line with other parts of the uk.

Alliance proposed it and others went along with it - even though some wanted the whole thing changed altogether, they still agreed to it. Isnt that a 'democratic decision'?

maccored

both flags or no flags. either or. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=H2DT8dmSv9I#t=98s )

maccored

preferably the option without the union jack in it.

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

Have you ever been to Northern Ireland?

Both the Union Jack and the Tricolour are used to mark territory.

Neither are neutral flags in Northern Ireland.

Belfast City hall is a virtual shrine to Unionism.

My idea is flying the St Patrick's Cross which represents Ireland on the Union Jack or no flags at all. I would prefer no flags at all.

All of which is fair enough, and none of which has anything whatsoever to do with my point. If you're unclear as to what my point is, I suggest reading my posts again. They're all written in English.

maccored wrote: »

I am a bit confused. The general republican ideal was, as you correctly point out - no flag. But, in compromise, agreed to the flying of the flag in line with other parts of the uk.

Alliance proposed it and others went along with it - even though some wanted the whole thing changed altogether, they still agreed to it. Isnt that a 'democratic decision'?

Yes. It's a democratic decision.

I'll spell my point out for you again, since you seem to have managed - I have no idea how - to miss it the first few times.

If you're going to claim democracy as a justification for supporting this decision, and as a reason to condemn those who are protesting against it, that's a valid view to hold - the view that a decision arrived at by a democratically-elected city council is one that should be implemented without protest. It logically follows that if a democratically-elected city council arrived at a decision that you found offensive or troubling, then you should accept that decision in the same way that you believe unionists and loyalists should accept this one.

If, on the other hand, you admit - as others in this thread have done - that they accept this democratic decision because they agree with it, but would reject other democratic decisions that they disagree with, then we can (by a process of algebraic simplification) delete democracy from the equation, and point out that they are, in fact, only supportive of decisions they agree with.

As it happens, this appears to be a point of common ground between them and their loyalist brethren: they are only supportive of decisions they agree with too.

maccored

oscarBravo wrote: »

and as a reason to condemn those who are protesting against it

Ah - theres the problem. I think you misunderstand. People condemn those out rioting and raiding houses in the middle of the day. No one condemns them just because they disagree. Its how they show that disagreement.

Plus, lets be honest, nationalists didnt win either, considering the north is meant to be democratic yet will only fly the flag of one side - but did they go off on a wobbler and start riots over it?

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

All of which is fair enough, and none of which has anything whatsoever to do with my point. If you're unclear as to what my point is, I suggest reading my posts again. They're all written in English.

And I replied that I would not support rioting over a reserve of the decision.

Loyalists would go crazy over NO flags- much more than they have under the situation so they wouldnt consider no flags fair enough. I dont know how they how they react to the flying of the St Patrick's Cross.

The reason they are reacting the way they are is that Belfast City Hall was always seen as a shrine for Unionist dominance- but that was the very reason the flag had to come down from flying all the time. The City Hall should belong to everyone.

SoulandForm

Look oscar Loyalism kicked off the last troubles and they are trying to kick off another round.

Republicans of all stripes have been extremely restrained. You should be praising them for that.

Thomas_I

oscarBravo wrote: »

... It's very simple: if you wouldn't accept a democratic decision on a topic you felt strongly about, then don't be such a hypocrite as to demand that others accept a democratic decision on a topic that they feel equally strongly about.

That´s the whole point in dealing with democratic decisions and that´s what most people in NI either have to learn or get accustomed to. It proves that the decades of the "Stormont dictatorship" and the direct rule from London during the troubles have left little or even no room to the people for experiencing democracy with its adventages and disadventages.

It´s one thing to go on the streets to protest against an democratic made decision and by doing so there is no guarantee that this leads to a change of that decision. The other way to alter it is to get and use the tooles within the democratic rules which means to get a majority in the council or to have a referendum to alter the aforesaid decision. But this takes some time and in the meantime the people opposing that decision have to live with the democratic reached compromise and bear it. That´s the core of democracy which leads often to compromises in decisions.

Thomas_I

oscarBravo wrote: »

In other words, the actual nationalist argument in favour of not flying the flag year-round is "we don't want it flying year-round".

Which is fair enough - just please have the integrity to stop talking about it being a democratic decision, as if that has anything to do with it.

The decision has been made by the Belfast City Council which is the legitimate place to decide over that issue, therefore it is a democratic decision because it came to it by a casting vote held by elected representatives of the people of Belfast. The result of that vote is the outcome of a simple democratic process and nothing else.

If you can´t accept it it´s your right to do so, but to deny that it went through a democratic process is plain wrong. The "actual nationalist argument" doesn´t matter because it´s just their opinion which made their elected counciliors to vote in favour of the motion. The only thing that counts is their vote and the majority they got from that vote on the motion.

Lingua Franca

Thomas_I wrote: »

It´s one thing to go on the streets to protest

...and another thing to throw bricks and petrol bombs. I get the impression that loyalists don't know how to protest, probably because they've never had to. Shutting down roads outside hospitals and throwing missiles at their own people isn't garnering them any goodwill. If they can get 4000 thugs on the streets causing a scene you'd think they'd be able to get 10 times that with a single weekly well placed rally.

sure joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

All of which is fair enough, and none of which has anything whatsoever to do with my point. If you're unclear as to what my point is, I suggest reading my posts again. They're all written in English.

Yes. It's a democratic decision.

I'll spell my point out for you again, since you seem to have managed - I have no idea how - to miss it the first few times.

If you're going to claim democracy as a justification for supporting this decision, and as a reason to condemn those who are protesting against it, that's a valid view to hold - the view that a decision arrived at by a democratically-elected city council is one that should be implemented without protest. It logically follows that if a democratically-elected city council arrived at a decision that you found offensive or troubling, then you should accept that decision in the same way that you believe unionists and loyalists should accept this one.

If, on the other hand, you admit - as others in this thread have done - that they accept this democratic decision because they agree with it, but would reject other democratic decisions that they disagree with, then we can (by a process of algebraic simplification) delete democracy from the equation, and point out that they are, in fact, only supportive of decisions they agree with.

As it happens, this appears to be a point of common ground between them and their loyalist brethren: they are only supportive of decisions they agree with too.

this is unreal. how many times are you going to keep asking the same question. its been answered to death. the decision to remove the flag was a democratic one. were republicans out rioting to have it removed. did they suffer for yearsunder it. are they glad its gone. what would you like the answer to be. republicans are bad. unionists are good. the fact is rmoving a devisive flag from a building which should represent everybody is a good thing and that is why people voted democratically to remove it.

getz

SoulandForm wrote: »

Look oscar Loyalism kicked off the last troubles and they are trying to kick off another round.

Republicans of all stripes have been extremely restrained. You should be praising them for that.

you meen like republicans have refused to allow the union flag to be flown over enniskillen town hall for the last 20 years,

sure joe

getz wrote: »

you meen like republicans have refused to allow the union flag to be flown over enniskillen town hall for the last 20 years,

thats fair enough. this is the flag of a people and army who have oppressed them for hundreds of years. they hate it. havethey been flying the tricolour to atagonise the unionist

getz

sure joe wrote: »

thats fair enough. this is the flag of a people and army who have oppressed them for hundreds of years. they hate it. havethey been flying the tricolour to atagonise the unionist

this is a country that is british,and untill its voted otherwise ,it will stay british ,the union flag,like the tricolour is in ireland,is supposed to be flying on certain days on british goverment buildings,enniskillen council do not fly it,for what reason i do not know,maybe because last time it was put up,the town hall was bombed,if that isent antagonism ,i do not know what is,personally i think those who are on the streets rioting should be rounded up and locked up.

maccored

getz wrote: »

this is a country that is british,and untill its voted otherwise ,it will stay british ,the union flag,like the tricolour is in ireland,is supposed to be flying on certain days on british goverment buildings,enniskillen council do not fly it,for what reason i do not know,maybe because last time it was put up,the town hall was bombed,if that isent antagonism ,i do not know what is,personally i think those who are on the streets rioting should be rounded up and locked up.

this isnt about enniskillen though

Also - it could be that damn democracy rearing its ugly head again, as the locals apparently seem to be mainly nationalist - http://www.irelandbyways.com/top-irish-peninsulas/irelands-northwest/enniskillen-environs/

However, 67% of the current population is registered as Roman Catholic, and a majority of locals vote for Nationalist and / or Republican representatives.

maccored

'democracy' ... thats a bit of a dirty word at present.

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

this is a country that is british,and untill its voted otherwise ,it will stay british ,the union flag,like the tricolour is in ireland,is supposed to be flying on certain days on british goverment buildings,enniskillen council do not fly it,for what reason i do not know,maybe because last time it was put up,the town hall was bombed,if that isent antagonism ,i do not know what is,personally i think those who are on the streets rioting should be rounded up and locked up.

What is missing in the thinking of Unionists is the fact that the GFA bestows special status on NI, it is not wholly British and not wholly Irish either. It is imperative that both identities construct a society that fairly reflects the shared identities. Beligerent displays like this one are not and should not, be allowed in the spirit of the agreement. Seems to me a simple acceptance of the fact (that the Union Jack is an antagonistic emblem if used in this way) would be a huge leap forward. It is no accident that we are plunging into an abyss here.