Arlene Foster and the RHI scandal

FrancieBrady

Lads/Ladies the fear of making pragmatic choices because a certain community might be hurt is palpable.

You make decisions based on what is right for everybody while bearing in mind the rights and identities of everyone.

Consonata

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lads/Ladies the fear of making pragmatic choices because a certain community might be hurt is palpable.

You make decisions based on what is right for everybody while bearing in mind the rights and identities of everyone.

That certain community could bring down the whole thing though, you can't not make concessions to the Unionists. It would not be fair.

FrancieBrady

Consonata wrote: »

That certain community could bring down the whole thing though, you can't not make concessions to the Unionists. It would not be fair.

Yes, accommodate unionists, but dividing the country into numerous federal state is ridiculous.
The point of a unified island is that we are all better off as a result. In unity, strength.

Sam Russell

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, accommodate unionists, but dividing the country into numerous federal state is ridiculous.
The point of a unified island is that we are all better off as a result. In unity, strength.

Well, the problem is unity.

If the current NI Assembly retains its current rights, then it adds weight to the argument of joining the Republic, as the division and economic suicide of a hard border would be much worse for those living in NI than a unified Ireland - and the gift of retaining their Assembly should persuade enough of the electorate to go for it.

The unified Island would come in time if economic advancement was delivered on. Besides, what is wrong with local government being controlled locally. If it is a choce between a local hospital or a local motorway, should that not be decided locally?

Currently, a new hospital in one region might be up against a new motorway in another which makes no sense at all. Put another way, a motorway from Limerick to Cork is not being built or even planned* but one from Tuam to Gort is nearing completion at a cost of over €600m.


* No detailed plan exists for Cork to Limerick M20.

Leonard Hofstadter

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the problem is unity.

If the current NI Assembly retains its current rights, then it adds weight to the argument of joining the Republic, as the division and economic suicide of a hard border would be much worse for those living in NI than a unified Ireland - and the gift of retaining their Assembly should persuade enough of the electorate to go for it.

The unified Island would come in time if economic advancement was delivered on. Besides, what is wrong with local government being controlled locally. If it is a choce between a local hospital or a local motorway, should that not be decided locally?

Currently, a new hospital in one region might be up against a new motorway in another which makes no sense at all. Put another way, a motorway from Limerick to Cork is not being built or even planned* but one from Tuam to Gort is nearing completion at a cost of over €600m.


* No detailed plan exists for Cork to Limerick M20.

There's actually so much to think about in terms of a United Ireland, it's hard to know where to even begin. It will go without saying that there will have to be some sort of significant concessions to the Unionist community in the North, but what will those be? What will be even remotely acceptable to them I can see setting massive alarm bells off to many Irish people on either side.

Would we, for example, be prepared to accept Queen Elizabeth as the head of state? I can see that being a complete non-runner considering that hoo-hah that's made over even suggesting rejoining the Commonwealth. As a small open trading economy I think we should (we need any links we can especially with a likely hard Brexit), but it's an absolute no-no for many people.

Would we allow people in the North to not learn Irish in school, so as to facilitate the Unionists, whilst expecting everyone else to keep learning it? How would that work? Many south of the border have no time for learning Irish either. Even the road signs would have to be changed, we've used kilometres for many years while obviously in the North they're still using miles.

What do we do with currency? The Brits are as we know, very very proud of their pound and will not give that up. Two currency systems are obviously totally impractical, logic dictates that a United Ireland would use the Euro throughout. I can't see that being very popular with many North of the border, to them it's another link to their national identity.

Then there is the issue of a sort of federal Ireland, as proposed by Fianna Fáil. Fine to give them one, but why can't Cork get one? Why not give something to Dublin as well, and something else for the West? Where do we stop?

It all sounds lovely and dandy saying we should have a United Ireland because of Brexit (I would have thought we should have wanted one regardless), but we as a nation actually need to face up to the fact that for starters, there are so many differences that it's not as simple as just saying today NI is part of the UK and tomorrow it's part of Ireland. Will people south of the border pay €11 billion or so it costs to run the North? In the comfort of the ballot boxes, I bet many people would vote to leave the North as part of the UK, but obviously if there is a hard border we will lose out so much on trade anyway that the benefits of having an all island economy under a United Ireland would outweigh the disadvantages.

In stark contrast to the Brexiteers, we actually need to think these things through, how they will impact on those of us south of the border, Nationalists in the North and Unionists in the North. We need to accept, and respect the fact that as of now the majority of citizens of the North want to remain in the UK, and that's not going to change overnight, though for middle class voters that might change if there's a hard Brexit and the knock on effect that will have on NI's economy.

If we really want this to work, it's going to involve tackling things that are taboo subjects south of the border, like a federal Ireland, accepting the Queen as head of state, rejoining the Commonwealth and other things to take account of the shared history of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Given the fact that even the simplest of gestures towards the Unionists has people (metaphorically) up in arms, we are a heck of a long way from being able to have a grown up conversation as to what a United Ireland might actually look like let alone go out and seek one.

Sam Russell

captainspeed wrote: »

There's actually so much to think about in terms of a United Ireland, it's hard to know where to even begin. It will go without saying that there will have to be some sort of significant concessions to the Unionist community in the North, but what will those be? What will be even remotely acceptable to them I can see setting massive alarm bells off to many Irish people on either side.

If Brexit causes the NI population to consider a united Ireland, then it will be for economic reasons. It was long said the the loyalty in NI was more to the half-Crown than the Crown.

If that is the case, then the currency will be the Euro.

If it is to be Stormont continuing as is, then the question of how many TDs do they get, and the Mid-Lothian* question arises. Could we have regional assemblies (Councils) that have real power at the level of Stormont? Say setting up regional assemblies for: Munster, Dublin, Connacht/Ulster and Leinster. [At least that would settle the Mid-Lothian question].

Cost - would the UK Government continue to subsidise NI for, say, a decade or so? Would the EU give increased regional aid to help out?

Until these points are made clear, then the question is moot.

I cannot see many outside of John Bruton wishing to see either the British Queen becoming head of state here or Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth. Such a suggestion to me would be to reduce the proposition to the level of a 'Boaty Mac Boatface poll'.

*The Mid-Lothian question in this context - Would NI TDs vote on matters in the Dail that, in NI were within the competence of Stormont, but in the Dail related solely to the rest of the republic?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lads/Ladies the fear of making pragmatic choices because a certain community might be hurt is palpable.

You make decisions based on what is right for everybody while bearing in mind the rights and identities of everyone.

How is that different to the current situation though?

There are numerous examples of making less than optimal choices in Northern Ireland because of the fear that a certain community might be hurt - the current power-sharing arrangements being the most obvious example, but there are many more.

A Little Pony

captainspeed wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the problem is unity.  

If the current NI Assembly retains its current rights, then it adds weight to the argument of joining the Republic, as the division and economic suicide of a hard border would be much worse for those living in NI than a unified Ireland - and the gift of retaining their Assembly should persuade enough of the electorate to go for it.

The unified Island would come in time if economic advancement was delivered on.  Besides, what is wrong with local government being controlled locally.  If it is a choce between a local hospital or a local motorway, should that not be decided locally?  

Currently, a new hospital in one region might be up against a new motorway in another which makes no sense at all.  Put another way, a motorway from Limerick to Cork is not being built or even planned* but one from Tuam to Gort is nearing completion at a cost of over €600m.


* No detailed plan exists for Cork to Limerick M20.

There's actually so much to think about in terms of a United Ireland, it's hard to know where to even begin. It will go without saying that there will have to be some sort of significant concessions to the Unionist community in the North, but what will those be? What will be even remotely acceptable to them I can see setting massive alarm bells off to many Irish people on either side.

Would we, for example, be prepared to accept Queen Elizabeth as the head of state? I can see that being a complete non-runner considering that hoo-hah that's made over even suggesting rejoining the Commonwealth. As a small open trading economy I think we should (we need any links we can especially with a likely hard Brexit), but it's an absolute no-no for many people.

Would we allow people in the North to not learn Irish in school, so as to facilitate the Unionists, whilst expecting everyone else to keep learning it? How would that work? Many south of the border have no time for learning Irish either. Even the road signs would have to be changed, we've used kilometres for many years while obviously in the North they're still using miles.

What do we do with currency? The Brits are as we know, very very proud of their pound and will not give that up. Two currency systems are obviously totally impractical, logic dictates that a United Ireland would use the Euro throughout. I can't see that being very popular with many North of the border, to them it's another link to their national identity.

Then there is the issue of a sort of federal Ireland, as proposed by Fianna Fáil. Fine to give them one, but why can't Cork get one? Why not give something to Dublin as well, and something else for the West? Where do we stop?

It all sounds lovely and dandy saying we should have a United Ireland because of Brexit (I would have thought we should have wanted one regardless), but we as a nation actually need to face up to the fact that for starters, there are so many differences that it's not as simple as just saying today NI is part of the UK and tomorrow it's part of Ireland. Will people south of the border pay €11 billion or so it costs to run the North? In the comfort of the ballot boxes, I bet many people would vote to leave the North as part of the UK, but obviously if there is a hard border we will lose out so much on trade anyway that the benefits of having an all island economy under a United Ireland would outweigh the disadvantages.

In stark contrast to the Brexiteers, we actually need to think these things through, how they will impact on those of us south of the border, Nationalists in the North and Unionists in the North. We need to accept, and respect the fact that as of now the majority of citizens of the North want to remain in the UK, and that's not going to change overnight, though for middle class voters that might change if there's a hard Brexit and the knock on effect that will have on NI's economy.

If we really want this to work, it's going to involve tackling things that are taboo subjects south of the border, like a federal Ireland, accepting the Queen as head of state, rejoining the Commonwealth and other things to take account of the shared history of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Given the fact that even the simplest of gestures towards the Unionists has people (metaphorically) up in arms, we are a heck of a long way from being able to have a grown up conversation as to what a United Ireland might actually look like let alone go out and seek one.

This is why it is currently a non starter. I have seen no evidence in any polling whatsoever that the people of Northern Ireland want a United Ireland. People make big predictions about the future of the UK but I could similarly make predictions about the European Union and the Euro currency.
I think some people need to just calm down and take a deep breath. I don't follow ROI politics closely, what is the mood regarding the two states? Do the Southern people want a United Ireland? Are they willing to take on the 1.8 million people, higher taxes and community that would have a major say in Dail elections and because of the Fine Gael lean to the right, the DUP could end up running the country with Fine Gael in a coalition government implementing big conservative policies.

People don't seem to think these things through. The state would be including a new political player on the scene which is ideologically very different from many of the parties in the south. Any time I watch the Irish election debates, the appetite from the Irish parties seems non existent for it.

Sam Russell

A Little Pony wrote: »

This is why it is currently a non starter. I have seen no evidence in any polling whatsoever that the people of Northern Ireland want a United Ireland. People make big predictions about the future of the UK but I could similarly make predictions about the European Union and the Euro currency.
I think some people need to just calm down and take a deep breath. I don't follow ROI politics closely, what is the mood regarding the two states? Do the Southern people want a United Ireland? Are they willing to take on the 1.8 million people, higher taxes and community that would have a major say in Dail elections and because of the Fine Gael lean to the right, the DUP could end up running the country with Fine Gael in a coalition government implementing big conservative policies.

People don't seem to think these things through. The state would be including a new political player on the scene which is ideologically very different from many of the parties in the south. Any time I watch the Irish election debates, the appetite from the Irish parties seems non existent for it.

The question of a United Ireland does not arise because most people know the answer would be NO.

It would be NO if Ireland would have tp pay the £10 billion that NI gets as a net subsidy from the UK.

It would be NO if the current crop of NI politicians continued in the ways of sectarian bitterness towards each other - and us.

It would be NO because people cannot see the changes in attitude required coming about.

However, Brexit might focus minds. Remember, the troubles went on for 30 years with no end in sight, but now are a distant memory and the current NI Assembly has been operating for 10 years with SF and DUP working together. Who would have thought it possible?

If Brexit results in massive reductions in the subsidy for NI, perhaps minds will change. Will the UK continue to pay the farmers their EU grants and pay the regional funds and other EU payments together with their own payments to NI? We shall see.

Consonata

A Little Pony wrote: »

I think some people need to just calm down and take a deep breath. I don't follow ROI politics closely, what is the mood regarding the two states? Do the Southern people want a United Ireland? Are they willing to take on the 1.8 million people, higher taxes and community that would have a major say in Dail elections and because of the Fine Gael lean to the right, the DUP could end up running the country with Fine Gael in a coalition government implementing big conservative policies.

The DUP is a white elephant. Fine Gael is nowhere near as right wing as the DUP is. It's barely center right.

A Little Pony

Sam Russell wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

This is why it is currently a non starter. I have seen no evidence in any polling whatsoever that the people of Northern Ireland want a United Ireland. People make big predictions about the future of the UK but I could similarly make predictions about the European Union and the Euro currency.
I think some people need to just calm down and take a deep breath. I don't follow ROI politics closely, what is the mood regarding the two states? Do the Southern people want a United Ireland? Are they willing to take on the 1.8 million people, higher taxes and community that would have a major say in Dail elections and because of the Fine Gael lean to the right, the DUP could end up running the country with Fine Gael in a coalition government implementing big conservative policies.

People don't seem to think these things through. The state would be including a new political player on the scene which is ideologically very different from many of the parties in the south. Any time I watch the Irish election debates, the appetite from the Irish parties seems non existent for it.

The question of a United Ireland does not arise because most people know the answer would be NO.

It would be NO if Ireland would have tp pay the £10 billion that NI gets as a net subsidy from the UK.

It would be NO if the current crop of NI politicians continued in the ways of sectarian bitterness towards each other - and us.

It would be NO because people cannot see the changes in attitude required coming about.

However, Brexit might focus minds.  Remember, the troubles went on for 30 years with no end in sight, but now are a distant memory and the current NI Assembly has been operating for 10 years with SF and DUP working together.  Who would have thought it possible?

If Brexit results in massive reductions in the subsidy for NI, perhaps minds will change.  Will the UK continue to pay the farmers their EU grants and pay the regional funds and other EU payments together with their own payments to NI?  We shall see.

Unless they want empty shop shelves and people going hungry..
DUP and Sinn Fein working together can be used in the most loose way as possible. More like an abusive relationship that can't be split up.

A Little Pony

Consonata wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

I think some people need to just calm down and take a deep breath. I don't follow ROI politics closely, what is the mood regarding the two states? Do the Southern people want a United Ireland? Are they willing to take on the 1.8 million people, higher taxes and community that would have a major say in Dail elections and because of the Fine Gael lean to the right, the DUP could end up running the country with Fine Gael in a coalition government implementing big conservative policies.

The DUP is a white elephant. Fine Gael is nowhere near as right wing as the DUP is. It's barely center right.

Of course but what would stop them coming together to form a government if needed? Politicians only care about power.

Consonata

A Little Pony wrote: »

Of course but what would stop them coming together to form a government if needed? Politicians only care about power.

Nothing, but FG realigning to suit Unionists would result in them losing power. Its far far far more likely that the DUP will become more moderate in order to get into power, as they would be a minority in that situation.

blanch152

Consonata wrote: »

Nothing, but FG realigning to suit Unionists would result in them losing power. Its far far far more likely that the DUP will become more moderate in order to get into power, as they would be a minority in that situation.

How many seats would they get I wonder?

2.13m voted in last years general election in the South.
800,000 voted in this years Assembly elections, giving a total electorate of 2.93m. DUP got 225,413 votes in the Assembly elections, giving them a 7.6% share of the vote.

The Dail would probably have to increase to around 200 seats in the event of a united Ireland. Because of the concentrated nature of their vote and the multi-seat constituencies, the DUP would be likely to gain the same amount of seats as their vote, despite the usual penalties for smaller parties, giving them 16 seats in the Dail.

A potential governing partner would need 42% of the seats, potentially achievable on 35% of the vote. When you think that FG got 46% of the seats based on 36% of the vote in 2011, it would seem that the DUP would be potential coalition partners for either FF or FG in the current situation.

Sam Russell

A Little Pony wrote: »

Of course but what would stop them coming together to form a government if needed? Politicians only care about power.

The DUP have 30% of the seats in the Assembly and FG have 30% of the seats the Dail. Having 30% of the seats would stop them alright.

FG have never had a majority on their own - nor will they.

FrancieBrady

Looks like the DUP are attempting to bring this to another election.

The DUP didn't turn up yesterday, SF told the media that they wouldn't be nominating on Monday because obviously there wasn't time left for an agreement to be reached, but it seems the media are already portraying it as SF pulling the plug.

A Little Pony

Sinn Fein did pull the plug but this is all irrelevant as I said it wouldn't get up and running again. The election was a farce and ultimately hasn't done anything. Making huge demands while having no budget is recipe for disaster.

FrancieBrady

The DUP claim they were happy in government.
That government collapsed with more than one party demanding:
That Arlene Foster step aside.
That the Irish Language Act be passed.
Recognition of gay rights
and that funding for inquiries would be available.

Arlene was going on about everybody having a mandate today yet the DUP have not budged on even one of the above knowing an executive would not be formed if they didn't.
Judge for yourself who the obstacle is.

A Little Pony

If you believe Sinn Fein will get all they want then dream on, it isn't going to happen. You have to give and take. By all accounts the DUP wanted a military covenant which was rejected I read and as a Unionist the military is important to us. We want equality please.

Jayop

The giving and taking was done prior to the signing of the St Andrews and the Good Friday Agreements which said these things would happen. Why should the DUP be allowed to renegotiate agreements they already signed up to?

Bollocks to that.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you believe Sinn Fein will get all they want then dream on, it isn't going to happen. You have to give and take. By all accounts the DUP wanted a military covenant which was rejected I read and as a Unionist the military is important to us. We want equality please.

Oh well, the inevitable outcome will be Westminster imposing an Irish language act, gay rights etc. Or if Westminster is feeling like trying something new it will be a London-Dublin arrangement that will do it.
That London-Dublin arrangement could come out of Brexit in return for something else we have to offer- support within the EU.

Nobody is willing to stand for the DUP deciding what is culturally important or forcing normal people to live by what the DUP believe religiously.

jm08

The Belfast telegraph did a poll on a United Ireland just after Brexit (July 2016). Over 50,000 responded.

Two questions asked:

1.Should there be a poll on the question of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic? 73% yes.

2. If there was a poll, what way would you vote.
No change:
United Ireland: 69%


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/over-50000-take-part-in-our-united-ireland-border-poll-heres-how-they-voted-34900542.html

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you believe Sinn Fein will get all they want then dream on, it isn't going to happen. You have to give and take. By all accounts the DUP wanted a military covenant which was rejected I read and as a Unionist the military is important to us. We want equality please.

Oh well, the inevitable outcome will be Westminster imposing an Irish language act, gay rights etc. Or if Westminster is feeling like trying something new it will be a London-Dublin arrangement that will do it.
That London-Dublin arrangement could come out of Brexit in return for something else we have to offer- support within the EU.

Nobody is willing to stand for the DUP deciding what is culturally important or forcing normal people to live by what the DUP believe religiously.

If Westminster wills it, then so be it. Let her Majesty s government do as they must.

Jayop

jm08 wrote: »

The Belfast telegraph did a poll on a United Ireland just after Brexit (July 2016). Over 50,000 responded.

Two questions asked:

1.Should there be a poll on the question of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic? 73% yes.

2. If there was a poll, what way would you vote.
No change:
United Ireland: 69%


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/over-50000-take-part-in-our-united-ireland-border-poll-heres-how-they-voted-34900542.html

I'm a poll skeptic but even more so those online polls. Fairly meaningless tbh.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

If Westminster wills it, then so be it. Let her Majesty s government do as they must.

And Westminster won't do a thing without consulting Dublin. Well played Arlene.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

If Westminster wills it, then so be it. Let her Majesty s government do as they must.

And Westminster won't do a thing without consulting Dublin. Well played Arlene.

They don't need permission from Dublin. Brokenshire probably will call for direct rule in a few weeks time when Sinn Fein don't get what they want.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

They don't need permission from Dublin. Brokenshire probably will call for direct rule in a few weeks time when Sinn Fein don't get what they want.

I didn't say 'permission' I said in consultation.
And the advice from Dublin will be an Irish Language Act (what does that matter to Unionists anyway only bigoted keening for their 'never a taig about the place' heyday) Gay rights to align with the South, (who cares what gets the DUP into heaven?) And funding to inquire.

As I said 'well done Arlene'.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

They don't need permission from Dublin. Brokenshire probably will call for direct rule in a few weeks time when Sinn Fein don't get what they want.

I didn't say 'permission' I said in consultation.
And the advice from Dublin will be an Irish Language Act (what does that matter to Unionists anyway only bigoted keening for their 'never a taig about the place' heyday) Gay rights to align with the South, (who cares what gets the DUP into heaven?) And funding to inquire.

As I said 'well done Arlene'.

No one has to listen. Give and take, Unionists have issues we would like looked at. Its not the Sinn Fein show even if you want it to be.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

No one has to listen. Give and take, Unionists have issues we would like looked at. Its not the Sinn Fein show even if you want it to be.

They knew the demands from a number of parties. They have agreed to none. What demands have the other parties refused?

jm08

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you believe Sinn Fein will get all they want then dream on, it isn't going to happen. You have to give and take. By all accounts the DUP wanted a military covenant which was rejected I read and as a Unionist the military is important to us. We want equality please.

I just looked up the military covenant which seems to be a strange one. Why are not military people's injuries taken care of by the military? Why is there need to have a covenant so that they get priority over everyone else in the NHS?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say 'permission' I said in consultation.
And the advice from Dublin will be an Irish Language Act (what does that matter to Unionists anyway only bigoted keening for their 'never a taig about the place' heyday) Gay rights to align with the South, (who cares what gets the DUP into heaven?) And funding to inquire.

As I said 'well done Arlene'.

A contrary view to that would be that if it happens (and I don't doubt you) that direct rule brings an Irish Language Act and same-sex marriage, doesn't that tell moderate nationalists and moderate unionists that maybe they would be better off without the likes of SF and DUP squabbling?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A contrary view to that would be that if it happens (and I don't doubt you) that direct rule brings an Irish Language Act and same-sex marriage, doesn't that tell moderate nationalists and moderate unionists that maybe they would be better off without the likes of SF and DUP squabbling?

It is supposed to be a democracy and the people are free to tell politicians what they think at the polls. They did last time out.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is supposed to be a democracy and the people are free to tell politicians what they think at the polls. They did last time out.

Of course they are, I wasn't disputing that. I was just suggesting that a period of direct rule where the types of things you were suggesting were implemented by London that the people of Northern Ireland might learn the virtues of rejecting the extremists on both sides.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course they are, I wasn't disputing that. I was just suggesting that a period of direct rule where the types of things you were suggesting were implemented by London that the people of Northern Ireland might learn the virtues of rejecting the extremists on both sides.

Of course they could, it's a democracy.
They looked at who was on offer last time out and made their decision in a demonstrative and unprecedented way. What does that tell us?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course they could, it's a democracy.
They looked at who was on offer last time out and made their decision in a demonstrative and unprecedented way. What does that tell us?

Oh yes, I agree, but context is everything. A period of direct rule changes the context, and that has dangers and opportunities for all parties.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh yes, I agree, but context is everything. A period of direct rule changes the context, and that has dangers and opportunities for all parties.

Of course, the people are the ultimate jury.
The electorate sent a message last time that 'some' have arrogantly ignored.
Westminster and Dublin doesn't want the headache of direct rule, I would not like to be the constituency which gets the blame. And behind closed doors, were no niceties are required, one side will get the blame and I bet it will be the same one the public blamed.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course, the people are the ultimate jury.
The electorate sent a message last time that 'some' have arrogantly ignored.
Westminster and Dublin doesn't want the headache of direct rule, I would not like to be the constituency which gets the blame. And behind closed doors, were no niceties are required, one side will get the blame and I bet it will be the same one the public blamed.

I don't think it is as simple as that.

If you talk to unionist up north, they are blaming SF intransigence, while the nationalists are blaming DUP intransigence. A period of direct rule may well be what is required to make both of them less relevant, which would be a good thing in my opinion.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think it is as simple as that.

If you talk to unionist up north, they are blaming SF intransigence, while the nationalists are blaming DUP intransigence. A period of direct rule may well be what is required to make both of them less relevant, which would be a good thing in my opinion.

What you should ask yourself and what Dublin and Westminster and the majority of people in the north know, there is only one party that is standing arrogantly against rights and equalities every other citizen in both jurisdictions have.

Simpler than that it cannot be made. Incredibly won game of snooker actually when you look at it.
The DUP are between a rock and a hard place now, and all they had to do was get Arlene to stand aside for a while.
I think you are fooling yourself if you think the people are equally blaming here.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What you should ask yourself and what Dublin and Westminster and the majority of people in the north know, there is only one party that is standing arrogantly against rights and equalities every other citizen in both jurisdictions have.

Simpler than that it cannot be made. Incredibly won game of snooker actually when you look at it.
The DUP are between a rock and a hard place now, and all they had to do was get Arlene to stand aside for a while.
I think you are fooling yourself if you think the people are equally blaming here.

I never said people were equally blaming, but putting yourself in the position of being a neutral and assigning blame from that perspective is not a way of understanding the North. There is no doubt that many of a unionist perspective are blaming SF - you may believe that is unfair, but that is their opinion, and they are entitled to hold it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I never said people were equally blaming, but putting yourself in the position of being a neutral and assigning blame from that perspective is not a way of understanding the North. There is no doubt that many of a unionist perspective are blaming SF - you may believe that is unfair, but that is their opinion, and they are entitled to hold it.

Nobody, certainly not a political party is 'entitled' to an opinion based on a falsehood.

Again, look at demands, they are reasonably based on ordinary rights and equalities enshrined in all other parts of these islands.
To say there is anything other than one party blocking progress here would be a falsehood. There clearly isn't.
And Dublin and Westminster know who it is, even if they cannot say it in public.

The DUP are potentially going to force this back to an unknowable election scenario were they could very very likely be damaged more (Arlene is gone) or they could usher in a period of direct rule were Westminister in consultation with Dublin bring in the reforms despite the DUP (Arlene is gone).
There isn't a win scenario here for the DUP, they should have bitten the bullet and asked Arlene to step aside.

A Little Pony

Saying it is only the DUP standing in the way of equality when I mentioned the military covenant being ignored by Sinn Fein is skewing what is going on.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Saying it is only the DUP standing in the way of equality when I mentioned the military covenant being ignored by Sinn Fein is skewing what is going on.

The 'Military Covenant' is not a block to progress currently and wasn't in 2015.
Stop making things up.
The DUP were quite happy to stay in the comfy seats when this came up first and was objected to by nationalists parties, not just SF.

A problem with it now has been invented.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody, certainly not a political party is 'entitled' to an opinion based on a falsehood.

Again, look at demands, they are reasonably based on ordinary rights and equalities enshrined in all other parts of these islands.
To say there is anything other than one party blocking progress here would be a falsehood. There clearly isn't.
And Dublin and Westminster know who it is, even if they cannot say it in public.

The DUP are potentially going to force this back to an unknowable election scenario were they could very very likely be damaged more (Arlene is gone) or they could usher in a period of direct rule were Westminister in consultation with Dublin bring in the reforms despite the DUP (Arlene is gone).
There isn't a win scenario here for the DUP, they should have bitten the bullet and asked Arlene to step aside.

What is progress? It is a subjective rather than objective place.

You define progress a certain way and from that perspective and opinion the DUP are the only ones blocking progress. You can then say that anyone disputing that is guilty of a falsehood.

However, the whole position is based on a definition of progress, while not arbitrary, which is constructed from a green tinted view of the world.

From the orange tinted view of the world, there may well be some acknowledgement that the DUP are not the most helpful, but there will also be a strong view that SF are playing their part in blocking progress. For example, at a time when support for a united Ireland in the immediate future remains at a low, calling for a border poll could be seen as provocative.

I am not saying I agree with either tinted view of the world, but any perspective that only blames one side in a dispute is usually wrong, and often very wrong.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What is progress? It is a subjective rather than objective place.

You define progress a certain way and from that perspective and opinion the DUP are the only ones blocking progress. You can then say that anyone disputing that is guilty of a falsehood.

However, the whole position is based on a definition of progress, while not arbitrary, which is constructed from a green tinted view of the world.

From the orange tinted view of the world, there may well be some acknowledgement that the DUP are not the most helpful, but there will also be a strong view that SF are playing their part in blocking progress. For example, at a time when support for a united Ireland in the immediate future remains at a low, calling for a border poll could be seen as provocative.

I am not saying I agree with either tinted view of the world, but any perspective that only blames one side in a dispute is usually wrong, and often very wrong.

Well, what you need to do is itemise the ways in which SF are 'blocking progress'.
I have shown clearly the issues on which the DUP are blocking progress on issues other parties (not just SF) are seeking progress on.
Calling for a border poll is always going to be provocative to some but a border poll was sewn into the GFA and any party has the right to seek one.
Being provocative is not to block progress.

P.S. If you think Dublin and Westminster are not compiling a similar itemised list you are sadly mistaken.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, what you need to do is itemise the ways in which SF are 'blocking progress'.
I have shown clearly the issues on which the DUP are blocking progress on issues other parties (not just SF) are seeking progress on.
Calling for a border poll is always going to be provocative to some but a border poll was sewn into the GFA and any party has the right to seek one.
Being provocative is not to block progress.

P.S. If you think Dublin and Westminster are not compiling a similar itemised list you are sadly mistaken.

I am not going to get into a lengthy discussion with you as you keep shifting position slightly each time with a nuanced different take on things.

A border isn't sewn into the GFA and no party has the right to seek one. This is what it says:

"1.
The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order.
2.
Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.
3.
The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule."



So only the SoS can decide on a poll and only he can make up his mind on the issue. So the SF posturing on the issue can certainly be seen as provocative to the unionist mindset.

Similarly, there is no express provision in the GFA for an Irish Language Act and the DUP have never promised one, yet SF keep accusing the DUP of breaking promises. All spin, and all provocative from SF.

Putting new issues on the table dressed up as false broken promises is one sure way of antagonising the other side and ensuring there won't be progress.

I am leaving it there as this has the potential to go on and on.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not going to get into a lengthy discussion with you as you keep shifting position slightly each time with a nuanced different take on things.

A border isn't sewn into the GFA and no party has the right to seek one. This is what it says:

"1.
The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order.
2.
Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.
3.
The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule."



So only the SoS can decide on a poll and only he can make up his mind on the issue. So the SF posturing on the issue can certainly be seen as provocative to the unionist mindset.

Similarly, there is no express provision in the GFA for an Irish Language Act and the DUP have never promised one, yet SF keep accusing the DUP of breaking promises. All spin, and all provocative from SF.

Putting new issues on the table dressed up as false broken promises is one sure way of antagonising the other side and ensuring there won't be progress.

I am leaving it there as this has the potential to go on and on.

Where does it say 'no one can ask for one'?
The GFA was agreed on as a 'process', certainly from a republican point of view. And a poll was a part of that of that process.
That is how politics work.

Why would the 'agreement' of the DUP be required for a Language act that every other part of the UK with a separate language to English has?
Are you having a laugh here?
Not to mention LGBT Rights.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where does it say 'no one can ask for one'?
The GFA was agreed on as a 'process', certainly from a republican point of view. And a poll was a part of that of that process.
That is how politics work.
.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Calling for a border poll is always going to be provocative to some but a border poll was sewn into the GFA and any party has the right to seek one.
Being provocative is not to block progress.
.

Again, you have shifted position over a couple of posts. Are you still maintaining that any party has the right to seek a poll when the GFA clearly states that is a matter for the SoS?

Being provocative is blocking progress because it is a negotiating tactic designed to shift blame to those reacting and cause them to shut the process down. Have used that type of tactic myself in negotiations.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, you have shifted position over a couple of posts. Are you still maintaining that any party has the right to seek a poll when the GFA clearly states that is a matter for the SoS?

Being provocative is blocking progress because it is a negotiating tactic designed to shift blame to those reacting and cause them to shut the process down. Have used that type of tactic myself in negotiations.

Jesus, the SoS gets to call the timing of a poll.
Any party can call for a poll just like any party can call for Gay Rights.

And yes, I agree with you, the DUP have shut down progress on a number of issues that a number of parties (not just SF) wish to progress on.

And that will be clear to Dublin and Westminster and to anyone who has their eyes open.
They are political parties, everyone accepts that, and they, like political parties everywhere are required to deliver for everybody.
The DUP simply aren't, they are blocking progress continually by using petitions of concern much much more than anyone else and they are refusing to give way and so allow an executive to be formed.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus, the SoS gets to call the timing of a poll.
Any party can call for a poll just like any party can call for Gay Rights.

And yes, I agree with you, the DUP have shut down progress on a number of issues that a number of parties (not just SF) wish to progress on.

And that will be clear to Dublin and Westminster and to anyone who has their eyes open.
They are political parties, everyone accepts that, and they, like political parties everywhere are required to deliver for everybody.
The DUP simply aren't, they are blocking progress continually by using petitions of concern much much more than anyone else and they are refusing to give way and so allow an executive to be formed.

To be fair to the DUP, aren't they just sticking to their pre-election promises?

SF have been lauded for sticking to their promises and not going into coalition with FG and FF. Surely, the DUP should be similarly lauded?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

To be fair to the DUP, aren't they just sticking to their pre-election promises?

SF have been lauded for sticking to their promises and not going into coalition with FG and FF. Surely, the DUP should be similarly lauded?

I don't think sticking to religiously fundamentalist and culturally oppressive policies should be lauded, no. So you laud away to your hearts content.