Stormont power sharing talks

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

It could equally be argued that the refusal to entertain a Minority Languages Act is petty.

After the fact. Honour the agreement for an ILA already in place.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What solution does a 'constitutional nationalist' have that doesn't involve one side acquiescing again? Serious question.

I don't know, it is quite clear now that Sinn Fein will only accept complete acquiescence from the DUP and have no interest in moderating their stance or in compromise.

As I suggested already in this thread, if Sinn Fein were to hold fast on same sex marriage (appealing to gay Unionists) and abortion (appealing to liberal Unionists) while compromising on a Minority Languages Act, they would show that they can represent the interests of both communities are not just a sectarian remnant like the DUP.

I hold out little hope that Sinn Fein will have the maturity to reach out to the other community like that but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know, it is quite clear now that Sinn Fein will only accept complete acquiescence from the DUP and have no interest in moderating their stance or in compromise.

As I suggested already in this thread, if Sinn Fein were to hold fast on same sex marriage (appealing to gay Unionists) and abortion (appealing to liberal Unionists) while compromising on a Minority Languages Act, they would show that they can represent the interests of both communities are not just a sectarian remnant like the DUP.

I hold out little hope that Sinn Fein will have the maturity to reach out to the other community like that but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised.

SF like their supporters, expect the GFA and it's subsequent agreements to come into force.
They are under no obligation to acquiesce or wait any longer.

How a constitutional anything could tolerate democratically reached agreements being reneged on, flabbergasts me.

Why a nationalist would want to see a party denigrate his language, place roadblocks in front of legislation that hurts no-one, only bigots, flabbergasts me even more.

And now you wish to see LGBT and others discriminated against by a fundamentalist suprematist party, used as pawns in your elaborate scheme to get unconstitutional foot draggers off the hook???

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

I hold out little hope that Sinn Fein will have the maturity to reach out to the other community....

You're trying to mask your contempt for Nationalists/Republicans behind calls for SF to reach out to liberal Unionists. They've already tried that and it was returned with sneering and bigotry by the DUP.



Liberal unionists have Alliance to vote for yet the DUP remain the largest Unionist party who, along with the UUP, block legislation on cross-community non-partisan issues like marriage equality and reproductive rights.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF like their supporters, expect the GFA and it's subsequent agreements to come into force.
They are under no obligation to acquiesce or wait any longer.

Never asked them to acquiesce, just to compromise. An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins.

Thomas__

blanch152 wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

That´s already the case, when you apply for a job in the civil service, you have to know Irish. But for TDs, it won´t work unless the majority of the TDs would start to debate in Irish only. I can´t imagine this would ever happen.

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf I think you're getting paid by the state, it's not unreasonable to expect you to learn irish

In nearly 20 years as a civil and public servant before I left, I never used a word of Irish.

I don´t think that those of your former colleagues serving in Gaeltacht Areas would say the same, if some of the locals would speak Irish only.

Thomas__

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF like their supporters, expect the GFA and it's subsequent agreements to come into force.
They are under no obligation to acquiesce or wait any longer.

Never asked them to acquiesce, just to compromise. An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins.

Sounds fair to me.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Never asked them to acquiesce, just to compromise. An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins.

You ask them to throw away something that was already agreed so the Unionists can win what exactly?

What do unionists lose by the existence of an Irish Language act?

FrancieBrady

Thomas__ wrote: »

Sounds fair to me.

No it isn't on a lot of levels.

Ordinary rights for LGBT people should never be bartered for, what kind of precedent does that set?


Blanch has still not explained why a constitutional nationalist is so anxious to save the blushes of people who are just engaging in cultural bigotry here.

He could start by explaining what harm an already agreed standalone Language act is going to do to a unionist.

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Never asked them to acquiesce, just to compromise. An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins.

You ask them to throw away something that was already agreed so the Unionists can win what exactly?

What do unionists lose by the existence of an Irish Language act?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

Sounds fair to me.

No it isn't on a lot of levels.

Ordinary rights for LGBT people should never be bartered for, what kind of precedent does that set?


Blanch has still not explained why a constitutional nationalist is so anxious to save the blushes of people who are just engaging in cultural bigotry here.

He could start by explaining what harm an already agreed standalone Language act is going to do to a unionist.

I think that there is some misunderstanding.

"An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins."

Reading this quoted line, it is perceived in my view as addressing the reality in regards of how the Irish language is really used in daily live by the people in the whole of the Island of Ireland. Seen from that angle, it sounds as sustainable compromise in regards to NI.

On the other hand, your argument is as well reasonable in regards of the DUP who has to stick to agreements once concluded. But I also know that the DUP can´t be trusted and that party is unreliable and ruthless imo (they´ve delivered proof for that by themselves and latest in the scandal that ended up in the break up of the past NI govt leading to new elections with a result that there isn´t still a new NI govt formed yet).

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No it isn't on a lot of levels.

Ordinary rights for LGBT people should never be bartered for, what kind of precedent does that set?

Nobody has suggested bartering rights for LGBT people, that is another red herring thrown out by you.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Blanch has still not explained why a constitutional nationalist is so anxious to save the blushes of people who are just engaging in cultural bigotry here.

He could start by explaining what harm an already agreed standalone Language act is going to do to a unionist.

You really don't get the imperative of compromise and reaching mutually acceptable outcomes in the context of Northern Ireland.

FrancieBrady

Thomas__ wrote: »

I think that there is some misunderstanding.

"An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins."

Reading this quoted line, it is perceived in my view as addressing the reality in regards of how the Irish language is really used in daily live by the people in the whole of the Island of Ireland. Seen from that angle, it sounds as sustainable compromise in regards to NI.

On the other hand, your argument is as well reasonable in regards of the DUP who has to stick to agreements once concluded. But I also know that the DUP can´t be trusted and that party is unreliable and ruthless imo (they´ve delivered proof for that by themselves and latest in the scandal that ended up in the break up of the past NI govt leading to new elections with a result that there isn´t still a new NI govt formed yet).

Can anyone explain to me what unionism loses by allowing a standalone Language Act that has been previously agreed before the sudden interest in Ulster Scots (see the absence of any concern for U-S in Ian Paisley's objections in 2007)

If you can frame what it is they lose I think you will arrive at what exactly the core of the problem is.
Because in my opinion all they will 'lose' is a sense of supremacy.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me what unionism loses by allowing a standalone Language Act that has been previously agreed before the sudden interest in Ulster Scots (see the absence of any concern for U-S in Ian Paisley's objections in 2007)

If you can frame what it is they lose I think you will arrive at what exactly the core of the problem is.
Because in my opinion all they will 'lose' is a sense of supremacy.

By the same token, can you explain what Sinn Fein will lose by the incorporation of Irish language provisions into a Minority Languages Act?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody has suggested bartering rights for LGBT people, that is another red herring thrown out by you.

Of course it is bartering.
Unless you don't think LGBT should have those rights automatically?

Do you agree with the DUP position on LGBT and same sex rights?

You really don't get the imperative of compromise and reaching mutually acceptable outcomes in the context of Northern Ireland.

The problem here as any 'constitutional' citizen would know, is that 'mutually accepted outcomes' have already been agreed. And one supposedly constitutional party and it's supporters have decided to renege on that.

After years of accepting the imperatives of the GFA an impasse has been reached. It could well have been any number of other points on the road to 'normality', it just happens to be that a Language Act has brought it to a head.

Can you explain how a standalone Language Act in Ireland, Scotland or Wales culturally damages anyone?
Or failing that, tell us what Unionism 'wins' here, if everyone 'wins'.

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

I think that there is some misunderstanding.

"An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins."

Reading this quoted line, it is perceived in my view as addressing the reality in regards of how the Irish language is really used in daily live by the people in the whole of the Island of Ireland. Seen from that angle, it sounds as sustainable compromise in regards to NI.

On the other hand, your argument is as well reasonable in regards of the DUP who has to stick to agreements once concluded. But I also know that the DUP can´t be trusted and that party is unreliable and ruthless imo (they´ve delivered proof for that by themselves and latest in the scandal that ended up in the break up of the past NI govt leading to new elections with a result that there isn´t still a new NI govt formed yet).

Can anyone explain to me what unionism loses by allowing a standalone Language Act that has been previously agreed before the sudden interest in Ulster Scots (see the absence of any concern for U-S in Ian Paisley's objections in 2007)

If you can frame what it is they lose I think you will arrive at what exactly the core of the problem is.
Because in my opinion all they will 'lose' is a sense of supremacy.

Your last line hits the nail on the head and this is what it is all about on their side. Nothing else and they still refuse to acknowledge that their times of "supremacy" are long gone.

What can´t be solved politically, is to be tried in a court case. Question is whether the court would take it on for trial. The minds of the DUP leaders are closed for compromise, despite the fact that they are to stick to the concluded agreement, so there is perhaps no other way than to drag them to court to make them comply with with what they agreed themselves before. I know, dealing with the Dinosaurs Ulster Party is an ordeal, more so as they are the political arm of the OO and I suspect that the members of the latter are all behind that mischief. One has just recall all their demonstrations and street actions from recent years they´ve took to the streets in regards to "defend and uphold their culture".

blanch152

Thomas__ wrote: »

Your last line hits the nail on the head and this is what it is all about on their side. Nothing else and they still refuse to acknowledge that their times of "supremacy" are long gone.

What can´t be solved politically, is to be tried in a court case. Question is whether the court would take it on for trial. The minds of the DUP leaders are closed for compromise, despite the fact that they are to stick to the concluded agreement, so there is perhaps no other way than to drag them to court to make them comply with with what they agreed themselves before. I know, dealing with the Dinosaurs Ulster Party is an ordeal, more so as they are the political arm of the OO and I suspect that the members of the latter are all behind that mischief. One has just recall all their demonstrations and street actions from recent years they´ve took to the streets in regards to "defend and uphold their culture".

What is lost on many nationalists is that you can't replace supremacy by one with with supremacy by the other. That is the essence of why an Irish Language Act just doesn't work.

It is also why a united Ireland is a pipedream. A functioning Northern Ireland with a greater degree of joint sovereignty from the UK and Ireland is the long-term solution, despite what many on both sides wish for. A lot of people are still a long way from realising this.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

What is lost on many nationalists is that you can't replace supremacy by one with with supremacy by the other. That is the essence of why an Irish Language Act just doesn't work.

It is also why a united Ireland is a pipedream. A functioning Northern Ireland with a greater degree of joint sovereignty from the UK and Ireland is the long-term solution, despite what many on both sides wish for. A lot of people are still a long way from realising this.

How is having an Irish Language act supremacy??

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What is lost on many nationalists is that you can't replace supremacy by one with with supremacy by the other. That is the essence of why an Irish Language Act just doesn't work.

It is also why a united Ireland is a pipedream. A functioning Northern Ireland with a greater degree of joint sovereignty from the UK and Ireland is the long-term solution, despite what many on both sides wish for. A lot of people are still a long way from realising this.

You are a 'nationalist'. A 'nationalist' who seems willing to barter/ignore/swap nationalist aspirations so that everyone 'wins' something. (how achieving rights (LGBT And same sex) you should be automatically entitled to in any decent modern secular state can be seen as 'winning' beats me)

Yet you have yet to outline what unionism 'loses' if an Irish Language act becomes a reality.

Thomas__

blanch152 wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

Your last line hits the nail on the head and this is what it is all about on their side. Nothing else and they still refuse to acknowledge that their times of "supremacy" are long gone.

What can´t be solved politically, is to be tried in a court case. Question is whether the court would take it on for trial. The minds of the DUP leaders are closed for compromise, despite the fact that they are to stick to the concluded agreement, so there is perhaps no other way than to drag them to court to make them comply with with what they agreed themselves before. I know, dealing with the Dinosaurs Ulster Party is an ordeal, more so as they are the political arm of the OO and I suspect that the members of the latter are all behind that mischief. One has just recall all their demonstrations and street actions from recent years they´ve took to the streets in regards to "defend and uphold their culture".

What is lost on many nationalists is that you can't replace supremacy by one with with supremacy by the other. That is the essence of why an Irish Language Act just doesn't work.

It is also why a united Ireland is a pipedream. A functioning Northern Ireland with a greater degree of joint sovereignty from the UK and Ireland is the long-term solution, despite what many on both sides wish for. A lot of people are still a long way from realising this.

Unless you´re going to explain by more details what you mean by "joint sovereignty for the UK and Ireland'" in regards to the status of NI in the UK´s devolvement of powers, which means limited selfgovernance, I´m sorry to say but that sounds more of a pipedream than the prospect of a UI emerging from a UK that is falling apart by an independent Scotland in the foreseeable future.

The Shinners do have their faults and I wouldn´t trust them as far as I can spit either, but the most discredited party in the whole of the Island of Ireland at the present is clearly the DUP, they´re worse than any FFer in the Republic. There is no other party in NI than the DUP who works against progress that much like them and since this woman has taken over from Mr Robinson, the ability of that party to rule NI along with SF in powersharing only got worse and it´s the DUP who is not co-operating. It is the DUP who is responsible for the last scandal that led to the break up of the NI govt. The Shinners got the blame for many things, in this present situation, the blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the DUP and Mrs Foster as their leader. It is them fussing around about this Irish language subject and the question what they have to lose is more than just. They only fear losing face to their own bigots who vote for them in the first place. There is no other reason for that which would give some rational and reasonable justification for refusing to implement it. It´s nothing but the usual never ending tit-for-tat silly game the Unionists are still running. They always find anything to stir up discontent, whether it´s that damn UJ at the top of BCC, banned routes for the OO marches or "lack of respect" towards Orangemen culture. It´s always the same with them, they behave like little children that don´t get their way. It´s really already tedious with them.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are a 'nationalist'..

Yes, I am a nationalist, but I don't want a United Ireland over anyone's dead body or at a cost to this island in terms of society or economy. That makes me a realist. Of course I support the aspiration to a united Ireland in the Constitution, but that Constitution now recognises the reality that there is no longer a claim for a United Ireland. I could desperately wish that Shamrock Rovers will win the Champions League and support them every year in the hope that they will do so, but the realist in me knows it is very unlikely to happen - that doesn't make me any less of a supporter. Neither does my real acknowledgement that a united Ireland is a pipedream make me any less a nationalist.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'nationalist' who seems willing to barter/ignore/swap nationalist aspirations so that everyone 'wins' something. (how achieving rights (LGBT And same sex) you should be automatically entitled to in any decent modern secular state can be seen as 'winning' beats me).

You don't seem to understand my point at all.

The winning for Sinn Fein is in the ability to demonstrate to parts of the Unionist vote, particularly the progressive elements - LGBT and women's rights - that Sinn Fein is a party for all the people of Northern Ireland and that it is prepared to compromise on some issues (Irish Language Act) for those people. Do you not realise how powerful that would be?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yet you have yet to outline what unionism 'loses' if an Irish Language act becomes a reality.

It is interesting that you see these debates in terms of what either side loses, I much prefer to see these issues in terms of everyone gaining.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, I am a nationalist, but I don't want a United Ireland over anyone's dead body or at a cost to this island in terms of society or economy. That makes me a realist. Of course I support the aspiration to a united Ireland in the Constitution, but that Constitution now recognises the reality that there is no longer a claim for a United Ireland. I could desperately wish that Shamrock Rovers will win the Champions League and support them every year in the hope that they will do so, but the realist in me knows it is very unlikely to happen - that doesn't make me any less of a supporter. Neither does my real acknowledgement that a united Ireland is a pipedream make me any less a nationalist.

You my friend are not a 'nationalist' you are with that attitude closer to a partitionist.
A united Ireland does not have to be rejected because of temporary economic cost or even a societal one if it is for the betterment of everyone in the long term.
Which is the very essence of 'nationalism'.
But that wasn't why I was questioning your nationalist credentials.

You don't seem to understand my point at all.

The winning for Sinn Fein is in the ability to demonstrate to parts of the Unionist vote, particularly the progressive elements - LGBT and women's rights - that Sinn Fein is a party for all the people of Northern Ireland and that it is prepared to compromise on some issues (Irish Language Act) for those people. Do you not realise how powerful that would be?

This is not a SF only issue. The SDLP support all the above as do the Alliance.

Do all of them need to compromise to save the blushes of the unionist parties?
What happens when the next roadblock goes up (there have been multiple ones since the GFA) barter some other right to save you and them confronting the reality? That religious fundamentalism and cultural bigotry have no place in a 'peace process'.

It is interesting that you see these debates in terms of what either side loses, I much prefer to see these issues in terms of everyone gaining.

So be my guest, tell us what people who should automatically have these rights and those who signed an agreement already, that enshrined their rights would be gaining by giving in to cultural bigotry and religious fundamentalism. .

You might start by explaining exactly what unionism is losing, because as I said, therein lies the rub.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You my friend are not a 'nationalist' you are with that attitude closer to a partitionist.
.

There is a thread elsewhere in this forum where they talk about how political debate in the US is devalued by how people try to label others they disagree with as if this somehow adds to their argument. Here it is:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104202119&postcount=12

"But it's practically a national pastime in the US to segregate and pit people against one another. Slot people into little boxes. She's an African-American, bisexual, atheist, liberal, urbanite Sanders-supporter, whereas I'm an Hispanic, conservative, christian, rural Trump-supporter.

You see it in their media and in online discussion all the time. Step one in any debate is to stick labels on the other guy so you know who you're up against. Everyone has labels. Which ultimately creates division, gives everyone their own unique little flag to rally under. "


You could actually take that description and apply it to how many nationalists debate Northern Ireland. Not only do they rule out encompassing Unionists within a solution, they reject different views of nationalism if they are not fully in agreement with everything that SF stand for. Labelling people as partitionists or "nationalists" in inverted commas in order to disregard their argument is a handy way of avoiding uncomfortable truths.

Rather than call me a partitionist, explain the alternative and how I am wrong.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a thread elsewhere in this forum where they talk about how political debate in the US is devalued by how people try to label others they disagree with as if this somehow adds to their argument. Here it is:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104202119&postcount=12

"But it's practically a national pastime in the US to segregate and pit people against one another. Slot people into little boxes. She's an African-American, bisexual, atheist, liberal, urbanite Sanders-supporter, whereas I'm an Hispanic, conservative, christian, rural Trump-supporter.

You see it in their media and in online discussion all the time. Step one in any debate is to stick labels on the other guy so you know who you're up against. Everyone has labels. Which ultimately creates division, gives everyone their own unique little flag to rally under. "


You could actually take that description and apply it to how many nationalists debate Northern Ireland. Not only do they rule out encompassing Unionists within a solution, they reject different views of nationalism if they are not fully in agreement with everything that SF stand for. Labelling people as partitionists or "nationalists" in inverted commas in order to disregard their argument is a handy way of avoiding uncomfortable truths.

Rather than call me a partitionist, explain the alternative and how I am wrong.

You will have to show me how I 'disregarded' your argument.
I have taken your argument on and countered it:

A united Ireland does not have to be rejected because of temporary economic cost or even a societal one if it is for the betterment of everyone in the long term.
Which is the very essence of 'nationalism'.

And I specifically didn't call you a 'partitionist' I said your attitude was 'closer to a partitionist' than a nationalist for the reason outlined above.

I wouldn't worry too much, I get called/labelled a 'member of SF' and a 'supporter of terrorists' all the time by some here when I am neither.

Could you answer some of the questions now?

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a thread elsewhere in this forum where they talk about how political debate in the US is devalued by how people try to label others they disagree with as if this somehow adds to their argument. Here it is:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104202119&postcount=12

"But it's practically a national pastime in the US to segregate and pit people against one another. Slot people into little boxes. She's an African-American, bisexual, atheist, liberal, urbanite Sanders-supporter, whereas I'm an Hispanic, conservative, christian, rural Trump-supporter.

You see it in their media and in online discussion all the time. Step one in any debate is to stick labels on the other guy so you know who you're up against. Everyone has labels. Which ultimately creates division, gives everyone their own unique little flag to rally under. "


You could actually take that description and apply it to how many nationalists debate Northern Ireland. Not only do they rule out encompassing Unionists within a solution, they reject different views of nationalism if they are not fully in agreement with everything that SF stand for. Labelling people as partitionists or "nationalists" in inverted commas in order to disregard their argument is a handy way of avoiding uncomfortable truths.

Rather than call me a partitionist, explain the alternative and how I am wrong.

You will have to show me how I 'disregarded' your argument.
I have taken your argument on and countered it:

A united Ireland does not have to be rejected because of temporary economic cost or even a societal one if it is for the betterment of everyone in the long term.
Which is the very essence of 'nationalism'.

And I specifically didn't call you a 'partitionist' I said your attitude was 'closer to a partitionist' than a nationalist for the reason outlined above.

I wouldn't worry too much, I get called/labelled  a 'member of SF' and a 'supporter of terrorists' all the time by some here when I am neither.

Could you answer some of the questions now?

The usual way it always goes, just because people neglect the fact that the other non-Unionist parties are supporting a UI as well. It´s always SF vs Unionists. I´m with you there, one doesn´t has to be a Shinner in order to support achieving the aim of a UI.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You will have to show me how I 'disregarded' your argument.
I have taken your argument on and countered it:



And I specifically didn't call you a 'partitionist' I said your attitude was 'closer to a partitionist' than a nationalist for the reason outlined above.

I wouldn't worry too much, I get called/labelled a 'member of SF' and a 'supporter of terrorists' all the time by some here when I am neither.

Could you answer some of the questions now?

A partitionist is a term of abuse, not a political label.

blanch152

Thomas__ wrote: »

I´m with you there, one doesn´t has to be a Shinner in order to support achieving the aim of a UI.

I agree, I will never vote for Sinn Fein but I would also welcome a United Ireland.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A partitionist is a term of abuse, not a political label.

No it isn't. When used with a small 'p' it is exactly the same as a nationalist with a small 'n'. A description of a state of mind.

You can take anything as a term of abuse if you so wish. It wasn't meant as one.

Now can you deal with the questions asked?

A Little Pony

steddyeddy wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The last number of pages reading back on them is really funny and full of so much fear for 'The Prod'. From where I live I don't recognize these stereotypes of Ulster Unionists. It really is bizarre. Anyone actually from NI on here?

Ulster unionists are not representative of prods. They make up the vast vast minority.

Vast majority of Protestants in the state are Unionist. It's just a fact.

A Little Pony

Thomas__ wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

I think that there is some misunderstanding.

"An Irish language act will be incorporated into a Minority Languages Act, and everyone wins."

Reading this quoted line, it is perceived in my view as addressing the reality in regards of how the Irish language is really used in daily live by the people in the whole of the Island of Ireland. Seen from that angle, it sounds as sustainable compromise in regards to NI.

On the other hand, your argument is as well reasonable in regards of the DUP who has to stick to agreements once concluded. But I also know that the DUP can´t be trusted and that party is unreliable and ruthless imo (they´ve delivered proof for that by themselves and latest in the scandal that ended up in the break up of the past NI govt leading to new elections with a result that there isn´t still a new NI govt formed yet).

Can anyone explain to me what unionism loses by allowing a standalone Language Act that has been previously agreed before the sudden interest in Ulster Scots (see the absence of any concern for U-S in Ian Paisley's objections in 2007)

If you can frame what it is they lose I think you will arrive at what exactly the core of the problem is.
Because in my opinion all they will 'lose' is a sense of supremacy.

Your last line hits the nail on the head and this is what it is all about on their side. Nothing else and they still refuse to acknowledge that their times of "supremacy" are long gone.

What can´t be solved politically, is to be tried in a court case. Question is whether the court would take it on for trial. The minds of the DUP leaders are closed for compromise, despite the fact that they are to stick to the concluded agreement, so there is perhaps no other way than to drag them to court to make them comply with with what they agreed themselves before. I know, dealing with the Dinosaurs Ulster Party is an ordeal, more so as they are the political arm of the OO and I suspect that the members of the latter are all behind that mischief. One has just recall all their demonstrations and street actions from recent years they´ve took to the streets in regards to "defend and uphold their culture".

Bizarre statements really. I have been in Orange halls plenty of times in my life, met people in the Orange, good decent people who from my experience never talked politics anytime I met them in and around the scene. Just normal every day folk. From all the people I know I don't know one person who wants Protestant supremacy over anyone, hell if anything attendance to Church and religion in general is falling rapidly within that community.

I don't know one person who attends church or believes in a God be it family or friends or has any supremacy beliefs, actually family is now tied into a Catholic family because of a marriage who are actually religious. Never once have I seen any issues or anyone trying to 'rule' over them. It seems some people on this thread are stuck in a time warp believing it is 1798 or the early 20th century on here. 

Most on here obviously don't have a clue what daily life is like in Northern Ireland compared to what it was even 20 years ago, it's hugely different socially from my experience. I could name multiple things which are different since my time growing up in the early 90s.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Bizarre statements really. I have been in Orange halls plenty of times in my life, met people in the Orange, good decent people who from my experience never talked politics anytime I met them in and around the scene. Just normal every day folk. From all the people I know I don't know one person who wants Protestant supremacy over anyone, hell if anything attendance to Church and religion in general is falling rapidly within that community.

I don't know one person who attends church or believes in a God be it family or friends or has any supremacy beliefs, actually family is now tied into a Catholic family because of a marriage who are actually religious. Never once have I seen any issues or anyone trying to 'rule' over them. It seems some people on this thread are stuck in a time warp believing it is 1798 or the early 20th century on here. 

Most on here obviously don't have a clue what daily life is like in Northern Ireland compared to what it was even 20 years ago, it's hugely different socially from my experience. I could name multiple things which are different since my time growing up in the early 90s.

So why are so many rights being blocked for religiously fundamentalist reasons?
As you say most Protestants are unionist and they elect the people who are doing that again and again.
Yet Blanch reckons nationalists will be 'bigger' in stature if they compromise/acquiese to open religious fundamentalism.

blanch152

A Little Pony wrote: »

Bizarre statements really. I have been in Orange halls plenty of times in my life, met people in the Orange, good decent people who from my experience never talked politics anytime I met them in and around the scene. Just normal every day folk. From all the people I know I don't know one person who wants Protestant supremacy over anyone, hell if anything attendance to Church and religion in general is falling rapidly within that community.

I don't know one person who attends church or believes in a God be it family or friends or has any supremacy beliefs, actually family is now tied into a Catholic family because of a marriage who are actually religious. Never once have I seen any issues or anyone trying to 'rule' over them. It seems some people on this thread are stuck in a time warp believing it is 1798 or the early 20th century on here. 

Most on here obviously don't have a clue what daily life is like in Northern Ireland compared to what it was even 20 years ago, it's hugely different socially from my experience. I could name multiple things which are different since my time growing up in the early 90s.

Look, it always helps to label and demonise your enemies. It allows you to deflect from the real issues. That is part and parcel of all tribal politics and the North has some of the most tribal politics anywhere in the world. Hence the type of accusations we see on this thread where all Unionists are lumped in with the reactionaries and called supremacists and religious fundamentalists, and realistic nationalists are called partitionists.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Look, it always helps to label and demonise your enemies. It allows you to deflect from the real issues. That is part and parcel of all tribal politics and the North has some of the most tribal politics anywhere in the world. Hence the type of accusations we see on this thread where all Unionists are lumped in with the reactionaries and called supremacists and religious fundamentalists, and realistic nationalists are called partitionists.

Let's see how he can justify what is happening there in the name of religion and unionism.

Meanwhile you were asked a few questions as well.

BTW nobody has lumped everybody into anything. You are the one nationalist poster trying to make this about SF alone when it patently isn't.

steddyeddy

A Little Pony wrote: »

Vast majority of Protestants in the state are Unionist. It's just a fact.

Indeed but Protestants cover 40% of Christians worldwide. Millions and millions of people. The vast majority of those aren't Ulster unionist. So it's not true to say people have a problem with loyalism have a problem with Protestants any more than it is to say people who have problems with the KKK also hate Protestant culture.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Bizarre statements really. I have been in Orange halls plenty of times in my life, met people in the Orange, good decent people who from my experience never talked politics anytime I met them in and around the scene. Just normal every day folk. From all the people I know I don't know one person who wants Protestant supremacy over anyone, hell if anything attendance to Church and religion in general is falling rapidly within that community.

I don't know one person who attends church or believes in a God be it family or friends or has any supremacy beliefs, actually family is now tied into a Catholic family because of a marriage who are actually religious. Never once have I seen any issues or anyone trying to 'rule' over them. It seems some people on this thread are stuck in a time warp believing it is 1798 or the early 20th century on here. 

Most on here obviously don't have a clue what daily life is like in Northern Ireland compared to what it was even 20 years ago, it's hugely different socially from my experience. I could name multiple things which are different since my time growing up in the early 90s.

So why are so many rights being blocked for religiously fundamentalist reasons?
As you say most Protestants are unionist and they elect the people who are doing that again and again.
Yet Blanch reckons nationalists will be 'bigger' in stature if they compromise/acquiese to open religious fundamentalism.

It isn't religious fundamentalism though, it is just tribal politics which is hundreds of years old. Sure you come across street preachers etc, I even had a debate with one on the existence of God etc but in everyday life I just don't see this religious fundamentalism you seem obsessed with. I have tried to finding these thousands of supremacists too.

How many people here have actually tried to discuss politics with family members or people close to you? Most I know either don't care or keep it brief, it's like getting blood out of a stone. I think this fundamentalist theory people have on so many people in NI borders on a myth, I just don't see it in my everyday life.

tomwaterford

A Little Pony wrote: »

It isn't religious fundamentalism though, it is just tribal politics which is hundreds of years old. Sure you come across street preachers etc, I even had a debate with one on the existence of God etc but in everyday life I just don't see this religious fundamentalism you seem obsessed with. I have tried to finding these thousands of supremacists too.

How many people here have actually tried to discuss politics with family members or people close to you? Most I know either don't care or keep it brief, it's like getting blood out of a stone. I think this fundamentalist theory people have on so many people in NI borders on a myth, I just don't see it in my everyday life.

On a broader note...I'm suprised there isn't a more discussion within unionism about its future given it no longer can command a majority in stormont



I know from people on fringes of dissident organisations (eirigi etc) this has caused consternation and discussion on the future and another election of similar results will cause a lot of issues to be examined more closely

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

It isn't religious fundamentalism though, it is just tribal politics which is hundreds of years old. Sure you come across street preachers etc, I even had a debate with one on the existence of God etc but in everyday life I just don't see this religious fundamentalism you seem obsessed with. I have tried to finding these thousands of supremacists too.

How many people here have actually tried to discuss politics with family members or people close to you? Most I know either don't care or keep it brief, it's like getting blood out of a stone. I think this fundamentalist theory people have on so many people in NI borders on a myth, I just don't see it in my everyday life.

Yes it is fundamentalist and you are avoiding the question.
Here is the voting records of the DUP MPs



Ian Paisley Jr - North Antrim

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights

Gay Marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: against measures to prevent climate change

Notable quotes: Called homosexuality “immoral, offensive and obnoxious” and said he was “repulsed” by gays and lesbians.

Jim Shannon - Strangford

LGBT rights: voted against equal gay rights

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: Voted a mixture of for and against measures to prevent climate change (5 votes for, 7 votes against)

Sammy Wilson - East Antrim

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: Generally against measures to prevent climate change (1 vote for, 13 votes against)

Notable quotes: Believes man-made climate change is a “gigantic con” and an “hysterical semi-religion”

Gregory Campbell - East Londonderry

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: Voted a mixture of for and against measures to prevent climate change (7 votes for, 7 votes against)

Notable quotes: Confirmed that the DUP is “unashamedly pro-life.”

Nigel Dodds - Belfast North

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights (1 vote for, 14 votes against)

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage (1 vote for, 6 votes against)

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: Voted for a mixture (8 votes for, 5 votes against)

David Simpson - Upper Bann

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: Voted a mixture for and against measures to prevent climate change (6 votes for, 7 votes against)

Notable quotes: Called for change in British abortion law, to make it more like Northern Irish law and criticised pro-choice MPs for their “anti-democratic, anti-human rights stance.”

Gavin Robinson - Belfast East

Has never voted on laws to promote equality and human rights

Abortion: Voted once with the pro-life lobby

Climate change: Voted for measures to prevent climate change (4 votes vor, 3 against)

Emma Little-Pengelly - Belfast South

LGBT rights: Newly elected – yet to vote

Gay marriage: Newly elected – yet to vote

Abortion: Voted against: Newly elected – yet to vote

Climate change: Newly elected – yet to vote

Paul Girvan - South Antrim

LGBT rights: Newly elected – yet to vote

Gay marriage: Newly elected – yet to vote

Abortion: Voted against: Newly elected – yet to vote

Climate change: Newly elected – yet to vote

Jeffrey M. Donaldson - Lagan Valley

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights (1 vote for, 13 votes against)

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: voted against

Climate change: A mixture (9 votes for, 5 votes against)

Unionists elect these people knowing they will continue to vote on religious beliefs and cultural suprematist beliefs.
The record doesn't lie or deflect from reality.

Thomas__

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You will have to show me how I 'disregarded' your argument.
I have taken your argument on and countered it:



And I specifically didn't call you a 'partitionist' I said your attitude was 'closer to a partitionist' than a nationalist for the reason outlined above.

I wouldn't worry too much, I get called/labelled  a 'member of SF' and a 'supporter of terrorists' all the time by some here when I am neither.

Could you answer some of the questions now?

A partitionist is a term of abuse, not a political label.

It´s clearly the other way round, a political label and not a term of abuse because to support the partition of Ireland is to support the status quo and that is a plain political stance. You´re not the only one supporting the Status quo and I´ve come across serveral posters of your mindset who are indeed of a republican mindset but dismiss any Approach towards a UI for fear of "importing" the trouble of the divided communities from NI into the Republic and that´s what they absolutely don´t want to happen, as long as those two communities don´t come to terms which means to convince the Unionists that they will have a future with equal status in a UI. 

On every turn about that matter of a UI, it always falls back on the Unionists in NI who are indeed the blocking factor for a UI and as they are clearly a minority in NI alone, they´re even more a minority in whole of the Island of Ireland. Minorities are usually to comply with the majority by giving them space for sustaining and maintaining their culture, but they are not to dictate the will of the majority cos that puts everything out of balance, hence the trouble with politics in NI.

Apart from the individual experiences and connects of people on both sides of the border, the perception of NI in the Republic has been feeded and sustained by the decades of the troubles and its aftermath. In all that, people in the Republic, apart from SF members and followers and other diehard republicans who prefer a more radical solution to the whole subject of a UI, appear to either have forgotten about their fellow Irish people in NI or simply don´t care about them at all. This has left some bitter taste in the minds of those who lived through the Troubles and grew up during that period. Aside from the stubbornness of the Unionists, this is also a matter which would have to be dealt with in way to realise that Irish people in NI are as equal like those in the Republic.

There is a much more bigger desire for a UI among the CNRs in NI than among the many Irish citizens in the Republic and the reasons for that lie in the two different states the people live in. Within the last couple of years, the Situation in NI has improved, but the divide is still there and occasionally it reemerges on the surface time and again wherever and whenever the tensions on some issues increase and riots take place. The many of those riots were caused by Unionists and Loyalists whereas the response from the Republicans and Nationalists was often restrained, due to the leadership of SF and namely that of the late Martin McGuinness. I won´t go into much further details for this would distract from the subject of the thread itself. But it is important to point out where there was and is leadership and where wasn´t and still lacks such. The Unionists/Loyalists, the community as well as their political leaders, have given proof for that lack of leadership in the past years since this UJ on the BCC issue caused a trail of riots, protests and more tensions. During those years, the many efforts to calm the Situation were taken by SF and Mr Peter Robinson, as the then FM of NI, often appeared reluctant to Show leadership towards his community and very often gave the impression that he didn´t liked it to have to work together with SF on the basis of power sharing. The previous years of the "chuckle brothers" were an exemption and what one witnesses these days is the continuance of this reluctancy on the Unionists side, in particular of the DUP, to work with SF on the power sharing Basis to form a new NI govt.

Mrs Foster, who "grabbed" the chance to back up the weak Tory govt in Westminster in exchange for a £1 billion and to secure herself and her party more influence into the UK govt, lacks even more leadership towards the Unionist community than her predecessor Mr Robinson. When you read around the statements of the various Unionists and Loyalists in NI, it is striking that those who still prefer direct rule in NI to limited selfgovernance, you find them rather among DUP members and followers than others, the radicals on the Unionist / Loyalist side need not to be mentioned here because for them, this goes without saying.  

Considering all that, the developments of the past couple of years and how the situation is at the present, it´s not hard to conclude that Mrs Foster and her DUP wish for and apparently work on the return of direct rule for NI from Westminster in order to get out of the "stringjacked" of power sharing with SF. This should be clear enough by now because rarely since the GFA and power sharing agreement, did it take that long to form a new NI govt which isn´t formed yet and that is because the DUP uses every bit they see fit to block any progress in this matter, leaving NI in limbo and probably exeeding the patience of the UK govt to deal with it which might end in restoring direct rule for NI and thus fulfilling the wish of the DUP.

This Irish language act issue is nothing but a tool in the hands of the DUP on their way and with their efforts to restore direct rule for NI. You might find some other and further explanations or aspects which might fit in, but for me, this one is the main reason if not the only one at all that drives the DUP to act the way she and in particular Mrs Foster acts.

One doesn´t have to be a friend, sympathiser or even member of SF, as I am none of these, to see the obvious and what is behind that. Just put the record of the DUP in the NI govt, where she always had the post of the FM and that mostly due to this power sharing agreement, the recent manouvers by her leader and the road she´s after lies clear ahead. SF appears to be powerless in that matter cos they can´t force them into a govt and the present UK govt seems to have no much interest in solving that matter either because of the mess of Brexit they´ve no clue to solve either.

People in the Republic of Ireland know about that, depending on ones interest in NI per se, mostly from the media, such as I do. Those who live there have a very different view and it strongly depends on which community one belongs to. It is questionable whether such problems would be better dealt with and solved in a UI, but there is some rejection among some Irish people in the Republic towards NI, their people and of course their problems. They don´t want to have any of that. This is something from the various reasons for those who either call themselves partitionists or are labelled as such by supporters of a UI.

To conclude this long post, I just like to say that with every backing of the status quo, one backs up the DUP indirectly, whether one likes that or not. The fact that the claim for territorial Irish unity was removed from  bunreacht na heireann in order to settle the GFA, does not extinct the wish of some people on the Island of Ireland to achieve a UI and thus ending the need of any further influence from Britain in any part of Ireland. The present UK govt is the worst in decades and is not fit to take on the role of a broker.

A UI bears some risks and problems, but it also bears some chances and prospect. I wouldn´t give up to support the striving for a UI just because some diehard selfisch political dinosaurs won´t accept it.

Irishweather

And this won't be destructive for the Peace Process? Lol! Cloud Cuckoo land!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/irish-want-sea-border-with-uk-after-brexit-lvb6n35fq

Thomas__

Irishweather wrote: »

And this won't be destructive for the Peace Process? Lol! Cloud Cuckoo land!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/irish-want-sea-border-with-uk-after-brexit-lvb6n35fq

Unless one has subscribed to the times and pays for reading, one can´t read the whole article and I am certainly not going to subscribe and pay for reading the Murdoch Press, not at all.

The present UK govt will surely spoil the peace process in NI given that they continue with their "no clue at all" approach on Brexit and everything that is affected by that and there is plenty of.

The Irish Sea suggestion is some point which is a natural border anyway but doesn´t bring the solution for the land border between NI and the Republic.

Edit: The Story is on RTÉ News as well:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0728/893599-brexit/

The DUP is in her usual mood, recommending that the Republic should leave the EU as well

DUP MP Ian Paisley said the reported position of the Irish Government appeared to leave two alternatives - a "very hard border" or that "Ireland will wise up and leave the EU" itself.

I really despise the lot of them, I really do.

FrancieBrady

Irishweather wrote: »

And this won't be destructive for the Peace Process? Lol! Cloud Cuckoo land!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/irish-want-sea-border-with-uk-after-brexit-lvb6n35fq

What?

It wasn't Dublin that campaigned for Brexit. We have to find the best accommodation for us.

How would that destroy the peace process?

Thomas__

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Irishweather wrote: »

And this won't be destructive for the Peace Process? Lol! Cloud Cuckoo land!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/irish-want-sea-border-with-uk-after-brexit-lvb6n35fq

What?

It wasn't Dublin that campaigned for Brexit. We have to find the best accommodation for us.

How would that destroy the peace process?

I can´t help it, but the posts of Irishweather bear some pro-UK angle for my taste and you´re right in what you say.

FrancieBrady

Irishweather wrote: »

And this won't be destructive for the Peace Process? Lol! Cloud Cuckoo land!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/irish-want-sea-border-with-uk-after-brexit-lvb6n35fq

Probably off topic so I opened a separate thread on this. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057768793

A Little Pony

tomwaterford wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

It isn't religious fundamentalism though, it is just tribal politics which is hundreds of years old. Sure you come across street preachers etc, I even had a debate with one on the existence of God etc but in everyday life I just don't see this religious fundamentalism you seem obsessed with. I have tried to finding these thousands of supremacists too.

How many people here have actually tried to discuss politics with family members or people close to you? Most I know either don't care or keep it brief, it's like getting blood out of a stone. I think this fundamentalist theory people have on so many people in NI borders on a myth, I just don't see it in my everyday life.

On a broader note...I'm suprised there isn't a more discussion within unionism about its future given it no longer can command a majority in stormont



I know from people on fringes of dissident organisations (eirigi etc) this has caused consternation and discussion on the future and another election of similar results will cause a lot of issues to be examined more closely

The DUP cleaned up at the Westminster elections and had the best ever result, the result of dreams. Talking about Stormont elections now is kind of irrelevant as we probably won't ever see Stormont back up and running again, not for as long as mandatory coalition exists as it doesn't work in a functioning democracy. 
I am actually happy that Stormont collapsed, it wasn't working and never will work as it is. 

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

It isn't religious fundamentalism though, it is just tribal politics which is hundreds of years old. Sure you come across street preachers etc, I even had a debate with one on the existence of God etc but in everyday life I just don't see this religious fundamentalism you seem obsessed with. I have tried to finding these thousands of supremacists too.

How many people here have actually tried to discuss politics with family members or people close to you? Most I know either don't care or keep it brief, it's like getting blood out of a stone. I think this fundamentalist theory people have on so many people in NI borders on a myth, I just don't see it in my everyday life.

Yes it is fundamentalist and you are avoiding the question.
Here is the voting records of the DUP MPs



Ian Paisley Jr - North Antrim

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights

Gay Marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: against measures to prevent climate change

Notable quotes: Called homosexuality “immoral, offensive and obnoxious” and said he was “repulsed” by gays and lesbians.

Jim Shannon - Strangford

LGBT rights: voted against equal gay rights

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: Voted a mixture of for and against measures to prevent climate change (5 votes for, 7 votes against)

Sammy Wilson - East Antrim

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: Generally against measures to prevent climate change (1 vote for, 13 votes against)

Notable quotes: Believes man-made climate change is a “gigantic con” and an “hysterical semi-religion”

Gregory Campbell - East Londonderry

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: Voted a mixture of for and against measures to prevent climate change (7 votes for, 7 votes against)

Notable quotes: Confirmed that the DUP is “unashamedly pro-life.”

Nigel Dodds - Belfast North

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights (1 vote for, 14 votes against)

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage (1 vote for, 6 votes against)

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: Voted for a mixture (8 votes for, 5 votes against)

David Simpson - Upper Bann

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: Voted against

Climate change: Voted a mixture for and against measures to prevent climate change (6 votes for, 7 votes against)

Notable quotes: Called for change in British abortion law, to make it more like Northern Irish law and criticised pro-choice MPs for their “anti-democratic, anti-human rights stance.”

Gavin Robinson - Belfast East

Has never voted on laws to promote equality and human rights

Abortion: Voted once with the pro-life lobby

Climate change: Voted for measures to prevent climate change (4 votes vor, 3 against)

Emma Little-Pengelly - Belfast South

LGBT rights: Newly elected – yet to vote

Gay marriage: Newly elected – yet to vote

Abortion: Voted against: Newly elected – yet to vote

Climate change: Newly elected – yet to vote

Paul Girvan - South Antrim

LGBT rights: Newly elected – yet to vote

Gay marriage: Newly elected – yet to vote

Abortion: Voted against: Newly elected – yet to vote

Climate change: Newly elected – yet to vote

Jeffrey M. Donaldson - Lagan Valley

LGBT rights: Voted against equal gay rights (1 vote for, 13 votes against)

Gay marriage: Voted against same sex marriage

Abortion: voted against

Climate change: A mixture (9 votes for, 5 votes against)

Unionists elect these people knowing they will continue to vote on religious beliefs  and cultural suprematist beliefs.
The record doesn't lie or deflect from reality.

Sinn Fein voters vote in people with terrorist pasts who wouldn't think twice about putting a bullet in the back of a prods head. Welcome to the centuries conflict. But as I said I don't see these huge extreme views you speak of in everyday life.

tomwaterford

A Little Pony wrote: »

The DUP cleaned up at the Westminster elections and had the best ever result, the result of dreams. Talking about Stormont elections now is kind of irrelevant as we probably won't ever see Stormont back up and running again, not for as long as mandatory coalition exists as it doesn't work in a functioning democracy. 
I am actually happy that Stormont collapsed, it wasn't working and never will work as it

Joint rule from Dublin so

A Little Pony

tomwaterford wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The DUP cleaned up at the Westminster elections and had the best ever result, the result of dreams. Talking about Stormont elections now is kind of irrelevant as we probably won't ever see Stormont back up and running again, not for as long as mandatory coalition exists as it doesn't work in a functioning democracy. 
I am actually happy that Stormont collapsed, it wasn't working and never will work as it

Joint rule from Dublin so

Not going to happen.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Sinn Fein voters vote in people with terrorist pasts who wouldn't think twice about putting a bullet in the back of a prods head. Welcome to the centuries conflict. But as I said I don't see these huge extreme views you speak of in everyday life.

The conflict has been over a long time.

Have you anything to say about the DUP constantly blocking rights available to every other person on these islands, from a religiously fundamentalist and culturally bigoted standpoint?

*I consider the DUP's opinions on LGBT and same sex marriage to be fundamentalist and can post quotes from them that illustrate that if you wish. (but I would rather not spread it given a choice)

tomwaterford

A Little Pony wrote: »

Not going to happen.

Neither is stormont going to stay down

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Sinn Fein voters vote in people with terrorist pasts who wouldn't think twice about putting a bullet in the back of a prods head. Welcome to the centuries conflict. But as I said I don't see these huge extreme views you speak of in everyday life.

The conflict has been over a long time.

Have you anything to say about the DUP constantly blocking rights available to every other person on these islands, from a religiously fundamentalist and culturally bigoted standpoint?

*I consider the DUP's opinions on LGBT and same sex marriage to be fundamentalist and can post quotes from them that illustrate that if you wish. (but I would rather not spread it given a choice)

Not particularly no as I have expressed my views on these issues before. I would allow gay marriage to pass but that is just me personally. I wouldn't want to pay for a ILA.

A Little Pony

tomwaterford wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Not going to happen.

Neither is stormont going to stay down

Stormont is not coming back unless Ulster Scots and Irish language are put together in a language package, but really the system is flawed and has been doomed to fail from the start.

tomwaterford

A Little Pony wrote: »

Stormont is not coming back unless Ulster Scots and Irish language are put together in a language package, but really the system is flawed and has been doomed to fail from the start.

Ya....of course power sharing with nationalistsruns completely against unionist principles



Interesting you not language package.....and have accepted that Irish will be getting it's own act??


But your buring your head in the sand in relation to no longer holding a majority in stormont??

Looks increasing likely unionists dont want to share power...in the new reality