Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Stormont power sharing talks
Comments
-
I know you care passionately that SF should not be seen as being as bad as the DUP but to rational outsiders it is a pointless debate.
I am not saying "they are all the same", rather I am saying that they are both obnoxious sectarian parties. At this point in time, perhaps the DUP are worse, then again they are not selling sectarian terrorist badges on their website. However, when Birmingham, Brighton and Canary Wharf were being bombed, SF were definitely worse. Overall, where is the balance between the two? Who knows and who cares?
Only certain Republicans it seems.
Suffice to say that you know your posting record as a 'nationalist' and that record has never shown you criticising the DUP on their own.
That is pretty extraordinary for a nationalist imo given the record of the DUP.
Your latest suggestion is that nationalists should barter/swap/sell the right to an already agreed act to get rights for the LGBT community that are available elsewhere, just to keep the religiously fundamentalist, culturally bigoted, nationalist hating DUP happy.
Hmmmm.0 -
I know you care passionately that SF should not be seen as being as bad as the DUP but to rational outsiders it is a pointless debate.
I am not saying "they are all the same", rather I am saying that they are both obnoxious sectarian parties. At this point in time, perhaps the DUP are worse, then again they are not selling sectarian terrorist badges on their website. However, when Birmingham, Brighton and Canary Wharf were being bombed, SF were definitely worse. Overall, where is the balance between the two? Who knows and who cares?
Only certain Republicans it seems.
I'd say the Dublin & Monaghan bombings probably balanced them out.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Suffice to say that you know your posting record as a 'nationalist' and that record has never shown you criticising the DUP on their own.
That is pretty extraordinary for a nationalist imo given the record of the DUP.
Your latest suggestion is that nationalists should barter/swap/sell the right to an already agreed act to get rights for the LGBT community that are available elsewhere, just to keep the religiously fundamentalist, culturally bigoted, nationalist hating DUP happy.
Hmmmm.
You are putting words in my mouth again. I outlined a path for Sinn Fein to rise above sectarianism and appeal to both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland and you see fit to denigrate it and twist my words. Suffice to say that is all I expected from "republicans" in response to the suggestion.
As to your views of my nationalism, the southern Irish constitutional nationalists have long been derided by the extreme republicans. That is only to be expected but it doesn't make that view of the world any less true.I'd say the Dublin & Monaghan bombings probably balanced them out.
If I included Guildford, Brighton, Jean McConville, Omagh, Mairia Cahill and many many others on my list, the balance would have been very clear.0 -
You are putting words in my mouth again. I outlined a path for Sinn Fein to rise above sectarianism and appeal to both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland and you see fit to denigrate it and twist my words. Suffice to say that is all I expected from "republicans" in response to the suggestion.
As to your views of my nationalism, the southern Irish constitutional nationalists have long been derided by the extreme republicans. That is only to be expected but it doesn't make that view of the world any less true.
Your 'nationalism' has designed a way out of the impasse that gives into sectarianism and appeals to only one side - the side that has reneged on a previous deal and who have put roadblocks in front of progress to normality since the GFA.
What if the Irish in northern Ireland had done that everytime unionists said Never Never Never?
Are 'constitutional nationalists' the ones that go for the soft option? Certainly seems that way from your 'solution'.0 -
If I included Guildford, Brighton, Jean McConville, Omagh, Mairia Cahill and many many others on my list, the balance would have been very clear.
I commented in the first place, because it seems rather odd that you seemed unaware of the first and biggest atrocity of the Troubles (with no warning) which was committed by Loyalist paramilitaries whom the DUP are in bed with and who never get any criticism for their loyalist paramilitary support. The DUP are no better or no worse than Sinn Fein.0 -
I commented in the first place, because it seems rather odd that you seemed unaware of the first and biggest atrocity of the Troubles (with no warning) which was committed by Loyalist paramilitaries whom the DUP are in bed with and who never get any criticism for their loyalist paramilitary support. The DUP are no better or no worse than Sinn Fein.
I would have the current DUP as being slightly worse than the current SF, but overall over the last 50 years or so, you can't separate them.0 -
I would have the current DUP as being slightly worse than the current SF, but overall over the last 50 years or so, you can't separate them.
You have been asked to list out actions by the current SF party that is anywhere near as bad as the DUP. Or any other party that are trying to normalise society in northern Ireland.
A list like the one I presented that shows a party blocking ordinary rights on religious grounds or blocking previously agreed cultural measures that are designed to give parity of esteem. A core tenet of the GFA.
Otherwise you are just talking from a deeply prejudiced bolthole.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »You have been asked to list out actions by the current SF party that is anywhere near as bad as the DUP. Or any other party that are trying to normalise society in northern Ireland.
A list like the one I presented that shows a party blocking ordinary rights on religious grounds or blocking previously agreed cultural measures that are designed to give parity of esteem. A core tenet of the GFA.
Otherwise you are just talking from a deeply prejudiced bolthole.
Indeed, you push him into a corner and the true mask slips. Not for the first time with this poster. Point blank refusing to address the points and runs back to talking about events 20 years ago or more, completely irrelevant to current topics. Constitutional nationalist just means a partitionist/southern unionist in most cases i.e they think labeling themselves a "nationalist" lends more credibility to their argument while always finding a reason to oppose a united Ireland. They constantly attack and focus all blame on SF while shouting the loudest about progress and peace, yet when the mask slips want nothing more than to drag up the past at every turn to push their anti-SF agenda, with no intention of moving forward. But why would they want to move forward, when they can revel in the bitterness and divide of the north from a completely insulated position, and use it to push this agenda? Who cares about real lives in the effected area when they can play these little games?
I at least have a level of respect for unionists in the north, they nail their colours to the mast, this other lot just try and spread their hate-filled anti-nationalist, anti-SF bile from behind the pretense of being a "constitutional nationalist" likes cowards. Can't even man up and acknowledge what they are. Can't even criticise the DUP unless called out on it0 -
tomwaterford wrote: »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
In fact, they never wanted it at all.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Still waiting for the 'nationalist' to show a post where he singled out the DUP for criticism.
I suppose it is SF's fault that the DUP vote along religiously fundamentalist lines too?
Or maybe it's the SDLP's fault that the DUP demean the Irish language in the Executive whenever they get the chance.
Or the Alliance's fault when they find one of their offices and reps targeted by leaflets when they back a move towards 'normality'?
Still waiting for either of you to list evidence that actually shows 'they are all the same' at blocking rights and reneging on implementing agreements.
I have no problem with you not liking/politically differing with SF, what is galling is this repeated claim (without backup) that they are dragging their feet as much as the DUP are. They simply aren't.
I know you care passionately that SF should not be seen as being as bad as the DUP but to rational outsiders it is a pointless debate.
I am not saying "they are all the same", rather I am saying that they are both obnoxious sectarian parties. At this point in time, perhaps the DUP are worse, then again they are not selling sectarian terrorist badges on their website. However, when Birmingham, Brighton and Canary Wharf were being bombed, SF were definitely worse. Overall, where is the balance between the two? Who knows and who cares?
Only certain Republicans it seems.
No, they apparently don´t, but they do not prevent other nasty things displayed on every years eleventh night in July, as was the case this year as well. The half-hearted statements that followed such actions are not genuine in the meaning. The coffin with McGuinness´ picture on it was the most tasteless in recent times. Flag burning is a common place and Republicans do it as well which is also silly.
Like it or not, but in contrast to the Unionist Parties in NI, SF has emerged to be the most progressive and inclusive one.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Golden Miller wrote: »FrancieBrady wrote: »You have been asked to list out actions by the current SF party that is anywhere near as bad as the DUP. Or any other party that are trying to normalise society in northern Ireland.
A list like the one I presented that shows a party blocking ordinary rights on religious grounds or blocking previously agreed cultural measures that are designed to give parity of esteem. A core tenet of the GFA.
Otherwise you are just talking from a deeply prejudiced bolthole.
Indeed, you push him into a corner and the true mask slips. Not for the first time with this poster. Point blank refusing to address the points and runs back to talking about events 20 years ago or more, completely irrelevant to current topics. Constitutional nationalist just means a partitionist/southern unionist in most cases i.e they think labeling themselves a "nationalist" lends more credibility to their argument while always finding a reason to oppose a united Ireland. They constantly attack and focus all blame on SF while shouting the loudest about progress and peace, yet when the mask slips want nothing more than to drag up the past at every turn to push their anti-SF agenda, with no intention of moving forward. But why would they want to move forward, when they can revel in the bitterness and divide of the north from a completely insulated position, and use it to push this agenda? Who cares about real lives in the effected area when they can play these little games?
I at least have a level of respect for unionists in the north, they nail their colours to the mast, this other lot just try and spread their hate-filled anti-nationalist, anti-SF bile from behind the pretense of being a "constitutional nationalist" likes cowards. Can't even man up and acknowledge what they are. Can't even criticise the DUP unless called out on it
Re "constitutional nationalists", that´s well put. I see myself - in contrast to any lable of nationalism - as "constitutional republican". That means that I support the existing Republic of Ireland as the legitimate Irish State which on day, will incorporate NI in a UI. One shouldn´t forget the fact that there are plenty of SF members and supporters who stick strongly to the Easter Proclamation which is of course the traditional core of the Irish Republic, but some of them are against this existing Irish State and seek to replace it by a Socialist Republic and the latter has a bad taste to me.
The history and therefore the tradition of a party which reflects where its roots are, where the party comes from and where she is heading is always to remain with her. So it is with SF and so it is with all the others. SF has a Long historical record from the very founding of the Party, to the participation of her members in the Easter Rising, leading to the 1918 GE, 1st Daíl, war of Independence and not to Forget the split of her that led to the Irish Civil war with the anti-treaty faction coming from the diehard Republicans of SF. After the Irish Free State consolidated after the civil war, SF nearly vanished from the party-political spectrum in Ireland. She re-emerged in the wake and during the troubles, being the political arm of the PIRA and in due course became the leading party of the CNRs in NI. Since the GFA and the power sharing agreement on which ground SF took on a leading role in NI´s govt, she developed herself into a more left-wing similar social-democratic party but still with a strong left-wing leaning, to the disadvantage of the SDLP.
Both SF leaders in NI never really came clean with their past in the IRA, the former DFM Martin McGuinness admitting his membership in the PIRA in the early 1970s but insisting on his departure from Membership in 1974 in order to make believe that he neither had knowledge nor any involvement for what was committed by the PIRA afterwards. This is a point which is hard to believe because after he "quitted" his PIRA Membership, he was deeply involved in politics as SF member and I can´t believe that he never had any knowledge about any Terror acts before they were carried out. This was the main reason for why he lost in the last presidential election in the Republic of Ireland where he was the candidate of SF and as such was very often confronted with questions to his past by people in the Republic. Gerry Adams still claims that he was never a member of the IRA. So, how did this man gain the trust and confidence of the PIRA leaders if they were not to rely on him in a way that Adams himself was and still is as much oath bound like any PIRA member?
SF has this IRA past sticking on her record and by all the efforts to develop and present herself as a modern left-wing / centre-left Party, this above mentioned aspects are still blocking further wider acceptance among the electorate on both sides of the border. The party itself appears janus-headed. In NI she presents herself as the left-wing nationalist party, serving the interests of the CNRs but also attempting to be more inclusive and reach out to moderate unionists (which has been in vain of course, due to the IRA connection). In the Republic she presents herself as the left-wing alternative party to the establishment which is mainly conservative (FF and FG put together). In both parts of the Island of Ireland, she took over policies from the traditional labour parties to make her appear more centre-left in order to gain votes from that political spectrum and she was successful with it on the account of the traditional centre-left becoming more weaker in the past decades. Worst it is with the Irish Labour Party who lost dramatically in the past GE in the Republic. In NI, the SDLP is too much perceived as a party that stands in favour of the status quo which makes her appear to be as much partitionist like all the other parties in NI and her committment to a UI is perceived as nothing but just lip-service to the cause. The Republicans and Nationalists in NI don´t give much of a damn about the IRA past of SF, they set more weight on the ability of SF to bring about a UI cos they also see that in the Republic, the committment of the establishment parties towards a UI is just lip-service as well.
As for having a level of respect for the Unionists in NI, I don´t have any level of respect for them anymore. I´ve been in engaged in debates with them over several years and frankly, those who you respect for "nailing their flag on the mast" are the very ones who represent the blocking faction towards a UI in NI and who are also diehard Brexiteers, trouble makers "in defense of British culture", the people with the most bigotted political mindset and who indeed maintain the sectarianism in NI which has to be overcome in order to achieve a better future for all people who live in NI. Someone who is of that mindset doesn´t earns my respect but just my utter contempt and "nailing the flag to mast" is nothing but a sign for the very bigotry I was mentioning here.
I am no friend of SF either, but at least they can provide a change in NI society and path the way towards a UI by cross-community consent. The chances for that might increase once Gerry Adams has handed down the leadership of SF to a younger generation who has no involvement with the troubles and which is clear from any accusations in regards to a former IRA Membership and that is imo a very important point to win over some other voters who reject SF because of the present leader.
Unionists and Loyalists really love to point out the maintenance of Republican traditions in SF re the IRA in order to say that they are no much different from the Unionists and Loyalists and their traditions to the UVF. What is history and the handling of it is one Thing and certainly it has to be accommodated in some ways. But what should count more than this is the way the party is set out to go and the progress she aims at with a genuine inclusiveness.
I just like to give some Food for thoughts which is to consider who many of the DUP fellas were supporters of UKIP as well. I met two of them and they had no Problem with voting for UKIP but still stick to the DUP in NI political matters. I am convinced that not less of them voted along the UKIP stance in favour of Brexit such as the DUP officially supported and stood for Brexit in order to avoid any alienation of her own voters and party members. The fact that the majority of the electorate in NI voted in favour of remain is only due to the moderate Unionists on their parts but more so to the fact that SF was supporting and stood for remain. Now, the DUP presents herself as the party of "a soft Brexit". But this isn´t working at all, cos they have been purchased by the present UK govt who exploited their vanity and desire to be part of "a British government". The DUP won´t prevail with her "soft-Brexit-mask" and the diehard Brexiteers within the Tory Party will drag them along the way to a hard Brexit.
Since the BrexitRef, Britishness had become a negative term once again, at least in my perception and considerations because it had let the racistic nationalism and chauvinism reare its head again. That´s the mindset of many DUPers as well. Plenty of examples form domestic NI politics from the past couple of years in which the DUP proved her reluctance or even non-interest to change in such matters. Very similar to the attitude and political mindset of what is called "Little Englander". The very term is not just some form of abuse, it really has a political meaning carried with them and exposed by its very followers. In other words, a political reality proved by facts, unfortunately so and stands for the synomyms of backwards, narrow-minded and racistical nationalism.0 -
The Golden Miller wrote: »Indeed, you push him into a corner and the true mask slips. Not for the first time with this poster. Point blank refusing to address the points and runs back to talking about events 20 years ago or more, completely irrelevant to current topics. Constitutional nationalist just means a partitionist/southern unionist in most cases i.e they think labeling themselves a "nationalist" lends more credibility to their argument while always finding a reason to oppose a united Ireland. They constantly attack and focus all blame on SF while shouting the loudest about progress and peace, yet when the mask slips want nothing more than to drag up the past at every turn to push their anti-SF agenda, with no intention of moving forward. But why would they want to move forward, when they can revel in the bitterness and divide of the north from a completely insulated position, and use it to push this agenda? Who cares about real lives in the effected area when they can play these little games?
I at least have a level of respect for unionists in the north, they nail their colours to the mast, this other lot just try and spread their hate-filled anti-nationalist, anti-SF bile from behind the pretense of being a "constitutional nationalist" likes cowards. Can't even man up and acknowledge what they are. Can't even criticise the DUP unless called out on it
Having read your posts, I can only conclude that the practice of attacking other posters' motivations is a handy way of avoiding discussing the issues.
My views are genuine and realistic, reflecting the views of the majority of people in the South who refuse to vote for Sinn Fein because of what they are and what they were.
That doesn't make me any less of a nationalist who aspires and hopes for a united Ireland, but one who acknowledges the realities recognised in the GFA that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the UK.0 -
Having read your posts, I can only conclude that the practice of attacking other posters' motivations is a handy way of avoiding discussing the issues.
My views are genuine and realistic, reflecting the views of the majority of people in the South who refuse to vote for Sinn Fein because of what they are and what they were.
That doesn't make me any less of a nationalist who aspires and hopes for a united Ireland, but one who acknowledges the realities recognised in the GFA that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the UK.
You'll have no problem dealing with what you were asked so.You have been asked to list out actions by the current SF party that is anywhere near as bad as the DUP. Or any other party that are trying to normalise society in northern Ireland.
A list like the one I presented that shows a party blocking ordinary rights on religious grounds or blocking previously agreed cultural measures that are designed to give parity of esteem. A core tenet of the GFA.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
It's all getting very personal. Debate the issue at hand and less of the digs.
Any more of this "you're the kind of poster who...." and there'll be cards.0 -
Having read your posts, I can only conclude that the practice of attacking other posters' motivations is a handy way of avoiding discussing the issues.
My views are genuine and realistic, reflecting the views of the majority of people in the South who refuse to vote for Sinn Fein because of what they are and what they were.
That doesn't make me any less of a nationalist who aspires and hopes for a united Ireland, but one who acknowledges the realities recognised in the GFA that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the UK.
The only one who has continually avoided answering direct questions is yourself.
Always looking at every and any issue from the point of view of what SF/the nationalist side in the north do wrong isn't being genuine, realistic or objective. This can been seen by the fact you have yet to criticise the DUP or unionisnts without being called out on it or without the "both sides are as bad as each other" rhetoric tagged on at the end. Interesting how you never feel the need to do the same when criticising SF.
If you were a nationalist you would, on occasion at the very least, make some points on what is the best and most pragmatic way to make a united Ireland work. Nationalists don't tend to go out of their way to try and find every reason to oppose it in hypothetical debates0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »You'll have no problem dealing with what you were asked so.
I answered that question clearly and comprehensively.I would have the current DUP as being slightly worse than the current SF, but overall over the last 50 years or so, you can't separate them.
I also said before that I have little interest in debating which of the failed Northern Ireland parties is slightly less of a failure than the other. I consider the question you raised of which is the worse than the other answered - it depends on your timeframe of reference.
You obviously wish to pick a very short timeframe, others wouldn't be so generous. That means no disrespect to you, it just means the answer varies depending on your perspective.0 -
The Golden Miller wrote: »The only one who has continually avoided answering direct questions is yourself.
Always looking at every and any issue from the point of view of what SF/the nationalist side in the north do wrong isn't being genuine, realistic or objective. This can been seen by the fact you have yet to criticise the DUP or unionisnts without being called out on it or without the "both sides are as bad as each other" rhetoric tagged on at the end. Interesting how you never feel the need to do the same when criticising SF.
If you were a nationalist you would, on occasion at the very least, make some points on what is the best and most pragmatic way to make a united Ireland work. Nationalists don't tend to go out of their way to try and find every reason to oppose it in hypothetical debates
Please see below an earlier post of mine in this thread that comprehensively addresses the issues you have raised.There is nobody on here defending the DUP's religious bigotry, misogyny or homophobia. However, it is interesting that the main thing being raised by nationalists on here is the Irish Language Act, mirroring SF's major concern out in the real world.
A real gamechanger for SF would be to back down on the Irish Language Act issue, accepting a Minority Languages Act instead, but in return insisted on same sex-marriage legalisation and adoption of UK abortion law. Now that would show they are interested in all the citizens of Northern Ireland rather than their own little patch.
Given the outrage that suggestion will create on here, I hold out little hope of it making it.0 -
Please see below an earlier post of mine in this thread that comprehensively addresses the issues you have raised.
No it doesn't address any point I have raised, infact all it serves to do is further highlight you pointing the finger of blame at SF, as opposed to the DUP blocking what should be standard in any democratic country0 -
I answered that question clearly and comprehensively.
I also said before that I have little interest in debating which of the failed Northern Ireland parties is slightly less of a failure than the other. I consider the question you raised of which is the worse than the other answered - it depends on your timeframe of reference.
You obviously wish to pick a very short timeframe, others wouldn't be so generous. That means no disrespect to you, it just means the answer varies depending on your perspective.
How would a nationalist see the party that co-delivered the GFA as a 'failed party'? That is hilarious. You can be against them politically but 'failed'??
A nationalist who will not (despite been asked again and again) list how that party has failed to deliver the the various clauses of that agreement and agreements made as a follow on from the GFA.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13694
Mod note:The Golden Miller wrote: »The only one who has continually avoided answering direct questions is yourself.
Always looking at every and any issue from the point of view of what SF/the nationalist side in the north do wrong isn't being genuine, realistic or objective. This can been seen by the fact you have yet to criticise the DUP or unionisnts without being called out on it or without the "both sides are as bad as each other" rhetoric tagged on at the end.
This post follows this mod warning:Jep Gambardella wrote: »It's all getting very personal. Debate the issue at hand and less of the digs.
Any more of this "you're the kind of poster who...." and there'll be cards.
Mod warnings are not suggestions. They are necessary to keep threads on topic. This thread is for people who wish to debate power sharing. If you wish to participate, you must engage with the issues and not merely criticise other posters.
If you have a problem with another poster's posts, please use the report post function. You are entitled to ask questions, but you are not entitled to demand answers, particularly if answers were given but they were not to your liking.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »I answered that question clearly and comprehensively.
I also said before that I have little interest in debating which of the failed Northern Ireland parties is slightly less of a failure than the other. I consider the question you raised of which is the worse than the other answered - it depends on your timeframe of reference.
You obviously wish to pick a very short timeframe, others wouldn't be so generous. That means no disrespect to you, it just means the answer varies depending on your perspective.
How would a nationalist see the party that co-delivered the GFA as a 'failed party'? That is hilarious. You can be against them politically but 'failed'??
A nationalist who will not (despite been asked again and again) list how that party has failed to deliver the the various clauses of that agreement and agreements made as a follow on from the GFA.
As far as I know, there were more parties taking part in the whole shaping of the GFA and their clauses, SF was one of them and I wonder how one can determin which one of them all has given its major influence to it. In my view, the GFA is a compromise that delivered the basis for a peace process and brought about the ground on which power sharing was built up. All parts have been working together to achieve this and frankly, this wasn´t achieved by the pressure put by the UK govt in the first place as well as partly by the Irish govt (and partly with efforts by the USA) on both sides of the leading parties of the communities in NI.
What´s the merit of claiming that one party did more than the other to achieve the GFA? I see None cos the main issue is that it provided a peace process in which progressing period it deliverd peace after 30 years of conflict and thus allowing it a generation to grow up in peace.
That the power sharing has reached a deadlock is fully on the account of the DUP and it is evident by the proof this party has delivered herself since Mrs Foster took over from Mr Robinson. One can say that the relationship in power sharing between the DUP and SF wasn´t that good for years and this was also more due to the way the DUP conducted her own part in the light of social unrest eminating from the Unionist community and it was more due to the efforts taken by SF to calm the Republican and Nationalist community that it didn´t escalate further. The efforts of the DUP on the other hand were apparently led by their own reluctancy and it took some pressure on them to do anything at all.
I think that there is some need of a better balanced view on this matter. I´d also suggest to consider the fact that some people in the Republic of Ireland do have their reservations and some even some grievances towards SF that leads them to oppose that party for various reasons, in some cases even personal one when some relative has become the victim of PIRA terrorist attacks. This brings one back again on the issue SF has with her past which is that she can´t get rid of her own role as the political arm of the PIRA and this won´t be forgotten as it won´t be forgiven in some cases by those people who lost a beloved one due to the bombing campaings of the PIRA. Same goes for the bombings committed by Loyalists in the Republic of Ireland.
I do acknowledge the efforts which SF has taken and the progressive results she has been part in delivering them, but it is certainly wrong to depict them as if they had no responsibility to stand for regarding their past. They were no Saints and they still aren´t.
I think that you might know what the core problems below the surface for this deadlock on power sharing in NI is. It is the rule of power sharing itself which blocks any majority rule in NI like in any other democracy where either one party has gained a majority of seats to rule alone or where no single party has it and goes into coalition with others to form a government. But as this current ruling won´t be changed, it´s better for SF to wait and let the people see who is really unable to compromise and stand for the failures and thus make the voters see themselves how useless and regressive the DUP really is. There is another Unionist Party they could vote for instead. I recall that at the start of this power sharing rule, in the early days of the GFA, it was the UUP and the SDLP who were in the places SF and the DUP have since they took over.
Maybe, replacing them could be more progressive, the UUP and the SDLP are probably more moderate minded and could work together. I´m not quite so sure in case of the UUP (for they also have Orangemen within their ranks), but I´m sure in regards of the SDLP. The latter would be my preference in any election in NI anyway.0 -
As far as I know, there were more parties taking part in the whole shaping of the GFA and their clauses, SF was one of them and I wonder how one can determin which one of them all has given its major influence to it. In my view, the GFA is a compromise that delivered the basis for a peace process and brought about the ground on which power sharing was built up. All parts have been working together to achieve this and frankly, this wasn´t achieved by the pressure put by the UK govt in the first place as well as partly by the Irish govt (and partly with efforts by the USA) on both sides of the leading parties of the communities in NI.
What´s the merit of claiming that one party did more than the other to achieve the GFA? I see None cos the main issue is that it provided a peace process in which progressing period it deliverd peace after 30 years of conflict and thus allowing it a generation to grow up in peace.
That the power sharing has reached a deadlock is fully on the account of the DUP and it is evident by the proof this party has delivered herself since Mrs Foster took over from Mr Robinson. One can say that the relationship in power sharing between the DUP and SF wasn´t that good for years and this was also more due to the way the DUP conducted her own part in the light of social unrest eminating from the Unionist community and it was more due to the efforts taken by SF to calm the Republican and Nationalist community that it didn´t escalate further. The efforts of the DUP on the other hand were apparently led by their own reluctancy and it took some pressure on them to do anything at all.
I think that there is some need of a better balanced view on this matter. I´d also suggest to consider the fact that some people in the Republic of Ireland do have their reservations and some even some grievances towards SF that leads them to oppose that party for various reasons, in some cases even personal one when some relative has become the victim of PIRA terrorist attacks. This brings one back again on the issue SF has with her past which is that she can´t get rid of her own role as the political arm of the PIRA and this won´t be forgotten as it won´t be forgiven in some cases by those people who lost a beloved one due to the bombing campaings of the PIRA. Same goes for the bombings committed by Loyalists in the Republic of Ireland.
I do acknowledge the efforts which SF has taken and the progressive results she has been part in delivering them, but it is certainly wrong to depict them as if they had no responsibility to stand for regarding their past. They were no Saints and they still aren´t.
I think that you might know what the core problems below the surface for this deadlock on power sharing in NI is. It is the rule of power sharing itself which blocks any majority rule in NI like in any other democracy where either one party has gained a majority of seats to rule alone or where no single party has it and goes into coalition with others to form a government. But as this current ruling won´t be changed, it´s better for SF to wait and let the people see who is really unable to compromise and stand for the failures and thus make the voters see themselves how useless and regressive the DUP really is. There is another Unionist Party they could vote for instead. I recall that at the start of this power sharing rule, in the early days of the GFA, it was the UUP and the SDLP who were in the places SF and the DUP have since they took over.
Maybe, replacing them could be more progressive, the UUP and the SDLP are probably more moderate minded and could work together. I´m not quite so sure in case of the UUP (for they also have Orangemen within their ranks), but I´m sure in regards of the SDLP. The latter would be my preference in any election in NI anyway.
What is happening at the moment is the 'state' failing again. Not the 'parties'.
The DUP have not 'failed' they have succeeded in doing what they set out to do since the GFA was signed...wreck it and 'keep a taig from about the place'.
If Blanch would do the list I asked him to do and compare to the list of actions and blocks that the DUP have engaged in then that would be plainly evident.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »As far as I know, there were more parties taking part in the whole shaping of the GFA and their clauses, SF was one of them and I wonder how one can determin which one of them all has given its major influence to it. In my view, the GFA is a compromise that delivered the basis for a peace process and brought about the ground on which power sharing was built up. All parts have been working together to achieve this and frankly, this wasn´t achieved by the pressure put by the UK govt in the first place as well as partly by the Irish govt (and partly with efforts by the USA) on both sides of the leading parties of the communities in NI.
What´s the merit of claiming that one party did more than the other to achieve the GFA? I see None cos the main issue is that it provided a peace process in which progressing period it deliverd peace after 30 years of conflict and thus allowing it a generation to grow up in peace.
That the power sharing has reached a deadlock is fully on the account of the DUP and it is evident by the proof this party has delivered herself since Mrs Foster took over from Mr Robinson. One can say that the relationship in power sharing between the DUP and SF wasn´t that good for years and this was also more due to the way the DUP conducted her own part in the light of social unrest eminating from the Unionist community and it was more due to the efforts taken by SF to calm the Republican and Nationalist community that it didn´t escalate further. The efforts of the DUP on the other hand were apparently led by their own reluctancy and it took some pressure on them to do anything at all.
I think that there is some need of a better balanced view on this matter. I´d also suggest to consider the fact that some people in the Republic of Ireland do have their reservations and some even some grievances towards SF that leads them to oppose that party for various reasons, in some cases even personal one when some relative has become the victim of PIRA terrorist attacks. This brings one back again on the issue SF has with her past which is that she can´t get rid of her own role as the political arm of the PIRA and this won´t be forgotten as it won´t be forgiven in some cases by those people who lost a beloved one due to the bombing campaings of the PIRA. Same goes for the bombings committed by Loyalists in the Republic of Ireland.
I do acknowledge the efforts which SF has taken and the progressive results she has been part in delivering them, but it is certainly wrong to depict them as if they had no responsibility to stand for regarding their past. They were no Saints and they still aren´t.
I think that you might know what the core problems below the surface for this deadlock on power sharing in NI is. It is the rule of power sharing itself which blocks any majority rule in NI like in any other democracy where either one party has gained a majority of seats to rule alone or where no single party has it and goes into coalition with others to form a government. But as this current ruling won´t be changed, it´s better for SF to wait and let the people see who is really unable to compromise and stand for the failures and thus make the voters see themselves how useless and regressive the DUP really is. There is another Unionist Party they could vote for instead. I recall that at the start of this power sharing rule, in the early days of the GFA, it was the UUP and the SDLP who were in the places SF and the DUP have since they took over.
Maybe, replacing them could be more progressive, the UUP and the SDLP are probably more moderate minded and could work together. I´m not quite so sure in case of the UUP (for they also have Orangemen within their ranks), but I´m sure in regards of the SDLP. The latter would be my preference in any election in NI anyway.
What is happening at the moment is the 'state' failing again. Not the 'parties'.
The DUP have not 'failed' they have succeeded in doing what they set out to do since the GFA was signed...wreck it and 'keep a taig from about the place'.
If Blanch would do the list I asked him to do and compare to the list of actions and blocks that the DUP have engaged in then that would be plainly evident.
Well, no state can be run without political parties, at least in a democracy, even if such democracy has the Instrument of power sharing imposed on it on the grounds that there can´t be a normal majority rule allowed for the sake of the still fragile peace process.
As for the issue you have with the other poster, it´s not necessary to compell him to list anything cos the evidence for what you like to have listed by him, is out there and well known to everybody who follows and has followed NI politics in the past couple of years. Or to say at least from that day onwards since the "Fleggers" took to the streets and rioted because of the UJ on the BCC.
I think that you´re just waisting your time and engery on your efforts to bring another poster to do what you demand. It´s useless cos either he sees and realises what you mean by himself, or he simply won´t and that´s that.
You see that the record of the DUP speaks for themselves and not in the most positive way. There are just some things which have been achieved by the power sharing with them in order to create jobs and improve the economy in NI. They managed to attract foreign Investment to NI to create jobs. But this was not the achievement of the DUP alone, it was done in the power sharing frame together with SF, namely Martin McGuinness as DFM, which was by many examples the better diplomat and "Ambassador" for NI. What I always recall when thinking of Mr Robinsin is the sour face of himself when appearing in public in his capacity as FM. It always left the Impression on my mind that this chap was doing his job with some great deal of reluctance and that because he had to do it in power sharing together with SF. Quite the opposite Impression one got from McGuinness, he appeared to like doing his job and very often reaching out to the other community. Well, we know how these approaches and attempts were honoured by the DUP followers.
I am absolutely not in any way disagreeing with you on your discription of the DUP, I 100% agree with you on that as I have witnessed some DUPers proving your point themselves by their very expressions on power sharing and a very blunt expressed attitude and more than that also wish for a return of direct rule in NI, only to get rid of the power sharing with SF.
Aside from all the propaganda on both sides of the communities, SF has a better record of their efforts to care for the whole society of NI. That of course by always bearing in mind their aim of a UI and that I find non-objectionable as a political aim. Whereas the Unionists were trying to invent some sort of a new "Northern Irish" identity only to keep the people away from considering the pros and cons of a UI. Some people in NI from both communities took a like in it and adopted that term for themselves, but they are just a few in compare to the whole population in NI.
One doesn´t has to agree with SF and be one of her followers, but one should at least acknowledge what they have done to keep the peace process going and bring some prosperity to NI from which both sides can have their merits and participate. I am no friend of SF, I am rather on the side of the SDLP, but credit where credit is due and SF has earned that by her own record. Whether I like it or not doesn´t matter, the Facts matter and that is what other people might do as well. In the end of the day, it Counts what has been achieved for all, not what silly propaganda tricks have worked to delude the own community and Keep the hate towards SF alive. That´s the real problem and more so on the Unionists side than on the Republicans.0 -
As for the issue you have with the other poster, it´s not necessary to compell him to list anything cos the evidence for what you like to have listed by him, is out there and well known to everybody who follows and has followed NI politics in the past couple of years. Or to say at least from that day onwards since the "Fleggers" took to the streets and rioted because of the UJ on the BCC.
Correct.
I am just perplexed with the 'nationalist' self description.
I will leave people to judge that one themselves.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »
As for the issue you have with the other poster, it´s not necessary to compell him to list anything cos the evidence for what you like to have listed by him, is out there and well known to everybody who follows and has followed NI politics in the past couple of years. Or to say at least from that day onwards since the "Fleggers" took to the streets and rioted because of the UJ on the BCC.
Correct.
I am just perplexed with the 'nationalist' self description.
I will leave people to judge that one themselves.
Maybe you wouldn´t be that perplexed when you realise that there are different shades of nationalism. Someone you´d label as an partitionist can also be a Nationalist, just that he has no interest in a UI.
I am in support of the present Republic of Ireland but I would never call myself a nationalist by any means. The support of a UI isn´t based on nationalism either, as far as it concerns myself, it has more pragmatical reasons and of course the wish that this status quo in and by which a useless minority party like the DUP can hold a country in ransom for their selfish reasonings will be overcome.0 -
Advertisement
-
the undemocratic unionist party and their sectarian bigotry are the only problem party.
sf have modernised and while far from perfect, they are inclusive and want equality for all.
the undemocratic unionist party want to turn northern ireland back into a sectarian statelet and the tories would likely allow it as part of the coalition of chaos if it means the undemocratic unionist party prop them up.
apart from social media the british are rather quiet in terms of allowing this coalition of chaos to continue. they should be out on the streets protesting these sectarian bigots having a part in the running of their country.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »the undemocratic unionist party and their sectarian bigotry are the only problem party.
sf have modernised and while far from perfect, they are inclusive and want equality for all.
the undemocratic unionist party want to turn northern ireland back into a sectarian statelet and the tories would likely allow it as part of the coalition of chaos if it means the undemocratic unionist party prop them up.
apart from social media the british are rather quiet in terms of allowing this coalition of chaos to continue. they should be out on the streets protesting these sectarian bigots having a part in the running of their country.
They probably don´t know them that good enough yet to protest against them. The resignation and compliance with Brexit by former remainers speaks for itself. So, no wonder that they don´t care much about the DUP as probably not less of them think that all is f*cked already anyway.0 -
They probably don´t know them that good enough yet to protest against them. The resignation and compliance with Brexit by former remainers speaks for itself. So, no wonder that they don´t care much about the DUP as probably not less of them think that all is f*cked already anyway.
fair point, but there are many doing what they can to educate people about this political "party" and it's views and history. they just need to keep trying to get the message through to enough people and we will get somewhere.I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »They probably don´t know them that good enough yet to protest against them. The resignation and compliance with Brexit by former remainers speaks for itself. So, no wonder that they don´t care much about the DUP as probably not less of them think that all is f*cked already anyway.
fair point, but there are many doing what they can to educate people about this political "party" and it's views and history. they just need to keep trying to get the message through to enough people and we will get somewhere.
Maybe one could save oneself all the bother and watch the DUP exposing themselves as that what they really are for they are in the focus with this present UK govt anyway. From that point, their uselessness will be covered in due course of the going down of Mrs May as PM anyway. Whoever will replace her as PM, her successor will certainly make sure to keep any influence by the DUP on a low level. As I said before, they are in the focus of UK politics now and the British press is usually not too kind on the UK govt, no matter which party is ruling.
The downfall of Mrs May is already in the making, partly due her own doing and partly due to the plotters who can´t forgive her to lose the majority they had before Mrs May did her folly to call a snap GE. When it comes about power, the Tories know no friends among themselves and that is enough to be certain that the days of Mrs May as PM are counted, it´s just not yet announced how many of those days are left to count. I´m sure that the DUP is more like a thorn to the Tory Party "for power´s sake".0 -
end of the road wrote: »They probably don´t know them that good enough yet to protest against them. The resignation and compliance with Brexit by former remainers speaks for itself. So, no wonder that they don´t care much about the DUP as probably not less of them think that all is f*cked already anyway.
fair point, but there are many doing what they can to educate people about this political "party" and it's views and history. they just need to keep trying to get the message through to enough people and we will get somewhere.
Maybe one could save oneself all the bother and watch the DUP exposing themselves as that what they really are for they are in the focus with this present UK govt anyway. From that point, their uselessness will be covered in due course of the going down of Mrs May as PM anyway. Whoever will replace her as PM, her successor will certainly make sure to keep any influence by the DUP on a low level. As I said before, they are in the focus of UK politics now and the British press is usually not too kind on the UK govt, no matter which party is ruling.
The downfall of Mrs May is already in the making, partly due her own doing and partly due to the plotters who can´t forgive her to lose the majority they had before Mrs May did her folly to call a snap GE. When it comes about power, the Tories know no friends among themselves and that is enough to be certain that the days of Mrs May as PM are counted, it´s just not yet announced how many of those days are left to count. I´m sure that the DUP is more like a thorn to the Tory Party "for power´s sake".
Apart from their initial sales of their support for cash, have any of their policies or beliefs come under scrutiny on the mainland?
Unless their policies start manifesting via the HoC[which would probably require direct rule to happen in the first place], I don't think they'll get much attention from the British media again. As is, I think they're coming across as a generic coalition partner[albeit one which was remunerated generously for its support].
I am open to anyone posting any links to any recent articles in the UK press detailing the policies of the DUP, to prove me wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »They probably don´t know them that good enough yet to protest against them. The resignation and compliance with Brexit by former remainers speaks for itself. So, no wonder that they don´t care much about the DUP as probably not less of them think that all is f*cked already anyway.
fair point, but there are many doing what they can to educate people about this political "party" and it's views and history. they just need to keep trying to get the message through to enough people and we will get somewhere.
Maybe one could save oneself all the bother and watch the DUP exposing themselves as that what they really are for they are in the focus with this present UK govt anyway. From that point, their uselessness will be covered in due course of the going down of Mrs May as PM anyway. Whoever will replace her as PM, her successor will certainly make sure to keep any influence by the DUP on a low level. As I said before, they are in the focus of UK politics now and the British press is usually not too kind on the UK govt, no matter which party is ruling.
The downfall of Mrs May is already in the making, partly due her own doing and partly due to the plotters who can´t forgive her to lose the majority they had before Mrs May did her folly to call a snap GE. When it comes about power, the Tories know no friends among themselves and that is enough to be certain that the days of Mrs May as PM are counted, it´s just not yet announced how many of those days are left to count. I´m sure that the DUP is more like a thorn to the Tory Party "for power´s sake".
Apart from their initial sales of their support for cash, have any of their policies or beliefs come under scrutiny on the mainland?
Unless their policies start manifesting via the HoC[which would probably require direct rule to happen in the first place], I don't think they'll get much attention from the British media again. As is, I think they're coming across as a generic coalition partner[albeit one which was remunerated generously for its support].
I am open to anyone posting any links to any recent articles in the UK press detailing the policies of the DUP, to prove me wrong.
The HoC is currently in recess and will return on 5th September. So until then, there´s little to be expected to happen.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/
The average Brit in GB doesn´t has any interest in the DUP´s policies and beliefs. Same goes for any much interest in NI as well. For them, it´s just a part of Ireland.
Before the HoC recess, there were various articles to read on the website of the Guardian. They have some Focus on the DUP as long as they are the helpers of the Tory Party to have their majority in the Commons. Once that has ended, nobody is interested in the DUP anymore and I dare say, that what is going on in NI is of Little interest as well, just worthy a side note. But from the comments on articles on the Guardian Website, although it´s rather hard to tell whether the comments were written by readers from NI or from GB, the reputation the DUP has among them is a bad one.0 -
Maybe you wouldn´t be that perplexed when you realise that there are different shades of nationalism. Someone you´d label as an partitionist can also be a Nationalist, just that he has no interest in a UI.
If one has no interest in a united Ireland, then by definition they are not an Irish nationalist. It is the core tenet of Irish nationalism.0 -
-
The Golden Miller wrote: »Maybe you wouldn´t be that perplexed when you realise that there are different shades of nationalism. Someone you´d label as an partitionist can also be a Nationalist, just that he has no interest in a UI.
If one has no interest in a united Ireland, then by definition they are not an Irish nationalist. It is the core tenet of Irish nationalism.
Well, it is by nature of the very meaning. Nevertheless, one can support a UI without subscribing to the nationalism that carries that aim with it. Nationalism has a bad taste for me, that´s why I don´t subscribe to it.0 -
-
That's a fair point, it will take time to see if the DUP to make an impression on the votes of mainland UK.end of the road wrote: »They probably don´t know them that good enough yet to protest against them. The resignation and compliance with Brexit by former remainers speaks for itself. So, no wonder that they don´t care much about the DUP as probably not less of them think that all is f*cked already anyway.
fair point, but there are many doing what they can to educate people about this political "party" and it's views and history. they just need to keep trying to get the message through to enough people and we will get somewhere.
Maybe one could save oneself all the bother and watch the DUP exposing themselves as that what they really are for they are in the focus with this present UK govt anyway. From that point, their uselessness will be covered in due course of the going down of Mrs May as PM anyway. Whoever will replace her as PM, her successor will certainly make sure to keep any influence by the DUP on a low level. As I said before, they are in the focus of UK politics now and the British press is usually not too kind on the UK govt, no matter which party is ruling.
The downfall of Mrs May is already in the making, partly due her own doing and partly due to the plotters who can´t forgive her to lose the majority they had before Mrs May did her folly to call a snap GE. When it comes about power, the Tories know no friends among themselves and that is enough to be certain that the days of Mrs May as PM are counted, it´s just not yet announced how many of those days are left to count. I´m sure that the DUP is more like a thorn to the Tory Party "for power´s sake".
Apart from their initial sales of their support for cash, have any of their policies or beliefs come under scrutiny on the mainland?
Unless their policies start manifesting via the HoC[which would probably require direct rule to happen in the first place], I don't think they'll get much attention from the British media again. As is, I think they're coming across as a generic coalition partner[albeit one which was remunerated generously for its support].
I am open to anyone posting any links to any recent articles in the UK press detailing the policies of the DUP, to prove me wrong.
The HoC is currently in recess and will return on 5th September. So until then, there´s little to be expected to happen.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/
The average Brit in GB doesn´t has any interest in the DUP´s policies and beliefs. Same goes for any much interest in NI as well. For them, it´s just a part of Ireland.
Before the HoC recess, there were various articles to read on the website of the Guardian. They have some Focus on the DUP as long as they are the helpers of the Tory Party to have their majority in the Commons. Once that has ended, nobody is interested in the DUP anymore and I dare say, that what is going on in NI is of Little interest as well, just worthy a side note. But from the comments on articles on the Guardian Website, although it´s rather hard to tell whether the comments were written by readers from NI or from GB, the reputation the DUP has among them is a bad one.0 -
That's a fair point, it will take time to see if the DUP to make an impression on the votes of mainland UK.
It's looking like the partitioning of this island will once again be designed to placate a few bigoted, sectarian unionists, at the expense of ordinary decent unionists and everybody else.
They had better hope and pray that Brexit is a resounding success from the get-go.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »bigoted, sectarian unionists
That's why the whole seeking unionist approval for a UI by 'nationalist moderates' is a red herring. It's a poor disguise for 'stick your GFA and stick your pro-UI referendum where the Sun don't shine'.
There will always be a section of PUL's who'd be against a UI even if it meant widescale subsistence farming was their only way of maintaining the so-called 'union'.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »That's a fair point, it will take time to see if the DUP to make an impression on the votes of mainland UK.
It's looking like the partitioning of this island will once again be designed to placate a few bigoted, sectarian unionists, at the expense of ordinary decent unionists and everybody else.
They had better hope and pray that Brexit is a resounding success from the get-go.
Where have you seen or even noticed any protest coming from them during all those years since the "Flegger" riots? I have had some exchange of opinions with them on message boards but that´s it and there is hardly any attempt by them to either distance themselves from the sectarians within their community nor is there much condemnation, except by some Unionist politicians and this comes only when some public pressure has been lied down on their door step. The moderate ones among the Unionist are of course expressing their disagreement with the actions taken by the Loyalists, which is represents the core of the diehard sectarians along with staunch Orangemen of various ages and it is often the case that a Loyalist is also a member of the Orange Order which makes no difference between them in many cases, but you don´t see them to carry their protest in public areas. You don´t see them saying "not in my Name" and demonstrate against the sectarians. But, one doesn´t see much of the like on the Republican side either, except towards the Dissos on which both sides, Republican and Unionist politicians were joining together in condemning them, which is of course the right way to do.
It´s just that neither Republicans nor Nationalists have given much reason for protest on their side in the past years. On the contrary, they often remained restrained and calm when the Unionist thugs along with other Loyalists were rioting on the streets.
How many incidents have been counted in the past years in which Loyalist thugs had a go at foreigners in NI, besmearing houses in which foreign nationals live with racist and insulting slogans? Such incidents of damage with intend to intimidate them and in worse cases even beating them up, happened and the response by Unionist politicians was in the usual way, lip-service to condemn such deeds and then leave it at that. But no action taken against the perpetrators which are imo not to hard to be find out by members of the community and bring them to justice. This is why they can do as they please and get away with it, if not caught at sight by the PSNI.
To use another but matching term from the USA, I´d say that judged by such incidents and the very mindset of the diehard sectarians within Unionism and Loyalism, they are the "Rednecks" of NI. They are as much xenophobic, misogynistic, anti-Catholic, anti-Republican and anti-Irish as their counterparts in the South of the USA and some of them are even unashamed racists. In my view, they really represent the bottom of their community and those who are supposed to show up with some leadership are either reluctant to do so, or even worse, give it their tacit approval.
What all the Unionist, whether moderate or sectarian, fear most is that the UK would abandon them for good and give way to a UI whether they like it or not and that is what lies at the core of the many of their actions, their so called maintenance of traditions and their eagerness to show a kind of "Loyalty" towards the Crown which appears to the average Briton in GB as a bunch of people who like to represent themselves more British than the Brits in GB. This is also the reason for why the average Briton in GB finds them and their behaviour strange, except the nutters from the far-right spectrum of BNP, Britain First, EDL, NF and not to forget UKIP.
Frankly, when it comes to talk about on whomse expense this all goes, I really have to say that those who don´t like to have it should get their guts and act against it. But there´s nothing to anticipate from them and therefore, it´s the way as it is and will remain so as long as they don´t change their attitude towards those who discredit their community and stand up against them.0 -
I didn't say that ordinary unionists have protested about extreme unionist behaviour.
They don't because the likes of the DUP have cultivated a false 'siege mentality'.
Normality is an 'erosion of their rights' etc etc. We hear it all the time.
It will I think be very interesting when they are genuinely affected by the siege that will be Brexit and the realisation that Westminster will not be making up the difference in their fragile economy.0 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »I didn't say that ordinary unionists have protested about extreme unionist behaviour.
They don't because the likes of the DUP have cultivated a false 'siege mentality'.
Normality is an 'erosion of their rights' etc etc. We hear it all the time.
It will I think be very interesting when they are genuinely affected by the siege that will be Brexit and the realisation that Westminster will not be making up the difference in their fragile economy.
Aye, and the others will have to suffer with them because of them Brextieers of which the DUP is herself part of.0
Advertisement