Irish Language Act in the North: Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just because you see the word 'legitimacy' in the GFA and you know the meaning of it, does not mean what you think it does.

Here it is again:



WHere does that say they 'recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland'.

Exactly! It doesn't say that at all. :rolleyes:

"
"recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority"

The choices are, british rule, irish rule or an independent state. All are legitimate if that is the will of the majority and by signing the GFA recognised all options as legitimate.

"Whatever choice" is the key phrase.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

"
"recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority"

The choices are, british rule, irish rule or an independent state. All are legitimate if that is the will of the majority and by signing the GFA recognised all options as legitimate.

"Whatever choice" is the key phrase.

They simply did not.

The recognised the legitimacy of the majority to choose.

They didn't recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland. You simply cannot shoehorn that in there, because it isn't there.

That is the wet dream of those who dream about SF capitulating on everything they believe in.

The Republican party has always refused to take its seats and vote in Parliament because it will not swear allegiance to the Queen or recognise the legitimacy of Britain’s rule over Northern Ireland.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/leo-varadkar-sinn-fein-seats-westminster-hard-brexit-abstentionist-a8231281.html

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The recognised the legitimacy of the majority to choose.

They didn't recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland.

They recognised the legitimacy of the majority's choice of British rule in Northern Ireland.

They say they don't recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Northern Ireland, but that's precisely what some of us are taking issue with: the cakeism of claiming to be committed to the GFA while rejecting the reality of what it says.

You'll disagree with this, but that's because it doesn't seem to have crossed your mind that maybe not everything Sinn Féin say is gospel truth.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They simply did not.

The recognised the legitimacy of the majority to choose.

They didn't recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland. You simply cannot shoehorn that in there, because it isn't there.

That is the wet dream of those who dream about SF capitulating on everything they believe in.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/leo-varadkar-sinn-fein-seats-westminster-hard-brexit-abstentionist-a8231281.html

So SF recognise the choice of british rule as legitimate but not british rule itself , well that makes perfect sense

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

They recognised the legitimacy of the majority's choice of British rule in Northern Ireland.

They say they don't recognise the legitimacy of British rule in Northern Ireland, but that's precisely what some of us are taking issue with: the cakeism of claiming to be committed to the GFA while rejecting the reality of what it says.

You'll disagree with this, but that's because it doesn't seem to have crossed your mind that maybe not everything Sinn Féin say is gospel truth.

You are mistaking your opinion of it with the truth.
The truth being that they have not recognised the legitimacy of British rule.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So SF recognise the choice of british rule as legitimate but not british rule itself , well that makes perfect sense

Yes, just as someone can recognise the right of the majority to abortion but not the rightness of abortion.

Getting any clearer for you?

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, just as someone can recognise the right of the majority to abortion but not the rightness of abortion.
Getting any clearer for you?

Its a good analogy, but you can't compare them directly. Accepting the legitimacy of something is not the same as agreeing with something.

FF and FG also aspire to a UI, but they accept the legitimacy of NI's current status. How does the SF position differ from theirs?
If SF have accepted the GFA, I don't see how there can be any difference.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, just as someone can recognise the right of the majority to abortion but not the rightness of abortion.

Getting any clearer for you?

Problem here is you not understanding what legitimacy means in a political context.

The definition is clear. And SF agreed to it. They signed on the dotted line whatever spin they put on it doesn't change what the GFA says.

The British are the Ultimate authority over NI , that is the legitimate choice of the majority of NI. SF validated this by signing the GFA.They don't like it but they signed up for this and are now part of the infastructure of partion.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

Its a good analogy, but you can't compare them directly. Accepting the legitimacy of something is not the same as agreeing with something.

FF and FG also aspire to a UI, but they accept the legitimacy of NI's current status. How does the SF position differ from theirs?
If SF have accepted the GFA, I don't see how there can be any difference.

Do a bit of work.

Accepting the majority view that Irish Water has a legitimate right to charge for water does not mean I accept the legitimacy of water charges.

In fact I can legitimately and legally fight water charges long after the vote.


Loads of examples where accepting that a majority have decided something does not mean I that I accept that something.


Does this really need to be explained anymore?

Charles Babbage

Legitimate has two meanings. One is legal, the holocaust was legal for instance. The second meaning is morally right. British rule in NI is clearly legal but not moral.

jh79

Francie, think you need to read the definition again;

"In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime"

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

SF have accepted than NI is part of the UK.

They acceded to a devolved administration in an attempt to move the political centre-of-gravity away from Westminster/Britain and they've never made a secret that the GFA is, for them, a vehicle (with no reverse gear) that's destination is a United Ireland.

oscarBravo wrote: »

They recognised the legitimacy of the majority's choice of British rule in Northern Ireland.

British rule... Sounds kind of imperialist that. BRITISH RULE! Can't you just hear that in being said in a Jacob Rees Mogg accent?

No Republican has ever accepted British Rule in Ireland. See above.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, think you need to read the definition again;

"In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime"

Again the clause in the agreement does not refer to the 'authority, governing law or a regime'

It refers to the legitimacy of the majority view.

Shoehorn away, you are just looking a bit silly at this stage.

Can you find any SF or republican publicly accepting the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland...don't waste more of your time...you won't.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

They acceded to a devolved administration in an attempt to move the political centre-of-gravity away from Westminster/Britain and they've never made a secret that the GFA is, for them, a vehicle (with no reverse gear) that's destination is a United Ireland.




British rule... Sounds kind of imperialist that. BRITISH RULE! Can't you just hear that in being said in a Jacob Rees Mogg accent?

No Republican has ever accepted British Rule in Ireland. See above.

I don't think even Jacob Rees would posit such a ridiculous claim.

oscarBravo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

They acceded to a devolved administration in an attempt to move the political centre-of-gravity away from Westminster/Britain and they've never made a secret that the GFA is, for them, a vehicle (with no reverse gear) that's destination is a United Ireland.

Either they're committed to it or they're not. If they want the destination to have legitimacy, the journey has to have legitimacy.

The Agreement says that what the people of Northern Ireland want has legitimacy. You seem to be saying that that's only fully true when the people of Northern Ireland happen to want what Sinn Féin want. That's not commitment; that's two-faced dishonesty.

British rule... Sounds kind of imperialist that. BRITISH RULE! Can't you just hear that in being said in a Jacob Rees Mogg accent?

I don't see how it sounds any more imperialist than "Irish rule", but then I've never really understood the Republican inferiority complex.

No Republican has ever accepted British Rule in Ireland. See above.

"We are fully committed to the GFA, apart from the bit about legitimacy, unless it's the legitimacy of what we believe in, in which case the Agreement is sacrosanct. Themuns can't have legitimacy."

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again the clause in the agreement does not refer to the 'authority, governing law or a regime'

It refers to the legitimacy of the majority view.

Shoehorn away, you are just looking a bit silly at this stage.

Can you find any SF or republican publicly accepting the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland...don't waste more of your time...you won't.

Doesn't matter what they , they signed the GFA.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Either they're committed to it or they're not. If they want the destination to have legitimacy, the journey has to have legitimacy.

The Agreement says that what the people of Northern Ireland want has legitimacy. You seem to be saying that that's only fully true when the people of Northern Ireland happen to want what Sinn Féin want. That's not commitment; that's two-faced dishonesty. I don't see how it sounds any more imperialist than "Irish rule", but then I've never really understood the Republican inferiority complex. "We are fully committed to the GFA, apart from the bit about legitimacy, unless it's the legitimacy of what we believe in, in which case the Agreement is sacrosanct. Themuns can't have legitimacy."

Back we go to the limbo dancing.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It refers to the legitimacy of the majority view.

The majority view is that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Therefore, British rule (sorry JT, didn't mean to startle you with those terrifying words) is legitimate until the majority view states otherwise.

Can you find any SF or republican publicly accepting the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland...don't waste more of your time...you won't.

Of course not. They want to eat their cake and have it: to claim that they're fully supportive of the GFA, while denying what that means in reality.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Back we go to the limbo dancing.

Says the man who waxes Jesuitical over the many nuanced meanings of the word "legitimacy" rather than accept that there's even the faintest possibility that anything Sinn Féin say could ever conceivably be untrue.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Doesn't matter what they , they signed the GFA.

If the majority vote for SF in an election, do you become a supporter of SF? Or do you accept their democratic mandate but continue to object to their policies?

You are not dealing with this anomaly in what you are claiming.

As I said earlier - the dreaming that goes on. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

The majority view is that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Therefore, British rule (sorry JT, didn't mean to startle you with those terrifying words) is legitimate until the majority view states otherwise.

Again, profoundly wrong. 'I accept that the majority view it that way. End of'

Of course not. They want to eat their cake and have it: to claim that they're fully supportive of the GFA, while denying what that means in reality.

It doesn't mean that. It means that they accept the legitimacy of the majority to have that view. End of'.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the majority vote for SF in an election, do you become a supporter of SF? Or do you accept their democratic mandate but continue to object to their policies?

You are not dealing with this anomaly in what you are claiming.

As I said earlier - the dreaming that goes on. :rolleyes:

"In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime"

The regime in this case is Westminister/UK. SF have accepted their authority under the GFA.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Says the man who waxes Jesuitical over the many nuanced meanings of the word "legitimacy" rather than accept that there's even the faintest possibility that anything Sinn Féin say could ever conceivably be untrue.

There aren't many meanings to the word legitimacy and I never waxed anything like that.

There is a sentence in which the word legitimacy is used.

You are bluntly refusing to take on board what that sentence is referring to and it is NOT referring to the legitimacy of British rule, it is referring to the 'legitimacy of the majority to want British rule'.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the majority vote for SF in an election, do you become a supporter of SF? Or do you accept their democratic mandate but continue to object to their policies?

Do I get to loudly and repeatedly insist that a SF government has no legitimacy?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It doesn't mean that. It means that they accept the legitimacy of the majority to have that view. End of'.

The Agreement doesn't say that the parties accept that majorities can have views. That would be a pretty trivial and pointless agreement. It says that the legitimate status of Northern Ireland is what the majority want it to be.

Francie, I can tell you're pathologically incapable of conceding this point, but you're wrong. There's no way in hell a treaty was lodged with the UN boldly stating that the parties accept each other's right to hold different views. The entire point of the Agreement is that both parties accept that the legitimate status of Northern Ireland is whatever the majority of its people want it to be.

You're taking the Republican view that "only my side can possibly have legitimacy - I respect the right of others to be wrong, but what they want is necessarily illegitimate by virtue of not being what I want."

That's not only a breathtakingly arrogant perspective, it's self-evidently untrue. Irish rule (sorry if I startled anyone else with my imperialism there) is no more inherently legitimate than British. Legitimacy of government comes from the acceptance of the governed.

All parties to the GFA signed up to the legitimacy of whatever the people decided. One of those parties wants to claim to be supportive of that, while also arguing that it will only be legitimate when it agrees with their aims.

I could no more convince a young-Earth creationist of the validity of evolution than convince you that anything other than your personal beliefs could possibly have legitimacy, but strongly holding a belief doesn't make it true, and Sinn Féin are being two-faced here.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

"In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime"

The regime in this case is Westminister/UK. SF have accepted their authority under the GFA.

That is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going na na na.

Goodnight.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do I get to loudly and repeatedly insist that a SF government has no legitimacy?



The Agreement doesn't say that the parties accept that majorities can have views. That would be a pretty trivial and pointless agreement. It says that the legitimate status of Northern Ireland is what the majority want it to be.

Francie, I can tell you're pathologically incapable of conceding this point, but you're wrong. There's no way in hell a treaty was lodged with the UN boldly stating that the parties accept each other's right to hold different views. The entire point of the Agreement is that both parties accept that the legitimate status of Northern Ireland is whatever the majority of its people want it to be.

You're taking the Republican view that "only my side can possibly have legitimacy - I respect the right of others to be wrong, but what they want is necessarily illegitimate by virtue of not being what I want."

That's not only a breathtakingly arrogant perspective, it's self-evidently untrue. Irish rule (sorry if I startled anyone else with my imperialism there) is no more inherently legitimate than British. Legitimacy of government comes from the acceptance of the governed.

All parties to the GFA signed up to the legitimacy of whatever the people decided. One of those parties wants to claim to be supportive of that, while also arguing that it will only be legitimate when it agrees with their aims.

I could no more convince a young-Earth creationist of the validity of evolution than convince you that anything other than your personal beliefs could possibly have legitimacy, but strongly holding a belief doesn't make it true, and Sinn Féin are being two-faced here.

There's no way in hell a treaty was lodged with the UN boldly stating that the parties accept each other's right to hold different views

The agreement is full of that.

The right to aspire to Irish Unity for example. The right to an ILA
Do Unionists now hold those views dear?

Again, your view that they are being two faced is an opinion. Which you are legitimately entitled to hold. But I and all republicans, not just SF totally disagree with it.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are bluntly refusing to take on board what that sentence is referring to and it is NOT referring to the legitimacy of British rule, it is referring to the 'legitimacy of the majority to want British rule'.

Think about what you're saying, Francie. Think about it. Stop reciting the creed and think.

You're arguing that, prior to the Good Friday Agreement, the parties to that Agreement did not accept the legitimacy of the other parties holding different views to them.

You're arguing that the entire point of the Agreement is that the various parties have reluctantly agreed to accept that it's OK for people to want different things.

You're arguing that the only legitimacy bestowed by a treaty signed by two sovereign governments and lodged with the UN is the legitimacy of a political preference.

If you think that that makes more sense than the interpretation of literally everyone who isn't an Irish Republican - that the Agreement recognises the legitimacy of the consequences of the majority's choice - I honestly don't know what else to say to you.

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Agreement says that what the people of Northern Ireland want has legitimacy. You seem to be saying that that's only fully true when the people of Northern Ireland happen to want what Sinn F want. That's not commitment; that's two-faced dishonesty.

The GFA is a grand exercise in what Henry Kissinger would describe as 'constructive ambiguity'. David Trimble claimed it copper-fastened the so-called union.

Republicans claimed it as an agreement that was a road-map to a UI. It is to its reader what they want it to be on the face of it but at its core it is a one way road and that road doesn't lead to London.

I don't see how it sounds any more imperialist than "Irish rule"

Ireland doesn't really have a history of planting Flags in places and claiming them for its President.

but then I've never really understood the Republican inferiority complex.

Pop psychology? Cool. No idea what a 'Republican inferiority complex' is.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going na na na.

Goodnight.

Your posts reminded me of this opinion piece

Adams sold defeat as victory in career based on illusion

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/adams-sold-defeat-as-victory-in-career-based-on-illusion-36584577.html

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The right to aspire to Irish Unity for example.

Come on, Francie. On what planet do you need a treaty to recognise the legitimacy of wanting something?

If a majority in Northern Ireland voted for unification, and the unionist community argued that unification has no legitimacy - the aspiration does, but unity doesn't - would you doff your cap and salute the cleverness of their argument?

Or would you switch sides like a shot and start loudly insisting that it's the implementation of the wishes of the majority that enjoys legitimacy, once they have the good sense to agree with you?

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They accept the democratic will of the people. Nowhere does it say, nor have I ever heard SF or a republican accept that the British presence in Ireland is legitimate.

Apart, of course, from when SF signed the GFA.

Or when all those republicans voted in favour of the GFA?


I’ll be honest Francie - I might have had you pegged as many things based on your posting history, but a dissident was never one of them

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can waffle away about it all you want. But this does not mean they accept the legitimacy of British rule.



They do recognise the legitimacy of what the majority have chosen for now though.

It takes a special level of cognitive dissonance to contradict yourself in the same post.

That cool-aid must be pretty damn strong

Junkyard Tom

As far as I'm aware SF didn't actually sign the GFA so this silly one-upmanship about them accepting British 'Rule' is probably moot.

blackwhite

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As far as I'm aware SF didn't actually sign the GFA so this silly one-upmanship about them accepting British 'Rule' is probably moot.

Are you trying to claim that Gerry Adams, Mitchell McLoughlin at al didn’t sign on behalf of Sinn Fein, but just as individuals? That’s a level of nonsense that is surprising even for the BS spouted by some of your fellow travellers on here

Junkyard Tom

blackwhite wrote: »

Are you trying to claim that Gerry Adams, Mitchell McLoughlin at al didn’t sign on behalf of Sinn Fein, but just as individuals?

No I'm saying that as far as I'm aware (I stand to be corrected on this) the GFA was signed by the two governments and endorsed by the SDLP, UUP, SF and Alliance and was rejected by the DUP.

That’s a level of nonsense that is surprising even for the BS spouted by some of your fellow travellers on here

What? What's with the aggressive tone? Did I hurt your feelings or something?

According to Michael Gove:



www.cps.org.uk/files/MichaelGove.pdf

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

It takes a special level of cognitive dissonance to contradict yourself in the same post.

That cool-aid must be pretty damn strong

It's is true of almost every election held in a democracy.

Cool aid as right!

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As far as I'm aware SF didn't actually sign the GFA so this silly one-upmanship about them accepting British 'Rule' is probably moot.

I had to point this out before on here.
The GFA is an agreement between governments.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Think about what you're saying, Francie. Think about it. Stop reciting the creed and think.

You're arguing that, prior to the Good Friday Agreement, the parties to that Agreement did not accept the legitimacy of the other parties holding different views to them.

You're arguing that the entire point of the Agreement is that the various parties have reluctantly agreed to accept that it's OK for people to want different things.

You're arguing that the only legitimacy bestowed by a treaty signed by two sovereign governments and lodged with the UN is the legitimacy of a political preference.

If you think that that makes more sense than the interpretation of literally everyone who isn't an Irish Republican - that the Agreement recognises the legitimacy of the consequences of the majority's choice - I honestly don't know what else to say to you.

I can argue that in my reality the UUP agreed effectively to the legitimacy of the Irish government's involvement in northern Ireland...but of course they didn't.

Your opinion...is YOUR opinion Oscar, it doesn't become fact however.

blackwhite

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No I'm saying that as far as I'm aware (I stand to be corrected on this) the GFA was signed by the two governments and endorsed by the SDLP, UUP, SF and Alliance and was rejected by the DUP.



What? What's with the aggressive tone? Did I hurt your feelings or something?

According to Michael Gove:



www.cps.org.uk/files/MichaelGove.pdf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I had to point this out before on here.
The GFA is an agreement between governments.

If a DUP representative tried to pull such lies to weasel out of what they’ve signed up to the SF cheerleaders on here would explode with outrage.

The GFA has two elements, and intergovernmental agreement signed by the Irish and UK governments, and a multi-party agreement signed by the two Govts and most of the major NI political parties - excluding the DUP. lienand twist all you want - but not even SF themselves will try and pretend that they didn’t sign this agreement

Section 2 of the multi-party agreement is laid out below. Maybe you want to side with the dissidents and reject the GFA (which you are free to do) but you can’t rewrite history simply because you don’t like it.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:

(i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Irelandüs status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

(v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I had to point this out before on here.
The GFA is an agreement between governments.

Gerry Adams signed the original agreement I think, the DUP, as far as I'm aware, was the only party to oppose the GFA I think also.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-21221389

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No I'm saying that as far as I'm aware (I stand to be corrected on this) the GFA was signed by the two governments and endorsed by the SDLP, UUP, SF and Alliance and was rejected by the DUP.



What? What's with the aggressive tone? Did I hurt your feelings or something?

According to Michael Gove:



www.cps.org.uk/files/MichaelGove.pdf

Very interesting.

If Sinn Fein are arguing that the DUP must implement an Irish Languages Act because it is in the GFA (even though the DUP rejected the GFA) but that Sinn Fein haven't accepted the legitimacy of British rule because it is in the GFA (even though SF endorsed the GFA) does anyone else think that there is a lot more than a little doublespeak and doublethink going on here from Sinn Fein?

Does their hypocrisy have no limits?

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

If a DUP representative tried to pull such lies to weasel out of what they’ve signed up to the SF cheerleaders on here would explode with outrage.

The GFA has two elements, and intergovernmental agreement signed by the Irish and UK governments, and a multi-party agreement signed by the two Govts and most of the major NI political parties - excluding the DUP. lienand twist all you want - but not even SF themselves will try and pretend that they didn’t sign this agreement

Section 2 of the multi-party agreement is laid out below. Maybe you want to side with the dissidents and reject the GFA (which you are free to do) but you can’t rewrite history simply because you don’t like it.

The DUP never endorsed the GFA.

Btw, the only other significant group who say that SF have accepted the legitimacy of British rule are 'dissidents'. You guys are on message with them. Nice one!

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can argue that in my reality the UUP agreed effectively to the legitimacy of the Irish government's involvement in northern Ireland...but of course they didn't.

For possibly the first time ever, I agree with you. By endorsing the GFA, the UUP did indeed agree to the legitimacy of the limited role for the Dublin government in the affairs of Northern Ireland as set out in the GFA. I would guess from a unionist point of view that it was a small price to pay for the effective surrender of the IRA, the acceptance of the legitimacy of British rule by the nationalist community and the removal of the territorial claim from the Irish constitution.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Your opinion...is YOUR opinion Oscar, it doesn't become fact however.

Some things are facts, including what is in the GFA and what Sinn Fein signed.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP never endorsed the GFA.

So they are not bound by the requirement to bring in an ILA.

Why did you spend pages and pages and weeks of posts to argue the opposite then?

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

People on here let the DUP off with it?????

What are you talking about?

How do people on here have the power to let the DUP off with anything?

because the likes of yourself and others do nothing but whinge whinge whinge about one side. pretty obvious what I was on about really.

Chips Lovell

Let's cut out the personal remarks please. If you're starting any post with something along the lines of "people like you..." you're off to a bad start.

Be nice.

Thanks.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP never endorsed the GFA.

Btw, the only other significant group who say that SF have accepted the legitimacy of British rule are 'dissidents'. You guys are on message with them. Nice one!

SF and republicans who voted for the GFA have accepted the legitimacy of British rule in NI, the dissidents are right, unlike the dissidents i don't see anything wrong with that.

Red_Wake

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP never endorsed the GFA.

So they are not bound by the requirement to bring in an ILA.

Why did you spend pages and pages and weeks of posts to argue the opposite then?

Iirc his claim is that it was in the St Andrews Agreement that the DUP agreed to an ILA.

Where this falls down is that the St Andrew Agreement obliges the British Government to introduce an ILA, and not the DUP. As this power was devolved back to NI via Stormont, the British Government no longer had the means to make good on their agreement. 

As the DUP was not named as a party obliged to introduce an ILA, they can block the introduction of an ILA without breaking their side of the St Andrews Agreement.

Acting in bad faith definitely, but acting in bad faith is part and parcel of politics in NI. 

Francie seems to gloss over these facts though.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

SF and republicans who voted for the GFA have accepted the legitimacy of British rule in NI, the dissidents are right, unlike the dissidents i don't see anything wrong with that.

Find me a SF person saying that then. Or even a few column inches of press saying that SF have had a Paulian conversion bigger than that of Paul himself.

FrancieBrady

Red_Wake wrote: »

Iirc his claim is that it was in the St Andrews Agreement that the DUP agreed to an ILA.

Where this falls down is that the St Andrew Agreement obliges the British Government to introduce an ILA, and not the DUP. As this power was devolved back to NI via Stormont, the British Government no longer had the means to make good on their agreement. 

As the DUP was not named as a party obliged to introduce an ILA, they can block the introduction of an ILA without breaking their side of the St Andrews Agreement.

Acting in bad faith definitely, but acting in bad faith is part and parcel of politics in NI. 

Francie seems to gloss over these facts though.

The British Gov agreed to an ILA at St Andrews