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

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Action speak louder than words and SF approved, promoted and convinced republicans to vote for an agreement that recognised the legitimacy of British rule in NI.

Red_Wake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Yes, this was stated in my post, and when the power to introduce one was devolved to Stormont, they were no longer able to make good on their promise, but the DUP were under no obligation to introduce or support an ILA.

FrancieBrady

Red_Wake wrote: »

Yes, this was stated in my post, and when the power to introduce one was devolved to Stormont, they were no longer able to make good on their promise, but the DUP were under no obligation to introduce or support an ILA.

Who said they were? I didn't.

The British still are though.

Havockk

jh79 wrote: »

Action speak louder than words and SF approved, promoted and convinced republicans to vote for an agreement that recognised the legitimacy of British rule in NI.

I remember the early/mid 90's well. Bad times indeed, in fact it was 93 I had just walked into the schoolyard when a loyalist gunman shot a teacher dead, just because he was in SF. Everyone was just sick of it, I had been born into it and knew nothing other than the 'troubles'. In 98 I voted for the GFA, not to respect 'British Legitimacy' just to put an end to it.

McMurphy

I've been reading that an agreement had indeed been reached within the DUP, and it was senior loyalists with links to the UDA and the UVF who ultimately rejected it.

Boards resident unionists and ABSF posters would go into melt down if the shoe was on the other foot, if SF pulled the rug from under an agreement because the (delete where appropriate) "surrendered/defeated/still active/left the stage" army council had rejected an agreement.

If true (and it certainly evidence to support the notion an agreement had been reached) then the question in the OP has been answered.

Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal? - No, it would appear that the DUP have

oscarBravo

Havockk wrote: »

In 98 I voted for the GFA, not to respect 'British Legitimacy' just to put an end to it.

That's completely understandable. Many of us swallowed our revulsion at the idea of amnesty for terrorists and voted for the GFA just to put an end to it all.

But that's not really the point. The point is the collective delusion that allows people to argue that the GFA doesn't mean something just because they don't like what it means. Like those people who insist that the Republic has a territorial claim over Northern Ireland, despite the fact that we explicitly voted to amend the Constitution to replace that claim with an aspiration.

British sovereignty over Northern Ireland is legitimate. That's not an opinion, it's a matter of international law. Some - possibly most - Irish Republicans seem to participate in a collective delusion that their deeply-held religious convictions about the legitimacy of that sovereignty in some way affects that objective reality, but it doesn't.

So, Sinn Féin can claim not to recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom. They make this claim while (occasionally) taking their seats in a devolved administration of the United Kingdom; they make this claim while being paid in pounds sterling for the jobs they do (or don't do) in that administration.

Outside of the sort of eyeroll-inducing mental gymnastics that require us to believe that an intergovernmental agreement was required solely to guarantee the legitimacy of people's right to hold an opinion, it's universally understood that the whole point of the GFA is to give legitimacy to whatever form of rule is decided upon by the people of Northern Ireland.

Republicans can't admit that, of course - it would be blasphemous. But their inability to admit it doesn't make it untrue.

Havockk

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's completely understandable. Many of us swallowed our revulsion at the idea of amnesty for terrorists and voted for the GFA just to put an end to it all.

But that's not really the point. The point is the collective delusion that allows people to argue that the GFA doesn't mean something just because they don't like what it means. Like those people who insist that the Republic has a territorial claim over Northern Ireland, despite the fact that we explicitly voted to amend the Constitution to replace that claim with an aspiration.

British sovereignty over Northern Ireland is legitimate. That's not an opinion, it's a matter of international law. Some - possibly most - Irish Republicans seem to participate in a collective delusion that their deeply-held religious convictions about the legitimacy of that sovereignty in some way affects that objective reality, but it doesn't.

So, Sinn Féin can claim not to recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom. They make this claim while (occasionally) taking their seats in a devolved administration of the United Kingdom; they make this claim while being paid in pounds sterling for the jobs they do (or don't do) in that administration.

Outside of the sort of eyeroll-inducing mental gymnastics that require us to believe that an intergovernmental agreement was required solely to guarantee the legitimacy of people's right to hold an opinion, it's universally understood that the whole point of the GFA is to give legitimacy to whatever form of rule is decided upon by the people of Northern Ireland.

Republicans can't admit that, of course - it would be blasphemous. But their inability to admit it doesn't make it untrue.

Well, nudge nudge, wink wink, as it were Oscar. Of course everyone can read between the lines but as long as they are not out killing and bombing and playing it politically then I can't say I have a problem with that.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's completely understandable. Many of us swallowed our revulsion at the idea of amnesty for terrorists and voted for the GFA just to put an end to it all.

But that's not really the point. The point is the collective delusion that allows people to argue that the GFA doesn't mean something just because they don't like what it means. Like those people who insist that the Republic has a territorial claim over Northern Ireland, despite the fact that we explicitly voted to amend the Constitution to replace that claim with an aspiration.

British sovereignty over Northern Ireland is legitimate. That's not an opinion, it's a matter of international law. Some - possibly most - Irish Republicans seem to participate in a collective delusion that their deeply-held religious convictions about the legitimacy of that sovereignty in some way affects that objective reality, but it doesn't.

So, Sinn Féin can claim not to recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom. They make this claim while (occasionally) taking their seats in a devolved administration of the United Kingdom; they make this claim while being paid in pounds sterling for the jobs they do (or don't do) in that administration.

Outside of the sort of eyeroll-inducing mental gymnastics that require us to believe that an intergovernmental agreement was required solely to guarantee the legitimacy of people's right to hold an opinion, it's universally understood that the whole point of the GFA is to give legitimacy to whatever form of rule is decided upon by the people of Northern Ireland.

Republicans can't admit that, of course - it would be blasphemous. But their inability to admit it doesn't make it untrue.

You cannot admit that your view is predicated on a sentence that has the word legitimacy in it and nothing else.

Laughable, when, as shown, even an English newspaper wouldn't try and fabricate around it.

Edward M

oscarBravo wrote: »

Outside of the sort of eyeroll-inducing mental gymnastics that require us to believe that an intergovernmental agreement was required solely to guarantee the legitimacy of people's right to hold an opinion, it's universally understood that the whole point of the GFA is to give legitimacy to whatever form of rule is decided upon by the people of Northern Ireland.

Republicans can't admit that, of course - it would be blasphemous. But their inability to admit it doesn't make it untrue.

The GFA gives credibility to SF and its ideals though.
SFs main ideal is a UI and their stance on that hasn't changed or been expected to change by anything in the GFA.
There is a clear text in the agreement supporting an ILA and that is being reneged upon by the DUP, who weren't a party to the agreement in the first place.
While I would feel SF are wrong to stay out of governing because of it, I think that they have a legitimate argument and a legitimate right to argue it.
Calling them to be the main culprit's in this just SF bashing without giving due consideration to the DUPs absolute abhorrence with having to deal with SF in any circumstance.
Personally and with all things taken in to consideration and looking objectively at the situation as it has developed since the GFA, I would lean towards favouring SFs reasoning than the DUPs.

Red_Wake

Edward M wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

Outside of the sort of eyeroll-inducing mental gymnastics that require us to believe that an intergovernmental agreement was required solely to guarantee the legitimacy of people's right to hold an opinion, it's universally understood that the whole point of the GFA is to give legitimacy to whatever form of rule is decided upon by the people of Northern Ireland.

Republicans can't admit that, of course - it would be blasphemous. But their inability to admit it doesn't make it untrue.

The GFA gives credibility to SF and its ideals though.
SFs main ideal is a UI and their stance on that hasn't changed or been expected to change by anything in the GFA.
There is a clear text in the agreement supporting an ILA and that is being reneged upon by the DUP, who weren't a party to the agreement in the first place.
While I would feel SF are wrong to stay out of governing because of it, I think that they have a legitimate argument and a legitimate right to argue it.
Calling them to be the main culprit's in this just SF bashing without giving due consideration to the DUPs absolute abhorrence with having to deal with SF in any circumstance.
Personally and with all things taken in to consideration and looking objectively at the situation as it has developed since the GFA, I would lean towards favouring SFs reasoning than the DUPs.

How can they renege on an agreement they didn't make?

charlie14

Edward M wrote: »

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

Faik Edward that is the Multi-Party Agreement. The Good Friday (or Belfast) Agreement was only signed by the British and Irish governments from my understanding, and is the only agreement that Britain are now referring to in Brexit talks

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

Faik Edward that is the Multi-Party Agreement. The Good Friday (or Belfast) Agreement was only signed by the British and Irish governments from my understanding, and is the only agreement that Britain are now referring to in Brexit talks

The two agreements form the Good Friday Agreement, and are mutually dependant.
Sinn Féin’s own website includes the multi-party agreement as one of the two elements of the GFA
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/15244

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I've been reading that an agreement had indeed been reached within the DUP, and it was senior loyalists with links to the UDA and the UVF who ultimately rejected it.

Boards resident unionists and ABSF posters would go into melt down if the shoe was on the other foot, if SF pulled the rug from under an agreement because the (delete where appropriate) "surrendered/defeated/still active/left the stage" army council had rejected an agreement.

If true (and it certainly evidence to support the notion an agreement had been reached) then the question in the OP has been answered.

Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal? - No, it would appear that the DUP have

Where have you been reading this?

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

The two agreements form the Good Friday Agreement, and are mutually dependant.
Sinn Féin’s own website includes the multi-party agreement as one of the two elements of the GFA
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/15244

Just a quick scan of that, but from my understanding of the GFA it is only signed by the British and Irish governments and is the internationally recognised agreement covered in the Table of Contents 1-11.

The Declaration of Support is a separate multi party agreement and is the agreement that Edward M posted signed by SF.
As I said, I just had a quick scan, but this appears to be the only agreement signed by SF and while it recognises the rights of the majority, (and it may be in there but I missed it), I do not see where it recognises the right of British government to rule NI.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Where have you been reading this?

The part about the loyalist paramilitaries? here

However, The Irish News understands that senior loyalists with links to both the UDA and UVF were briefed that a deal had been reached, with the message that it would "only enshrine in legislation" rights already available to Irish speakers.

oscarBravo

charlie14 wrote: »

...while it recognises the rights of the majority, (and it may be in there but I missed it), I do not see where it recognises the right of British government to rule NI.

Exactly what rights of the majority do you think it recognises? Are you subscribing to Francie's view that a treaty has been signed by two sovereign governments and lodged with the UN in order to recognise the right to have an opinion?

jm08

charlie14 wrote: »

Just a quick scan of that, but from my understanding of the GFA it is only signed by the British and Irish governments and is the internationally recognised agreement covered in the Table of Contents 1-11.

The Declaration of Support is a separate multi party agreement and is the agreement that Edward M posted signed by SF.
As I said, I just had a quick scan, but this appears to be the only agreement signed by SF and while it recognises the rights of the majority, (and it may be in there but I missed it), I do not see where it recognises the right of British government to rule NI.

Doing a google search for images of Belfast Agreement only shows up Blair & Bertie signing anything.

http://www.thejournal.ie/15-years-ago-today-the-good-friday-agreement-was-signed-865342-Apr2013/#slide-slideshow5

jm08

oscarBravo wrote: »

Exactly what rights of the majority do you think it recognises? Are you subscribing to Francie's view that a treaty has been signed by two sovereign governments and lodged with the UN in order to recognise the right to have an opinion?

A right to define themselves as either Irish, British or both.

oscarBravo

jm08 wrote: »

A right to define themselves as either Irish, British or both.

My girlfriend defines herself as Danish. There's no treaty lodged with the UN recognising her right to do so.

If the point of the GFA was merely to give people the right to think things, why did we in the Republic amend our Constitution?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

My girlfriend defines herself as Danish. There's no treaty lodged with the UN recognising her right to do so.

If the point of the GFA was merely to give people the right to think things, why did we in the Republic amend our Constitution?

What has this to do with SF not recognising the legitinacy of British rule in Ireland.

They recognise the legitimacy of a majority to want that for now.

If they recognise the legitimacy of British rule them they might as well shut up shop.

You are limbo dancing again Oscar and avoiding the clear issues.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

Exactly what rights of the majority do you think it recognises? Are you subscribing to Francie's view that a treaty has been signed by two sovereign governments and lodged with the UN in order to recognise the right to have an opinion?

The GFA was signed by two sovereign governments that while a present majority wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom but not necessarily in perpetuity should that majority change.
I do not see anywhere in the GFA where there was any caveat to prevent SF politically attempt to charge that majority, or to accept the right of Westminster to rule Northern Ireland.
Afaik neither is it a requirement in the Multi Party Agreement.

charlie14

jm08 wrote: »

Doing a google search for images of Belfast Agreement only shows up Blair & Bertie signing anything.

http://www.thejournal.ie/15-years-ago-today-the-good-friday-agreement-was-signed-865342-Apr2013/#slide-slideshow5

Anything I have seen on it is the same.
It was only signed by the two governments.

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

Just a quick scan of that, but from my understanding of the GFA it is only signed by the British and Irish governments and is the internationally recognised agreement covered in the Table of Contents 1-11.

The Declaration of Support is a separate multi party agreement and is the agreement that Edward M posted signed by SF.
As I said, I just had a quick scan, but this appears to be the only agreement signed by SF and while it recognises the rights of the majority, (and it may be in there but I missed it), I do not see where it recognises the right of British government to rule NI.

No - you've got it wrong I'm afraid.

The SF page has the full text included as a PDF. http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/goodfriday.pdf


The agreement between the two Governments contains only 4 Articles, and is included as an Annex to the Multi-party agreement (page 33 onwards only).
The two agreements together form the GFA - you cannot have one without the other, and the two are dependent on each other. Both agreements refer to each other, and both attach the other agreement as Annex 1 to their own text.

The Multi-Party Agreement, which is the one signed by the major political parties of NI (with the exception of the self-excluded DUP), is the one that sets out nearly all of the details.


British Govt website has the same BTW - but without the odd watermark that's on the SF verison
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

My girlfriend defines herself as Danish. There's no treaty lodged with the UN recognising her right to do so.

If the point of the GFA was merely to give people the right to think things, why did we in the Republic amend our Constitution?

For the same reason the British parliament repealed the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

jm08

oscarBravo wrote: »

My girlfriend defines herself as Danish. There's no treaty lodged with the UN recognising her right to do so.

Obviously, no one cares what nationality your girlfriend has. Its different in NI where one side defines themselves as Irish and another side define themselves as British (with nationalists telling unionists they were Irish and Unionists telling nationalists they were Brits). GAA players from the south used to sledge northerners as well by calling them 'Brits'!

If the point of the GFA was merely to give people the right to think things, why did we in the Republic amend our Constitution?

Ireland recinded its right to the territory of Northern Ireland.

McMurphy

oscarBravo wrote: »

My girlfriend defines herself as Danish. There's no treaty lodged with the UN recognising her right to do so.

If the point of the GFA was merely to give people the right to think things, why did we in the Republic amend our Constitution?

Does your girlfriend come from a disputed region of Denmark that seen several decades of conflict where some of her neighbours were shot dead on the street by what some Danish people viewed as a foreign army, for little more than trying to obtain their civil rights?

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

No - you've got it wrong I'm afraid.

The SF page has the full text included as a PDF. http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/goodfriday.pdf


The agreement between the two Governments contains only 4 Articles, and is included as an Annex to the Multi-party agreement (page 33 onwards only).
The two agreements together form the GFA - you cannot have one without the other, and the two are dependent on each other. Both agreements refer to each other, and both attach the other agreement as Annex 1 to their own text.

The Multi-Party Agreement, which is the one signed by the major political parties of NI (with the exception of the self-excluded DUP), is the one that sets out nearly all of the details.


British Govt website has the same BTW - but without the odd watermark that's on the SF verison
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf

But the GFA, the internationally recognised agreement is only signed by the two governments.
The multi party agreement is basically just the bones of how the institutions aspired too in the GFA will be established and operate.

For people to say SF signed the GFA by pointing to the multi party agreement is incorrect.
To follow that line it would mean that the DUP do not accept the GFA because they did not sign the multi party agreement

charlie14

jm08 wrote: »

Obviously, no one cares what nationality your girlfriend has. Its different in NI where one side defines themselves as Irish and another side define themselves as British (with nationalists telling unionists they were Irish and Unionists telling nationalists they were Brits). GAA players from the south used to sledge northerners as well by calling them 'Brits'!



Ireland recinded its right to the territory of Northern Ireland.

The British also repealed the Government of Ireland Act under the terms of the GFA

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What has this to do with SF not recognising the legitinacy of British rule in Ireland.

They recognise the legitimacy of a majority to want that for now.

That's awfully generous of them. Did it cause them a great deal of heartache and soul-searching before they decided to grudgingly allow other people to want things?

I've asked you several times now: on what frigging planet is an international treaty required before wanting something is considered legitimate?

If they recognise the legitimacy of British rule them they might as well shut up shop.

Be careful with phrases like "British rule", there are sensitive souls around here.

I'm struggling to think of a rational response to your argument. I've typed several things and deleted them all. You seem to be of the view that if Sinn Féin accept the legitimacy of British rule, that they somehow lose any right to campaign for a change in the status quo. It's such a bizarre argument that it's hard to know how to counter it.

Let me try this: Fine Gael are currently in government in the Republic. We'll assume for the sake of argument that, while disagreeing with their policies, Sinn Féin recognise the legitimacy of FG's current reign. Does that mean that they might as well fold up the party, because once they've accepted the legitimacy of a FG government, they can't ever campaign for a change?

You are limbo dancing again Oscar and avoiding the clear issues.

I'm not avoiding anything. I'm confronting head-on your insistence on peering at the world through the narrowest of prisms and loudly protesting at the very idea that any other point of view could even exist.

charlie14 wrote: »

The GFA was signed by two sovereign governments that while a present majority wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom but not necessarily in perpetuity should that majority change.
I do not see anywhere in the GFA where there was any caveat to prevent SF politically attempt to charge that majority, or to accept the right of Westminster to rule Northern Ireland.
Afaik neither is it a requirement in the Multi Party Agreement.

That's fascinating and all, but it has nothing to do with anything I've said. I recognise the right of anyone to want to change the status of Northern Ireland, or - for that matter - to keep it the same. I also recognise that Northern Ireland is a legitimate part of the United Kingdom at the moment, and at some point in the future may be a legitimate part of the Republic of Ireland.

What I'm not doing is arguing that it's somehow morally impossible for one community's view to be legitimate, because that would be arrogant and stupid.

charlie14 wrote: »

For the same reason the British parliament repealed the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

Not really, no. We had a constitutional amendment to relinquish our sovereign claim to Northern Ireland.

By doing so, the people of Ireland - not just the government, but the people - formally recognised the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom. Some people can't bring themselves to do that, because Reasons - but their dogma has no more bearing on reality than that of a flat-Earther.

jm08 wrote: »

Obviously, no one cares what nationality your girlfriend has.

She does.

Its different in NI where one side defines themselves as Irish and another side define themselves as British (with nationalists telling unionists they were Irish and Unionists telling nationalists they were Brits). GAA players from the south used to sledge northerners as well by calling them 'Brits'!

OK, but we didn't negotiate an intergovernmental treaty so that people would stop calling each other names.

Ireland recinded its right to the territory of Northern Ireland.

Yes. And, by doing so, recognised the legitimacy of another country's claim to that territory, until such time as things change.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Does your girlfriend come from a disputed region of Denmark that seen several decades of conflict where some of her neighbours were shot dead on the street by what some Danish people viewed as a foreign army, for little more than trying to obtain their civil rights?

She comes from a country that was occupied by the Nazis, so we can have a pissing contest if you like, but it would be pointless: the point is that we didn't have a treaty to allow people to think things. We had a treaty between two sovereign countries that formally recognises the legitimacy of one of those countries' claim over a territory, and also formally recognises that that legitimate claim may change in the future.

As much as it suits some people to claim that their political views are the only ones that could ever possibly have legitimacy, that's not how the world works.

oscarBravo

charlie14 wrote: »

The British also repealed the Government of Ireland Act under the terms of the GFA

You do realise they replaced it with the Northern Ireland Act?

jh79

I've no idea if SF had to physically sign the GFA but they did endorse it and republicans who voted for the GFA enshired into law the legitimacy of British rule in NI. It's clearly stated in the agreement. Whoever the majority want as rulers of NI are the legitimate authority.

Edward M

Red_Wake wrote: »

How can they renege on an agreement they didn't make?

They aren't I suppose, but the agreement is being reneged on.
Neither govt is prepared to push the DUP, one needs them to stay in power, the other is afraid it might blight their brexit negotiations.
Anyway, as it stands and taking all things into consideration, the wrong party is being castigated over the executive not returning.
As the DUP don't want it in the first place it suits them to keep this current situation going, even direct rule.
The biggest threat to the GFA and democracy in NI are the DUP IMO, and if using any chance of bashing SF was taken out of the situation, most people would see this.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

The GFA was signed by two sovereign governments that while a present majority wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom but not necessarily in perpetuity should that majority change.
I do not see anywhere in the GFA where there was any caveat to prevent SF politically attempt to charge that majority, or to accept the right of Westminster to rule Northern Ireland.
Afaik neither is it a requirement in the Multi Party Agreement.

Not a single person disagrees with the notion that SF are perfectly entitled to campaign politically to change the right of Westminister to rule Northern Ireland. Similarly, I can campaign politically for Dublin to become a municipality of France if I want.

However, what all of those who have subscribed to the GFA have accepted is the legitimacy of the rule of the British over Northern Ireland. There may well be a belief or a wish that that legitimacy is temporary and will end, but it is accepted. That is why we in the South had to drop our territorial claim.

Havockk

Red_Wake wrote: »

How can they renege on an agreement they didn't make?

They signed the damn thing, yet here we have people falling over themselves to find any loophole for the DUP to squeeze out of their responsibilities.

I have never and would never sign up to something that I had no notion of upholding. The very idea that the DUP should be allowed to not abide by the agreement they signed up to is an affront to democracy.

Havockk

jm08 wrote: »

'Brits'!

This still goes on, but all is fair in love and football

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Not a single person disagrees with the notion that SF are perfectly entitled to campaign politically to change the right of Westminister to rule Northern Ireland. Similarly, I can campaign politically for Dublin to become a municipality of France if I want.

However, what all of those who have subscribed to the GFA have accepted is the legitimacy of the rule of the British over Northern Ireland. There may well be a belief or a wish that that legitimacy is temporary and will end, but it is accepted. That is why we in the South had to drop our territorial claim.

Nonsense, this past fortnight I've read more than one serious commentator, Ruth Dudley being one, who explicitly stated that SF desire for Unity was essentially the problem.

Red_Wake

Havockk wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

How can they renege on an agreement they didn't make?

They signed the damn thing, yet here we have people falling over themselves to find any loophole for the DUP to squeeze out of their responsibilities.

I have never and would never sign up to something that I had no notion of upholding. The very idea that the DUP should be allowed to not abide by the agreement they signed up to is an affront to democracy.

This was explained to you - the agreement placed the DUP under the no obligation to support or introduce an ILA. Nobody has said their blocking of it is right, it's been repeatedly judged as acting in bad faith.

What has been said is that the DUP has acted in bad faith, but that leaving the wiggle room through which they were able to wriggle out of the initial agreement, SF has been politically naive. 

When signing an agreement, very careful attention should be paid to what has been agreed, and what has been left out, as expecting enemy parties to go beyond their explicit obligations is setting yourself up for later trouble. This is a general lesson in politics that goes beyond NI.

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

But the GFA, the internationally recognised agreement is only signed by the two governments.
The multi party agreement is basically just the bones of how the institutions aspired too in the GFA will be established and operate.

For people to say SF signed the GFA by pointing to the multi party agreement is incorrect.
To follow that line it would mean that the DUP do not accept the GFA because they did not sign the multi party agreement

Legally speaking, there's no such thing as the GFA.
There's the British-Irish Agreement and there's the Multi-Party Agreement, which are two interdependent agreements.

The Irish Government, The British Government, and Sinn Féin's own website, all take that the phrases "Good Friday Agreement", "Belfast Agreement", "Stormont Agreement" or "Good Friday Accords" to mean both agreements together.
The only place I've seen anyone dispute that the Multi-Party Agreement is part of the GFA is a small rump of SF supporters on here (some of whom were abusing other posters over "semantics" in the past week :rolleyes:) - because they think that the name of the agreement means that Sinn Féin actually didn't agree to the clauses in it, despite them signing up to the agreement!

Havockk

Red_Wake wrote: »

This was explained to you - the agreement placed the DUP under the no obligation to support or introduce an ILA. Nobody has said their blocking of it is right, it's been repeatedly judged as acting in bad faith.

What has been said is that the DUP has acted in bad faith, but that leaving the wiggle room through which they were able to wriggle out of the initial agreement, SF has been politically naive. 

When signing an agreement, very careful attention should be paid to what has been agreed, and what has been left out, as expecting enemy parties to go beyond their explicit obligations is setting yourself up for later trouble. This is a general lesson in politics that goes beyond NI.

I'm saying the act of signing the document obviously indicates their agreement to everything that was included. To cherry pick after is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

Professor Moriarty

Havockk wrote: »

Nonsense, this past fortnight I've read more than one serious commentator, Ruth Dudley being one, who explicitly stated that SF desire for Unity was essentially the problem.

I wouldn't wrap my chips in an article by Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Havockk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wouldn't wrap my chips in an article by Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Well, yes I do feel I went too far by implying she was a serious commentator. And to be fair I think the other was Ben Lowry so...

Red_Wake

Havockk wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

This was explained to you - the agreement placed the DUP under the no obligation to support or introduce an ILA. Nobody has said their blocking of it is right, it's been repeatedly judged as acting in bad faith.

What has been said is that the DUP has acted in bad faith, but that leaving the wiggle room through which they were able to wriggle out of the initial agreement, SF has been politically naive. 

When signing an agreement, very careful attention should be paid to what has been agreed, and what has been left out, as expecting enemy parties to go beyond their explicit obligations is setting yourself up for later trouble. This is a general lesson in politics that goes beyond NI.

I'm saying the act of signing the document obviously indicates their agreement to everything that was included. To cherry pick after is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

In which case they agreed it was ok for the British Government to introdue an ILA. Which still places them under no obligation to do so once the power to do so was devolved back to NI.

You're looking at the spirit of the agreement, rather than the exact wording. Only the latter can you expect parties which are fundamentally bad actor to be adhere to. Relying on the former is political naivete.

Havockk

Red_Wake wrote: »

In which case they agreed it was ok for the British Government to introdue an ILA. Which still places them under no obligation to do so once the power to do so was devolved back to NI.

You're looking at the spirit of the agreement, rather than the exact wording. Only the latter can you expect parties which are fundamentally bad actor to be adhere to. Relying on the former is political naivete.

Either way, it's had the same political effect. I can only commend the DUP for doing SF's work for them. They have even managed to turn my hardcore SDLP voting father into a shinner of late.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

Nonsense, this past fortnight I've read more than one serious commentator, Ruth Dudley being one, who explicitly stated that SF desire for Unity was essentially the problem.

The SF desire for unity is not a problem at all. The problem is their failure to accept the legitimacy of British rule over Northern Ireland. This would include taking their seats in Westminister.

Havockk wrote: »

I'm saying the act of signing the document obviously indicates their agreement to everything that was included. To cherry pick after is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

After all, as you point out, when you sign up to something, cherry-picking is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's awfully generous of them. Did it cause them a great deal of heartache and soul-searching before they decided to grudgingly allow other people to want things?

I've asked you several times now: on what frigging planet is an international treaty required before wanting something is considered legitimate? Be careful with phrases like "British rule", there are sensitive souls around here.

I'm struggling to think of a rational response to your argument. I've typed several things and deleted them all. You seem to be of the view that if Sinn Féin accept the legitimacy of British rule, that they somehow lose any right to campaign for a change in the status quo. It's such a bizarre argument that it's hard to know how to counter it.

Which again fails to deal with the issue.

The complete abscence of anything but 'your opinion' of a phrase in the GFA which states that they accept the legitimacy of the majority wanting to be ruled by Britain.

Which does not mean they accept the legitimacy of British rule.

Just as if I accept the legitimacy of the majority wanting FG to rule does not mean I accept FG as a legitimate ruling party. (I do by the way, I am just illustrating the point you refuse to deal with)

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

The SF desire for unity is not a problem at all. The problem is their failure to accept the legitimacy of British rule over Northern Ireland. This would include taking their seats in Westminister.



After all, as you point out, when you sign up to something, cherry-picking is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

Well, it sounds to me like you would like SF to perform political harikiri, it's a fairly transparent point of view if you forgive me. I'd love to see the DUP dissolve but I know it's not going to happen (yet).

My other argument there would be to ask just what the SDLP achieved in all it's time taking their seats in parliament? There may have been the odd victory but I can name none off the top of my head. And when it came to the moment when their vote actually would have counted?? Well Gerry Fitt let us all down (and look where that has led us today).

And I also think there is a world of difference between reneging on an agreement and holding an abstentionist position, which is a completely legitimate political position. It's not as if they are pulling wool over anyone's eyes.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The SF desire for unity is not a problem at all. The problem is their failure to accept the legitimacy of British rule over Northern Ireland. This would include taking their seats in Westminister.



After all, as you point out, when you sign up to something, cherry-picking is not just bad faith, it's breaking the agreement.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the GFA or subsequent agreements about accepting the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland.
In fact it could be seen as a way map to allow democracy to function were a significant number of the population do not accept the legitimacy of British rule.


Still waiting for somebody to point to the newspaper columns that heralded this Paulian conversion of republicans.

Junkyard Tom

Havockk wrote: »

They have even managed to turn my hardcore SDLP voting father into a shinner of late.

It's really weird. They've done little but antagonise the nationalist population in the last number of years. It's as if they feel that their precious union is unassailable despite the demographic (and probable economic) freight train heading towards them.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The complete abscence of anything but 'your opinion' of a phrase in the GFA which states that they accept the legitimacy of the majority wanting to be ruled by Britain.

Which does not mean they accept the legitimacy of British rule.

I really wish there was some form of words that would make it clear to you what a load of utter tripe you're spouting.

Look: Sinn Féin have taken seats, and accepted ministerial positions, in a devolved regional Assembly of the United Kingdom, set up by the 1998 Northern Ireland Act - an Act of the British Parliament.

Now, they can say that they reject the legitimacy of British rule, but everyone who isn't a slavish disciple of the Sinn-Féin-are-the-only-political-party-in-history-who-have-never-lied religious dogma can see that that's - to put it kindly - a pretty hollow thing to say.

If someone sets up a business in your town and gives you a job, and you show up every morning for work and cash your cheque every weekend, all the while loudly proclaiming that you refuse to accept the legitimate right of that person to own a business - well, you can draw your own conclusions as to what those proclamations are worth.

I know that nothing can persuade you of this. I know that there isn't a power in the universe that could convince you that Sinn Féin are, like all political parties, capable of speaking with forked tongue. What's bizarre is the way you act like I'm the one talking nonsense here.

Just as if I accept the legitimacy of the majority wanting FG to rule does not mean I accept FG as a legitimate ruling party. (I do by the way, I am just illustrating the point you refuse to deal with)

But what does that even mean? You present the idea of refusing to accept legitimacy as if it's just a completely random and inconsequential thought; a throwaway remark.

What are the practical ramifications of your hypothetical refusal to accept the legitimacy of FG as a ruling party? Do you refuse to obey laws enacted by that government? Do you fail to appear in response to a court summons, because the Minister for Justice is a FG member?

Or is it just meaningless rhetoric? Is your idea of refusing to accept the legitimacy of something nothing more than a completely empty political gesture?

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's fascinating and all, but it has nothing to do with anything I've said. I recognise the right of anyone to want to change the status of Northern Ireland, or - for that matter - to keep it the same. I also recognise that Northern Ireland is a legitimate part of the United Kingdom at the moment, and at some point in the future may be a legitimate part of the Republic of Ireland.

What I'm not doing is arguing that it's somehow morally impossible for one community's view to be legitimate, because that would be arrogant and stupid.

Whether you find it fascinating or not is neither here nor there.
What is relevant is that nowhere in the GFA or the MPA is there a requirement for SF to recognise Westminster`s right to rule NI.

SF have, by signing the MPA recognised the right of the majority to decide. Something the DUP have not put their signature to.
That to me, if not stupid, is totally arrogant.