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

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

Any economic fallout could cause those down south to vote against reunification especially if brexit causes a slow down in our economy also.

Nah. During the height of the troubles in the 1980's those against a UI in the south, which was not exactly flush with cash, numbered 16% of the electorate. After the GFA that fell to 8%.

If Brexit goes badly the British will be looking to save money very quickly. There's a wee part of Ireland that costs them several billion GBP a year that, with a bit of a push, could probably be off-loaded quickly enough.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Nah. During the height of the troubles in the 1980's those against a UI in the south, which was not exactly flush with cash, numbered 16% of the electorate. After the GFA that fell to 8%.

If Brexit goes badly the British will be looking to save money very quickly. There's a wee part of Ireland that costs them several billion GBP a year that, with a bit of a push, could probably be off-loaded quickly enough.

They have left already by dint of signing the GFA and unionism knows that by dint of clinging on to the coat-tails.

The south will not turn their backs again in a plebiscite imo. It may be the only thing to save us in many ways. Hence Leo's bid over Brexit.

jh79

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Nah. During the height of the troubles in the 1980's those against a UI in the south, which was not exactly flush with cash, numbered 16% of the electorate. After the GFA that fell to 8%.

If Brexit goes badly the British will be looking to save money very quickly. There's a wee part of Ireland that costs them several billion GBP a year that, with a bit of a push, could probably be off-loaded quickly enough.

I think the chances of a no vote down south are extremely slim but Irish civil servants did go for a two tier pay system rather than take a small pay cut so you never know when money is involved.

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

I think the chances of a no vote down south are extremely slim but Irish civil servants did go for a two tier pay system rather than take a small pay cut so you never know when money is involved.

I'd be fairly confident a UI would become an international project rather than one that would fall on the lap of Dublin alone.

The British would love to be rid of it so would want it to work. The EU would want Ireland to remain the 'good student' and an example of EU cohesion. The Americans would swing in behind it too I reckon.

Charles Babbage

jh79 wrote: »

I think the chances of a no vote down south are extremely slim but Irish civil servants did go for a two tier pay system rather than take a small pay cut so you never know when money is involved.

Fake news. Irish civil servants had paycuts of up to 20% which have not yet been fully restored.

jh79

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Fake news. Irish civil servants had paycuts of up to 20% which have not yet been fully restored.

Up to 20% is small, especially when increments canceled some of it out, compared to the private sector.

The unions or their members didn't give a damn about "equal pay for equal work" ( or whatever the slogan they use now is) when they sold out new entrants in the Landsdowne Road Agreement.

blackwhite

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I'd be fairly confident a UI would become an international project rather than one that would fall on the lap of Dublin alone.

The British would love to be rid of it so would want it to work. The EU would want Ireland to remain the 'good student' and an example of EU cohesion. The Americans would swing in behind it too I reckon.

I’d be hesitant to rely on any American or UK money in the event of re-unification, but I’d agree that the EU would likely step in somehow.

TBH, if a border poll came about following Brexit, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some elements of the Brexiteers turn on their DUP bedfellows, with the argument around costs to subsidise a statelet that “doesn’t want to be part of the union anyway”. Not the hardcore “Rule Britannia” brexiteers of course, but elements of the “we’re paying too much for Europe” crowd could quite easily turn anti-unionist if the financial argument was pushed.

American money would be very much dependent on who was in the White House. The current regime (or a like-minded one) isn’t likely to send significant funds overseas without some strategic benefit for themselves.

Edward M

blackwhite wrote: »

I’d be hesitant to rely on any American or UK money in the event of re-unification, but I’d agree that the EU would likely step in somehow.

TBH, if a border poll came about following Brexit, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some elements of the Brexiteers turn on their DUP bedfellows, with the argument around costs to subsidise a statelet that “doesn’t want to be part of the union anyway”. Not the hardcore “Rule Britannia” brexiteers of course, but elements of the “we’re paying too much for Europe” crowd could quite easily turn anti-unionist if the financial argument was pushed.

American money would be very much dependent on who was in the White House. The current regime (or a like-minded one) isn’t likely to send significant funds overseas without some strategic benefit for themselves.

Ireland is a strategic place of special interest for the US. I'd say money could be forthcoming if aid was needed.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pence-meets-american-troops-during-refuelling-stopover-in-shannon-1.3363056?mode=amp

ancapailldorcha

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Fake news. Irish civil servants had paycuts of up to 20% which have not yet been fully restored.

Dismissing points you disagree with as fake news is unacceptable here. If you wish to debunk someone else's point, please do it with a constructive argument.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

Ireland is a strategic place of special interest for the US. I'd say money could be forthcoming if aid was needed.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pence-meets-american-troops-during-refuelling-stopover-in-shannon-1.3363056?mode=amp

I wouldn't go so far as saying Ireland is a strategic place of special interest for the US.

It is much more in Ireland's interests than the US's interests that Ireland is used as a refuelling base. There are plenty of places that the US could as easily use in the UK.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I wouldn't go so far as saying Ireland is a strategic place of special interest for the US.

It is much more in Ireland's interests than the US's interests that Ireland is used as a refuelling base. There are plenty of places that the US could as easily use in the UK.

I would not see why the US would consider changing the refueling stop-over in Shannon for a British base post Brexit.
We are not a member of NATO unlike Britain and the US, (both founding members), so the fact that they choose Shannon rather than a fellow NATO member would to me at least indicate they recognise some strategic value in Shannon when compared to British bases.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

I would not see why the US would consider changing the refueling stop-over in Shannon for a British base post Brexit.
We are not a member of NATO unlike Britain and the US, (both founding members), so the fact that they choose Shannon rather than a fellow NATO member would to me at least indicate they recognise some strategic value in Shannon when compared to British bases.

Not being able to use Shannon would inconvenience the U.S, nothing more.

The likely anti-Irish reaction from the US establishment would cause us a lot more trouble than mere inconvenience.

That is the nature of the power relationship between Ireland and the U.S.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Not being able to use Shannon would inconvenience the U.S, nothing more.

The likely anti-Irish reaction from the US establishment would cause us a lot more trouble than mere inconvenience.

That is the nature of the power relationship between Ireland and the U.S.

Why would there be anti-Irish reaction from the US establishment due to the result of a 6 county referendum where a majority voted for unification ?

The DUP might not like it, but this isn`t the 19th century America of
"No Catholics or Irish need apply"

FrancieBrady

The US would be very keen to keep a base and friend outside of what is becoming an increasingly volatile UK, that may ultimately break up (IMO you are watching a slow break-up of the UK any which way)

jh79

charlie14 wrote: »

Why would there be anti-Irish reaction from the US establishment due to the result of a 6 county referendum where a majority voted for unification ?

The DUP might not like it, but this isn`t the 19th century America of
"No Catholics or Irish need apply"

I think if we used shannon as leverage to get funding to plug the hole in NI finances.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The US would be very keen to keep a base and friend outside of what is becoming an increasingly volatile UK, that may ultimately break up (IMO you are watching a slow break-up of the UK any which way)

Do SF approve of the US using Shannon?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Do SF approve of the US using Shannon?

Ask SF.

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

I think if we used shannon as leverage to get funding to plug the hole in NI finances.

Who even suggested using blackmail ?

Posters just pointed out that Shannon was of strategic value to the US.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ask SF.

From a quick google they don't approve of its use. Wonder would SF change their position on this if money was needed to fund reunification?

bobbysands81

blanch152 wrote: »

They are UK MLAs.

...sitting in Ireland.

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

From a quick google they don't approve of its use. Wonder would SF change their position on this if money was needed to fund reunification?

We have a present government minister that does not approve of its use

jh79

charlie14 wrote: »

Who even suggested using blackmail ?

Posters just pointed out that Shannon was of strategic value to the US.

My interpretation of what others may of meant by anti irish sentiment in the US. I wasn't involved in this strand of discussion not sure what the other poster means that was the best i could come up with.

Don't mind me being dipping in and out of the thread since it moved on from the legitimacy discussion.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

From a quick google they don't approve of its use. Wonder would SF change their position on this if money was needed to fund reunification?

I doubt they would.
I wouldn't either, I was just making the point that the US would probably be very interested in keeping us onside due to what is happening with 'their special relationship' dogsbodies.

The morals of capitalising on that are for another discussion.

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

My interpretation of what others may of meant by anti irish sentiment in the US. I wasn't involved in this strand of discussion not sure what the other poster means that was the best i could come up with.

Don't mind me being dipping in and out of the thread since it moved on from the legitimacy discussion.

Well at least you came up with something.
Which in fairness is more than the original poster came up with to explain why the US would suddenly go anti Irish in the event of unification.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Why would there be anti-Irish reaction from the US establishment due to the result of a 6 county referendum where a majority voted for unification ?

The DUP might not like it, but this isn`t the 19th century America of
"No Catholics or Irish need apply"

A wilful misinterpretation of my post or a genuine misunderstanding? I am not really sure.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106365493&postcount=759

This poster suggested using Shannon as leverage to get money from the US.

I pointed out that the US presence in Shannon was of more importance strategically to Ireland than to the US and that any attempt to use Shannon for money would cause anti-Irish sentiment.

How you conflate that to a united Ireland causing anti-Irish reaction in the US baffles me, but that has led to an unnecessary discussion.

jh79

blanch152 wrote: »

A wilful misinterpretation of my post or a genuine misunderstanding? I am not really sure.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106365493&postcount=759

This poster suggested using Shannon as leverage to get money from the US.

I pointed out that the US presence in Shannon was of more importance strategically to Ireland than to the US and that any attempt to use Shannon for money would cause anti-Irish sentiment.

How you conflate that to a united Ireland causing anti-Irish reaction in the US baffles me, but that has led to an unnecessary discussion.

Just to point out i wasn't suggesting using Shannon it was just my interpretation of your post.

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Just to point out i wasn't suggesting using Shannon it was just my interpretation of your post.

And your intepretation was correct.

A different poster suggested that we could leverage US strategic interest in Ireland (i.e. Shannon) to get funding for a united Ireland. All I was saying was that a crass attempt like that was likely to backfire.

There is a certain amount of delusion out there that the US actually see Ireland as strategically important. We are a refuelling stopover, that is all.

Consider a haulier moving goods from Dublin to Cork and all around Ireland. The Supermacs at Exit 14 might be important to them as a stopover for fuel, driver rest breaks, etc. But if the owner of Supermacs refused to serve them or put up prices, they would just use somewhere else and would probably refuse to go back there again. That is how important Shannon is to the US.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

A wilful misinterpretation of my post or a genuine misunderstanding? I am not really sure.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106365493&postcount=759

This poster suggested using Shannon as leverage to get money from the US.

I pointed out that the US presence in Shannon was of more importance strategically to Ireland than to the US and that any attempt to use Shannon for money would cause anti-Irish sentiment.

How you conflate that to a united Ireland causing anti-Irish reaction in the US baffles me, but that has led to an unnecessary discussion.

If you are baffled then I am doubly so.
The poster you refer to agreed with another poster that Shannon is of strategic importance to the US.
Nowhere in either post you have highlighted did they mention or even suggest using that as leverage to encourage the US to provide funding in the event of unification.

Yet suddenly you are all over it suggesting anti Irish feeling due to the use of leverage on the US over Shannon when the only poster here who has mentioned leverage is yourself.

Not just baffling but utterly bizarre.

jh79

Edward M wrote: »

Ireland is a strategic place of special interest for the US. I'd say money could be forthcoming if aid was needed.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pence-meets-american-troops-during-refuelling-stopover-in-shannon-1.3363056?mode=amp

Charlie14, how would you interpret this post by Edward M?

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

Charlie14, how would you interpret this post by Edward M?

You appear to have missed the point here.

Both Edward M and blackwhite posted that they viewed Shannon as having strategic benefit for the US.
I do not believe that it is any great stretch if you believe that for it to follow that in countries that the US have strategic benefits then they look kindly on these countries in matters of foreign affairs.

What I am asking (and to date have received nothing but bluster) from Blanch152), is where in those two posts he/she got the idea that anything was suggested that would create this anti Irish feeling in the US to Irish unification.
Not alone that but why when he asked where he got that idea from, why did he/she comes back with his whole bluster about Shannon being used as leverage when nobody in any post even suggested it.

McMurphy

charlie14 wrote: »

You appear to have missed the point here.

A regular occurrence when it comes to threads that touch on nationalism/republicanism or Sinn Fein on these forums Charlie.

I posted this earlier in the week, it pretty much answers the question asked in the OP.

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

There's not much appetite to discuss it though, and my only guess why - is because there's no political point scoring to be had against the shinners on it.

Instead - let's discuss the yanks and Shannon.

jh79

charlie14 wrote: »

You appear to have missed the point here.

Both Edward M and blackwhite posted that they viewed Shannon as having strategic benefit for the US.
I do not believe that it is any great stretch if you believe that for it to follow that in countries that the US have strategic benefits then they look kindly on these countries in matters of foreign affairs.

What I am asking (and to date have received nothing but bluster) from Blanch152), is where in those two posts he/she got the idea that anything was suggested that would create this anti Irish feeling in the US to Irish unification.
Not alone that but why when he asked where he got that idea from, why did he/she comes back with his whole bluster about Shannon being used as leverage when nobody in any post even suggested it.

So lets say we go cap in hand for x millions or billion to plug the gap in the finances and the US ask why should they, we then say because we let you use shannon as a refueling stop.

Is that the gist of it? If they say no thanks is that the end of the conversation in your eyes and we let the US continue to use Shannon?

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

You appear to have missed the point here.

Both Edward M and blackwhite posted that they viewed Shannon as having strategic benefit for the US.
I do not believe that it is any great stretch if you believe that for it to follow that in countries that the US have strategic benefits then they look kindly on these countries in matters of foreign affairs.

What I am asking (and to date have received nothing but bluster) from Blanch152), is where in those two posts he/she got the idea that anything was suggested that would create this anti Irish feeling in the US to Irish unification.
Not alone that but why when he asked where he got that idea from, why did he/she comes back with his whole bluster about Shannon being used as leverage when nobody in any post even suggested it.

Where exactly did I post that? I haven't offered any opinion on Shannon in this thread - and I prefer if you didn't try and put words in my mouth

Edward M

In my post on shannon being of strategic benefit, I didn't intend it to mean that we could use it as leverage or a reason to insist on aid.
I intended it as a suggestion that because of it and other ties, the US might volunteer aid if a UI was to happen. I think they do tend to look favourably on countries that are helpful in ( as they view it as helping their security) assisting their armed forces.

Edward M

I m surprised this wasn't picked up on today before now. I can't access the full article as I'm not a subscriber.
From the gist of the start of it though, it seems the DUP did pull the plug on an agreement that was reached, or at least one of their own ministers seems to have said so.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/newton-emerson-arlene-foster-s-authority-is-ebbing-away-1.3418288?mode=amp

FrancieBrady

Edward M wrote: »

I m surprised this wasn't picked up on today before now. I can't access the full article as I'm not a subscriber.
From the gist of the start of it though, it seems the DUP did pull the plug on an agreement that was reached, or at least one of their own ministers seems to have said so.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/newton-emerson-arlene-foster-s-authority-is-ebbing-away-1.3418288?mode=amp

We knew that last week from Eamonn Mallie and SF.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

You appear to have missed the point here.

Both Edward M and blackwhite posted that they viewed Shannon as having strategic benefit for the US.
I do not believe that it is any great stretch if you believe that for it to follow that in countries that the US have strategic benefits then they look kindly on these countries in matters of foreign affairs.

What I am asking (and to date have received nothing but bluster) from Blanch152), is where in those two posts he/she got the idea that anything was suggested that would create this anti Irish feeling in the US to Irish unification.
Not alone that but why when he asked where he got that idea from, why did he/she comes back with his whole bluster about Shannon being used as leverage when nobody in any post even suggested it.

Have a look again at this post:

Edward M wrote: »

Ireland is a strategic place of special interest for the US. I'd say money could be forthcoming if aid was needed.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pence-meets-american-troops-during-refuelling-stopover-in-shannon-1.3363056?mode=amp

Let us leave aside what money is used for.

Poster says Ireland is of strategic interest (and that can only be Shannon) to the US, therefore money can be got.

Quite simply, my point is that a crass attempt to use strategic interest to get money would likely cause an anti-Irish backlash among the political establishment in the US. This is especially true for the current administration.

My point appears to have been willfully misinterpreted in a mischievous way to suggest that I have implied that a united Ireland would cause an anti-Irish backlash in the US. That misinterpretation been repeated no matter how many times I have clarified my point.

I am leaving it there so as not to get dragged down a pointless rabbit-hole.

McMurphy

Edward M wrote: »

I m surprised this wasn't picked up on today before now. I can't access the full article as I'm not a subscriber.
From the gist of the start of it though, it seems the DUP did pull the plug on an agreement that was reached, or at least one of their own ministers seems to have said so.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/newton-emerson-arlene-foster-s-authority-is-ebbing-away-1.3418288?mode=amp

I'm a subscriber - won't copy and paste the full article for fear of getting my knuckles wrapped over copyright infringements, but this would appear to be the meat in the sandwich.

Yes it'll make uncomfortable reading for some on here, but its what was always predicted.

One point to emerge definitively from the Stormont talks is that Sinn F has no objection to Foster returning as first minister. After Stormont’s collapse, when Foster’s recusal from office was supposedly a republican red line, the DUP insisted it could not let a rival party dictate who it would nominate to lead the executive. That issue of pride has evaporated, leaving Foster to be judged on her merits, which have turned out to be few and far between.

The collapse of the talks puts the restoration of Stormont back by months if not years, rendering Foster – an Assembly member – a lame duck for the duration.

The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) inquiry – the original reason Sinn F told the DUP leader to step aside – is due to summon Foster after Easter. This is likely to cause her significant embarrassment.

DUP support falling

The DUP had a superb Westminster election last June, recovering from the shock of its Assembly result three months previously when it was almost beaten by Sinn F. That had been an unanswerable riposte to Foster’s internal critics. However, a poll published this Monday, and conducted in late February after the Stormont talks fiasco, shows DUP support falling while Sinn F’s continues to rise .– both parties are once again neck and neck, and Foster’s main achievement appears undone

It is unclear if the person briefing against Foster objected to her doing a deal with Sinn F or failing to do a deal – but that may be irrelevant, even to them

The deal was so unquestionably mishandled, in terms of keeping DUP members and supporters informed, that this alone would be reason enough to want a change of leadership. Frankly, anyone else might be an improvement


.

The last point is interesting, the author is suggesting that whomever the senior DUP member is that's broken ranks and spilled the beans possibly did so either because they reached a deal with Sinn Fein, or because they didn't do the deal, but also - it may be irrelevant to them.


Could Fosters role be nearing it's end?

Also, never realised this point before.

The article disccuses who( if any) may step into her shoes.....

The DUP has never held a leadership contest: all three leaders in its history have been self-appointed or anointed. If someone was inclined towards disruptive creativity they might see the advantage of a proper debate on Foster’s replacement.

More on the loyalist leaders here.

One swallow does not make a summer, but the Nolan show source has not been alone. In a magazine interview also published this week, loyalist leader Jackie McDonald gave a plausible account of being briefed by the DUP on Irish language legislation in a Stormont deal. His contempt for the DUP leadership was painfully apparent. Foster had to address that in Brussels as well.

Who is Jackie McDonald?

And I'll leave it at this.

There is the sense of a dam breaking and, even more disastrously, of ridicule. Foster’s strangulated denials of the deal that never was have descended into farce, and in her persistence she has all the gravitas of an angry rabbit in the headlights.

Once authority starts ebbing away like this, it tends to vanish abruptly.

I will repeat - the party who appear to have shot themselves in the foot seems to be the DUP.

Tail trying to wag the dog it would appear.

charlie14

jh79 wrote: »

So lets say we go cap in hand for x millions or billion to plug the gap in the finances and the US ask why should they, we then say because we let you use shannon as a refueling stop.

Is that the gist of it? If they say no thanks is that the end of the conversation in your eyes and we let the US continue to use Shannon?

Did you actually even read what i said or what the other two posters said ?

You can go with "lets say" on the same basis as Blanch152 was attempting to insinuate that posters suggested "leverage", but nobody even suggested "let say" or "leverage" in regards to Shannon other than yourself and Blanch.

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We knew that last week from Eamonn Mallie and SF.

No doubt, but it appears there's a crack appearing in the DUP now. As it used a quote from an unnamed DUP rep I thought it worthy of pointing this one out.

Havockk

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm a subscriber - won't copy and paste the full article for fear of getting my knuckles wrapped over copyright infringements, but this would appear to be the meat in the sandwich.

Yes it'll make uncomfortable reading for some on here, but its what was always predicted.


The last point is interesting, the author is suggesting that whomever the senior DUP member is that's broken ranks and spilled the beans possibly did so either because they reached a deal with Sinn Fein, or because they didn't do the deal, but also - it may be irrelevant to them.


Could Fosters role be nearing it's end?

Also, never realised this point before.

The article disccuses who( if any) may step into her shoes.....



More on the loyalist leaders here.



Who is Jackie McDonald?

And I'll leave it at this.



I will repeat - the party who appear to have shot themselves in the foot seems to be the DUP.

Tail trying to wag the dog it would appear.

Foster is also not one of the Westminster MP's. Her position was at Stormont. What does she do in the interim?

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

Where exactly did I post that? I haven't offered any opinion on Shannon in this thread - and I prefer if you didn't try and put words in my mouth

I wasn`t.

I was replying to a post by Blanch #779 where it looks as if he he appeared to believe you did with a link that included your post.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Have a look again at this post:




Let us leave aside what money is used for.

Poster says Ireland is of strategic interest (and that can only be Shannon) to the US, therefore money can be got.

Quite simply, my point is that a crass attempt to use strategic interest to get money would likely cause an anti-Irish backlash among the political establishment in the US. This is especially true for the current administration.

My point appears to have been willfully misinterpreted in a mischievous way to suggest that I have implied that a united Ireland would cause an anti-Irish backlash in the US. That misinterpretation been repeated no matter how many times I have clarified my point.

I am leaving it there so as not to get dragged down a pointless rabbit-hole.

That is quite a strange assumption to make.
That the only strategic Irish interest for the US can only be Shannon.

That is similar to hearing hoofbeats and automatically thinking zebras.
Military personnel may think strategically in terms of war. Politicians not so much.
Their strategic thinking is more vote orientated.
In the 2013 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S Census Bureau 33 Million Americans reported Irish ancestry.

But then perhaps that has nothing to do with American Presidents, Senators and Congress members visiting Ireland and being heavily involved in the 6 county issue in the past.
Perhaps they only came to sample the Guinness, but I would be inclined to go with hoofbeats and horses on it being votes than the hoofbeats and zebras of Guinness.

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm a subscriber - won't copy and paste the full article for fear of getting my knuckles wrapped over copyright infringements, but this would appear to be the meat in the sandwich.

Yes it'll make uncomfortable reading for some on here, but its what was always predicted.


The last point is interesting, the author is suggesting that whomever the senior DUP member is that's broken ranks and spilled the beans possibly did so either because they reached a deal with Sinn Fein, or because they didn't do the deal, but also - it may be irrelevant to them.


Could Fosters role be nearing it's end?

Also, never realised this point before.

The article disccuses who( if any) may step into her shoes.....



More on the loyalist leaders here.



Who is Jackie McDonald?

And I'll leave it at this.



I will repeat - the party who appear to have shot themselves in the foot seems to be the DUP.

Tail trying to wag the dog it would appear.

DUP is on a cliff edge, they could conceivably go into freefall if the electorate start to smell failure.

FrancieBrady

Edward M wrote: »

No doubt, but it appears there's a crack appearing in the DUP now. As it used a quote from an unnamed DUP rep I thought it worthy of pointing this one out.

Yep and Eamonn Mallie clearly had info from inside the DUP.

And he isn't letting sleeping dogs lie. Arlene will do well to survive.

charlie14

Havockk wrote: »

Foster is also not one of the Westminster MP's. Her position was at Stormont. What does she do in the interim?

I may be incorrect, but I seem to recall it is a requirement for leadership of the DUP that it must be an elected representative.

With direct rule then would the results of the Belfast Assembly not be null and void ?

McMurphy

The Belfast Telegraph (which I think we can all agree is generally a unionist leaning newspaper) has an article today which is squarely casting the blame on the DUP for the shambles in the north.

DUP mishandling of row makes future deal even less likely

The story of the deal that was nearly done is one the DUP has been trying to kill off since the Valentine's Day talks collapse.
Not only did it fail to strangle it at birth, but the tale has taken new twists and turns every day with the cast of characters rapidly expanding. Gregory Campbell, Edwin Poots, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, Arlene Foster, Dr Phiip Weir, and now Nigel Dodds have become embroiled in the story that just won't go away.

Blame for the mess the DUP finds itself in lies solely at the party's own door. From the get-go it ducked and dived around the existence of a draft agreement.

Sinn Fein took ownership of the story and drove the narrative. The DUP looked as if it had something big to hide, and that's because it did. The party negotiators were on course to agree to measures on the Irish language that would have their supporters shouting "sell-out!".

In what now can be clearly seen as a strategic disaster, the party did no preparatory work with its grassroots on the give-and-take that a return to power-sharing would mean. When those compromises began to leak into the media, the party buried its head in the sand and adopted a policy of "deny, deny, deny".

Unionist media outlets first, a disgruntled unionist electorate next?

Did the shinners shoot themselves in the foot? Not in my opinion.

I reckon the shinners played a blinder.

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The Belfast Telegraph (which I think we can all agree is generally a unionist leaning newspaper) has an article today which is squarely casting the blame on the DUP for the shambles in the north.

DUP mishandling of row makes future deal even less likely


Unionist media outlets first, a disgruntled unionist electorate next?

Did the shinners shoot themselves in the foot? Not in my opinion.

I reckon the shinners played a blinder.

Dodds categorically denied knowledge of it last week on BBC. What was he thinking, he must have known the story was out.

The arrogance of power?

Junkyard Tom

There might be internal ructions within the DUP but the 'if-themmuns-is-getting-something-we're-losing' unionist voter will keep voting DUP because a split in the Unionist vote will leave Sinn Fein as the largest party in the north which would mean a SF First Minister in Stormont.

Indeed it's only a matter of time before the DUP/UUP merge to keep a unionist party as the largest.

blackwhite

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm a subscriber - won't copy and paste the full article for fear of getting my knuckles wrapped over copyright infringements, but this would appear to be the meat in the sandwich.

Yes it'll make uncomfortable reading for some on here, but its what was always predicted.


The last point is interesting, the author is suggesting that whomever the senior DUP member is that's broken ranks and spilled the beans possibly did so either because they reached a deal with Sinn Fein, or because they didn't do the deal, but also - it may be irrelevant to them.


Could Fosters role be nearing it's end?

Also, never realised this point before.

The article disccuses who( if any) may step into her shoes.....



More on the loyalist leaders here.



Who is Jackie McDonald?

And I'll leave it at this.



I will repeat - the party who appear to have shot themselves in the foot seems to be the DUP.

Tail trying to wag the dog it would appear.

TBH - I’m surprised it’s taken so long for someone from the DUP negotiating team to break ranks - even if only anonymously.
They have to be fairly seething at being so badly undermined by their party.
If you’re given a mandate to negotiate a deal, you’d tend to expect to be allowed see it through.
I’d be shocked if we don’t hear a few more of the DUP negotiators make some “off the record” briefings over the next couple of weeks