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

blackwhite

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

You made a bare-faced claim that I made reference to Shannon being stretegically important - despite the fact that I never mentioned Shannon in any posts. I quoted your claim in the last post

Please stop lying about what I actually posted - it’s incredibly dishonest posting

blackwhite

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.

I always thought the Belfast Telegraph would have leaned more UUP than DUP - maybe there’s a hope that this (coupled with the DUPs Brexit stance) might shift some unionist support back to the UUP?

Havockk

blackwhite wrote: »

I always thought the Belfast Telegraph would have leaned more UUP than DUP - maybe there’s a hope that this (coupled with the DUPs Brexit stance) might shift some unionist support back to the UUP?

Doubt it. No one should think this will collapse the DUP vote for it will not. It will probably effect by a few percent and could well make SF the largest party when the executive reforms. In saying that it could well accelerate the decline in the next 5 years when the nationalist vote was expected to overtake it.

Edward M

blackwhite wrote: »

I always thought the Belfast Telegraph would have leaned more UUP than DUP - maybe there’s a hope that this (coupled with the DUPs Brexit stance) might shift some unionist support back to the UUP?

It might see a move against Foster, she looks weak from this now, not the strong woman she portrays herself as. She's been on the back foot since the executive collapse, her saving grace has been her power deal with May.
The DUP might well try to shore their support by electing a new leader. Who though?

Junkyard Tom

blackwhite wrote: »

I always thought the Belfast Telegraph would have leaned more UUP than DUP - maybe there’s a hope that this (coupled with the DUPs Brexit stance) might shift some unionist support back to the UUP?

Tweedle-dee Tweedle-dum. They'll merge in a few years time, and so they should, so unionism can be treated as one monolithic anti-progressive bloc.

Havockk

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Tweedle-dee Tweedle-dum. They'll merge in a few years time, and so they should, so unionism can be treated as one monolithic anti-progressive bloc.

This will never happen. There may be the odd defection but If you think there is hate between certain factions up here, the DUP/UUP divide is as deep and bitter as it gets. Always has been.

Junkyard Tom

Havockk wrote: »

This will never happen. There may be the odd defection but If you think there is hate between certain factions up here, the DUP/UUP divide is as deep and bitter as it gets. Always has been.

So if we picture the SF winning 33 seats in Stormont and the DUP winning 31 there won't be, at least, defections from UUP to the DUP to prevent a SF first minister?

That's a genuine question btw. I'm not familiar with the DUP/UUP divisions.

Havockk

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So if we picture the SF winning 33 seats in Stormont and the DUP winning 31 there won't be, at least, defections from UUP to the DUP to prevent a SF first minister?

That's a genuine question btw. I'm not familiar with the DUP/UUP divisions.

Yes could definitely see defections, Foster herself was a defector. I would expect more of a pact like what happened in Fermanagh last time out though (although that was only just agreed and nearly fell apart). More likely would just be a solidification of the DUP vote and a drop in UUP.

I think the division is just too deep, although I guess one can never say never, in an existential crisis like a potential UI/SF majority... well I suppose all bets are off. Part of it is religious, UUP would have traditionally been CoI, whilst Presbyterians would be DUP. Interestingly enough this is why Foster could become isolated given she is a CoI leader of a fiercely firebrand party and a former UUP'er.

FrancieBrady

It would be interesting: the UUP are still angry about being toppled. I would expect they would in the main be more inclined to try and become main Unionist party again. Consequently they would swallow having a SF first minister for a term or two.

I don't have much faith that they would be any less intransigent on the core issues though.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

The connection was blatantly obvious.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

I never quoted blackwhite and never ascribed any view to him.

blanch152

A UUP/DUP merger that softened the DUP position on equality issues like same-sex marriage might remain as the bigger party.

McMurphy

Edward M wrote: »

It might see a move against Foster, she looks weak from this now, not the strong woman she portrays herself as. She's been on the back foot since the executive collapse, her saving grace has been her power deal with May.
The DUP might well try to shore their support by electing a new leader. Who though?

IMO - Jeffrey Donaldson/Nigel Dodds would surely have to be in the running here if it ever came down to it.

Donaldson more so than Dodds.

And both of them are fairly dislikeable, but slightly less than Wilson/Poots or Cambpell.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

A UUP/DUP merger that softened the DUP position on equality issues like same-sex marriage might remain as the bigger party.

That would go down like a lead zeppelin. And there will be no merger.

McMurphy

Havockk wrote: »

That would go down like a lead zeppelin. And there will be no merger.

I would envisage a FF/FG merger in this part of the island long before any uup/dup one.

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I would envisage a FF/FG merger in this part of the island long before any uup/dup one.

True. You dont need to know much to know that a merger is not going to happen.

I predicted the slow rise back to prominence of the UUP if the GFA progressed.
Will be very interesting to see if the DUP can stop hurting itself as it seems unable to stop doing because of beligerent politics/religious beliefs

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

True. You dont need to know much to know that a merger is not going to happen.

I predicted the slow rise back to prominence of the UUP if the GFA progressed.
Will be very interesting to see if the DUP can stop hurting itself as it seems unable to stop doing because of beligerent politics/religious beliefs

Nail on the head Francie right there.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I never quoted blackwhite and never ascribed any view to him.

You posted a link that in reply a number of times that included his/her post.

charlie14

blackwhite wrote: »

You made a bare-faced claim that I made reference to Shannon being stretegically important - despite the fact that I never mentioned Shannon in any posts. I quoted your claim in the last post

Please stop lying about what I actually posted - it’s incredibly dishonest posting

Apologies if there has been some confusion.
I was replying to blanch and a link he provided that included your post #758 which I presumed he included due to you using the term "strategic benefit" .
A term which he regards as, in his own words, the use of "leverage" on the U.S. which would create anti Irish feeling in the U.S.
From your post I did not take it that you or the other poster in that link use of the term strategic benefit implied any such thing.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

The connection was blatantly obvious.

The term "blatantly obvious" would suggest others agreed with you.
So far other than you I haven`t seen anyone else seeing it that way.
In fact the original poster, Edward M, has made it clear that his use of the term strategic benefit was in no way meant or intended in any shape or form as the type of "leverage" (blackmail) you have ascribed to it.

McMurphy

Weeks and weeks of all sorts of innuendo, speculation and insinuations - the thread was the hot topic thread in the forum there for a few weeks, and it suddenly and abruptly runs out of steam and new posts, whenever all evidence points to the Shinners being correct all along.

The DUP did indeed renege in a deal, and did indeed liase with loyalist leaders with very close UDA and UVF links.

It's almost (almost)like some posters seem unhappy that the DUP have been found out.

For an Irish website, I think that's a fairly sad state of affairs tbh, but then again the "ABSF" and resident unionist crews hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me anyway.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Weeks and weeks of all sorts of innuendo, speculation and insinuations - the thread was the hot topic thread in the forum there for a few weeks, and it suddenly and abruptly runs out of steam and new posts, whenever all evidence points to the Shinners being correct all along.

The DUP did indeed renege in a deal, and did indeed liase with loyalist leaders with very close UDA and UVF links.

It's almost (almost)like some posters seem unhappy that the DUP have been found out.

For an Irish website, I think that's a fairly sad state of affairs tbh, but then again the "ABSF" and resident unionist crews hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me anyway.

I don't understand your post. You assume that there are people going to come on here and post for hours defending the DUP and that would give you something to have a go at.

Well, the defenders of the DUP just don't exist. There is nobody who goes around with an alert on his/her phone in his pocket to let him/her know when there is a post on a thread critical of the DUP and sending him/her straight to damage limitation mode.

Nearly every single critic of Sinn Fein, or "ABSF" or resident unionist crew, or whatever derogatory label you choose to put on them, is equally critical of the DUP and would criticise equally anyone trying to irrationally defend them.

Start a thread with the title "DUP have behaved dreadfully on the Assembly issue" and keep it to just that issue and you will have 20 regular posters trot in and say, yes, the DUP have behaved dreadfully. The debate will be over then because nobody disagrees.

However, if you start an equally true thread that "SF have behaved dreadfully on the Assembly issue", you will get a whole heap of posters illogically and irrationally defending SF behaviour, whataboutery and deflection all over the place.

Most of us really don't care passionately one way or another about the DUP because they are running for election in a different country, and while it is of more interest and relevance than say the US election, it is not really going to affect us too much. With SF, not only are they running for election in this country, which makes them of interest, they have proclaimed at various times in the past, when supporting criminal terrorist acts, that they were acting in our interest. As such, paying attention to them is much more relevant.

Junkyard Tom

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Weeks and weeks of all sorts of innuendo, speculation and insinuations - the thread was the hot topic thread in the forum there for a few weeks, and it suddenly and abruptly runs out of steam and new posts, whenever all evidence points to the Shinners being correct all along.

I think the subject of the thread has now drifted from the title to 'Are the DUP in self-destruct mode'.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't understand your post.

Oh but you do.

You asked me in the thread earlier where I read about the DUP engaging with loyalist paramilitaries, twice it was linked to, and never acknowledged, instead it drifted off on a Shannon/Yanks landing there tangent.

After the question in the OP was answered once and for all (did the shinners shoot themselves in the foot? = NO) there seemingly wasn't much appetite to discuss the actual topic anymore.

No one has been asking any one to defend the DUP by the way.

But i at least (at the very least) expected some of the lads who seem to be suffering from a bit of the old prem ejaculation in their opening posts to at least acknowledge they got it wrong, and ridicule them. (The DUP)

As i said numerous times in the thread, my only reasonable assumption in this not being acknowedged by the same posters (who had a very keen interest beforehand) is that theirs no political point scoring to be had against republicans in that I suppose.

Others have been on the money since the start.

McMurphy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think the subject of the thread has now drifted from the title to 'Are the DUP in self-destruct mode'.

It's also shifted to not having any interest in the DUP cos "they're in a different country".

My kids just asked their mam "why is daddy howling with laughter on the floor".

Junkyard Tom

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's also shifted to not having any interest in the DUP cos "they're in a different country".

Despite the DUP's extreme pseudo-British nationalism posing an existential threat to the entire island.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-downing/comment-sinn-fin-are-simply-not-entitled-to-lecture-anyone-on-the-tricolour-36682071.html


Another one backfires on Sinn Fein.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/mcdonald-questions-funding-of-feature-on-irish-flag-36682072.html

Mary-Lou trying to make controversy where none exists, and ends up drawing attention to the misuse of the tricolour by Sinn Fein.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-downing/comment-sinn-fin-are-simply-not-entitled-to-lecture-anyone-on-the-tricolour-36682071.html


Another one backfires on Sinn Fein.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/mcdonald-questions-funding-of-feature-on-irish-flag-36682072.html

Mary-Lou trying to make controversy where none exists, and ends up drawing attention to the misuse of the tricolour by Sinn Fein.

I believe you missed the point and created your own there.
The first article is what it is.
It lends itself to your misunderstanding of the Mary Lou article.
She's complaining about tax payer money being used in a piece, supposedly informational about the Irish flag, to advertise and promote certain politicians, and she compared that to tax payer money being used by FG to promote themselves.
Dismissing it as a 'controversy where none exists' ignores the whole point of the actual article even if you think that flag piece was fine.
There's enough material to spend your time slagging off SF without any gymnastics.
We should be on the side of the tax payer above and beyond any political hang ups.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I believe you missed the point and created your own there.
The first article is what it is.
It lends itself to your misunderstanding of the Mary Lou article.
She's complaining about tax payer money being used in a piece, supposedly informational about the Irish flag, to advertise and promote certain politicians, and she compared that to tax payer money being used by FG to promote themselves.
Dismissing it as a 'controversy where none exists' ignores the whole point of the actual article even if you think that flag piece was fine.
There's enough material to spend your time slagging off SF without any gymnastics.
We should be on the side of the tax payer above and beyond any political hang ups.

You obviously didn't read the article - NO taxpayer money was used.

Mary Lou imagined that taxpayer money was used. She was wrong.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

You obviously didn't read the article - NO taxpayer money was used.

Mary Lou imagined that taxpayer money was used. She was wrong.

Did you not perhaps imagine that she imagined ?

From the article it appears she just asked a question.

I do not subscribe to the Independent on line (or off either for that matter) but from what I could see from your link that Dowling opinion piece seemed to laud the use of the Irish flag by Irish soccer supporters.
Personally I would be slow to laud anyone defacing the Irish tricolour with pub names and such like.
Just saying.

charlie14

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Despite the DUP's extreme pseudo-British nationalism posing an existential threat to the entire island.

In all fairness to the DUP, it is no easy task to hold a gun to your leaders head while simultaneously shooting yourself in the foot.

facehugger99

charlie14 wrote: »

Personally I would be slow to laud anyone defacing the Irish tricolour with pub names and such like.

Surely better than defacing it with the body or coffin of a sectarian murderer?

Just sayin'.

charlie14

facehugger99 wrote: »

Surely better than defacing it with the body or coffin of a sectarian murderer?

Just sayin'.

I take your point, but for an opinion piece by a journalist from a national paper it was a very strange understanding on what constitute the misuse of the national flag. and what does not.
But the IRA use of the flag at burials would not be unique in our relatively short history as a state as to what is regarded as one mans devil and another mans saint.
Our own civil war and the foundation of our two largest political parties an example.

facehugger99

Personally, I believe the Irish soccer teams/supporters did the state some service - I'm happy to overlook the odd pub name.

Having grown up in the 1980's, the use of the Irish flag to celebrate or commerate horrible sectarian crimes had become very commonplace.

The success of Big Jack's team in the late 80's and early 90's allowed the Irish people to reclaim our own flag from the thugs who had usurped it.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-downing/comment-sinn-fin-are-simply-not-entitled-to-lecture-anyone-on-the-tricolour-36682071.html


Another one backfires on Sinn Fein.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/mcdonald-questions-funding-of-feature-on-irish-flag-36682072.html

Mary-Lou trying to make controversy where none exists, and ends up drawing attention to the misuse of the tricolour by Sinn Fein.

Forgive me if I've got it wrong here, but is the first article not an opinion of Dowlings, relating to the other article also penned by Dowling

Or in other words, Dowlings own opinion of his own opinion

Kinda gives the impression he doesn't much like Sinn Fein, which would be pretty much on par with the media organisation he is employed by as a whole.

Not that impartial really when you think of it.

Also, this bit in the article is bizarre.

The foundation chairman, Rev Michael Cavanagh, also a Church of Ireland clergyman

why the need to shoehorn that in

They need a bigger pot to stir if you want my opinion.

But anyway, this thread has ran it's course as far as the question in the OP goes - time for our constitutional nationalists to up and run with another tangent.

Cringe.

blanch152

facehugger99 wrote: »

Personally, I believe the Irish soccer teams/supporters did the state some service - I'm happy to overlook the odd pub name.

Having grown up in the 1980's, the use of the Irish flag to celebrate or commerate horrible sectarian crimes had become very commonplace.

The success of Big Jack's team in the late 80's and early 90's allowed the Irish people to reclaim our own flag from the thugs who had usurped it.

100% agree with this. It is a very sickening sight to see the tricolour draped on the coffin of a terrorist.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

100% agree with this. It is a very sickening sight to see the tricolour draped on the coffin of a terrorist.

Here's the (former) justice minister attending a commemoration of a "terrorist" and the tricolour proudly displayed in the background.






Did you compose a strongly worded email to FG outlining your disgust at it at the time I wonder ?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Here's the (former) justice minister attending a commemoration of a "terrorist" and the tricolour proudly displayed in the background.






Did you compose a strongly worded email to FG outlining your disgust at it at the time I wonder ?

Looking at that, I don't see a tricolour draped on a coffin.

Neither are FG an illegal organisation.

Other than that, I know nothing of that commemoration, whatever it was.

Anyway, why would I send emails to anyone about anything?

Edward M

Just seen this headline, I can't access the article, but it looks like a snub for the two leaders of the feuding party's, what is the deal here?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mcdonald-and-foster-not-invited-to-white-house-for-st-patrick-s-day-1.3423325?mode=ampb

5rtytry56

Thanks

Edward M wrote: »

Just seen this headline, I can't access the article, but it looks like a snub for the two leaders of the feuding party's, what is the deal here?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mcdonald-and-foster-not-invited-to-white-house-for-st-patrick-s-day-1.3423325?mode=ampb

We're only concerned with MLMD here.
How will the other self anointed poster reply to you Edward though in this thread?We're all Waiting for his morsels of wisdo...

blackwhite

Edward M wrote: »

Just seen this headline, I can't access the article, but it looks like a snub for the two leaders of the feuding party's, what is the deal here?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mcdonald-and-foster-not-invited-to-white-house-for-st-patrick-s-day-1.3423325?mode=ampb

Officially the line seems to be that MLMD and AF are getting a small rap on the knuckles from the White House for failing to agree a deal.

I can sort of see the logic of Gerry being asked in place of MLMD (former leader, etc); but I'm struggling to see how Paisley Jnr is seen as the equivalent for the DUP. Is he even their "leader" in the Commons?


Of course - it could just be they feel it's safer not to invite women to an event with Trump present, for their own safety :pac:

Professor Moriarty

blackwhite wrote: »

Officially the line seems to be that MLMD and AF are getting a small rap on the knuckles from the White House for failing to agree a deal.

I can sort of see the logic of Gerry being asked in place of MLMD (former leader, etc); but I'm struggling to see how Paisley Jnr is seen as the equivalent for the DUP. Is he even their "leader" in the Commons?


Of course - it could just be they feel it's safer not to invite women to an event with Trump present, for their own safety :pac:

I wonder if Ian and Gerry will travel together? Might even share a twin room to save money.

FrancieBrady

Mammy America scolding the children.
Must be a right slap for those in government with those who have a 'special relationship'.

McMurphy

blackwhite wrote: »

I can sort of see the logic of Gerry being asked in place of MLMD (former leader, etc); but I'm struggling to see how Paisley Jnr is seen as the equivalent for the DUP. Is he even their "leader" in the Commons?

This.

Bizarre decision really.

blackwhite

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This.

Bizarre decision really.

Name value is the only reason I can think of - that or his previously expressed views on homosexuality appealed to the Pence camp.

McMurphy

blackwhite wrote: »

Name value is the only reason I can think of - that or his previously expressed views on homosexuality appealed to the Pence camp.

Would it surprise anyone if (as you say) name value only was the reason?

Ian Paisley (jr being insignificant) and Gerry Adams together in the Whitehouse?

Trump administration fails to surprise me anymore. I'd put little past them.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Would it surprise anyone if (as you say) name value only was the reason?

Ian Paisley (jr being insignificant) and Gerry Adams together in the Whitehouse?

Trump administration fails to surprise me anymore. I'd put little past them.

Quite possible that they haven't realised that Ian Paisley Senior is dead.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Quite possible that they haven't realised that Ian Paisley Senior is dead.

I was going to suggest that, but surely even the trump admin aren't that dumb?

Seems like a logical explanation though.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I was going to suggest that, but surely even the trump admin aren't that dumb?

Seems like a logical explanation though.

It is a bizarre combination.

OK, fair enough, if you want to exclude Foster and O'Neill because of no Assembly, but then why not deputy leaders (Dodds and presumably Doherty because it can't be O'Neill)? Or the leaders in the Dail (McDonald) or Westminister?

Is Campbell (as Spokesperson on the Cabinet Office) or Donaldson (Chief Whip) DUP leader in Westminister?

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/government-and-opposition1/democratic-unionist-party/

But Adams and Paisley Junior has no rhyme or reason.

jm08

Old times sake. A compromise so as not to break the tradition and a reprimand to the warring parties from British & Irish Gov. though TM's Gov. has to go easy on them. Dodds probably refused to go because he would see no reason why a British person would get involved in an Irish celebration. Ian Paisley is a bit more relaxed about it.

I'd imagine that the British & Irish Ambassadors are advising the Trump administration on who to invite.