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

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

But lots of people can get confused and mistake Swiss people for French or Austrians for Germans. That doesn't negate the fact when people across the world look at a map, they can see sovereign countries with their own cultures.

I'm not sure what your point is about Switzerland in the context of Ireland? There is no such language as Swiss. How does it support your point about Scotland and Wales?

Professor Moriarty

Edward M wrote: »

But it is ours, its not our original or native language, but if tomoro you decided that Irish was to be our first language you'd have to send 90%+ back to school.
English, whethere we like it or not, is in terms of now, our native tongue, in that I mean we are classed as an English speaking country.
We even sell it as such to potential investors and customers.

A positive by-product of teaching Irish as a core subject is that numerous studies have shown that children who are bilingual from an early age have better attention focus and cognition than children who are monolingual. Naturally, the argument could be made that the 'other' language should be e.g. French but, personally, I'm happy that it's our indigenous language.

Chips Lovell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is about Switzerland in the context of Ireland?

Simply put, having a distinct national identity is not tied to having a distinct language, and there's precedent for that the world over.

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Simply put, having a distinct national identity is not tied to having a distinct language, and there's precedent for that the world over.

Only if you don't have an indigenous language in the first place. If you have an indigenous language, you would be very foolish to discard it. It is nonsensical to argue that a language is of no relevance to national identity or culture.

Chips Lovell

But we're at the stage now where English pretty much is our indigenous language and Irish is the language essentially being thought as a second language.

There are very, very few people whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents or even great-great grandparents spoke Irish as a first language.

Edward M

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A positive by-product of teaching Irish as a core subject is that numerous studies have shown that children who are bilingual from an early age have better attention focus and cognition than children who are monolingual. Naturally, the argument could be made that the 'other' language should be e.g. French but, personally, I'm happy that it's our indigenous language.

I am too, indeed its only right and proper to promote and use it where possible.
I think if the DUP took their own sides history into account, it is a fundamental part of Ulster history, and denying their roots won't change their evolvement in to what they now are either.
I think their is a problem with them and those they claim to represent with recognising that.
I think they view it as any allowing a recognition of it as a dilution of their status as British subjects.

jimmycrackcorm

Baron de Charlus wrote:

But we're at the stage now where English pretty much is our indigenous language and Irish is the language essentially being thought as a second language.

My kids go to a Gaelscoil so I'd pretty much disagree with that.

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

But we're at the stage now where English pretty much is our indigenous language and Irish is the language essentially being thought as a second language.

There are very, very few people whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents or even great-great grandparents spoke Irish as a first language.

That would depend on what age you are. If you are a child then yes, very probably. If you are elderly, then no.

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument, but English is not our indigenous language by definition.

It boils down to this. Either a person sees Irish as an integral element of their national identity or they don't. I happen to think there a multitude of reasons why it should be maintained and promoted as part of our national identity. Others don't. I don't think I'll change their mindset and vice versa.

Regarding the DUP, it is unfortunately quixotic to think that their stance on Irish and the ILA will change any time soon. Irresistible forces and immovable objects spring to mind.

FrancieBrady

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That would depend on what age you are. If you are a child then yes, very probably. If you are elderly, then no.

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument, but English is not our indigenous language by definition.

It boils down to this. Either a person sees Irish as an integral element of their national identity or they don't. I happen to think there a multitude of reasons why it should be maintained and promoted as part of our national identity. Others don't. I don't think I'll change their mindset and vice versa.

Regarding the DUP, it is unfortunately quixotic to think that their stance on Irish and the ILA will change any time soon. Irresistible forces and immovable objects spring to mind.

Irish is an integral part of how we have adapted and used English.
The two are inextricably linked to each other.

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Irish is an integral part of how we have adapted and used English.
The two are inextricably linked to each other.

But Irish was there first and for very much longer. Not least because it is a much older language anyway.

FrancieBrady

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But Irish was there first and for very much longer. Not least because it is a much older language anyway.

Yes, absolutely.

It is an intrinsic part of what we are, no matter if successive governments have tried to wipe it off the map.

jm08

This is a good insight to why unionists fear the Irish language from today's examiner.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/we-protestants-fear-gaelic-and-we-were-raised-to-mock-it-828996.html

Professor Moriarty

jm08 wrote: »

This is a good insight to why unionists fear the Irish language from today's examiner.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/we-protestants-fear-gaelic-and-we-were-raised-to-mock-it-828996.html

That's an excellent article. Unfortunately, his is a minority view.

charlie14

As a young fella going to school many years ago I hated Irish. Looking back that was as much to do with how it was taught than the language.
As I have grown older, one of the things I have grown to appreciate about the language is the descriptive nature it gives to place names and the cultural geographical or historic stories they tell. Whereas the English translations are meaningless.

There seems to be a number of people when it comes to attempt to preserve indigenous languages have the attitude "Why bother, what use are they"
For me personally that is the same as saying why attempt to preserve whales or any other endangered species unless you can show a useful reason for doing so.
Indigenous languages are just that, languages. Why people feel threatened by them really is beyond me.

charlie14

jm08 wrote: »

This is a good insight to why unionists fear the Irish language from today's examiner.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/we-protestants-fear-gaelic-and-we-were-raised-to-mock-it-828996.html

An excellent article, but he does point out that he recognises that fear is a loss and he feels the narrowness of his inheritance because of it.

Infernum

No side is going to get everything they want out of a deal. Serious compromises must be met, but neither are willing to go there out of fear of alienating their voters.

Not only that, the DUP feel that an attempt to revive the land's native lingo is "eroding their Britishness" and they want to cling on to their fragile pseudo-patriotic image by any means possible.

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

As a young fella going to school many years ago I hated Irish. Looking back that was as much to do with how it was taught than the language.

Its because you were forced to learn it.

Take out that element of coercion, and nobody would have a problem with it.
People in N.Ireland are free to learn it and use now, just as they are in the RoI. The main difference is that NI lacks the mandatory requirements for funding/translating/learning it that we have in the RoI.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

Its because you were forced to learn it.

Take out that element of coercion, and nobody would have a problem with it.
People in N.Ireland are free to learn it and use now, just as they are in the RoI. The main difference is that NI lacks the mandatory requirements for funding/translating/learning it that we have in the RoI.

It was not the reason in my case. Nor would I suspect that of many others as we were "forced" to learn a variety of subjects in national school especially.

Are you seriously saying that the DUP who collapsed the Assembly because they would not agree to their party leader, who was the then minister in charge while half a Billion in cash was turned into ash standing aside, only problem with an ILA was due to funding concerns ?

recedite

Nobody was forced to get a wood chip boiler. And anyone could get one.

If there was a type of boiler that was only used by nationalists, then I expect the unionists would resist any proposed law that required a special subsidy to be paid to anyone using that type of boiler.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

Nobody was forced to get a wood chip boiler. And anyone could get one.

If there was a type of boiler that was only used by nationalists, then I expect the unionists would resist any proposed law that required a special subsidy to be paid to anyone using that type of boiler.

I have no doubt they would, but for a party that had no difficulty with half a Billion in cash being turned into ash I doubt financial rectitude regarding an ILA, as you appeared to be suggesting, was their reason for backing out of the deal.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

I have no doubt they would, but for a party that had no difficulty with half a Billion in cash being turned into ash I doubt financial rectitude regarding an ILA, as you appeared to be suggesting, was their reason for backing out of the deal.

There is always a whataboutery exit when it comes to discussing Northern Ireland issues.

It could well be argued from the opposite point of view that because the wood boiler programme cost much more than expected (whether by design, omission, mistake or other) that there is consequently less money available for whatever initiative and that therefore the ILA is a non-runner on cost grounds.

Certainly, to argue that, oh look, money was wasted over there, therefore we should waste money over here, is a pretty weak argument.

Professor Moriarty

blanch152 wrote: »

There is always a whataboutery exit when it comes to discussing Northern Ireland issues.

It could well be argued from the opposite point of view that because the wood boiler programme cost much more than expected (whether by design, omission, mistake or other) that there is consequently less money available for whatever initiative and that therefore the ILA is a non-runner on cost grounds.

Certainly, to argue that, oh look, money was wasted over there, therefore we should waste money over here, is a pretty weak argument.

Hmmm. Equating gross fiscal mismanagement/fraud with the subvention of an indigenous language is an even weaker argument.

FrancieBrady

Infernum wrote: »

No side is going to get everything they want out of a deal. Serious compromises must be met, but neither are willing to go there out of fear of alienating their voters.

Not only that, the DUP feel that an attempt to revive the land's native lingo is "eroding their Britishness" and they want to cling on to their fragile pseudo-patriotic image by any means possible.

The 'deal' has been reneged on.

That is the key problem here; this was all signed and sealed at St Andrews. Those who think they are still running their bigoted religious state need to pull their horns in.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'deal' has been reneged on.

That is the key problem here; this was all signed and sealed at St Andrews. Those who think they are still running their bigoted religious state need to pull their horns in.

Nobody has been able to explain what was meant by an ILA agreed at St. Andrews. How can everything have been agreed when nobody knows what was agreed?

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody has been able to explain what was meant by an ILA agreed at St. Andrews. How can everything have been agreed when nobody knows what was agreed?

Is this what you are looking for? http://eamonnmallie.com/2018/02/full-draft-agreement-text/

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody has been able to explain what was meant by an ILA agreed at St. Andrews. How can everything have been agreed when nobody knows what was agreed?

How can we tolerate a party that allows itself to cherry pick parts of an agreement they signed up to?

That's just insane, as is that old line they trotted out about they having nothing to do with 'that part' of St. Andrews. Why did they put their name to it if they knew that they were not going to abide by it?

jm08

recedite wrote: »

Its because you were forced to learn it.

Take out that element of coercion, and nobody would have a problem with it.
People in N.Ireland are free to learn it and use now, just as they are in the RoI. The main difference is that NI lacks the mandatory requirements for funding/translating/learning it that we have in the RoI.

Except that funding can be withdrawn at will (such as how the Liofa funding was withdrawn) if its not protected. Other issues were the renaming of a boat that was in Irish.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

There is always a whataboutery exit when it comes to discussing Northern Ireland issues.

It could well be argued from the opposite point of view that because the wood boiler programme cost much more than expected (whether by design, omission, mistake or other) that there is consequently less money available for whatever initiative and that therefore the ILA is a non-runner on cost grounds.

Certainly, to argue that, oh look, money was wasted over there, therefore we should waste money over here, is a pretty weak argument.

There was nothing whataboutery in the point I was attempting to get clarity on from that particular poster where it appeared from their post financial consideration was the reason the poster believed the DUP shot themselves in the foot by collapsing negotiations on an ILA.

While I have always looked on the DUP representatives as brass necked, and (baring Ian Paisley Snr latter years), a pretty humourless lot, in light of their own recent financial problems with ash for cash I cannot see them having the neck to attempt to use that as a reason.
Nor as humourless as I find them, the ability to do so with a straight face.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

There is always a whataboutery exit when it comes to discussing Northern Ireland issues.

It could well be argued from the opposite point of view that because the wood boiler programme cost much more than expected (whether by design, omission, mistake or other) that there is consequently less money available for whatever initiative and that therefore the ILA is a non-runner on cost grounds.

Certainly, to argue that, oh look, money was wasted over there, therefore we should waste money over here, is a pretty weak argument.

I honestly don't think its a cost issue, its an identity issue I feel.
Not excusing SFs part in it, but the DUP are just using it as an excuse, even if the British govt offered to fund it I'd say the DUP would find another excuse.
The unionist community in the north have lived most of their existence trying to suppress and oppress anything that might be a tie to republicanism. Even supporting brexit and insisting on a hard border virtually.

Edward M

Canada would be a great example of supporting many languages.
English and French being the main languages, but a lot of funding support for minority and indigenous languages.

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/official-languages.html

LoughNeagh2017

I think demanding an Irish language act is a farce especially since Michelle O'Neill doesn't seem to speak it herself, it looks like you are insecure with your identity, many of us just have to look at our names or our homeland names to see Irish, some rural areas even have actual Irish language on individual road signs.

However the way unionists talk about Irish is an even bigger farce, some of them have Scot Gaelic surnames and they ramble on like it is some foreign language, it is the main historical language of every inch of Ulster, even the most loyalist parts, rewind back 500 years and the savages spoke Irish in Coleraine and Ballymena. Orange people just don't like anything that is tied to pre plantation Ulster.

Junkyard Tom

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

I think demanding an Irish language act is a farce especially since Michelle O'Neill doesn't seem to speak it herself.

That's a really weird reason for thinking it's a farce. I'm white but I support legislation protecting people from racism.

This whole ILA thing has become a test being put to the 'colonist' by the 'native'. Do you respect our ancient heritage enough to have it legally recognised under UK legislation like those in Scotland and Wales do?

Test result: FAIL.

Also if you listen to how unionists speak they seem to believe it is they who control the purse strings and English money is theirs to distribute as they see fit. 'If you keep feeding a Crocodile'... it's not your food. We've spent X sum of money on the Irish language in the last x number of years. It's not your money.

This is an age old belief in superiority of one group over another and has all the hallmarks of a colonial mindset.

Good loser

There are compelling reasons now why SF should take their seats in Westminster.

Think of the huge service they would have done to this State if they caused the Brexit vote to be reversed. The chances of that happening are strengthening all the time.

Apart from anything else think of the discomfiting of the DUP and the hard Brexiteers (Rees Mogg, Hannon, Hoey, Cash,Galloway, Portillo etc)
And the possibility of pushing their friend Corbyn into power.
Surely these are once-in-a-lifetime opportunities.

jm08

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

I think demanding an Irish language act is a farce especially since Michelle O'Neill doesn't seem to speak it herself, it looks like you are insecure with your identity, many of us just have to look at our names or our homeland names to see Irish, some rural areas even have actual Irish language on individual road signs.

If you go along with that reasoning, male politicians should not demand the legalisation of abortion since they won't need it, or only LGBT politicians should support same sex marriage!

recedite

jm08 wrote: »

Other issues were the renaming of a boat that was in Irish.

New minister, new policy. That's the way the cookie crumbles. When and if SF take over the ministry, maybe they will paint over the name again.
According to this article, some ministers seem to have a single language policy, some have a dual language policy, and one has a triple language policy.
Yeah, it is all a bit silly. But that's the way nordies carry on.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

There are compelling reasons now why SF should take their seats in Westminster.

Think of the huge service they would have done to this State if they caused the Brexit vote to be reversed. The chances of that happening are strengthening all the time.

Apart from anything else think of the discomfiting of the DUP and the hard Brexiteers (Rees Mogg, Hannon, Hoey, Cash,Galloway, Portillo etc)
And the possibility of pushing their friend Corbyn into power.
Surely these are once-in-a-lifetime opportunities.

You may want to take a look at the numbers in Westminster.

SF taking their seat would not make a blind bit of difference to Brexit, and doing so would leave SF the only ones discomforted having to explain to their supporters why they reneged on their pre-election promises of not taking seats or swearing allegiance to the British crown.

jm08

recedite wrote: »

New minister, new policy. That's the way the cookie crumbles. When and if SF take over the ministry, maybe they will paint over the name again.
According to this article, some ministers seem to have a single language policy, some have a dual language policy, and one has a triple language policy.
Yeah, it is all a bit silly. But that's the way nordies carry on.

That is why Northern Ireland needs the Irish Language Act that was agreed in St. Andrews Agreement to stop this petty carry on once and for all.

Good loser

charlie14 wrote: »

You may want to take a look at the numbers in Westminster.

SF taking their seat would not make a blind bit of difference to Brexit, and doing so would leave SF the only ones discomforted having to explain to their supporters why they reneged on their pre-election promises of not taking seats or swearing allegiance to the British crown.

If Brexit is to cause a decline in the NI economy of 16% which do you think will matter more to their 'supporters'?

'Swearing allegiance to the British crown' is a boring shibboleth well past it's sell-by-date.
Why don't they go in and at least vote on Brexit matters? They could then claim (honestly) they had done their best.

The House of Commons is on a knife edge - 7 votes could make a huge difference. If they went in I doubt if the DUP would welcome them.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

If Brexit is to cause a decline in the NI economy of 16% which do you think will matter more to their 'supporters'?

'Swearing allegiance to the British crown' is a boring shibboleth well past it's sell-by-date.
Why don't they go in and at least vote on Brexit matters? They could then claim (honestly) they had done their best.

The House of Commons is on a knife edge - 7 votes could make a huge difference. If they went in I doubt if the DUP would welcome them.

Did you check the Westminster figures as I suggested ?

The British GE where SF won those seats was after the UK referendum on Brexit so when standing in the subsequent GE SF stood and were elected on a policy of not taking their seats and thus not swearing allegianceto the British crown.
The "boring shibboleth" obviously is not well past it`s sell-by-date to those that voted for SF.

Btw, the people who really do not care for their "supporters" or the wishes of the majority in N I on that 16% economic decline are the DUP are they not, seeing as they are the party supporting a minority Tory government ?

Good loser

charlie14 wrote: »

Did you check the Westminster figures as I suggested ?

The British GE where SF won those seats was after the UK referendum on Brexit so when standing in the subsequent GE SF stood and were elected on a policy of not taking their seats and thus not swearing allegianceto the British crown.
The "boring shibboleth" obviously well past it`s sell-by-date to those that voted for SF.

Btw, the people who really do not care for their "supporters" or the wishes of the majority in N I on that 16% economic decline are the DUP are they not seeing as they are the party supporting a minority Tory government ?

Plenty SF 'policies' will be jettisoned when they do a coalition deal down south. I wouldn't be too caring about that particular dinosaur. As soon as it is abandoned it will be a yawn.

SF in the Brexit matter are in pivotal position to make a huge positive economic contribution to their supporters and the general population of the State north and south. They are not even prepared to try.
Obviously they prefer to windbag and spoof.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

Plenty SF 'policies' will be jettisoned when they do a coalition deal down south. I wouldn't be too caring about that particular dinosaur. As soon as it is abandoned it will be a yawn.

SF in the Brexit matter are in pivotal position to make a huge positive economic contribution to their supporters and the general population of the State north and south. They are not even prepared to try.
Obviously they prefer to windbag and spoof.

All parties jettison promises when they are part of a coalition government. Or even like here, when being supported as a minority government.
I do not think you understand the NI situation as to how a great many nationalists there view a pledge of allegiance to the British crown being a requirement for taking up a seat in Westminster.

With the reality of the Westminster figures,, how do you actually think SF reneging on their pre-election pledges would make any difference whatsoever to the general population North or south on Brexit ?

The DUP could not give a toss for the general population of the Republic as regards Brexit, but for the sake of N I (where a majority voted to stay within the EU), are they not the party you should be calling on to renege on their promises ?
After all they are the party that are supporting the Tory party on Brexit.

recedite

If SF were going to oppose Brexit in Westminster, I wonder how many seats would switch from being DUP to SF? And would it be enough to change the maths there? We can only guess, but we'll never actually know.
Its quite likely that the DUP would instead be forced to become anti-brexit in response, just to keep their votes.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

If SF were going to oppose Brexit in Westminster, I wonder how many seats would switch from being DUP to SF? And would it be enough to change the maths there? We can only guess, but we'll never actually know.
Its quite likely that the DUP would instead be forced to become anti-brexit in response, just to keep their votes.

:D I don't think you quite grasp politics in northern Ireland tbh.

McMurphy

recedite wrote: »

If SF were going to oppose Brexit in Westminster, I wonder how many seats would switch from being DUP to SF? And would it be enough to change the maths there? We can only guess, but we'll never actually know.
Its quite likely that the DUP would instead be forced to become anti-brexit in response, just to keep their votes.

Zero.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

If SF were going to oppose Brexit in Westminster, I wonder how many seats would switch from being DUP to SF? And would it be enough to change the maths there? We can only guess, but we'll never actually know.
Its quite likely that the DUP would instead be forced to become anti-brexit in response, just to keep their votes.

The DUP campaigned in favour of Brexit in the referendum. When the British GE came around they did not lose any seats to any party that opposed Brexit.

The chances of them losing any too SF on that basis would have even the most hard bitten bookie directing anyone trying to put a bet on it happening to the nearest mental hospital.

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

The DUP campaigned in favour of Brexit in the referendum. When the British GE came around they did not lose any seats to any party that opposed Brexit.

That is true. But your previous point is also true....

charlie14 wrote: »

The DUP could not give a toss for the general population of the Republic as regards Brexit, but for the sake of N I (where a majority voted to stay within the EU), are they not the party you should be calling on to renege on their promises ?
After all they are the party that are supporting the Tory party on Brexit.

Therefore there must be a significant number of DUP voters who opposed Brexit, despite the DUP party line. And there is probably another batch of them who only voted for Brexit simply because they always vote according to the party line.

As it turned out, taking that pro-Brexit line was a gamble that paid off, because it put the DUP in a strong bargaining position at Westminster. But supposing it had suited them politically to be anti-Brexit? They could have taken that stance, and still been the same DUP.

But they didn't have to do that, because the SF abstentionism policy made it possible for the DUP to choose either pro or anti, and the best rewards for the party would come from being pro, if pro won. Bad for the people, but good for the party.

In much the same way, Cameron called the Brexit referendum in the first place knowing it would be bad for Britain, but very good for his party before the GE to promise the referendum. So he also put the party before the people. He calculated correctly that by promising the referendum he could take UKIP votes in the GE, and then when he held the referendum afterwards it would finish off the UKIP threat once and for all. But he gambled incorrectly that the people would overwhelmingly vote Remain.

Now obviously in NI there is not going to be much crossover between the hard core supporters of DUP and SF. But a lot of people who vote for these parties are not hard core supporters, they are more moderate, but vote one way or the other for "strategic voting" reasons. These are the votes that "might" have strategically swayed towards SF if people believed they would actually try to use that mandate in Westminster to thwart Brexit.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

That is true. But your previous point is also true....
Therefore there must be a significant number of DUP voters who opposed Brexit, despite the DUP party line. And there is probably another batch of them who only voted for Brexit simply because they always vote according to the party line.

As it turned out, taking that pro-Brexit line was a gamble that paid off, because it put the DUP in a strong bargaining position at Westminster. But supposing it had suited them politically to be anti-Brexit? They could have taken that stance, and still been the same DUP.

But they didn't have to do that, because the SF abstentionism policy made it possible for the DUP to choose either pro or anti, and the best rewards for the party would come from being pro, if pro won. Bad for the people, but good for the party.

In much the same way, Cameron called the Brexit referendum in the first place knowing it would be bad for Britain, but very good for his party before the GE to promise the referendum. So he also put the party before the people. He calculated correctly that by promising the referendum he could take UKIP votes in the GE, and then when he held the referendum afterwards it would finish off the UKIP threat once and for all. But he gambled incorrectly that the people would overwhelmingly vote Remain.

Now obviously in NI there is not going to be much crossover between the hard core supporters of DUP and SF. But a lot of people who vote for these parties are not hard core supporters, they are more moderate, but vote one way or the other for "strategic voting" reasons. These are the votes that "might" have strategically swayed towards SF if people believed they would actually try to use that mandate in Westminster to thwart Brexit.

SF are going to give up a principled stand against influencing the parliament of another country (what abstentionism is) for the sake of a few floating voters???

You really don't understand Irish politics do you?

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

a principled stand against influencing the parliament of another country..

This?

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

This?

If you also don't understand the difference between the IRA and SF, you really have a problem.

recedite

Okay. Well, we all have our problems.