Petition for the Rights of all Citizens to Vote in Presidential Elections

[Bucky-O'Hare]

http://www.change.org/petitions/department-of-the-taoiseach-grant-us-our-voting-rights

All Irish citizens in Ireland and abroad should have the right to vote in presidential elections. Sign if you wish and share on other forums, facebook, etc.

[peadar1987]

I'm torn on this one. I'm an emigrant, I doubt I'll ever return to Ireland to live. At least not for the next decade or two. I don't really have that much of a stake in who the president is. However, that doesn't mean I don't want to come back, and voting for the right people is one way of trying to make sure the Ireland of 2032 is one I'd like to come back to.

However, "all Irish citizens" is a bit broad, seeing as that would include anyone who has a grandparent who is also an Irish citizen. I would be seriously worried about seven million Irish-Americans trying to start some sort of Tea Party libertarian, or nutty religious-right movement over here with their new-found voting rights.

Perhaps all those born on the island of Ireland, and those currently resident there, would be a fair compromise.

[osarusan]

Perhaps all those born on the island of Ireland, and those currently resident there, would be a fair compromise.

I live in Japan now, and my daughter was born here, but my son was born in Ireland - we moved back here when he was 4 months old (it would have been 2 months except for the tsunami).

Even if neither of them set foot in Ireland again, he'd be entitled to vote but she wouldn't, under your suggestion. I get your point about people outside Ireland having a stake in what it could become, but there will be plenty of people with different ancestry/family/migration situations that could highlight the unfairness of any new voting eligibility criteria.

The current cut-off point for voting rights probably makes the most sense, in my opinion.

Also, you're only an Irish citizen from birth if your granparent was an Irish citizen born in Ireland. Otherwise, the citizenship must be applied for before the birth of the next generation family member - otherwise the chance is lost. I wonder how many of the Irish-Americans you mentioned have actually maintained the citizenship.

[DannyInvincible]

Ideally, the President should represent all members of the Irish nation, be they living on the island of Ireland or living abroad.


Even if neither of them set foot in Ireland again, he'd be entitled to vote but she wouldn't, under your suggestion. I get your point about people outside Ireland having a stake in what it could become, but there will be plenty of people with different ancestry/family/migration situations that could highlight the unfairness of any new voting eligibility criteria.

Surely it would be less unfair than the current situation though? Wouldn't that be an improvement, at least in so far as the notion of fairness is concerned?

[Spudulika]

Irish-born citizens living abroad should be able to vote. Diplomats, military personnel and those serving with the UN (or associated bodies) can, I'm not sure about the yahoos in the EU bodies. I'm loathe to allow Irish citizens from the irish tree voting rights. I saw personally how such a scheme completely and utterly messed up Croatia and the same could happen in Ireland. I have always tried to get home, if even for a day, to vote and would love nothing more than to go to the local Embassy to vote if the chance came. But again, not being born in Ireland, I don't see it as a good idea.

[osarusan]

Surely it would be less unfair than the current situation though? Wouldn't that be an improvement, at least in so far as the notion of fairness is concerned?

There is going to have to be some cut-off point in terms of voting rights, and residency in Ireland seems to me to be a more fair one than birth in Ireland. I don't really see how a birth-related proposal is any improvement in terms of fairness.

[Mr A]

I'm inclined to invoke an old maxim in reverse here- no representation without taxation. I think the current set up is OK, but there should be far more allowance for postal voting. You shouldn't lose your vote because you happen to be away for a day.

[Dodge]

Surely it would be less unfair than the current situation though? Wouldn't that be an improvement, at least in so far as the notion of fairness is concerned?

Are you overstating the importance of the president by introducing the idea of it being fair/unfair?

Don't mind the idea of irish citizens abroad voting for the President. Its pretty much ceremonial so any attempt to 'hijack it' would be pretty pointless. I'd make it anybody with an Irish passport, and like here have a electoral register so they must apply for that vote first.

Don't want voting rights extended to other elections/referenda though


Irish-born citizens living abroad should be able to vote. Diplomats, military personnel and those serving with the UN (or associated bodies) can, I'm not sure about the yahoos in the EU bodies.

If they're serving Irish public servants working on posting/secondment abroad they can. IF they're irish and employed directly by EU, UN, European parliament etc they they're not eligible

[Macy]

I'm torn on this one. I'm an emigrant, I doubt I'll ever return to Ireland to live. At least not for the next decade or two. I don't really have that much of a stake in who the president is. However, that doesn't mean I don't want to come back, and voting for the right people is one way of trying to make sure the Ireland of 2032 is one I'd like to come back to.
President has little impact on what the state is like anyway, but it is important to how we are perceived abroad which can have a positive or negative effect on residents. Would we have got the (imo right) result we got the last time with the extra block? Or would we have McGuinness or even worse the bagman (due to postal votes having already gone)?

Personally, I'd prefer non resident citizens to have a 3 seat seanad constituency. A Dáil constituency has too much potential to hold the balance of power and get undue influence. And by undue influence I mean their constituents don't have to live with the consequences (Mr A's point). Where as in the Seanad they'd have a voice and a chance to initiate debate.

[Bucky-O'Hare]

President has little impact on what the state is like anyway, but it is important to how we are perceived abroad which can have a positive or negative effect on residents. Would we have got the (imo right) result we got the last time with the extra block? Or would we have McGuinness or even worse the bagman (due to postal votes having already gone)?

Personally, I'd prefer non resident citizens to have a 3 seat seanad constituency. A Dáil constituency has too much potential to hold the balance of power and get undue influence. And by undue influence I mean their constituents don't have to live with the consequences (Mr A's point). Where as in the Seanad they'd have a voice and a chance to initiate debate.

In democracy the result is the result. It's wrong to just assume that everyone in the north would automatically vote for ginger Marty. Though a lot probably would have in reaction to the way he was regularly ganged up on. Bizzare I know. I know I would have voted for Michael D.

Sure usually if it's not the right result you's just do it again.

[pineapple stu]

In democracy the result is the result.
You must be new to Ireland.

[Bucky-O'Hare]

You must be new to Ireland.

Haha, no I'd just like a new Ireland.

[Macy]

Sure usually if it's not the right result you's just do it again.
Don't you mean "we"?

[Bucky-O'Hare]

Don't you mean "we"?

Apologies, I generalised just like you did.

[BonnieShels]

I would like ALL citizens no matter how tenuous their relationship to this country as they are citizens and they should be afforded the right to be able to vote in their Presidential elections.

I would like 1 Dáil seat reserved for, how should I say, non-Free state constituency to voted for by ALL citizens that do not reside in the State.

I would like the Seanad to be reduced in size and have an overseas cohort also.

I don't see why they can't arrange consulates and embassies to be set up as polling stations for the period like Australia and Sweden do. And for postal votes for registered overseas Irish to be forwarded to the nearest embassy.

[Gather round]

I am an Irish citizen and I am part of the Irish Nation regardless of the fact to north is still not free

Feel yer pain Aidan, but don't confuse irritation about the route of the border with freedom. You get to vote for district councillors, fools on the Hill and abstentionist MPs. Hardly a democratic deficit.


Perhaps all those born on the island of Ireland, and those currently resident there, would be a fair compromise

Not everyone born in Ireland being automatically entitled to citizenship might prove a problem?


Ideally, the President should represent all members of the Irish nation, be they living on the island of Ireland or living abroad

Many would disagree that it's ideal, whether because of 'no representation without taxation' thats others mentioned, or that hundreds of thousands who don't identify with the state/ nation could theoretically be involved.


Don't mind the idea of irish citizens abroad voting for the President. Its pretty much ceremonial so any attempt to 'hijack it' would be pretty pointless

You could make it 100% ceremonial (trivial?) if it's 99% already. Just have a phone-in to a premium line hosted by Louis Walsh and Tuathlisa. President Martin Sheen might follow, but would that be such a bad thing?


I'd make it anybody with an Irish passport, and like here have a electoral register so they must apply for that vote first. Don't want voting rights extended to other elections/referenda though

If you're going to charge people €80 (many may not have a current passport, or use one from another state), they might reasonably expect the right to vote in other elections or referenda?

[Eminence Grise]

Frankly, I’d rather we got our house in order at home first before giving votes to millions living overseas. It’s rather pathetic that, despite having seven candidates and a highly public campaign, the presidential election achieved a 56% turnout. Since 1990 turnout has not exceeded 70% of the electorate in any general election.

We need to sort this out before we start looking at overseas voting. What makes us think that Irish citizens are any more likely to vote when they leave the country? If they’re working in Dublin and can’t travel to Roscommon for a Thursday vote (or haven’t gotten round to changing their constituency), are they any more likely to travel halfway across another country to the nearest embassy or legation, or even to a post office to send off their ballot, which they would probably have to apply for in the first case?

Emigrant voting is something of a romanticised notion, but it has far less to commend it than online petitions suggest.

[Gather round]

Frankly, I’d rather we got our house in order at home first...the presidential election achieved a 56% turnout

I'd take a bottom-up approach EG. 56% taking the trouble is encouraging, not disappointing. It's nearly three times the turnout for local councillors in my area, btw.


What makes us think that Irish citizens are any more likely to vote when they leave the country?

Even if nothing, is that relevant? Giving a vote to expats, permanent emigrants, diaspora descendants or even N*rd**s can be justified in its own terms, even if a lot less than 56% of them bother.

[Spudulika]

EG, you've pointed out something that is very pertinent, low voter turnout. I know that as Irish people we love failing traditions - the LOI being one of them - though I have been really aware of the plight of many people (students in particular) who weren't able to vote to a certain degree as they were in Uni in Dublin and couldn't get home and back on a Thursday to vote. Now in saying that, they usually went on the tear Thursday night and didn't go to class on Friday, but that's beside the point. The last 3 general elections were held on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Why can't elections be held on a weekend? Sunday's for example. It's nothing as radical as a single division in the LOI, but it might get more of a vote out.

From my own point of view, the last Presidential election suffered as a result of the nation being rid of candidates and the media dictation as to who was worthy of the retirement home in the Park. Then again I'm cynical.

[Dodge]

You could make it 100% ceremonial (trivial?) if it's 99% already. Just have a phone-in to a premium line hosted by Louis Walsh and Tuathlisa. President Martin Sheen might follow, but would that be such a bad thing?
Pretty much ceremonial I said. Important enough distinction IMO


If you're going to charge people €80 (many may not have a current passport, or use one from another state), they might reasonably expect the right to vote in other elections or referenda?
If "Irish abroad" don't want an irish passport then I don't think they should vote. If they have a passport, and want to vote, I don't see why they can't keep local embassies/consulates aware of their address so they can send them ballots etc. You want the embassies to just send out ballots to anyone?

[Gather round]

Pretty much ceremonial I said. Important enough distinction

I was just exploring the implications, if we agree that it's ceremonial tending to completely so. One of the most obvious is to abolish the office. You already have a Taoiseach as head of government, a speaker in Dail Eireann and similar positions in the judiciary and other institutions. Maybe you don't need someone to open supermarkets and chat up sports teams, any more than we need a replacement for Mrs Windsor.


If "Irish abroad" don't want an irish passport then I don't think they should vote

That doesn't answer the basically opposite point I made. They may well want the passport, but it needs to be worth the money. Even €80 should get more than one ballot paper in 14 years.


If they have a passport, and want to vote, I don't see why they can't keep local embassies/consulates aware of their address so they can send them ballots etc. You want the embassies to just send out ballots to anyone?

Er, no. Did I suggest that? Registration with an embassy seems sensible. My parents worked abroad for 25 years (for the British Foreign Office) while continuing to vote through their Belfast North address.

[Dodge]

That doesn't answer the basically opposite point I made. They may well want the passport, but it needs to be worth the money. Even €80 should get more than one ballot paper in 14 years.
Well it gets them all the consular assistence they may need. The point I was making was that its the only method we have of determining irish citizenship. Until thats changed a passport would be need (in my system)

[peadar1987]

I think it's as well to have a figurehead and representative of Ireland at home and abroad. In theory, sitting members of government like the Taoiseach should be too busy actually running the country to engage in that sort of shenanigans.

[pineapple stu]

Well it gets them all the consular assistence they may need.
Makes it much easier to get into and around the EU too (if you're, say, living in Australia)

[DannyInvincible]

There is going to have to be some cut-off point in terms of voting rights, and residency in Ireland seems to me to be a more fair one than birth in Ireland. I don't really see how a birth-related proposal is any improvement in terms of fairness.

I suppose my reasoning stemmed simply from the fact that Irish citizenship is something conferred by birth (or immediate ancestry) rather than residence.


I'm loathe to allow Irish citizens from the irish tree voting rights. I saw personally how such a scheme completely and utterly messed up Croatia and the same could happen in Ireland.

Out of interest, what exactly happened in Croatia? Could you elaborate? Cheers.


Are you overstating the importance of the president by introducing the idea of it being fair/unfair?

I didn't introduce the idea of it being fair or unfair; merely suggested in response to osarusan that, whilst still relatively unfair because arbitrary cut-off points naturally have to discriminate in some way or another, the new proposal would surely be more fair rather than less fair compared to the current situation.


Don't mind the idea of irish citizens abroad voting for the President. Its pretty much ceremonial so any attempt to 'hijack it' would be pretty pointless.

There's an interesting argument I often hear in relation to the potential unionist bloc north of the border (theoretical citizens who don't identify with the Irish state/nation) attaining a vote and GR alluded to it above. Those who are entitled to Irish citizenship and who claim the legal status of an Irish citizen are to be either considered Irish citizens or they're not and, like any other Irish citizen, would/should be entitled to vote however they wish. Any Irish citizen with an already-existing vote can "hijack" the election in much the same way as the scaremonger will suggest a northern unionist might, be they sympathetic to unionism (and there is a significant enough Protestant minority community in Donegal and around the southern border regions who would variously identify as traditional unionists or as of British or Ulster-Scots heritage anyway), anarchism, communism or whatever. All votes are to be treated with equal seriousness though in the eyes of the law, right?


President has little impact on what the state is like anyway, but it is important to how we are perceived abroad which can have a positive or negative effect on residents. Would we have got the (imo right) result we got the last time with the extra block? Or would we have McGuinness or even worse the bagman (due to postal votes having already gone)?

The "right result" is surely the result supported by the democratic majority (or the result achieved by way of whatever democratic electoral system is to be used over the agreed electorate body). If voting had been extended to all Irish citizens resident on the island of Ireland and McGuinness had been elected last time out, that wouldn't make it the "wrong result" just because it wasn't to your fancy. You're only one Irish citizen yourself, after all.

[DannyInvincible]

In light of Leo Varadkar's recent comments on extending voting rights to the Irish diaspora, I thought this was an interesting perspective on the possibility of a northern unionist bloc having a say in Irish elections: http://judecollinsjournalist.blogspot.ie/2013/01/a-can-of-worms-leave-it-to-leo.html


Leo Varadkar, the south’s Transport Minister, is generally regarded as seriously right-wing. So I’m not sure what he was thinking of when he told journalists that he was in favour of votes for the Irish diaspora. “I like the idea of the President being the President of the Irish people and the Irish nation. We would like to extend voting rights to all Irish citizens”.

He then added two highly significant points. “I would favour it for people who are only out of the country for a short period of time - maybe say they’re gone a year or two, But I don’t think people who are gone a long time should vote for our parliament.”

...

Then there’s the unionist factor (which Leo diplomatically doesn’t mention either). Had people in the north been allowed to vote for who should be President of Ireland, would they have abstained with disdain? Or would they have voted to make sure that McGuinness didn’t get the job? Alternatively, would they have voted so he did get the job, since it’s generally acknowledged that McGuinness is one of the most popular politicians in the north, and not just among republicans.

And finally, supposing Leo’s dream became reality and “all Irish citizens” had a vote for Dail Eireann. Would that swell or diminish the ranks of Sinn Féin in the Dail? I think you know the answer to that one. But even more intriguing is, what would unionists do? At first glance, you might think they’d declare they didn’t vote in foreign elections and ignore the whole thing. Maybe better take a second glance. The kind of government south of the border has always been important for the north, whether it’s tourism or ‘terrorism’ that’s at issue. There’d be several good reasons why unionists should cast a vote that would make the complexion of the Dail closer to their taste. On the other hand, that would mean unionists when they voted for the Dail were part of an all-Ireland electorate. Which would leave one big question: whither Stormont?

Of course, I presume they'd first have to acknowledge a conferral of Irish citizenship in order to be eligible to vote in Irish elections, but, rather than "hi-jacking" such elections or making a mockery of them, would potential unionist voters see it as advantageous to take a serious or strategic interest in them were the right to vote to be extended to Irish citizens born north of the border?

[BonnieShels]

Well first I'm sure they would have to "take up" their Irish citizenship. And that's where that would stop.

[Gather round]

Not sure what Jude's on about there. Unionists aren't that bothered about the make-up of Dail Eireann, for various reasons. The big parties aren't that different in their attitude to NI- in itself largely as a result of their lack of real contrasting ideology. Those same parties (understandably) like to keep prolems like sectarianism at arms length; and ultimately the Irish Republic is a small country with limited political and economic clout.

All that said, many of us would be amused if Marty and co. eventually held the balance of power with say 10-15 TDs.

Unionists would be even less interested in electing a ceremonial who opens supermarkets and chats up rugby players, as I mentioned above. Which is the only election likely to be opened to those outside the state, surely?

[DannyInvincible]

Well first I'm sure they would have to "take up" their Irish citizenship. And that's where that would stop.

Pragmatism has superseded principle in the past. The McGimpsey brothers' case (http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1990/3.html) is one example of this.


1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the dismissal on the 25th July, 1998, by order of the High Court made by Barrington J. of their claim for a declaration that the "Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom" made on the l5th November, 1985 (the Anglo-Irish Agreement) is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.


The parties


2. The plaintiffs are two brothers, each of whom was born in Northern Ireland, and each of whom now resides in Northern Ireland.


3. In the course of his judgment Barrington J. described the political ambitions and activities of both the plaintiffs in the following words:-


"Both plaintiffs are members of the Official Unionist party of Northern Ireland. Both are deeply concerned about the present state of Northern Ireland and of all Ireland. Both reject any form of sectarianism and both have been involved in peace movements working to accommodate people of various traditions who live on the island of Ireland. Both gave evidence before the New Ireland Forum and, in oral and written submissions, attempted to explain to the Forum how the problem appeared to men fully committed to unionism but interested in finding a peaceful solution to the problem of Northern Ireland and of Ireland.
Both believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has aggravated the problem and instead of solving the problem, has become part of it."

It would also be naive to think that only nationalists sought to take advantage of the Scottish university fees exemption for Irish passport holders (non-UK/EU students) (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/scottish-universities-hit-by-irish-passport-fees-loophole-16201092.html) before the Scottish government eventually closed what they viewed as a loophole.

[DannyInvincible]

Not sure what Jude's on about there. Unionists aren't that bothered about the make-up of Dail Eireann, for various reasons. The big parties aren't that different in their attitude to NI- in itself largely as a result of their lack of real contrasting ideology. Those same parties (understandably) like to keep prolems like sectarianism at arms length; and ultimately the Irish Republic is a small country with limited political and economic clout.

All that said, many of us would be amused if Marty and co. eventually held the balance of power with say 10-15 TDs.

Would unionists not prefer post-nationalists rather than republicans staunchly opposed to partition wielding greater influence south of the border? It would ensure the border was in a more secure position for them, on the southern side at least.

[Gather round]

Post-nationalist, post-schmuck. I'm not convinced that such a position really exists. When did it begin?

[DannyInvincible]

At some point between Ireland achieving independence and joining the EC, I would have thought. I always thought of the Progressive Democrats and similar types as post-nationalists. I never got the impression Fine Gael had ending partition atop the party's list of priorities either. As for Fianna Fáil, they are "The Republican Party" in name only.

[Gather round]

At some point between Ireland achieving independence and joining the EC, I would have thought. I always thought of the Progressive Democrats and similar types as post-nationalists. I never got the impression Fine Gael had ending partition atop the party's list of priorities either. As for Fianna Fáil, they are "The Republican Party" in name only

I think we may be talking about two separate trends here. Yes, at some point after 1922 Southern parties' priority changed from ending partition to lobbying for the interests of NI nationalists. You could argue that this happened quite quickly- the boundary discussions were abandoned in 1925. Or you could point to 1945 (Britain surviving WW2) or 1973 as you suggest.

Trouble is, for 25 years after the latter date the South continued with the fantasy of control over NI, and even now is aspires to a united Ireland which could still theoretically leave a large hostile minority opposed to the state even if the border goes. All that basically contradicts 'post-nationalism', even though we all know any future PD-like party, let alone FG, FF and even SF would all sh*t themselves at any more than a notional possibility of a united Ireland next Tuesday.

[BonnieShels]

Pragmatism has superseded principle in the past. The McGimpsey brothers' case (http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1990/3.html) is one example of this.

From my brief glancing over that, the McGimpseys never expressed their acception that they "were" Irish Citizens. Barrington J. merely assumed for the purposes of the case that as they were born in the north of Ireland that they are entitled to Irish Citizenship and therefore the case proceeded on that basis.
That they were arguing against the Anglo-Irish Agreement was in contravention of Article 2, which as Unionists, makes no sense, is irrelevant.

[DannyInvincible]

Trouble is, for 25 years after the latter date the South continued with the fantasy of control over NI, and even now is aspires to a united Ireland which could still theoretically leave a large hostile minority opposed to the state even if the border goes. All that basically contradicts 'post-nationalism', even though we all know any future PD-like party, let alone FG, FF and even SF would all sh*t themselves at any more than a notional possibility of a united Ireland next Tuesday.

I see your point; the constitution certainly cannot be described as a post-nationalist document so long as the explicit aspiration to see the island united remains codified within it.

However, as a unionist, wouldn't you rather have a party like Fine Gael, who are, at the very least, post-nationalist in practice and quite content to maintain the status quo, in power or having greater influence south of the border rather than a fundamentally-republican party like Sinn Féin, who would undoubtedly ensure that an imminent end to partition remained top of the political agenda and within the public consciousness, be that in the form of pushing for border referenda, simply giving the idea greater airtime in public discourse or whatever?

For example, Labour in the UK always seemed more sympathetic to engaging and negotiating with republicans/nationalists in the north than the more-resolutely-unionist Conservatives, so you might say Labour being in power in the UK was preferable from such a perspective.

Perhaps I'm overplaying any potential substantive effect of such scenarios in light of the Good Friday Agreement, but the constitutional position of NI is still open-ended and negotiable, as far as its wording is concerned.


From my brief glancing over that, the McGimpseys never expressed their acception that they "were" Irish Citizens. Barrington J. merely assumed for the purposes of the case that as they were born in the north of Ireland that they are entitled to Irish Citizenship and therefore the case proceeded on that basis.
That they were arguing against the Anglo-Irish Agreement was in contravention of Article 2, which as Unionists, makes no sense, is irrelevant.

I understand one of them had attained an Irish passport. Was possession of Irish citizenship a prerequisite to the granting of locus standi in this instance? (Is citizenship a necessary prerequisite to the right to bring a case to the Irish courts in all circumstances? I'm not completely sure on that.) It appears it was in this case at least though. Otherwise, I see no reason for the chief justice to deliberate over the issue, as if to acknowledge the plaintiffs had satisfied some necessary criteria. On that basis, presumably, the case could not have proceeded if neither were Irish citizens, or if either had denied they were Irish citizens. It was in light of their "not [seeking] to vary the finding of the learned trial judge" in relation to the assumption of Irish citizenship that the chief justice proceeded.

Anyway, even on the latter matter relating to the content of article 2, I still think their case demonstrated that unionists would be prepared to overlook their strictest principles if being paradoxically pragmatic about matters in a "foreign" jurisdiction and pertaining to a document, or the upholding of articles within it, in which they had no genuine ideological interest, was more preferable to their ultimate aspirations.

[BonnieShels]

Well you must generally have an interest in the outcome of a case in order to bring one to court.

When it comes to the Constitution, generally speaking, it is only of interest to citizens and is only in their interest that cases are brought, ie. a Zulu warrior chief is unlikely to bring a case against the State due to some contravention. And if he were he would have to satisfy the presiding judge that it is in his interest and in the interest of all citizenry that it is brought.

Barrington J's interpretation of the McGimpseys' status was merely a way to circuvent the needless process of which we already knew that they were entitled to citizenship by virtue of their birth in Ireland.

[Gather round]

However, as a unionist, wouldn't you rather have a party like Fine Gael, who are, at the very least, post-nationalist in practice and quite content to maintain the status quo, in power

No, as said above I honestly don't think it makes any real difference to most Unionists whether FG or someone else (obviously most often FF in the past) leads the government in the South. All the main parties remain nationalist in principle whatever they do in practice. I'll accept that a hypothetical situation with SF as the biggest Southern party would be a change, but can't see it happening in the politically foreseeable future (ie at least a generation).

All the Southern parties bar Sinn Fein have accepted the status quo for decades, as discussed above.

Also, Ulster unionism is just one (single) issue I support. I don't judge any outside party purely or even mainly on their attitude to it.


For example, Labour in the UK always seemed more sympathetic to engaging and negotiating with republicans/nationalists in the north than the more-resolutely-unionist Conservatives, so you might say Labour being in power in the UK was preferable from such a perspective

Not sure whether you're being serious here. British Labour's long-term attitude to NI has been not merely another fantasy (that the single-issue nationalist SDLP acts as local 'sister' party), but is actually quite vindictive: any local aspiring activists aren't merely ignored, but barred. On the other hand, the extent of their engagement is limited- in recent years just throwing money at the devolved overgrown local council.

As for the Tories, they're not really better or wose on the NI issue. Or many others. Mrs THatcher would have blanched at some of the right-wing crap Miliband and co are coming up with nowadays.


Perhaps I'm overplaying any potential substantive effect of such scenarios in light of the Good Friday Agreement, but the constitutional position of NI is still open-ended and negotiable, as far as its wording is concerned

I think that- like a lot of Southern commentators- you overstate the GFA's significance, maybe because a formal constitution and referenda are so important in your system. The Agreement is important, but not neccesarily long-lasting: if it ever becomes seriously unattractive to Unionists, they'll just reject it.

[DannyInvincible]

Also, Ulster unionism is just one (single) issue I support. I don't judge any outside party purely or even mainly on their attitude to it.

Of course. I wasn't necessarily suggesting it would be the only issue of concern to you.


Not sure whether you're being serious here. British Labour's long-term attitude to NI has been not merely another fantasy (that the single-issue nationalist SDLP acts as local 'sister' party), but is actually quite vindictive: any local aspiring activists aren't merely ignored, but barred. On the other hand, the extent of their engagement is limited- in recent years just throwing money at the devolved overgrown local council.

Would issues such as the peace process culminating in the signing of the GFA, the granting of devolution and the establishment of the (albeit delayed) Saville Inquiry have progressed as they did had the Conservatives been in power in Britain at the time? With Thatcher's remark about "Northern Ireland [being] as British as Finchley" in mind, the Conservatives always struck me as being more trenchant and less open to negotiating the constitutional status of NI, never mind publicly entertaining the interests and concerns of republicans, but perhaps it's just a perception and I'm open to correction.

Why do you suppose Labour are ignorant/vindictive in their attitude? Do you perceive it as a witting vindictiveness?


I think that- like a lot of Southern commentators- you overstate the GFA's significance, maybe because a formal constitution and referenda are so important in your system. The Agreement is important, but not neccesarily long-lasting: if it ever becomes seriously unattractive to Unionists, they'll just reject it.

From time to time, I suppose I do forget that democracy was never a long-standing unionist tradition. :p

[Gather round]

Would issues such as the peace process culminating in the signing of the GFA, the granting of devolution and the establishment of the (albeit delayed) Saville Inquiry have progressed as they did had the Conservatives been in power in Britain at the time?

The peace 'process' started well before 1998: it was a genuine priority for John Major, who was PM for seven of the previous eight years.

I think devolution might have progressed more or less similarly had the Tories got back into government in 2001 or 2005. I mean, it suits them being able to park a lot of issues in the Holyrood long grass ;)

Dunno about Saville. I'm no Tory but they have a point that spending hundreds of millions to tell us what we already largely know iisn't necessarily a politically sensible use of resources. See also the Finucane case.


With Thatcher's remark about "Northern Ireland [being] as British as Finchley" in mind, the Conservatives always struck me as being more trenchant and less open to negotiating the constitutional status of NI, never mind publicly entertaining the interests and concerns of republicans, but perhaps it's just a perception and I'm open to correction

You overstate a throwaway line. Thatcher was a senior member of the govt which parleyed with the IRA in the early 70s. Five years later the most 'hardline' NI minister of the lot was Labour's Roy Mason. Like all parties, Labour and Tory are more trenchant in public than private.


Why do you suppose Labour are ignorant/vindictive in their attitude? Do you perceive it as a witting vindictiveness?

I didn't say they were ignorant: they don't really think SDLP are a socialist party. They've being deliberately obtuse and dishonest, partly to park the issue as above, partly to keep the largely Irish Catholic union wing of the party happy with a titbit.

As for actively banning local activists in NI aye, that's deliberately vindictive. Fcuk 'em.


From time to time, I suppose I do forget that democracy was never a long-standing unionist tradition. :p

Very droll. How does rejecting (by voting against) a previous political decision contradict democracy? Surely the reverse. Unionists are under no obligation to do anything simply because not doing it would oblige the South to go through the hassle of another referendum, or whatever.

[BonnieShels]

And would that Unionists interfere with the affairs of a "foreign" country...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0104/belfast-riot-union-flag.html


Loyalist activist Willie Frazer has said he is organising a demonstration in Dublin next weekend as part of the ongoing protests over the union flag controversy.

Mr Frazer, who is based in Markethill, Co Armagh said he expects 150 people to take part in a short protest at Leinster House at midday on Saturday, 12 January.

He said the protest will be peaceful and has informed gardaí of his plans.

Mr Frazer was involved in organising an Orange Order parade in Dublin in 2006, which ended in a riot.


The equation of City Hall with Leinster House is quite something. Would they not be better off heading to Monaghan or Dundalk to protest at equivalent and more "local" Council offices.

God save our senses.

[Gather round]

Belfast City Hall (symbolic as it is of Unionist admin in NI) has more in common with Leinster House than it does Monaghan council offices. Also they'd get more publicity (and protection against attack) in Dublin.

Just ignore them and shutter your shop windows before the SF counter-demo sees a gurrier breakaway down Grafton Street.

[BonnieShels]

Belfast City Hall (symbolic as it is of Unionist admin in NI) has more in common with Leinster House than it does Monaghan council offices. Also they'd get more publicity (and protection against attack) in Dublin.

Just ignore them and shutter your shop windows before the SF counter-demo sees a gurrier breakaway down Grafton Street.

Ah man. I know. I'm merely belittling their stupidity.

Though Leinster House was hardly a bastion of Irish Republicanism down through the years... Maybe head to the GPO, oh wait, eh... gimme a sec...

[DannyInvincible]

Dunno about Saville. I'm no Tory but they have a point that spending hundreds of millions to tell us what we already largely know iisn't necessarily a politically sensible use of resources. See also the Finucane case.

The British establishment didn't appear to know, or didn't want to know. It peddled an official line that completely contradicted what the witnesses knew to be true. If it already knew, then why not just be open about matters in the first place before an inquiry was ever required to get a bit closer to the truth? Saville wasn't without its problems, but greater transparency and an official acknowledgement of wrongdoing was crucial to fostering some element of trust and enhancing relations. It would be unfair to blame nationalism for the cost of an inquiry that shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Not that Bloody Sunday was a "nationalist issue" anyway; the civil rights movement was for everyone and, whatever about their personal politics, those killed were officially British citizens, like yourself, killed illegitimately by a force of the British state. It ought to have been an issue of serious concern for all British citizens, I would have thought.


Very droll. How does rejecting (by voting against) a previous political decision contradict democracy? Surely the reverse. Unionists are under no obligation to do anything simply because not doing it would oblige the South to go through the hassle of another referendum, or whatever.

I did have recent flag-related events in mind, but wasn't being wholly serious.

In saying that, that previous political agreement of which you speak does outline that an overall democratic majority supportive of a united Ireland would be sufficient to carry the motion. It does not make provision for any unionist veto. Attempting to enforce such a veto would be undemocratic, no? Especially in light of the fact that a majority of unionists supported the original agreement and would now be guilty of moving the goal posts.


And would that Unionists interfere with the affairs of a "foreign" country...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0104/belfast-riot-union-flag.html



The equation of City Hall with Leinster House is quite something. Would they not be better off heading to Monaghan or Dundalk to protest at equivalent and more "local" Council offices.

God save our senses.

I'm trying to get my head around this. What has the flag issue to do with anything south of the border?

[BonnieShels]

Absolutely nothing.

Makes perfect sense to Wee Willy though. Who are we to argue?

[Gather round]

If [the Brit estasblishment] already knew, then why not just be open about matters in the first place before an inquiry was ever required to get a bit closer to the truth?

Aye, it would have been better if Ted Heath had insisted on a more honest enquiry in 1972, and any/ all of his successors had formally apologised for his failure to do so.


Saville wasn't without its problems, but greater transparency and an official acknowledgement of wrongdoing was crucial to fostering some element of trust and enhancing relations

Put another way, holding the Saville Inquiry wasn't the best way to encourage trust. It was hugely costly and created the impression of a hierarchy of victims before you even consider the detailed process.


In saying that, that previous political agreement...does not make provision for any unionist veto. Attempting to enforce such a veto would be undemocratic, no? Especially in light of the fact that a majority of unionists supported the original agreement and would now be guilty of moving the goal posts

Unionists have an effective veto over localised decisions affecting them. Ignoring this is just burying the head in sand. Also, as I've explained repeatedly on this and similar threads, the moving goalposts argument is pretty irrelevant; future unionist leaders aren't bound by what past predecessors agreed. It's an effective basis of our democratic system, just like the specific constitution and referenda are of yours.


I'm trying to get my head around this. What has the flag issue to do with anything south of the border?

Yes, imagine thinking the Irish Republic and its self-styled army had anything to do with each other ;)

(I'm not being entirely serious etc. etc. This is a publicity stunt intended to embarrass the SDLP, annoy the Southern parties and probably provoke a looting spree by SF's great unwashed).

[osarusan]

Wee Willie Frazer, coming to simultanaeously protest Ireland's interference in NI's affairs and to tell Leinster house to lower its flag.

[BonnieShels]

Wee Willie Frazer, coming to simultanaeously protest Ireland's interference in NI's affairs and to tell Leinster house to lower its flag.

Hypocrisy and loyalism generally go hand in hand.

Though Willie has it down to an art.

[DannyInvincible]

Put another way, holding the Saville Inquiry wasn't the best way to encourage trust. It was hugely costly and created the impression of a hierarchy of victims before you even consider the detailed process.

Perhaps, but justice is justice at the end of the day. The (theoretical) ideal would be transparency and justice for all victims and those with valid grievances then rather than holding legitimate issues with cost or perceived hierarchy against those who've campaigned for justice for one particular group of victims, as certain unionist commentators seemed happily inclined to do when it came to their condemnation and pigeon-holing of the Saville Inquiry. I do acknowledge such may not be a practical possibility, however, but a failure by the British state to ensure justice is apportioned equally and fairly is not the fault of any specific set of victims or campaigners that did happen to achieve recognition of some sort.


Unionists have an effective veto over localised decisions affecting them. Ignoring this is just burying the head in sand. Also, as I've explained repeatedly on this and similar threads, the moving goalposts argument is pretty irrelevant; future unionist leaders aren't bound by what past predecessors agreed. It's an effective basis of our democratic system, just like the specific constitution and referenda are of yours.

I just think it renders the GFA rather meaningless. Don't you? I like to think of myself as a realist, sure, but what was/is the point in it if there isn't really an agreement in place at all that ought to be adhered to? Do you expect nationalists/republicans to adhere to what they agreed?


This is a publicity stunt intended to embarrass the SDLP, annoy the Southern parties and probably provoke a looting spree by SF's great unwashed).

Agreed, in that it is not only completely and utterly mis-directed, but appears motivated by the rather infantile aim of provoking unrelated parties for the sole reason that they happen to be Irish. How exactly do you envisage it possibly embarrassing the SDLP, or, more appropriately, why does Frazer think it might do so?

[Gather round]

Perhaps, but justice is justice at the end of the day.

A failure by the British state to ensure justice is apportioned equally and fairly is not the fault of any specific set of victims or campaigners

Not like you to lapse into cliche, Danny. A big problem with justice as part of a peace 'process' is that it's ongoing and potentially never-ending. We know broadly- and have known for 40 years- what happened at Bloody Sunday. We know that Ted Heath and the Army chief at the time should have taken responsibility. But we don't know why the privates or corporals involved fired the fateful shots, who ordered them to and why. And we aren't likely to get a reliable answer, and certainly not 'closure', even if all those squaddies and officers still alive are tried and prosecuted.

I blame the British state for its failures, not the campaigners. That doesn't mean the latter should get what they demand, for the reasons I described above.


I just think it renders the GFA rather meaningless. Don't you? I like to think of myself as a realist, sure, but what was/is the point in it if there isn't really an agreement in place at all that ought to be adhered to? Do you expect nationalists/republicans to adhere to what they agreed?

Actually, no. As I've said, I recognise the GFA as meaningful: it marked (more or less) the end of endemic paramilitary violence, and allowed some form of effective local government to resume. And it recognised many people's identities, aspirations etc. in ways that hadn't happened before. But, unlike you, I don't think its historical and political significance means it should necessarily last for decades or longer.

I don't expect nationalists to always stick to what they agreed in 1998. They may feel they can get a better deal in future. Recent events suggest that, for example, the SDLP on Newry and Dungannon councils are as uninterested in co-operation with and sensitivity to unionists, as are the UUP goons who helped stir the current flags row in Belfast.


How exactly do you envisage it possibly embarrassing the SDLP, or, more appropriately, why does Frazer think it might do so?

I'm guessing that 'Nordies' generally will take some blame if it kicks off in Dublin, along the lines of 'if youse hadn't wound up the Unionists in Belfast City Council they'd have left us alone'. Just a personal and possibly biased opinion, you understand. I don't have a hotline to Mr Frazer and his pals

[Wolfman]

What a lot of pointless waffle.