Discussion on a United or re-partitioned Ireland

I would love that it were possible to have a fully integrated education system but it is a long way off. Forcibly integrating the schools would result in horrific levels of bullying of minorities, and ultimately a spate of teenage suicides would result.

Our young people are as divided as the rest of our society. We can't fix it by throwing them in together as kids and hoping for the best. The society has to be fixed first.

Imagine being a 15 year old Protestant attending a school in Carrickmore, or a 15 year old Catholic attending a school in Carrickfergus. It would be carnage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

Imagine being a 15 year old Protestant attending a school in Carrickmore, or a 15 year old Catholic attending a school in Carrickfergus. It would be carnage

---

My cousin's wife works at the integrated school in Carrickfergus. She and their 3 now adult children who went there are at least nominal Catholics.

I do take your broad point but... don't the Catholic Hierarchy make clear their wish to stop running schools, at least in the South? that should concentrate minds.

Like all politics it's largely a numbers game. A choice of schools is possible in a suburban town of 30,000- but in a rural village it's not sustainable.

While the archbishop of Dublin recognises they should divest some schools, in general the RCC will fight tooth and nail to retain as much control as possible.

Education should be secular, especially in NI. The other stuff can be done separately if there is demand.

I take the point about integrated schools, but I'd suggest that in somewhere like Carrickfergus to have the sort of ratio of students needed to make integrated education possible, you have to have a bunch of other schools nearby catering for 1 community only. If you take the Catholics out of the integrated school there and divide them between all the schools in the area, you'll probably find the nominal Catholics you spoke of becoming nominal protestants for the sake of an easy life, and a remaining Catholic minority in single figures in most year groups. And may God help them.

The same would of course be exactly the same the other way around in Catholic towns.

I think we broadly agree on the issue though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

There's quite likely to be no NIA election in 2022 - the mothballs will be long gone by then.

---

Because you think we'll never see the assembly up and running again or because 2022 will be mid-term? What are "the mothballs" in this context?

Quote:

---

The only significant polls by then will be for Westminster. Nationalism won't get 50% or even 45% (less than 42% last year remember).

---

There'll be a general election in 2022. How do you know nationalism won't get 45%? Demographics will rapidly change over the next few years. The unionist population is ageing whilst the young population is majority nationalist and pro-unity. Brexit (if the north does actually leave the EU) will have begun impacting (most likely negatively) upon people's day-to-day lives by that point too.

Quote:

---

So no Referendum (which in any case Varadkar has strongly hinted there should be a 65% or 70% threshold for). No doubt you'll quote the 1998 Deal but it was always mainly about a Nationalist- Unionist settlement and that's over.

---

Varadkar didn't "strongly hint there should be a 65% or 70% threshold". He said:

I wouldn’t like us to get to the point whereby we are changing the constitutional position here in Northern Ireland on a 50%-plus-one basis.

One of the best things about the Good Friday Agreement is that it did get very strong cross-border support – that’s why there was a 70% vote for it. I don’t think that there would be a 70 % vote for a united Ireland in the morning, for example, or anything remotely to that.

He was stating his ideal - what he'd like to see - rather than how it should be. I'd imagine it'd be the preference of most unity advocates actually that it is achieved by as comfortable a majority as possible, for that'll ensure greater post-unity stability and cohesion. That doesn't mean we think the simple-majority threshold ought to be changed in contravention of the GFA. If Varadkar was hinting at amending the threshold, then he needs to have a re-read of the GFA and, as representative of a co-guarantor government, re-assess his outlook.

Anyway, it was unionists who demanded that nationalists commit to the "principle of consent". Nationalists did that and now unionists may want to change the terms? That's simply unacceptable. Why did unionists demand the inclusion of the "principle of consent"? Was it a ruse?

This idea of unilaterally introducing a requirement for a supermajority would be even more undemocratic and unjust than the establishment of the northern statelet in the first place. It'd be exceptionally poor form. Unionists have to accept democracy and stop trying to frustrate it with their beloved veto it at some point. Why should their failed project get special treatment and be kept on life support by the skin of its teeth? The place is failed entity politically, socially and economically. Can't we just let it pass when it's time has come? Why would or should nationalists ever agree to a supermajority? It would be the height of stupidity and would only further and unnecessarily prolong the relative austerity, impoverishment and dysfunction that the Union and partition have brought upon the north.

Nationalists are done rolling over and unionists, by their present intransigent conduct and attitudes, won't have done themselves any favours when Ireland is finally united. I believe in parity of esteem and it'd be hypocritical to reject it post-unity when I expect it pre-unity, but, boy, do the DUP make generosity and good will hard sometimes! When they're crying in the future about how the new united arrangement isn't to their liking, I won't have a huge deal of sympathy for their tears (non-crocodile) if they opted not to take up our invite to join us at the table (they could always have just held their noses if necessary) in order to assist and advise us in the design and construction of a new Ireland in which they would feel welcome and at home but, instead, sat outside with their heads in the sand shouting in abuse and insults every now and again.

Just on that, Brian Feeney, widely-regarded as a moderate, had a hard-hitting column in the Irish News the other week that is worth a read:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTJB-mmW0AAZbO4.jpg

Wouldn't unionists be going berserk if the Irish government hinted at unilaterally re-inserting the old articles 2 and 3 back into the Irish constitution? According to your logic (or the logic of this supermajority talk), they'd be more than entitled to. If military action was instigated on the logical basis of the re-introduction of those articles, unionists would just have to suck it up?

Quote:

---

Talking of which where stand you on the McElduff row- I'm pretty sure he was malicious not just a dimwit

---

Had he been malicious or intentionally mocking the victims of the massacre - which was explicitly sectarian and profoundly unrepublican - there's no doubt he should have been expelled from SF. However, whilst I did find the coincidence of the loaf brand-name and date extraordinary, McElduff's daughter Blathnaid provided an detailed and compelling explanation for what happened via a series of tweets the following Monday and, primarily on that basis (because the alternative is to assume she concocted an elaborate story and was lying through her teeth), I'm prepared to give her (and him, by extension) the benefit of the doubt. Her account has gone from public to private back to public again in the weeks since the incident, but I included the tweets in a comment about the matter over on Slugger O'Toole. When her account is private, my comment is occupied by blank white spaces where the tweets would otherwise be. It seems one tweet now remains visible, whilst two other more detailed ones have since been deleted by her. Luckily, I had paraphrased their content, so I'll re-quote what I wrote here for convenience:

She claims her da was picking her up to give her a lift home so she sent him in to the shop - McCullagh's Classic Service Station Spar in Omagh - to get a loaf and some other things for the house. She also claims the family eat Kingsmill, which is why Barry happened to choose that brand of loaf. This is plausible, in fairness, as it's a pretty common brand of bread. We have a loaf of Kingsmill in the house ourselves.

Anyway, according to Blathnaid, Barry took the opportunity to embarrass her - by putting the loaf on his head - as well as to promote the local business by recording a video of himself doing this and stating where he was.

In fairness, it appears that Barry does have a thing for balancing everyday objects on his head. Here is a photo collage (sent to me on social media) of Barry at other times in the recent past with various items of food or drink (such as a bottle, a can and a chocolate bar) balanced on his head:

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images...895a3eee77.png

Having looked through Barry's Facebook videos, he also does tend to promote local clubs and businesses he's engaging with or frequenting by promoting them in what you might call apolitical or non-party political videos. You can view his collection here: https://www.facebook.com/pg/barrymce...=page_internal

In another recent video, for example, he's recorded in a local Indian restaurant in Omagh praising the food: https://www.facebook.com/barrymceldu...8454173710617/

Barry's original tweet stated: "Fred, where do the McCullaghs keep the bread?"

As Blathnaid points out, the mention of "Fred" (which, of course, rhymes with "bread") is an obvious reference to this old Spar advert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBMJAYcu_PA

She emphasises that the date - the anniversary of the Kingsmill massacre - happened to be a horrible coincidence. Her explanation does sound compelling and plausible and I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt as I just couldn't seriously imagine a public figure in this part of the world intentionally mocking the victims of the Kingsmill massacre. Sometimes, the bar has been set pretty low here in terms of provocative "tribal-style" jibes from political reps, but intentionally mocking the Kingsmill victims would be just so beyond the Pale morally and would simply be reputational suicide.

I don't think anyone can know with 100% certainty if she was telling the truth or not, but, as I said, I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt. Her version sounded detailed enough to convince me she wasn't peddling total bull**** (unless she's a very convincing bluffer) and plausible enough to make me think the extraordinary coincidence in terms of the date was just about possible.

If his intent was indeed to mock the Kingsmill victims, what exactly was the punchline there or how was putting a loaf of bread on his head and saying he couldn't find it supposed to work in serving or fulfilling that function? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think (or very much hope) that joking about the Kingsmill victims would only appeal to an extremely limited or peripheral audience at best, if even, and would not have any wide appeal whatsoever, so what would McElduff have had to gain from cracking such a joke and making it public himself? Why would he risk giving the media and his political opponents the easiest of sticks to beat him with for very little potential political reward?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

Not a chance he didn't mean it. He fancies himself a bit of a stand-up comedian as I understand, just a really crap one who doesn't understand the entire planet can see what's on your Twitter feed.

---

He is known to be a bit of a joker, although he isn't known to be malicious. I find the idea that he wouldn't have known his Twitter feed was open to the general public hard to imagine though. He surely knows full well that his videos on Facebook and Twitter can be viewed by the public in general. It's for this reason that I find it hard to imagine he would have voluntarily put something out there himself; something that was obviously (to anyone aware of the context) going to be so explosive and damaging. Like, he's surely not that stupid. If he had been caught out or exposed, fair enough, but he tweeted the video himself. It wasn't as if he was caught by someone else after having unwittingly let his guard down or having cracked an in-joke in private company or anything like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

2 How am I grasping at straws? I've repeatedly said a UI is possible. Nor am I suggesting any code as you call it. It would make sense (from LV's POV) for there to be likely support of well over 50% before welcoming a Referendum in NI. We've seen over here what a cluster**** the Brexit Ref was and how poisonous the atmosphere has become since

---

The decision to hold the Brexit referendum was a purely Tory decision, rooted in internal party wrangling and a fear of losing votes to UKIP. Brexit is also a leap into the dark (or off the cliff even). Nobody actually knows what it means and this further poisons the debate. The conditions for uniting Ireland were agreed on a cross-communal and international basis as part of the GFA. Those conditions are legally and internationally binding. By the time a re-unification referendum comes around, I imagine we will have a good idea of how the new unified state might look and feel.

Quote:

---

3 Why must the UI poll be on the terms you demand? It's based on a 20 year old deal that has clearly failed

---

To suggest a referendum might be on our terms is an inversion of reality. If things were on nationalist or republicans terms, Britain wouldn't be administering any part of Ireland. But our terms don't hold sway. We compromised. The referendum will be on the terms that unionists demanded. The "principle of consent" was a unionist demand and the rest of us agreed to work with it. We're simply holding unionism to its word. You can't unilaterally shift the goalposts now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

But then there's a fundamental lack of honesty concerning history and NI itself so it's hardly surprising.

---

Dishonesty from unionists, Britain and/or nationalists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

If/when the time comes it'll certainly be interesting to see how much mention repartition gets. I think people will be surprised. It'll probably be less than the wistful mutterings around the concept of Joint-Authority though. :rolleyes:

---

Paragraph 5 of strand 3 of the GFA (relating to the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference) makes clear that the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (which includes the Irish government obviously) is to have a say in non-devolved matters. It states:

In recognition of the Irish Government's special interest in Northern Ireland and of the extent to which issues of mutual concern arise in relation to Northern Ireland, there will be regular and frequent meetings of the Conference concerned with non-devolved Northern Ireland matters, on which the Irish Government may put forward views and proposals. These meetings, to be co-chaired by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, would also deal with all-island and cross-border co-operation on non-devolved issues.

Paragraph 33 of strand 1 outlines that Westminster will ultimately legislate for non-devolved matters but, if nothing is devolved to the assembly, as is the case presently, then paragraph 5 of strand 3 quoted above would logically entail the BIIC also having a say over or an input into all matters, seeing as all matters are now non-devolved.

Arlene knows the score:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zem9RHxo9bs

She said: "We all know that if there was 'direct rule' in the morning, it would really be joint authority between Dublin and London."

Something that further complicates matters presently is that London's power to ordinarily suspend the devolved assembly and introduce "direct rule" was removed by virtue of the St. Andrew's Agreement. "Direct rule" could be introduced through emergency legislation at Westminster, but this would be a clear breach of the agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

I don't agree with this politicisation of victims in the first place and I'd ask the simple question of both unionist parties - what extra political capital do you expect to make out of fielding such a candidate and what would be the gain for unionism in general? It would just recycle the problems for even longer imo.

---

When they talk about victims, are they talking only about victims from the unionist community? As it happened the largest set of victims of the conflict were nationalists, but why the insulting segregation of victims by unionists, as if one set are deserving of truth and justice but the other set aren't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfman

A UI will happen, just a question of when.
Though actually I think a reduced SF input could help long-term.

---

As the Fly suggested, Sinn Féin are fully entitled to push for a core principle of theirs as hard as they wish. I don't think there's any onus or whatever upon them to quieten themselves or take a back seat.

However, I would agree that the push for unity must come from a broader church, so to speak, if it's to be successful and I do think there's a logical and constitutional duty upon the southern parties (who profess to support re-unification) to step up to the plate. Whether we like it or not, in the eyes of unionists at present, the concept of unity is still considered to be "tainted by Provoism" as they associate it primarily with Sinn Féin. This perception obviously isn't ideal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

I cannot see how the British can be blamed for the state of politics in the Republic. That's on us.

---

I think that's a somewhat myopic and revisionist view, as if our colonial history hadn't existed or had influence over our evolution towards the present. I'm not saying the Brits are entirely responsible for Irish political failings in the Republic since independence - they're not - but Britain's historical role has to be a factor. Numerous centuries of oppressive rule cannot be erased in two or three generations. That was the debilitated springboard from which the Free State/Republic had to jump in the early 1920s.

This is counterfactual obviously, but, if the 1798 rebellion had succeeded, I think it's quite likely we may never had endured a famine, civil war, quasi-confessional states or sectarian conflict. Instead, Ireland might well have undergone its own industrial revolution with the rest of Europe, rather than remaining primarily agrarian, and may have matured long ago into a progressive, pluralist and secular republic with a population of about 20 million people (if it had experienced the same level of population growth as the rest of Europe over the past two centuries rather than a famine that depleted its population by millions and severely stunted future growth).

This essay by Dr. Garrett O'Connor on what he viewed as the post-colonial cultural malignant shame of Irish Catholics is also interesting and relevant here I think:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp5mVvuXgAAIPB_.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp5o2bZWgAALvtO.jpg

So our history is quite obviously a significant factor in where we find ourselves today, politically, culturally and psychologically; colonialism and misrule left scars and legacies, which have undoubtedly fed into our present post-colonial context. That can't just be ignored, as if it had no bearing on our present society and political culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

I want Bradley to enact for gay marriage and the rest immediately.

---

Not much hope of that, judging by her comments last week, where she likened equal marriage rights to the rolling out of broadband in the north, meaning legislating for it is something she wouldn't be entertaining.

I thought it was typically uninspiring - perhaps it would shock the uninitiated - that Bradley had previously only ever spoken about the north in the House of Commons on a grand total of two occasions prior to her appointment. On her first occasion, she discussed the matter of organised crime. On her second, her contribution was to inform the chamber of that the British home office had sold a department Toyota Prius here for £3,073.

And her visit here - to meet and greet the natives - on the day she was appointed was the first time she'd ever been to the north. Imagine an MP being appointed an education secretary despite never having been in a school or an MP being appointed a health secretary despite never having been in a hospital. That's the peculiar logic of Britain's administration over the north of Ireland. At least the Scottish and Welsh secretaries of state are actually Scottish and Welsh respectively. The role of northern secretary has a distinctly colonial feel to it.

Upon her maiden visit, Bradley vocally exhibited her aforementioned (dis)qualifications for the role in a video interview disseminated by the NIO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FEVhwyMkzE

"Everybody" in the north wants ("strong")* government "in the interests of the whole United Kingdom", she presumed.

Had she done any homework on the place at all? Doesn't she know there are quite a few of us here - only over half a million or so (and growing) - who aspire to realise a united Ireland that is independent of UK administration?

We have no interest in Ireland or Irish interests playing second fiddle to or suffering in the interests of the UK, its stability or Tory Little Englanderism. In fact, we find the notion intolerable and unacceptable. Bradley obviously hasn't a baldies about the nuances and intricacies of the north of Ireland. As British as Finchley, they say...

To be fair to her, it is possible that her comment was no more than a patriotic propaganda soundbite for the ears of potential Tory voters across the water. Mind you, it doesn't say much for the perceived importance of the role she has just undertaken if assuming such would be to give her the benefit of the doubt. Her primary concern is clearly her duty to her party if acknowledgement and service of the interests and aspirations of the communities here can be supplanted by Tory PR soundbites. I wouldn't expect anything other from a Tory than to serve their masters and do their bidding, but it obviously isn't ideal from our perspective and perfectly demonstrates the inherent problem with the role. It's nothing personal Karen, I swear!

*Use of the word "strong" here just struck me as being straight out of the Tory's PR manual and sounds rather incongruous and out-of-place in the context of the north of Ireland. It evokes the common spiel of May: "Strong and stable leadership." Here, the idea isn't to have "strong" leadership (or at least not in that Tory sense of rallying behind a supposed power figure desperately in need of reinforcement); the idea here is to have representative and delicately balanced government that is functional as well as humbly and mutually respectful of two divided communities with opposing interests and aspirations.

In light of the present absence of operational devolved institutions, if the British government returns to legislating on all matters for the north (although paragraph 5 of the section dealing with the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference in strand 3 of the Good Friday Agreement states that the Irish government should also have an input via the conference into this process over non-devolved matters, which would be everything at present), won't they be bound by the St. Andrew's Agreement to introduce an Irish language act? Maybe the DUP should be careful for what they wish...

The DUP bizarrely and disingenuously deny having any red lines, but their insistence upon no Irish language act (amongst other issues they have) is evidently a pre-set condition. It is a boundary they will not cross - a red line, in other words - for they would be prepared to implement prior agreements and get the power-sharing institutions back up and running again otherwise.

It would be interesting to see how the DUP would deal with such a scenario; Westminster introducing an Irish language act for the north with the Irish government being given a say too. Seeing as they have previously dismissed the proposed language act as being a UK government commitment and not one of theirs, as if they (the DUP) had not undersigned the relevant agreement too, would they actually accept the imposition of an Irish language act from Westminster if the UK government did come good on the commitment?

Bradley and the Tories, who are supposed to be impartially ensuring the agreements are adhered to and fulfilled, should obviously be exerting pressure upon the DUP, in order to encourage the party to drop their intransigent stance, by warning them that they (the UK government) will implement an Irish language act (as is obliged) in the event of "direct rule" anyway, but of course that can't and won't happen because the Tory government is reliant upon the DUP's votes to prop them up in Westminster. It's a ridiculous situation that effectively renders Bradley, or anyone else who occupies the role of northern secretary, completely impotent or hamstrung for fear of getting on the wrong side of the DUP.

As I've suggested already, the notion of the secretary of state being an honest and impartial broker is a dubious one regardless, seeing as they'll always be a representative of the British government and therefore primarily protective of its reputation and interests, which are inherently entangled with a particular outlook and/or tradition in the north given the decades - or centuries, even - of partisan historical involvement and interference (see, for example, the British government's withholding of the disclosure of potentially damaging or self-incriminating information, that could otherwise help resolve our society's legacy issues, on purported and independently unverified or unverifiable "national security" grounds), but the DUP's present formal relationship with the Tories just makes a total mockery of the secretary's role. It's now no longer even possible for the Brits to feign impartiality.

Quote:

---

5 Whoa- I have always opposed the P of C- partly as the DUP esp have abused it, partly cos I don't like legalese or the sociological waffle I gently chided you for above.

---

It's easy for unionists or non-nationalists to oppose the petition of concern when unionism has always enjoyed a majority. Whilst there is an argument there for a revamping of the detail or operation of the mechanism, it still serves an important function; it is supposed to safeguard against majoritarian abuse of the minority or minorities, something that was historically ingrained in governance of the statelet.

Quote:

---

6 The passport thing was a joke. I can get one from Dublin tomorrow. Half the Rathcoole UDA already have, so I'm told

---

Out of interest, do you think you might apply for an Irish passport post-Brexit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfman

If FF/FG stood on a Joint ticket promising a united Ireland tomorrow, they'd be derided by most nationalists in the North.
They'd lose their deposit.

---

I tend to agree. FG would have little to no appeal for nationalists and republicans north of the border. My maternal grandfather (who was from Sligo, eventually settling in Ballaghaderreen in Roscommon, where James Dillon was latterly based) was a Blueshirt, but, even in spite of that, I would never contemplate voting for FG. FF might do better in the north, but I don't think their historical neglect (in spite of their republican rhetoric), which has spawned a justifiable sense of abandonment amongst northern nationalists, will be immediately forgotten. Comments by FF representatives on "the nordies" often tend to reveal just how out-of-step they are with the thinking of the nationalist community up here.

In saying that, the north-south cultural and political gulf isn't remotely as pronounced as the parallel east-west cultural and political gulf between Ulster unionism and Britain. British people just don't get unionists and wouldn't even know where the border (of their own state) is. At least southern politicians care somewhat; for British politicians, the northern secretary job is the dreaded one. The only thing worse than not being northern secretary is not being northern secretary. Or maybe that isn't worse!

I do think there'd be space for a new nationalist party here, however, maybe imaged along the lines of the SNP in Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

It seems to me there needs to be a realignment in the south as much as the North. The opportunity was there in 2011 but rather than Labour forming a centre-left opposition against a centre-right FG government they were attacked by the ephemeral sugar rush of being junior coalition partners. The bloody fools.

---

Just on being a junior coalition partner generally and talk of Sinn Féin entertaining the notion of going into coalition with either FF or FG in the south, I think that would only do long-term damage to the party and its brand in the south; it is presently (rightly or wrongly) seen as part of the progressive wing of Irish politics and is growing more and more popular with younger voters. FF and FG aren't exactly progressive forces, so I'm not sure of the supposed benefits of associating with them, unless it would be Sinn Féin's way of trying to work their way into the Irish establishment (which, it could be argued, does appear to be the trajectory the party has been on over the past two decades). Anyhow, I can see Sinn Féin getting into government in the south as the main party over the next decade or so anyway without needing to cosy up to the establishment parties, so it's just a matter of them biding their time, rather than seeking short-term gain that could prove self-destructive in the long run.

Look what happened Labour - the bloody fools, as you say - or look at what happened the Lib Dems in Britain when they went into government with the Tories. They might well argue that they kept the Tories in check and had a moderating influence upon the Tories' more extreme idiosyncrasies, but that's not what their now-former voters saw. Essentially, that coalition ruined their brand; their former voters punished them in the follow-up and went elsewhere. The problem about being a junior or minority partner is that you don't have the power to ensure that all or even any of your policies will be satisfactorily implemented, but you can be certain that you'll get the blame if they aren't implemented and also for whatever else went wrong "under your watch".

Quote:

---

Harder to see a natural base for FG but many nationalists, myself included, have been impressed by Varadkar & Coveney so even that isn't impossible

---

Ha, steady on. I've been impressed by them myself, as have most others to whom I've spoken, but there's an added mildly suspicious sense of, "Hmm, what are these guys really up to?" or "What's their long-term game here?", rather than having complete faith in their apparent sincerity. There's certainly no sense of, "I'd vote for these guys if only they fielded candidates up here."

I thought some of the commentary on Varadkar here from republican commentator Séamas Ó Sionnaigh was interesting and I'd happen to concur with his scepticism: https://ansionnachfionn.com/2017/12/...me-travelling/

You have to wonder how much of this “endearingly” suburbanite image is the real Varadkar, the affluent, middle-class yuppie, and how much is the purposely crafted image of his exorbitantly funded Strategic Communications Unit? There is a strong impression with the Dublin West TD that everything he does, from the socks he wears to the television programmes he publicises, is the result of a lengthy decision process by a committee of high-paid spin doctors. There is an artificiality to the present head of government that I don’t quite remember witnessing in previous holders of the office. Even with the self-styled chieftainship of Charles J Haughey. And yet, this is the self-same Taoiseach who has taken the most determined stance against the corrosive interests of the United Kingdom in Ireland’s affairs since the peace process negotiations and contests of the 1990s.

He adds:

Varadkar is something of a conundrum. Very right-wing, of course, in an Irish context at least, in the strand of Anglo-American neo-liberalism.

I certainly think that the Brexit angst has given a lot of Irish politicos and journos, not to mention some of the middle-classes, an injection of sudden overt “greeness”. Apparently it was ok for the Brits to be nasty to the “Nordies” but when they started being nasty to the “real Irish” then the revisionist love affair came to an abrupt end. Or at least took a bit of a blow.

And the following:

I initially assumed, like everyone else, that Varadkar and Coveney were doing a version of good cop/bad cop diplomacy with the British and unionists, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Both seem genuinely worried about Brexit, the effects of the UK exit on all of Ireland, and the threat of future political and economic instability.

The irony that it took the British kicking over the Free State apple cart for southern nationalists to rediscover some basic and constant truths of Irish history will not be lost on northern nationalists.

Of course, if the British exploited this they would do a deal which ensured the status quo between Ireland (26 Cos.) and the UK (Britain), which is what the FG-led government really wants. Talk of regulatory alignment, British-Irish inter-governmental structures and aspirations to a reunited Ireland, would all be set aside if the Dublin establishment could be mollified in other areas. Then it might be to hell with the north. But that is not possible now, or probably ever. Things are too enmeshed together. The Six Counties can’t be hived off.

Hence the sudden greening of Fine Gael and company, to protect the “State”. And if Fine Gael is green where does that leave Fianna Fáil? Under Martin, apparently as the new FG!

Brexit has turned the political world upside down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

But the most urgent thing is to end segregated education. To me that's one of the biggest things that needs to happen to move towards a better future. A secular education system where everyone mixes freely would have huge long term benefits. But the 2 biggest parties and indeed the churches have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo so I won't be holding my breath.

---

I would personally favour the notion of secular education for any kid(s) I might have (and I think the state - both northern and southern - should be duty-bound to offer such to all citizens within reasonable travelling-distance), but then if parents (particularly those of a potentially-vulnerable minority culture or heritage) want their child to attend a school with a particular faith-based ethos, is it right for the state to step in and block that if someone is prepared to provide that child with such an education (so long as it otherwise meets a standardised set of educational or curricular criteria)? Should integration be coerced?

It's a difficult question, as you're essentially dictating to parents how to raise their children in a way (although I guess it is true to say that the state does that anyway in certain spheres; parents have a responsibility to keep their children in school until a certain age and are also obliged to satisfactorily care for their child or risk intervention by social services, for example). I'm not remotely religious and would view the Church with scepticism - personally, I think its overall influence has been historically detrimental to Irish society - but I think if the Church are willing to continue providing education (perhaps self-funded) that conforms to a general curricular standard, I'd find it difficult to deny a parent the choice to consider that option for their child. In the meantime, the state can fund secular education and extol its virtues.

It is worth noting though that it isn't universally-accepted that integrated education would actually bear the long-term rewards we might seek. Here are a few pages with interesting commentary on the matter from an excellent 1995 book called 'Explaining Northern Ireland: Broken Images' by political scientists Brendan O'Leary and John McGarry:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cgv3beEXEAIUuIf.jpg
http://i67.tinypic.com/28btglt.png

They say that educational segregation is not cause of ethno-political division (which I think is a fair enough contention), but they're not necessarily convinced that integration would solve such division either. In fact, they claim that integrated education can actually reinforce stereotypes in certain instances and that the focus, in terms of overcoming division, should be on satisfactorily addressing the material, political and national concerns of the respective communities (if that is indeed simultaneously or mutually possible). It's a little more complex than just integrating education and everything turning out rosy. Thinking practically, O'Leary and McGarry happen to favour equal state funding for all educational sectors (integrated and denominational) whilst preserving a common curriculum, but do make a few sensible suggestions as to how social division might be challenged or alleviated within this framework.

Morning DI. Plenty to get through here ;)

1 I meant that Stormont is likely to close soon and if it does won't return in the nearish future- incl 2022. In any GE that year, I doubt the Nat parties will get 45% simply because of the short timeline- it's just a hopefully informed guess, like your own

2 What Varadkar would prefer to happen does stand a good chance- esp if Martin is also ready to accept it. I'm guessing their senior aides/ possible successors would follow

3 As usual, you're equating the GFA with Yalta or the Congress of Vienna. I suggest it's as dead as a Linfield title bid. We won't agree. Of course Leo will nod along with you in public for now like Bradley does. It's become a cliche

4 I've suggested what you call a supermajority for entirely reasonable reasons- it would make an eventual UI more likely to be amicable and if nationalist strength is as you claim wouldn't delay things for long. So not as stupid as you complain. Of course I'm not denying that Nationalism has the odd daft idea or numbskull in a senior elected role...

5 You're right that a UI- whether it arrives in 2023, 2033 or beyond- will have its own problems, like all politics. One might be that the (****) artists now known as Unionists will still be around, even if by then rebranded as separatists. They'll maybe even have a balance of power or similar. In which case the big boys may just ignore someone in Derry gurning about a slight from decades ago ;)

6 'Feeno' is usually a good read but the supposed moderation depends on who you compare him with. Generally styling one individual or party as moderate can be loaded and lazy- just another way of dismissing your oppo as extreme. All that said last time I heard him was with Alex Kane and they were civil enough

The A Level maths gag is leaden and has been around since Pythagoras was in P7. Such as

“My school at the far end of the Lisburn Road was great for complex theoretical phenomena”

“In Finaghy?”

“No, quantum mechanics”

At a more basic level, is he saying that nationalism would/ will get 50% in a2024 GE?

7 My logic is I hope simple as set out in (4) above. I'd prefer if U & N could stop bickering awhile and if the South and Brits dropped their foundation myth and little empire fantasies, but if they all can't/ won't- my offer is still out there

8 Radar's problem is that his antics going back years invite not doubt but certainty- that his role is the clown who winds up Prods, often offensively. SF took their eye off the ball- more Warren Feeney than Brian- he went too far, embarrassed the Party, then had to be sacked. He'll be remembered for it a lifetime. Still, it's good that junior is the brains of the family. Btw it's worth trying Hovis for a bit more fibre

(more later)

More circular waffle FFS.

At least Danny backs his pronouncements up.

Quote:

---

I would personally favour the notion of secular education for any kid(s) I might have (and I think the state - both northern and southern - should be duty-bound to offer such to all citizens within reasonable travelling-distance), but then if parents (particularly those of a potentially-vulnerable minority culture or heritage) want their child to attend a school with a particular faith-based ethos, is it right for the state to step in and block that if someone is prepared to provide that child with such an education (so long as it otherwise meets a standardised set of educational or curricular criteria)? Should integration be coerced?

---

It should not be coerced. But my belief is that if the state pays the teacher the education should be secular. If the churches want to provide their own alternatives and people want to go that route then off they go.

As for the idea that Britain is to blame for our politics.. OK I guess every society is a product of its history (so that of course means the Irish have to some extent influenced British politics also, albeit proportionately less). But its up to us to change our own politics and country as we see fit.. I hate the endless blaming of the big bad Brits for every fecking thing (including of course any and all acts of terrorism regardless of who did them) that was common among 'republicans' where I grew up. Too handy a get out clause where responsibility never lies with them, but always elsewhere.

Have you been to the North recently...

Apologies for the delay in response, once again. Hard to find the time of late, although my word-counts admittedly don't help! :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

1 I meant that Stormont is likely to close soon and if it does won't return in the nearish future- incl 2022. In any GE that year, I doubt the Nat parties will get 45% simply because of the short timeline- it's just a hopefully informed guess, like your own

---

I thought a deal might have been on the cards over the past few days in light of the appearance on the scene of Varadkar and May. I really hadn't envisaged the heavyweights landing in without a deal on the horizon. A number of commentators, including the Belfast Telegraph's Suzanne Breen (on Sunday Politics) and the BBC's Mark Devenport, had also seemed cautiously confident as the weekend concluded, although Varadkar and May then surprisingly returned home to Dublin and London respectively with their tails between their legs. To be honest, I'm not sure what sort of influence May thought she could have over Foster when the DUP have the desperate, gutless Tories under the thumb in Westminster.

On Tuesday, then, Arlene Foster (who really must be a sleeper agent for Irish re-unification) appeared to extinguish any remaining hope of an agreement. Yesterday presented us with a simple confirmation as Foster announced her party's intention to continue boycotting power-sharing and provocatively called for a return to what would be completely partisan "direct rule" from London despite Sinn Féin clarifying that an accommodation had been reached at one point before the DUP went back on it after consultation with voices from the unionist community they've so seriously failed to inform, enlighten and lead.

Foster's statements have been full of such an incredible amount of disingenuous rubbish; they have inverted reality and have only served to "justify" anti-Irish bigotry whilst indulging misinformed unionist paranoia. She claimed (in what was a bizarre reference to the Irish language) that the DUP couldn't allow for "the primacy of one language over all others here", as if that's what an ILA would bring about. It didn't seem to dawn upon her that she had just said this in English, which has had primacy here ever since it subordinated and marginalised Irish and replaced it as the most widely-spoken every-day language a few centuries ago. The primacy of English is a reflection of the dominance the British tradition already enjoys here. By talking about opposing the primacy of one language over another, Foster was actually unwittingly undermining her anti-ILA stance. After all, an ILA would help create bilingualism - equality between English and Irish - rather than alleged cultural supremacy and would be in accordance with the notion of parity of esteem outlined in the GFA.

She had also been going on about concerns purportedly having been expressed to her (from anti-ILA unionists, I assume) that they would not accept legislation that would "impinge" upon people in the north who don't speak Irish. She spoke of these people's alleged fears about bi-lingual road signs, quotas in the civil service and people being forced to learn Irish. In fact, she seemed to be repeating these "concerns" as if they had some validity or credibility. They were utter nonsense. Her words deceptively cast the British tradition as an underdog fighting to protect its rights and tickled a truly false and unwarranted sense of unionist victimhood.

In the event of an ILA passing at some point in future, Irish won't appear on road signs in areas that don't desire such signage; it will appear in nationalist areas, or areas that desire it, and perhaps in shared public spaces (such as on the M1 motorway), but it certainly won't be imposed upon unionist housing estates (unless it is so desired). I'm not sure how a road-sign would impinge upon someone anyway seeing as the English will remain on it regardless. There will presumably be people employed by the civil service in order to cater for Irish language needs, but I don't see why this should affect the already-existing workforce who cater for English language needs. The civil service will presumably just employ extra people. Meanwhile, the claim that people might be forced to learn Irish didn't even warrant a serious response. What planet was she on? It was a total strawman - tinfoil-hat stuff - and I don't know how she could utter those words with a straight face. Under an ILA, Irish will be optional for those who want to learn it.

A stand-alone ILA is essential for three reasons: to provide formal political protection and support for the native language of the north of Ireland; to officially respect and validate the Gaelic Irish tradition as an equal tradition within the northern statelet; and for reasons of trust. The DUP undersigned the St. Andrew's Agreement and it is essential that, when a promise is made, it is fulfilled, yet the DUP insist on blocking an ILA. The likes of Poots may boast that the DUP never signed the GFA, but the same cannot be claimed in respect of St. Andrew's. The DUP might well claim it was the British government who specifically promised an ILA and that such a promise then had nothing to do with the DUP, meaning it is none of the DUP's business. If that is indeed so, then why not step out of the way now, stop threatening to scupper an ILA with a petition of concern, get power-sharing up and running again and allow the implementation of an ILA?

The DUP need to drop the victim-playing; it's beyond insulting to nationalists for a people who have enjoyed such a privileged position of protected political, social, cultural, economic and legal supremacy as that historically enjoyed by unionists to try and pass themselves off as somehow being under threat by our demands for equal recognition. It's a joke and beyond shameless.

You interpret this moment as the death of the GFA. It's more significant than that; I say Wednesday was the death-knell of the northern statelet. There's evidently nothing in this shoddy, sub-par arrangement for nationalists. Bigotry, Brexit, economic catastrophe and impoverishment? No, thanks! Even the "pragmatic unionist" nationalists won't be falling for this sham any longer. We're all out and that nationalist majority is fast approaching, thank God.

The calamitous DUP just keep shooting themselves in the foot. The intense objections expressed by countless unionist leaders, politicians, voters and publications to the simple notion of parity of esteem over recent days, weeks and months aren't really all that shocking, to be honest, despite how offensive, contemptible and derisive they have been. They're fairly typical and we've reasonably come to assume the worst. I suppose the objections - which are nothing more than veiled anti-Irish prejudice - really drive home the reality of the fundamentally incongruous nature of our identity within the confines of this failed Britocentric statelet. There's clearly no space for the treatment of our national identity as an equal here. Consider the past few days the final nail in its coffin. The clock is ticking until it is buried and gone once and for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

2 What Varadkar would prefer to happen does stand a good chance- esp if Martin is also ready to accept it. I'm guessing their senior aides/ possible successors would follow

---

Micheál Martin? What's he going to do? In what way might it stand a good chance? How would they go about imposing this new threshold, even if they wanted to (which I don't believe to be the case anyway)?

Any change would require cross-community or multilateral approval. The goal-posts can't and won't be shifted unilaterally.

Anyway, to clarify; what I meant was that I interpreted Varadkar's position to be the following: he would prefer to see, in an ideal world, a unity referendum (which will be a simple-majority "50%+1" vote, as agreed and outlined in the GFA) succeeding with as large and comprehensive a majority as possible or something close to 70 per cent (in the interests of post-referendum societal stability).

You seemed to have interpreted his position as the following: he would like to see the unity referendum formally changed from a simple-majority vote to a super-majority vote with the bettering of a new and official 70-per-cent threshold by the pro-unity side required for it to legally pass.

I don't believe your interpretation of his words is correct. Anyone talking about actually changing the legal threshold to 70 per cent without the consultation and approval of both communities isn't to be taken seriously. Such an imposition would be profoundly anti-democratic and would be an act of extraordinary bad faith.

Quote:

---

3 As usual, you're equating the GFA with Yalta or the Congress of Vienna. I suggest it's as dead as a Linfield title bid. We won't agree. Of course Leo will nod along with you in public for now like Bradley does. It's become a cliche

---

Whatever about Yalta, the Congress of Vienna or even Linfield's title bid, the GFA was a multilaterally-agreed, quasi-constitutional and internationally-binding document that was approved by over 70 per cent of the northern electorate and nearly 95 per cent of the southern electorate. It was lodged with the UN by the Irish and British governments, who are its co-guarantors. It's serious enough in its own right without me needing to try and equate it with other historical agreements, which I didn't do anyway. It remains in 'de jure' effect (even if some of its provisions aren't operating as intended or on on a 'de facto' or practical basis) until something else is multilaterally agreed to replace its terms and provisions.

Quote:

---

4 I've suggested what you call a supermajority for entirely reasonable reasons- it would make an eventual UI more likely to be amicable and if nationalist strength is as you claim wouldn't delay things for long. So not as stupid as you complain. Of course I'm not denying that Nationalism has the odd daft idea or numbskull in a senior elected role...

---

It's unreasonable because unionists previously demanded a simple majority (the "principle of consent") and nationalism/republicanism agreed to this as a compromise. Now unionism wants to unilaterally shift the parameters. That's not how agreements work. Do unionists not actually believe in the "principle of consent" then? Was all that talk a mere ruse?

Nationalists are likely to become a majority within a number of years, but I don't envisage us passing the 65 or 70 per cent mark any time soon, so, whilst the onus is still on us to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, to prove the benefits of unity for all and to ensure that the new Ireland is a place that all traditions on the island can comfortably call home, it would be self-defeatingly complacent to agree to having the unity referendum changed to a super-majority vote.

Quote:

---

5 You're right that a UI- whether it arrives in 2023, 2033 or beyond- will have its own problems, like all politics. One might be that the (****) artists now known as Unionists will still be around, even if by then rebranded as separatists. They'll maybe even have a balance of power or similar. In which case the big boys may just ignore someone in Derry gurning about a slight from decades ago ;)

---

But aren't unionists already the separatists in Ireland? Weren't they the ones who opted out of the Free State on the 7th of December, 1922? ;)

Do you mean that the "big boys" would ignore someone in Derry, as in myself, gurning about a slight from decades ago? I'm not sure what part of my posts your paragraph was in direct reply to, so what's that a reference to? What would I be gurning about and why would they ignore me? Not that British and Irish politicians ignoring the north-west of Ireland would be anything new, mind!

What is the likelihood though (seriously) of one of the "big boys" in this new modern, pluralist and progressive republic going into government with a party espousing a hard-right, socially conservative, xenophobic, hibernophobic, ethno-sectarian, Christian evangelical philosophy? It's worth remembering that Sinn Féin will be one of the "big boys" then too. Aren't they already close to, if not, the biggest party on the island, and their support is only growing south of the border.

For what it's worth, I also think the north-west will be one of the regions (along with Newry-Dundalk) to benefit most from unity, as unity will end and hopefully reverse the double-peripheralising effect that partition had on the region.

Quote:

---

6 'Feeno' is usually a good read but the supposed moderation depends on who you compare him with. Generally styling one individual or party as moderate can be loaded and lazy- just another way of dismissing your oppo as extreme. All that said last time I heard him was with Alex Kane and they were civil enough

---

Heh, I'm well aware of the loaded propaganda value or effect a subjective term like "moderate" can have, which is why I didn't state is as if it were objective fact. I just said Feeney was "widely-regarded as a moderate", although I could well have placed the term in quote marks.

Anyway, whether he's a "moderate" or not is ultimately besides the point. He's clued in, knows what he's on about and his opinion is worth taking seriously. I think what he says in that piece above is a good barometer of how most nationalists are thinking right now. I agree with all of it and any family or fellow nationalists with whom I've discussed it thought it a powerful and insightful piece of writing.

Has Alex Kane ever been uncivil? I couldn't imagine it.

Quote:

---

At a more basic level, is he saying that nationalism would/ will get 50% in a2024 GE?

---

That would be my reading of what he's saying.

Quote:

---

7 My logic is I hope simple as set out in (4) above. I'd prefer if U & N could stop bickering awhile and if the South and Brits dropped their foundation myth and little empire fantasies, but if they all can't/ won't- my offer is still out there

---

The super-majority idea is your "offer" (or are you referring to something else)? Usually an offer comes in the form of something that is more desirable to have than not. Why would or should nationalism be persuaded to take you up on your "offer"? What's in it for us? It would be disadvantageous for nationalist hopes of uniting Ireland.

Quote:

---

8 Radar's problem is that his antics going back years invite not doubt but certainty- that his role is the clown who winds up Prods, often offensively. SF took their eye off the ball- more Warren Feeney than Brian- he went too far, embarrassed the Party, then had to be sacked. He'll be remembered for it a lifetime. Still, it's good that junior is the brains of the family. Btw it's worth trying Hovis for a bit more fibre

---

McElduff's historical role has been to "wind up Prods, often offensively"? I'm not aware of any other allegedly sectarian or offensive jibes from him. That's not to say they don't exist - I may well have missed them - but care to elaborate on what and when they were?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

It should not be coerced. But my belief is that if the state pays the teacher the education should be secular. If the churches want to provide their own alternatives and people want to go that route then off they go.

---

Personally, I've no real qualms with that. Interestingly though, it's not the recommendation of Brendan O'Leary and John McGarry, both of whom have been influential in advising and designing northern policy as two of the world's leading theorists in the field of consociationalism.

Quote:

---

As for the idea that Britain is to blame for our politics.. OK I guess every society is a product of its history (so that of course means the Irish have to some extent influenced British politics also, albeit proportionately less). But its up to us to change our own politics and country as we see fit.. I hate the endless blaming of the big bad Brits for every fecking thing (including of course any and all acts of terrorism regardless of who did them) that was common among 'republicans' where I grew up. Too handy a get out clause where responsibility never lies with them, but always elsewhere.

---

I'm sure we have influenced British history to a degree - plenty of our emigrants went that way, after all, and still do - but there's hardly a comparison in the respective levels of impact given Britain was an empire and was never a colony of Ireland. I wouldn't blame Britain for "every fecking thing" and, certainly, we have to work with the hand we've been dealt, but the post-colonial nature of our existence and national experience cannot be denied either. There's no need to relieve Britain of its responsibility for our woes in our own quest for self-respect; it's simply a recognition of historical reality. There's a whole field of academic study - post-colonial studies - devoted to the effects of colonialism upon former colonies and their peoples and it's evident that colonialism leaves lasting legacies on national cultures, identities and psyches.

For example, the way (association) football is treated and regarded by many in this country is influenced by that history. The same has applied to sports like cricket or rugby, which have been popularly shunned in the past because they've been associated in the Irish psyche with a colonial-era elitism. The fact that the GAA is such a powerful cultural-sporting force today is also a product of (or reaction to) colonialism. The fact that the music we celebrate and export to the world as defining us is the traditional folk music of the public house (rather than that of the high-brow opera or concert hall) is another consequence of our colonial past. We drive on the left as a result of colonialism. We all speak English as a consequence of colonialism. The rural and the parochial have always been celebrated here in reaction to the urban industrialism of the coloniser. Our political system and common law are direct descendants of the British law and political system of government that was in place prior to independence. The south became a socially-conservative Catholic confessional state (and, the north, a statelet for a Protestant people) as a result of colonial divide-and-rule policies. The fundamental difference between the two main political parties in the south really boils down to their opposition over how colonialism was brought to an end in the south.

These sorts of things are just part of our national fabric now and the legacy of colonialism permeates our lives - materially, socially and psychologically - every single day. The state of southern society and politics is perhaps not a huge surprise in light of the following bit written by Garrett O'Connor:

"Professor Joseph Lee refers to the 'elusive but crucial psychological factors that inspired the instinct of inferiority', and has identified self-deception, begrudgery, contempt for authority, lack of self-confidence and poor leadership as post-colonial behavioural constraints on the pursuit of productivity and happiness in contemporary Ireland."

The state of politics in the north (which is more of a paracolonial society rather than a post-colonial one) is no better. In fact, it's ten times worse. It's not even dysfunctional. It simply doesn't work at all. You can't just overturn the negative effects of colonialism in two or three generations.

An interesting court case here that is more significant, in my opinion, than what might be suggested by the scant level of attention devoted to it by the media since the decision was made a few days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-emma-de-souza

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lisa O'Carroll

A potential loophole in Britain’s strict immigration laws has been exposed after the Home office lost a case in Northern Ireland that hinged on the unique peace deal rights that allow citizens to identify as Irish and not British.

A Derry woman [Emma de Souza] at the centre of the case has spoken of her joy after a Belfast court rejected the Home Office’s bid to appeal against a recent ruling that her American husband should be allowed to live in the UK without going through immigration procedures because she carried an Irish passport.

The Home Office has been told that it cannot appeal against the decision on the grounds that “no error in law” was made by the first-tier tribunal in Belfast.

“I feel elated and quite vindicated,” said de Souza.

The extraordinary immigration case hinged on the 1998 Good Friday agreement, which allows citizens to be identified as Irish, British or both and could have implications for any Irish passport holder married to an non-EU citizen, lawyers say.

---

The only other article I can find on the case since the decision was in the Irish Post: https://www.irishpost.co.uk/news/ame...t-rules-149736

Anyway, the court effectively upheld the right of people born in the north to legally identify as Irish-only and non-British, which is consistent with the literal wording of the GFA, and made clear that this right must be recognised and accepted as binding in law, rather than as merely aspirational, by the British government after the British home office tried to impose British nationality upon Magherafelt-woman Emma de Souza (who brought the case with her American husband) on the basis of the purported effect of the British Nationality Act 1981. The British home office told her that to have her application (for a residence card for her husband) to them as an Irish citizen accepted, she would have to first "renounce her status as a British citizen", which is something she didn't feel she should have to do as she didn't accept she was a British citizen in the first place. As far as she was concerned, she considered herself an Irish citizen only. Essentially, the court ruled that the GFA supersedes the British Nationality Act 1981 which attempted to automatically and unilaterally impose British nationality upon people born in the north from birth.

(The Guardian article does describe the outcome of the case as being a result of a "loophole", although the GFA isn't exactly a mere "loophole"!)

Edit: Actually, there's another article that provides a comprehensive summary of the case here (although the author appears to think Belfast is in Britain): https://www.irishcentral.com/news/am...ed-for-uk-visa

I didn't realise that that case was still ongoing.

https://twitter.com/BizGrowthGB/stat...84139153788928

I see from the front of today's Daily Telegraph that "Corbyn calls for a united Ireland". Is this the first time that a Labour Leader has ever actively called for unification ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

I see from the front of today's Daily Telegraph that "Corbyn calls for a united Ireland". Is this the first time that a Labour Leader has ever actively called for unification ?

---

No, nor is it the first time the right-wing press have deliberately misquoting Corbyn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

No, nor is it the first time the right-wing press have deliberately misquoting Corbyn.

---

Yes, nothing to that effect in his speech at Queen's yesterday https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-36942527.html

"Brexit Bombshell: All Northern Ireland people would be better off in a United Ireland says new report"

https://www.byline.com/column/22/article/2244

Very true. With our ethical standards Ian Paisley Jr wouldn't be twiddling his thumbs on a 30-day suspension without pay and could be availing of as many all-expenses paid family holidays to Sri Lanka as he liked.

Now that has to be a dilemma for the DUP.:D

(Incidentally, I'm not entirely sure 'bombshell' is the mot juste in a headline about the North...)

At least he's not someone who exercises power or influence without holding an official position. ;)