Is it just me or does Theresa May actually want to win this election. She was not in favour of leaving the European Union and so perhaps wants Labour to do the messy negotiations rather than her.
Printable View
Is it just me or does Theresa May actually want to win this election. She was not in favour of leaving the European Union and so perhaps wants Labour to do the messy negotiations rather than her.
The Brexit negotiations will certainly be a poisoned chalice and I've encountered this conspiracy theory elsewhere, but surely a party wouldn't go as far as throwing an election? Would they?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBoss
An interesting video here: https://www.facebook.com/EvolvePolit...2367818348490/
It features Tory MP Amber Rudd at a hustings in her constituency of Hastings and Rye having the independent candidate's speech shut down as he spoke about Rudd's involvement in selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. She passed a note to the chair who eventually got up and took the microphone off the candidate. Astonishing.
The UDA endorsed Nigel Dodds in North Belfast today. Dodds has been asked if he rejects the endorsement and, oddly, hasn't said yes.
Then he went on the UTV leaders debate in place of Arlene Foster.
All in all the DUP are behaving in exactly the manner I would expect them too if they thought Dodds was very close to losing his seat. Not being on the debate makes Foster look terribly weak, and the UDA thing will likely cost them a few thousand votes. The only way it makes sense to do that is if a few hundred UDA votes in North Belfast will ultimately be worth more than a few thousand votes across the north.
This is a great read.
https://bangordub.wordpress.com/2016...undary-review/
Exit polls looking hilarious, can it be.
Oh what a night....
DUP potential/likely kingmakers FFS.
There are times you look at Northern Ireland and feel they deserve every misfortune that befalls them.
I wouldn't worry about itQuote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
It's gonna be gas.
It's going to be a hell of a couple of months
It's amusing seeing the DUP being referred to as "the Irish DUP" in the British and international media. Bet they're loving that! :rofl:
More seriously though, I hope they're finding the extra scrutiny and exposure to a more widespread audience uncomfortable. It's certainly demonstrating the scale of the chasm between the British values of most Britons and the regressive values of northern unionism.
If the DUP can influence/govern via direct rule, what then is the incentive for them to work towards re-establishing the devolved institutions at Stormont and involve others who won't be as congenial to their wishes as their new Tory partners in Westminster?
Also, surely the DUP's influence/presence in government at Westminster is incompatible with the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. I don't regard the British government as a neutral player when it comes to northern affairs anyway, but they have at least claimed to be a neutral "broker" or "mediator" in recent decades. Now that the DUP will have a role in the next UK government, however, it will make a total mockery of any such notions of governmental neutrality. What safeguards might be put in place to protect the rights and interests of the nationalist community? What if Jeffrey Donaldson was to become secretary of state for the north, for example?
Interestingly, the DUP allege that they didn't actually promise an Irish language act at St. Andrew's (so they say there's no duty on them to facilitate it) and claim that it was actually the British government that promised it. The St. Andrew's Agreement stated:
"The Government will introduce an Irish Language Act reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland and work with the incoming Executive to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language."
If the DUP are now going to form part of or play a role in the next British government, however, won't they be obliged to deliver on that promise? Maybe they're unwittingly putting themselves in a bit of a bind on that front...
The DUP also repeatedly claim to want a "frictionless border" in Ireland, but they were recklessly pro-Brexit and also reject the prospect of special status. One of their demands to the Tories - in return for offering the support of their ten MPs - is that the north will not be granted any special status that differentiates it from Britain's post-EU status. If you want the border to be "frictionless", some form of special status will be a prerequisite, however, so their stated wishes don't quite add up.
If I was labour i would be terribly worried about Ruth Davidson as Tory leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth Davidson MSP
I'd sleep soundly in my bed facing David Davies or Boris on the other hand
I appreciate how good she is in the grand scheme. But she's still a unionist. And she's still a Tory.
The deal is done so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40236152
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords...
Go on, expand on that. Please. You are usually very accurately and entertainingly ahead of the curve on here on these developments.Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
As an aside, as one who lives in England, it has been nothing short of repeatedly f**king hilarious these last two days watching the horror dawn on people of what DUP actually means. (& not the letters either)
No deal just yet. Yesterday's announcement was made by Downing Street in haste. Maybe they were eager to get things wrapped up before the DUP's day of rest today... Anyhow, negotiations are to continue through to next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
The whole thing just goes to show how utterly desperate and craven May is. Word is that she'd prefer a formal coalition - obviously to secure her position more firmly - rather than a less formal "confidence and supply" arrangement, but, naturally, other Tories aren't so keen on forming a coalition with an outfit like the DUP. (Imagine climate-change denier Sammy Wilson as environment secretary!) No doubt, there are moves against May underway from within her own party. Boris Johnson is flat-out denying that he has any designs on taking over - he's probably overcompensating - so my money would be on him doing a Brutus and stabbing his leader in the back.
I'm sure the EU's Brexit negotiators are keeping a close eye on all this chaos and are finding developments more amusing than intimidating. They probably can't wait to get stuck in themselves.
Meanwhile, latest polling indicates that if another election was called, Labour would be likely to win relatively comfortably: https://twitter.com/britainelects/st...74408224862210
Corbyn still thinks there's a chance he could form a government regardless, based on the apparent precedent of 1974: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7783336.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Britain Elects
This is interesting as it shows how incompatible the Tories and DUP might prove to be based on their previous voting records: https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/10...gically-close/Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean O'Grady
Any pact will surely prove to be very fragile.
Enda Kenny weighing in with a tweet that he has reminded May of her duty to the GFA and particularly now there is zero Nationalist voice in Westminster.
Crypto-Tory Peter Mandelson has been appealing to people (via a piece in the bloody Daily Mail!) to get behind Theresa May in the "national interest": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...-stand-PM.html
You couldn't make it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mandelson
I'd imagine Corbyn would be content in opposition for the time being, as the Tories stumble along through Brexit negotiations for a while, with increasing public astonishment at what the DUP is, probably a leadership change at some point.
The next few months are going to be nothing but negative headlines for the government, so Labour will be hoping to make hay...as long as they can keep their internal and grassroots energy and momentum going.
That was noting more than a Simpsons quote added for a bit of entertainment.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
My take the whole situation is that it simply won't work. I'd imagine there will be another election called immediately after the party conferences in September. Votes probably cast on 26th October or 2nd November. The tories will change their leader at their conference. Corbyn will change the Labour party position on Trident, as well as the rules for leadership elections, and give local parties the power to deselect a sitting MP.
Then they will do it all over again. The tories are in trouble, and have been for years. The last time they won an election with a majority in double figures was in 1992. A very long time given that the UK has an electoral system designed to provide "strong and stable" governments. The Cameron governments papered over the cracks but this election has exposed their problems for the world to see.
There are times when I read Mr or Ms Anonymous sneering on the internet and think “Away and sh*te...”Quote:
Originally Posted by MrA
They can probably handle ill- or semi-informed criticism from people (below) who can't vote against them. Are you being entirely serious about the other? This country (England) has millions of people who share their prejdices against gays and abortion and probably aren't too hot on the Theory of Evolution. Remember, this is an election where they don't trust people to mark 1,2.3 on a ballot paper...Quote:
Originally Posted by DI
OK, Kay Burley (Sky News). How can TM as a woman deal with an anti-abortion party? Ask Leo Varadkar if you can't get the Saudis on speed-dial.
Ruth Davidson (Tory leader in Scotland). No-one will stop you getting married to your female partner, or insist on bowler-hatted marchpasts before every Celtic home game. Self-obsessed hypocrisy, I'm afraid.
Shaun Lord Snooty Woodward (ex Labour NI secretary, previously a Tory MP). There isn't and can't reasonably be a 'rule' forbidding two British political parties dealing with each other. If that contradicts the GFA then tough, the latter will need to be replaced.
Gerry Adams TD: thanks for clarifying this weekend that your party isn't interested in goings-on in the Brit Parliament. And well done on your election results. As most Nat voters in Belfast, Derry and South Down clearly share your attitude, you can't expect a movement with no MPs to have a veto in Parliament.
Imagine Sammy Wilson as Climate Change Secretary? No need for hysterical flights of fancy- not least as Michael Gove has previous on the same issue. Do you think the 10 DUP MPs will get 11 Cabinet jobs or what?
Of course, you're right it probably won't last. Good article by 'Salmon of Data' on Slugger
I was at my local count on Friday morning (finishing, farcically at 715am with Dudley North settled by 22 votes). Local UKIP big cheese Bill Etheridge lost 80% of his vote and barely saved the deposit, but still claimed to look forward to doing it again in October ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BttW
Two cautions for Labour. Despite the membership they are still short of cash and big donors- and a very large proportion of their MPs are cool on Corbyn, many likely agree with Mandelson quoted above.
BBC anchor Simon McCoy pretty much laughs in the face of Tory MP Alan Mak who's still repeating the "strong and stable leadership" mantra in spite of his party's election disaster:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw129jaW4Sk
The DUP's anachronistic views, whilst apparently popular in the north-east of Ireland, are way out of step with mainstream thinking in Britain, which, as you suggest, can be quite reactionary as it is. The British media, both on the right and left, have been lampooning the DUP all week because they regard them as so exotic, alien and retrograde.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
The following comment by a commenter called Neil on Slugger O'Toole humoured me:
"I hope the DUP enjoy their moment in the sun, it's certainly not coming without a cost. The dawning realisation that a sizable chunk of your fellow British people view the DUP with contempt. We'll see how well they stand up to scrutiny now that they're attracting the attention of the kind of journalists that hack phones, as opposed to the normal NI type who circulate party press releases.
We'll see how this one pans out, but this 'deal' isn't a deal yet. As I said, imagine after all these years the vote actually fell within that magic, tiny margin where the DUP become relevant and they find that they're too toxic for the Tory party."
Heh, her "expression of concern" did seem a bit like grandstanding alright.Quote:
Ruth Davidson (Tory leader in Scotland). No-one will stop you getting married to your female partner, or insist on bowler-hatted marchpasts before every Celtic home game. Self-obsessed hypocrisy, I'm afraid.
The Good Friday Agreement states that "the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction [over the north] shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality":Quote:
Shaun Lord Snooty Woodward (ex Labour NI secretary, previously a Tory MP). There isn't and can't reasonably be a 'rule' forbidding two British political parties dealing with each other. If that contradicts the GFA then tough, the latter will need to be replaced.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images...94b895605e.png
In theory, if the DUP won enough seats to form a government by themselves, there's little that could be done about that, but surely any responsible non-Ireland-based British party with designs on forming a government should not be inviting coalitions or "confidence and supply" arrangements with unionist (or, indeed, nationalist) parties from the north of Ireland if they're obliged to remain rigorously impartial in their dealings with the region. The possibility of neutrality is necessarily compromised by such a blatant conflict of interest.
With what are you going to replace the GFA?
What are you referring to? Did Adams say he expected some sort of veto in Westminster?Quote:
Gerry Adams TD: thanks for clarifying this weekend that your party isn't interested in goings-on in the Brit Parliament. And well done on your election results. As most Nat voters in Belfast, Derry and South Down clearly share your attitude, you can't expect a movement with no MPs to have a veto in Parliament.
It's interesting to hear the demands in the media for Sinn Féin to take their seats, especially from southern parties like Fianna Fáil and the Irish Labour Party. Considering these parties - supposedly national - refuse to contest elections north of the border, they can hardly lecture others on such matters.
Also of interest, I note that a Tory actually suggested reform of the parliamentary oath of allegiance back in 2006 in order to facilitate Sinn Féin, although nothing ever became of it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...says-Tory.html
I'm not convinced that would make a difference anyway, especially judging by the unequivocal statements of Adams and other Sinn Féin members since the election. The rationale, which has remained unchanged for a century, was outlined pretty clearly again by Danny Morrison on Eamonn Mallie's site the other day and it doesn't merely relate to the oath: http://eamonnmallie.com/2017/06/form...anny-morrison/
Sinn Féin would surely have to have a vote involving party members at an Ard Fheis to change a policy like that. Taking their seats might seem like a no-brainer to the many urging Sinn Féin to take their seats, but I don't see it happening for a few obvious reasons:
- Sinn Féin's seven MPs were elected in the knowledge and on the promise that they would abstain from Westminster. That's what the largest number of voters in the seven constituencies where Sinn Féin won their seats voted for. For Sinn Féin to go back on that would essentially be to renege on an election promise.
- Abstentionism has been a core party policy of Sinn Féin's for a century, the purpose of which has effectively been to allow Irish electorates to use their vote to reject British rule in Ireland.
- Expressing an oath of allegiance to a monarch, whether foreign or not, would be an obvious contravention of republican principles. (In saying that, republican socialist Bernadette Devlin took a pragmatic approach and managed to get round it without damaging her republican credentials when she was elected to Westminster in 1969 as a Unity candidate.)
- Sinn Féin rejects Britain's asserted right to legislate over part of Ireland. If Sinn Féin were to start legislating in Westminster - or over Britain, in other words - they'd leave themselves open to accusations of gross hypocrisy. Arguably, their entire raison d'être would be seen to lack coherency and they'd perhaps lose credibility too. I'm sure unionists and "dissidents" would have a field day.
Whether one agrees with the rationale or not, the logic behind Sinn Féin's abstentionism is at least pretty solid.
Morning DI. Variously
1 Yes, the DUP are popular locally- and they've got a lot more popular since March (vote share up from 28% to 36%). Let's not pretend that jump has anything to do with gay marriage or creationism, eh?
2 The English media have ridiculed NI for decades. Because of the violence, not old-fashioned social attitudes. Since 1970, it's been easier to caricature Paisley and Adams than analyse their own parties' role in the situation. Non-role, when it comes to anything as inconvenient as challenging Unionists and Nationalists in elections
3 I'd treat this supposed contempt from English opinion with a big pinch- it may pass quite quickly. For Tories, they'll tolerate bribes to the DUP if the alternative's a Labour government. While Labour voters clearly weren't bothered being led by a guy who has been as close to paramilitarism as it's possible to get without actually backing a shooting war. It hasn't directly affected England for a long time, so voters aren't bothered by it. Or do you think anyone in Derby or Coventry is outraged by the lack Irish language laws? Nobody in Dublin or Cork is ;)
4 Neil on Slugger may have a short memory. NI politicians likely to be shocked by phone-tapping? Unsurprisingly, I go more with editor Mick Fealty on that site (see his 6 reasons article)
5 Essentially, you are saying that NI parties can't join A Brit government, or even wave it through from the Oppo benches where the DUP are today. Like some of the has-been Brit politicians I mentioned, and most starkly NI's own Paddy Ashdown. Although I notice that Naomi Long agreed with Jim Allister and Robin Swann that this is pretty insulting (and may be unrealistic, if there isn't another quick election, or if there is but the result is still a hung Parliament)
6 NI is now two mutually antagonistic blocs both with 40%+ support, with the others stopping either of them getting 50% domination. While there's still volatility, a deal set in stone for a forced coalition for 3% of the country isn't necessarily what's needed (even before you consider the other 97% needing a government)
7 OK, I'm avoiding the question. I don't know what replaces GFA- GAA, GTA? Nationalist voters in NI don't want representation in London or seemingly to revive Stormont. Ask again after the 29 June deadline
8 I mentioned Gerry Adams, but he's only one of many effectively calling for an Irish Nationalist veto over who forms the British Government. It's a risk- great for SF if the May Govt collapses and there's another election, not so much if she limps on for 5 years
9 Southern Parties (FF and Labour) are taking the p*ss calling for SF to join Westminster. English political journalists are just displaying their ignorance. You're right, SF's POV is consistent and it isn't going to change
A very good article by Jonathan Cook on "the media's wretched failings over the past two years in maligning Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn" with reference to George Monbiot's admission that the liberal-leaning Guardian was part of the problem and Noam Chomsky's "propaganda model": http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/20...-core-problem/
True; a variant of the infamous oul' "two warring religious tribes" myth, that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I think Mick is deluding himself if he genuinely thinks "White Protestant British Irish folk in Northern Ireland are routinely abused and demonised in a way no other group on these islands are". Such a hyperbolic claim is either for rhetorical effect or he's not been paying attention to the nasty treatment of Muslims in England over recent years.Quote:
4 Neil on Slugger may have a short memory. NI politicians likely to be shocked by phone-tapping? Unsurprisingly, I go more with editor Mick Fealty on that site (see his 6 reasons article)
His other points are a bit stronger, although I still take issue with the DUP-Tory deal because I feel it compromises the Tory government's duty of impartiality.
I'm saying that's what the GFA is saying. If the British government is to remain rigorously impartial in its dealings in respect of the north of Ireland, then the Tories, who wish to become that government, shouldn't be entertaining the notion of a "confidence and supply" arrangement with unionists in order to secure power as it creates a rather obvious and undeniable conflict of interest. You must at least acknowledge that it creates a conflict of interest, no? How could the Tory government hope to remain impartial when, as Colum Eastwood put it, the DUP tail will be wagging the Tory dog?Quote:
5 Essentially, you are saying that NI parties can't join A Brit government, or even wave it through from the Oppo benches where the DUP are today. Like some of the has-been Brit politicians I mentioned, and most starkly NI's own Paddy Ashdown. Although I notice that Naomi Long agreed with Jim Allister and Robin Swann that this is pretty insulting (and may be unrealistic, if there isn't another quick election, or if there is but the result is still a hung Parliament)
For what it's worth, I believe the same restrictive principle would apply to Labour if they were trying to do similar with a nationalist party in order to form a government.
Have you a link to Naomi's comments?
Maybe more and more are seeing the light of Irish unity as the solution to the present and worsening political and economic crisis they're facing.Quote:
Nationalist voters in NI don't want representation in London or seemingly to revive Stormont.
In what sense is he calling or a nationalist veto over who forms the British government? He and others are simply reiterating the terms (or, at least, their understanding of the terms) of the GFA.Quote:
8 I mentioned Gerry Adams, but he's only one of many effectively calling for an Irish Nationalist veto over who forms the British Government. It's a risk- great for SF if the May Govt collapses and there's another election, not so much if she limps on for 5 years
1 Yes, I probably should have side-stepped that bit in MF's article about prejudice faced by Unionists. Grade A Mopery ;)
2 The basic problem is that your “duty of impartiality” (to 1% of the state's population, don't forget) contradicts the duty to form a working Government for the other 99%...
3 The British Government- ANY British Government- can't be “rigorously impartial” for that reason. As long as you have a UK it will have localised and separatist parties with electoral support. Even in a FPTP electoral system they may hold the balance- there are still 57 after last week (down from 77)
4 Anyway the point is hardly lost on SF,who've been gurning about how impartial or not the Brits are since 1998 (just like they did for decades beforehand)
5 Yes, I acknowledge a conflict of interest. There are relatively simple ways to get round that- by bringing in a 'neutral' chairman for talks, say- but my (2) above applies. The GFA may be unworkable in its present form, but that's not necessarily a disaster- nor does it have to risk the Peace Process, or whatever other euphemism Nationalists use. Put crudely, do they think if Foster manages to negotiate a few new hospitals or schools in Ulster Country, that the dissos & UDA/ UVFwill step up the 'War' in response, and get support for it?
6 I'm not sure you're right about the mirror-image of the current row, ie if Labour were four or five short and did a deal with PC on confidence and supply. Now that English voters seem prepared to ignore the smears the media throw both at Labour and Nationalists (a huge change in itself), why not Leanne Wood insisting on that new bypass or upgraded rail line? Obviously there are differences- no Welsh Republican Army or Cymric Volunteer Force , but the basic principle is the same as per my (3) above
7 Naomi, Squeaky Jim and the UUP (actually Steve Aiken not Robin Swann) were interviewed on BBC (either Talkback or Nolan) on Monday or Tuesday. I'll check back
8 Aye, Nationalist voters are keener on a UI than they were a year ago. They're still only on 41% support though (ie SF + SDLP)
9 The Veto Adams is asking for looks pretty obvious to me. In the sense that if it has feathers and goes quack it's probably a duck. BTW I accept that GA and you both understand the GFA perfectly well, but if the bigger picture contradicts it then something just has to give...
Sky News Australia thought Gerry Adams was a man called "Sinn Féin" and that he was a member of the DUP who opposed the prospective DUP-Tory deal:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCcBsHRUQAApsiJ.jpg
Whilst the British government most definitely has legal obligations by virtue of having entered into an inter-governmental agreement - the GFA - that has status in international law, the Tories, on the other hand, aren't legally obliged to form that working government of which you speak with the DUP. In fact, they're not even legally obliged to form a government at all. Maybe you could argue they have some vague moral obligation to attempt to form a working government for the people of the UK or in the UK's national interest or whatever, but they could also just as easily pass up the opportunity and let Labour and other progressives have a stab at it instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
(Excuse my pedantry, but isn't the duty of impartiality relevant to approximately three per cent of the state's population?)
Why did the British government agree to undertake such a duty then? Perhaps pure or perfect impartiality isn't practically possible, but that doesn't mean the British government can just decide not to bother about even making an attempt at being impartial. There remains a duty to at least try and be as rigorously impartial as it can be in its dealings relating to the north of Ireland. Hopping into bed with the DUP is as far from trying to be impartial as could be possible.Quote:
3 The British Government- ANY British Government- can't be “rigorously impartial” for that reason.
I think there's a considerable degree of validity in such "gurning". British intelligence was running Denis Donaldson as an agent as late as December of 2005. Why so, if Britain was supposedly impartial?Quote:
4 Anyway the point is hardly lost on SF,who've been gurning about how impartial or not the Brits are since 1998 (just like they did for decades beforehand)
The British government is still in breach of its ECHR article 2 (right to life) duty to provide effective, independent and transparent investigations into cases in the north where agents of the state killed people due to the use of lethal force, where the actions of the state or negligence on the part of the state resulted in deaths and where the state has been accused of colluding in killings.
In fact, the British government has actively obstructed the process of resolving legacy issues - or truth and justice matters - despite agreeing during the Haass talks that resolutions were needed and would be pursued. It has disingenuously passed the buck of dealing with these issues to Stormont, as if the British government had been a neutral observer refereeing "two warring religious tribes" and had no role to play in the conflict itself or as if the deaths requiring effective investigation weren't consequences of its overall security policy and practices. Disclosure of the truth has been deliberately withheld under the dubious and unverified cloak of "national security", whilst the DUP has also been allowed to impede progress by holding back promised funding for legacy inquests.
Britain has further failed to provide information on the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings and has reneged on its Weston Park commitment to hold an inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane. Why the British reluctance to disclose the truth and provide justice if Britain is supposedly impartial?
The British government has also failed to honour its obligations in compliance with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, has failed to fulfil its promise to deliver an Irish language act, despite formal criticism from the Council of Europe, and, likewise, has again allowed the DUP to obstruct progress on this front.
Other commitments that the British government has failed to honour include the establishment of a civic forum in the north, the establishment of an all-Ireland civic forum, the formation of a bill of rights for the north, the establishment of a joint north/south committee of the two human rights commissions and the production of an all-Ireland charter of rights.
To pinpoint just a few examples of partisanship in its governing role prior to the peace process, there was collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, there was the long-term refusal until 1992 to proscribe the UDA and there was the lopsided application of the policy of internment without trial; for every Protestant interned, there were 19 Catholics subjected to the same. No unionist community ever experienced anything like Bloody Sunday or the Ballymurphy massacre at the hands of the state's forces. Onward to the modern day, Britain is still looking out for Britain's interests when it comes to its dealings with the north of Ireland and is reneging on its promises, plenty of which I've outlined above. That's not impartiality, as far as I'm concerned.
In spite of all that, the British government is at least obliged to try to be impartial. If a deal is struck with the DUP, however, the British government can't even credibly pretend to be so any longer.
The concern is that unionists and DUP constituencies will benefit disproportionately from this arrangement at the expense of nationalists and non-DUP constituencies, considering the DUP look out for unionist interests first and foremost. How might an independent talks chairperson safeguard against that in order to protect supposedly-equal nationalist rights and interests? What talks would he or she be chairing anyway? This deal with the Tories surely negates or at least diminishes any incentive for the DUP to enter into talks with other opposing parties in order to get power-sharing up and running again, no? If the party can get what it wants direct from London by dragging desired concessions out of the Tories in return for the offering of support in Westminster, why trouble itself with the frequent disagreements and potential rigmarole of power-sharing?Quote:
5 Yes, I acknowledge a conflict of interest. There are relatively simple ways to get round that- by bringing in a 'neutral' chairman for talks, say- but my (2) above applies. The GFA may be unworkable in its present form, but that's not necessarily a disaster- nor does it have to risk the Peace Process, or whatever other euphemism Nationalists use. Put crudely, do they think if Foster manages to negotiate a few new hospitals or schools in Ulster Country, that the dissos & UDA/ UVFwill step up the 'War' in response, and get support for it?
Whilst I think talk of peace being under threat is somewhat overblown, the deal will clearly undermine the notion of parity of esteem, which is a core concept underpinning the Good Friday Agreement. In that sense, it undermines the northern political process.
What's the relevance of Plaid Cymru? As far as I know, the British government is under no internationally-agreed obligation to remain rigorously impartial in its dealings with Wales and the Welsh assembly. As you acknowledge, Wales doesn't have two institutionally-defined and historically-conflicting communities with and between whom the principle of parity of esteem has been agreed as a method by which to help them overcome conflict, resolve their differences and move forward together in peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
When I referred to Labour hypothetically striking a similar deal with a nationalist party, I meant a nationalist party in the context of the north of Ireland; either Sinn Féin or the SDLP, in other words.
In the news report at very beginning of Tuesday's Talkback show, Naomi Long is reported to be concerned about the potential impact the DUP-Tory deal may have upon the restoration of power-sharing. She's then quoted saying the following:Quote:
7 Naomi, Squeaky Jim and the UUP (actually Steve Aiken not Robin Swann) were interviewed on BBC (either Talkback or Nolan) on Monday or Tuesday. I'll check back
"In every previous talks process, we have seen the government, at some point, having to use so leverage over the parties locally and to force them to make a decision around talks and to force them to move forward. I don't see honestly how James Brokenshire can be in a position to do that given that his position is entirely dependent upon the support of the DUP."
From that, she sounds like she'd have an issue with a potential undermining of impartiality resulting from any deal in theory. Did she change her tune in the space of a few hours to saying that opposing the concept of formal "confidence and supply" deals between northern parties and the British government would amount to an insult to the people and parties of the north of Ireland? Or is it just that she has an issue with the DUP deal in practice whilst not necessarily having an issue with deals generally in theory? Can those positions be reconciled?
As has been apparent from other polls also, a NILT survey conducted in 2016 after the Brexit referendum has indicated a slight rise in support for unity: https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/16...ortion-reform/Quote:
8 Aye, Nationalist voters are keener on a UI than they were a year ago. They're still only on 41% support though (ie SF + SDLP)
If the Brexit decision has caused that, I envisage support for unity rising even further once the Brexit process becomes more real or concrete and its effects begin to be felt materially.
I don't concur with such a reading. It's rather misleading to portray this as nationalists attempting to assert a veto. This isn't a case of nationalists making a unilateral demand of the British government. This is a case of holding the British government to a legal obligation it has previously bilaterally agreed to honour. To remind someone of their agreed obligations is entirely legitimate, fair and reasonable.Quote:
9 The Veto Adams is asking for looks pretty obvious to me. In the sense that if it has feathers and goes quack it's probably a duck. BTW I accept that GA and you both understand the GFA perfectly well, but if the bigger picture contradicts it then something just has to give...
And I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes "the bigger picture". Ireland and Irish affairs are my "bigger picture" or primary concern; not Britain or British affairs, which are secondary and mainly relevant to me insofar as I lived in Britain for a few years and have friends there or insofar as British affairs might have some bearing upon Irish affairs. I understand you may well feel differently, at least until you finally come round to seeing the light anyway! ;)
Morning all. Thoughtful stuff as ever Di: I hope to reply on Monday or Tuesday ;)
Ha, no bother. Enjoy your weekend!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Theresa May's robotic appearance on Newsnight with Emily Maitlis the other evening was embarrassing as she was interrogated on governmental responsibility for the Grenfell Tower fire disaster:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftY1NlPk5YY
Things aren't looking good for her and supporters of a hard Brexit are now threatening a leadership challenge within ten days if she is seen to be going soft on the matter in the queen's speech.
Just on the Grenfell Tower disaster, I thought George Monbiot's article on "what 'ripping up red tape' really looks like" was excellent: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y-deregulation
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Monbiot
Not sure which thread best hosts this, (here or the Unity one) but an interesting read, worth hitting the link for the detail included also, which is such that it reasonable to think this is at an advanced stage. So I suppose my questions are, how independent is the body who will decide if this goes ahead ? & how much May might be cornered into discussions / delays / changes, on it by the DUP at present if that body is open to influence ?
And, even if the subject is merely broached, the maintaining a neutral stance in the ensuing political process London is committed to in return for the end of the IRA campaign is surely dead.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-35831665.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Belfast Telegraph
It will be extremely difficult to come up with any boundaries that won't make SF the biggest party at Westminster.
There is still a clear unionist plurality among the population but the tendency among unionists to move to the greater Belfast area has created a half a dozen constituencies with negligible nationalist populations.
East Belfast
East Antrim
North Down
Lagan Valley
Strangford
South Antrim
Nationalist constituencies on the other hand tend to be more 60:40. Unionism has effectively Gerrymandered itself through migration.
I assume you're referring to Sinn Féin, but what is "21ST"? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
Just another example of the difficulties foot.ie has with mobile browsers.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I typed SF, but somewhere between chrome mobile and here it was auto-corrected to 21ST
@ Danny
1 Sure, we have legal obligations to pay parking fines and the TV licences. And not to have a working government? Do you think the latter's less important?
2 A Tory Government nodded throughby the DUP will be unstable.A Rainbow Coalition wouldn't get the chance to be unstable- Labour and the SNP would struggle to work together, and even if they did you'd be over-reliant on Caroline Lucas or Sylvia Hermon always turning up
3 Your pedantry betrays your bias- you think everyone in NI agrees that the Tories need to be impartial. In reality, most Unionists aren't bothered as they almost all prefer May to Corbyn. Those Unionists are 49% of local voters, who overall are only 2.5% of the national total. So about 1.3% are with you. Don't pretend that many in England are bothered. They're too concerned about real violence around them than notional dissidence in NI
4 The Brits agreed to supposed impartiality because they a) wanted a deal, b) hoped that they wouldn't need Unionist backing in Parliament and c) thought they could bluff through even if b) didn't work. As I've repeated a few times, I don't think they were ever impartial. By listing all that evidence of how biased they are, presumably you agree?
5 They've tried to go throughthe motions. They'll continue to do so. Of course I realise that their relationship with the DUP makes that much more difficult, but since you clearly think they (Brits) have never had that impartiality, it does rather beg the question why you put so much trust in them for so long?
6 Do you have any specific worries about the Tory/ DUP deal? Foster has said there'll be nothing about abortion, sexuality or other devolved issues in the negotiations. It'll be tax changes locally (on businesses, air travel etc.). The Tories will likely row back on benefits payable nationally because of pressure from Labour. As for pork-barrel projects, don't forget that both the DUP leadership are from Nationalist areas. Fermanagh people should be pleased ;)
7 DUP say they want Stormont back. They might not really mean it, but they didn't pull the plug to bring it down. Them's the breaks...
8 Compared with threats of return to violence (which however unlikely is at least easily understood), parity of esteem is just a vague soundbite, certainly outside Ireland
9 I mentioned Plaid Cymru not least because there's a real if small chance of them holding the balance in Westminster. There's no chance of Sinn Fein or the SDLP doing that, as we're agreed. If PC did briefly hold thtat clout, they'd get the goodies and English voters would whinge for a while. Life would go on
10 Naomi Long is worried about Stormont not returning, understandably enough. Without it, she has very little platform and Alliance's vote may fall back. Her slight chippiness at being sneered at by has-beens like Paddy Ashdown doesn't contadict that
11 Agreed, support for nationalism is rising. But we know the total Nat vote doesn't fully reflect it. That may change as Brexit bites
12 We're talking about formation of a British government. That's why what English voters variously want or are indifferent about dominates the bigger picture
13 I reserve the right to see the light at the appropriate moment...
@ Crafty
14 The Boundary Commission is theoretically independent, but like most British Government funded bodies it generally does what the British Government of the day wants (in this case, referring the previous Cameron regime, by cutting the number of seats overall and redrawing them to have roughly the same number of registered voters). Which is basically a gerrymander, because in Britain's electoral geography Labour seats tend to be in cities and towns with smaller electorates, while the Tories' are suburban and rural with fewer young and transient people who are less likely to register. In other words, electorate sizes differ often quite starkly, overall populations less so. The plan was to cut the number of Labour seats, with mny/ most of those remaining in inner cities having enormous Labour majorities, while surrounded by Tory areas with smaller yet comfortable margins, which funnily enough isn't too different from...
15...Northern Ireland. As above, SF could win seats in places like Limavady (if it's merged with Magherafelt) or Lurgan (if it loses Banbridge), while the DUP waste a surplus getting 80% in Carrick and Larne, or wherever. Broadly the point BttW makes above. Even given the quirks of FPTP it would clearly be absurd for the current 49:41:10 breakdown to return more Nationalist than Unionist MPs. Of course there's a way round that, effectively mutually agreed gerrymander which gives 9:8:1 for Alliance, as an example
16 May could well drop this anyway, more hassle thanit's worth. I mean, she's set to abandon the Government's entire economic strategy: carving up a few Sperrin villages looks small beer
17 For the little that it's worth, Electoral Calculus's final prediction on 7 June was as follows
Tory 361 (wrong by +43)
Labour 216 (wrong by -46)
SNP & PC 51 (wrong by +12)
LibDem 3 (wrong by -9)
Green 1 (correct)
Even I was closer than that...
@ BttW
18 As per (15) above, the Boundary Commission just needs to replace existing gerrymanders with others to resolve the problem. Don't worry too much about county, district or ward borders, or if some constituencies look a bit odd. Birmingham City Centre, for example, would become a semi-erect penis ;) Belfast should only be three seats- as it's just voted 40:42:19, one each for the three blocs?
19 Three of the seven Nat-held constituencies (Foyle, Souh Down and West Belfast) have a bloc vote of more than 70%
20 For a moment there I thought you were predicting a comeback by NI21...
18. I largely agree. There is wisdom in viewing these proposals as a starting point for negotiations. If one seat ends up with 60,000 people and another ends up with 80,000 It hardly matters for Westminster as long as everyone is content with the final arrangements.
What would you think about multi-member constituencies as a solution?
19. You are quite correct on those the specifics but it was a generalisation which I think still stands. As you said unionists problem comes down to towns like Carrick & Larne.