Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gather round
2 Aye, Brokeback's repeated 'deadlines' are pointless. But he's just an onlooker, biased or otherwise. Maybe the impatient should try not voting in vast number for the most uncompromising parties? Jusrt a thought...
Are you referring to nationalist parties as being uncompromising? If so, care to elaborate exactly as to why? Nationalist parties wholeheartedly believe in parity of esteem and Martin McGuinness was well-known for his cross-communal outreach efforts on behalf of Sinn Féin.
As I said above, unionists expecting nationalism to compromise on the compromises isn't in any way reasonable or acceptable and that's why we have this impasse.
Quote:
3 Thanks for the link to Ciaran McClean's legal action which I'd missed. Maybe it'll be more successful than Steven Agnew's?
You have faith in its chances of success now? ;)
Quote:
4 Any Southern government has both at least an implied duty as co-guarantor to be impartial, and theoretically at least SF as a future coalition partner. What's the difference in principle to the Tory/ DUP deal?
It's different in principle because the Irish government isn't the sovereign government exercising jurisdiction over the north. The UK government enjoys that right and with it comes the responsibility (expressly laid down in the GFA) to be rigorously impartial. If unionists or the DUP seek have such a responsibility or duty imposed upon the Irish government, then they can always think about concurrently bestowing the corresponding right of jurisdiction upon the Irish government (via joint-authority or some other imaginative solution) and get back to nationalism on that. If Brokenshire had any nous, he'd be pressuring the DUP into action with the "threat" of this possibility. If unionists aren't keen on such however, then they can give the moaning about "Irish government impartiality" a rest; their complaints carry very little weight or credibility.
Quote:
5 Sure, it'd be different if Corbyn could get his way on nuclear disarmament. No sign of it happening though. I think Labour as a whole find it very difficult to even imagine a future without constant economic growth and therefore to show much commitment or imagination to environmental issues
That's possible. There's a faction even within the Labour/trade union Left that opposes the scrapping of Trident on the basis of potential job losses in the defence sector.
I actually voted Green in Manchester Central for the 2015 Westminster election, but it was pretty much a wasted vote as the party has little chance of making any serious inroads under the FPTP system, unfortunately. Labour's Lucy Powell regularly wins the Manchester Central seat by a landslide and also did so on that occasion. However, I would have voted for Powell last month if I was still resident in Manchester, pretty much due to the Corbyn effect - more so to give a vote to Labour as a party rather than to Powell the personality/politician, if you know what I mean - and even if I'd still have harboured my 2015 reservations about Powell's personal politics and internal party allegiances. She's a member of the Blarite Progress group.
Even a compromised Corbyn government would be much more preferable than a continuation of Tory rule, although I think we're agreed on that.
Quote:
6 I'm sticking with 1972 as the watershed year (Stormont was abolished on my birthday, coincidentally). Unionists had lost their glorified county council and couldn't systematically discriminate and intimidate quite as before- plus as I mentioned, they had to endure 30 years of violence just like everyone else. I'm going to pull age rank here and suggest that younger Nationalists may underplay the significance of this ;)
That's your right, although I think by saying that, after 1972, unionists "couldn't systematically discriminate and intimidate quite as before", you're subtly (perhaps unwittingly) admitting that, even if their status had been dealt a somewhat diminishing blow then, they were still undoubtedly top dogs with discrimination and state-sanctioned intimidation still a facet of northern life for nationalists throughout the '70s, '80s and early '90s.
Quote:
8 I see the difference as that between small talk (motherhood, apple pie, parity of esteem) and business (hospitals, schools, York Street infrastructure). The first is an introduction to the latter, not a replacement for it
Nobody's saying it should be a replacement though. In fact, nationalists are saying exactly what you're saying. Nationalists want business (or movement on the provision of services and infrastructure), but we first have to implement or properly introduce the principle of parity of esteem, as was previously agreed. The DUP are impeding that. Otherwise, it's just a case of business for unionism with nationalism receiving either broadly less favourable or even no treatment. That may not bother many unionists, but, as a nationalist, naturally I don't find it to be tolerable.
