The Flag Issue/Cheist an Bratach/The Fleg Prooblum

[BonnieShels]

The significance is probably created as a result of the hand in the Ulster Banner having it's thumb located away from the palm.

Whilst I've heard of this apparent significance before, no one has ever really explained what it is. So I reckon that if we are both stumped Danny, and GR doesn't know then, there is none perhaps?

Incidentally, above James Buchanan it is away from the palm and above Teddy R it's against the palm.

The plot thickens.

[Gather round]

If they are primarily to blame how might Sinn Féin and the SDLP have realistically gone about achieving a united Ireland in light of unfavourable demographics since and due to the contrived creation of NI?

As I suggested above, NI Nationalists have done little or nothing to 'sell' a united Ireland to Unionists and other non-Nationalists. SF obviously by running a paramilitary campaign for 30 years, SDLP by quickly abandoning the Social Democratic and Labour parts to redefine themselves as basically a little-changed successor to the old Nationalist party.

Of course I'm not suggesting that a more compromising attitude would have been successful, but it just hasn't been tried. Instead, Nationalists have relied on usually simplistic variants of the tick-tock theory that they'll inevitably a) achieve a 50% + 1 majority, and then seamlessly b) be welcomed into the 32 county utopia.

What was the root cause of those unfavourable demographics? Historical factors remain factors that have played fundamental roles in the realisation of our contemporary situation. It would be silly to discount them as merely "historically fascinating" given the obvious existence of causal relationships between the past and the present, never mind the weighty significance attributed to/attempts to derive political validity from historical events, battles and figures by members of both communities in NI

We're going round in circles here. Insteading of just repeating 'it's not fair that the Unionists are a majority locally', you could address the points above.

Yes, past events affect the present, but shouldn't dominate it. It's actually perfectly reasonable not to get bogged down in who did what in 1922, 1641 or 1169. Your idee fixe that these are crucial is the real oddity. Do you ever hear people in Germany, France, Sweden or Poland talking about the 30 Years War that have played fundamental roles in the realisation of our contemporary situation?

By the way, do you view Sinn Féin's alleged anti-Britishness as a form of racism/xenophobia? What do you mean exactly when you accuse them of being anti-British?

In the post-Troubles era, I see their repetitive, exaggerated references to Britain's failings as tiresome and invariably resulting in a mirror-image response from many Unionists. That attitude is that Britain isn't just foreign, but oppressive over centuries. Which maybe isn't that relevant to primary education or bin collections.

I wouldn't use xenophobia or racism, that would just stir another debate. Presumably SF and their supporters would argue no prejudice against individual Britons

This may surprise you as it surprised me: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...327144275.html

Aye, some interesting and possibly self-contradicting stuff there.

The problem for any Southern government is that the national/ emotional/ constitutional commitment to a united Ireland is bound to make any less than overwhelming poll an embarrassment. It seems clear to me from that survey that a large majority in the South expect (read: want, even if they won't admit it) the problem to be safely parked in the long grass for a generation or two.

[DannyInvincible]

Incidentally, above James Buchanan it is away from the palm and above Teddy R it's against the palm.

The plot thickens.

Ha, indeed. I just noticed that after posting the other examples.

Here's another of George Washington with thumb against palm:

[DannyInvincible]

Insteading of just repeating 'it's not fair that the Unionists are a majority locally', you could address the points above.

That's not quite what I was saying. I don't subscribe to the "sins of the father shall be borne by the son" school of thought. We are where we are and so must deal with the present situation in a contemporary manner. No doubt, an inability to sell the notion of a united Ireland to unionists is one reason amongst many why such has never been realised but that's not to say that the present situation cannot be explained further by reference to historical events and circumstances so that we can appreciate a fuller understanding.

Yes, past events affect the present, but shouldn't dominate it. It's actually perfectly reasonable not to get bogged down in who did what in 1922, 1641 or 1169. Your idee fixe that these are crucial is the real oddity. Do you ever hear people in Germany, France, Sweden or Poland talking about the 30 Years War that have played fundamental roles in the realisation of our contemporary situation?

Well, why would they continue debating resolved territorial disputes that bear no direct relationship with contemporary issues within the universally-agreed boundaries of those states? By and large, European territorial disputes have been resolved and are truly matters of history. NI/Ireland is an exception to the trend, or has been until very recently/the signing of the GFA, depending on one's point of view. It would be entirely reasonable that those engaging in discussion about the dispute or its conflicting parties would make some reference to its historical roots.

[Charlie Darwin]

I'm sorry I missed that gathering...

The unexpected absurdity of the final words of the video gave me a chuckle and reminded me of that King of the Sheep competition/"F*ckin' hell!" scene in Father Ted:

Lead speaker: "God Save the Queen!"
*Wild applause and largely incomprehensible roaring with a few shouts of "No Surrender" before volume abates.*
Solitary background voice: "Go on, Queen!"

I missed that first time around. Go on, Queen indeed.

[SkStu]

Found this very funny!

[DannyInvincible]

According to Arlene Foster on the Nolan Show/Radio Ulster this morning, the DUP are considering responding to Sinn Féin's call for a border poll with an assured invite to "bring it on" in the hope a result in favour of maintaining the union with Britain would "remove instability" and provide "a clear validation" of that union. She feels this would "call Sinn Féin's bluff".

Edit: In order to provoke some debate, I imagine, Nolan is now rather disingenuously proclaiming that support for a border poll is the DUP's current official position on the matter.

[DannyInvincible]

A rather bizarre letter in the Belfast Newsletter on the flag issue: http://www.newsletter.co.uk/communit...o5S6zM.twitter

IN response to the question posed by Neil C Oliver (Letters, January 15 - “Who pays the bill for lost business?” - there would appear to be a prima facie case that Belfast City Hall Alliance councillors should be held accountable for a breach of contract with the Belfast City ratepayers.

John Locke, widely known as the father of Classical Liberalism, enunicated a social contract between the electorate and the elected - legitimate government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed.

As no consent was given for a change to the flying of the flag on designated days - only 10 out of 15,600 responses supported designated days in the quality impact assessment - there would appear to be a prima facie case of a breach of contract by the Alliance councillors’ with the Belfast ratepayers in making an amendment without a mandate, and therefore they are liable for damages incurred by the ratepayers.

John Saxton

(UKIP member)

[BonnieShels]

According to Arlene Foster on the Nolan Show/Radio Ulster this morning, the DUP are considering responding to Sinn Féin's call for a border poll with an assured invite to "bring it on" in the hope a result in favour of maintaining the union with Britain would "remove instability" and provide "a clear validation" of that union. She feels this would "call Sinn Féin's bluff".

Edit: In order to provoke some debate, I imagine, Nolan is now rather disingenuously proclaiming that support for a border poll is the DUP's current official position on the matter.

Nothing new there.

Trimble was peddling that line 10 years ago knowing it was unlikely to happen. There will be no-border poll for a loooooooong time. With the Scottish poll next year though, it's unlikely that the north will get an opportunity for a while.

[Not Brazil]

According to Arlene Foster on the Nolan Show/Radio Ulster this morning, the DUP are considering responding to Sinn Féin's call for a border poll with an assured invite to "bring it on" in the hope a result in favour of maintaining the union with Britain would "remove instability" and provide "a clear validation" of that union. She feels this would "call Sinn Féin's bluff".

Edit: In order to provoke some debate, I imagine, Nolan is now rather disingenuously proclaiming that support for a border poll is the DUP's current official position on the matter.

I would like to "bring it on" too, but the problem is that the Secretary Of State can only call a Border Poll when it is deemed there is a reasonable chance that a Poll might succeed in a Constitutional change - there is no such chance, and PSF know it!
The Shinners are working to a different agenda with this call for a Poll - centred around their political progress in the South.

[BonnieShels]

I would like to "bring it on" too, but the problem is that the Secretary Of State can only call a Border Poll when it is deemed there is a reasonable chance that a Poll might succeed in a Constitutional change - there is no such chance, and PSF know it!
The Shinners are working to a different agenda with this call for a Poll - centred around their political progress in the South.

The vagueness of that part of the process makes it unlikely it will happen for many many years. Just scanned through the GFA. It's fierce vague about a lot of stuff. I love that phrase constructive ambiguity.

[DannyInvincible]

I would like to "bring it on" too, but the problem is that the Secretary Of State can only call a Border Poll when it is deemed there is a reasonable chance that a Poll might succeed in a Constitutional change - there is no such chance, and PSF know it!

Indeed, a rather sensationalist Nolan was getting way ahead of himself with some callers when he declared something along the lines of, "But it has to happen, doesn't it, now that the DUP support it?!"

Of course, the DUP are only at a consideration stage with regard to what tactical approach to take, as Foster made clear to him, but even if they did come out in support of a poll, that wouldn't mean "it appears likely ... that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland", which is the test that needs to be satisfied, as far as the Secretary of State is concerned. The DUP would obviously be campaigning against the motion of Irish unity.

The Shinners are working to a different agenda with this call for a Poll - centred around their political progress in the South.

In what sense? In the sense that campaigning for a inevitably-doomed poll in the north will attract votes south of the border? How does that translate exactly?

[Gather round]

By and large, European territorial disputes have been resolved and are truly matters of history. NI/Ireland is an exception to the trend, or has been until very recently/the signing of the GFA, depending on one's point of view

Hmm...Scotland, Flanders, Catalunya, Gibraltar, Kosovo?

True, Northern Ireland is an exception to that trend, but for basically the opposite reason that you suggest. In each of the other cases, you have either a separatist movement aiming to independence, or an existing state trying to 'reclaim' lost territory. Whereas both Britain and the Irish Republic have effectively been agreed on NI's basic status- ie, that there's a border- for nearly 90 years. The South's antics with your constitution are just a pretence.

As I keep repeating, nationalists in NI aren't intending to go it alone. They persist in trying to join another country that doesn't seem to want any of their land, not even a tweaking of the border so that- say- Derry Cityside and most of Newry would be on the other side of it.

Dear Willie Frazer...etc. etc.

Abstentionism goes only so far, eh?

[BonnieShels]

Hmm...Scotland, Flanders, Catalunya, Gibraltar, Kosovo?

True, Northern Ireland is an exception to that trend, but for basically the opposite reason that you suggest. In each of the other cases, you have either a separatist movement aiming to independence, or an existing state trying to 'reclaim' lost territory. Whereas both Britain and the Irish Republic have effectively been agreed on NI's basic status- ie, that there's a border- for nearly 90 years. The South's antics with your constitution are just a pretence.

As I keep repeating, nationalists in NI aren't intending to go it alone. They persist in trying to join another country that doesn't seem to want any of their land, not even a tweaking of the border so that- say- Derry Cityside and most of Newry would be on the other side of it.



Abstentionism goes only so far, eh?

If the north of Ireland is the exception to the trend, why did you feel the need to bring those territories into it?

Now I ask you, why were ther no alterations to the border? Have you got some knowledge of some other Border Commission plan?

[DannyInvincible]

Hmm...Scotland, Flanders, Catalunya, Gibraltar, Kosovo?

There remain outstanding disputes, of course, and there may always will, but I don't think that negates my fundamental point. Don't separatists (or "reclaimists") almost invariably invoke the notion of a "native homeland", the attempted validation of which is most often found in reference to a long-term generational experience upon or historical identification with a particular territory of land?

See dialogue between Argentina and the UK in relation to their territorial dispute over the Falklands, for example. Both sides, especially Argentina, try to validate their respective positions with references to history. Not that such references are necessarily the only ways by which they do try or can try to validate their positions; the UK government, of course, also appeals to the present-day reality that a democratic majority of the islanders currently support maintaining their British ties as legal justification for a continuance of the UK's claim over the islands.

Anyhow, whether or not states offer official sanction to a certain position or argument in a dispute is irrelevant as to whether or not a dispute exists in reality, or in the minds of people concerned. Indeed, some in the international community may perceive official state support for a certain claim as a means by which that claim can be validated (or perhaps the only means by which a certain claim can be validated), but such state support need not necessarily be a prerequisite in order to validate a claim. Otherwise, how would non-states or regions within existing states ever acquire or have acquired statehood?

A significant proportion of the population in NI disputes the territory's position within the UK, or would at least prefer to see a change in its constitutional status by democratic means due, perhaps, to a held view that the territory's rightful position is to be found within an independent, 32-county Irish state; that's a reality worth acknowledging whether the Irish state and the UK have come to an accord between themselves on the very same matter or not. The official positions of the two states don't contradict or nullify the opinion of what is a significant number of people within those states. If a minority fringe of "lunatics" were raising a particular dispute, then their claims might be less worthy of serious consideration. I should add that as a potential political pejorative that can be used to belittle the merits of an opponents viewpoint, I don't particularly like using the term "lunatic" in this context; I use it only for the sake of argument, as common sense should inform you of what I mean.

Abstentionism goes only so far, eh?

Touché.

[BonnieShels]

Harsh, Bonnie. I agreed on this very thread that NI Nationalists' aspiration to a united Ireland was valid. I notice you don't (can't?) actually answer any of the reasoned criticisms I offered of how it tries to achieve that aspiration.

Your constant sniping in and around various aspects of nationalism loses you any empathy towards what you may have initally stated. Your "Eddie Coll" statement par example.

Irish Nationalists will never achieve their aims until there's a political structure in place for it to be achieved.
As it stands the political structure in place is what we have and in order for it to take place it needs to be shown that there is a likelyhood of a border poll succeeding.
The only thing that Nationalists can do right now is show how a United Ireland is in the best interests of every Irish person regardless of his or her political beliefs in the hope that if a poll was to take place it would succeed.

Such as? I mean, which areas particularly matter? To what extent is that foothold growing in them? How will this affect something that matters tangibly, like election results?

You see, the thing is- as I mentioned above- that all this supposed greater influence isn't getting Irish nationalism in NI any new support from the only people who they right rationally want to attract, ie Unionists.

Again I think you are misreading what I am saying and are being deliberately awkward.

Make your mind up, Bonnie. If you're going to convince Unionists that we're running scared, you'll need to offer something slightly more spine-chilling than, effectively 'there MIGHT be a vote, but we might not win it: although don't worry, we've logically re-defined politics!'

Of course there won't be a vote. Not in NI, because we know from every election for decades the strength of support for nationalism (ie, it rose sharply when SF stopped abstaining, then began to tail off because- as I said- there are no floating voters, and because migration rates and family size are roughly the same).

Again it is up to Nationalism to promote the idea of United Ireland > United Kingdom.
In order for this debate to occur we have to start it somewhere. GA has done this.

In fairness the next big question was always going to be this. I'm only surprised it took so long.

And not in the Republic, because it would be embarrassing for the entire political set-up if and when support wasn't overwhelming.

Embarrasment from a hypothetical referendum that may or may not need to happen?
The aspiration of a united Ireland is a strong fact of life amongst the majority of people on this island.
That some believe in it more than others is moot. You'll be surprised how ferevent the will will be come when the opportunity arises.
Again, nothing to worry about until the north of Ireland decide that they want to secede from the UK in order to join with the rest of Ireland politically.

Are you Rip Van Winkle, just awoken from a kip that began in 1922? For the entire period since then, Unionists have been able to rely on Britain providing an economic safety net. For almost all of it, Britain has been a more affluent country than the Irish Republic. Even the credit-fuelled boom of your Celtic Tiger years has been largely wasted on a property bubble rather than investing in infrastructure.

What? You are saying that one of the major economic powerhouses of the planet that we seceded from in 1922 was a more affluent nation than Ireland over the course of the last 90 years? Get out of town.

The talk of safety-nets shows the height of ambition...

I mean countries of approx 6.5million people are generally basket cases economically...


The less said about anything FF did over the last 20 years the better. In a United Ireland they wouldn't have ever gotten next to near to what they did over the years. :P We need our staid northern brethern to rescue us from the gombeen.

Heaven forbid any other country in the world may have ended up in a credit crisis and had to bail out it's banks... Thank god for that safety net for NI's banking 'system'.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is some hidden source of support for a united Ireland in NI that doesn't already vote Nationalist? If so, let's see some evidence?

I don't think I was. My phraseology could have been better I suppose.

Given that its main opposition in NI is basically its mirror image in the us-and-them stakes, that discomfort might not be as terminal as your wishful thinking hopes.

Compare like with like. The Buckfast brigades bricking each other and the Police around the Short Strand aren't at all articulate. Mainstream Unionist and Nationalist politicians aren't that different in their fluency, or lack of it. See my example above, Gerry Adams waffling on TV last week about the budget deficits, something he clearly knows next to nothing about.

Ya what? Who are the people always peddled out to play poormouth? Never usuallly your typical SDLP member or middle class Shinner.

There were numerous Presidents of (part-) Irish descent before Kennedy, not just Jackson. As for the delay in electing a Black equivalent, I imagine a century of slavery followed by another of systematic racism, Jim Crow laws and the like might just have been a bigger factor than innate laziness and self-pity.

I was using that vague quote to demonsrate a point. I wasn't stating it as an entirely accurate summation of the Irish in America for the last 100 years. If you choose to be literal, I can't help it.

Do better, FFS.

Always!

[geysir]

The democratic decision to have the Union Jack flying on designated days at Belfast City Hall is already a compromise decision and that's the context to view protests to this by the Unionist parties. Perceptions by those who think that this is a last straw, just demonstrates the failures/difficulties of this partitioned statelet to get on with being a shared statelet, since the GFA. The National Party in South Africa in the dying years of Apartheid were more proactive /progressive about what needed to be done than the Unionist parties in NI. The DUP and the more wackier elements in particular, appear to take a similar position to that of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, the extreme Afrikaners, a position totally devoid of rationality.
Sinn Fein calling for a 'border poll' is a good long term strategy and that strategy appears to go above the head of those Unionists who say 'bring it on'.

[horton]

Facebook were given a legal order to remove two of the pages used by the Loyalist protesters after several threats were made against a named individual. Said nutjobs are up in arms claiming the decision infringes on their freedom of speech etc. etc. and so they've got the EU involved

[Charlie Darwin]

That is the most amazing example of hyperactive whackjobbery I've seen in ages. Well, today.

[Gather round]

Anyhow, whether or not states offer official sanction to a certain position or argument in a dispute is irrelevant as to whether or not a dispute exists in reality

You're sidestepping the point. There isn't a dispute between states, but internally within the British state on the one hand, and between the Southern state and NI nationalism on the other. A dispute where one side pretends to welcome the other, while in reality and over decades doing pretty much the opposite. A combination of cold war and doublethink, if you like.

Otherwise, how would non-states or regions within existing states ever acquire or have acquired statehood?

Irrelevant. Nationalists in NI don't want independent statehood (although they might have to consider it if the South ever votes against reunification).

Lunatics [have taken over the asylum]

Point taken, you don't want to be perjorative. Anyway, back to repeating the same strategy over and over again with the same unwelcome result.

the failures/difficulties of this partitioned statelet to get on with being a shared statelet since the GFA

Have you been reading Michael Farrell? There hasn't been an Orange State(let) for 40 years.

The National Party in South Africa in the dying years of Apartheid were more proactive /progressive about what needed to be done than the Unionist parties in NI. The DUP and the more wackier elements in particular, appear to take a similar position to that of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, the extreme Afrikaners, a position totally devoid of rationality

Very droll. Do you seriously think the collapse of decades of systematic apartheid is comparable to a dumb decision by the DUP and UUP to stir up some spides into a month of rioting?

Sinn Fein calling for a 'border poll' is a good long term strategy and that strategy appears to go above the head of those Unionists who say 'bring it on'

Yes, as a strategy it's well up in the clouds. SF call for border polls becaue it's what they do, their raison d'etre. They'll still be doing it as an automatic reflex millennia after our cockroach overlords have taken over the Earth.

John Macneish

It's a silly publicity stunt. A Loyalist equivalent of Healy-Rae.