Beecher Networks - Web Development, Hosting & Domains
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 118

Thread: NI Westminster Election 2017

  1. #81
    Seasoned Pro backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,690
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    246
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    750
    Thanked in
    484 Posts
    18. Further thoughts on 18. Don't underestimate how inflexible nationalism will be about this. You are quite right that it's unfair but I'd suspect the attitude will broadly be "Aww shucks. That must be awful for you".

    I'm not saying something can't be done to even things up a little, but Belfast has been accidently gerrymandered for years. I don't remember unionist politicians saying that anything had to be done about that. If nationalism agrees to something to resolve this there will have to be a quid pro quo.

    Perhaps that quid pro quo could be to do something with the Assembly boundaries to ensure every constituency will elect a nationalist. Reducing Belfast to 3 seats will make it possible in South-East Belfast, and some mild tinkering could make it secure in East Antrim, Lagan Valley and whatever becomes of Strangford & North Down
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

  2. #82
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gather round View Post
    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?
    I know of no legal obligation to form a government. Direct me to it if it exists. Can the British queen force citizens to form a government by law? Upon whom is this obligation supposedly effective? Elected officials are entitled to attempt to form a government on the basis of a democratic mandate arising from a general election, but that's not quite the same thing as a legal obligation.

    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
    I'm fully aware not everyone in the north agrees that the Tories need to be impartial in this instance. That's the very problem. The issue is people who purportedly support the GFA yet do not believe that the Tories need to be impartial when their ambition is to form a government that is supposed to be duty-bound by the GFA. Those two positions aren't compatible or reconcilable, as far as I'm concerned.

    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?
    I do, but I still feel they are under duty to at least attempt to be impartial, so nationalists will naturally and justifiably protest when we see blatant evidence of reneging or contravening conduct.

    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?
    When did I ever give the impression I trusted old perfidious Albion? I don't trust the British government one iota. (That might change somewhat if Corbyn managed to bring his radical programme with him into government in the UK.)

    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
    The de-incentivisation of the re-establishment of the power-sharing institutions (and the potential absence of all that comes with power-sharing) is a major concern, obviously. I also fear there'll be even further intransigence and entrenchment on progressing legacy issues. It's a virtual certainty there'll be no Irish language act.

    There was pre-election talk that Britain's same-sex marriage and abortion legislation might be extended to the north of Ireland if direct rule from London was to become an inevitability. That might have offered some consolation, but with the DUP potentially propping up the Tories now, there'll certainly be no solver lining to looming direct rule for gay people, women and human rights activists in the north.

    It's difficult to pinpoint specific concerns though really considering we don't yet know the specifics of the deal - we'll have to wait and see and I can get back to you on that in time in greater detail - but, for now, I broadly fear unionist interests receiving favourable treatment at the expense of nationalist and/or other minority interests, considering that looking out for unionist interests, as opposed to nationalist and/or other minority concerns, is naturally what unionists do, funnily enough. If the deal will benefit everyone in northern society equally and the power-sharing institutions are re-established with agreed promises delivered upon, that would be ideal and any major worries may well have been unfounded, but I'm just not confident that will indeed be the case. Can you blame me? Remember RHI?...

    A strong and operational Stormont with a functioning and united executive would obviously be in everyone's best interests and would be the much more preferable alternative to this DUP-Tory deal.

    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...
    As Conor Murphy said, Sinn Féin and nationalists/republicans are essentially being asked to compromise on the compromises now. Compromising on the compromises isn't acceptable. If the DUP truly want Stormont up and running again, then they could come round to getting working on delivering the promises that have been agreed. The DUP claim they didn't promise an Irish language act at St. Andrew's, for example. They claim the British government promised it, even though the DUP agreed with everything in the document, but, if that is so, then couldn't they be using their newfound influence to exert pressure on the British government to fulfil its promise? Or they could just get working on it themselves.

    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
    But we're talking about Ireland - or the north in particular - and the guiding philosophy that underpins its entire political arrangement.

    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
    That may well be the case, but it still has no relevance to the situation in the north of Ireland considering there's no duty of impartiality effective upon the British government in its dealings with Wales or Welsh parties spiring from some Welsh-related agreement. English voters can feel however they want, but their government still has to fulfil its internationally-agreed duties.

  3. #83
    First Team Gather round's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Midlands, England
    Posts
    2,045
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    221
    Thanked in
    170 Posts
    @ BttW

    1 I think we're largely agreed on the need for some Mutually Assured Gerrymandering then (likely resistance from Nationalists acknowledged, although I think May's about to drop her idea anyway)

    2 In an ideal World I'd prefer the Brit Parliament to be elected by STV, like the Dail or Stormont. Three areas- bigger Belfast, eastern Suburbia, western Rural (with apologies to any Derry readers)

    @ DI

    3 Talking Heads probably speak for me on this- 'Don't worry about the Government'. We'll have one, it'll offer some small bribe to the DUP, then the rest of us can get on with holding it to account. Good luck with your legal case in the meantime...

    4 The Brits can never be impartial dealing with a separatist political movement that wants to split from Britain, while at the same time always potentially needing the votes of local Unionists that don't. Isn't the problem that you effectively accept this on the one hand, then on the other keep repeating the opposite?

    5 I support Nationalists and Unionists co-operating and compromising on everything from emptying the bins to Brexit, Sovereignty and the like. If/ as the GFA is hidebound by Nationalists gurning about impartiality that they've never really believed in,it's likely out of date and needs replacing

    6 Interesting that you might trust a future (possibly imminent) Corbyn government. I think I could give it a qualified welcome...

    7 So your main concern with a Tory/ DUP deal is that Unionists might lose interest in something Nationalists rejected months ago? Stormont's fcuked, and if doesn't return won't be widely missed. Even without the Orange/ Fenian bickering, what's the point of a 'Parliament' that doesn't pass any laws?

    8 RHI? Almost forgot...no not really. I think we're agreed that in any sensible system Foster would have resigned last year and would now be sweating on possible criminal charges. Of course there's the possibility that she will persuade May to write the whole thing off, or worse that the DUP will feel emboldened that they can get away with anything

    9 Isn't there a real possibility that the DUP is ready to compromise, specifically on the Language Act? Foster visiting schools recently, and so on. I can't see that being covered in any Tory deal

    10 What we- from John Major, Bertie Ahern and Bill Clinton down- are actually talking about is the possibility of renewed violence in NI. Even though every Nationalist party in Ireland says there's no chance of it happening. So one soundbite is self-contradicting, then you're following it up with another that's largely meaningless, or about as philosophical as apple pie. I hold the DUP and SF in equal low esteem- will that do?

    11 OK, I'll admit to repeatedly mentioning Plaid Cymru because I fancy that Leanne Wood (clearly shared by the national (ie English) media given the amount of coverage she gets )

  4. #84
    Seasoned Pro backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,690
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    246
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    750
    Thanked in
    484 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gather round View Post
    @ BttW

    1 I think we're largely agreed on the need for some Mutually Assured Gerrymandering then (likely resistance from Nationalists acknowledged, although I think May's about to drop her idea anyway)
    The house upswing in registration has evapoarted the bulk of the potential advantage for the tories of the change from total population to number of registed voters. No reason for them to bother now. But there will still have to be a review here. It's now way overdue

    We are agreed on the basics though. A fairly good example is North Down the Ards peninsula area. There is enough people there for 2 MPs, and that being the case it's totally obvious that Hollywood along with Bangor is one constituency, and Newtownards along with the peninsula its the other one. The boundary comission can't do that though because North Down would have about 20,000 more people than Ards. But you and I both know the Mps will be Sylvia Hermon and whoever the DUP put up, so the number of people per constituency makes bugger all difference anyway.

    The whole thing needs both to be allowed to sit down with a big map and some colouring pens and let the horse trading begin. You and me could get it done in an afternoon and produce something sensible
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

  5. #85
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    An interesting development here yesterday as former UVF leader Gary Haggerty pleaded guilty to over 200 terror charges, including five murders: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40379903

    The most concerning thing about this is that he was an informant at the time and his violent activities were actually encouraged by his RUC Special Branch handlers.

    Quote Originally Posted by BBC News
    All of the killings, and the majority of the other offences, took place while Haggarty was working as a police informer.

    ...

    The BBC understands he told his interviewers that some of his Special Branch handlers not only protected him from arrest and prosecution, but also actively encouraged his activities.

  6. #86
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Really enjoyed this discussion between Owen Jones and Frankie Boyle on general current affairs in the UK:



    Well worth a watch if you can find a quarter of an hour to spare. Boyle is actually a much better social commentator than most of those specifically employed to perform that role!

    He talked about:

    • Theresa May and the mess in which the rudderless Tories ("a group of people pretending to represent a constituency of people that they don't represent") find themselves;
    • the British public school system that effectively acts as a conveyor belt for the type of "broken sociopaths" that might get into Tory politics and have no scruples whatsoever in representing the interests of capital whilst lying to ordinary, working people about where their true interests lie;
    • the Tory party being full of "disaster capitalists" who are used to profiting from crises and catastrophes;
    • the Grenfell Tower fire and how some people in authority decided that the risks that had been very intentionally overlooked there were affordable in the pursuit of profit, the political fall-out from the disaster and the law of corporate manslaughter, the punishment for the committal of which is a fine to a corporate entity or company, which Boyle asserts is intentionally designed as a fudge or in such a way so as to render those responsible for such disasters effectively unaccountable;
    • the DUP and the oddity of British people who've insisted that the DUP are "part of Britain" never having bothered to actually learn about the party and their ultra-conservative social values;
    • people on the Left asking Sinn Féin to take their seats out of ignorance of Irish affairs;
    • Westminster-centrism;
    • the housing benefit cap being about ridding city centres of disgruntled young people, poor people and ethnic minorities and situating them in edge-of-city Parisien-style banlieues that are easily-fortifiable by police and security forces when rioting or social unrest breaks out and where the re-isolated (self-)destruction will be of no real concern to the political establishment and economic elite seeing as it's "out of way" and no longer occurring in areas they may wish to frequent or in the areas with which they interact;
    • the "self-contained" establishment media culture that doesn't really understand the lives and concerns of ordinary people, ethnic minorities or people from refugee or migrant backgrounds;
    • Corbyn;
    • social media and the greater democracy and diversity it brings to reporting, where more representative and more relevant voices now have a platform to get their message out rather than just the local MP or a parish priest or whoever, although Boyle does add that anyone seriously intent on challenging the system needs to be more sophisticated than merely regurgitating memes;
    • Scottish independence, the SNP not offering anything really radical and political fatigue in Scotland;
    • self-censorship within comedy as a form of self-protection, damage-limitation or out of a fear of societal stigmatisation;
    • "free speech";
    • the hypocrisy of right-wing outlets like the Daily Express getting outraged and trying to have Boyle prosecuted on "obscenity" grounds after he made a joke about the Queen whilst at the same time accusing the Left of "political correctness gone mad";
    • society's pseudo taste-based morality where people get outraged about, say, a certain play in a theatre or maybe something a celebrity has done half a decade ago and eternally condemning them as "immoral" for that whilst simultaneously having no issue with their government selling arms to tyrants or our taxes funding the bombing of civilians across the globe;
    • the self-professed arbiters of societal morality;
    • and, optimism for the future (with some significant caveats).

    He got through a lot in less than fifteen minutes, but all very fascinating and insightful stuff.

  7. Thanks From:


  8. #87
    First Team Gather round's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Midlands, England
    Posts
    2,045
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    221
    Thanked in
    170 Posts
    @BttW:

    NI should have only 17 seats (down one) even if they keep 650 overall. Easiest way to to that while keeping the roughly 49:41:10 balance (or if you prefer the 46:40:14 result from March before the Centre got squeezed) would be to

    - cut Belfast to 3 seats (losing North), with about 20,000 voters transferred to the North Down/ Strangford areas and a similar number to South and East Antrim

    - accept that the latter four would all still have comfortable Unionist majorities, and a redrawn West and East Belfast would still be 'safe'. Alliance might win the remaining seat with tactical voting, but whether or not that probably keeps 2 non-Unionist seats in the City

    - make small changes to the country seats to make them more similar in size (eg at present Upper Bann has 8,000 more voters than next door Lagan Valley). That keeps a Unionist West of the Bann and the same number of Nationalists there

    As the only remaining marginal would be a rejigged South Belfast (barring a miraculous SDLP comeback in FST), the likely result would look rather different to Electoral Calculus's prediction- ie Unionist 9, Nationalist 7 or 8, possibly Alliance 1

    @DI:

    Just when you think the Brits can't get any more lovey-dovey with Unionist Paramilitaries...

    Thanks for the Boyle/ Jones clip.
    Last edited by Gather round; 25/06/2017 at 6:38 PM.

  9. #88
    First Team Gather round's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Midlands, England
    Posts
    2,045
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    221
    Thanked in
    170 Posts
    On the DUP-flying-in-straight-from-1690-with-attitudes-to-match thing, I have advised my Green colleagues over here to stop sounding off about them. Briefly

    1 We (ie England) have had legal gay marriage for all of THREE years. Germany still doesn't have it. Not quite the difference with the Orange Planet you might think, eh?

    2 Most political parties in both parts of Ireland oppose extension of abortion rights. Just like the DUP

    3 Whatever prominent individuals may say, it is not DUP policy to deny Climate Change

    4 Whatever such individuals may do, it hasn't yet made creationist teaching widespread in schools

    5 The DUP isn't to blame for the lack of electoral reform, particularly in England- they've been working with it for 40 years. The supposedly Progressive Labour Party ARE at fault. And in any case there'll be 8 or 10 Unionist MPs from NI whatever system is used, so a balance of power is always possible

    6 The DUP's vote rose sharply (as did SF's) between the March and June elections. This had basically nothing to do with 1-4 above. It's all about fear of each other's supposed electoral dominance

    7 Sneering at a party with 10 MPs as "fringe" when we have only one isn't just daft, it's hypocritical- Caroline Lucas would never have described Plaid or the pre-2015 SNP in those terms
    Last edited by Gather round; 25/06/2017 at 7:09 PM.

  10. #89
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    So, the grubby DUP-Tory deal has been finalised. Its detail can be read here: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...nd_the_DUP.pdf

    I suppose the money can be considered a convenient replacement for all that cash the DUP squandered over RHI...

    Anyway, just getting the chance now to respond properly to your other points in post #83, GR.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gather round View Post
    3 Talking Heads probably speak for me on this- 'Don't worry about the Government'. We'll have one, it'll offer some small bribe to the DUP, then the rest of us can get on with holding it to account. Good luck with your legal case in the meantime...
    There's an agreement in place that has standing in international law. Whilst I don't envisage legal action being taken by nationalists, republicans or the Irish government, for the British government to renege on or show total disdain for that agreement is exceptionally poor form.

    4 The Brits can never be impartial dealing with a separatist political movement that wants to split from Britain, while at the same time always potentially needing the votes of local Unionists that don't. Isn't the problem that you effectively accept this on the one hand, then on the other keep repeating the opposite?
    I don't see why it's necessarily the case that the British government can never be impartial. Why does it need to have a position just because it's dealing with a national independence movement that happens to be active within an area of its jurisdiction? It doesn't have to oppose that simply because it might lose authority over the region of Ireland in which that movement is active.

    It doesn't always have to be the case either that whatever party is in power in Britain will be "dangling from the tassle of an Orange sash" (as George Galloway humorously put it) to prop them up and provide them with parliamentary stability.

    And isn't it unionists who are the real Irish separatists considering they separated and wish to keep themselves separate from the rest of the once-united Irish nation?

    Also, something that has puzzled me; if some (many/most?) Irish Protestants and unionists consider(ed) themselves to be native Irish by 1921 (and I've no problem with acknowledging this, as to deny it would be to deny the Irishness of the likes of Wolfe Tone and other foundational Irish republicans), why did they refuse to recognise the democratically-expressed will of the nation for independence in 1918 and subsequently then seek to partition the nation of which they believe(d) themselves to be part?

    5 I support Nationalists and Unionists co-operating and compromising on everything from emptying the bins to Brexit, Sovereignty and the like. If/ as the GFA is hidebound by Nationalists gurning about impartiality that they've never really believed in,it's likely out of date and needs replacing
    Nationalists do believe in impartiality. The problem is that the British government don't appear to believe in it or in their own explicit promises. What nationalists do have difficulty believing in, however, is the notion that the British government might be a sincere and honest broker or arbiter when it comes to its dealings in respect of the north of Ireland, but that doesn't mean nationalists shouldn't continue trying to hold the British government to account, seeing as that government's dealings directly affect our lives and all...

    6 Interesting that you might trust a future (possibly imminent) Corbyn government. I think I could give it a qualified welcome...
    Heh, why interesting? I don't think I've ever kept my high regard for Corbyn under wraps. There are some JCs I do believe in.

    I did qualify what I said though by adding that it would be more likely to make a big difference to my sense of trust in the British government if Corbyn was able to implement the radical, dialogue-based, empathetic and socially just programme he'd probably personally prefer to implement (rather than the compromised programme of the recent Labour manifesto which, contrary to Corbyn's personal views, is pro-Trident and features no republican credentials, for example). I'm not sure that's likely though as it would be relatively revolutionary, considering how the British establishment presently operates.

    I'd imagine if Corbyn becomes PM, he'll be compelled by the necessity of circumstance to water down and compromise on his strictest leftist principles in order to maintain the support of most of the centre-right Parliamentary Labour Party. That's kind of what he has had to do in order to be given a bit of space and peace since he was re-elected leader. So, any increase in my levels of trust for the British government or establishment would be dependent on significant structural changes that I don't really see as being likely to occur.

    Out of interest, why would your welcome be qualified? His Irish republican sympathies? I think we can both agree though that even a watered down Corbyn government would be a very significant upgrade on the Tories?

  11. #90
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gather round View Post
    7 So your main concern with a Tory/ DUP deal is that Unionists might lose interest in something Nationalists rejected months ago? Stormont's fcuked, and if doesn't return won't be widely missed. Even without the Orange/ Fenian bickering, what's the point of a 'Parliament' that doesn't pass any laws?

    8 RHI? Almost forgot...no not really. I think we're agreed that in any sensible system Foster would have resigned last year and would now be sweating on possible criminal charges. Of course there's the possibility that she will persuade May to write the whole thing off, or worse that the DUP will feel emboldened that they can get away with anything
    That's my fear though; that the DUP will think that they can get away with anything and now have a deal with the Tories to further bolster that sense and embolden them. My reference to RHI was really to make the point that the DUP can't even be trusted to look out for the interests of ordinary unionists, never mind nationalists.

    Did you see The View last Thursday night, by the way? Iain Duncan Smith's comments (from 9m24) on this highly contentious "military covenant" that features in the deal just betrayed a total lack of comprehension of politics and sensitivities in the north of Ireland.

    He was asked:

    "How do you sell the idea of a military covenant to nationalists?"

    And responded:

    "Well, the military covenant is a United Kingom affair. It is the fact that we want to look after and support our members of the military while they serve and after they serve. I was in the military myself and served in Northern Ireland, so my sense about this is it's the right thing to do and everybody wants to support it. I can't think why anybody would not want to support it and that is my position. It's the position, I think, of the DUP and I think that's fair. We ally on that and are not going to change for that."

    Considering the "military covenant" will now be implemented in full in the north, the DUP and the Tories might as well just tear up the GFA. Both Sinn Féin and the SDLP vehemently oppose the "military covenant" but their objections are being brazenly ignored by the Tory government acting unilaterally and outside of a northern context in order to appease unionism. This is a perfect example of the British government demonstrating a complete lack of impartiality or neutrality on account of its deal with the DUP.

    Even Jeffrey Donaldson effectively admitted, back in 2015, that a "military covenant" would breach equality legislation introduced as part of the Good Friday Agreement when he urged the Westminster government to unilaterally amend those laws at the time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32891020

    The elevation of one set of victims over so many non-state victims is simply unacceptable. It's questionable too as to whether the potential prioritising of British soldiers for housing could ever be justified just as the Equality Commission has confirmed that Catholics in the north are, in general, still experiencing disproportionately longer waiting times: http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media...maryReport.pdf

    Ben Lowry of the Newsletter was living in cloud cuckoo land talking (on The View) about the British army having "acted with extraordinary restraint overall" during the northern conflict. He bizarrely claimed also (at 23m01s) that unionists haven't been making demands (and that this "military covenant" was, therefore, an entirely reasonable demand), as if unionists have been holding back all these years and not pushing their own agenda at the expense of nationalist and other minority interests. When you've already been in a position of supremacy and privilege for nearly a century, I suppose that diminishes rather considerably any pressing need to be making the sorts of demands that those who've experienced long-term institutional and structural discrimination might be compelled to make, but, in spite of that, what Lowry said isn't even true anyway.

    For one, there was that pretty crucial demand that has significance for the entire island of Ireland; wasn't the principle of consent, which maintains the existence of a failed statelet that impoverishes people and staggers onward solely by virtue of life-support from Westminster, a major unionist demand? And then there's stuff like demanding that unionist symbols be given preferential treatment over nationalist symbols or demanding that same-sex marriage not be recognised in the north. Lowry was talking through his hat and needs to be a bit more circumspect in his "analysis".

    He also made the claim (at 25m33s) that "it is a fundamental thing that somebody who risks their life for their country should be very well treated by that society". Would he say the same about IRA (or even loyalist) volunteers who believed they were giving their lives for their respective countries and/or communities? I have a distinct feeling he wouldn't.

    Back to this morning's announcement, there are further immediate concerns. The DUP have committed to supporting the Tories on all Brexit legislation; this is a major worry considering the DUP's wishes on Brexit, never mind the Tories' Anglocentric wishes, aren't even in line with the wishes of the people of the north of Ireland. There are also inherent and irreconcilable contradictions in those expressed wishes, such as the supposed desire for a "frictionless border" whilst simultaneously opposing any "special status" that keeping the border frictionless as it is would necessitate.

    The Tories have also expressed, "[a]s the UK Government", that they "believe that Northern Ireland's future is best served within a stronger United Kingdom" and claim they "will never be neutral in expressing [their] support for the Union", so they're actually explicitly stating that they won't be neutral or impartial, despite also incompatibly claiming they'll uphold the terms of the GFA. The British government should not be making pronouncements like this if they are to act in accordance with the terms of the GFA, as it is for the people of Ireland alone to make the decision on our future. The GFA clearly set out that "it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland".

    As the British government is a party external to the people of the island of Ireland, this aforementioned clause obliges the British government to refrain from imposing any impediment to unity. Arguably, pushing an anti-unity position or launching an anti-unity campaign would be to contravene this clause.

    Also, for what it's worth, the deal will almost certainly weaken - and not strengthen - the Union in Britain, seeing as the Scots and Welsh have been denouncing it since it was announced. In exposing the rotten core of the Union, the details of this deal will clearly bolster nationalist sentiment in Wales and sentiment for independence in Scotland. The Welsh first minister described it as "outrageous" and as a "straight bung" that "all but kills the idea of fair funding for the nations and regions".

    Ian Blackford, the SNP's leader at Westminster, said the following:

    "After weeks of secret backroom negotiations, the Tories have now signed a grubby deal with the DUP. For years the Tories have been cutting budgets and services, but suddenly they have found a magic money tree to help them stay in power ...

    Only 24 hours ago David Mundell was categorically assuring us that Scotland would be in line for Barnett consequentials as a result of the DUP deal (see 1.37pm) – so he has seemingly either been deliberately misleading people, or he is completely out of the loop even in Theresa May’s crumbling government.

    This was the first big test of the new Scottish Tory MPs, but despite all of their bluster, they clearly have no authority and no influence – and now they have no credibility.

    Ruth Davidson said they would stand up for Scotland – but instead they have bowed down to their Westminster bosses and sold Scotland out so they can cling to power.

    SNP MPs will demand Scotland gets it fair share of any funding that is going to Northern Ireland – the Scottish Tory MPs should join us in standing up for Scotland and making sure that we get our fair share."

  12. #91
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    As far as legacy issues are concerned, the deal statement says that "the legacy bodies would function in a way which is fair balanced and proportionate and which will not unfairly focus on former members of the security forces". I think we all know that the final part of that sentence most likely means immunity from even investigation, which would amount to favourable treatment for those in the security forces, seemingly irrespective of whether or not they may have broken UK law or not during the conflict.

    Does this mean the UK government has no intention of meeting it's ECHR obligations to provide effective, transparent and independent investigations into killings by state actors or killings in which agents of the state have been accused of colluding?

    It's just crazy, appalling stuff and an exceptionally bitter, enraging, frustrating and saddening pill for those of us who are genuinely interested in truth, justice and reconciliation to swallow. Whatever about punishments or amnesties (and, for what it's worth, I advocate the idea of restorative justice and a general amnesty for all combatants as an incentive for transparency and truth-revelation that would hopefully in turn enhance long-term understanding, trust and reconciliation), it is still within everyone's interest that the state and its agents be called to account. In the main, families want frank admissions of unlawful wrongdoing; acknowledgement and recognition primarily.

    Of course, there's also an argument there that, on account of the state's assertion of legitimacy, sovereignty and democratic authority over the north-east corner of Ireland, it voluntarily and unilaterally loads itself with responsibilities (such as disclosure of truth and the enforcement of justice) along with its asserted rights, irrespective of what other parties to any conflict may have or have not done.

    It is also worth pointing out that the popular notion that other combatants (or republicans) have generally gotten off "scot-free" or that the balance of the scales of justice has favoured non-state players or once-militant Irish republicans is a grossly misleading misconception. Thousands of republican (and, indeed, loyalist) suspects and combatants were imprisoned during the conflict, whilst dozens are still being investigated, "lifted", charged and convicted in respect of pre-1998 activity and killings. Many others remain tight-lipped on their pasts in the knowledge that disclosing the truth would be to self-incriminate.

    Meanwhile, the number of British military personnel to have endured a similar fate can be counted on the fingers of one hand; a total of four soldiers were convicted of murder whilst on duty in the north of Ireland. All were released after serving two or three years of life sentences and were allowed to rejoin the army. This is despite "some 150 cases of unjust killings and murders by security forces", not to mention their collusion with loyalist paramilitaries who acted as effective proxies on operations - such as political and sectarian assassinations - that the wider army (with the exception of their small and covert, but legal, death-squads in the form of the SRU, MRF and FRU) couldn't get away with.

    Anyhow, the DUP's only apparent duty in return for the £1 billion as part of this deal is to support the minority Tory government. It doesn't appear to be conditional upon the restoration of power-sharing and it seems the Tories have not used their position to exert any pressure on the DUP whatsoever to work towards restoring power-sharing. If the Tories truly had the best interests of the people of the north of Ireland at heart, they might have attempted to wield some influence on this front, but not a smidgen it seems. Is there even anything in this deal that might encourage Sinn Féin back into power-sharing? I don't see it. Also, how much of the agreed money will actually make its way into nationalist areas and west of the Bann? How will it be fairly distributed with no executive up and running at Stormont?

    Support on other matters will be agreed on a case-by-case basis, so who know what other problems may crop up over the next parliamentary term?

    I thought the following comment by a poster called "Karl" on Slugger O'Toole showed the sort of insight and foresight on the matter that the DUP appear to be severely lacking:

    "What [the DUP] should have done was kept out of the limelight, not made Theresa look like she couldn't handle them in negotiations, propped up the Tories for the good of the union and banked some political capital for the oncoming Brexit disaster.

    What they have now is see the Scots and the Welsh squabbling about more funds, the English see this as the Celtic fringe fighting over their money, they have exposed unionism's loyalty to squeezing the British teet. They have also left a bad taste in the Tory mouth.

    This is all going to come back on them in spades down the road.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gather round View Post
    9 Isn't there a real possibility that the DUP is ready to compromise, specifically on the Language Act? Foster visiting schools recently, and so on. I can't see that being covered in any Tory deal
    It's a possibility. I hope it's her way of testing the waters with her supporters and gradually softening the party stance towards finally delivering (and not seeking further compromise on) what was previously agreed in writing.

    10 What we- from John Major, Bertie Ahern and Bill Clinton down- are actually talking about is the possibility of renewed violence in NI. Even though every Nationalist party in Ireland says there's no chance of it happening. So one soundbite is self-contradicting, then you're following it up with another that's largely meaningless, or about as philosophical as apple pie. I hold the DUP and SF in equal low esteem- will that do?
    Ha, I don't think parity of esteem is nebulous nonsense though. It's a pretty fundamental political and legal principle that helps move bi/multi-communal societies onward from periods of conflict. It is from that core concept that all else that is political in northern society stems; be that power-sharing or legal and socio-cultural equality.

    11 OK, I'll admit to repeatedly mentioning Plaid Cymru because I fancy that Leanne Wood (clearly shared by the national (ie English) media given the amount of coverage she gets )
    Haha!

  13. #92
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Theresa Villiers' car-crash interview with the formidable James O'Brien of LBC makes for cringe-worthy listening:


  14. #93
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Steve Bradley (who was once a Foot.ie regular actually) has written a fascinating evidence-based piece for Slugger O'Toole on the north's sectarian-rooted east-west economic divide; 'The £400m for Infrastructure in the Conservative-DUP agreement will only exacerbate Northern Ireland’s east-west divide': https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/28...t-west-divide/

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Bradley
    There is an even more concerning issue that our east-west infrastructure imbalance also points towards. If you overlay NI’s current transport facilities onto a map of the province’s religious demography, it instantly becomes clear that our infrastructure provision is as much a problem of religion as it is economics or regional balance. Whilst any explanation of how this situation arose in the first place would doubtless be the subject of animated debate, it is indisputable that Northern Ireland’s infrastructure is currently polarised not just geographically, but also along sectarian lines:





    This is highlighted even more starkly if you compare our transport infrastructure with June’s Westminster election results, in which the electorate coalesced behind one party on each side of the religious divide:


  15. #94
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    7,908
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,206
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,787
    Thanked in
    999 Posts
    A foot.ie regular spoofer is what he was.

  16. #95
    Coach BonnieShels's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Holm Span, Blackpool
    Posts
    12,026
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,397
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,635
    Thanked in
    1,813 Posts
    That "analysis" is flawed beyond belief. The infrastructure that he deals with has been in place for decades. The sectarian nature of it is obvious but it was implemented pre-NI and during the "home-rule" period of 1922-1972.

    You have to remember that the population densities (regardless of denomination) west of the Bann don't require major infrastructural spending such as bypasses and railways. The only thing that is required at present is dualling the A5/N2 from Aughnacloy to Derry via Strabane which we gave €400m a few years back. It's due to finally start construction later this year after years of legal wranglings.

    http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/...hstrabane.html

    The railway to Derry is single track and requires dualling but the topography makes this difficult. Well, they could actually avoid the current route because it is actually mental (like most rail routes in Ireland) and hugs the coast for a lot of it after Bellarena (yes Bellarena has a station, but City of Derry Airport which the railway actually clips on the eastern runway does not...) and completely realign the route from Belfast to Derry. But there is no appetite for rail in Ireland as can be seen from the inaction over DU, MN and Kishoge down south!
    DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?

  17. #96
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by osarusan View Post
    A foot.ie regular spoofer is what he was.
    Heh, actually? Why was that? I can't recall any specific issue. I don't know him personally, but I always remember thinking he was a diligent poster who spoke a lot of sense, not just here, but on Derry City Chat too.

    Quote Originally Posted by BonnieShels View Post
    That "analysis" is flawed beyond belief. The infrastructure that he deals with has been in place for decades. The sectarian nature of it is obvious but it was implemented pre-NI and during the "home-rule" period of 1922-1972.
    To be fair to him, I think Steve acknowledges that and is arguing that the Tory-DUP deal will only exacerbate the historical imbalance that he highlights. He wrote:

    "The additional £400m for infrastructure secured in the Conservative-DUP agreement therefore offers an opportunity to begin acknowledging and addressing NI’s transport apartheid. Yet the text of the deal suggests that it is more likely instead to exacerbate the imbalance."

    You have to remember that the population densities (regardless of denomination) west of the Bann don't require major infrastructural spending such as bypasses and railways.
    He responded to the "smaller population density in the west" argument in the comments section and made the following points (which I think are pretty solid):

    "1) Despite the absence of decent infrastructure, 27% of NI currently live in its three western counties. That is not an insignificant proportion (certainly not of the 'no-one lives there' level mentioned in some responses below). For perspective - 15.5% live in Belfast City, and 37% in the Belfast Metropolitan/Greater Belfast area (i.e. the old council areas for Belfast, Lisburn, Castlereagh, Newtonabbey, North Down and Carrockfergus)

    2) If you look at a map of the population density of NI - Derry City and its environs, south-east County Derry and east Tyrone have relatively high densities. Their densities are identical if not higher than swathes of the east which have much better infrastructure. In particular, there is a ring of population density/concentration around Lough Neagh, for example, yet only its eastern and southern sides have the infrastructure.

    3) As mentioned in the article, it's a chicken and egg scenario. Jobs and population gravitate away from areas of poor infrastructure towards those with better infrastructure. That is a fact. How will somewhere like Derry have a chance of attracting the job creation it needs when any foreign company would baulk at how awkward it is to get there from NI's key international gateways (e.g. stuck behind a tractor on the Glenshane pass, or spending 2 and a half hours on an infrequent one-track railway to arrive at the most isolated station on NI's train network which is also away from the city centre it should serve). And without the ability to attract employment to places like Derry, Omagh and Enniskillen, how is the west's population expected to grow significantly as a proportion of the province ? If the west is deemed not to have the population to justify better infrastructure, it will remain an under-performing/impoverished generator of outward migration (to the east and beyond), thereby continuing to justify its poor infrastructure ad infinitum.

    4) Re cause and effect : the west was promised motorways to replace the railways it lost in the 1960s, yet never got them. The east by-and-large retained its railways, and then also got given the only sections of motorway that were ever built. Given the avowedly sectarian nature of the pre-Troubles Stormont government ("a protestant parliament for a protestant people"), it would be naive to pretend that religious demography played no part whatsoever in those decisions."

    Just on the matter of Irish railway lines, I always found these comparison maps pretty revealing in terms of how partition had a sort of double-whammy peripheralising effect upon border areas in Ireland, particularly the north-west of the country:





    Pre-partition, approximately ten rail-lines crossed what is now the border. Nowadays, only one line crosses the border; the line between Newry and Dundalk. The only counties in Ireland without any railway in the present day are all Ulster border counties; Donegal, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Cavan and Monaghan.

    Partition led to Donegal - already geographically-isolated from its national capital, Dublin - being cut off from its main regional market town or commercial centre, Derry, by the new political-economic border. Derry, meanwhile, was separated politically and economically from its natural Donegal hinterland and also from London by geography.

    There's a bit on the matter here by Roy Johnston, which is interesting: http://www.rjtechne.org/century130703/1990s/polit90.htm

    "Starting with the Northwest, pre-Partition it was possible to get from Westport to Sligo and on to Omagh and Derry by rail; the system also interfaced with the light rail system in Donegal at Strabane and Derry. There was the makings of a viable economic hinterland in the Northwest, which extended down to the West. The possibilities presented by this were killed by Partition; Derry was cut off from its natural hinterland; both Derry and its hinterland became declining peripheral areas of remote centralist capitals in Dublin, and in London via Belfast.

    In the East, there was a rail complex linking Dundalk and Newry with the port of Greenore; Dundalk was linked directly by rail to Dungannon and Derry. We are talking of the 1921 situation, when rail transport, and connection to ports, was the key to economic development. The infrastructure was in place; given independence and a benign government close at hand, development of a vibrant economy was totally feasible. Partition killed all this, leaving Dundalk and Newry peripheralised."

  18. #97
    First Team Gather round's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Midlands, England
    Posts
    2,045
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    221
    Thanked in
    170 Posts
    Reply to DI in posts #89- #91 above:

    1 Sure, the GFA has international legal standing. But for me, it clearly isn't working fully and for you it's not sufficiently threatened to justify legal action. So we'll just muddle on, no?

    2 The Brits can't be genuinely impartial because as long as NI remains part of Britain, because for that period the governing British party may need NI party support at any given point. What you want isn't really impartiality, but non-involvement. Which may happen, but not yet

    3 Same probably applies to the South. SF are a potential coalition party, so the other parties in that government can't be impartial

    4 From a British POV, both Unionists and Nationalists in NI are separatists- the former have almost always been more interested in staying out of the South than integrating with Britain. Ireland has never been politically united except under British rule...

    5 I think for most of the 1886- 1918 period Unionists genuinely thought all of Ireland could be kept in the British state. Then eventually (as they saw it) they compromised and cut a deal

    6 I know you are left-wing, obviously, and like Corbyn's politics. Just didn't think you'd be too fussed about who leads the British Govt. Maybe I confused you with Gerry Adams?

    7 My qualified welcome for Corbyn is mainly because I support a Party clearly to the left of what until a month ago we thought was the majority of Labour MPs. I'll admit to mixed feelings about the election result- the Greens took a beating, but on the other hand I've been wishing and hoping for decades that Labour would turn left Now if they take environmental issues seriously and abandon nuclear weapons...

    8 Corbyn (and to some extent his supporters like Abbott and McDonnell) took a lot of abuse during the campaign about their support for Sinn Fein. I defended them- their attitudes were all over the place and sometimes as close as possible to paramilitarism without backing a shooting war, but they stayed just this side of the line

    10 Agreed, after RHI etc. you shouldn't really trust the DUP to run a bath. That said, I've been surprised that much more criticism of them over here is about gay marriage and abortion

    11 Aye, I'm a View regular, saw the IDS interview. As I've said before, the background to this is Britain becoming much more militaristic in recent years (since Iraq/ Afghan wars, basically). I'd prefer that as a country we weren't like that, but given that we are there is an inevitable knock on to NI. That's a bit of a cop-out answer, I know

    12 Ben Lowry's interesting- a prominent unionist journo who's ready to talk to nationalists. He does strike me too as a bit of a bull****ter- you can justify state forces as morally better than paramilitaries without inventing things. I should remind you though that the unionist supremacy ended in the early 70s, after which unionists put up with 30 years of violence just like nationalists...

    13 NI has effective special status (whatever it's called) for two broad reasons- the land border and still-present and oft-mentioned threat, however exaggerated, of a return to violence

    14 Disagree about the Tory/ DUP deal weakening the union. I doubt it'll make much difference. Carwyn James is a grandstanding hypocrite- Wales benefits from pork barrel politics like everywhere else. As for Scotland, a successful IndyRef now looks about as likely as a Coleraine Euro run

    15 The Tories want a return to power-sharing (just to avoid having to admit responsibility for the NI parties' inevitable failure to agree and co-operate). It's not a priority for them though unless large-scale violence returns

    16 Where will the money go? Well the York Street traffic bottleneck's in a nationalist area. The N2/ A5 upgrade similarly. Where do you think it'll be spent?

    17 To be fair, I didn't suggest parity of esteem was nonsensical, just vague. Political ideas are there to be tested and argued. They are entitled to respect, not automatic protection

  19. #98
    First Team Gather round's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Midlands, England
    Posts
    2,045
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    221
    Thanked in
    170 Posts
    I've met [dcfc Steve] Bradley a couple of times, including when he gave a presentation at Birkbeck College in London Uni (the academic running that series, Sean Hamil, is from Downpatrick). SB is as forthright in person as on here

    I'm largely with Bonita above. Roll on the Aughnacloy Autobahn!
    Last edited by Gather round; 03/07/2017 at 9:15 AM.

  20. #99
    Seasoned Pro backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,690
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    246
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    750
    Thanked in
    484 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BonnieShels View Post
    That "analysis" is flawed beyond belief. The infrastructure that he deals with has been in place for decades. The sectarian nature of it is obvious but it was implemented pre-NI and during the "home-rule" period of 1922-1972.

    You have to remember that the population densities (regardless of denomination) west of the Bann don't require major infrastructural spending such as bypasses and railways. The only thing that is required at present is dualling the A5/N2 from Aughnacloy to Derry via Strabane which we gave €400m a few years back. It's due to finally start construction later this year after years of legal wranglings.

    http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/...hstrabane.html

    The railway to Derry is single track and requires dualling but the topography makes this difficult. Well, they could actually avoid the current route because it is actually mental (like most rail routes in Ireland) and hugs the coast for a lot of it after Bellarena (yes Bellarena has a station, but City of Derry Airport which the railway actually clips on the eastern runway does not...) and completely realign the route from Belfast to Derry. But there is no appetite for rail in Ireland as can be seen from the inaction over DU, MN and Kishoge down south!
    I'll go along with that.

    The position of the Sperrins means that the obvious route to get from Belfast - Derry is always going to be south of Lough Neagh. That any infrastructure you build will pass alongside Dungannon, Omagh and Strabane, which are obviously more significant settlements than Magherafelt & Dungiven makes it all the more obvious. The M2 is a fine idea, but its a motorway to Coleraine and no more. That should be no surprise to anyone because that's exactly what the old Stormont had in mind when they built it.

    Rather than throwing good money after bad trying to repurpose existing roads into things they will never be we ought to finish what we have and build what we need. For now that means doing Yorkgate junction and building the road from Aughnacloy to Derry.

    Spending money on the A6 is mental imho. Once there is a motorway going round the other side of the lough the traffic is going to vanish from the A6. Far better getting on with the A5 and killing 2 birds with 1 stone.

    I'd also see merit in changing the rules about what constitutes a motorway and reclassifying dual carriageways with no rights turns or roundabouts as motorways. At the stroke of a pen a ****load of motorway could be "built" here.
    Last edited by backstothewall; 03/07/2017 at 11:59 PM.
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

  21. #100
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Gather round View Post
    1 Sure, the GFA has international legal standing. But for me, it clearly isn't working fully and for you it's not sufficiently threatened to justify legal action. So we'll just muddle on, no?
    I also agree it clearly isn't working fully, which is a wee bit of a problem. There is no muddling on though at the minute (seeing as the institutions created by the GFA aren't currently functional, nor is it looking likely they'll be functional any time soon), so what's to happen, who knows?...

    Of course, Brokenshire (Jokenshire?) demonstrated his total impotence and irrelevance again yesterday. After extending his "final and immovable" deadline of 4PM on the 29th of June to yesterday afternoon, the "serious and dire" consequence of which he was warning if parties failed to come to an agreement by this new deadline unsurprisingly turned out to be, yup, another deadline extension... The paper threats are comical, but people's patience is wearing thin.

    And it's not that I necessarily think the GFA isn't sufficiently threatened to justify legal action. I just said I hadn't envisaged anyone taking legal action. Turns out I was wrong though. One of your own - Ciaran McClean - challenged it the other week: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...al-with-tories

    It will be interesting to see the outcome.

    2 The Brits can't be genuinely impartial because as long as NI remains part of Britain, because for that period the governing British party may need NI party support at any given point. What you want isn't really impartiality, but non-involvement. Which may happen, but not yet
    Heh, maybe so, but short of non-involvement, I'd naturally still prefer to see them at least try and be as impartial as is practically possible, in accordance with their explicit obligation.

    3 Same probably applies to the South. SF are a potential coalition party, so the other parties in that government can't be impartial
    There's no duty upon the Irish government to be impartial though.

    6 I know you are left-wing, obviously, and like Corbyn's politics. Just didn't think you'd be too fussed about who leads the British Govt. Maybe I confused you with Gerry Adams?
    Ha, it concerns me at least insofar as goings on at Westminster and Downing Street directly affect my own life and the affairs of my country, community and family. The UK government is still administering the north-eastern corner of Ireland, after all. I also have close friends in Britain, from having lived in Manchester for over half a decade, with whom I'm still in regular contact, so some sense of attachment to and interest in what's going on over there undoubtedly remains. Even if I had no connection to the place, the hara-kiri of Tory Brexit would still nevertheless be morbidly fascinating viewing from a distance.

    Corbyn's views on Ireland would probably closely align to my own, so perhaps having him as PM would be beneficial, as far as my own aspirations are concerned. And I generally prefer to see the Left doing well globally. At the same time though, talk - both north and south - of uniting Ireland has never been so loud in recent decades as it has been over the past few months since the Tories decided to bulldoze part of Ireland out of the EU against its will. There's an actual public debate in progress now. So, maybe, after all, the Tories are doing a better job than Corbyn ever could on bringing us closer to Irish unity, despite the latter's obvious sympathies.

    7 My qualified welcome for Corbyn is mainly because I support a Party clearly to the left of what until a month ago we thought was the majority of Labour MPs. I'll admit to mixed feelings about the election result- the Greens took a beating, but on the other hand I've been wishing and hoping for decades that Labour would turn left Now if they take environmental issues seriously and abandon nuclear weapons...
    If Corbyn had his way, nuclear disarmament and forestalling whatever climate change we still have the power to prevent would be party/governmental policies.

    12 Ben Lowry's interesting- a prominent unionist journo who's ready to talk to nationalists. He does strike me too as a bit of a bull****ter- you can justify state forces as morally better than paramilitaries without inventing things. I should remind you though that the unionist supremacy ended in the early 70s, after which unionists put up with 30 years of violence just like nationalists...
    Some paramilitaries were proxy state forces, whilst other clandestine state units (the SRU, FRU and MRF, for example) operated in a manner no different from those members of paramilitary organisations who were engaged in the intentional sectarian slaughter of civilians.

    Anyway, I'm not so sure I agree with your determination as to when unionism's supremacy came to an end. 1998 might be a better cut-off point, if you have to insert one along the historical time-line. Up until then, there was no power-sharing, equality and human rights protections weren't satisfactorily guaranteed, there was no recognition of the validity of the Irish nationalist identity or of the legitimacy of the nationalist aspiration for Irish unity, the RUC still existed, Operation Banner remained in full swing and there was no formal all-island element to governance of the north. As far as nationalists and republicans were concerned, those factors were indicative of continuing unionist supremacy and helped fuel conflict up until the eventual cessation of violence. Although it's not even as if the GFA and the principle of parity of esteem are being properly implemented since either.

    13 NI has effective special status (whatever it's called) for two broad reasons- the land border and still-present and oft-mentioned threat, however exaggerated, of a return to violence

    14 Disagree about the Tory/ DUP deal weakening the union. I doubt it'll make much difference. Carwyn James is a grandstanding hypocrite- Wales benefits from pork barrel politics like everywhere else. As for Scotland, a successful IndyRef now looks about as likely as a Coleraine Euro run
    Ha, we'll see how things pan out, I guess. The real effects of Brexit - which, of course, hasn't actually been effected yet - are still to be felt.

    16 Where will the money go? Well the York Street traffic bottleneck's in a nationalist area. The N2/ A5 upgrade similarly. Where do you think it'll be spent?
    Newton Emerson said on last Thursday's The View (at 29m02s) that a Tory-DUP committee will meet "to decide the money of the one billion package", so I assume they'll be distributing the money. It'll be spent wherever they decide to spend it then. Emerson also added, ominously, that this decision-making process will at least "create the optics of a replacement government or a new executive that Sinn Féin is locked out of". He's right, of course.

    17 To be fair, I didn't suggest parity of esteem was nonsensical, just vague. Political ideas are there to be tested and argued. They are entitled to respect, not automatic protection
    Heh, I don't see much of a line between calling something "meaningless apple-pie" and dubbing something "nonsense", but fair enough. Isn't it debated and tested though as a principle? And, arguably, ideas are entitled to protection if they form pivotal elements of bilateral or multilateral agreements of a quasi-constitutional nature.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2017 NI Assembly Election
    By backstothewall in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 284
    Last Post: 19/12/2017, 7:40 PM
  2. Republic of Ireland v Iceland - Tuesday, 28th March 2017 - Friendly 2017
    By Closed Account in forum Archived Match Threads
    Replies: 180
    Last Post: 29/05/2017, 12:30 PM
  3. Replies: 179
    Last Post: 29/05/2017, 12:29 PM
  4. 2017 NI Assembly Election
    By Wolfman in forum Rubbish
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22/01/2017, 4:50 PM
  5. Election 2011 - First Pre-Election Poll
    By dahamsta in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 19/11/2010, 6:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •