Belfast City Hall (symbolic as it is of Unionist admin in NI) has more in common with Leinster House than it does Monaghan council offices. Also they'd get more publicity (and protection against attack) in Dublin.
Just ignore them and shutter your shop windows before the SF counter-demo sees a gurrier breakaway down Grafton Street.
Ah man. I know. I'm merely belittling their stupidity.
The British establishment didn't appear to know, or didn't want to know. It peddled an official line that completely contradicted what the witnesses knew to be true. If it already knew, then why not just be open about matters in the first place before an inquiry was ever required to get a bit closer to the truth? Saville wasn't without its problems, but greater transparency and an official acknowledgement of wrongdoing was crucial to fostering some element of trust and enhancing relations. It would be unfair to blame nationalism for the cost of an inquiry that shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Not that Bloody Sunday was a "nationalist issue" anyway; the civil rights movement was for everyone and, whatever about their personal politics, those killed were officially British citizens, like yourself, killed illegitimately by a force of the British state. It ought to have been an issue of serious concern for all British citizens, I would have thought.
I did have recent flag-related events in mind, but wasn't being wholly serious.
In saying that, that previous political agreement of which you speak does outline that an overall democratic majority supportive of a united Ireland would be sufficient to carry the motion. It does not make provision for any unionist veto. Attempting to enforce such a veto would be undemocratic, no? Especially in light of the fact that a majority of unionists supported the original agreement and would now be guilty of moving the goal posts.
I'm trying to get my head around this. What has the flag issue to do with anything south of the border?
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 04/01/2013 at 2:59 PM.
Makes perfect sense to Wee Willy though. Who are we to argue?
If [the Brit estasblishment] already knew, then why not just be open about matters in the first place before an inquiry was ever required to get a bit closer to the truth?
Aye, it would have been better if Ted Heath had insisted on a more honest enquiry in 1972, and any/ all of his successors had formally apologised for his failure to do so.
Put another way, holding the Saville Inquiry wasn't the best way to encourage trust. It was hugely costly and created the impression of a hierarchy of victims before you even consider the detailed process.
Unionists have an effective veto over localised decisions affecting them. Ignoring this is just burying the head in sand. Also, as I've explained repeatedly on this and similar threads, the moving goalposts argument is pretty irrelevant; future unionist leaders aren't bound by what past predecessors agreed. It's an effective basis of our democratic system, just like the specific constitution and referenda are of yours.
(I'm not being entirely serious etc. etc. This is a publicity stunt intended to embarrass the SDLP, annoy the Southern parties and probably provoke a looting spree by SF's great unwashed).
Last edited by Gather round; 04/01/2013 at 3:06 PM.
Wee Willie Frazer, coming to simultanaeously protest Ireland's interference in NI's affairs and to tell Leinster house to lower its flag.
Hypocrisy and loyalism generally go hand in hand.
Though Willie has it down to an art.
Perhaps, but justice is justice at the end of the day. The (theoretical) ideal would be transparency and justice for all victims and those with valid grievances then rather than holding legitimate issues with cost or perceived hierarchy against those who've campaigned for justice for one particular group of victims, as certain unionist commentators seemed happily inclined to do when it came to their condemnation and pigeon-holing of the Saville Inquiry. I do acknowledge such may not be a practical possibility, however, but a failure by the British state to ensure justice is apportioned equally and fairly is not the fault of any specific set of victims or campaigners that did happen to achieve recognition of some sort.
I just think it renders the GFA rather meaningless. Don't you? I like to think of myself as a realist, sure, but what was/is the point in it if there isn't really an agreement in place at all that ought to be adhered to? Do you expect nationalists/republicans to adhere to what they agreed?
This is a publicity stunt intended to embarrass the SDLP, annoy the Southern parties and probably provoke a looting spree by SF's great unwashed).
Agreed, in that it is not only completely and utterly mis-directed, but appears motivated by the rather infantile aim of provoking unrelated parties for the sole reason that they happen to be Irish. How exactly do you envisage it possibly embarrassing the SDLP, or, more appropriately, why does Frazer think it might do so?
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 04/01/2013 at 6:01 PM.
Perhaps, but justice is justice at the end of the day.
Not like you to lapse into cliche, Danny. A big problem with justice as part of a peace 'process' is that it's ongoing and potentially never-ending. We know broadly- and have known for 40 years- what happened at Bloody Sunday. We know that Ted Heath and the Army chief at the time should have taken responsibility. But we don't know why the privates or corporals involved fired the fateful shots, who ordered them to and why. And we aren't likely to get a reliable answer, and certainly not 'closure', even if all those squaddies and officers still alive are tried and prosecuted.
I blame the British state for its failures, not the campaigners. That doesn't mean the latter should get what they demand, for the reasons I described above.
Actually, no. As I've said, I recognise the GFA as meaningful: it marked (more or less) the end of endemic paramilitary violence, and allowed some form of effective local government to resume. And it recognised many people's identities, aspirations etc. in ways that hadn't happened before. But, unlike you, I don't think its historical and political significance means it should necessarily last for decades or longer.
I don't expect nationalists to always stick to what they agreed in 1998. They may feel they can get a better deal in future. Recent events suggest that, for example, the SDLP on Newry and Dungannon councils are as uninterested in co-operation with and sensitivity to unionists, as are the UUP goons who helped stir the current flags row in Belfast.
How exactly do you envisage it possibly embarrassing the SDLP, or, more appropriately, why does Frazer think it might do so?
What a lot of pointless waffle.
Amusingly, it turns out the tricolour won't even be flying over Leinster House on Saturday afternoon as the Dáil won't be in session.
They should fly the Union Jack. Just to freak the buggers out.
I wholeheartedly agree. that would be brilliant.
Good point, as Union Jacks are entirely unknown in Dublin.
Union Jacks atop Leinster House these days are unknown. Stop being a spanner.
A banner spanner, you mean?
Mr A did. I merely agreed.
Come on, it would be funny to see the confusion. Ye Unionists can smile can't ye?
Er, I just did (at the real instance rather than unrealistic possibility of Jackeens waving their flag). You were the one gurning humorlessly about it.
I'm not sure what you're taking issue with. I found it funny. You don't.