The beginning of the end of the GFA

[jdaly]

The GFA was doomed from the start. It was built on lies, smoke and mirrors.
The Unionists claimed it secured the Union, and defeated Republicanism.
The Constitutional Nationalists claimed it was a step towards unity.
One of the two was lying to it's base.
Seems the Unionists prediction was more accurate.
Draconian legislation was promised to be scrapped, yet it's worse now than the time when Civil Rights protestors were marching in the early 70s.
With Articles 2 and 3 done away with, we are left with some wishy washy aspiration to Irish sovereignty, and Hume like gobble-de gook claiming we can be Irish citizens in the North providing we accept British interference as part of life.

Exactly my sentiments. The provos still claim to have fought for a United Ireland but then wander on to the 'parity of esteem' goal when their failure is put to them. Caral Ni Cuilin on bbc radio today could only wafflle on and on about 'parity of esteeem' and, believe it or not 'the achievement of devolution'. So Poor Bobby Sands and people like him died for 'devolution' not to mention the hundreds and hundreds od completely innocent people who were killed (many by the IRA) and all for 'parity of esteem and Devolution.) It's has been and is a sick joke but Gerry and Martin made a few £s so that's o.k.

PSF, not in my name either

[Tiernanator]

I think people here would support a UI only if it was supported by a majority of the folks up there in the six counties. That's the position in the GFA.

Interesting Factual that while you reiterated the usual line you did not feel that any of my points on citizenship were worth mentioning. Are you sure your in the right party?

[Truth.ie]

Then you were not paying attention. A framework for getting to a United Ireland actually was very much part of the all party talks and was contained in the GFA which was supported by referendum. You lost that.

*sigh* The All party talks simply reinforced the British position. That of the Unionist veto. A United Ireland was not even on the table.
"The Union is Secure", UVF Leader Gusty Spence. Good Friday, 1998.

[Pat Mc Larnon]

By allowing an All Ireland referendum on unity. Free from British threats of car bombs in Dublin (see Mo Mowlam 1998).
All the Nationalist parties throughout the island could call for a Yes vote (as they currently pay lip service to).
The Unionists could call for a No vote. The biggest vote wins.
Quite simple. If it's a Yes vote the British must accept this, and make provisions to leave via a declaration of intent to withdraw, and a date, as they did in Hong Kong.
If the majority of the island vote No, I too will accept this, and emigrate to Mexico or as far and exotic as possible, but there must be no British interference in the referendum.
The British left Hong Kong, despite the majority of those living in Hong Kong wishing to keep the Union incidentally.

Your outcome is predicated on the British (and by that I include the 6 county British) agreeing to such a referendum in the first place. In circumstances where they are stridently opposed to such a referendum how do you advocate bringing about a UI?
BTW I am not trying to be difficult for the sake of it, it is just that you are a person who is opposed to the current SF strategy and is willing to discuss alternatives rather than shout slogans.

[greasytrucker]

The whole point is that violence didn't work last time and will not work this time. All it will achieve is more death, destruction and grief.

The ONLY way forward is through dialogue.

I do agree that the Westminster government need to engage wikth the Unionists to drive through things like the Irish Language Act though. The Unionists have to accept that there are a group of people in the north who have a democratic right to see themselves as Irish and identify fully with their Irish heritage no matter how much that will stick in the Unionists' throats.

In the same vein, the Nationalists have to accdept the right of the Unionists to see themselves as British and identify with their culture.

Yes but Irish republicanism is not a rational creed, it looks to blood sacrifce and cleansing, hunger martyrdom, death etc for nationalist/tribal motivation.

By its nature its irrational and also fundementalist.


Thus it will always attract those who buy into its original sentiments in ever decreasing circles.

[Tiernanator]

I have to say that when people talk of a million protestants being forced into a united Ireland they never say with the same vigour about the 700,0000+ nationalists who have been forced through threat of violence by loyalist paramilitaries to stay part of the UK. I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything. I don't think it works and that is why I a member of Sinn Féin and tactically support the GFA but I do think some people are rather mealy-mouthed in their democratic credentials.

[Tiernanator]

yes but irish republicanism is not a rational creed, it looks to blood sacrifce and cleansing, hunger martyrdom, death etc for nationalist/tribal motivation.

By its nature its irrational and also fundementalist.


Thus it will always attract those who buy into its original sentiments in ever decreasing circles.

do not feed this troll......greasytrucker is a troll.

[greasytrucker]

do not feed this troll......greasytrucker is a troll.

Does it not find its motivation from these things ?

From an athropological perspective it has similar psychological aspects similar to those of other fundemenalists around the world. glorfying the dead and their death is its cornerstone.

Look at some republican murals the way their dead are given saint like status, murals of them in clouds etc, to motivate followers to follow their life, example etc.

[Truth.ie]

Your outcome is predicated on the British (and by that I include the 6 county British) agreeing to such a referendum in the first place. In circumstances where they are stridently opposed to such a referendum how do you advocate bringing about a UI?
BTW I am not trying to be difficult for the sake of it, it is just that you are a person who is opposed to the current SF strategy and is willing to discuss alternatives rather than shout slogans.

This is a failure of the negotiating teams in the All Party Talks.
A referendum based on the majority of a statelet you don't even recognise is only shelving the problem for another day. The referendum should go ahead with or without British consent. They should be persuaded to take part, and International pressure should be laid,Republicans for their part should cease violence to accomodate a peaceful referendum, but if they refuse to take part they will be denying democracy to the vast majority of the Irish people.
Partition affects both sides of the border. Solutions to partition must involve both sides of the border. The Unionist minority cannot stop democratic constitutional change. Nationalist failure to negotiate, and British failure to lay a strong hand on Unionists condemned us all to decades more of the Status Quo.

[IrishConservative]

okay i am a little off the beaten track here but clearly statements like,

"All people should be entitled to full social, economic and cultural equality." Mary Lou McDonald (Sinn Féin Vice President)

are as much a reason for the people of northern ireland to be disenchanted with local politics. And considering the majority of ireland really dont care for a untied ireland, along with the continuing realisation that the north would only destroy what sh*ty economy we have left in ireland, is it not surprising people would be less interested in all the boll*x that seems to flow out of the north.