"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement

Thirsty

Registered User
Messages
2,952
Can any one tell me why the Irish Times has taken to referencing a "Belfast Agreement"?
 

Purple

Registered User
Messages
10,826
It can be called either. Maybe they are hoping that the people in Northern Ireland will become atheist and stop killing each other.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,146
It has become like stroke city London/Derry. Protestants call it Belfast, Catholics call it Good Friday. The Brits, trying to be super diplomatic call it the Good Friday Belfast Agreement. I hadn't noticed any particular change in the IT's allegiance.
 

Betsy Og

Registered User
Messages
447
I think the offical name is Belfast Agreement, it just got the 'nickname' of GFA at the time and it stuck.

While we're on, did the protestant J*sus not die on Good Friday as well?? (It seems Je*us is a bad word in the South now....what would the DUP think!!)
 
Last edited:

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
784
I'm not a subscriber, but Collins talks about 'demand for an early vote', 23 years after it was agreed by the political class, overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland, that the future of NI would be decided by the people of NI. And that referenda would be the means to determine that future.

23yrs later... demand for an early vote?

Collins is of course not alone in cowering to the threats of loyalist violence. He would front and centre in condemning Republican violence and supporting all measures for the rule of law. But when it comes to loyalist violence, everybody should tip-toe around the sensitivities of 'loyalism' and be 'mindful of idle chatter about a United Ireland'.

Just to query that term 'loyalism'. The UK government negotiated the NI protocol, the British Parliament endorsed it, and Her Majesty the Queen gave it Royal Ascent.
Exactly who/what are these people 'loyal' too?
The should show their loyalty to the British Crown by submitting to the will of the British Crown. That is their position, they are subjects. They are subservient, willingly so, to a higher authority.

Collins, and some other journalists, would do well to remind them from time to time of their true position in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, rather than try direct responsibility for the rioting at those who openly talk about legitimate political objectives.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,146
it was agreed by the political class, overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland, that the future of NI would be decided by the people of NI. And that referenda would be the means to determine that future.
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the people of NI would have rejected the protocol, the biggest constitutional change in a century, if given their say - GFA how are you?
For 4 years Simon Varadkar "threatened" a resumption of republican violence if there was a hard border on the island. Leo even backed it up by showing "propaganda" clips of the IRA burning border posts to the EU mandarins who only wallowed in the chance to use Ireland as a cat's paw to make the Brits squirm.
So who cowered to whose threats with the totally OTT NI protocol?
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
784
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the people of NI would have rejected the protocol

Arguably not, considering they rejected Brexit outright. There is no doubt about that.

Leo and Simon were wise to raise the spectre of hard borders on land....you only have to gauge the level of anger Unionism has towards an invisible sea border to consider what Nationalism would have have thought of actual physical land borders.

If Simon Vradakar were using the spectre of republican violence to prevent a land border, then unionism is using the spectre of loyalist violence to usurp the sea border in equal fashion.

There is no constitutional change to NI.

NI is a separate entity to GB under the 'United' Kingdom. It has separate laws, on many things, not least on trade. Sunday hours for example, different in NI to say England or Scotland.
They even use a different version of the Sterling currency.
Now they have different arrangements at customs posts.

They have their knickers in a twist because they think the 'motherland' has turned them over. The reality is different, they just have different customs arrangements (arguably more favourable). The paperwork is causing some issues but they can be worked out Im sure.
Unionism is trying to turn this into identity politics, when all it really is a wake-up call to come out from behind the drum-beating, hold out the hand to your neighbours (literally, the nationalist population in NI) and work with them for everyones sake.

The UK government negotiated the NI protocol, the British Parliament voted it into law, Her Majesty the Queen gave it the Royal Ascent.
These 'loyalists' should be reminded of their place - they are subjects to the Crown, they are subservient to the majesty of higher authority, they would fare better if they actually showed some of the loyalty to the British Crown.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,146
Arguably not, considering they rejected Brexit outright. There is no doubt about that.
"Arguably"? I would have thought that it was in the spirit of the GFA that if such a change in status was "arguably" the wish or not of the people of NI that it would have been put to a ref. There is also no doubt in my mind that having originally voted against Brexit they (the minority of unionists who voted Remain) would, like London, certainly not vote to be split off from the UK and into the EU.
Leo and Simon were wise to raise the spectre of hard borders on land....you only have to gauge the level of anger Unionism has towards an invisible sea border to consider what Nationalism would have have thought of actual physical land borders.
By their own nationalist aspirations, yes they were very wise. Play your strongest card - the threat of republican violence.
If Simon Vradakar were using the spectre of republican violence to prevent a land border, then unionism is using the spectre of loyalist violence to usurp the sea border in equal fashion.
Absolutely, no argument there. Republicans have shown that violence works, I never expected Loyalists to turn the other cheek.
There is no constitutional change to NI.
Ever read Macbeth? He was promised by the witches that he would never be killed by man "of woman born". He was killed by Macduff who was a cesarean birth. So unionists were promised a say in any constitutional change but it is deemed that splitting them off into the EU does not qualify. The border is scarcely mentioned in the GFA but pan nationalism persisted that no hard border was in the spirit thereof. A ref on the change that did happen was surely in the spirit of the GFA.
NI is a separate entity to GB under the 'United' Kingdom. It has separate laws, on many things, not least on trade. Sunday hours for example, different in NI to say England or Scotland.
They even use a different version of the Sterling currency.
This is downright incorrect. Even before 1979 when both parts of Ireland used "sterling" it is true that the Southern punt was merely backed by the sterling reserves of our Central Bank but the Northern pound has always been sterling backed by the Bank of England. (As an aside this is one reason why Brexit will ensure that Scotland will never vote for independence for the foreseeable future.)
They have their knickers in a twist because they think the 'motherland' has turned them over. The reality is different, they just have different customs arrangements (arguably more favourable). The paperwork is causing some issues but they can be worked out Im sure.
Yes I am sure the world sees it as much ado about nothing. Just like all that mullarkey about a hard border. There were going to be no border posts, merely a version of a ROI protocol. The greater threat of violence won the day.
 
Last edited:

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
784
I would have thought that it was in the spirit of the GFA that if such a change in status

The change in constitutional status refers only to NI being part of the UK. Last time I checked, it is still firmly part of the UK. There is no constitutional change, there is a change to trading and customs arrangements, but they are still, very much so, part of the UK.

There is also no doubt in my mind that having originally voted against Brexit they (the minority of unionists who voted Remain)

Irrelevant. The 'forgive them Lord, for they do not know what they do' arguement, was trashed out after the Brexit referendum with calls for a re-run of the Brexit referendum by some Remainers. Unionists, were some of the loudest cheerleaders in demanding that the decision to leave the EU was made and there was to be no turning back.
Part of the whole debacle of Brexit was that no-one actually knew what it meant. Leading to soft, hard, Norwegian style, Swiss style, type of arrangements.
The UK negotiated a UK style Brexit, that is, a full Brexit for Britain, with NI remaining within customs and single market. This is British policy, endorsed by British parliament, approved by Her Majesty.
In the context of democracy, a minority of Unionists who voted to Remain but would now presumably vote Leave are as relevant now as the minority of British people who voted Leave but would rather they had now voted Remain.
Unionism needs to get its head out of the sand, the power structure that secured NI as part of the UK perpetually is broken. Unionism is now subject to the will of the entire people of NI and further afield.

So unionists were promised a say in any constitutional change but it is deemed that splitting them off into the EU does not qualify.

Arguably, the decision to take them out of the EU was also a constitutional change - they voted not to leave.


the Northern pound has always been sterling backed by the Bank of England.

I never suggested otherwise, it still is backed by Bank of England, which kind of waters down the 'our constitutional status has changed' arguement.

My point was, try spending a NI£10 in Liverpool. Trying shopping for shoes before 1pm in Belfast on a Sunday - barriers to trade, not to be found elsewhere in the UK.
 

Purple

Registered User
Messages
10,826
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the people of NI would have rejected the protocol, the biggest constitutional change in a century, if given their say - GFA how are you?
Brexit changed their constitutional position. They voted against that change but the British government ignored them.

By their own nationalist aspirations, yes they were very wise.
You do know that FG are the party of Partition, right?
Absolutely, no argument there. Republicans have shown that violence works, I never expected Loyalists to turn the other cheek.
Yep, I agree with you there.
So unionists were promised a say in any constitutional change but it is deemed that splitting them off into the EU does not qualify. The border is scarcely mentioned in the GFA but pan nationalism persisted that no hard border was in the spirit thereof. A ref on the change that did happen was surely in the spirit of the GFA.
See above ref Brixit.
Yes I am sure the world sees it as much ado about nothing. Just like all that mullarkey about a hard border. There were going to be no border posts, merely a version of a ROI protocol. The greater threat of violence won the day.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,146
@WolfeTone The bottom line is that we now see that from the standpoint of the weird politics of this little island the logic of Brexit all boiled down to whether there would be a ROI protocol or a NI protocol. An ROI protocol was a much more logical consequence of existing constitutional arrangements. But the threat of Republican violence together with the desire of the EU to make life uncomfortable for the Brits has led to the truly bizzarre NI protocol.

By NI£ I think you mean a bank note issued by say the Northern Bank. Try cashing a banknote issued by the Clydesdale Bank or the Yorkshire Bank in Soho. It's a silly point. In fact the one thing that I would cling to if I was a loyalist is that the truly distinctive effect of partition is the different currencies in both jurisdictions. Ironic that this is entirely due to the politically motivated and ill judged decision of the Republic to split from sterling in 1979. I don't remember much concern expressed then about the disruption in border areas.
 

Purple

Registered User
Messages
10,826
23 years after it was agreed by the political class, overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland, that the future of NI would be decided by the people of NI. And that referenda would be the means to determine that future.

23yrs later... demand for an early vote?
Yep, the Peace Process kind of stopped when the chuckle brothers left the stage. The two hags in charge now are doing their respective tribes no service. It's hard to know which one to dislike more.
Collins is of course not alone in cowering to the threats of loyalist violence. He would front and centre in condemning Republican violence and supporting all measures for the rule of law. But when it comes to loyalist violence, everybody should tip-toe around the sensitivities of 'loyalism' and be 'mindful of idle chatter about a United Ireland'.
True, but Loyalism is defined by what it isn't, not what it is. They are on the losing side no matter what the outcome. The only question is whether the Nationalist manage to end up on the losing side with them.
Just to query that term 'loyalism'. The UK government negotiated the NI protocol, the British Parliament endorsed it, and Her Majesty the Queen gave it Royal Ascent.
Exactly who/what are these people 'loyal' too?
The should show their loyalty to the British Crown by submitting to the will of the British Crown. That is their position, they are subjects. They are subservient, willingly so, to a higher authority.
Excellent point but we all know that Loyalism isn't about loyalism, it's just a word used to define a tribal identity. One of the many things they have in common with Nationalists.
Leo and Simon were wise to raise the spectre of hard borders on land....you only have to gauge the level of anger Unionism has towards an invisible sea border to consider what Nationalism would have have thought of actual physical land borders.
We know what they thought about it. There are graveyards full of corpses to remind us.
They have their knickers in a twist because they think the 'motherland' has turned them over.
They have their knickers in a twist because the 'Motherland' doesn't care about them and just wishes they would go away.
Their behaviour is the main reason for that.
Nationalists in Northern Ireland have yet to realise that the same thing has happened in this country.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,146
Brexit changed their constitutional position. They voted against that change but the British government ignored them.
I'm struggling to see this point. At the time of the 2016 ref there was no awareness that the constitutional status of NI within the UK was up for grabs. It is a result of the endeavours of Simon Varadkar that we have arrived at the truly bizarre arrangement of the NI protocol. (see #13)
You do know that FG are the party of Partition, right?
I am aware of the history of early 20th century Ireland. In the 21st century Leo played the Green card more forcibly than CJH himself, so much so that some commentators mistakenly thought he was cosying up to Mary Lou.
 

Purple

Registered User
Messages
10,826
I'm struggling to see this point. At the time of the 2016 ref there was no awareness that the constitutional status of NI within the UK was up for grabs. It is a result of the endeavours of Simon Varadkar that we have arrived at the truly bizarre arrangement of the NI protocol.
The Good Friday Agreement is a Constitutional Document and it ties NI law to the ECJ. Brexit, and the move away from recognising the jurisdiction of the ECJ changed the constitutional position of NI.
 

Conan

Registered User
Messages
1,242
Who is “Simon Varadkar”?
What the so called “Loyalists” are really struggling with is the fact that Boris lied to them (and many others) and sold them down the river. He promised no border, they could burn the export documents etc. All lies. And the DUP who campaigned for Brexit and tied their wagon to Boris (rather than the Teresa May deal) are now ostensibly trying to wash their hands of the violence (despite the fact that many of their members have been silent in their condemnation of the violence).
 
Top