"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement

[Duke of Marmalade]

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.

Purple I think we should avoid angels on pins territory. "The jurisdiction of the ECJ" has sweet fanny adam to do with the constitutional position of NI within the UK. The folk on the Shankill Road are not upset about any influence the ECJ may have on their lives, trust me, I know the mindset.
But Wolfie does highlight a certain paradox. Why are these loyalists so dismissive of the will of Her Majesty's government? The answer is that their primary driving passion is not to be British, there is even a Red Hand faction in favour of independence. Their all consuming passion is to never, never, never be Irish. I'm afraid both SF/IRA and the Paisleyites are equally to blame for that.

 

[Purple]

Purple I think we should avoid angels on pins territory. "The jurisdiction of the ECJ" has sweet fanny adam to do with the constitutional position of NI within the UK. The folk on the Shankill Road are not upset about any influence the ECJ may have on their lives, trust me, I know the mindset.

It does change the constitutional position of Northern Ireland though, whether they care or not.

But Wolfie does highlight a certain paradox. Why are these loyalists so dismissive of the will of Her Majesty's government? The answer is that their primary driving passion is not to be British, there is even a Red Hand faction in favour of independence. Their all consuming passion is to never, never, never be Irish. I'm afraid both SF/IRA and the Paisleyites are equally to blame for that.

Yes, hence my comment that Unionism is defined by what it isn't.

 

[WolfeTone]

An ROI protocol was a much more logical consequence of existing constitutional arrangements.

Not at all Duke, not at all. You may recall that RoI changed its constitutional status in 1998 over the territorial claim. Inherent in that change was the understanding that Ireland and Britain had reached a space where the ordinary folk of the day were intent about going about their business and social activities under a broadly level playing field. By virtue of the European Courts of Justice hovering in the background, nationalists could sense the scales of justice being balanced in the event of enduring anymore British injustice (real or perceived).

This Brexit thing, a wholly English nationalist endeavour, was seized upon by Unionists as an opportunity to reinforce and reaffirm the false mantra of 'Ulster is British'. It was positively an opportunistic territorial grab by political class of Unionism.
Thankfully enough reasonable Unionists saw through it, and the people of NI in general, exercising their democratic right to self-determination they resoundingly rejected Brexit.

Brexiteers, including Unionists, were afforded ample opportunity to demonstrate how border arrangements would work between North and South that would not antaganoise or provoke a militant Republican response. I'm not sure to what extent the reaction would have been, but I am satisfied that some reaction would occur.
So the sea border was invented. A reasonable compromise. Nobody lives in the sea, nobody works in the sea, it is a wholly abstract concept. All that it means is that some customs and trade regulations be applied between GB and NI. The paperwork being carried out by... customs officials... who are paid and trained for this sort of thing, so they should not be overly aghast at checking more forms (might even be a pay rise in for them?)

The folk on the Shankill Road are not upset about any influence the ECJ may have on their lives

True, but the folk on The Falls may think differently.
While it is worthy of Dublin to pipe up from time to time about having the back of Nationalists, we all know it is mostly window dressing.
But the ECJ on the other hand is a different beast, a heavy hitter in field of impartiality and for imposing its will on both Dublin and London if need be.

The constitutional status of NI at the time of GFA (and changes to Art 2&3) was as members of the EU and its institutions.
Brexit changed that, and as the GFA states, it is for the people of NI to determine their future, without external interference. They chose to remain in the EU, and they are still in the UK - arguably, for trade, it is the best of both worlds.
It is an indictment on Unionist political class that they cannot sell this to their people.

 

[WolfeTone]

Their all consuming passion is to never, never, never be Irish. I'm afraid both SF/IRA and the Paisleyites are equally to blame for that.

I would agree with this and some more, through the centuries. It is deeply embedded. Although I think it is never, never being Gaelic, Celtic or Green more so than 'Irish'.
Even Big Ian P pronounced he was Irish, and his wife has admitted that she would be prepared to live in a UI. Admitting that partition was a mistake.


NI exists only for one purpose, for the purpose of Unionism never, ever having to be Gaelic, it is an alien form to them to being British. It is why Acht na Gaeilge is resisted so much. But I recently discovered that Edward Carson, who thought partition to be a tragedy, was a fluent Irish speaker.

But I stand with Gerry Adams on this, and Hume before him, it is a mindset that needs to be broken. Not a forced break, but to be exposed as a redundant way of thinking.
It is the social and economic order of the day that will unite the people and banish centuries of hatred to the past.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

So the sea border was invented. A reasonable compromise. Nobody lives in the sea, nobody works in the sea, it is a wholly abstract concept. All that it means is that some customs and trade regulations be applied between GB and NI. The paperwork being carried out by... customs officials... who are paid and trained for this sort of thing, so they should not be overly aghast at checking more forms (might even be a pay rise in for them?)

The sea border operates as you say, with by definition nobody being anywhere near the border. The same could have applied to a land border.
In the end the Irish had the far stronger hand. In general there is far more sympathy with the nationalist cause and Boris was a dreadful ally for the loyalists compared to the Michel Barnier's on the Irish side.
Irish nationalism won hands down but at a cost. This is a zero sum game. Nationalism's win is Unionism's loss. Simon Varadkar can never be seen as other than an enemy by unionists of all shades. Michael Martin is slightly better placed in that regard. One thing's for sure, 20 years after the "peace" accord of the GFA the hearts and minds of people in the six counties are more divided than ever on any version of a United Ireland. So much so that the prospect of a border poll is a time bomb not just for the six counties but for the whole of Ireland.
Nearly give you a like for that last post, but the final para praising Grisly

 

[WolfeTone]

The same could have applied to a land border.

Without wanting to reinvent the wheel, how would a land border have worked? I'm pretty sure that ample opportunity was afforded to show how it would work but no workings ever came forward?

So much so that the prospect of a border poll is a time bomb not just for the six counties but for the whole of Ireland.

Ah, but this is the mindset that needs to be broken. The "let's not pursue legitimate political aims by exclusively democratic and peaceful means, in case the terrorists come back" mindset.

It is the mindset of Stephen Collins and many others setting the media and political agenda. The perpetual "now is not the right time".
I wonder what the womens suffragette movement would have achieved if it held this view? Or any other struggle for equality and rights?

Those in leadership who raise the spectre of violence at the prospect of pursuing legitimate political aims need to be constantly challenged.

 

[SGWidow]

Without wanting to reinvent the wheel, how would a land border have worked? I'm pretty sure that ample opportunity was afforded to show how it would work but no workings ever came forward?

Ah come on now WolfeTone please!

EVERYONE knows full well that there are readily available electronic solutions to the border issue. The unfortunate aspect of these solutions is that they haven't yet found their tribe - as in hopping into the Irish sea doesn't work for them. These are landlubber electronics.....

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I wonder what the womens suffragette movement would have achieved if it held this view? Or any other struggle for equality and rights?

Oh please Wolfie. Equality and rights! Do you realise how OTT that is? Rights to what? For the 0.1% posers who want to speak to public servants in Irish? Once upon a time a long time ago, catholics in NI found it hard to get on in the NI civil service just as people here with the wrong address find it now. Please tell me what terrible deprivation of rights they now suffer.

 

[WolfeTone]

EVERYONE knows full well that there are readily available electronic solutions to the border issue.

Ah, c'mon yourself!, if these solutions were readily available to implement across a near 500 km border with 200+ crossings in any practical and meaningful sense we would have heard about them.

But if such solutions do exist, and can be applied to the UK/EU border in Ireland, then it stands to reason that such solutions could be applied to UK/EU border posts in Britain?
There would be no need for airport security, immigration checks, etc... just apply the Irish border solution?

 

[WolfeTone]

Rights to what?

I think you missed the point, being, what would any rights based movement - women's, civil rights, same-sex marriage, abortion, workers, et al... have achieved if from the outset the mindset was of "now is not the right time", " it will upset those who cannot tolerate change".

Surely the leaders of the Derry Housing Action Committee knew, in 1968, of the ticking time-bomb if they pursued their legitimate political aspirations?

 

[Purple]

The perpetual "now is not the right time".
I wonder what the womens suffragette movement would have achieved if it held this view? Or any other struggle for equality and rights?

At the beginning of the last century the American Suffragette movement stopped black women participating in their marches because they thought that it would weaken their case and it wasn't the right time for that discussion.

 

[Purple]

I think you missed the point, being, what would any rights based movement - women's, civil rights, same-sex marriage, abortion, workers, et al... have achieved if from the outset the mindset was of "now is not the right time", " it will upset those who cannot tolerate change".

It's true to say that as a cohort middle aged white men have never really changed anything since they have created what is the status quo. The richer they are the less likely they are to want change.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I think you missed the point, being, what would any rights based movement

I think you missed my point. SF/IRA are not pursuing a rights based movement. They are seeking sectarian triumphalism.

 

[WolfeTone]

They are seeking sectarian triumphalism.

Duke, the political aspiration of a United Ireland is perfectly legitimate. It is part of the GFA, it part of this States Constitution. A border poll is the mechanism chosen to determine the future constitutional status, there is nothing sectarian about it all.

That SF are loudest in the room in pursuing this political objective is another matter. Incidentially pre-2016, it was noticeable at SF Ard Fheiseanna, to me anyway, that while a UI is raison d'etre of SFs existence, the subject matter had fallen down the charts a bit in topic discussion. Instead, focus was shifting more to ordinary social and economic issues of housing, welfare, employment etc.

It was Brexit that propelled the notion of UI back up to the top of the SF charts, so much so, that the discussion has now taken a much broader dimension that forces the wider political class to sit up, take notice and take a position. For many, that position is the perpetual "now is not the right time" to facilitate such aspirations, that is their entitlement and for them it is the right thing to do. For others, the right thing to do is to aspire for a UI and as such, it is always the right time to do it.
That is why we have democratic institutions, to facilitate political aspirations of the people.
SF, whatever you think of them, their core base is about 10%-15% of the electorate north and south. A UI is only possible with 50%+1.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Ok Wolfie but drop the rights bit.

 

[Purple]

Incidentially pre-2016, it was noticeable at SF Ard Fheiseanna, to me anyway, that while a UI is raison d'etre of SFs existence, the subject matter had fallen down the charts a bit in topic discussion. Instead, focus was shifting more to ordinary social and economic issues of housing, welfare, employment etc.

I broadly agree with the rest of your post but the Shinners are nothing if not pragmatic. They are, in many ways, like FF used to be; populist first and Nationalist second. They realised that they had to be in power, that they actually wanted to be in power, and so latched onto the most populist issues they could find.
That's why they made that shift and that's why their support has grown. I agree that their base is 10-15% and taking a strong position on a united Ireland could damage their electoral chances in this country. It will be interesting to see how they handle that over the next few years. They have managed to jettison their more extreme socialist policies and are now winning votes in the "Guardian Reader" cohort (a well educated middleclass person who doesn't really care about the poor but just hates rich people, especially if that rich person isn't as well educated).

 

[WolfeTone]

Ok Wolfie but drop the rights bit.

It is the right to pursue legitimate political aims through exclusively peaceful democratic means is what the "now is not the right time" brigade are trying to temper, warning of loyalist violence and 'sensitivities'.
Ireland, and Britain, has had enough of this for a century or more.

 

[Purple]

It is the right to pursue legitimate political aims through exclusively peaceful democratic means is what the "now is not the right time" brigade are trying to temper, warning of loyalist violence and 'sensitivities'.

It's worth remembering that until the Good Friday Agreement Sinn Fein didn't think it was the right time to pursue their aim of a united Ireland through exclusively peaceful democratic means. They were happy enough to blow up children when it suited them and they still see nothing wrong with those actions or else they wouldn't behave like craven lickspittles at the funeral of child killers, sorry, good republicans.

That's why their whole "rights based" agenda rings hollow to me, along with most everything else they say.
I'm not a Unionist and they frighten me. That makes me wonder how they make Unionists feel.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

It is the right to pursue legitimate political aims through exclusively peaceful democratic means is what the "now is not the right time" brigade are trying to temper, warning of loyalist violence and 'sensitivities'.
Ireland, and Britain, has had enough of this for a century or more.

No one is denying anybody any rights. Typical republican reaction, argue that they are "wrong" and they bleat about denial of rights.

 

[WolfeTone]

Sinn Fein didn't think it was the right time to pursue their aim of a united Ireland through exclusively peaceful democratic means.

True, but fundamental to their approach was the absence of functioning democratic institutions in which to place trust and pursue those aims. The last time nationalist community tried the peaceful route through the civil rights movement they got their answer in spades.
Its a tragedy, and it is not to condone violence. It is a reality, not just in Ireland, but universally, if you block the path to peaceful protest with systemic violence then do not be surprised if people bite back.