First Minister Ian Paisley and RoI Prime Minister Bertie Ahern are to meet at the Boyne site today. Paisley has rejected opposition claims that it will boost Bertie Ahern and Fianna Fail’s election campaign. The visitor centre is due to open next spring.
Somehow I escaped reading this essential school text, with its story of racism in 1930s American South. Living in Northern Ireland, I draw parallels with sectarianism, with its similar bigotry and prejudice. To Kill a Mockingbird was part of a Unite Against Hate campaign event at Parliament Buildings in Northern Ireland, which I’ve written [...] read our review »
A silly media row about racism just had to figure in the riots’ post mortem. Was the Tudor history expert David Starkey racist on Newsnight when he said: The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion. And black and white, boy and girl, operate in [...] read our review »
Having somehow managed to avoid watching a single episode of the widely praised West Wing TV series I was delighted to discover the entire Box set in my Christmas stocking – and with enough spare time over the holidays to give it a good lash. But with 10 episodes of the first series under my [...] read our review »
Aye well obviously the post from ‘The’ was fom myself. I’m good but I don’t have a superiority complex so large I see myself as simply the ultimate and final ‘The’. Close, but not quite The…re yet.
Of course there had to be a restoration of a Stormont administration if republicanism were to continue forging ahead. Does anyone really think that the British Army could leave a vacuum behind them?
The EU wouldn’t have stood still for it for a moment.
“unfortunetly there are those who have no vision for the future and their hatred clouds their judgement and the facts!
Posted by Truth & Justice on May 13 2007 @ 12:21PM”
truly we are living in the end times. To be lectured and accused by a DUPer of having no vision for the future is surely a first. Yep, all this was really part of Punt’n'Doc’s masterplan.
It’s 1973 and young Robinson says to his leader “It’ll be tough, but if we can only get the Shinners into a powersharing government with all-Ireland bodies by 2007 we might even get a few seats in Brian Faulkner’s cabinet. But to make the trap convincing we have to spend thirty years fighting against it”
Am I mad? Or in a coma? Or have I really been transported back in time? Hmmm. Sounds like an idea for a popular TV series there.Let’s call it “Life in Stormont”. Nah, too unbelievable.
Truth & Justice,
You’re predictive text isn’t working properly.
Darth
“1 No Dublin interference in NI
2. No SF/IRA in government
3. No mandatory coalition
4. Terrorism to be treated as crime and punished accordingly.”
Okay, I’ll give you number four (though with the caveat that it’s endlessly problematic on several levels) but your first three bullet points are not principles – they are policies. Principles are general, these are specific. You also seem to define a “principle” as something that people are “prepared to stand up for” but again, that’s an inaccurate definition. One might be prepared to stand up for, fight for, break the law for, a policy, but there’s a difference between being hardline on a particular policy, and holding to a principle.
Irish republicans, for example, have only one principle: that all the people and peoples of this island should have complete and unfettered sovereignty over this island, and that that sovereignty should find its expression in the form of a Republic.
All the other so-called “sacred cows” are just policies to be used when they are useful, and jettisoned when their jettisoning is useful, in service of this fundamental principle.
What do you think are the real principles underpinning unionism? (Natch: unionism cannot be a principle in itself. Not a serious one, anyway.)
Billy
No mandatory coalitions is a principle
Bertie
Can you clarify how it’s a principle? What is the principle at stake here? (Honestly, I can’t see it.)
Would it make you feel better if it was called a national government?
“all the people and peoples of this island should have complete and unfettered sovereignty over this island, and that that sovereignty should find its expression in the form of a Republic.”
Billy Boy,
your one principle is actually several, and equally policies to be jettisoned as and when. Firstly all the people do not have sovereignty- they have a representative democracy and a limited franchise. There are no soviets in Stillorgan.
Secondly it is fettered by the free decision of the people to join the EU, and by inter-governmental treaties.
Thirdly, why refer to “peoples”? Is there a provision in the irish constitution-assuming that document to be acceptable to you- that distinguishes one people from another? if so, how are you saying those differences should be recognised constitutionally? If a people votes to remain in the UK does republicanism say”Fair enough”? Thought not
Darth
“your one principle is actually several, and equally policies to be jettisoned as and when.”
I grant you, it’s a complex principle, but it is a single one. There is nothing within it that can be jettisoned. I’ll try to explain what I mean.
“Firstly all the people do not have sovereignty- they have a representative democracy and a limited franchise. There are no soviets in Stillorgan.”
Not true. In a Republic, the people DO have sovereignty. The Oireachtas is not the sovereign of Ireland, in, say, the way parliament (with the crown as a constituent part) is sovereign in the UK. As Ireland is a Republic, it is the people of (the Republic of) Ireland who enjoy sovereignty over (the Republic of) Ireland. (Bracketed bits to be erased upon reunification…) This is one way in which a Republic differs from a Constitutional Monarchy – a technical difference, but one grounded in principle. And since we’re talking about principle…
“Secondly it is fettered by the free decision of the people to join the EU, and by inter-governmental treaties.”
Again, this doesn’t infringe Republican principles, as these are treaties freely entered into by the people of the Republic (ratified by referenda). It is also within the competence of the Irish people to withdraw from these agreements if they were to choose to. Hence these treaties are exercises in sovereignty, not examples of the lack of it.
(A nation is sovereign within the community of nations the same way an individual is free within a free society. It’s not about living in splendid isolation, nor is it about having the power to escape the consequences of our actions. It’s about having the right to make your own decisions and chart your own course – naturally that means living with the reality of consequences, it means having friends and competitors and so on. It’s life. You don’t have to be Caesar to be a free man. Nor does a nation require total self-support or impunity in order to be sovereign.)
“Thirdly, why refer to “peoplesâ€?”
Ah yes, my rhetorical excess catching up with me. Was just putting that in there to stress that when one refers to the “people of Ireland”, that there is nothing exclusive about that phrase. (You know the way when unionists refer to the “people of Ulster” they mean the Protestants? You know the way “the peoples of Ulster” means something entirely different? That’s all. Feel free to ignore my belt-and-braces approach, and please don’t read anything dubious into it.)
“Is there a provision in the irish constitution-assuming that document to be acceptable to you- that distinguishes one people from another?”
No there isn’t. I do support and fully respect Bunreacht na hEireann, though I would be in favour of an entirely new Constitution in the event of reunification. (I fully respect BnahE, but to be honest, I don’t think it’s a classic.)
“if so, how are you saying those differences should be recognised constitutionally?”
Perhaps we could have 12 July and 17 March as our two National Days, marked both north and south?
“If a people votes to remain in the UK does republicanism say”Fair enoughâ€? Thought not.”
Well, since the principle is that sovereignty for this island should reside on this island, then it’s hard to square that with someone seeking to locate that sovereignty (or part of it) overseas. It’s clearly a tautology that the abandonment of sovereignty can itself be a sovereign act.
“It’s clearly a tautology that the abandonment of sovereignty can itself be a sovereign act.”
..er not if the people are sovereign.If I am sovereign of my own body and I decide to cut my arm off, I’m still me after I’ve done it. I don’t need to carry my limb around in a bag to be me.
I do accept much of the rest of your post, though I wonder if the republic could withdraw from the EU in practice, even if it could in theory.
But the 12th of July idea also wouldn’t work, since it’s a Protestant day, not a Unionist one> Sylvia Hermon would combust at the thought of a parade on her lawn though she’s a Unionist in the strict sense. That’s why the orangemen at Rossknowlagh are at ease with commemorating the victory.
Billy
“Bertie
Can you clarify how it’s a principle? What is the principle at stake here? (Honestly, I can’t see it.)
Would it make you feel better if it was called a national government? ”
No I would not feel better. It reveals a lot about you that you suggest I might.
The principle of no mandatory coalitions is a democratic principle. Any majority of representatives has the right to form the government.
Billy
I take back the first comment. It was unjustifiably narky.
“Perhaps we could have 12 July and 17 March as our two National Days, marked both north and south?”
Actually, I’d suggest a third for recent immigrants too. Mainly because I like days off.