The 6 year old Good Friday Agreement

[PatrickM]

Any chance this will ever be fully implemented? Will the two sides bicker it into oblivion? Will Blair, et al, actually step in and show leadership in forcing it through?

Will anyone care to respond?

 

[oldrooster]

Nope, because the IRA have no real interest in disarming. They are like every other terrorist organization, they cease to exist when the violence does.

 

[BobbieDog]

The peace process has problems.
(1) Terrorism does work. The IRA, while having no hope of military victory, also could not be defeated.
(2) There is no viable long term alternative to Irish re-unification.

So, the problems have to do with the simple facts that Republicanism will prevail; the future is a unified Ireland.

Now, an even handed process simply cannot deal with the historical realities in this, simply cannot deal with the facts of power and inevitability in this.
The facts and inevitability in this have been apparent since the six counties were unexpectedly hived off. We have had coming on for a century of turmoil, simply because common sense was fought. The English Invasion, and Scottish Colonisation of Ireland was over, after hundreds of years. Ireland was once more to be whole, to be Irish, and to be self governing.

There is nothing of the partisan in this. Just common sense. Just the evidence of countless similar situations, around the world, and through history.

Do we yet have the perspective and the leadership, to stumble the last couple of steps to the inevitable. That is the only question about the peace process: are we going to do what it was set up to do; peacefully re-unify Ireland.

 

[oldrooster]

The peace process has problems.
(1) Terrorism does work. The IRA, while having no hope of military victory, also could not be defeated.
(2) There is no viable long term alternative to Irish re-unification.

So, the problems have to do with the simple facts that Republicanism will prevail; the future is a unified Ireland.

Now, an even handed process simply cannot deal with the historical realities in this, simply cannot deal with the facts of power and inevitability in this.
The facts and inevitability in this have been apparent since the six counties were unexpectedly hived off. We have had coming on for a century of turmoil, simply because common sense was fought. The English Invasion, and Scottish Colonisation of Ireland was over, after hundreds of years. Ireland was once more to be whole, to be Irish, and to be self governing.

There is nothing of the partisan in this. Just common sense. Just the evidence of countless similar situations, around the world, and through history.

Do we yet have the perspective and the leadership, to stumble the last couple of steps to the inevitable. That is the only question about the peace process: are we going to do what it was set up to do; peacefully re-unify Ireland.

The nation will be reunited when protestant rights are guaranteed.

 

[BobbieDog]

The nation will be reunited when protestant rights are guaranteed.

I don't think so Rooster: as I think what you mean; is guaranteed to the satisfaction of the Protestant constituency.

That is just not going to happen.

What the Protestant constituency can have, is a partaking of a degree of universal rights, under EU aegis.

That is all that will ever be on offer: religious freedom under law; and Irish and European citizenship.

For many Protestants, I must be realistic and accept, that offer will always be unacceptable: where what they wish, is for constitutional mechanisms that would elevate their numerical minority status within a unified Ireland, to equality with a vastly numerically larger constituency of a Catholic majority.

They would also wish to retain a protection status under UK aegis: essentially a continuation, in attenuated form, of UK colonial status.

Neither of these Protestant expectations can be met.

This is psychologically difficult for them: but there is simply no viable and sustainable alternative.

 

[oldrooster]

I don't think so Rooster: as I think what you mean; is guaranteed to the satisfaction of the Protestant constituency.

That is just not going to happen.

What the Protestant constituency can have, is a partaking of a degree of universal rights, under EU aegis.

That is all that will ever be on offer: religious freedom under law; and Irish and European citizenship.

For many Protestants, I must be realistic and accept, that offer will always be unacceptable: where what they wish, is for constitutional mechanisms that would elevate their numerical minority status within a unified Ireland, to equality with a vastly numerically larger constituency of a Catholic majority.

They would also wish to retain a protection status under UK aegis: essentially a continuation, in attenuated form, of UK colonial status.

Neither of these Protestant expectations can be met.

This is psychologically difficult for them: but there is simply no viable and sustainable alternative.

But for non-catholics to live under catholic domination is untenable. I never could understand the whole fight myself, they are the same race, they should be united. If they could have a truly secular government, it might happen. I am truly against theocracies myself, and would never want to see one here in the US.

 

[BobbieDog]

But for non-catholics to live under catholic domination is untenable. I never could understand the whole fight myself, they are the same race, they should be united. If they could have a truly secular government, it might happen. I am truly against theocracies myself, and would never want to see one here in the US.

I think that the place of the EU law and courts is crucial here.
There is no sign that these institutions are other than secular in their determinations. As under the American constitution, the over-riding principle does seem to be process: which while preserving the equal place of all, and all religions in that; is determined to preclude the hegemony of any one.
The EU and American processes differ. The Americans emphasise some input end of liberties and constitutional rights: whereas Europe focuses on the output end, of what kind of social process is required, and what our citizenship responsibilities to this are.
Any conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism, involves all the big players. The Vatican and the big Protestant guns must lead: in exploring what they share, and in God; to place their differences in some proper measure. Everyone who confronts their own fears, and comes to more love their neighbour: sends relief aid to Ireland.

 

[PatrickM]

Nope, because the IRA have no real interest in disarming. They are like every other terrorist organization, they cease to exist when the violence does.

Where in the GFA does this necessitate it's implentation? This has been the red herring the loyalists have been throwing out for some time.

It's not necessary, as the IRA aren't part of the Agreement. The Agreement only stipulates if any of the party's have direct involvement in paramilitarism, they may be sanctioned from participation in the devolved government.

Interesting, the UUP has about the same indirect ties to the para's as does Sinn Fein, yet there's no talk of why the loyalist para's haven't completely disarmed.

 

[PatrickM]

But for non-catholics to live under catholic domination is untenable. I never could understand the whole fight myself, they are the same race, they should be united. If they could have a truly secular government, it might happen. I am truly against theocracies myself, and would never want to see one here in the US.

Regarding my OP, I'm concerned with the implementation of a devolved government, a co-op with a shared government. One, I might add, which was unilaterally dissolved by London with total disregard to the GFA. The Agreement had no provision allowing Westminster to do such.

BTW, you mean there's fear the loyalists would face what the republicans have had to face for 80 years? I doubt it, as the loyalists have always had support from London, while if the republicans had a share in the government, they would not have the benefit of using such agencies as MI5, SAS, etc.

 

[PatrickM]

The peace process has problems.
(1) Terrorism does work. The IRA, while having no hope of military victory, also could not be defeated.
(2) There is no viable long term alternative to Irish re-unification.

So, the problems have to do with the simple facts that Republicanism will prevail; the future is a unified Ireland.

Ideologically, I certainly hope so. But pragmatically, what will the next immediate steps be? An agreement was voted upon by all the people, yet the GFA remains in limbo at the whim of Westminster.

Do we yet have the perspective and the leadership, to stumble the last couple of steps to the inevitable. That is the only question about the peace process: are we going to do what it was set up to do; peacefully re-unify Ireland.

Indeed, where is the leadership? Why does Blair continually pander to the whinning of the unionists? Perhaps it's because they hold the key to keeping him in office?

It's high time some in Britain step up and take him on, however, there's no profit for them to do so. Perhaps it's time to tear up the GFA and return to the heady days of the 70s?

 

[BobbieDog]

Perhaps it's time to tear up the GFA and return to the heady days of the 70s?

There is a strange quality to current developments, and this possibly globally: where once systemic change is undertaken, and everyhting else gets locked in alongside; that there is no real way back, even if that change is wrong and dissaproved off, short of a seismic opposition akin to current terrorism.
I think the phrase "back to the future" has some tortuous meaning. I sense that this strange quality holds, because of the scale of perspective required to portray, and respond to, what is going currently wrong. To secure even some small fundamental change, you have to oppose, countervail and rip up, so much of what has come to prevail, and obviously be opposed in that: that nothing is simple, nothing direct, nothing having a stable and civilised path back to any past position.

 

[PatrickM]

There is a strange quality to current developments, and this possibly globally: where once systemic change is undertaken, and everyhting else gets locked in alongside; that there is no real way back, even if that change is wrong and dissaproved off, short of a seismic opposition akin to current terrorism.

Ok, then rather than "going back", perhaps it would be considered "a new round"?

I think the phrase "back to the future" has some tortuous meaning. I sense that this strange quality holds, because of the scale of perspective required to portray, and respond to, what is going currently wrong. To secure even some small fundamental change, you have to oppose, countervail and rip up, so much of what has come to prevail, and obviously be opposed in that: that nothing is simple, nothing direct, nothing having a stable and civilised path back to any past position.

What about stagnation? these examples of the process of change all imply some sort of actions, sort of a "1 step back, 2 steps forward" approach.

However the current situation has been 1) unilaterally put on hold without any input from the actual participants, and 2) seems to be heading nowhere even now. The "review" has been postponed for elections, and now is tentatively for September. But even then, what's after the "review".

It is apparent the strategy is "no move is move for the status-quo."

 

[Cjwinnit]

It is apparent the strategy is "no move is move for the status-quo."

Sounds like the plan from what it looks like here in England.

It's a really silly conflict when you realize there are more Irish people in the UK than there are in the Republic. (And I mean Irish = hold Irish passports or were born in Ireland not the american "my great-great-great-grandmother was Irish therefore "top o' the mornin' to ya!" definition of Irish)

 

[PatrickM]

Sounds like the plan from what it looks like here in England.

It's a really silly conflict when you realize there are more Irish people in the UK than there are in the Republic. (And I mean Irish = hold Irish passports or were born in Ireland not the american "my great-great-great-grandmother was Irish therefore "top o' the mornin' to ya!" definition of Irish)

Well then is it apathy? Does not Westminster have an obligation to finally move on this agreement which was voted on by all the people of Ireland, north and south?

Do they want a renewal of the 70s/80s where at least there was international attention, albeit bad?

 

[BobbieDog]

I share the frustration PM.
I share the understanding that we require final resolution of a four hundred year long mistake: of invading another's country, without clear purpose, and without exit strategy; where that people have never but wished our departure, and have worked and fought to that end.
I share the determination that we do the work to take these final steps.

But: these steps have to be surefooted, and these steps have never been taken before, and we have no maps.

Everything has gone global. The final Irish steps to freedom will be crucially global, will occur in global milieu. And that makes everything complex, globally complex.

The peace process has stalled within the general new labour project: where understanding and rectifying that stalling; requires examination of the new labour project. Where that in turn cannot now be separated from what is called the war on terror, and from all the arrangements and understandings that have come about in the name of that war: where that war in turn, takes us to consideration of American, Jewish and Islamic ethnicities.

Little of what is looked at in such wider consideration has anything directly to do with the Irish circumstance: but, like every other such regional circumstance; it only now moves forward to any resolution, through this current, global milieu.

Chechnya, Palestine_Israel, Ireland, and many more local circumstances: are now only viewed, by many, through a prism of what is globally acceptable; where that prism, sadly, is disproportionately under the influence of a handful of ethnicities.

Ireland is infinitely better off than many in this list, and is not too disadvantaged by the ethnic bias of the global prism: but, no future step in Ireland can escape from the iron grip of that prism; and it would be dangerous to begin considering otherwise.

The positive in this: is that what is forged to progress the Irish resolution, can contribute globally; that what adjustment to the global prism, is required for resolution of the Irish problem, can then be applied in every other deployment of that prism.

The primary contribution will come from examining and changing the part played by the new labour project. Where what enables that, can then be applied to considering American, Islamic and Jewish ethnic perspectives in other instances.

So the Irish peace process is very much a peace process: and it is in progressing that peace process as peace process, and by looking at the part being played by who holds the ring, in this case new labour; that we can make a general contribution to peace processes everywhere.

 

[John_Knox]

No the Belfast agreement will never be implemented because it is dead.

It is yet another failed attempt at consociationalism. As of this years ellections the anti-Belfast agreement population of Northern Ireland has become an overwhelming majority within the Pro-British population which still represents the majority in the Country.

The only way there can be a stable government is if the IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries dissarm and dissband! Terrorists in government is not acceptable!

And by the way the people in Northern Ireland are NOT the same race of people! The majority of the population in Northern Ireland are NOT celts!

 

[John_Knox]

Sorry BobbieDog you will find that the Islands history is a history of invassion! before the Normans were the Celts! Just another invading force!!!!!!! your arguement is slightly of im afraid!

 

[BobbieDog]

Sorry BobbieDog you will find that the Islands history is a history of invassion! before the Normans were the Celts! Just another invading force!!!!!!! your arguement is slightly of im afraid!

But, whereas their is no longer a living quorum of those who preceded the Celts: the body of Irish who "know" this experience of invasion and colonising, and who are determined of its reversal, fairly equates to the existing, living population of the island.
Outwith the Protestant north, the universal determination is to reverse the invasion, and achive a reunifciation.
So current, and living, and political and demanded.

 

[caillan]

.