This is true, I’m sure. Also in fairness, and certainly in my experience of such marches in Scotland, they are equal opportunity pissers. The followers leave a trail of empty lager cans and stale urine wherever they go, and it’s not necessarily fair to accuse them of specifically targeting Catholic churches.
“Equal opportunity pissers” is a term I am going to steal. 
I seriously can’t believe you’re claiming a media conspiracy over a tabloid printing a photo of a loyalist pissing on a Catholic church. Talk about not knowing how to choose one’s battles.
They didn’t get rid of it.
Perhaps because the loyalist history of rejecting every compromise on anything suggests that such “dialogue” would be futile. Anyway, the vote itself was to some degree a concession, because nationalists have long wanted to take the flag down entirely. The vote is already being spun in dissident circles as “Sinn Féin votes to fly the Union Jack over City Hall”. If loyalists were smart they could have spun it the same way, but instead they seem determined to confirm their image as intransigent thugs. And then complain when the media portrays them that way.
They haven’t taken it off. They’re still flying it, only in the same way other public buildings fly it. This isn’t a minor point.
Come on, you can’t go on about the symbolism to unionists of not flying it every day and then feign ignorance about why nationalists had a problem with that.
I know it was hard for unionists to accept that. But it was unionists themselves who insisted on reviving Stormont as a condition for the GFA, and that was never not going to involve former IRA members in government. Bringing back Stormont at all was difficult for many nationalists to accept, and Ian Paisley as First Minister wasn’t exactly an easy pill to swallow either. While he may never have gotten his hands dirty, he’s rightly seen as bearing a lot of responsibility for the sectarian divisions that led to and sustained the conflict. Power-sharing was by no means a one-way sacrifice.
I’d also reject the notion that the handshake was “utterly overwhelmed” by that sacrifice, BTW. The symbolism of a former guerrilla shaking hands with the occupier’s head of state or government is always momentous. It’s not for nothing that comparisons were drawn to Arafat and Rabin.
That actually underlines my point that the union isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Making the loyalist response all the more nonsensical.
Are there any nationalists who actually accept the GFA / status quo and are NOT interested in picking new fights?
Sadly, that’s the price one sometimes pays for not accepting blatant double standards.
So basically, certain people living in the UK couldn’t bear the daily reminder that they were, in fact, living in the UK. With all due respect, that is not a good enough reason. And it’s not as if the nationalists in NI are shy about displaying “26+6=1” banners or naming playgrounds after gunmen
The UK govt in Westminster should declare that the Belfast city ordinance is null and void, and that anyone in the UK can fly the official flag whenever they damn please. (Problem is, that would actually take some balls)
The GFA =/ the status quo. The GFA is an ongoing process and part of that process is creating neutral public spaces. A City Hall with a Union Jack flying over it 365 days a year is not a neutral public space.
I can see we disagree over the meaning of “blatant”.
Nationalists don’t need to see the Union Jack to be reminded that they live in the UK. If unionists do, that’s a problem for themselves to work on. The flag (in the Six Counties, at least) has a much deeper significance than that, and both sides know it, and that’s why it arouses the passions it does. If it was as insignificant as you think it should be to nationalists, it wouldn’t be such a big deal to unionists either.
Nationalists are as entitled to display banners on their own property as unionists are. As for the Newry park, I agree that was an insensitive decision and a breach of the spirit of the GFA. But it’s not Belfast City Council’s responsibility and has no bearing on its own obligation of neutral public spaces.
Actually, the problem is that would probably require constitutional change, and might well breach the GFA too.
That’s where I respectfully disagree - I think that’s a rather myopic and overreaching view which is out of touch with the rest of the world. NI should be allowed the dignity of preserving a similar infrastructure to any other country, where flags on government buildings are standard practice that don’t make anyone think twice. Do nationalists have a plan to redesign the UK’s currency too?
I’d agree with you if they had an Orange Lodge flag, but not a Union Jack.
So each city council can act as a rogue unit that can violate the GFA without repercussions (except for public protests?) Is there not an oversight process under the GFA?
In Belfast tonight for a gig and apart from the union jacks hanging from every lamp post haven’t noticed anything. Oh saw a few police saracens speeding down the street but might just have been break time.
It’s not “out of touch” with other territories that are in, or still recovering from, conflict situations. Flags are always a sensitive issue in those places, and to expect people to regard flags as they would if they were living in a non-disputed territory is to wholly ignore reality. The essence of a symbol is that it means different things to different people in different places - you can’t just lift the meaning from one place and force people in another place, in a wholly different context, to give it the same meaning.
Six County banknotes already have different designs. You can see pictures here.
Not really - under the terms of the agreement it’s for each government or institution to take action as needed to ensure proper implementation. The GFA did envisage the creation of certain bodies or mechanisms to help move things forward; some of them, like the North-South Parliamentary Forum and the all-Ireland Charter of Rights, have been held up because of unionist refusal to participate. (The NSPF did finally have its first meeting in October, but this was after years and years of preparatory work which had to be carried out without them because they either wouldn’t turn up or wouldn’t really engage. The Charter of Rights is still in limbo.)
I just meant, is this particular battle really worth fighting in this day and age. Remove the flags from City Hall and one’s eyes will still be assaulted by non-NI currency, coins, tax forms, maps, whatever. This is very close to farce territory.
It also seems like a one-sided affair overall because UK Protestants are not trying to make incursions into the Republic of Ireland; whatever else you may say about them, they have stayed on their own side after partition.
Well, do you think that all this inappropriately enables extremists to violate the GFA using city councils?
Curious too - would it be fair play for every Polish enclave to throw up a Polish flag and elbow everyone else out of their neighborhood? 
Which is exactly what I meant by nationalists not needing the flag to remind themselves that they’re in British territory. The flag is more than just a reminder of this. That’s what you’re not getting here. Its symbolism is much much deeper, which is precisely why both sides feel so strongly about it.
Well apart from Peter Robinson’s attempt to take over Clontibret, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the attempt to blow up the Widow Scallans pub in Dublin, Willie Frazier’s aborted march through O’Connell Street etc.
It makes violations on all sides easier than they would be if there were proper enforcement mechanisms, of course. But don’t forget, the GFA is an international agreement. Enforcement of those is always difficult. Unionist refusal to engage in what mechanisms exist hasn’t helped.
I think you’ll find Polish people, and other immigrants, are far more likely to be on the other end of the elbow. But feel free to keep asking silly questions.
Recently, the (Unionist) DUP party’s comments that more Catholics than you’d think would vote to remain in the UK given the choice, and that the 2011 census apparently shows a rise in those who are “Northern Irish” rather than British or Irish.
It would be helpful for Sinn Fein to show Catholics that Unionists can still gnash their teeth from time to time, a simple way to do that would be to suggest removal of the flag, sit back and grab some popcorn.
If anyone in City Hall is listening though, my daughter helpfully suggested that the flag only be flown on certain days, including Easter, Pancake Day and Halloween :dubious:
I believe those examples are isolated incidents and there is no pro-UK agitation in the ROI of any significance - unlike the opposite on the other side of the border.
That was supposed to be more a reductio ad absurdum than a silly question per se, but since you asked, here is a silly question:
Is nationalism in NI a modern remnant of medieval style “assimilate-or-else” Catholic expansionism?
Otherwise I really don’t understand what was wrong with the Michael Collins partition which assigned the 6 counties to unionists and the 26 counties to nationalists. Many world borders got redrawn in the 20th century and the great majority have been accepted in the interest of a peaceful future. Much of what I’ve heard from nationalists carries the implication that partition was illegitimate and should be treated that way, for what reason I don’t know. And do you think the conflict would exist in any shape or form if the ROI was COI/Protestant?
[QUOTE=Pushkin]
Recently, the (Unionist) DUP party’s comments that more Catholics than you’d think would vote to remain in the UK given the choice, and that the 2011 census apparently shows a rise in those who are “Northern Irish” rather than British or Irish.
It would be helpful for Sinn Fein to show Catholics that Unionists can still gnash their teeth from time to time, a simple way to do that would be to suggest removal of the flag, sit back and grab some popcorn.
If anyone in City Hall is listening though, my daughter helpfully suggested that the flag only be flown on certain days, including Easter, Pancake Day and Halloween :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Very interesting take and I like your cynicism … I’d always got the impression that NI loyalists identified with Scotland in many ways, so how about flying the flag on Scottish holidays? 
The Dublin and Monaghan bombings weren’t of any significance? :dubious:
“The other side of the border” is the disputed territory. Of course there’s going to be more going on inside it than outside it.
There’s so much wrong with this question I don’t even know where to begin. Let’s see. The desire to reclaim territory that was historically yours is hardly “expansionism”. Nor is forced assimilation, even if that’s what we were talking about in this thread (and it isn’t) a peculiarity of Catholicism - particularly in an Irish context.
It’s viewed as illegitimate for a couple reasons. For one thing, when Britain agreed to give up part of Ireland, it did so without regard to the views of the Irish people. It didn’t just retain the unionist part; it also retained large nationalist areas which wanted their independence too. Soon after partition both Fermanagh and Tyrone County Councils, and Derry City Council, voted their allegiance to the Free State but their wishes were subordinated to the wishes of unionists in Antrim and North Down. This is a double standard.
Furthermore, the main reason Collins agreed to sign the Treaty in the first place was because of an agreement that there would be a Border Commission established to allow those areas to join the Free State if they wished to do so. When the time came, however, Britain appointed as the “neutral” third member of the commission an old imperialist South African judge who they knew would never in a million years allow this to happen. Documents since made public have revealed that the British never intended to allow it happen and in fact Lloyd George gave the unionists reassurance that it was a hollow promise aimed only at securing Collins’s signature. The Treaty was signed on the basis of false pretences and deception.
And it certainly didn’t secure a peaceful future.
The religious difference has a lot to do with the historical background to the conflict, but there have always been Protestant republicans. Religion in the North is more of a marker of national/cultural identity than a substantive issue in itself.
Historically whose? There was never a unified Ireland until Henry VIII made it one. And the North was never part of the Republic. So who are you reclaiming it for?
I just meant they weren’t politically significant. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming that the bombings didn’t have any apologists in the ROI’s government.
Most countries in Europe once had more territory they do now. But more to the point, Northern Protestants are Irish people too, are they not? They have been living on the island about as long as there have been Europeans in the New World.
Fair enough. So was partition illegitimate simply because it was too expansive in the border areas, and it would have been acceptable to let the unionists have, say, 3 or 4 counties instead of 6?
I am very dubious about that. I’ve known Northern Protestants and even some Orangemen (there are lots of them in Canada) and the overwhelming impression they gave was that Ireland is a great place but the hardline Catholic thing is tragic and unacceptable (in that sense Ireland has a lot in common with Quebec)
Looking back at 20th century history (Catholic laws, social exclusion etc.), it looks as if they did the right thing for their community by separating, whatever else you may say about them. I suspect there would be a united Ireland in 5 minutes if Northern Protestants felt as free to be themselves anywhere on the island as they do in the UK.
Interesting question. Perhaps with a much smaller Catholic/Nationalist minority there wouldn’t have been the same systemic discrimination against Catholics/Nationalists in Northern Ireland and hence less call north and south for the status quo to change. It’s hard to say though, for obvious reasons.
Historically that of the people who lived there before it was taken over, obviously. And just because it wasn’t unified as a nation-state, which of course didn’t exist at the time, doesn’t mean it wasn’t unified at all. There was a single High King of Ireland up until medieval times, followed by a single Irish Parliament up until the Act of Union.
I’m still not getting your point. And the actions of the government at the time nearly did amount to apology.
Heh, don’t tell themthat.
Some people would say it still wasn’t legitimate, of course. But it would have been a lot easier to defend (as an argument, I mean, not on the ground).
How is the “hardline Catholic thing” distinguishable in practice from the “hardline Protestant thing”? Northern Protestantism is extremely conservative by and large, and their leaders have stood side by side with Catholic Church leaders to oppose most forms of social change. To take just one very recent example, the unionist parties at Stormont recently defeated a same-sex marriage motion which was proposed by Sinn Féin (jointly with the cross-community Greens) and supported by the SDLP. Both sides are stuck in the 19th century on abortion, and creationism is stronger there (within the Protestant community) than anywhere else in either Britain or Ireland.
And I suspect if you asked Northern Protestants actually living in the North, you’d find out you were wrong. Their identity is British - that wouldn’t be assuaged just by telling them they could “be themselves” within an Irish state. If you don’t understand this you really don’t understand the modern conflict at all.
Anecdote regarding hardline Protestants: I’ve never lived in NI, but a couple years ago my boyfriend took me to see a bonfire (one of the many they have before the Twelfth). This bonfire was touted as a “community bonfire” where “all denominations were welcome.” (Apparently there’s been this push recently to present the parades as some kind of cultural celebration of inclusion.) When we got there, at the very top of the bonfire there was clearly a tricolor and an effigy of the Pope. Real welcoming, that.
He told me about an amusing poster that someone had put up recently (his sister, who lives in Ballyclare, wrote him about it) - it was a spoof of the movie Taken, made to look like it was a sequel to the last one, but the tagline was AND NOW THEY’VE TAKEN HIS FLEG!!!
Just thought it might make some of you smile. Carry on.
First, there is no single type of Protestant - they can be Presbyterian, COI, whatever. I won’t deny that some have stone-age views on some social issues, but there are places where bona fide Orange Protestants from NI were historically able to run amok with little resistance… namely, places like Nova Scotia, Ontario and New Brunswick, Canada … they have their problems but they have hardly turned into theocratic hellholes. Second, I have followed Irish politics enough to know that the Catholic Church comes in for a huge amount of soul searching and criticism (by its own community and others) for its role in 20th century events. Similar talk about Protestant churches simply doesn’t come up in any comparable way.
NI expats living in Canada or Scotland don’t count?
I don’t think they are identifying as British for frivolous reasons or because they are somehow racist against ROI people. In the 20th century the Protestant population of the ROI “mysteriously” went down to only 3%. Even so (as An Gadai once mentioned) Protestants were still treated well compared to ordinary Catholics in the ROI. I won’t even get started on anti-Protestant violence. If you don’t think all this is an important part of what shaped (and continues to shape) Protestant/Unionist attitudes then I don’t know what to think.