-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
General Election 2017: The Results and Aftermath
- Thread starter ainsworth74
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
It'll be interesting. The reason, for those who don't know, why the Executive collapsed is because Sinn Fein won't nominate a Deputy FMwhilst Arlene Foster is leader of the DUP and First Minister. This is because of the Cash for Ash scandal, among other things. Without a Deputy FM the Executive can't operate.
It's clear that Foster won't back down now she's got the UK Government by the short and curlies. It's clear that Sinn Fein interpret their votes in the Stormont and Westminster elections as a mandate to make her leave. So I don't see where compromise is going to come from.
berneyarms
Established Member
That was never going to happen.
It's a confidence & supply arrangement - exactly the same as pertains in Ireland where Fianna Fáil supply support a minority Fine Gael & Independent coalition government.
It is all about maintaining stability - but even here in Ireland there have been ups and downs.
I don't think DUP support is going to be an issue going forward - Mrs. May's main problem will be keeping her own backbenchers in line.
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
in exchange for c.£1bn. That is worth more than any throw away ministerial post!
DarloRich
Veteran Member
she stands down as NI first minister to become super DUP leader, controling the assembly leader & with the ear of the PM. That is worse for SF surely?
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Indeed. I think the Lib Dems would have done better by securing £1bn of funding for constituencies they had MPs in, than they did by Clegg getting Deputy MP position.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Carwyn Jones has beaten her to lambaste the deal
BBC NEWS said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-40406396
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Was it not the case that during the WWII conflict, Churchill twice offered Irish unity to de Valera, if Eire were to give up its neutrality and join the Allies?
DarloRich
Veteran Member
bigger fish to fry at the time i should think
berneyarms
Established Member
I don't think that the Irish government ever took that seriously given the simple fact that the majority unionist population in NI would never accept it.
It also would have meant Ireland becoming a legitimate target of German bombing, something that mercifully our neutrality protected us from (save for a few rogue attacks).
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 18,806
It is very unlikely that Churchill could ever have delivered on such a promise.
And it not really clear why we would care about the Republic of Ireland joining the allies.
They were poorer and weaker even than Brazil, that actually contributed significant troops to the Italian campaign.
Last edited:
northwichcat
Veteran Member
We'll give you Belfast and Derry if you let the Nazi's bomb Dublin, Galway and Cork. :roll:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
At least 5000 Irish men fought the Nazis, many in the traditional Irsih regiments of the British Army. They were considered deserters by their own government, stripped of rank, pay and pensions and prevented from finding work by being blacklisted.
I appreciate that an overtly pro Britihs line might/would have reopened the civil war wounds just closing in the now free & independent state of Ireland (and that neutrality was their right) but neutrality in the face of the Nazis? The Nazis would have crushed Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland once the main players were finished. Neutrality would not have saved them.
Not worse, because SF will have shown their electoral base and the DUP just what sort of change SF can effect, without having a single sitting MP.
The DUP's Westminster leader is Nigel Dodds, who is a more competent operator than Foster - though that isn't saying much.
Come back in five years and let's see where the money went.
Lots of people have very little understanding of Irish politics and its placid tolerance of provincial gangsterism.
berneyarms
Established Member
I totally agree regarding the treatment of Irishmen who fought in WW2 - it was shameful and a disgrace.
That wrong has now been corrected and their sacrifice has quite rightly been recognised by the Irish State.
My point re the bombing is that Ireland was not bombed during the war (except for a couple of cases of mistaken location) - of course if Germany had been successful our neutrality would have probably counted for zilch, but we avoided getting (officially) at least getting sucked into it.
Northern Ireland wasn't so lucky in that regard.
berneyarms
Established Member
I think you mean Northern Ireland politics there - I'm not too sure of provincial gangsterism in Ireland?
Yes, I did mean NI alone - whoops!
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
That depends on your opinion of Fine Gael
AlterEgo said:
Charter NI and a re-work of the Social Investment Fund?
Charter NI and a re-work of the Social Investment Fund?
Don't bet against it...
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
How many boilers does a billion quid buy?!
backontrack
Established Member
Yes, Theresa May just handed out a bung.
Strong and stable, everyone. To be sure, to be sure.
berneyarms
Established Member
That depends on your opinion of Fine Gael
I think most people in Ireland would say that accolade if applied to a political party would be to Fianna Fáil rather than Fine Gael!
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 18,806
I would have preferred ten billion for an Irish Sea Crossing to a random billion for public services.
The former would be far less likely to cause problems with nationalists in Scotland and Wales.
The former would be far less likely to cause problems with nationalists in Scotland and Wales.
Some of the text from the agreement:
The UK Government to work with all parties towards the implementation of Stormont House for better outcomes for victims and survivors, and not to have an unfair focus on former members of the Armed Forces or the police.
This clearly implies that the status quo on inquests and inquiries is "having unfair focus on Armed Forces or the police".
Biased, partisan crap, frankly. I've shown before on this forum just how incorrect this assertion is; PSNI figures show investigations into killings by the Army account for about 30% of its legacy workload.
This isn't about justice - there is no justice in Northern Ireland.
What it'll mean, in practice (and among other things), is the closing down of inquests and inquiries, which really only benefit the families of the deceased - and nobody else - these days. Those inquests are inquests which should have been conducted *at the time* but did not occur because the relevant Minister prohibited it, under the Northern Ireland (Special Powers) Act.
There are not many people who want all-round prosecutions for all the protagonists in the NI mess, least of all the UK Government. I would find a general amnesty for all protagonists acceptable and even beneficial.
But to effectively close the door on inquests of people's loved ones for political gain is absolutely foul.
The UK Government to work with all parties towards the implementation of Stormont House for better outcomes for victims and survivors, and not to have an unfair focus on former members of the Armed Forces or the police.
This clearly implies that the status quo on inquests and inquiries is "having unfair focus on Armed Forces or the police".
Biased, partisan crap, frankly. I've shown before on this forum just how incorrect this assertion is; PSNI figures show investigations into killings by the Army account for about 30% of its legacy workload.
This isn't about justice - there is no justice in Northern Ireland.
What it'll mean, in practice (and among other things), is the closing down of inquests and inquiries, which really only benefit the families of the deceased - and nobody else - these days. Those inquests are inquests which should have been conducted *at the time* but did not occur because the relevant Minister prohibited it, under the Northern Ireland (Special Powers) Act.
There are not many people who want all-round prosecutions for all the protagonists in the NI mess, least of all the UK Government. I would find a general amnesty for all protagonists acceptable and even beneficial.
But to effectively close the door on inquests of people's loved ones for political gain is absolutely foul.
Last edited:
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Former Chancellor George Osborne is obviously delighted with the deal. The below if the front page of tonight's LSE and inside an editorial where he accuses the moderates in the Conservative party of spending too much time criticising Corbyn and not coming up with a proper strategy of their own.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I've long said that the Good Friday Agreement should have had a peace and reconciliation element to it, whereby everyone can find out what happened to their loved ones free from recrimination.
But given how many members of the armed forces were also secretly in the UVF and UDA- including at least four of the Miami Showband murderers and an intelligence officer awarded the George Cross for "gallantry"- I'm not surprised it never happened.
It's a good way of shutting down inquests and to prevent awkward questions. It's politically expedient, and not just for the DUP, but they get the blame.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Can you enlighten us by telling exactly what action this George Cross was said to have been awarded for.
- Status