Messages

 I have no major objections to some grammar or spelling mistakes if I think the posters concerned are genuinely giving it their best shot.
Some don't have time to proof read what they write and may include some typos. I think that is acceptable as they are not trying to act the mick and trying to let us all know that they really don't give damn whether the rest of us can understand them or not.
We do have a few of these pr**cks onboard. They don't bother me a lot as I skip their crap as soon as I see who's posting. If they can't be bothered to take the time to write properly, I won't bother to try and make out what they stick up.
I know there are some who may have left school early and who genuinely have difficulty with capital letters and full stops. That is okay also with me. Not everyone on the board knows the difference between a hanging participle and a misplaced identifier. (BTW: I don't either!)
I feel that as this is a discussion board for all to join in and there is no need for formal English all the time. Even the heavy hitters among the cavalry, don't always get it 10 out of 10 all the time and why should they?
Some of them lads have only to look in the mirror to find someone to row with and just get too fired up to think clearly. They are great craic whenever they lose the plot and start mud slinging.
There is room for all types, except those who don't care and think they are so important that the rest of us will take the trouble to follow what they are spouting about.
Sorry; rant is over!

[This report describes a world created and sustained by the Roman Catholic Church. The horrors inflicted on these helpless, trapped children -- rapes, beatings, molestation, starvation, isolation -- all were inflicted by men and women who had vowed themselves to the service of people in the name of Christ's love.]

That is the "headline" part of the document.  The canon lawyer that the Ferns inquiry used pointed out that it is common practice to include other items within.  Child abuse is covered and it is categorically stated it should be kept in-house.  Also this was part of the case Colm O'Gorman took against the church, a case he won.   We also had the case of an arch-bishop saying he didn't "lie" to the inquiry by withholding information because he was just following Canon Law.

Also with regard to "I think Jim is being a little disingenuous throwing that one into the mix".  I didn't put it in the mix.  I quoted the Ferns Report which put it in the mix.  So the author of the Ferns Report might be disingenuous................................

You can't deny that this stuff was kept secret and it has been shown this wasn't by accident.

You are spot on there, Jim.
I believe the bishop you are referring to is Desmond Connell, the former archbishop of Dublin. This is the man who quoted Caon Law when he refused to let the police authorities examine the files the church had on child abuse cases in the diocese.
I mentioned earlier that to his credit, Michael McDowell responded by saying Canon Law had no more legal standing that the rules of a golf club had on its members.
Connell was to go on to have a very public and bitter dust up with his incoming successor, the present archbishop, Diarmuid Martin.
This happened about 5 years ago. Does anyone here remember it?
Connell insisted on holding onto the files in his possession but Dr. Martin said he would co-operate fully with requests for disclosure.
We cannot forget the case of John Magee, the bishop of Cloyne either. Last year Magee, was accused by an internal church inquiry of taking minimal action over accusations against two priests. The inquiry was to find his child protection guidelines were both inadequate and downright dangerous.

Fr. Tom Doyle is a frequent contributor to RTE's Morning Ireland radio show and writes in a number of Catholic papers and magazines. Heis a canon lawyer and was a consultant to the Dublin archdiocese's commission on clerical abuse.

What he had to say on the subject of 'Crimen Sollicitationis' can be read here.
http://ncronline.org/node/4530

His reaction to the recent commission's report can be read here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/08/child-abuse-catholicism-john-magee

For those in a hurry, this is his summing up of the commission's report:


The sadistic world of these institutions is not that of some crazed secular dictatorship. It is not the world of an uncivilized tribal culture that ravaged the weak in ages long past. This report describes a world created and sustained by the Roman Catholic Church. The horrors inflicted on these helpless, trapped children -- rapes, beatings, molestation, starvation, isolation -- all were inflicted by men and women who had vowed themselves to the service of people in the name of Christ's love.

Not trying to provoke, nor is it because it is Donagh - my view would be the same regardless of who it was was expressing such opinions

.

My apologies; I accept what you say. Maybe I wasn't being totally serious here.

As regards the rest, considering there appears to be a broad consensus in the Republic over the gravity and extent of the scandal etc, I'm genuinely astonished that those responsible haven't even been identified, never mind lost their jobs, never mind been prosecuted etc.

It is important for us all to realise that this was a commission of inquiry and not a criminal investigation. Indications are that the DPP's office is studying the findings of the report and prosecutions may very well follow.

In fact if anything, that final aspect (immunity) is even more shocking to me than the actual abuse itself 

I do not think immunity has been guaranteed to any specific individual or organisation. Indeed, it could well be that persons not referred to in this report (lay teachers and department inspectors for instance) could find themselves facing criminal charges.
This has not been explicitly stated but it could arise from any follow up investigations by the gardai.

4. An issuing of papal decree with clear and unequivocal terms superceeding past decrees (Crimens Sollicitationis etc..) indicating that sexual abuse is handled as a crime by civil authorities.

I think Jim's point must be followed up. In the past various church authorities tried to hide behind Canon Law when asked to release evidence to the gardai.
The former archbishop of Dublin, O'Connell, said at one stage that he was bound by the dictates of Canon Law when he refused to co-operate with an inquiry. (The Ferns one I think.) To this, the then Minister for Justice (Michael McDowell) retorted that Canon Law had as much legal standing as the rules of a golf club would have on its members.
Fair dues to him; Rome must acknowledge that the law of the land takes precedence and that its internal rules apply only to its own members.

I would expect that in light of your Point 5, you would also have no objection if the £100 million promised under the original deal was subsequently reduced?

I can only speak for myself. If a court of law found this to be the case, I would abide by its verdict.

Would appreciate any advice on "preferrably free" DVD Burning software, I have some MPEG-4 and WMV files on my PC and Ipod that I would like to Burn onto a DVD and watch on a normal DVD Player

Got a xbox360,ps3 or wii?

None of the above unfortunately

I assume you are using Windows XP as it has no native DVD-burning program installed. I know Vista has such a program bundled with it.
I have found a freeware application from cdburnerxp.se does the job for me. It is easy to install and straightforward to use.

[every]

3. The individuals responsible should be held to account but going back to point one, present day Catholics should not be punished, which they will be if the Church assets are seized.

Really?
You see, when the State has to pay out compensation, that means every citizen/taxpayer gets punished, including eg those who are not Catholic, or who had no connection whatever with what went on, or who are in their late teens/early 20's etc and so were minors themselves when this abuse occurred.. Yet they cannot avoid their obligations as citizens/taxpayers by pointing out that "It was nothing to do with me".
Whereas, those people who are Members of the Catholic church and who contributed money to that organisation, including the Orders who committed the abuse, did so entirely voluntarily, even after stories of this abuse began to leak out.
Yet you would conclude that the former must pay, but the latter should not?
Whatever else your opinions, they are normally at least coherently expressed and containing a certain logic; nor are you a typical WUM. But I must say I find your comments on this matter so perverse that I cannot ascribe them to woolly-mindedness, but wilful contrariness (or somesuch).

Good to see you back again, EG. I'm sure you are not trying to provoke Donagh or anything as base as that. (You're not, are you?)
I do agree with your line of reasoning here. I've no problem with that. (Well, maybe that agreement doesn't extend to the last paragraph. I think that could be a matter of unfinished business with Donagh.)
However, I would suggest that all of us should bear in mind the terms of reference given to the commission and the conclusions it arrived at.; that's the objective part; any consideration of moral culpability or financial redress is very much a subjective issue. It's a case of us all of having an opinion and expressing it.
Personally, I do agree with the consensus now emerging that both State and Church have been found wanting in the discharge of their legal and moral obligations. The most common form of redress is financial restitution of some sort. Therefore, I say both Church and State are morally bound to make restitution. At the moment, the obligation to do so is a moral one.
Perhaps it will also become a legal one if a court of the land should find this to be the case.
I think the State failed in both its legal and moral duties in failing to adequately supervise the running of the religious institutions. I think  our present Taoiseach (or Chief in Roger-speak) was in no way involved in the perpetration of this scandal but as he willingly undertook the duties and responsibilities that go with his office, he and his administration must shoulder the State's share of the blame.
Yes; I do accept that restitution should be made on behalf of all citizens of this state even though most of us were not around when much of the wrong doing took place.
We, the citizens of the Republic accept the rights and privileges that come with our citizenship so we also have to bear responsibility for the actions carried out on the state's behalf, both past and present.
That includes my atheist buddy who moved his family back from England around ten years ago. It's part of the baggage that comes with becoming an Irish citizen.
I've no problem with the State having to pony up.
The Church, through its religious congregations, assumed responsibility for the care and supervision of the children committed by the State into its collective care.
My parish priest is as sound a skin as you could meet; I would say he never willfully harmed a child and I would back the family silver on my assertion.

However, both he and I are both members of the Catholic Church. We find ourselves there by choice. We are consenting adults and both accept the responsibilities that come with membership. I feel my church is obliged to make financial redress as it is the only practical way to make reparation and I am a member of this Church..
My non-Catholic buddy should not be obliged to pay up in this way. Even if I decided to leave the Church after hearing of this scandal, I would still be obliged to accept my moral responsibilities as I was a member when the commission reported.
One final point; many of us confuse the Church with the Hierarchy. All Irish Catholics are bound to acknowledge our collective failings as we have inherited them from previous generations.
It's a case of "If you are in, you accept the bad with the good," and Irish Catholics are so by choice.
Anyway, EG, that's a fine post and it gets "nihil obstat " from me and my  Imprimatur as well but resist the temptation to wander off-topic, won't you?  

The church have no money


Bollocks they have no money - they've fortunes in cash and very valuable assets.

Believe it or not, the diocese of Dublin doesn't have a lot of cash at the present time. I believe the same can be said for other dioceses around the country.
Note I am referring to cash and not property or other forms of assets.
A report in a Sunday paper some months ago reported that the money held in stocks and shares is now worth only €4m, whereas it's value was once €25m before the onset of the recession. The same loss of value the reporter assumed was probably the case in every diocese around the country.
Probably the main culprits, the "religious" congregations, are in the same boat and are strapped for readies but they sure do own a lot of properties and lands, most of which was bequeathed to them in wills in former times.

Lar Naparka, I am well aware of the Belfast Agreement, ceasefires etc that you condescendingly repeat for me. It is not something I don't believe you about and I fully accept your view. However, I still find it strange that even when there might be a majority of people in NI who wish to end the Union (as per terms of the agreement) that republicans and nationalists on here now seem to want to have a bigger majority and the time needs to be right economically for them and they need to secure funding from external people.  This is not a ceasefire requirement and whilst the GFA says it should lead to negotiations and subsequent consent from the Republic, the way nationalists and republicans have gone on about the GFA this is definitely not the message being played out.  The Chief of the Republic has even stated 50% plus one vote is the trigger for an all-Ireland state yet people on here are now saying 'lets not be too hasty, we need to make sure we aren't out of pocket'.  Fair enough, no nationalist party in any party of Ireland has a plan to implement their Political goal and the last one that did, SF who lead NI nationalism, has certainly changed their plan to an astonishing degree if it has moved from shoot and bomb a million Brits out NI to democratically trying to achieve their goals but now to 'if the money and timing is right'. I personally don't believe that SF have this as a goal but in the event they would drag their heals and get the begging bowl well filled up.  They certainly couldn't be seen to be delaying the process until the UK, ROI, and USA economies were buoyant as some advocate.  In the meantime few nationalists and republicans on here seem to be able to even utter the correct name of either state and definitely not Northern Ireland whilst the Republic's Tri-colour, the Republic's national anthem and the policies of that state are considered to be the National government for all Ireland now and anyone who is a Unionist is an osterich.  Why?  Because "it's inevitable"!

I have enjoyed the discussion on here, found it very interesting and enlightening to hear others' perspective on the subject matter, and have accepted everyone's views without resorting to personalising the discussion.  However,  I still find the viewpoints strange and not consistent with the public rhetoric of nationalism/republicanism. I would suggest that Unionists on the whole regard nationalism and republicanism with a deep sense of suspicion and whether that is right or wrong it would still need to be acknowledged and allayed before conciliatory relationships could take place either before or after the predicted Utopian all-Ireland state is formed.

Roger, I would very much regret it if I appear to be condescendingly repeating anything for you. I have referred you back to the GFA again and again as it seems impossible for you to accept that the republic is not hell bent on your imminent destruction.
Indeed I have gone so far as to say the good citizens of this state don't particularly give a damn one way or the other. That is not intended to insult you or your fellow-unionists in any way but I think it's fair to say people here are more concerned at dealing with the realities of daily life and will not be prepared to go to the lengths you appear to need to establish their good faith and intent for you.
I had thought that since no argument I may put forward will indicate the republican's lack of hostility towards your community, you could look to the terms of the agreement for reassurance. After all, every syllable contained in that treaty has been dissected and scrutinised in minute detail by every shade of unionism represented at the talks.

At the end of it all, I recall Ian Paisley reaching out dramatically to grab the hand of Bertie Ahern and to shake it. Did that not indicate Paisley's acceptance of Ahern's sincerity or did it convey something else?  So far, Roger, I don't believe I have heard a dissenting voice apart from your own.
Paisley appeared on the Late Late Show here in Dublin a short time ago and was given a very friendly reception. The same welcome was accorded to Eileen and to members of his family. Public reaction to their visit was universally positive.
This was in recognition of his efforts to move with the times and to follow the road of compromise and consensus instead of sticking with old tribal chants of "Not an Inch" and "No Surrender."
If you are familiar with the terms of the GFA as well as you say you are, I'm very surprised that you object to the looseness and ambiguity of the language used in places. Such constructive ambiguity was a device to allow the main framework of the proposed agreement to progress while sticking points for unionists, in particular the DUP, could be ironed out. The weapons decommissioning was a case in point.
However, by now every party involved is busy implementing the terms of the agreement so it is fair to say all have accepted the treaty and all it entails. If you don't agree, I'd be interested in knowing why.
I know that Bertie Ahern stated that a vote of 50% + 1 in a constitutional referendum would trigger off unification negotiations and would also signal the end of the Govt. of Ireland Act.
From what you write, it appears that Ahern was saying that this result would trigger off an all-Ireland state. Now if that was the case, I wonder why Paisley and other unionists didn't object if the possibility of a single vote could end the state of Norn Iron as they know it and catapult them into an unwilling alliance with those they have always regarded as their natural enemies.
I'm not sure of what Bertie said but I'd wager he was suggesting that negotiations would commence on the heels of the voting result. He has spoken of three way talks as being the preferred way forward since then. In any event, I cannot see any form of immediate and unconditional amalgamation taking place.
With regard to money from external sources, I wonder what your objection is.
Northern Ireland has been receiving vast sums of money from the British treasury for years on end without any noticeable qualms of conscience.
You can't be seriously suggesting that we should take on the cost of unification and of bolstering your basket case economy from our own resources, are you? As you suggest, Sinn Fein may very well have changed tack to an amazing degree but so what?
It's up to them to adopt any stance they like but it doesn't follow that they will have their way in any consultations that may ensue.
I'm sorry, Roger, but I'm missing the logic of the arguments you are putting forward at present.

There's the rub. Rather than stick their heads in the sand, I'm convinced that large swathes of Unionism will take up arms to secure repartition or some other ethinically-cleansed inspired solution, with the tacit connivance of slightly constitutional Unionism. You only have to look at the pronouncements of every Unionist politician there has ever been (with the exception of wishy-washy Alliance types) to know that they reserve the right to use violence to prevent being 'railroaded' into a united Ireland. Then we'll see just how willing perfidious Albion is to put down its own.

I don't see that happening at all.  It is interesting the way this thread developed to consider and predict what might happen at a future date. 

One of the things I find strange is that nationalists / republicans are now saying the time needs to be right and negotiations for a new state need to take place with money donated from other states to set it up.  This for me is a big change in approach.

Roger, one consistent theme running through your posts on this thread has been the inability to accept that republicans from the south are not hell bent on subjugating your people by fair means or foul.
It is as if your expect to see a flock of republican goats demolishing your unionist cabbage patch when you awake some morning and look out the window.
Yet all credible evidence points to the contrary.
In the complex series of negotiations that culminated in the GFA, all parties committed themselves to: "exclusively peaceful and democratic means" in their pursuit of their particular aspirations and objectives.
The republic changed its constitution by repealing articles 2 and 3 of its constitution, thereby relinquishing its claim to NI.
I would ask you in all seriousness; wtf else can we do to set your mind at rest?
The pressure of international opinion plus the advent of television has focussed the minds of all parties concerned on the fact that any hope of a lasting, agreed solution can only be achieved through dialogue and compromise.
All groups concerned have signed up to the Belfast Agreement. That includes the major unionist parties. Yes; the wording of this agreement was deliberately vague in places when the documents were signed.
This was done to allow the unionist parties, the DUP in particular, to sign while certain matters, especially decommissioning, had not been resolved to its satisfaction.
However, all has now been settled and all sides concerned appear to have their snouts firmly in the trough at Stormont.
There is now a North-South Ministerial Council and North-South Implementation Bodies to deal with matters of mutual interest that may arise.
The republic has abandoned articles two and three of its constitution.
I hope you will agree with me on one point at least:
There have been quite a number of reasoned, incisive points from nationalist posters on this thread and the same can be said of a number of unionists also.
Nobody appears to be advocating the idea of a complete take over of the north by the south ala the story of the whale and poor Jonah.
I think all reasonable people accept that an agreed arrangement will need to be considered sometime in the future when a unionist minority of voters becomes a reality. I don't think that anyone who posted here is gloating at the prospect of Unionism being humbled. Lynchbhoy's latest post should give you much food for thought.There are others, too numerous to mention that are couched in the language of compromise and reason.
If I may quote my eloquent friend from Roscommon, most people down here don't give two flying f**ks about the future fate of unionism or anything else up north.
I'd like to think that people down here are essentially honourable and will agree to honour any commitments that were given on our behalf—when and if the time to do so arrives.
But shaping a future for ourselves and for our children is taking all of our time and energy without returning to the past in order to blight our future.

There's been plenty of 'if only's' over the years Lar - I still think of Kevin O'Neill and where the f**k was he in 1996 - I just feel that as young players are coming through they don't need to be hearing or reading passionate supporters grumble that these young fellas don't really stand a chance because the manager couldn't get along with a player the majority of them never played with.

Some of these lads are the only Mayomen able to run that have Inter county All Ireland medals - let's get behind them, without looking back.

I'm in agreement with you- that should be the case. It is the only logical thing to do. But the reality is that the divisive effects are still there.
Here on this board, in any Mayo-related topic, the controversy comes up and the sore still rankles. I have said the pressure on young fells to "measure up" is unfair, because in any comparison they will be found wanting. The danger is that in time to come the exploits of Fionn McCumhail will pale in comparison to the alleged heroics of Mc.
Only a sustained successful run will relieve O'Mahony of the blame for failures along the way.
Another pity is that O'M is having difficulties coming up with a settled team.
Whoever plays at no. 11 is always going to be found wanting -unless he turns out to be a genuine FmcG prototype. 
BTW, much as I admire MC, I'd still have P Joyce in my team before him. Mc has been a genius okay but he is not without faults.

I am going to have to sign off here for the present as I will be away from home until Monday at the very earliest.
However, Roger has brought up some very interesting points and if there is enough interest remaining to keep the topic active, I'll be happy to come back in.
I would just mention in passing that I use JC Beckett's "The Making of Modern Ireland 1603-1292" to jog my flaky memory.
I don't think you will find any historian with better unionist credentials than Beckett.
Anyone who has access to this book will find out what he had to say about Carson's concern for unionists in the south.
For those who haven't or who don't give a damn, the following is the end part of the relevant sentence. (Page 426)
"....; the Ulstermen, determined to defend their own cause, were not going to encumber themselves with responsibility for the politically powerless protestant minority in the rest of the country."
I really don't think that the case of unionists in the south viz a viz nationalists in the north measures up.
Slán, for the present.

As long as we see trevor wearing the no.11 jersey we will continue to harp on about McD unfortunately. Thats the comparator. Trevor doesnt come close to a no.11 so thats why we crave McD and thats why he is being mentioned. Sad but true. So unfortunately its gonna remain relevant until we get someone else in at no.11 who does a better job. For me that is Tom Parsons.

Dublin have named a very strong team for challenge. Ross McConnell put at no.11. Should be an interesting task for our no.6 as he is very physical and can play a bit too. Magee and Whelan at midfield - gonna be physical! Davoren at ff is also a threat, clever footballer, Caf will have a good test there.

I don't think you can forget McDonald.
I was one of the first on this board to accept the fact that a manager has the sole right to select his panel. In most counties, that is one of the terms under which a manager is appointed; but with absolute control over his side come absolute responsibility to act in the best interests of the county he is being appointed to.
Mayo is no exception.
O'Mahony came along, second time around, with a proven track record of achievement. Mind you, he did point out, right from the beginning, that he could not guarantee overnight success.
He may not have used those every words but his meaning was plain; the road ahead would be tough and progress was going to be slow.
So far, so good...
His first acid test was the manner in which he handled the question of Ciaran McDonald's anticipated return to the fold.
On every possible ground, O'Mahony failed miserably. I doubt if even his mammy would say he came out of that episode with credit.
To me, the fact that McDonald seems to be a bit unstable doesn't come into the picture at all. He is/was/will never be the manager.
The manager has the ultimate say; ergo, the manger carries the can.
Was Mayo football best served by the way in which John O'Mahony announced the retirement of the most charismatic footballer of his generation or did he muck things up to such an extent that Mayo football is still in turmoil?
For as long as McDonald swings a ciotog at a football, Mayo followers will sigh, "Ah, if only...."
Present players are bound to feel the pressure to succeed- if only to get away from the feeling that they are not half the team they could be. Whoever fills the no. 11 spot, knows he will be measured in popular opinion against Crossmolina's favourite son -and will be found wanting.
Really, all of us have a comfort blanket to curl up and suck for a long time to come.
Whenever we finish second, a fate we are well used to, we can only say," Sure, things would have been different if only....."
When one thinks about it, that is a damning indictment of those who take the field and give it their best shot- as I'm sure they all will.

I imagine we do have a stronger panel that we have had for the last couple of years.
Credit given where credit is due.
But as we head into a season for the third time under O'Mahony, I am worried that he seems to be no closer to fielding the best side available to him than he was at the very outset.
I have been following the posts here about Pat Harte with interest. He has been suggested for the no. 11 spot. So have Tom Parsons, Trevor, Alan and Uncle Tom Cobley and all. What about the full forward spot or any position, other than the three already mentioned?
Like Trevor, Andy M is serious danger of losing his amateur status as a Traveller as he is shifted from corner forward to half forward and out to the half backs and back again. Ditto applies to BJ.
I can see us getting through the next game and possibly the following one, although I very much suspect that Liam Sammon is more certain of his first choice 15 than our man is of his.
Once again, this for me will be one of hoping for the best while expecting the worst.
However, I could be wrong!
C'mon on Johnno and prove you are more than a pretty face!

[Ballinamen and Crossmolinamen]

I'd ban anyone who criticises Mayo not from Mayo.

All Rossies, Galwegians, Sligomen, Ballinamen and Crossmolinamen too.

Oi, hold on a minna!
Whoever taught you geography, son, needs serious counselling!

I support Galway hurlers since my own crowd, Mayo, are not in the top flight.
I don't really have any favourites in football, other than Mayo of course.

A pretty wide-ranging reply, Roger, and I thank you once more for taking the trouble to read my ramblings and to respond to them.
I will, if I may, respond to specific points you have made rather than taking each one in sequence- I don't want to rival "War and Peace" in length as well as complexity!

"Negotiation" seems to be a new concept and a change of tactic.  A cynic would claim this is just a tactic to beg/squeeze as much money out of everyone else to get what they wanted in the first place.  What do you think is up for "negotiation" and with whom?

I would suggest that "we" are abiding by the terms of the GFA. Throughout, I have used the term, "we" to mean the citizens of the republic on whose behalf Bertie Ahern conducted the complex negotiations that lead to the GFA. I suggest that there is no evidence to purport that "we" have acted in any way that breaks the terms of the same GFA.
In the process, we committed ourselves to purely constitutional means as we pursue our aspirations.
One of the said aspirations is to bring about a single entity (state) on this island- a United Ireland, if you wish.
Now, Roger, what does a "United Ireland" mean?
Does it mean a case of shoe horning 1 million plus unwilling unionists into a state they would fear and loath?
That I would postulate is clearly impractical; after all, we have had a very similar case right here on this island in the 1920s, didn't we?
Has the state of NI prospered and developed in the interim? I think the problems are as intractable as ever. Would we now be discussing the probable break up of the entity known as Northern Ireland if this almost half the population had not found themselves in a political setup they refused to recognise?.
Logic would dictate that we are not conspiring to annex any place any time soon.
If such a cynic thinks that having the whole sodden mess that is  the political scene in NI dumped onto our plate in exchange for money, he'd seriously need counselling!
With whom do you think w are proposing to negotiate?
Follow the terms of the GFA and you will find your answer.

The idea of the Republic "negotiating" to get what they have been banging on about for years what they consider to be their right, is a bit rich if not confusing.

Again, Roger, seek an answer in the terms of the GFA.

There's something strange about a FF leader and Chief in the Republic stating he is willing to enter negotiations for a "United Ireland".  This is either a big change in viewpoint or a tactical manoeuvre which I can't quite work out.

Ditto once again; just as there are more ways to kill a cat than choking him with butter, there are more ways to achieve a united Ireland than through the brute force and coercion approach.

I don't recall Craigavon having much interference or designs on the Republic.  Not relevant when dealing with inter-state relations imo

.

With respect, I beg to differ....
The fact that around 45% of the people of NI found themselves trapped in a state that they refused to recognise and looked to the south for guidance and protection gave the Dublin Govt. a degree of legitimacy in taking up their cause. Furthermore, many of them felt not only entrapped in the new state but found themselves victims of institutional discrimination to boot. (PS. I am referring to the recent thread on the subject of apartheid vs. discrimination that the inimitable EG started on this very board.)
I would suggest Dev and co. would have been failing in their moral obligations if they fail to support the case of their fellow-nationalists.

Unionists do not plan for defeat. Would you expect them to? No Political party does. They certainly wouldn't publish a plan B or give any inclination that they might need a plan B. If the Union were to end I believe that would effectively be the end of Unionist parties. There isn't a plan B. The difference with nationalist parties is they don't plan for what they see as victory. I find that more strange for a Political party that they don't know what victory might look like.

Nor should they be expected to plan for defeat either...
I would hope they would plan for the future however, as their actions will affect all others on the island.
Common sense would dictate that they should take account of changing circumstances around them. Don't forget that unionist leaders are also parties to the ubiquitous GFA, where provision has been made for a formal ending of the union with Britain— if and when a (very) simple majority of voters so decide.
I agree with Myles that such there may not be a nationalist majority at the ballot box for the next 20 years. But it is something that all parties on this island must make allowances for.  Even if that allowance means ignoring the damn thing altogether! Fine, if that's the case but none of us can exist in a vacuum and if we are treaty bound to negotiate with anyone, we'd like to know what we are likely to face.
To finish , I'd like to refer to your response to the first point I made back in post #181:

Lar Naparka, interesting post which seems to say that your position would be to achieve a majority and then let the reconciliation work begin in earnest before there would be a single Irish state

.

Isn't that what the terms of the GFA require us to do?



PS. Carson was undoubtedly against partition. The fact that he was against Home Rule in any shape and wanted all of Ireland to remain in the union would suggest this, wouldn't it?

It's very difficult for nationalists in the north to formulate any strategy for reunification while unionists refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of it happening. If we're going to build a state which is acceptable to all the people, there has to be a unionist input, but at the moment this isn't forthcoming. That may change once there's a nationalist majority at the ballot box, but I'm not as optimistic as some on here that that's going to happen within the next 20 years or so.

I think your first sentence, Myles, has summed up the nub of the problem perfectly.
I have no problem whatever in agreeing fully with what you've posted here.