What does the DUP actually want? What is their ideal situation?

Michael_R

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
7
With the current debates I am pretty stumped about what the DUP would want. Their positions on different issues seem to contradict each other.

Importantly this is about working out what *they* want, not what anyone else wants. So if I write that something "seems feasible" it does not mean it seems desirable to me; I am neither a Unionist nor socially conservative, they are. Please don't shoot the messenger (or the observer). With this caveat...

I can see two possible ultimate aims, both seem feasible, but the policies don't fit either fully.

One aim: "Ulster is British" and that is that. "As British as Finchley", they used to say. This aim would explain why they oppose the backstop - as the backstop does imply that Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the UK, and arguably creates someting akin to a border in the Irish Sea.

But there's something one needs to know about Finchley. Its current MP, occupying Thatcher's seat (though borders were somewhat redrawn), is Mike Freer. A Tory all right. Also married to another man. If you want "as British as Finchley". then you want the same law as Finchley has, passed by the same Parliament and promulgated by the same Queen. This includes law on marriage and, at least in general, on abortion. (There is significant wiggle room in interpreting British abortion law, you can have rather significant gatekeeping, but not the current near-total ban).

So if they want "as British as Finchley" then their stance on recent Westminster legistation is completely counterproductive!

There is another possible endgame. They could want a socially conservative region under Her Majesty. A kind of 1920s Free State, which still had the oath of allegiance while becoming decidedly more conservative than Britain was. And this looks even more feasible! Conservative Northern Catholics, repelled by Sinn Fein policies, could rally to the cause. Moreover, "Southern" social conservatives of all religions are reeling from three referendum losses in four years - and could possibly be attracted to the North. While the sectarian Unionist majority is very slim, a conservative majority could be copperfastened, removing any threat of a border poll "going wrong" for the DUP.

But in this case, why protest the backstop? If you want to ensure a legal system different from both London and Dublin, you want a special status different from both London and Dublin - and the backstop brings that on a platter. One could even envision a deeper route here, to the eventual point of a Crown Dependency of Northern Ireland (on the Guernsey blueprint). A conservative impetus could, with enough diplomatic work, help override sectarian concerns, especially with bishops and pastors (and Orange grand masters) of that conviction working together.

So anyway: they can want full British law or they can want a socially conservative devolved region. Either looks feasible. But different pathways lead to these outcomes and their actual policies seem divided between the pathways. Which, to me, makes no sense whatsoever.

Enlighten me please?
 


RadicalJacobin

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
302
The DUP have no interest in being "as British as Finchley" nor in being in any way consistent. We constantly see them rail against the idea of EU law applying to the North of Ireland post-Brexit in any sort of special status arrangement to prevent diverging legal regimes but yet they have no problem in having completely different legal regimes when it comes to abortion, gay marriage etc. To put it simply; they want to have their hardline conservative cake and eat it too!
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,538
So anyway: they can want full British law or they can want a socially conservative devolved region. Either looks feasible. But different pathways lead to these outcomes and their actual policies seem divided between the pathways. Which, to me, makes no sense whatsoever.
Enlighten me please?
There is no such thing as full British law. There is law for England and Wales, another law in Scotland, and another in NI.
The only way the London liberals can impose abortion and gay marriage in NI is if the Stormont assembly/legislature is dysfunctional, which the Londoners have threatened to do in the near future.
However I'm not sure they realise that the days of direct rule from London are over.
Direct rule nowadays would involve the RoI govt. too. Not that Leo or Simon Harris would object to any such plans, but still.

IMO the DUP position is consistent. They want to remain in the UK, but they don't want to be ruled directly by Westminster (unless they control Westminster, which they more or less do at the moment)

If the Backstop was triggered, they would be ruled by Brussels. It would lead to an increasing divergence from the UK in all kinds of basic rules and regulations, and they would have absolutely no control over it..
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,591
They want to remain in the Union. They want the clock to stop on the demographic shifts that will make that impossible. They want the clock to stop on social change like divorce, abortion, gay marriage etc. They want to undo the ability for a border poll to occur when reasonable metrics are met.

Essentially they're a party that wants to stop things that they don't have control of and can only delay through obstruction.

There's nothing that will make them happy. There's no ideal for them because no one can paint a picture as to how they'll still be in the UK in 2040 with no abortion and no gay marriage in the place.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
38,637
There is no such thing as full British law. There is law for England and Wales, another law in Scotland, and another in NI.
The only way the London liberals can impose abortion and gay marriage in NI is if the Stormont assembly/legislature is dysfunctional, which the Londoners have threatened to do in the near future.
However I'm not sure they realise that the days of direct rule from London are over.
Direct rule nowadays would involve the RoI govt. too. Not that Leo or Simon Harris would object to any such plans, but still.

IMO the DUP position is consistent. They want to remain in the UK, but they don't want to be ruled directly by Westminster (unless they control Westminster, which they more or less do at the moment)

If the Backstop was triggered, they would be ruled by Brussels. It would lead to an increasing divergence from the UK in all kinds of basic rules and regulations, and they would have absolutely no control over it..

Your post would be digestible in some aspects if the false statelet contained some 80%/70% unionist.

In the existing demographic ie more Nationalists than unionists, your post makes no sense at all pal.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,538
But the question asked was "what do they want".
Not "what do the other half want".
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,538
They want to undo the ability for a border poll to occur when reasonable metrics are met.
What have they done to try to ensure this?

Essentially they're a party that wants to stop things that they don't have control of and can only delay through obstruction.
Like any other party I suppose.

There's no ideal for them because no one can paint a picture as to how they'll still be in the UK in 2040 with no abortion and no gay marriage in the place.
Nobody knows what lies in the distant future. Look at the USA, multiple states rolling back the more liberal abortion laws they had previously. Would you have predicted that 10 years ago?
All anyone can do is operate in the present, and hope the future will go well.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
38,637
What have they done to try to ensure this?

Like any other party I suppose.

Nobody knows what lies in the distant future. Look at the USA, multiple states rolling back the more liberal abortion laws they had previously. Would you have predicted that 10 years ago?
All anyone can do is operate in the present, and hope the future will go well.

Do you know the number of States who have legislated their support for Irish unification?
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,439
One aim: "Ulster is British" and that is that. "As British as Finchley", they used to say. This aim would explain why they oppose the backstop - as the backstop does imply that Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the UK, and arguably creates someting akin to a border in the Irish Sea.

But there's something one needs to know about Finchley. Its current MP, occupying Thatcher's seat (though borders were somewhat redrawn), is Mike Freer. A Tory all right. Also married to another man. If you want "as British as Finchley". then you want the same law as Finchley has, passed by the same Parliament and promulgated by the same Queen. This includes law on marriage and, at least in general, on abortion. (There is significant wiggle room in interpreting British abortion law, you can have rather significant gatekeeping, but not the current near-total ban).

So if they want "as British as Finchley" then their stance on recent Westminster legistation is completely counterproductive!
It was Thatcher and not the DUP who said that Northern Ireland was "as British as Finchley. A lot of DUP voters despise the English and would be completely happy with an Independent Northern Ireland as long as the Prods were in charge in fact some of it's head figures now were involved in the Ulster Independence Movement back in the 1980s. Whatever about the DUP being ironically "un-British" in certain eyes it is also deeply that the Shinners who are supposedly an anti-imperialist Party support subjecting Irish people to intrinsically alien things such as homosexualist supremacist ideology, abortion on demand and the EU.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,591
What have they done to try to ensure this?
The only way they could "ensure" it would be to revoke the GFA which they were opposed to. Unlikely to happen. In practical terms they seek to constantly move the line on when a border poll would be called for instance, just this week saying it was within Johnson's gift in a similar manner to a Scottish vote. When the situations are clearly different.

Like any other party I suppose.
Most parties aspire to things. The Tories aspire to Brexit, the Dems aspire to improve health care etc. The DUP are really just against things. As SF were prior to their shift in attitude in the 90s.

Nobody knows what lies in the distant future. Look at the USA, multiple states rolling back the more liberal abortion laws they had previously. Would you have predicted that 10 years ago?
I mean yes? Given that they've been trying to do it for decades? And they're not really doing that. What they're trying to do is legislate against things, which then gets shut down once it goes to federal court. That's a weird attempt at an comparison.

All anyone can do is operate in the present, and hope the future will go well.
Said every 30 year old without savings ever.
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
9,692
There is no such thing as full British law. There is law for England and Wales, another law in Scotland, and another in NI.
The only way the London liberals can impose abortion and gay marriage in NI is if the Stormont assembly/legislature is dysfunctional, which the Londoners have threatened to do in the near future.
However I'm not sure they realise that the days of direct rule from London are over.
Direct rule nowadays would involve the RoI govt. too. Not that Leo or Simon Harris would object to any such plans, but still.

IMO the DUP position is consistent. They want to remain in the UK, but they don't want to be ruled directly by Westminster (unless they control Westminster, which they more or less do at the moment)

If the Backstop was triggered, they would be ruled by Brussels. It would lead to an increasing divergence from the UK in all kinds of basic rules and regulations, and they would have absolutely no control over it..
Interesting use of the word 'impose' there seeing as the NI Assembly voted (narrowly) in favour of Same Sex Marriage in 2015 and since then the SF representation (in favour) increased proportionally and the DUP representation (against) decreased proportionally. Throw in the fact that recent opinion polls find a 65.2% majority in favour of allowing SSM, I don't think SSM would be 'imposed' on NI>

Abortion is a different story but even there, I don't think that the overwhelming majority in opposition to abortion in all circumstances exists any longer.
 

ProsandCons

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
32
It's really simple:

They have no idea what they want - but they are absolutely, positively, intransigently sure of what they don't want............
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,538
The only way they could "ensure" it would be to revoke the GFA which they were opposed to. Unlikely to happen. In practical terms they seek to constantly move the line on when a border poll would be called for instance, just this week saying it was within Johnson's gift in a similar manner to a Scottish vote. When the situations are clearly different.
But you said "they want to undo the ability for a border poll to occur when reasonable metrics are met". I was just wondering what evidence you had for this?
Most parties aspire to things. The Tories aspire to Brexit, the Dems aspire to improve health care etc. The DUP are really just against things. As SF were prior to their shift in attitude in the 90s.
That's not right though. Cameron, who called the referendum, was against Brexit and just wanted to "put the issue to bed" so he could could get back the UKIP voters.
PM May was also a remainer. The party membership itself was split, just like the Labourites.

Lib Dems are against Brexit, and against the democratic referendum result. Hence they are doing quite well now, because they are attracting the remoaners from all sides.
SF are against the UK and all things British.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,538
Interesting use of the word 'impose' there seeing as the NI Assembly voted (narrowly) in favour of Same Sex Marriage in 2015 and since then the SF representation (in favour) increased proportionally and the DUP representation (against) decreased proportionally. Throw in the fact that recent opinion polls find a 65.2% majority in favour of allowing SSM, I don't think SSM would be 'imposed' on NI>

Abortion is a different story but even there, I don't think that the overwhelming majority in opposition to abortion in all circumstances exists any longer.
Good points. But due to the special nature of the NI assembly, certain votes involving changes to society require the support of both main communities in Northern Ireland, in other words the majority of unionists and the majority of nationalist members of the Assembly.
If there was a substantial cross-party majority across the assembly in favour of either issue, then it would probably also translate into a majority (even a slim one) for both sides of the community. In which case it could go ahead.
 

AhNowStop

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
8,928
With the current debates I am pretty stumped about what the DUP would want. Their positions on different issues seem to contradict each other.

Importantly this is about working out what *they* want, not what anyone else wants. So if I write that something "seems feasible" it does not mean it seems desirable to me; I am neither a Unionist nor socially conservative, they are. Please don't shoot the messenger (or the observer). With this caveat...

I can see two possible ultimate aims, both seem feasible, but the policies don't fit either fully.

One aim: "Ulster is British" and that is that. "As British as Finchley", they used to say. This aim would explain why they oppose the backstop - as the backstop does imply that Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the UK, and arguably creates someting akin to a border in the Irish Sea.

But there's something one needs to know about Finchley. Its current MP, occupying Thatcher's seat (though borders were somewhat redrawn), is Mike Freer. A Tory all right. Also married to another man. If you want "as British as Finchley". then you want the same law as Finchley has, passed by the same Parliament and promulgated by the same Queen. This includes law on marriage and, at least in general, on abortion. (There is significant wiggle room in interpreting British abortion law, you can have rather significant gatekeeping, but not the current near-total ban).

So if they want "as British as Finchley" then their stance on recent Westminster legistation is completely counterproductive!

There is another possible endgame. They could want a socially conservative region under Her Majesty. A kind of 1920s Free State, which still had the oath of allegiance while becoming decidedly more conservative than Britain was. And this looks even more feasible! Conservative Northern Catholics, repelled by Sinn Fein policies, could rally to the cause. Moreover, "Southern" social conservatives of all religions are reeling from three referendum losses in four years - and could possibly be attracted to the North. While the sectarian Unionist majority is very slim, a conservative majority could be copperfastened, removing any threat of a border poll "going wrong" for the DUP.

But in this case, why protest the backstop? If you want to ensure a legal system different from both London and Dublin, you want a special status different from both London and Dublin - and the backstop brings that on a platter. One could even envision a deeper route here, to the eventual point of a Crown Dependency of Northern Ireland (on the Guernsey blueprint). A conservative impetus could, with enough diplomatic work, help override sectarian concerns, especially with bishops and pastors (and Orange grand masters) of that conviction working together.

So anyway: they can want full British law or they can want a socially conservative devolved region. Either looks feasible. But different pathways lead to these outcomes and their actual policies seem divided between the pathways. Which, to me, makes no sense whatsoever.

Enlighten me please?
The DUP want unionist dominance and completely rid of the GFA .. They do NOT want a shared space and they do NOT want a border poll leading to a UI ....
they can see the demographics train coming down the track and they are desperately gambling in the hope that they get their preferred "no deal brexit" (they want a wall between north & south) which would make the North & South of Ireland economic basket cases which would in turn make any talk of reunification economically unfeasible....

They have "their" nests well feathered so thats ok :rolleyes:

A return to violence would also be no problem to them... in fact it would suit them quite well as it would essentially kill off the GFA

They are pure dirt and people should NEVER forget what they have done and are doing right now..


But the irony is that everything that they are doing is completely counterproductive to their aims .. i.e. they will insure a UI comes quicker than it otherwise would have

Had they just been civil and kept to the spirit of the GFA re sharing and equality etc,, then the statelet of NI would have lasted much longer .. but nope, just like they didnt sign up to it they're simply too bitter & twisted to do that so now they have driven previously "happy enough" unionist catholics (and some protestants as well) into the arms of Nationalism .. Hell rub it up them !


edit - the only good thing about all this is that other people (RoI etc..) can now clearly see what these fukwits are like and what we've had to put up with...
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,976
Twitter
No
It was Thatcher and not the DUP who said that Northern Ireland was "as British as Finchley. A lot of DUP voters despise the English and would be completely happy with an Independent Northern Ireland as long as the Prods were in charge in fact some of it's head figures now were involved in the Ulster Independence Movement back in the 1980s. Whatever about the DUP being ironically "un-British" in certain eyes it is also deeply that the Shinners who are supposedly an anti-imperialist Party support subjecting Irish people to intrinsically alien things such as homosexualist supremacist ideology, abortion on demand and the EU.
I so desperately want to invent or anthopomorphise this enemy you describe. Gustav Princip from Verona, the gay nazi abortion clinic doctor and candidate for the Europe4Eva Party...
 

AhNowStop

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
8,928
Good points. But due to the special nature of the NI assembly, certain votes involving changes to society require the support of both main communities in Northern Ireland, in other words the majority of unionists and the majority of nationalist members of the Assembly.
If there was a substantial cross-party majority across the assembly in favour of either issue, then it would probably also translate into a majority (even a slim one) for both sides of the community. In which case it could go ahead.
yes, you're referring to the continued DUP misuse of the Petition of Concern..

the POC does need fixing ,,, it was put in place to protect minorities but has simply been a misused tool enabling unionism to stifle progress and maintain the status quo in their favour...
 

between the bridges

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
44,897
With the current debates I am pretty stumped about what the DUP would want. Their positions on different issues seem to contradict each other.

Importantly this is about working out what *they* want, not what anyone else wants. So if I write that something "seems feasible" it does not mean it seems desirable to me; I am neither a Unionist nor socially conservative, they are. Please don't shoot the messenger (or the observer). With this caveat...

I can see two possible ultimate aims, both seem feasible, but the policies don't fit either fully.

One aim: "Ulster is British" and that is that. "As British as Finchley", they used to say. This aim would explain why they oppose the backstop - as the backstop does imply that Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the UK, and arguably creates someting akin to a border in the Irish Sea.

But there's something one needs to know about Finchley. Its current MP, occupying Thatcher's seat (though borders were somewhat redrawn), is Mike Freer. A Tory all right. Also married to another man. If you want "as British as Finchley". then you want the same law as Finchley has, passed by the same Parliament and promulgated by the same Queen. This includes law on marriage and, at least in general, on abortion. (There is significant wiggle room in interpreting British abortion law, you can have rather significant gatekeeping, but not the current near-total ban).

So if they want "as British as Finchley" then their stance on recent Westminster legistation is completely counterproductive!

There is another possible endgame. They could want a socially conservative region under Her Majesty. A kind of 1920s Free State, which still had the oath of allegiance while becoming decidedly more conservative than Britain was. And this looks even more feasible! Conservative Northern Catholics, repelled by Sinn Fein policies, could rally to the cause. Moreover, "Southern" social conservatives of all religions are reeling from three referendum losses in four years - and could possibly be attracted to the North. While the sectarian Unionist majority is very slim, a conservative majority could be copperfastened, removing any threat of a border poll "going wrong" for the DUP.

But in this case, why protest the backstop? If you want to ensure a legal system different from both London and Dublin, you want a special status different from both London and Dublin - and the backstop brings that on a platter. One could even envision a deeper route here, to the eventual point of a Crown Dependency of Northern Ireland (on the Guernsey blueprint). A conservative impetus could, with enough diplomatic work, help override sectarian concerns, especially with bishops and pastors (and Orange grand masters) of that conviction working together.

So anyway: they can want full British law or they can want a socially conservative devolved region. Either looks feasible. But different pathways lead to these outcomes and their actual policies seem divided between the pathways. Which, to me, makes no sense whatsoever.

Enlighten me please?
As previously mentioned the Finchley remark was made by the PM at the time, as for the rest first of all you have to consider the various factions within the duppers and their supporters.
The original FP base is slowly being marginalized and replaced by DUP lite, many that now vote for them wouldn't have in the past and are still uncomfortable with some policies. But as the main unionist party they are see as the counter measure to SF/Ra.

As for what they want, the same as every political party, power, simples...
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top