The risk of asking someone if they support a shared and better future is like asking if they like motherhood and apple pie. Does a shared and better future need a singular vision agreed by all before the journey, or will allowing individuals and groups to get there in their own way suffice? (18/2/2009)

Reply by Aran Black on March 5, 2009 at 12:24am:

A shared and better future is referring indirectly to the fact that NI is a segregated society. That is, Catholic and Protestant faith aligned people generally live apart and carry on with their lives apart(in NI). There is no rational reason why any divide should exist. It is the role of government to remove the barriers and institutions of division. Schools for one should be supported in admitting children of all faiths. NI is divided politically and sectarianistically. The Alliance party has stated £1 Billion is spent annually to keep the divisions intact. A lot of people in NI will loose a lot of money if and when these divides are brought down. That is, it is in some peoples interest to maintain the divides. The main political party's have to make agreed statements in the Assembly announcing wide spread changes. The main political party's must provide leadership. The language must also be temperate. DUP, Sinn Fein, UCONF, Alliance, SDLP must all stand together on one stage and make their political announcements as one. Until politicians can agree the public will never agree.

Reply by Sarah Creighton on February 17, 2011 at 15:41:

Some in the nationalist community argue that the concept of a shared future is nothing more than an attempt to get them to accept the state of Northern Ireland and "conform." I've often heard arguments from those on both sides of the political spectrum that a "shared future" means a future were neither side is allowed to express their identity and culture.

I would adopt a half way approach, we need a single vision, but groups need to get there on their own.

Reply by Samuel Egerton on February 19, 2011 at 22:36:
   

Many years ago i like many others saw the way forward as " power sharing" a dream in the middle of a nightmare but then as now the "vested interests" were more powerful where a organization or persons have power no body wants to give it up that is why they feel it is not in their interests to dare one say it " concede ground " Folk who share often lose in the end run over time. I do not wish to take away from many people who really believe in a shared future but until people learn to except each other viewpoint and not just pay lip service to it we still have a long way to go. I believe a word such as co-operation does not express the same threat as shared future.

Would the CBI share its power with the TUC ?  Would the TUC share its strength with CBI ? Will the banks share their wealth with the masses who bailed them out ? Before the Second World War there was real hardness to day we live in a more caring sharing society yet more and more figures highlight the divide betwwen people and wealth.

I suspect that what i have wrote above will not go down well but to use a old saying there are to many fingers in the pie and doing quite nicely thank you including the political parties all of them.

In conclusion i have said my piece i have no wish to start anything its up to the young ones good luck

Samuel Egerton (silver surfer)