What's Happened to Sinn Fein!!!

Voipjunkie

Liam Byrne wrote:

Fair point, in a way, but in the context of the thread it simply emphasises the fact that SF cannot expect to get votes if what they "believe" in differs so fundamentally from the majority of the country that they don't even recognise the country itself.

I'm not going to try and explain what SF say but my understanding is that when they refer to the irish republic they are talking about the 32 county republic and they do recognise the 26 county state but believe that the title of republic should only be used in the 32 county sense.

It is a complex situation for example SF campaign for and against changes to the constitution of this state which means that de facto they recognised the 26 county state long before they officially recognised it because the logic of their position before that would mean that it should not matter what the "Free State" was doing.

murphaph

If they recognise the 26 county state, then that must imply that they recognise the 6 county one too.

Voipjunkie

murphaph wrote:

If they recognise the 26 county state, then that must imply that they recognise the 6 county one too.

well they do now aren't they in Government there and they recognise the 26 county state I think they just have a problem with the refering to it as the Republic.
Lets not forget that Dev for the same reason did not declare a Republic in this state and that FG did it to piss off FF so the whole thing is complex

murphaph

Voipjunkie wrote:

well they do now aren't they in Government there and they recognise the 26 county state I think they just have a problem with the refering to it as the Republic.
Lets not forget that Dev for the same reason did not declare a Republic in this state and that FG did it to piss off FF so the whole thing is complex

Indeed, sure didn't we have 2 heads of state for a good while there!

iamhunted

Mick86 wrote:

A party that stagnates will not progress obviously and will eventually perish. Can you offer some scenario where SF stays at it's present level of support and manages to increase it's representation in the Dáil. Logically it cannot happen.

time will answer that question - the point is theres no crystal ball so theres no way you can definitively state now that SF are doomed to perish.

Opportunist? How? I have nothing to benefit either from the demise or the rise of SF so where's the opportunity. In my opinion SF in this country needs to radically overhaul itself. Failure to do so will see it wither away because it has nothing to offer the majority. It's just common sense.

I do agree SF needs to develop, but they are a relatively young party and pretty new at the politics game, so again time will tell. Saying a party will wither away if it doesnt develop is very obvious and I cant see how its related to your view that SF are doomed to perish, considering we cant say they wont develop.

Mick86

iamhunted wrote:

time will answer that question - the point is theres no crystal ball so theres no way you can definitively state now that SF are doomed to perish.

I didn't say they were doomed to perish, I said they must progress or perish.

iamhunted wrote:

I do agree SF needs to develop, .

Well done.

iamhunted wrote:

but they are a relatively young party and pretty new at the politics game...

SF is in fact the oldest political party to participate in this election.

iamhunted

SF is in fact the oldest political party to participate in this election.

thats an old chestnut. i would be referring to sf as they are now, derived from what was provisional sinn fein. they are very inexperienced when it comes to southern politics.

iamhunted

Mick86 wrote:

I didn't say they were doomed to perish, I said they must progress or perish.

sorry. i see what you mean. i was going by this statement

Mick86 wrote:

.... but it is stagnant and that's just a short step away from extinction in politics.

Mick86

iamhunted wrote:

thats an old chestnut. i would be referring to sf as they are now, derived from what was provisional sinn fein. they are very inexperienced when it comes to southern politics.

Sinn Féin is Sinn Féin. Basically it's the same party that Griffith founded.

The SF leadership is politically naive and inept. I don't think they can hack it in the real world to be honest.

murphaph

Mick86 wrote:

Sinn Féin is Sinn Féin. Basically it's the same party that Griffith founded.

Ah Mick, sure nearly all the parties can claim lineage from Griffith's SF, much more so than what we now know as SF in fact.

Mick86 wrote:

The SF leadership is politically naive and inept. I don't think they can hack it in the real world to be honest.

Agreed. Too many years spent fighting a very particular battle in Northern Ireland has ill equipped them for political struggles in the RoI.

Mick86

murphaph wrote:

Ah Mick, sure nearly all the parties can claim lineage from Griffith's SF, much more so than what we now know as SF in fact.

Fianna Fáil (Real SF:D ), Fine Gael (Continuity SF:D ) and the PDs (SF Lite:D ) certainly but not Labour nor the Greens. I really don't see how the modern SF (32 County SF:D ) party can be divorced from the original. There has been a continuity of existence for the last century.

murphaph wrote:

Agreed. Too many years spent fighting a very particular battle in Northern Ireland has ill equipped them for political struggles in the RoI.

Yes, maybe they should have taken those seats in Westminster for the work experience.

Echelle

Great that Sinn Fein/IRA got trounced in the election. The doughnut has finally imploded. On a recent"Reeling in the years" (RTE programme)it showed Adams carrying a bombers coffin , this image should not be forgotton.Saw a heavily tattooed IRA supporter in a tight "tiochfaidh ar la" tee shirt last weekend. I was surprised at my own immediate reaction to him - Poor pathetic eejit" rather than "Dangerous eejit"

joecoote

Congradulations to Pearse Doherty on his election as SF's first member of the Seanad. Many members on this site like to belittle Republicans - espcially northern Republicans. There seems to be a consensus that Republicans are politically and intellectually inferior. Republicans have been hearing this message from the British for decades. It hasn't stopped them.

oscarBravo

I'm unaware of this consensus you're talking about. If anything, I think you've highlighted the Republican inferiority complex.

What I've seen portrayed on this site - and it's far from a consensus - is a distaste at the moral inferiority displayed by some Republicans.

joecoote

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm unaware of this consensus you're talking about. If anything, I think you've highlighted the Republican inferiority complex.

What I've seen portrayed on this site - and it's far from a consensus - is a distaste at the moral inferiority displayed by some Republicans.

A very inferior political argument Imo. I have no inferiority complex on this forum nor any other. Nor do I need lessons in morality from you or anyone else.

Liam Byrne

joecoote wrote:

A very inferior political argument Imo. I have no inferiority complex on this forum nor any other. Nor do I need lessons in morality from you or anyone else.

That may well be true, joe, but the previous post did refer explicitly to the morals of "some republicans".

It can well be validly argued that ALL walks of life have their combination of decent people and thugs, and those with republican hopes and beliefs are no different; so judging republicans by the criminals in their midst is victimisation, right ?

Not quite. The difference is that the main so-called republican party leaders and high-ranking individuals seem to condone, support and campaign for the thugs in their midst, thereby causing any right-minded person to question their morality and their stance on legal issues as well as those of the thugs.

If a Fianna Fail member shot someone in cold blood and then Bertie went to get his photo taken in jail with that member, would you view that as acceptable ?

Until the "republican movement" and its leaders start to question the motives of those individuals, weeding them out and supporting the forces of law & order in their efforts to solve crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice, they will continue to drag the reputation of the whole movement down.

Once they start to do that, people will start to judge them by their other actions, but until then the general impression will remain; that they support criminals, believe that the laws of the land don't apply to them, and that they believe that only criminals and perpetrators from the "other side" should be held accountable.

And that will gain them a lot of support; I would view myself as at least in some part republican, but I would be disgusted if anyone associated me with Gerry Adams, the man who not only refused to assist a widow in her search for justice but then proceeded to be photographed with his murderers; is this an isolated example ? No - the Ferris's also refused to comply with reasonable requests to do what any law-abiding citizen would do and condemn the crime.....therein lies the pattern and the cause of the perception that this mindset applies to more than just a minority of "republicans".

No republican should be arrested or persecuted for being a republican; if, however, a republican commits a crime, or is seen to associate with or support those who do, then it is by no means victimising them - it is treating them exactly as ALL OTHER CITIZENS SHOULD BE TREATED......replace "republican" with "traveller", "foreigner", "Irish citizen" or any other subset of the human race that you see fit; that sentence should still be 100% valid.

FTA69

Echelle wrote:

Great that Sinn Fein/IRA got trounced in the election. The doughnut has finally imploded.

They got trounced because they abandoned their working class base, shamelessly embraced centrist politics as opposed to the radicalism that actually got them support, and as a result were seen as taking the base for granted. It was nothing to do with a distaste for the IRA, SF were always growing in support up until this election despite the IRA campaign being fresher in people's minds.

Saw a heavily tattooed IRA supporter in a tight "tiochfaidh ar la" tee shirt last weekend. I was surprised at my own immediate reaction to him - Poor pathetic eejit" rather than "Dangerous eejit"

I have Republican tattoos, I don't consider myself pathetic or idiotic.

OB,

I'm unaware of this consensus you're talking about. If anything, I think you've highlighted the Republican inferiority complex.

You don't think there's any consensus amongst some that Republicans are either eejits or the social dregs? We don't have an inferiority complex at all, and I find a tad annoying that because we seek a united Ireland and a changed society we're told we are "living in the past" etc, usually by the same people who take the p*ss out of the Irish language or the GAA. A West Brit mentality definitely exists in this country, and joecoote is bang on when he suggests the above are often suggesting that "they should all stay up there in the north and not be bothering us".

walrusgumble

well here is to pearse doherty (Mchugh of FG aswell) doing something more constructive in highlighting the neglect of areas of donegal. depending on the cope and coughlan ya might as well what till hell freezes over.

Pride Fighter

Echelle wrote:

Great that Sinn Fein/IRA got trounced in the election.

I was not aware the IRA had candidates up for election!!

Jackie laughlin

I think it right that an Irish person would look down on members of SF/IRA who betray a lot about themselves when they try to label their opponents as "West Brits"; this is really choice when it comes from a so-called Irish nationalist who wouldn't bother his or her arse learning the language and very likely "support" a British football team.

FTA69

I think it right that an Irish person would look down on members of SF/IRA

I'm not a Provo, don't be insulting me.

they try to label their opponents as "West Brits

If you read my post you would have seen that I called nobody here a West Brit, rather I said such a mentality exists amongst some in Ireland, ie those who deem it trendy and cosmopolitan to denigrate the Irish language or other aspects of our culture such as Gaelic Games. The same lot can often be found revising history in order to portray Republicans as complete bastards while glorifying Britian as some sort of civilised influence on us mad Paddies.

this is really choice when it comes from a so-called Irish nationalist

I'm not an Irish nationalist, I'm an Irish Republican. There is a big difference.

who wouldn't bother his or her arse learning the language and very likely "support" a British football team

What are you on about? I used to play in goal when I played hurling, and I always supported my local soccer team Cork City. I also have a slight command over Irish after spending time learning it after school. Please, spare me your uninformed, crass generalisations.

johnnyskeleton

FTA69 wrote:

You don't think there's any consensus amongst some that Republicans are either eejits or the social dregs? We don't have an inferiority complex at all, and I find a tad annoying that because we seek a united Ireland and a changed society we're told we are "living in the past" etc, usually by the same people who take the p*ss out of the Irish language or the GAA.

I think that if someone says that SF are living in the past it is because there is a perception that SF don't want to break any alleged links with the IRA or move on from paramilitarism/criminal activity. I don't think they would say it because SF want a united Ireland or a changed society. I also think that the people who take the piss out of the Irish language are the same people that take the piss out of science, maths, french, english, history etc i.e. school kids who don't want to be there.

FTA69 wrote:

If you read my post you would have seen that I called nobody here a West Brit, rather I said such a mentality exists amongst some in Ireland, ie those who deem it trendy and cosmopolitan to denigrate the Irish language or other aspects of our culture such as Gaelic Games.

The way I see it, trendy, cosmopolitan people celebrate the Irish language and gaelic games. It seems to me that gaelic games are becoming more popular than ever. But even if someone did denigrate Irish and GAA, that wouldn't make them think like a west brit, it just means they don't like Irish and/or GAA.

K-9

johnnyskeleton wrote:

The way I see it, trendy, cosmopolitan people celebrate the Irish language and gaelic games. It seems to me that gaelic games are becoming more popular than ever. But even if someone did denigrate Irish and GAA, that wouldn't make them think like a west brit, it just means they don't like Irish and/or GAA.

Probably more Rugby than GAA would be considered trendy and cosmopolitan. There is an element that will never accept the GAA regardless of what they do, open Croke park or whatever. They will call the GAA sectarian yet support Linfield playing more games in a cross border competition or DUP members coming to watch Rugby in Dublin. Nothing wrong with that and these people will recognise Linfield and Ulster rugby generally are doing some great work to cross over sectarian divides yet the GAA gets continuosly slated by these people.
Its the proud of Irish games and culture they can't accept.

To me that is a type of West Brit attitude from that type of Irish person. They can't accept the good elements of the GAA.

Same as they regard SF or Republicanism as a dirty word and don't recognise it is moving on.

Jackie laughlin

My insults and contempt were directed at provos (i.e. SF/IRA) only.

I've always found it strange that "republican" is used as it is in Ireland. SF was founded by a monarchist and for the bulk of its history it has been essentially catholic. It is nationalist in only a very weak sense, having little time for Irish culture and for this reason shinners annoy me when they witter on about Ireland.

I've said on this site many times that all of the murdering thugs (and their conspirators) of the recent Irish conflict should be brought to justice: Irish murderers of both camps, police murderers, army murderers and British murderers. This "moving on" nonsense should stop. Can you imagine your "ordinary decent criminal" saying to a jury, "Don't convict me. I want to move on."

Respect to a real supporter. Cork City seem to have blown it for this year. Sympathy on the death of that young player.

FTA69

it is because there is a perception that SF don't want to break any alleged links with the IRA or move on from paramilitarism/criminal activity.

Well SF have moved away from that and are now a centrist political party the same as every other one, the only thing that people have a problem with is their past; one that most parties in Ireland share.

But even if someone did denigrate Irish and GAA, that wouldn't make them think like a west brit, it just means they don't like Irish and/or GAA.

Of course, horses for courses. There is a difference though, between what you said and those who dislike it because they deem it unsophisticated and uncool, often the same (as was already mentioned) are flocking around Rugby to watch private school boys ponce about listening to Ireland's bloody Call.

Jackie,

I've always found it strange that "republican" is used as it is in Ireland. SF was founded by a monarchist and for the bulk of its history it has been essentially catholic.

The thing you need to understand is that the Sinn Féin party is not the be all and end all of Irish Republicanism, which has been around since 1798. It is an ideology, not a single organisation and it is an ideology which has always centred around two tenets, equality in society and national independence.

I've said on this site many times that all of the murdering thugs (and their consirators) of the recent Irish conflict should be brought to justice: Irish murderers of both camps, police murderers, army murderers and British murderers. This "moving on" nonsense should stop. Can you imagine your "ordinary decent criminal" saying to a jury, "Don't convict me. I want to move on."

The difference being that the political conflict in Ireland (a manifestation of the same conflict which has been running for centuries) is not comparable to someone blagging a bookies. If you had your way there would be thousands and thousands in jail, ranging from Republicans to the British Army, from the Guards to the RUC to Loyalists. Repairing the damage of such a lasting conflict will not be done by banging people in jail. Have a look at the South African example.

Jackie laughlin

SF/IRA's VERY RECENT past is bloody. As I've said before, I hope you are right and they have thrown in the towel but quite honestly I think their present approach is their latest tactic.

What's the problem with liking different sports? I was less bad at soccer than the other codes and played it for years. I took to rugby very late as I certainly didn't go to a rugby school but I was welcomed, coached, guaranteed a game and had a good time. I tried Gaelic but was too awful at it to continue. Come to think of it, among players and former players there are preferences but I've never met a rugby player who was anti-Gaelic or a gaelic player who was anti-rugby.

Ireland's Call, despite being written by Phil Coulter, is great for bawling out emotionally from the terraces. AND, it is not militaristic. It should be adopted as the national anthem. (In truth, it's getting there. Give it time.) An Irish language version would be welcome.

I realise that most Irish "republicans" are not members of SF/IRA. To suggest that Irish Republicanism is about equality and independence is far fetched. Two points: Equality in 1798! You have to be joking! Equality as a FF (The Republican Party) or a SF/IRA policy! Joking again!

There is quite simply no comparison with South Africa. Violence was not necessary in Ireland. The "blood sacrifice nutters" hi-jacked the desire for Home Rule and later the psychopaths hi-jacked the civil rights movement. An "ordinary" criminal deserves far better treatment and more respect than the people who now want to "move on" and forget their awful crimes.

K-9

FTA69 wrote:

The difference being that the political conflict in Ireland (a manifestation of the same conflict which has been running for centuries) is not comparable to someone blagging a bookies. If you had your way there would be thousands and thousands in jail, ranging from Republicans to the British Army, from the Guards to the RUC to Loyalists. Repairing the damage of such a lasting conflict will not be done by banging people in jail. Have a look at the South African example.

There's is a double standard from SF on that. eg. public inquiry on Monaghan/Dublin bombings and other things but don't ask us about Enniskillen etc.

FTA69

There's is a double standard from SF on that. eg. public inquiry on Monaghan/Dublin bombings and other things but don't ask us about Enniskillen etc.

Well SF can say whatever they want; however it is worth mentioning that the IRA accept responsibility for the disaster that was Enniskillen, sin é. The Brits on the other hand are still obstructing inquiries which would show that they were either responsible for or had a hand in a bombing against the civilians of a neighbouring state.

Jackie,

As I've said before, I hope you are right and they have thrown in the towel but quite honestly I think their present approach is their latest tactic.

SF are an economically centrist party now supporting British institutions in Ireland, they drew the war and lost the peace. They are a threat to nobody.

What's the problem with liking different sports? I was less bad at soccer than the other codes and played it for years. I took to rugby very late as I certainly didn't go to a rugby school but I was welcomed, coached, guaranteed a game and had a good time. I tried Gaelic but was too awful at it to continue. Come to think of it, among players and former players there are preferences but I've never met a rugby player who was anti-Gaelic or a gaelic player who was anti-rugby.

The issue is not who likes what, people can play whatever they like. My point focussed on those who would have a laugh at the GAA because it doesn't fit into their trendy "D4" way of looking at the world.

Ireland's Call, despite being written by Phil Coulter, is great for bawling out emotionally from the terraces. AND, it is not militaristic. It should be adopted as the national anthem. (In truth, it's getting there. Give it time.) An Irish language version would be welcome.

Ah go on out of it, you're only codding yourself if you think that auld watery sh*te matches our anthem. The present one is grand, it outlines who we are as a people and more importantly, the struggle we came from.

To suggest that Irish Republicanism is about equality and independence is far fetched. Two points: Equality in 1798! You have to be joking!

The United Irishmen were one of the only people in Ireland involved in the anti-slavery campaign, Wolfe Tone himself stated that Irish freedom will be won by "the men and women of no property". They were also quite stringent in addressing the poverty in Ireland; no they weren't socialists (as that didn't even exist then) but they were the most enlightened and progressive people we had. Later on we then had Republicans involved in the issue of land redistribution (the very life-blood of Ireland then), of course this was brushed over by Nationalists such as Daniel O'Connell and William Smith O'Brien.

Equality as a FF (The Republican Party)

FF aren't even Republicans so your point is moot.

There is quite simply no comparison with South Africa. Violence was not necessary in Ireland.

In your opinion, which might well be different if mobs burned you out of your home and a state treated you like a second class citizen in your own country. The political situations were indeed very different, but what they have in common is the fact that violence was created by the brutality of the state in question.

The "blood sacrifice nutters" hi-jacked the desire for Home Rule

The "nutters" you are referring to included the founder of your party. Secondly it was the people of Ireland as a unit which voted a Republic into existence. The Home Rule project was a joke for the simple reason that its entire onus was placed upon generosity by the British government. As opposed to the Irish people taking ownership of their own struggle you had upper-class farts hobnobbing around Westminister begging for crumbs.

later the psychopaths hi-jacked the civil rights movement.

It was the British Army that shot them off the streets, not the IRA. Likewise the IRA was a small isolated group up until the burning of Nationalist areas while the RUC looked on (and even participated), the Falls Curfew and Bloody Sunday.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

The "nutters" you are referring to included the founder of your party.

Does that make him less of a nutter?

FTA69 wrote:

Secondly it was the people of Ireland as a unit which voted a Republic into existence.

How many of them voted for the 1916 rising?

FTA69 wrote:

The Home Rule project was a joke for the simple reason that its entire onus was placed upon generosity by the British government. As opposed to the Irish people taking ownership of their own struggle you had upper-class farts hobnobbing around Westminister begging for crumbs.

So a tiny minority of a small minority started a rebellion, which led to a full-fledged war of independence (which was, to all intents and purposes, a civil war), which was settled by a treaty which was all but identical to the Home Rule project the tiny minority of the small minority took issue with in the first place.

Who says violence achieves nothing?

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

Who says violence achieves nothing?

Only the naive say that. History is littered with achievements that stem from violence.