Sinn Feins list of "Demands"

marco_polo

dlofnep wrote: »

2000 wrongs? What 2000 wrongs did Sinn Féin the political party make?

I seem to have got my facts completely wrong yet again. It was only in fact 1,800 SF/IRA deaths

dlofnep

marco_polo wrote: »

I seem to have got my facts completely wrong yet again.

Yes, yes you have. I'm not going to even dignify you with any further responses.

marco_polo

I see you have made a complaint to the helpdesk.

Should the verdict not be in my favour I retract not a single word of what I have said tonight. it's common knowledge in any case.

Give me a call when you have disbanded the private army.

dlofnep

marco_polo wrote: »

I see you have made a complaint to the helpdesk.

Should the verdict not be in my favour I retract not a single word of what I have said tonight. it's common knowledge in any case.

Common "knowledge"? You can't even tell the difference between SF & RSF, let alone understand their policies or comment on Sinn Féin, giving that the former of the two is fully comitted to the GFA and peace.

You have labeled me as a terrorist and everyone within SF as a terrorist, without knowing one thing about us. So my complaint stands and is reasonable given the circumstances.

Scofflaw

Well, all that aside, why would a party with 7% electoral support be submitting lists of 'demands' in any case? People voted No, they didn't vote Sinn Fein.

cordially,
Scofflaw

axer

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, all that aside, why would a party with 7% electoral support be submitting lists of 'demands' in any case?

Probably since they are the *only* political party that were on the side that won the referendum. Just a thought.

cabinteelytom

Molloyjh (post 24) : 'It is theoretically possible (in Lisbon) that if we voted No in a referendum to an amendment which changes our constitution, that requires QMV but the amendment itself was passed by the EU as a whole, our constitution could be changed even if we rejected it'.

If this is true, it is an overwhelming argument for rejecting the treaty.
Molloyjh's solution is also very reasonable.

This unattractive future scenario , combined with the undeniable unease of the Irish voter at the post-Nice direction of the EU project,( further east geographically ( and no end in sight), and that mystifying greater presence on the world-stage (for the Euro-elite).... should lead us to demand from Lisbon II , a 'get out clause'.

The 'get-out clause' would explicitly give us permission to leave the EU by our democratic choice eg if such a choice is made by referendum, and define our post-departure trade relationship with the [monster-sized] EU eg 'Ireland shall have the same trade relationship with the EU which Switzerland possesses for 30 years after the departure.'
Well you don't want to be treated like Gaza or Chetchnya, do you?

ionix5891

cabinteelytom wrote: »

should lead us to demand from Lisbon II , a 'get out clause'.

:rolleyes: Lisbon 1 did have a "get out" clause

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Well you don't want to be treated like Gaza or Chetchnya, do you?

Electing a terrorist group is what got Gaza in current mess alongside Israels determination to keep the place in a limbo, maybe theres a lesson for us there

As for Grozny I was traveling thru' the place and the train we were on was stopped for 2 days for security reasons there around the time the **** hit the fan in the early 90s, we didnt know then a war is about to start when getting the train from Azerbaijan to Moscow, very scary place and it was an un-nerving experience but yea another example of what **** Nationalism will stir up.



As for SF <> Terrorist comment I made I wish to retract it as it will derail this thread and i don't want that, the mods can probably delete the comments if they wish, thats a discussion for another thread

Scofflaw

axer wrote: »

Probably since they are the *only* political party that were on the side that won the referendum. Just a thought.

Again, that would suggest that there was a "side", and that people voted for that "side" - as opposed to, say, voting against the Treaty despite Sinn Fein also opposing it.


cordially,
Scofflaw

axer

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, that would suggest that there was a "side", and that people voted for that "side" - as opposed to, say, voting against the Treaty despite Sinn Fein also opposing it.


cordially,
Scofflaw

I believe there was a Yes side and a No side - there were those groups in favour of a yes vote and those groups in favour of a no vote - is that hard to understand?

People gave out that Sinn Fein were all talk and no action in that they called for a no vote but yet did not say what they think should be changed in order for them to agree with the ratification of the treaty. Now they have said what they think should be changed and then we have people like you who asks what right have they to say what they think should be changed. That sounds silly IMO. Some people are not happy either way.

thebman

molloyjh wrote: »

This works against us in two ways. The Lisbon QMV gave the smaller nations more weight relative to their population than the bigger nations and had a formula that would not require changes if/when new members join, or if/when there are significant shifts in population in any member states (which will happen over time).

Since Ireland's population is set to significantly increase in the next decade accord to the CSO, isn't this a bad thing for Ireland?

ionix5891

brim4brim wrote: »

Since Ireland's population is set to significantly increase in the next decade accord to the CSO, isn't this a bad thing for Ireland?

Irish population will increase

but so will EUs once these join
4.4million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia
70million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey



unless we start making babies fast we will still remain one of the smaller countries

thelordofcheese

Since Ireland's population is set to significantly increase in the next decade accord to the CSO, isn't this a bad thing for Ireland?

Unless we suddenly grow by a factor of several million (y'know so we have a population comparable to the UK, france or germany) we'll still be in more or less the same position we are now as regards QMV.

Though i think (and i may be wrong on this) if the CSO projections are right, the single MEP we'd lose under lisbon would be returned to us to reflect our higher population.

thelordofcheese

ionix5891 wrote: »

unless we start making babies fast we will still remain one of the smaller countries

QUICK! Forced breeding so we can defeat the evil EU overlords!
I call dibs on the good looking Corr sister!

dlofnep

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, all that aside, why would a party with 7% electoral support be submitting lists of 'demands' in any case? People voted No, they didn't vote Sinn Fein.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Who said they voted Sinn Féin? Sinn Féin objected to the Treaty, and thus, have outlined their reasons why as requested. It REALLY eats you alive to see your Yes campaign, with all main political party support fall flat on it's face, doesn't it? I actually can see the anger/bitterness build up within you day by day since this treaty failed. Just before it, you were Courteous Scofflaw - now - you're resulting to bitter attacks on political parties.

The No campaign prevailed. Please sir, accept it and move on with your life. Thank you.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it eats me alive to see sinn fein treated as anything other than a laughing stock.

dlofnep

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

it eats me alive to see sinn fein treated as anything other than a laughing stock.

Just make sure you don't eat up everything around you when you turn into a human vortex and we're good.

is_that_so

dlofnep wrote: »

The No campaign prevailed.

We're all No voters now from an EU perspective. Yes or No vote SF would have been on the No side as this has always been their position on the EU as I've already stated.

oscarBravo

dlofnep, as a SF member you're going to have to grow a thick skin and accept that a lot of people find SF distasteful because of their refusal to distance themselves fully from the atrocities that have been carried out by republican terrorists.

Every body else, stop baiting dlofnep and get back on topic: this is the EU forum.

dlofnep

I have a thick skin, but I refused to be labeled as a terrorist. Something which I am not. I am a peaceful activist. I find it extremely offensive and no doubt, if it was a FF or FG member being called such - the moderation would be swift to act on it. I don't like double-standards in moderation and expect it to be resolved maturely and without bias.

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

Who said they voted Sinn Féin? Sinn Féin objected to the Treaty, and thus, have outlined their reasons why as requested. It REALLY eats you alive to see your Yes campaign, with all main political party support fall flat on it's face, doesn't it? I actually can see the anger/bitterness build up within you day by day since this treaty failed. Just before it, you were Courteous Scofflaw - now - you're resulting to bitter attacks on political parties.

Hmm. If pointing out that you have 7% in the polls is a "bitter attack", I fear you may not be cut out for discussing politics! After all, I vote Green, and we have 5% in the polls - which you're welcome to point out if you feel I deserve a bitter counter-attack. I'd be pleased to see the Greens presenting lists of demands, but frankly I wouldn't expect them to get very far - nor did I pay any attention to whether they presented demands after Nice I, since if they did, it was purely theatrical.

I don't have a gut aversion to Sinn Fein - I simply disagree with their philosophical basis (Westphalian nationalism), and am amused at their "pro-EU" claims.

"My" party didn't campaign, so this is not a party political issue for me, although I can see it is for you.

dlofnep wrote: »

The No campaign prevailed. Please sir, accept it and move on with your life. Thank you.

Indeed, it did, and it appears to be getting us into the position I thought it would, where the EU makes it clear that saying No to Lisbon is not necessarily compatible with remaining fully in the EU. I am strongly opposed to people trying to pretend that this is magically 'unthinkable' or 'impossible'. It is clearly being thought, and that is a matter of vital concern to Irish people.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Sully

To be fair, there is a bit of a difference between SF and the main political partys when it comes to comments like those being passed around and I dont think anyone meant anything to you personally..

Anyway, Bravo is right.. this is an EU Forum so lets get back on topic and put all this nonsense behind us.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

I have a thick skin, but I refused to be labeled as a terrorist. Something which I am not. I am a peaceful activist. I find it extremely offensive and no doubt, if it was a FF or FG member being called such - the moderation would be swift to act on it.

In case you hadn't noticed, I instructed the people who offended you to stop doing so.

I don't like double-standards in moderation and expect it to be resolved maturely and without bias.

I expect people to read the charter before posting, specifically the bit about discussing moderation in the forum.

Back on topic - everyone.

dlofnep

Thank you sir.

The Corinthian

After the assassination of Arch-duke Ferdinand, Serbia was issued a list of demands by Austria-Hungary that it could never agree to. But that was all right, because Austria-Hungary wanted the demands rejected, so that they would have a moral and diplomatic pretext for war.

SF's demands are much the same. They will never be accepted and thus SF will be able to shrug their shoulders, say they tried and oppose any future attempts at EU integration.

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed, it did, and it appears to be getting us into the position I thought it would, where the EU makes it clear that saying No to Lisbon is not necessarily compatible with remaining fully in the EU.

There seems to be a lot of unsubstantiated talk out there about Ireland being invited to leave if it does not ratify this or that treaty. The treaty called "constitution" was not ratified by a number of countries including Ireland and they were not asked to leave. There is no legal basis nor precedent for such a move.

berliner

SF is against London rule but has no problem with Brussels rule.Weirdest "Nationalist" party ever.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of unsubstantiated talk out there about Ireland being invited to leave if it does not ratify this or that treaty. The treaty called "constitution" was not ratified by a number of countries including Ireland and they were not asked to leave. There is no legal basis nor precedent for such a move.

This is a type of view I've seen expressed frequently, both here and in the press. It's probably factually accurate, but not necessarily very pragmatic.

I can remember being at an AGM of my local group water scheme some years ago, where a tiny handful of members were hell-bent on disrupting procedures over a personal grievance. They continually interrupted the meeting, demanding to be heard. Eventually they were shouted down by popular acclamation, with one notable gentleman saying at the top of his voice "would you ever sit down and shut the **** up so we can get on with running this thing".

There was no legal basis nor precedent for such a call, but the majority of the members were agreed that progress needed to be made, and the troublesome naysayers could either shut up and go along with it, or leave.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of unsubstantiated talk out there about Ireland being invited to leave if it does not ratify this or that treaty. The treaty called "constitution" was not ratified by a number of countries including Ireland and they were not asked to leave. There is no legal basis nor precedent for such a move.

I have stated all along that I know of no particular legal basis for such a move - on the other hand, there is equally no legal impediment to such a move, because the EU treaties contain nothing about the indissolubility of the EU.

The simplest method of removing Ireland from the picture is to achieve general agreement that Ireland negotiated the Treaty in 'bad faith', and therefore should be removed as a signatory. That is at least one option I can think of, without putting a team of lawyers on the question, which the other member states can do.

Part of the problem seems to be people thinking of the EU as having some kind of existence independent of the member states, and of being in some way superior to them. All the EU really consists of, legally, is an agreement between the member states. If you're not part of the agreement, you're not part of the EU.

One of the No campaign arguments was that the EU was legally re-founded in the Treaty - hence our constitutional reference to 'may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty'. One of the other arguments of the No campaign was that the EU was engaged in legal sleight-of-hand by renaming the Constitution.

Yet when one puts forward the possibility that the member states may choose to use legal sleight-of-hand to re-establish an EU that does not include Ireland, the reaction is an outraged cry that such a thing is impossible - indeed, unthinkable.

How can it be unthinkable when it fits exactly what the No campaign claimed all along?

Further, what we have to offer as "proof" is exactly what the No campaign largely offered as "proof" - people like Sarkozy, and Kouchner, have said that they may seek exactly such a 'legal accommodation'. Why is what Sarkozy said 'proof' that Lisbon would allow tax harmonisation and an EU army, but suddenly irrelevant now?

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

· Substantial amendments on Article 188 dealing with international
trade agreements including a cast iron veto on mixed World Trade
Organisation
agreements

and

· A series of amendments to Articles 10 and 188 promoting the needs of
the developing world in the context of international trade.


Is that not a contradiction?