Fine Girl open door to Shinners?

mango23

Michael Collins was also in an illegal army and was a 'terrorist'.

Some men fight, some men hide.......freestaters just leech off the nation.

Nodin

bmaxi wrote: »

A lot of people remain unconvinced of that.

So I've noticed, and there are some for whom it is a genuine concern. However PSF seem to act as the political equivalent of Nigerian immigrants, for some. All ills and fears can be projected thereon, regardless of rhyme or reason. It becomes tiresome after a while.

grenache

mango23 wrote: »

Michael Collins was also in an illegal army and was a 'terrorist'.

Some men fight, some men hide.......freestaters just leech off the nation.

Collins was considered a ''terrorist'' by the British forces who were themselves an illegal occupying force. Yes some men fight and some men murder i.e. Omagh, Enniskillen, Adare. I'm puzzled by what you mean when you say ''freestaters leech off the state''??

FTA69

grenache wrote: »

Collins was considered a ''terrorist'' by the British forces who were themselves an illegal occupying force. Yes some men fight and some men murder i.e. Omagh, Enniskillen, Adare. I'm puzzled by what you mean when you say ''freestaters leech off the state''??

They weren't illegal at all, they were representitive of the soveriegn government of the United Kingdom, of which Ireland was a member. They were much more "legal" than the IRA who never put themselves up for election.

If you were to say the Brits were illegally occupying the place back then you'd have to say they are illegally occupying the place now.

Lolabugs

Anyone else read the title of this thread as "Fine Girl opens doors to sinners"

Nope???

Must just be me then

FTA69

To get back to the original point, I don't see Fine Gael going into coalition with Sinn Féin, the cool fact of the matter is that they don't need Sinn Féin's seats and they will have numerous other coalition partners to choose from, they would go in with Labour, Independents and the Greens before they would consider Sinn Féin. I don't know what your man is on about, but I'd say he got a right dressing down in Fine Gael HQ.

Sinn Féin would probably not end up going into coalition with Fine Gael, although there is definitely an element of the party which would be bulling for a modicum of state power at all costs.

The Raven.

Frank Flannery may have been foolishly looking for second preference votes from SF voters. Big mistake! He could loose FG first preference votes instead.

mango23

grenache wrote: »

Collins was considered a ''terrorist'' by the British forces who were themselves an illegal occupying force. Yes some men fight and some men murder i.e. Omagh, Enniskillen, Adare. I'm puzzled by what you mean when you say ''freestaters leech off the state''??

As FTA said, there's no difference between the occupation in the 32 then as there is in the 6 now. You do know that the I.R.A. before partition planted bombs in England also?

my point about freestaters leeching can go back to the like of Arthur Griffith etc. taking the buck and betraying the working people of this country........Ray Burke......Bertie onAhern......and so on and on......all leaches of this nation

Liam Byrne

mango23 wrote: »

my point about freestaters leeching can go back to the like of Arthur Griffith etc. taking the buck and betraying the working people of this country........Ray Burke......Bertie onAhern......and so on and on......all leaches of this nation

Do you mean "taking the buck" like the Northern Bank robbery or the fiasco in Adare ?

GuanYin

rcecil wrote: »

Why would anyone think SF would do a deal with people who are ideological opposites? SF is opposed to gangsters and banksters. Fine Gael is loaded with the same crooks as Fianna Fail....

I'll assume this is hyperbole and you're not accusing anyone?

grenache

FTA69 wrote: »

They weren't illegal at all, they were representitive of the soveriegn government of the United Kingdom, of which Ireland was a member. They were much more "legal" than the IRA who never put themselves up for election.

But was Ireland a member of the UK of its own free will? No. Therefore they were an illegal occupying force.

FTA69 wrote: »

If you were to say the Brits were illegally occupying the place back then you'd have to say they are illegally occupying the place now.

mango23 wrote: »

As FTA said, there's no difference between the occupation in the 32 then as there is in the 6 now.

Not necessarily. Since Michael Collins negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty on behalf of the Irish people, and accepted partition, he therefore legitimised the British presence in the 6 counties, whether we in the South like it or not.

mango23

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do you mean "taking the buck" like the Northern Bank robbery or the fiasco in Adare ?

Well with the northern Bank robery it was pretty much taking money from the brits to fund their campaign against them so I like their style.

Now with the other i haven't much to say about it.

mango23

grenache wrote: »

But was Ireland a member of the UK of its own free will? No. Therefore they were an illegal occupying force.





Not necessarily. Since Michael Collins negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty on behalf of the Irish people, and accepted partition, he therefore legitimised the British presence in the 6 counties, whether we in the South like it or not.

But not everybody wanted it, hence the civil war.

grenache

mango23 wrote: »

But not everybody wanted it, hence the civil war.

True, but he still negotiated on behalf of the Irish people, regardless of whether they wanted him to or not.

Pride Fighter

Lolabugs wrote: »

Anyone else read the title of this thread as "Fine Girl opens doors to sinners"

Nope???

Must just be me then

Yeah, I thought it would be about a Gerry Adams based porno.

FTA69

grenache wrote: »

But was Ireland a member of the UK of its own free will? No. Therefore they were an illegal occupying force.

Illegal under what law? Ireland wasn't necessarily a member of the UK by choice, but they weren't necessarily opposed to it either. When Pearse and co launched the 1916 Rising the vast majority of Irish people were supportive of Redmond and the IPP.

Not necessarily. Since Michael Collins negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty on behalf of the Irish people, and accepted partition, he therefore legitimised the British presence in the 6 counties, whether we in the South like it or not.

That's more complete nonsense, the same way membership of the UK was never put to a democratic test, the Treaty was signed in the context of the Brits threatening an immediate and terrible war. Irish sovereignty is inalienable, and British imperialism is plain wrong. That tenet is as true nowadays as it was back then.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

the Treaty was signed in the context of the Brits threatening an immediate and terrible war.

Completely different to the context of the GFA being signed under threats of ongoing violence from terrorist groups, then ?

FTA69 wrote: »

Irish sovereignty is inalienable, and British imperialism is plain wrong.

I agree with your view of British imperialism, however "inalienable" does not apply to something that the majority of the island has voted for since. Whatever about the origins of the division, it has been voted for democratically since.

And while that democratic vote can be argued to have taken place under duress (terrorists saying "we'll do more of the same", therefore intimidating voters vs the Governments saying "this is the only option on the table") it is the only option which we have, because no-one wanted to give in to terrorists and no-one other than those living in the North should have a right to choose.

We all might wish it was different, but in the context of replacing one band of terrorists with another, self-determination is the only reasonable option.

To be honest,there were lots of things that led to the prolonged peace in NI with SF ministers,not least being that the IRA knew post 911 the game for bombing and shooting and raising funds for such in America was up...


As regards Frank Flannery master strategist...All he was at was sending a coded message to FG voters in Dublin not to transfer to FF and to persuade at least some of them to transfer to Mary Lou..
In other words he wanted to save Mary Lou over the other sitting FF candidate.
It's that simple.

The hypocrisy of it though is breath taking,I'd agree there.

Raiser

Well if the formerly squeaky-clean* Green Party could embrace Fianna Fails culture of corruption and general anti-social, self-serving mindlessness - Then would you really be that shocked to see Edna Kenny cuddling up to the Shinners......?

* Apart from investing via Petro-chemical Shares etc. etc.

O'Coonassa

rcecil wrote: »

SF is opposed to gangsters and banksters.

Yes, no gangsters in the Provisional movement, must be why they voted against the bank bailout......

partyguinness

LOL:pac:

As if SF wld go anywhere near FG. Pull the other one.

Sully

partyguinness wrote: »

LOL:pac:

As if SF wld go anywhere near FG. Pull the other one.

I think you meant...

As if FG wld go anywhere near SF. Pull the other one.

partyguinness

Sully wrote: »

I think you meant...

As if FG wld go anywhere near SF. Pull the other one.

Oh I assure you I was not mistaken.

grenache

FTA69 wrote: »

grenache wrote: »

Illegal under what law? Ireland wasn't necessarily a member of the UK by choice, but they weren't necessarily opposed to it either. When Pearse and co launched the 1916 Rising the vast majority of Irish people were supportive of Redmond and the IPP.



That's more complete nonsense, the same way membership of the UK was never put to a democratic test, the Treaty was signed in the context of the Brits threatening an immediate and terrible war. Irish sovereignty is inalienable, and British imperialism is plain wrong. That tenet is as true nowadays as it was back then.

illegal under the laws of the newly established League of Nations. Ireland was not Britain's to own. As you say yourself, our sovereignty was inalienable. Redmonds party looked for Home Rule, which if it had come into effect, would most likely had led in time to an independent state within the nations of the commonwealth. You're also forgetting that many of the 60,000 Irish men that went off to fight in the war, did so to further Ireland's claim for independence, hoping that irelands support for the british war effort would be rewarded with some form of independence. Collins at the time of the treaty, had the option to walk out of the talks and continue the guerrilla warfare, and whether he was put under pressure from the Lloyd George & co is irrelevant, he chose to sign it. Thus his signature was the irish representatives consent for a british presence in the 6 counties.

partyguinness

grenache wrote: »

FTA69 wrote: »

illegal under the laws of the newly established League of Nations. Ireland was not Britain's to own. As you say yourself, our sovereignty was inalienable. Redmonds party looked for Home Rule, which if it had come into effect, would most likely had led in time to an independent state within the nations of the commonwealth. You're also forgetting that many of the 60,000 Irish men that went off to fight in the war, did so to further Ireland's claim for independence, hoping that irelands support for the british war effort would be rewarded with some form of independence. Collins at the time of the treaty, had the option to walk out of the talks and continue the guerrilla warfare, and whether he was put under pressure from the Lloyd George & co is irrelevant, he chose to sign it. Thus his signature was the irish representatives consent for a british presence in the 6 counties.

Of course it is relevant. It shows that they were not negotiating on an equal footing. In normal Contact law, if someone signs a Contract under duress then it is voidable and can be set aside or if the parties are not an equal footing the it is an unconscionable bargain and again voidable.

But that was the position and always will be so not point getting hot and bothered about it.

Collins & Co pinned all their hopes on a united Ireland on the boundary commission of 1925 which turned out to be pointless and that the situatio would only be temporary. It was hardly a consent.

It also shows the utter duplicity of the British (hardly surprising). On the one hand marching off to war under the pretense of protecting small nations like Belgium but at the same time ignoring the Irish struggle for self determination.

ps. I believe that it was Winston Churchill that threatened an "immediate and terrible war"

Liam Byrne

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Yes, no gangsters in the Provisional movement, must be why they voted against the bank bailout......

Was surprised at this, actually......the more money the banks have, the more potential money for the Provos to hide in Daz boxes in Cork.

Liam Byrne

partyguinness wrote: »

It also shows the utter duplicity of the British (hardly surprising).

Irony, anyone ?

partyguinness

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Irony, anyone ?

Be my guest and point out the irony.

In the context of the post in question please.

Liam Byrne

partyguinness wrote: »

Be my guest and point out the irony.

In the context of the post in question please.

You're saying that the 6-counties agreement was signed under threat of violence and so wasn't a valid contract.

We had to vote to agree to release criminals and thugs under the GFA in an effort to end violence.

Does that mean that the GFA is invalid ?

partyguinness wrote: »

if someone signs a Contract under duress then it is voidable and can be set aside or if the parties are not an equal footing the it is an unconscionable bargain and again voidable.

So we can put all the scum back in prison, then ? Because while we voted with the best of intentions we're told "they haven't gone away, you know" ? So the only reason we agreed to release them - in order to stop the madness - is null and void, because we did it under threat of more violence and killings ?

And further duplicity in the fact that when it comes to discussions about Toireasa Ferris not being taken to task for atrocities, we're told in that thread that those things that happened years ago, and so we should "move on" ?

mango23

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You're saying that the 6-counties agreement was signed under threat of violence and so wasn't a valid contract.

We had to vote to agree to release criminals and thugs under the GFA in an effort to end violence.

Does that mean that the GFA is invalid ?



So we can put all the scum back in prison, then ? Because while we voted with the best of intentions we're told "they haven't gone away, you know" ? So the only reason we agreed to release them - in order to stop the madness - is null and void, because we did it under threat of more violence and killings ?

And further duplicity in the fact that when it comes to discussions about Toireasa Ferris not being taken to task for atrocities, we're told in that thread that those things that happened years ago, and so we should "move on" ?

Liam why do you hate the provos so much?

Are you a free stater or a west brit?

Would you like the plane fair to go live in London?