Why is Sein Fein such a dirty word down south?

Can'tseeme

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:eek: VERY odd one, that - someone said earlier that the IRA rejected it first. If that's true, then the Unionists couldn't have "brought it down", because there was no agreement. And if "the majority of nationalists supported it", why did the IRA reject it ? Who gave them the veto over what "the majority of nationalists" supported ?

I don't know, btw - I'm just going on what I was told earlier.

Liam, who the feck was giving the IRA or Sinn Fein a say on Sunningdale? They were illegal organisations. It didn't matter if they agreed or not, they were out of the equation. The unionist UWC strike and protests brought this down. That's how sectarian this place was, they didn't want to share power with nationalism WHATSOEVER even in the form of the SDLP. This is common knowledge.

Liam Byrne

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Liam, who the feck was giving the IRA or Sinn Fein a say on Sunningdale? They were illegal organisations. It didn't matter if they agreed or not, they were out of the equation. The unionist UWC strike and protests brought this down. That's how sectarian this place was, they didn't want to share power with nationalism WHATSOEVER even in the form of the SDLP. This is common knowledge.

Just going on what was posted earlier.

While ideally I'd actually agree with you, I have to say that if one of the main aims of an agreement is to rid the country of a terrorist organisation and get it to stop, then of course it's going to matter whether or not they agree; otherwise they would just ignore the preferred mandate of the people and continue on regardless.

mcmic

ionix5891 wrote: »

i nearly spat my breakfast! two words: Mary Lou

Wake me up when SF start caring about people in the south

all they care about is whats happens north of that border :rolleyes:

.

This is exactly why SF have support in the north and huge support in Donegal. First of all since the Irish Govt has blatently ignored Donegal and passed over them for years, the people need a party who is going to stand up for them when they need it.Time and time again if local people need something there is no point going to any other party to be ignored, or promised help and never contacted again. Even people who will never vote for them out of a misguided principal will agree if you need something or help you go to a SF person!
Yes the leaders were around during 'the war' but what do southerners know (or care) about what happened back then. If the people of the North and Donegal can move forward with politics then the south should stop babbling on about the war, crimes etcetc etc that the people are trying and succeding to put behind them.
Times are different now, not that southerners know this but it is now a time when people of all backgrounds are working together to make a better life for everyone.
Also it is ignorant and misguided to say anything about the green/orange row! The war was over land and freedom not religion, it is the people who wish to carry on with hatred are hidinfg behind the religion flag. These are the drug dealers, murders, etc who wish to use the IRA in whatever 'branch' you want to site to continue a life of crime by using the 'troubles' as a smokescreen.

Yes their economic policies are weak, but in coalition they could iron them out, but it will never happen as the Irish polotical parties are too selfish and money hungry. SF representitives wages are all submitted to one pot, then each councillor etc gets a wage out of it - Martin McGiunness takes home 320 pounds per week - can you imagine the faces of the money hungry politicians in Ireland if that were to become the norm? The govt do not want SF in power as it will only serve to lighten their pockets. Imagine how much money Ireland would save and write off our national debt every year if all politicians were paid in this way!

P. Breathnach

The original question in this thread was about why other parties didn't want to get into bed with Sinn Fein.

A number of people ventured answers. And now it has been followed by pages of argument that is entirely redundant to the question. If people don't want to have any truck with Sinn Fein, that is their prerogative. There is no point in saying that they have a mistaken view, or that other parties have things about them that people might not (or should not) like. If I don't like the idea of doing business with Sinn Fein, you can't force me to. And if you want to vote for Sinn Fein, I can't stop you.

Can'tseeme

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Unacceptable answers.

Alot of it doesn't sit easy with alot of voters of Sinn Fein either. But alot of what was happening was wrong and it was a horrible conflict.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

By no means a cop-out, and already dealt with. The Northern Irish voters voted on sectarian and extremist lines, and that has to be respected. It's THEIR choice. So they were forced together in a power-sharing executive.

Down here, we don't vote based on "religion" or sectarian background (I don't even know what religion the candidates I voted for in today's election are, and I don't care) and we don't vote for gangsters (well, we do, but not ones that kill) so it's a COMPLETELY different story.

But if you want to dismiss that as a cop-out, fire away. Any neutral will see it as a fact.

Very simplistic and patronising way to view northern nationalists. I no interest in religion personally. Sinn Fein has membership from different religious backgrounds as non-religious backgrounds as are their voters.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Nothing WHATSOEVER to do with "10 years after the GFA".

Ferris & Co were asked a "law & order" question in the run-up to the election, and they answered with their view. In theory, everyone's entitled to their view, but they'll be judged on it.

Their view is incompatible with my view, and I don't think she - or anyone who thinks that way - should be in office.

Simple as that.

Remember, it's HER view (or her towing the party line) that's the reason SF is a "dirty word". So stop trying to blame me for that.

So long as their in office north of the border.

Can'tseeme

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just going on what was posted earlier.

While ideally I'd actually agree with you, I have to say that if one of the main aims of an agreement is to rid the country of a terrorist organisation and get it to stop, then of course it's going to matter whether or not they agree; otherwise they would just ignore the preferred mandate of the people and continue on regardless.

As I said the majority of nationalist people supported the agreement. We'll never know if the Sunningdale agreement would have won the hearts and minds and turned people away from the conflict as it was brought down by Unionists.

Liam Byrne

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Very simplistic and patronising way to view northern nationalists.

Not intended as such, and since you bolded the full phrase you'll know that I said "along [those] lines"; i.e. they had the SDLP and other non-violence-aligned parties and rejected them.

Can'tseeme wrote: »

So long as their in office north of the border.

Look, as I said, the North chose their own. I don't care whether they're in office in the North or not, as long as no-one innocent is getting killed.

They choose who they want to govern them; they - both sides chose people who were previously [recently] associated with violence and murder.

In the North, neither "side" has the high moral ground - they've both done it.

"Down here", we choose who we want to govern us. We seem to choose people associated with corruption, incompetence and greed, but hopefully that'll change starting today.

Ideally, we'll get a few people in who'll support law and order, be it condemning murders or condemning corruption and wastage.

Can'tseeme

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There were two parties which representated people from the backgrounds you described. One promoted violence the other was against it.

there was no need for Sinn Fein, the violence etc imo.

The SDLP were asking people to support the police back then as well. Looking at what we now know, how wrong they were.

Liam Byrne

Can'tseeme wrote: »

We'll never know if the Sunningdale agreement would have won the hearts and minds and turned people away from the conflict as it was brought down by Unionists.

Have a chat with Tarzan about that one; I'm surprised that you didn't contradict his post immediately instead of leaving it until now.

When he [Tarzan] said the IRA rejected it - how do we know ? You said that they had no "say", but did they do anything to show that rejection ?

Is there a chance that whatever they did might have caused the Unionists to "bring it down" ?

Just asking.

Joey the lips

kmick wrote: »

Heres what they should put on the poster
"SF - Its just a different type of corruption."

Sinn Fein is not in power so they cant promise anything. It will however be very interesting to see if they gain seats in the next election. They could be the new PD's ("PD's with menace" could be their future slogan).

The opposite of disenfranchise is enfranchise by the way ;p

fran•chise



Pronunciation: (fran'chīz), [key]
—n., v., -chised, -chis•ing.

—n.
1. a privilege of a public nature conferred on an individual, group, or company by a government: a franchise to operate a bus system.
2. the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.
3. a store, restaurant, or other business operating under such a license.
4. the territory over which such a license extends.
5. the right to vote: to guarantee the franchise of every citizen.
6. a privilege arising from the grant of a sovereign or government, or from prescription, which presupposes a grant.
7. Sports Slang.a player of great talent or popular appeal, considered vitally important to a team's success or future.
8. a legal immunity or exemption from a particular burden, exaction, or the like.
9. Obs.freedom, esp. from imprisonment, servitude, or moral restraint


I knew what i ment! its just a shame your iggnorence shines better!

Can'tseeme

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Have a chat with Tarzan about that one; I'm surprised that you didn't contradict his post immediately instead of leaving it until now.

When he [Tarzan] said the IRA rejected it - how do we know ? You said that they had no "say", but did they do anything to show that rejection ?

Is there a chance that whatever they did might have caused the Unionists to "bring it down" ?

Just asking.

The IRA were in the middle of the conflict with the British. They neither wanted to or were wanted to, be involved in negotiations. The rejection of Unionism was the involvement of the SDLP and any opposed influence from the south.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/uwc/chr.htm#2

IIMII

Joey the lips wrote: »

fran•chise



Pronunciation: (fran'chīz), [key]
—n., v., -chised, -chis•ing.

—n.
1. a privilege of a public nature conferred on an individual, group, or company by a government: a franchise to operate a bus system.
2. the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.
3. a store, restaurant, or other business operating under such a license.
4. the territory over which such a license extends.
5. the right to vote: to guarantee the franchise of every citizen.
6. a privilege arising from the grant of a sovereign or government, or from prescription, which presupposes a grant.
7. Sports Slang.a player of great talent or popular appeal, considered vitally important to a team's success or future.
8. a legal immunity or exemption from a particular burden, exaction, or the like.
9. Obs.freedom, esp. from imprisonment, servitude, or moral restraint


I knew what i ment! its just a shame your iggnorence shines better!

Unfortunately, he's going to get you on grammar Joey! But the point stands

Can'tseeme

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not intended as such, and since you bolded the full phrase you'll know that I said "along [those] lines"; i.e. they had the SDLP and other non-violence-aligned parties and rejected them.

The SDLP lost out for a number of reasons. Lack of leadership after John Hume, party members defected to Sinn Fein after Mark Durkan took over. Alot of nationalists became angered by the SDLP due to their support over the years for the RUC, to then find out the depths of loyalist collusion. Lack of work on the ground, etc.

Sinn Fein had clear direction, were standing there grounds on nationalist issues and actively promoted irish unity.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Look, as I said, the North chose their own. I don't care whether they're in office in the North or not, as long as no-one innocent is getting killed.

They choose who they want to govern them; they - both sides chose people who were previously [recently] associated with violence and murder.

In the North, neither "side" has the high moral ground - they've both done it.

"Down here", we choose who we want to govern us. We seem to choose people associated with corruption, incompetence and greed, but hopefully that'll change starting today.

Ideally, we'll get a few people in who'll support law and order, be it condemning murders or condemning corruption and wastage.

There was more than two sides complicit in the conflict. The British and Irish governments got their hands dirty too.

I would just llike to get to a point of discussing Sinn Fein policy rather than we constantly, on these boards cover the same old ground. They're the third largest party in Ireland. Whether people like it or not they're an established party.

kmick

Joey the lips wrote: »

fran•chise
5. the right to vote: to guarantee the franchise of every citizen.
I knew what i ment! its just a shame your iggnorence shines better!

So now you are saying Sinn Fein through their hard work got the poor and downtrodden the right to vote in the 32 counties? By my reckoning they already had that power in both North and South. You dont even understand the words you are posting.

I would assume to put words in your mouth but wherever you picked up those bullet points from I took the meaning to be they moved people from a place where they felt disenfranchised with the political system to a place where they felt enfranchised i.e. they felt their voice was being heard.

BTW I dont care about your grammer.

Tim Robbins

Can'tseeme wrote: »

The SDLP were asking people to support the police back then as well. Looking at what we now know, how wrong they were.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. The SDLP never supported any police brutality or sectarinism or violence of any sort.

Liam Byrne

Can'tseeme wrote: »

I would just llike to get to a point of discussing Sinn Fein policy.

But "not condemning past atrocities [at least those done by the IRA]" IS one of their policies!

Can'tseeme

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. The SDLP never supported any police brutality or sectarinism or violence of any sort.

God almighty.....I'm not saying they supported police brutality. I'm saying, they never challenged the police, they never investigated the suspicions of what the police were up to, they gave them a by ball and asked nationalists to support the RUC at that time. Now, from what we've learnt about the RUC has left nationalists questioning why the sdlp never did anything when they were the largest nationalist party. That's not just me saying thjat , people who left the party were saying the same. They weren't strong enough when challenging the RUC

Can'tseeme

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But "not condemning past atrocities [at least those done by the IRA]" IS one of their policies!

Yes, incidents that happened during the conflict, before the ceasefire they won't. It's definitely a sticking point with you Liam!:P

conchubhar1

well when you put it in context of fianna fáil getting re elected and that most people only vote for who their parents always did etc...

i cant believe the dup went into government with them but most of the republic still despise them

DeVore

http://devore.journals.ie/2005/08/16/i-went-all-day-yesterday-without-killing-anyone/

I dont see any reason to *like* them particularly. I disagree with their Marxist based approach and I believe they are capable of quite a bit of dirty tricks, thats my belief.


DeV.

chopperbyrne

Sinn Féin are much better on local level than they are on a national level.

They really need a party leader who is completely seperate from politics in Northern Ireland if they want to be taken more seriously.

RandomName2

In the Republic SF tends to be bad news on every level. However (and somewhat bizarely) they were the only party to oppose Lisbon - I don't know if this was quite good or bad; it allowed the government to brandish all opposition to Lisbon as socialists and extremists, but at least it gave over a quarter of the electorate some political representation.

ilkhanid

Sorry if I'm retreading old ground, but to sum up, it seems to me that Sinn Fein have several problems.

Yes, the strong whiff of cordite that still comes off them. The leadership talks as if the "armed struggle" was an unfortunate thing that happened long, long ago. But, as has been pointed out above, they still sell "IRA:undefeated army" T-shirts in their shops. The IRA ceasefire is years old now,but violence (The Northern Bank robbery is only one example) that could be connected to the IRA continued for years afterwards, which left a bad taste in the mouth of many people in the South, and threw a bad light on the denials and evasions of the SF leadership on these matters. In fact, quite recently in some areas, there still seemed to be murky, embarrassing matters rumbling on such as the Ester Uzell business in Dublin. These clouds will hang over them for years.
The influence of the Northern leadership in the party. Many feel that they don't quite 'get' the way things are done in the South and are ignorant in Southern matters. Also, the suspicious record of said leadership on matters like the bank robbery, the 'Colombia Three' etc.not to mention Robert McCartney.
Their ignorance of real-world economics is a big factor. Their policies until relatively recently seemed to be a crude, unreconstructed ('tax the rich','public ownership' etc) old-style socialism. They have been trying to remedy this, but their attempts seem unconvincing to many.
Their anti-european stance. Yes, they caught the public mood on Lisbon, but even a stopped clock tells the time once, and their stance on europe has been sceptical for not years but decades and whiffs of old-fashioned nationalism, or "little-Irelandism",reminiscent if anything of the UKIP.
Their whole stance is a compound of nationalism and old leftism. To this has been added a strong degree of "right-on" thinking, a hectoring political correctness. This and the leftism are a relic of their old associations,the old 'anti-imperialistic' and anti-American stance which had them swimming with the Basques, Cubans, Palestinians,ANC etc.These days this kind of thing looks more and more like an indulgence which, however it played at the Andersonstown festival, does them no favours in the Republic.
QUOTE "Look at the 'fact-finding' missions to Colombia, Palestine and Cuba for examplt?"
Indeed, these impress very few these days.
Of course in later days, they has no problems with toning down this rhetoric when visiting the USA and meeting members of American administrations, which smacked to many of opportunism.
Their outraged attitudes on FF corruption might raise the eyebrows of people aware of diesel smuggling and other activities perpetrated by people formerly associated with SinnFein/IRA. So they come across as hypocritical as well.

anonymous_joe

It's the economy, stupid.

When talking about politics, 'do you know where the bodies are buried?' is usually a euphenism for corruption. The whole PIRA thing is very unsettling. But it's not the real reason;

Sinn Féin are economically naive. In fact, that's not true. They're economically retarded. I would rather have my dog in charge of the Ministry of Finance than a Sinn Féin member, because at least the dog wouldn't try and change things.

They are a party that's anti-business, anti-Europe and socialist. Now I don't disagree with socialism, I think more should be done for everyone in society, but that means everyone. Sinn Féin's ideologies seem based on taking away from hardworking wealthy people and giving it to the rest.

I live in Dublin South East and in the last general election I barely saw any sign of them canvassing outside of Ringsend or Irishtown. Now I'm sorry, but down South a party has to represent everyone. That's not something I can accept.

Nodin

ilkhanid wrote: »

This and the leftism are a relic of their old associations,the old 'anti-imperialistic' and anti-American stance which had them swimming with the Basques, Cubans, Palestinians,ANC etc.These days this kind of thing looks more and more like an indulgence which, however it played at the Andersonstown festival, does them no favours in the Republic.

Jesus forbid someone start thinking outside barriers of religon language and skin colour for once......

ilkhanid

Nodin wrote: »

Jesus forbid someone start thinking outside barriers of religon language and skin colour for once......

The point is these contacts were often windy rhetoric, made either to get material aid or to associate SF/IRA with causes (like the ANC and the palestinians) with more sympathy and international credibility than they had. But hanging out with discredited goons like FARC or ETA did them no favours and they have carefully backed away from these....especially since 9/11. But the lack of judgement,ambiguity and opportunism of these past associations does not go un-noticed with the electorate they hope to win over in the South.

conchubhar1

anonymous_joe wrote: »

It's the economy, stupid.

When talking about politics, 'do you know where the bodies are buried?' is usually a euphenism for corruption. The whole PIRA thing is very unsettling. But it's not the real reason;

Sinn Féin are economically naive. In fact, that's not true. They're economically retarded. I would rather have my dog in charge of the Ministry of Finance than a Sinn Féin member, because at least the dog wouldn't try and change things.

They are a party that's anti-business, anti-Europe and socialist. Now I don't disagree with socialism, I think more should be done for everyone in society, but that means everyone. Sinn Féin's ideologies seem based on taking away from hardworking wealthy people and giving it to the rest.

I live in Dublin South East and in the last general election I barely saw any sign of them canvassing outside of Ringsend or Irishtown. Now I'm sorry, but down South a party has to represent everyone. That's not something I can accept.

ah your point about their economic policies make sense now

Nodin

ilkhanid wrote: »

The point is these contacts were often windy rhetoric, made either to get material aid or to associate SF/IRA with causes (like the ANC and the palestinians) with more sympathy and international credibility than they had

I don't agree with that conclusion. Some of us do look beyond our own doorstep.

briktop

as i said before , a party of knackbags , and scummers who used to murder people , are a dirty word

Scofflaw

briktop wrote: »

as i said before , a party of knackbags , and scummers who used to murder people , are a dirty word

And as I've said before on these kind of threads, I'm not interested in that kind of flamebait post. That's the second time you've done it. The next time you do it I'll ban you - same goes for anyone else posting this kind of stuff, or responding to it in the same style.

moderately,
Scofflaw