SINN FEIN Can Have it both ways on Policing.

DoireNod

lugha wrote: »

That may not necessarily be true. It is unlikely that any party will reflect your political outlook entirely. You simply vote for whoever comes closest.
After all, all the main political parties in the republic support Irish reunification but it is clear that there is a sizable minority of people here who do not, but who out of necessity, vote for one of these parties.

Out of necessity? What do you mean?

K-9 wrote: »

Ach, that's a very close minded way of looking at it. Sure Hendron had Unionist votes to help him beat Adams, hardly supporters of a United Ireland now.

Really, your argument would have more credence if there were more options on both sides of the divide. There are only 2 Nationalist party options, with a few fringe groups.


An SDLP voter who would be at ease with a devolved assembly and not that pushed on Reunification, could vote SF just to keep a Nationalist seat. You just assume he wants a United Ireland.

I understand both your points completely lugha and K-9, but it remains true that by giving your vote to a party that espouses Irish unity, you are automatically favouring Irish unity, regardless of the motive behind the vote. However, as I've said, these voters may vote differently when it comes to a referendum.

dlofnep

POINTBREAK wrote: »

I am giving evidence that supports my view. It looks like you are dismissing it because you don't like it. I've given links to polls and a different interpretation to your assertation that 42% favour a UI based on election results.

I've also provided figures which have demonstrated a large increase in support for nationalist parties, which has continuously increased for the past 2 or 3 decades. You feel that you can counter the reality of that, by someone providing a poll which does not provide the location of those who were polled.

I've explained to you why it's crucial to have such information, given the polar opposite views in the north. I don't find the poll to be an accurate representation of the demographics. I'm not dismissing your evidence. I'm using quantifiable figures that show a sharp increase in support for nationalist parties, opposed to unaccountable polling figures.

Your argument was that they are voting for SF/SDLP to put it to the Unionists. I then subsequently asked why they would want to put it to the Unionists, if they favour the Union. I also added that there were alternatives for these people if they didn't want to vote for the DUP/UUP/TUV - like the Alliance Party, but yet they vote for categoric Nationalist parties.

K-9

dlofnep wrote: »

I've also provided figures which have demonstrated a large increase in support for nationalist parties, which has continuously increased for the past 2 or 3 decades. You feel that you can counter the reality of that, by someone providing a poll which does not provide the location of those who were polled.

I've explained to you why it's crucial to have such information, given the polar opposite views in the north. I don't find the poll to be an accurate representation of the demographics. I'm not dismissing your evidence. I'm using quantifiable figures that show a sharp increase in support for nationalist parties, opposed to unaccountable polling figures.

Your argument was that they are voting for SF/SDLP to put it to the Unionists. I then subsequently asked why they would want to put it to the Unionists, if they favour the Union. I also added that there were alternatives for these people if they didn't want to vote for the DUP/UUP/TUV - like the Alliance Party, but yet they vote for categoric Nationalist parties.

Yes, but that ignores the divide that is there. Personally I think there is more chance of somebody who is ambivalent about Reunification voting for the SDLP or even SF, than an Unionist party or even Alliance.

You seem to be saying that unless that person votes for an Unionist party or Alliance, they automatically should be counted as wanting Reunification.

dlofnep

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but that ignores the divide that is there. Personally I think there is more chance of somebody who is ambivalent about Reunification voting for the SDLP or even SF, than an Unionist party or even Alliance.

You seem to be saying that unless that person votes for an Unionist party or Alliance, they automatically should be counted as wanting Reunification.

I'm sure there might be a small percentage of people who might prefer an alternative, such as an independent north as a sole country. But whatever that percentage might be, it's no different than the percentage of people who vote for unionist parties that wouldn't be opposed to the idea of Irish unification. It's the double standards what I'm addressing. Everyone who votes for a Unionist party must be against Irish unification, but if someone votes for a Nationalist party - they have a good chance of not wanting unification. Surely you see the hypocrisy here?

K-9

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm sure there might be a small percentage of people who might prefer an alternative, such as an independent north as a sole country. But whatever that percentage might be, it's no different than the percentage of people who vote for unionist parties that wouldn't be opposed to the idea of Irish unification. It's the double standards what I'm addressing. Everyone who votes for a Unionist party must be against Irish unification, but if someone votes for a Nationalist party - they have a good chance of not wanting unification. Surely you see the hypocrisy here?

Not really.

Surely the equivalent of a vote for a Unionist party, yet being ok with Reunification, is a vote for a Nationalist party, yet being ok with direct rule?

I see the options as more Reunification, Devolved/Independent state and direct rule.

dlofnep

K-9 wrote: »

Surely the equivalent of a vote for a Unionist party, yet being ok with Reunification, is a vote for a Nationalist party, yet being ok with direct rule?

But that is what was suggested - that someone who votes for Nationalist parties were against Irish Unification. I countered that those who support Unionist parties might not be against Irish unification. So yes, there is a level of hypocrisy there. The poster was quick to point out that he was in the know of some nationalists that were against Irish unification, but never bothered to address the reality that these could be countered by moderate unionists who do not object to unification.

Having spoken to some moderate Unionists, I'm under the impression that many of them (I could substantiate how much of a portion this is obviously) - aren't actually all that against Irish unification, but grew up in a Unionist area, and just went with the swing of things.

K-9

dlofnep wrote: »

But that is what was suggested - that someone who votes for Nationalist parties were against Irish Unification. I countered that those who support Unionist parties might not be against Irish unification. So yes, there is a level of hypocrisy there. The poster was quick to point out that he was in the know of some nationalists that were against Irish unification, but never bothered to address the reality that these could be countered by moderate unionists who do not object to unification.

Having spoken to some moderate Unionists, I'm under the impression that many of them (I could substantiate how much of a portion this is obviously) - aren't actually all that against Irish unification, but grew up in a Unionist area, and just went with the swing of things.

There is a difference though.

If it comes to a vote, people will be voting on Reunification or retaining the devolved Assembly.

So somebody not that pushed on Reunification will weight the 2 options up and vote, same with the "Unionist" voter.

Personally, I'd say the majority of both those sections of voters will stick with the devolved assembly. They don't have an emotional attachment to Reunification.

POINTBREAK

K-9 wrote: »

There is a difference though.

If it comes to a vote, people will be voting on Reunification or retaining the devolved Assembly.

So somebody not that pushed on Reunification will weight the 2 options up and vote, same with the "Unionist" voter.

Personally, I'd say the majority of both those sections of voters will stick with the devolved assembly. They don't have an emotional attachment to Reunification.

People who don't have any strong opinion don't usually go for change, so I see what you mean.

dlofnep

K-9 wrote: »

There is a difference though.

If it comes to a vote, people will be voting on Reunification or retaining the devolved Assembly.

Providing the assembly actually survives. I think you'll find that nationalists don't want devolution as a permanent fix - they aspire for unification. It will still come down to being apart of an independent Ireland, or a crown dependency. This is key. A devolved assembly just isn't enough, as we've seen in Scotland.

K-9 wrote: »

So somebody not that pushed on Reunification will weight the 2 options up and vote, same with the "Unionist" voter.

Personally, I'd say the majority of both those sections of voters will stick with the devolved assembly. They don't have an emotional attachment to Reunification.

Well, all nationalists are pushed on reunification - otherwise they wouldn't be nationalists. What you are really referring to is the swing vote. Time will tell. Until then, it's purely speculative.

lugha

DoireNod wrote: »

Out of necessity? What do you mean?

If you want to take part in the democratic process you have to vote for someone. And it is rather unlikely that any one political party will have policies that suit exactly so you have to go with whoever comes closest.
And while the big three here all nominally are pro-unification I wouldn't be so sure that many of their votes are earned for that reason. If a UI is a big deal for someone, they will be voting Sinn Fein.

POINTBREAK

lugha wrote: »

If you want to take part in the democratic process you have to vote for someone. And it is rather unlikely that any one political party will have policies that suit exactly so you have to go with whoever comes closest.
And while the big three here all nominally are pro-unification I wouldn't be so sure that many of their votes are earned for that reason. If a UI is a big deal for someone, they will be voting Sinn Fein.

Thats exactly how I see it. I mean how interested can you be in a UI if you wont bother getting off your ass ONCE every 4 or 5 YEARS to vote for one of the parties who support it?

dlofnep

POINTBREAK wrote: »

Thats exactly how I see it. I mean how interested can you be in a UI if you wont bother getting off your ass ONCE every 4 or 5 YEARS to vote for one of the parties who support it?

All parties state that they actively support Irish Unity. Having spoken to many Fianna Fail supporters, they have always demonstrated support for Irish Unity. The same with many in the Labour party.

People vote for Sinn Féin for a number of reasons. Their consistent affirmation for the goal of a 32 county Republic is one of them - but many support Sinn Féin because their councillors work hard in working class communities.

If you believe that everyone who aspires to see Irish Unity only comes in the form of Sinn Féin supporters, you're severely misguided. When the time comes - I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the people in the south would vote in favour of Irish Unity.

POINTBREAK

dlofnep wrote: »

If you believe that everyone who aspires to see Irish Unity only comes in the form of Sinn Féin supporters, you're severely misguided. When the time comes - I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the people in the south would vote in favour of Irish Unity.

Good one, I asked about opinion in ROI and accepted what you said that 80% would support it. I am talking about the situation in the North, SF and the SDLP who are the only two relevant unity parties. Their vote and the Polls, plus the fact that if you do support UI in NI you would make the tiny effort to support one of the parties that supports your goal.

dlofnep

I was under the impression that the poster was referring to FF and the likes in the south. I misread their post.

KeithAFC

Sinn Fein are just going to have to live with the Orange Order and accept them. They are going nowhere and neither are the unionists. And too right they are. No surrender.

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

Sinn Fein are just going to have to live with the Orange Order and accept them. They are going nowhere and neither are the unionists. And too right they are. No surrender.

We will gladly accept Unionists into a 32 county Irish Republic as equals. Can't say the same about how nationalists were treated under an Orange state however.

FlutterinBantam

As they said on the radio tonight.

"The backwoodsmen are still with us"

GuanYin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

As they said on the radio tonight.

"The backwoodsmen are still with us"

The rules about starting threads with media source quotes and no opinion extends to all posts.

Please explain and elaborate.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

We will gladly accept Unionists into a 32 county Irish Republic as equals. Can't say the same about how nationalists were treated under an Orange state however.

Im sure that would happen..

:rolleyes:

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

Im sure that would happen..

:rolleyes:

Of course it would. The vast majority of people in the south have no ill-will towards Unionists. We certainly wouldn't have created an instance where unionists were given lesser civil liberties, and we would not have gerrymandered with votes.

What makes you think otherwise?

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

The vast majority of people in the south have no ill-will towards Unionists.

I'd say you gotta be kidding but I don't think you are. Granted it is kept below the surface most of the time but you only have to barely scratch said surface to see the wide spread hostility to all things Unionist in the South. I have never heard any more than isolated voices (in the main in Independent newspapers) ever make sympathetic soundings for any Unionist cause.
A united Ireland if and when it comes will be achieved not by persuasion but by coercion. Unionist will be welcome at the party only if they become Nationalists of a kind. (How would they even be called Unionists any more?). It is about defeating the Unionists. You might at least be honest enough to admit that.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

I'd say you gotta be kidding but I don't think you are.

I'm not kidding. Most people don't care about Unionists. Outside of a few scummers - nobody would ever hold anything against them. I certainly don't, and I've had some of my most interesting conversations with Unionists. Keeps you on your toes!

lugha wrote: »

A united Ireland if and when it comes will be achieved not by persuasion but by coercion. Unionist will be welcome at the party only if they become Nationalists of a kind. (How would they even be called Unionists any more?). It is about defeating the Unionists. You might at least be honest enough to admit that.

It certainly won't be under duress, like how the country was partitioned. If the nationalist vote continues to increase, it will be under democratic principles as defined in the GFA.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

It certainly won't be under duress, like how the country was partitioned. If the nationalist vote continues to increase, it will be under democratic principles as defined in the GFA.

But is there any discussion in Republican circles about what concessions might be made to Unionists? Would it be countenanced that the Queen might be a second or pseudo head of state to appease them? Will a union jack in the corner of the tricolor be conceded? Will they be afforded the opportunity to assert their identity as British within a new united Ireland, as the citizens of Northern Ireland currently are under British rule? I suspect the answers are no, no and again no. No doubt it will be done with more subtly that the Unionists did in the 1960s but it seems to me that it will be again the case that the larger community will essentially dictate how things will be, and the minority can take it or leave it.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

We will gladly accept Unionists into a 32 county Irish Republic as equals. Can't say the same about how nationalists were treated under an Orange state however.

dlofnep wrote: »

Of course it would. The vast majority of people in the south have no ill-will towards Unionists. We certainly wouldn't have created an instance where unionists were given lesser civil liberties, and we would not have gerrymandered with votes.

What makes you think otherwise?

Because you just have to look at the dublin rioters who were a disgrace that day by tipping cars over, breaking shop windows, throwing stones etc. All because of bands parading.

So the feeling down south is clearly not 'bothered' which is what you are trying to say.

But unionists in general in the north will never surrender.

POINTBREAK

KeithAFC wrote: »

Because you just have to look at the dublin rioters who were a disgrace that day by tipping cars over, breaking shop windows, throwing stones etc. All because of bands parading.

So the feeling down south is clearly not 'bothered' which is what you are trying to say.

But unionists in general in the north will never surrender.

I don't think that is a particularly good example. That element exists on all sides and probably always will. I know Unionists and Nationalists who do nothing but spend the day goading each other on the internet playing some bizarre game that involves constantly bringing up an atrocity that the other side carried out. I remember one that went back to the 1600's. Thankfully there are less and less of them, because all they do is perpetuate the problem.
The problem we have at the minute is because two parties were elected on the unwritten understanding that they could deliver their supporters and work together. Both failed. They are now doing everything they can to cling on to power and avoid an election.

POINTBREAK

KeithAFC wrote: »

Sinn Fein are just going to have to live with the Orange Order and accept them. They are going nowhere and neither are the unionists. And too right they are. No surrender.

The Orange Order need to decide what their role is in society in NI. If they want to be political they should declare it. 37 of the 108 MLA's are members, thats 75% of all Unionist MLA's. By the way if the Orange Order could be compelled to abide by their own rules there would not be any problems about marches.

"We proclaim "Civil and religious liberty for all : special privileges for none". We do not deny to others their civil and religious liberties; we expect the same tolerance from them. We shall be strong for truth, for peace, for the making of a good, fair and just society to which we shall contribute liberally as good citizens. "

"that every effort is made to make our country happy, prosperous and outward looking, a good place for everyone who lives there."

They obviously don't bother with their own rule book.

http://www.grandorangelodge.co.uk/parades/orangeism_stand.html

KeithAFC

POINTBREAK wrote: »

The Orange Order need to decide what their role is in society in NI. If they want to be political they should declare it. 37 of the 108 MLA's are members, thats 75% of all Unionist MLA's. By the way if the Orange Order could be compelled to abide by their own rules there would not be any problems about marches.

"We proclaim "Civil and religious liberty for all : special privileges for none". We do not deny to others their civil and religious liberties; we expect the same tolerance from them. We shall be strong for truth, for peace, for the making of a good, fair and just society to which we shall contribute liberally as good citizens. "

"that every effort is made to make our country happy, prosperous and outward looking, a good place for everyone who lives there."

They obviously don't bother with their own rule book.

http://www.grandorangelodge.co.uk/parades/orangeism_stand.html

There is nothing wrong with the Orange Order wanting to parade in their country. They have been doing it for hundreds of years. You know there was a time when catholics and protestants celebrated the 12th july openly on the streets side by side as it was seen as a day out and some actual good music (if you look at it from a musician point of view, some quality stuff). The the troubles etc changed all that...

Shame really. Would be nice to get back to those times again.

POINTBREAK

What you say is partly true but there has also been trouble at Orange Parades since 1824. It would be great if everyone enjoyed it as a day out, but in reality they don't. The behavoir of the Orangemen with their sectarian chanting and gesturing 5 after the murders in the bookies at Oreamu Rd was disgraceful.
A large number of people see the parades as nothing more than anti cathilic coat trailing and nose rubbing.
Tradition, or because they have done it for hundreds of years does not make it right. As an extreme example of what I mean, slavery was tradional for thousands of years.

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

Because you just have to look at the dublin rioters who were a disgrace that day by tipping cars over, breaking shop windows, throwing stones etc. All because of bands parading.

Those bunch of wasters don't represent the popular opinion in the south. They would kick up a fuss, no matter what the cause if they had a chance.

KeithAFC wrote: »

So the feeling down south is clearly not 'bothered' which is what you are trying to say.

In fairness - people aren't bothered about Unionists. You're using an extreme example, of a bunch of thugs who retaliated to another idiot in Willie Frazier - who he himself supported loyalist terrorists.

Could you imagine if a group from Dublin organised a march for shankill road? As if the same wouldn't occur there.

KeithAFC wrote: »

But unionists in general in the north will never surrender.

Never surrender to what? You're going to have to explain this to me. Surrender to reunification of Ireland that was partitioned without the will of the people? Surrender to the possibility of the people democratically opting to end partition in the future?

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with the Orange Order wanting to parade in their country. They have been doing it for hundreds of years.

There is a problem when they intimidate the local population, and harass them. The Orange Order are a bunch of bigots. They want to march through nationalist areas, just to put to it them. It isn't about marching - it's about trying to establish themselves as a superior social class. We all know the types of people that the Orange Order attracts.