Sinn Féin-A responsible thread for adults.

bluesteel

SVI40 wrote: »

I do wonder then they, and all the other political parties, realise there is no letter v in the Irish alphabet?

Vótáil doesn't seem like the imperative either...
All the Tá and Níl seemed ungrammatical too, as does "Seas suas d'Éireann"

surely it should be "Caith Vóta as son/i gcoinne"

RMD

bluesteel wrote: »

Vótáil doesn't seem like the imperative either...
All the Tá and Níl seemed ungrammatical too, as does "Seas suas d'Éireann"

surely it should be "Caith Vóta as son/i gcoinne"

Without intending to sound snobby / elitist as a whole the demographic SF appeal aren't the most "educated". Simple slogans which are heavily simplified / Anglicized appeal to a larger range in comparison to correct grammar and word choice leading to less people understanding it.

celtictiger32

Laminations wrote: »

You can't have it like that.

Criticism of party- acceptable
Criticism of policies -acceptable
Criticism of party members - not acceptable (because they have all this baggage that you want us to forget because of the GFA.

Simple. If you don't want to be pulled up on your links with PIRA then clean house. No one criticises Pearse Doherty or Mary Lou on their shady past because they are new blood. SF needs new blood just like FF needs new blood. Will that make me like them? Probably not (for the reasons I've given in the many FF renewal threads).

As for respect. Election does not bring with it respect. I don't respect Lowry, I never respected Jackie Healy-Rae, Cooper-Flynn, Bertie. To demand respect just because you are polling well with the working class is a bit premature. You get respect from your record, conduct and policies. While I disagree with a lot of what Pearse Doherty says I think he is a good politician, he is about all I respect in SF.

no one criticises pearse doherty or mary lou?

junder wrote: »

In terms of northern Ireland, how does in benefit irish passport holders, the irish president has no jurisdiction In northern Ireland so it makes not a jot of difference to their life's, only group that stands to benefit is sinn fein who would finally have a chance at the symbolic job of president

of course it does, people in the north more often than not consider themselves irish, so the irish president is their president

RMD wrote: »

Without intending to sound snobby / elitist as a whole the demographic SF appeal aren't the most "educated". Simple slogans which are heavily simplified / Anglicized appeal to a larger range in comparison to correct grammar and word choice leading to less people understanding it.

didnt work you did sound snobby/elitist

VinLieger

celtictiger32 wrote: »

no one criticises pearse doherty or mary lou?

Nobody criticises them for involvment in the troubles or less than legal activities that more than a few memebers of SF are implicated in

celtictiger32 wrote: »

of course it does, people in the north more often than not consider themselves irish, so the irish president is their president

Yeah except they arent and he isnt so kind of a useless point there

celtictiger32 wrote: »

didnt work you did sound snobby/elitist

Still doesnt mean hes wrong, the vast majority of SF supporters are working class or part of the less well educated groups of society, its most likely because SF consistently reduce any political points they make to incredibly simple jargon that ends up usually missleading these people into thinking everything in politics can be boiled down to a simple yes or no argument. Nothing is as simple as a yes or no argument as there is always multiple points of view that need to be taken on board and heard for everything in politics.
Its also a case of SF like to tell these people exactly what they want to hear which is why they are polling so well, since they dont have to make any hard decisions regarding who does and doesnt get money etc and because of this they can always take the more popular side of anything they want which no government is ever able to do specifically this one thanks to the god awful situation we are in.

junder

celtictiger32 wrote: »

Laminations wrote: »

You can't have it like that.

Criticism of party- acceptable
Criticism of policies -acceptable
Criticism of party members - not acceptable (because they have all this baggage that you want us to forget because of the GFA.

Simple. If you don't want to be pulled up on your links with PIRA then clean house. No one criticises Pearse Doherty or Mary Lou on their shady past because they are new blood. SF needs new blood just like FF needs new blood. Will that make me like them? Probably not (for the reasons I've given in the many FF renewal threads).

As for respect. Election does not bring with it respect. I don't respect Lowry, I never respected Jackie Healy-Rae, Cooper-Flynn, Bertie. To demand respect just because you are polling well with the working class is a bit premature. You get respect from your record, conduct and policies. While I disagree with a lot of what Pearse Doherty says I think he is a good politician, he is about all I respect in SF.

no one criticises pearse doherty or mary lou?

junder wrote: »

In terms of northern Ireland, how does in benefit irish passport holders, the irish president has no jurisdiction In northern Ireland so it makes not a jot of difference to their life's, only group that stands to benefit is sinn fein who would finally have a chance at the symbolic job of president

of course it does, people in the north more often than not consider themselves irish, so the irish president is their president

RMD wrote: »

Without intending to sound snobby / elitist as a whole the demographic SF appeal aren't the most "educated". Simple slogans which are heavily simplified / Anglicized appeal to a larger range in comparison to correct grammar and word choice leading to less people understanding it.

didnt work you did sound snobby/elitist

Still dies not explain how it benefits Irish passport holders in northern Ireland since the Irish president has no jurisdiction here, might as well vote for the president of the moon for all the difference it makes. Moreover with such a drop in support for a united Ireland is it really just as close to a united Ireland As sinn fein are going to get

Only 7pc of voters in Northern Ireland would vote for a united Ireland this year.

And, according to a new poll, even when asked if they would vote to remove the Border in 20 years' time, the figure increases only to 32pc.

Significantly, the proportion of the Catholic population that favours unity now or in 20 years is also a minority -- just 48pc.

People in the North were asked: "If a Border referendum was held within the next year how would you vote?" They were given the options "Yes", "Yes, in 20 years", "No, keep Northern Ireland" and "No opinion".

This allowed the pollsters to distinguish support for unity as an immediate political priority and as a longer-term ideal.

Protestants were overwhelmingly against Irish unity, but the Catholic population was more divided.

Just 7pc of Catholics would vote for it now and a further 41pc would opt for it in 20 years' time, 48pc in all.

The proportion of Catholics offering no opinion on the issue matched the percentage in the population as a whole, 14pc.

This was a low opt-out rate compared with other questions.

If these 'don't knows' are ignored, 63pc of people in Northern Ireland, including 44pc of Catholics, want Northern Ireland to remain a separate entity even after 2032.

Across all social classes and among both men and women, support for removing the Border now is below 14pc.

It is often argued by commentators and politicians that if the Catholic population ever replaces Protestants as the majority, then Irish unity will inevitably follow.

This assumption tribalised local politics for most of Northern Ireland's history.

Sectarian

The new figures indicate that this 'sectarian headcount' model is no longer entirely valid.

Instead, a substantial minority of Catholics, nearly half, and an overwhelming majority of Protestants (96pc) favour the status quo.

The findings come from a major new survey commissioned by the 'Belfast Telegraph' and carried out by polling company LucidTalk.

Another study, published by the Community Relations Council in February, found that Catholics are already the majority population for people under the age of 30.

Despite this, the new survey shows that support for Irish unity is marginally lower in the 18-24-year-old group -- 36pc compared with 37pc in the population as a whole.

- Liam Clarke

Irish Independent

JustinDee

Fenian Army wrote: »

Its not SFs fault that all the other parties abandoned the north is it?

The small matter of the will of the majority of the inhabitants of this island opted for what we have now. Thats what democracy entails. Its a pity certain quarters ignored this and that some still do.

No-one was "abandoned" or caught up in any other melodramatic paint-up scenario.

Laminations

junder wrote: »

Only 7pc of voters in Northern Ireland would vote for a united Ireland this year.

And, according to a new poll, even when asked if they would vote to remove the Border in 20 years' time, the figure increases only to 32pc.

Significantly, the proportion of the Catholic population that favours unity now or in 20 years is also a minority -- just 48pc.

Figures like these don't matter to militant republicans. They claim they represent the minority against an 'oppressive' majority. They don't seem to think they require a mandate ever. And instead of getting off their working class, chavvy funeral attending, balaclava-clad fat arses and trying to make their home (Northern Ireland) a better place, they choose to wave guns around and read hate speeches and blame the Brits for everything, the same Brits that are paying their dole.

celtictiger32

junder wrote: »

Still dies not explain how it benefits Irish passport holders in northern Ireland since the Irish president has no jurisdiction here, might as well vote for the president of the moon for all the difference it makes. Moreover with such a drop in support for a united Ireland is it really just as close to a united Ireland As sinn fein are going to get

Only 7pc of voters in Northern Ireland would vote for a united Ireland this year.

And, according to a new poll, even when asked if they would vote to remove the Border in 20 years' time, the figure increases only to 32pc.

Significantly, the proportion of the Catholic population that favours unity now or in 20 years is also a minority -- just 48pc.

People in the North were asked: "If a Border referendum was held within the next year how would you vote?" They were given the options "Yes", "Yes, in 20 years", "No, keep Northern Ireland" and "No opinion".

This allowed the pollsters to distinguish support for unity as an immediate political priority and as a longer-term ideal.

Protestants were overwhelmingly against Irish unity, but the Catholic population was more divided.

Just 7pc of Catholics would vote for it now and a further 41pc would opt for it in 20 years' time, 48pc in all.

The proportion of Catholics offering no opinion on the issue matched the percentage in the population as a whole, 14pc.

This was a low opt-out rate compared with other questions.

If these 'don't knows' are ignored, 63pc of people in Northern Ireland, including 44pc of Catholics, want Northern Ireland to remain a separate entity even after 2032.

Across all social classes and among both men and women, support for removing the Border now is below 14pc.

It is often argued by commentators and politicians that if the Catholic population ever replaces Protestants as the majority, then Irish unity will inevitably follow.

This assumption tribalised local politics for most of Northern Ireland's history.

Sectarian

The new figures indicate that this 'sectarian headcount' model is no longer entirely valid.

Instead, a substantial minority of Catholics, nearly half, and an overwhelming majority of Protestants (96pc) favour the status quo.

The findings come from a major new survey commissioned by the 'Belfast Telegraph' and carried out by polling company LucidTalk.

Another study, published by the Community Relations Council in February, found that Catholics are already the majority population for people under the age of 30.

Despite this, the new survey shows that support for Irish unity is marginally lower in the 18-24-year-old group -- 36pc compared with 37pc in the population as a whole.

- Liam Clarke

Irish Independent

who held the survey, liam clarke?

Laminations

celtictiger32 wrote: »

who held the survey, liam clarke?

Well, no.

"The findings come from a major new survey commissioned by the 'Belfast Telegraph' and carried out by polling company LucidTalk."


Read the posts you're quoting.

RMD

I'll put money on it Republican posters will try to find some way of discrediting that survey as it doesn't suit their ideology of everyone hoping for an UI. I'd love to see an UI eventually, but if people honestly think that it's overwhelmingly supported by Catholics up north they're living in lalaland. Religion is becoming less paramount up north now that there is peace, a certain religion no longer means a certain political view accompanying it.

Fromthetrees

RMD wrote: »

I'll put money on it Republican posters will try to find some way of discrediting that survey as it doesn't suit their ideology of everyone hoping for an UI. I'd love to see an UI eventually, but if people honestly think that it's overwhelmingly supported by Catholics up north they're living in lalaland. Religion is becoming less paramount up north now that there is peace, a certain religion no longer means a certain political view accompanying it.

Isn't it quite frightening that 7% of the population up north would want a United Ireland now, at this current time your essentially dealing with a literal 'I'd die for Ireland attitude' to unify the country. We'd implode.

I think money matters more to the younger generation up north than the national question both sides of the divide, completely hypothetically (obviously) but say in 20 years time if the UK decided to cut the subsidy completely and the Irish government offered to match it I think there'd be a majority for a UI, have no proof for that though, just my opinion.

golfball37

Why would anyone in NI want to join up with this failed state ffs?

We abandoned them to their Unionist and B Special masters for 50 years, then made them pariahs for supporting the armed resistance to that situation.

In short I am not surprised by that survey and I would consider myself a Republican. I live here and I want nothing to do with this state ffs.

maccored

when are people going to realise a UI is a long term goal that involves more than just the north joining up with the southern government?

Lawrence1895

maccored wrote: »

when are people going to realise a UI is a long term goal that involves more than just the north joining up with the southern government?

Germany's reunification was when? 1990? And there are still two separate states in the minds of many Germans, even if some time went by. That's what can happen, if you rush into things, imo

VinLieger

Lars1916 wrote: »

Germany's reunification was when? 1990? And there are still two separate states in the minds of many Germans, even if some time went by. That's what can happen, if you rush into things, imo

Not sure if you can call the fall of communism "rushing" it

Lawrence1895

VinLieger wrote: »

Not sure if you can call the fall of communism "rushing" it

I was not talking about the fall of communism, which was inevitable. But the way, the people from East Germany had to adapt to the laws, lifestyle, rules, etc. of West Germany came a bit too fast for some of them. I have parts of the family living in the former GDR, and they often told me.

maccored

Lars1916 wrote: »

Germany's reunification was when? 1990? And there are still two separate states in the minds of many Germans, even if some time went by. That's what can happen, if you rush into things, imo

Thats exactly what I mean by long term goal. Many seem to think a UI is basically something that could happen over a few years and basically just mean the north being included with the other 26 counties, but all still run the same way. Thats silly as it wouldnt work and wouldnt improve anything.

Others view a UI as something that would have to develop gradually over a much longer time period and end up with a completely re-invented political and social structure - something ideally that would be better and more economically sound that what either part of the country has at present. To me, that makes sense.

celtictiger32

Lars1916 wrote: »

I was not talking about the fall of communism, which was inevitable. But the way, the people from East Germany had to adapt to the laws, lifestyle, rules, etc. of West Germany came a bit too fast for some of them. I have parts of the family living in the former GDR, and they often told me.

i would have thought that would be a given i.e. same laws, rules etc. im sure when the UI comes about the 6 counties will have our laws and rules. obviuosly there will be an 'integration period' of some sort and things wont happen overnight

fasttalkerchat

Thought it was interesting to hear talk about former GAA stars Peter Canavan and Jarlath Burns becoming more involved in SF, possibly as new MLAs

fasttalkerchat

golfball37 wrote: »

Why would anyone in NI want to join up with this failed state ffs?

We abandoned them to their Unionist and B Special masters for 50 years, then made them pariahs for supporting the armed resistance to that situation.

In short I am not surprised by that survey and I would consider myself a Republican. I live here and I want nothing to do with this state ffs.

Its not about joining the failed state. A new state would have to be created with a new government voted by all the population of Ireland.

Sierra Oscar

SF are gone very quite since the referendum, despite the fact that the Eurozone crisis is deepening. SF have their eyes on the Greek elections this weekend, and are undoubtedly ****ting a brick with the prospect of SYRIZA getting elected - because if that occurs Greece will be booted out of the Eurozone and it is only then that the real suffering for the Greeks would likely come to the forefront.

gerryo777

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

SF have their eyes on the Greek elections this weekend, and are undoubtedly ****ting a brick with the prospect of SYRIZA getting elected - because if that occurs Greece will be booted out of the Eurozone and it is only then that the real suffering for the Greeks would likely come to the forefront.

A lot of presumptions there, all wrong BTW!

Sierra Oscar

gerryo777 wrote: »

A lot of presumptions there, all wrong BTW!

We will wait and see then.

All political parties will be nervous of the outcome in the Greek elections, each for their own reasons.

gerryo777

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

We will wait and see then.

All political parties will be nervous of the outcome in the Greek elections, each for their own reasons.

I think SF are more interested in the suffering they're own electorate are suffering.
The rich in Ireland are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
The divide has never been so great while the rest of us pick up the tab.

The whole of europe is nervous about the greek election, because the amount of power merkel has over the rest of europe has meant nothing has been done to address the fundamentals of the debt problem that will destroy the euro project.

fasttalkerchat

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

SF are gone very quite since the referendum, despite the fact that the Eurozone crisis is deepening. SF have their eyes on the Greek elections this weekend, and are undoubtedly ****ting a brick with the prospect of SYRIZA getting elected - because if that occurs Greece will be booted out of the Eurozone and it is only then that the real suffering for the Greeks would likely come to the forefront.

If Greece are booted out it will show that FG were fools to go to the IMF money lenders and to trust an establishment that will throw you in the gutter when your out of cash.

fasttalkerchat

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

If Greece are booted out it will show that FG were fools to go to the IMF money lenders and to trust an establishment that will throw you in the gutter when your out of cash.

Who else should they have gone to?

Enda would have been better cutting public pay 70% and raising the lower tax rate to 60% overnight :rolleyes:


The IMF have helped Greece alot less than the EU have and they get it thrown back in there face, in the form of non implementation of reforms.

fasttalkerchat

Gary Ashy Hedgehog wrote: »

Who else should they have gone to?

Enda would have been better cutting public pay 70% and raising the lower tax rate to 60% overnight :rolleyes:


The IMF have helped Greece alot less than the EU have and they get it thrown back in there face, in the form of non implementation of reforms.

The IMF gave money on terms that meant it would be repayed by the working people. I don't mean the working class but by people of all backgrounds who work for a living. The bankers and corporations were to be protected.

Without the IMF everyone would have shared the hit.

fasttalkerchat

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The IMF gave money on terms that meant it would be repayed by the working people. I don't mean the working class but by people of all backgrounds who work for a living. The bankers and corporations were to be protected.

Without the IMF everyone would have shared the hit.

This is the crap that's always trotted out.
Forget the bank debt, Ireland problem is one where we spend more than we make. i.e we pay people in the public sector too much. The IMF and EU are lending us money to pay the wages of our public sector, alongside re paying this bank debt.

The bank debt is insignificant when compared with compounded debt that we incur as a country, that will be cleared within 15 years. The main problem that's constantly ignored by sinn fein and the socialists is that Ireland's future is ****ed because of our own making as a people. Constantly electing politicians who buy votes by increasing pay for ps workers and making marginal tax cuts for the masses.

Fine Gael had no choice others than to take the bailout, he could have told the bondholders and eu to piss off that we wouldn't pay it, what do you think then, they would lend us money to pay our state debts?

fasttalkerchat

Gary Ashy Hedgehog wrote: »

This is the crap that's always trotted out.
Forget the bank debt, Ireland problem is one where we spend more than we make. i.e we pay people in the public sector too much. The IMF and EU are lending us money to pay the wages of our public sector, alongside re paying this bank debt.

The bank debt is insignificant when compared with compounded debt that we incur as a country, that will be cleared within 15 years. The main problem that's constantly ignored by sinn fein and the socialists is that Ireland's future is ****ed because of our own making as a people. Constantly electing politicians who buy votes by increasing pay for ps workers and making marginal tax cuts for the masses.

Fine Gael had no choice others than to take the bailout, he could have told the bondholders and eu to piss off that we wouldn't pay it, what do you think then, they would lend us money to pay our state debts?

Realign the public sector to reduce the yearly deficit and a better deal would have been offered. We would also be in a better position to renegotiate repayments or to tell them to eff off as needs be.

the_syco

VinLieger wrote: »

Its also a case of SF like to tell these people exactly what they want to hear which is why they are polling so well, since they dont have to make any hard decisions regarding who does and doesnt get money etc and because of this they can always take the more popular side of anything they want which no government is ever able to do specifically this one thanks to the god awful situation we are in.

This won't change until they're in office, but by then we'll really be up sh|t creek.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Realign the public sector to reduce the yearly deficit and a better deal would have been offered. We would also be in a better position to renegotiate repayments or to tell them to eff off as needs be.

If we tell them to eff off, we won't have the money to pay the nurses, the gardai, or the dole money.

Actually, if we cut the dole by 50% (or more), would we go from being in the red, to being in the black?

gerryo777

the_syco wrote: »

This won't change until they're in office, but by then we'll really be up sh|t creek.



If we tell them to eff off, we won't have the money to pay the nurses, the gardai, or the dole money.

Actually, if we cut the dole by 50% (or more), would we go from being in the red, to being in the black?

Why don't we use benchmarking anymore?
Benchmark PS wages to the same private sector employees wage.

The sacred cow that is the CPA is crippling this country, imagine how the equivalent German PS worker feels when he realises that the Irish guy is getting far more than he is......

fasttalkerchat

the_syco wrote: »

Actually, if we cut the dole by 50% (or more), would we go from being in the red, to being in the black?

I'm not sure if that would be enough. Interested to know though. There should be a reformed dole system. Give people more if thats what they need to get a job. I see no problem with giving someone a E3000 car loan to help them get a job if they can prove they want a job.

fasttalkerchat

gerryo777 wrote: »

Why don't we use benchmarking anymore?
Benchmark PS wages to the same private sector employees wage.

The sacred cow that is the CPA is crippling this country, imagine how the equivalent German PS worker feels when he realises that the Irish guy is getting far more than he is......

Benchmarking wages is dangerous because it creates an upwards trend.

gerryo777

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Benchmarking wages is dangerous because it creates an upwards trend.

It was ok when wages were rising, wasn't good enough for the PS when it started going the other way.

Anyway we're going well off topic here.

the_syco

gerryo777 wrote: »

Why don't we use benchmarking anymore?
Benchmark PS wages to the same private sector employees wage.

IMO, benchmarking was a load of bollox to make it look like someones doing their job, and they'd get a rise if they did.

What sector are they benchmarked against?

If SF got into power, would they force benchmarking to happen? Do people here think that it would actually work to save money, or fail and cost more money?

JustinDee

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Realign the public sector to reduce the yearly deficit and a better deal would have been offered. We would also be in a better position to renegotiate repayments or to tell them to eff off as needs be.

The unions would have frozen the country through national strikes were the public sector 're-aligned'.
The very same unions amongst which one (headed by someone on Central Bank board) has almost got go ahead for 100m re-building of Liberty Hall. Not a revamp but a spanking new version. Nice work if you can get it in these 'austere' times.

thecommietommy

Gary Ashy Hedgehog wrote: »

Fine Gael had no choice others than to take the bailout, he could have told the bondholders and eu to piss off that we wouldn't pay it, what do you think then, they would lend us money to pay our state debts?

No, we had a choice, we could have funded oursleves with state reserves such as the National Pension Reserve Fund ( €60 Billion in 2008 ) and eventually returned to the markets. Sure their would have been very tough cuts etc introduced, but instead the servile Gombens in FG/FF/Lab gave most of it to the bondholders :rolleyes:

Laminations

Just to clarify:

The SF supporters here are advocating swingeing cuts, a reallignment of the PS (aka massive redundancies) and reverse benchmarking (aka massive PS paycuts). You guys do know that the party you support is against austerity and cuts right? You are suggesting an economically right wing solution.

thecommietommy wrote: »

we had a choice, we could have funded oursleves with state reserves such as the National Pension Reserve Fund ( €60 Billion in 2008 )

Unless you have a time machine, pointing out what we had does nothing but criticise FF.

RandomName2

poeticseraphim wrote: »

An interesting question for politics in general not just Sinn Féin. Can a party that affiliated itself with an organisation or multiple organisations like the IRA or PIRA, in the time they did, ever be integrated into legitimate politics to the extent that they could form a govt?

Possibly - if they disavowed the organisations that they previously had relations with. It would help if members of those organisations were not senior members of the political party as well.

Saying that the crimes of the organisations were actually crimes, instead of being apologists for these actions. Indeed, the party still maintains connections to 'dissidents'.

Maintaining the old standard, the old name, and harking to a cultural tradition epitomised by those organisations also makes it impossible to divorce the two.

If a party uses hammers and sickles, red colours in its iconography, calls its members 'comrades' and itself the Communist Party, I (and most people) would be liable to call them communists.

So, as such, while Sinn Fein continues to espouse the tactics and morals of nationalist-socialist vigilantism, anarchism, and terrorism I will have no need to examine my views on the party's legitimacy.

And this really is the rub, and why Fianna Fail, Labour or Fine Gael are not analogous to SF as it currently stands.

maccored

RandomName2 wrote: »

So, as such, while Sinn Fein continues to espouse the tactics and morals of nationalist-socialist vigilantism, anarchism, and terrorism

g'wan explain how SF 'continues' to do those things for me as I dont get it.

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

.........

So, as such, while Sinn Fein continues to espouse the tactics and morals of nationalist-socialist vigilantism, anarchism, and terrorism I will have no need to examine my views on the party's legitimacy.

...........

You've evidence and examples of this?

RandomName2

maccored wrote: »

g'wan explain how SF 'continues' to do those things for me as I dont get it.

By tacitly approving of bombings, racketeering, laundering, extortion, assassination, civil disobedience, and self-policing (whatever term you would associate with the last one).

Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have less than salubrious backgrounds - but they drew a line underneath bloodshed in major symbolic ways by changing the names of their parties, clearly pursuing different political agendae, and to a large extent attempting to distance themselves from the shadow of historic events such as the civil war.

Afaik, Labour never changed its name - but it was also never involved in any of Ireland's bloody history - rather it was individuals who changed their allegiance from their former far-left backgrounds when they entered the political party.

Sinn Fein did make a significant break with tradition when it decided to have non-absentee members of parliament (north and south). They also have chosen to recognise the legitimacy of the psni. These actions in themselves are laudatory, I suppose, and in doing so they distanced some of their radical members.

But SF has also never attempted to distance itself from the troubles; indeed it embraces all iconography which encompasses Ireland's worst struggles. It has maintained the (quite anachronistic) party name of the dual-monarchical organisation founded by Griffith; and speaks as if it is the inheritor of the tradition of 1916, not to mention the Troubles. Two of its most senior members were directly involved in the Troubles, but the manner in which the extent of their roles is an unmentionable further diminishes the capacity to draw a line under these events in relation to the party.

The IRA has clearly been a sectarian and I suppose... even one could say xenophobic group; anarchistic and seriously dangerous. It would be very hard to say that SF condemns the IRA in any way or has even attempted to distance itself from it. Okay, SF has been involved in dialogue and decommissioning but to quote Gerry Adams, "We haven't gone away, you know".

If SF really did draw a line under the tradition of the Troubles, and walked away from its Easter lilly symbolism - then its policies and principles alone could be discussed. I wouldn't be entirely in favour of those principles, in the same way that I wouldn't be in favour of the socialist party's policies - but that's an entirely different matter altogether.

Nodin

They're "anarchistic", they "espouse the tactics and morals of nationalist-socialist vigilantism".

They seem to assume whatever quality you want to project on them.

RandomName2 wrote: »

.......................
The IRA has clearly been a sectarian and I suppose... even one could say xenophobic group; anarchistic and seriously dangerous. It would be very hard to say that SF condemns the IRA in any way or has even attempted to distance itself from it. Okay, SF has been involved in dialogue and decommissioning but to quote Gerry Adams, "We haven't gone away, you know".

..........

One of the founders of the provisional movement was a protestant.

This "xenophobic" Sinn Fein would be the Sinn Fein that takes this as policy....
http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/Policies_Racism.pdf

The one with links to the ANC, PLO and the Basques....

maccored

Please stop living in the past. Im on about Sinn Fein of the present.

RandomName2 wrote: »

By tacitly approving of bombings, racketeering, laundering, extortion, assassination, civil disobedience, and self-policing (whatever term you would associate with the last one).

Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have less than salubrious backgrounds - but they drew a line underneath bloodshed in major symbolic ways by changing the names of their parties, clearly pursuing different political agendae, and to a large extent attempting to distance themselves from the shadow of historic events such as the civil war.

Afaik, Labour never changed its name - but it was also never involved in any of Ireland's bloody history - rather it was individuals who changed their allegiance from their former far-left backgrounds when they entered the political party.

Sinn Fein did make a significant break with tradition when it decided to have non-absentee members of parliament (north and south). They also have chosen to recognise the legitimacy of the psni. These actions in themselves are laudatory, I suppose, and in doing so they distanced some of their radical members.

But SF has also never attempted to distance itself from the troubles; indeed it embraces all iconography which encompasses Ireland's worst struggles. It has maintained the (quite anachronistic) party name of the dual-monarchical organisation founded by Griffith; and speaks as if it is the inheritor of the tradition of 1916, not to mention the Troubles. Two of its most senior members were directly involved in the Troubles, but the manner in which the extent of their roles is an unmentionable further diminishes the capacity to draw a line under these events in relation to the party.

The IRA has clearly been a sectarian and I suppose... even one could say xenophobic group; anarchistic and seriously dangerous. It would be very hard to say that SF condemns the IRA in any way or has even attempted to distance itself from it. Okay, SF has been involved in dialogue and decommissioning but to quote Gerry Adams, "We haven't gone away, you know".

If SF really did draw a line under the tradition of the Troubles, and walked away from its Easter lilly symbolism - then its policies and principles alone could be discussed. I wouldn't be entirely in favour of those principles, in the same way that I wouldn't be in favour of the socialist party's policies - but that's an entirely different matter altogether.

Laminations

maccored wrote: »

Please stop living in the past. Im on about Sinn Fein of the present.

SF of the present celebrate that violent past, commemorate terrorists and terrorist attacks from that violent past and have high ranking members who very much engaged in that violent past. They also have many low ranking members (some of whom no doubt post on these boards) who salivate over that violent past and attend rallies supporting a continuation of 'the armed struggle'. SF has made no attempt to cleanse its membership so how different really is the SF of today from the SF of 20 years ago if all of those old blowhards still remain?

fasttalkerchat

Laminations wrote: »

SF of the present celebrate that violent past, commemorate terrorists and terrorist attacks from that violent past and have high ranking members who very much engaged in that violent past. They also have many low ranking members (some of whom no doubt post on these boards) who salivate over that violent past and attend rallies supporting a continuation of 'the armed struggle'. SF has made no attempt to cleanse its membership so how different really is the SF of today from the SF of 20 years ago if all of those old blowhards still remain?

And FF and FG don't have a history before 1930?

Laminations

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

And FF and FG don't have a history before 1930?

You know the difference between Recent history that people alive have lived through and the history that is generations past? What current members of those parties were engaged in violence per-1930? What rallies do these parties have/attend celebrating this violent past and encouraging more violence? What terrorists do they honour?

RandomName2

maccored wrote: »

Please stop living in the past. Im on about Sinn Fein of the present.

Well yes - exactly. :pac:

http://www.rsf.ie/100years.htm

http://www.sinnfeinbookshop.com/unbowed-and-unbroken-tyrone-prisoners-stories/

http://republicanyouth.ie/2008/08/20/1916-and-1981-unbroken-struggle/

http://sinnfeinkeepleft.blogspot.ie/2010/09/unbroken-chain-escape-of-vol-tom-malone.html

http://irishstruggle.blogspot.ie/2005/11/nov-2-1986-sinn-fin-reconstitutes.html

Just so you know I didn't actually look at the contents of these pages; I just did a google search and posted the links to the top five pages.

fasttalkerchat

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well yes - exactly. :pac:

http://www.rsf.ie/100years.htm

http://www.sinnfeinbookshop.com/unbowed-and-unbroken-tyrone-prisoners-stories/

http://republicanyouth.ie/2008/08/20/1916-and-1981-unbroken-struggle/

http://sinnfeinkeepleft.blogspot.ie/2010/09/unbroken-chain-escape-of-vol-tom-malone.html

http://irishstruggle.blogspot.ie/2005/11/nov-2-1986-sinn-fin-reconstitutes.html

Just so you know I didn't actually look at the contents of these pages; I just did a google search and posted the links to the top five pages.

You might want to look into rsf... its not Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein Book shop is linked to Sinn Fein though so thats one.

RandomName2

Nodin wrote: »

They're "anarchistic", they "espouse the tactics and morals of nationalist-socialist vigilantism".

They seem to assume whatever quality you want to project on them.



One of the founders of the provisional movement was a protestant.

This "xenophobic" Sinn Fein would be the Sinn Fein that takes this as policy....
http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/Policies_Racism.pdf

The one with links to the ANC, PLO and the Basques....

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

SF sees natural affiliation with the "downtrodden and repressed" and also believes in the philosophy that "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Also like all ultra-nationalist organisations it likes binary opposition; to develop an idea of itself through opposition with a cultural antagonist.

The Nazi Party maintained strong dialogue and allegiances with groups and governments in Italy, Bulgaria, Iraq, Spain, Finland, Croatia, Slovakia, Netherlands, Norway, Japan, Romania, Austria and France. Europe united against the Red menace (or words to that effect) I believe one of their main posters read. One could hardly use this example of multiculturalism and broad political international connections as a reasonable counterexample to manner in which their entire MO was predicated on a war of annihilation with the Bolshevik Jewish/Slav enemy.