Sinn Fein in a huff over new signs

alastair

Seanchai wrote: »

hehe. Touché. Game, set and match to the Irish. I do wish all the British nationalists here would brush up on their command of the Queen's English. Quite disappointing.

You do love namechecking your monarch, don't you?

I don't see the Ford Motor Company enacting law to ensure the official terminology for their car is 'cool'. Aside from that - yeah - it's exactly the same.

The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948

An Act to repeal the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, to declare that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland, and to enable the President to exercise the executive power or any executive function of the state in or in connection with its external relations.
(21 December 1948)

Seanchai

Fenian Army wrote: »

You are a "southern unionist" who,by his own admission, would have fought against those who brought some semblance of freedom to Ireland.

This. And when it comes to the matter of Ireland's sovereignty, and the sovereignty of the people of Ireland, never let us forget what Lord Sutch/Camelot really stands for in this website.

Britain's "Poppy Day" should be along shortly. We can expect his usual glorification of the British Empire once again, and denigration of the women and men who fought for the freedom of this small country from his beloved British Empire.

TheChizler

Ghandee wrote: »

alastair wrote: »

Current legislation not sitting well with you? Ah well.

The current legislation sits perfectly well with me Al.

I actually mentioned it in my first post of this thread.

Keep up son.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80113528&postcount=57

I think it was quite clear as to what they all meant. That's the advantage of using descriptions.

Seanchai

alastair wrote: »

Aside from that - yeah - it's exactly the same.

It's not, so please do desist from embarrassing your parents.

Melanoma

both sides here are just competing to see which one can yap the most about their own ideas without acknowledging each others opinions are equally valid. Your all so self obsessed your too silly to realise how similar you are. One thing is that I can honestly say I'd not enjoy any of your company. People that rant over others, get off on who they are and not what they achieve and do.

Genghis Khan.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There is a big difference in supporting partition and giving a concession that the status of NI is in the hands of its people in order to help facilitate peace.
You seem to be confusing "accepting" and "supporting". You can accept a political situation without supporting it.

Spoken to him recently have you? :rolleyes:

You are recognising Northern Ireland because you voted for an agreement which says so. The Republican point of view of genuine Republicans is the complete opposite.

James Connelly was a Socialist, he said it doesn't matter if you get rid of England and put a Tri colour up because the English will still rule you in other ways. And you think Connelly would have voted for the GFA? Don't be so insulting to him.

I can't stand cherry picking Republicans who pick and choose what they want to believe in. You aren't a real Republican.

alastair

Seanchai wrote: »

It's not.

I'm glad we're in agreement.

Seanchai

Melanoma wrote: »

both sides here are just competing to see which one can yap the most about their own ideas without acknowledging each others opinions are equally valid.

I agree entirely. I think all those British loyalist opinions of Alastair, Lord Sutch and the rest are just as valid as the opinions in favour of Irish freedom, except for the minor matter that the former are claiming a right to a sovereign British state in Ireland. The latter are not claiming a right to a sovereign Irish state over in Britain.

flanno_7hi

When did owen get back? Must be about 15 now?

alastair

Seanchai wrote: »

I agree entirely. I think all those British loyalist opinions of Alastair, Lord Sutch and the rest are just as valid as the opinions in favour of Irish freedom, except for the minor matter that the former are claiming a right to a sovereign British state in Ireland. The latter are not claiming a right to a sovereign Irish state over in Britain.

I think you'll find that my 'British loyalist opinion' is actually a considered reading of the reality of the relationship between the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland as defined by the GFA, and the concurrent legislation enacted in this state at the same time. We all got to vote and wiped the territorial claim from the constitution of this state (the Republic of Ireland) - recognising it's (NI) status within the UK as being legitimate and actual.

Anything less would be unpatriotic.

Chuck Stone

Melanoma wrote: »

both sides here are just competing to see which one can yap the most about their own ideas without acknowledging each others opinions are equally valid.

If the opinions of the people living in the border counties had been sought on the matter of erecting 'welcome to the UK NI' signs then maybe we wouldn't have this problem.

Also, condemning everyone in an attempt to appear 'above it all' only makes you look self-righteously smug rather than a being of superior morals.

LordSutch

Ghandee wrote: »

The IRA haven't been mentioned on this thread (to my knowledge) too much except by the 'Shinner bashers' which i find odd.

When in a corner......

This happens all to often, Nodin throws in the unionist jibe, I respond, then one of his cohorts responds, and rather than escallate the issue I usually say bye, and thats exactly what I am going to do now, bye (for the sake of this thread).

My contributions are in #290 and #422.

TheChizler

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If the opinions of the people living in the border counties had been sought on the matter of erecting 'welcome to the UK NI' signs then maybe we wouldn't have this problem.

Come on now that was never the case. If you're talking about the sentiment behind it then that's speculation.

Cú Giobach

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

You are recognising Northern Ireland because you voted for an agreement which says so. The Republican point of view of genuine Republicans is the complete opposite.

I voted for the people of the north to decide, you seem to forget that includes the option to re-unify, something that was not there pre 1998.
So according to you "genuine" republicans have no place joining in the democratic process, interesting.

James Connelly was a Socialist, he said it doesn't matter if you get rid of England and put a Tri colour up because the English will still rule you in other ways. And you think Connelly would have voted for the GFA? Don't be so insulting to him

JC being quite an intelligent man would make a decision based on the situation of the day, the attitudes and writings of a man a century ago would have little bearing on how he would feel if he were alive today. Not to be able to see or realise this is very naive indeed.

I can't stand cherry picking Republicans who pick and choose what they want to believe in. You aren't a real Republican.

I couldn't give two hoots what narrow minded little pigeon hole you try to put me in, the reality of NI is a little bit complicated and only those without much knowledge of the situation try to make everything black and white, you must think this or you must think that, otherwise you are not one of us or you are one of them.
Childish in the extreme. :rolleyes:

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

This happens all to often, Nodin throws in the unionist jibe,.........

No, thats not what happened, if you recall. I am glad however, that you regard your political position as a jibe. It shows progress is being made.

Melanoma

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If the opinions of the people living in the border counties had been sought on the matter of erecting 'welcome to the UK NI' signs then maybe we wouldn't have this problem.

Also, condemning everyone in an attempt to appear 'above it all' only makes you look self-righteously smug rather than a being of superior morals.

Well no its all the going on about things around the issue like people splitting hairs on if Ireland and the Republic of Ireland mean the same thing.

I have stated previously that I feel the time has not come yet for this sign but that in years to come it might not be an issue.

Going on about historical figures of the past is also not really going to make anyone change their mind. Its just people mouthing off and looking for affirmation from their peers and disagreeing with others.

I agree talking to locals on both sides would have avoided any problems. ~There is is no point in saying someone should not be offended if they are same way telling someone not to be sad when a family member dies would not work. People are entitled to their opinion and they must be respected that is my point.

I am not above all no way but I value all sides arguments and I wont put anyone down for them or start going on about stuff that does not address the issue being discussed.

What I am also saying is some people are going on about people being stupid for saying the signs are needed and others are saying the opposite. The truth is nobody is stupid or wrong.

The past is not over, not fully but we don't change anyone's mind or win arguments by just bashing others.

Fenian Army

LordSutch wrote: »

This happens all to often, Nodin throws in the unionist jibe, I respond, then one of his cohorts responds, and rather than escallate the issue I usually say bye, and thats exactly what I am going to do now, bye (for the sake of this thread).

My contributions are in #290 and #422.

I like to think of us as a flying column rather than a cohort.. that term is a bit too imperial for me

Genghis Khan.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I voted for the people of the north to decide, you seem to forget that includes the option to re-unify, something that was not there pre 1998.
So according to you "genuine" republicans have no place joining in the democratic process, interesting.

JC being quite an intelligent man would make a decision based on the situation of the day, the attitudes and writings of a man a century ago would have little bearing on how he would feel if he were alive today. Not to be able to see or realise this is very naive indeed.

I couldn't give two hoots what narrow minded little pigeon hole you try to put me in, the reality of NI is a little bit complicated and only those without much knowledge of the situation try to make everything black and white, you must think this or you must think that, otherwise you are not one of us or you are one of them.
Childish in the extreme. :rolleyes:

Yes, you voted by allowing the people of Northern Ireland to decide any future decisions on its constitutional position. That is recognizing Northern Ireland.

James Connelly would have been the opposite and went on Republican principle. That is the key of this, principle. You obviously don't care for Republican principles and come across as a hypocrite.

Nodin

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

Yes, you voted by allowing the people of Northern Ireland to decide any future decisions on its constitutional position. That is recognizing Northern Ireland.

James Connelly would have been the opposite and went on Republican principle. That is the key of this, principle. You obviously don't care for Republican principles and come across as a hypocrite.

Who?

Genghis Khan.

Nodin wrote: »

Who?

James Connolly. Spelling mistake.

SocSocPol

Seanchai wrote: »

Stop trolling with chimerical points. I think you'll find that I've quoted the March 2012 edition of Bunreacht na hÉireann not the post-GFA 1998 version. According to it, Ireland, the state, is expressly only part of Ireland the country.

But nice to see you're so supportive of the Sinn Féin promoted proposal to abandon Articles 2 & 3 back in 1998 in exchange for reducing the British/colonial nature of the Six County statelet.

Sinn Fein NEVER promoted such an action, probably since they refused to recognise the 1937 constitution or indeed this soverign Republic.
But don't let that get in the way of your revisionist version of Irish history, typical of so many mis-informed forigeners

lugha

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Not in the slightest, I never supported the FF government a few years ago for example, but I did accept it because that was the will of the majority of people in a democratic election.

Your analogy does not quite fit. You personally (I presume?) did not vote for FF so your respect for their mandate cannot be construed to imply that you supported their policies. A better fit would be to cite the Irish electorate who DID support FF led administrations for three elections on the spin and cannot, collectively as an electorate, claim with any credibility that FF did not have their support (not that we are not having a valiant attempt at doing exactly this!)

The Good Friday Agreement was endorsed by virtually all nationalists which IMO compels them to accept it; in its entirety, warts and all, and not simply pocket the concessions to their side. And if you have trouble with signs or other artefacts that illustrate that this island consists of two states then it is difficult to see how someone can reconcile this with “accepting GFA”.’

Fenian Army

People seem to think that republicans view the GFA as a final settlement.. hardly. It's a means to an end.

Besides, the whole thing isnt near to being implemented yet, nor have other agreements surrounding it (Weston Part for example) been implemented in full.

Sound of Silence

Melanoma wrote: »

Its just people mouthing off and looking for affirmation from their peers and disagreeing with others.

Pretty much the definition of all forum arguments. We're not exactly pioneers here on this thread.

Genghis Khan.

SocSocPol wrote: »

Sinn Fein NEVER promoted such an action, probably since they refused to recognise the 1937 constitution or indeed this soverign Republic.
But don't let that get in the way of your revisionist version of Irish history, typical of so many mis-informed forigeners

The attempt to rewrite history is shocking on here from Republicans. I am amazed it is allowed to be honest.

Chuck Stone

TheChizler wrote: »

Come on now that was never the case. If you're talking about the sentiment behind it then that's speculation.

Oh I think you'll find that's very much the sentiment behind the words. These signs are designed with that exact intention - shit stirring and territorial 'lamp-post urinating' - that's the very reason the people who make up the majority of the population in the border counties were not consulted.

Antagonising 'the other' seems to be somewhat of a preoccupation for a section of the unionist/loyalist population - this is indicative of a dearth of culture that doesn't involve triumphalism and sectarianism* in my estimation.

*I associate 'triumphalism' and 'sectarianism' with the word culture very tenuously.

Ghandee

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

The attempt to rewrite history is shocking on here from Republicans. I am amazed it is allowed to be honest.

I'm amazed equally at the amount of re-reg trolls that get tolerated on here.

Not saying you're one incidentally. Just making a point.

Seanchai

SocSocPol wrote: »

Sinn Fein NEVER promoted such an action, probably since they refused to recognise the 1937 constitution or indeed this soverign Republic.
But don't let that get in the way of your revisionist version of Irish history, typical of so many mis-informed forigeners

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

The attempt to rewrite history is shocking on here from Republicans. I am amazed it is allowed to be honest.

Another two. Oh Lordy. If you did even a tiny bit of research before mouthing you'd quickly find that Sinn Féin did indeed promote the amendment of Articles 2 & 3 in 1998 as part of the overall settlement in the GFA.

Icepick

dogmatic people upset over statements of fact?:eek:

Genghis Khan.

Ghandee wrote: »

I'm amazed equally at the amount of re-reg trolls that get tolerated on here.

Not saying you're one incidentally. Just making a point.

I agree with you. Lets hope it calms down.

Another two. Oh Lordy. If you did even a tiny bit of research before mouthing you'd quickly find that Sinn Féin did indeed promote the amendment of Articles 2 & 3 in 1998 as part of the overall settlement in the GFA.

I was on more about the historical decisions by some Republicans than just Sinn Fein.

wolf 999

Down with this sort of thing

Seanchai

alastair wrote: »

I think you'll find that my 'British loyalist opinion' is actually a considered reading of the reality of the relationship between the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland as defined by the GFA

Hilarious.

Cú Giobach

lugha wrote: »

Your analogy does not quite fit. You personally (I presume?) did not vote for FF so your respect for their mandate cannot be construed to imply that you supported their policies. A better fit would be to cite the Irish electorate who DID support FF led administrations for three elections on the spin and cannot, collectively as an electorate, claim with any credibility that FF did not have their support (not that we are not having a valiant attempt at doing exactly this!)

You don't get it so I'll put it simply, one can "put up" with a political situation because that is what democracy is about, but that certainly does not mean you have to like it or must not try to change it, that is the very nature of the systems we use, for the simple reason there are many different people with differing attitudes and political outlooks.

The Good Friday Agreement was endorsed by virtually all nationalists which IMO compels them to accept it; in its entirety, warts and all, and not simply pocket the concessions to their side.

I think they/we do accept it, the problem would be getting the Unionists to accept it if a referendum ever went in favour of a UI.

And if you have trouble with signs or other artefacts that illustrate that this island consists of two states then it is difficult to see how someone can reconcile this with “accepting GFA”.’

Do try to keep up.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I can totally understand many in border communities not being happy with these signs, looking at them I can almost hear Paisly's voice saying the phrase, but personally I will just put them in the same bracket as "Welcome to The Sunny South East" or "Welcome to Connemara" signs.
But I do think "Welcome to The North" would have been less contentious.

.

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

Yes, you voted by allowing the people of Northern Ireland to decide any future decisions on its constitutional position. That is recognizing Northern Ireland.
James Connelly would have been the opposite and went on Republican principle. That is the key of this, principle. You obviously don't care for Republican principles and come across as a hypocrite.

Sorry kiddo bye. Feeding time is over.

Genghis Khan.

Sorry kiddo bye. Feeding time is over.

You have no argument for it because you know it is true. Sinn Fein are NOT for a Socialist Republic like some in the party try to claim. Sinn Fein are working in a British government which is in the United Kingdom. Why do you think there is a lot of Republicans turning against Sinn Fein? It is pretty obvious to most people with any sense.

Sinn Fein are now working for the capitalist elite and not for local people.

Chuck Stone

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Sorry kiddo bye. Feeding time is over.

This ^^

alastair

Seanchai wrote: »

Hilarious.

Aww diddums. Are we still glossing over the democratic decision to abandon the constitutional principle of the nation as an all-island territorial claim then? Northern Ireland as not only extra-national as a jurisdiction, but also as an extra-national territory.

Sounds kind of like the sort of thing that might warrant some signposting, eh?

MagicSean

Even if you are agrieved by a constant reminder that you live in a partitioned state, you still have to accept that it is necessary to indicate to people that they are entering a different jurisdiction with the different laws, rules and currency.

If it is the case that the problem is solely with the use of the wording "Welcome to Northern Ireland" then what alternative wording would you suggest to inform people they are entering a seperate political and legal entity?

And if the name Northern Ireland is so offensive then why is there no campaigns against its use in other areas such as torism or the Northern Assembly?

Genghis Khan.

MagicSean wrote: »

Even if you are agrieved by a constant reminder that you live in a partitioned state, you still have to accept that it is necessary to indicate to people that they are entering a different jurisdiction with the different laws, rules and currency.

If it is the case that the problem is solely with the use of the wording "Welcome to Northern Ireland" then what alternative wording would you suggest to inform people they are entering a seperate political and legal entity?

And if the name Northern Ireland is so offensive then why is there no campaigns against its use in other areas such as torism or the Northern Assembly?

Common sense and logic is too much for some Republicans in this regard. Hatred and bigotry is all they can bring to the table.

Seanchai

alastair wrote: »

Aww diddums. Are we still glossing over the democratic decision to abandon the constitutional principle of the nation as an all-island territorial claim then? Northern Ireland as not only extra-national as a jurisdiction, but also as an extra-national territory.

Oh please. Stop talking shíte.

Genghis Khan.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This ^^

Stop accusing everyone of being a troll please. Reported for your constant offensive remarks.

Solair

It should have read:

"Welcome to Northern Ireland"
Speed limits in archaic units.
Banks print their own weird money. Don't worry, it is REAL money!
Avoid discussing politics - Can get weird!

Then the same as Gaeilge.

Chuck Stone

alastair wrote: »

Are we still glossing over the democratic decision to abandon the constitutional principle of the nation as an all-island territorial claim then?

Sounds eerily similar to this..

The Prime Minister, on behalf of the British Government, reaffirms ... that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland.

The Downing Street Declaration, Wednesday 15 December 1993

alastair

Seanchai wrote: »

Oh please. Stop talking shíte.

You are refusing to acknowledge the extra-national nature of NI, aren't you? That's not very democratic, I gotta say.

alastair

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Sounds eerily similar to this..

Except that when you remove the 'selfish strategic or economic interests' you're left with quite a pile of UK legal, sovereign, and national interests in the territory. No such claims from this state.

Chuck Stone

MagicSean wrote: »

what alternative wording would you suggest to inform people they are entering a seperate political and legal entity?

I'd question the need for anything other than a sign stating that speed limits have changed from KPH to MPH.

These are, after all, only roads not international airports.

lugha

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You don't get it so I'll put it simply, one can "put up" with a political situation because that is what democracy is about, but that certainly does not mean you have to like it or must not try to change it

But it is hardly "putting up" with an arrangement if you actually voted in support of it (the bit you don’t seem to get). In this case surely you should honour that commitment? And part of GFA was to accept arrangements as they currently are with respect to Northern Ireland. There was no sub clause that they had to like it or no prohibition on them trying to change it; indeed the mechanism that would trigger a change (a NI majority in favour) was part of the agreement.

But until that change happens the honourable attitude for nationalist to take to the OP is to say “ we don’t like this partition thingy, but we agreed to accept it so we will just have to grit our teeth and clinch our buttocks until enough nordies go insane and decide to throw their lot in with the free staters”

Cú Giobach wrote: »

the problem would be getting the Unionists to accept it if a referendum ever went in favour of a UI.

Indeed it would be a problem (I suspect they won’t accept it). Of course it will be compounded by the fact that they can quite reasonably argue that nationalists did not really respect GFA before unification so why should they after?

Sound of Silence

Genghis Khan. wrote: »

Common sense and logic is too much for some Republicans in this regard. Hatred and bigotry is all they can bring to the table.

Hatred and bigotry? Need I bring up your previous posts?

Genghis Khan.

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Hatred and bigotry? Need I bring up your previous posts?

Defending minorities on the Island of Ireland is perfectly rational. You might not like that but some people like defending other people.

MagicSean

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd question the need for anything other than a sign stating that speed limits have changed from KPH to MPH.

These are, after all, only roads not international airports.

So you see no need to inform people that they are under different laws?

Cú Giobach

lugha wrote: »

But it is hardly "putting up" with an arrangement if you actually voted in support of it (the bit you don’t seem to get). In this case surely you should honour that commitment? And part of GFA was to accept arrangements as they currently are with respect to Northern Ireland. There was no sub clause that they had to like it or no prohibition on them trying to change it; indeed the mechanism that would trigger a change (a NI majority in favour) was part of the agreement.

But until that change happens the honourable attitude for nationalist to take to the OP is to say “ we don’t like this partition thingy, but we agreed to accept it so we will just have to grit our teeth and clinch our buttocks until enough nordies go insane and decide to throw their lot in with the free staters”




Indeed it would be a problem (I suspect they won’t accept it). Of course it will be compounded by the fact that they can quite reasonably argue that nationalists did not really respect GFA before unification so why should they after?

WTF are you actually arguing here?
In what way am I not honouring the GFA??

“ we don’t like this partition thingy, but we agreed to accept it so we will just have to grit our teeth and clinch our buttocks until enough nordies go insane and decide to throw their lot in with the free staters”

Or to put it another way "put up with it"