Leo is the new king of Ireland.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That goes hand and hand with 'not wanting to interfere in the running of another country'.

You cannot switch that principle on and off just because it might suit. It isn't a 'principle' then.

The people who were at the 'table', who had the actual power(FG's coalition gov) could have walked away when the DUP pulled their strop, but they didn't, thus allowing the Irish Sea solution to be shelved.

When did SF welch on the GFA?

The GFA recognises the right of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK or to become part of a united Ireland. By not "wanting to interfere in the running of another country", SF are repudiating that part of the GFA. Whatever principle a policy of abstention was based on in previous times, it was rendered irrelevant by acceptance of the GFA. The principles of the GFA, which SF claim to uphold, require a dropping of the absention policy.

Podge_irl

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Varadkar himself said again and again that it was a 'legally binding' agreement, a 'cast iron political agreement' and that it was 'bulletproof'.

Are you seriously saying today that it was not 'oversold' as the above?

Yes I am seriously saying that. It remains guaranteed to be part of any withdrawal agreement and no bleating or moaning from May will change that.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

When did SF welch on the GFA?

The GFA recognises the right of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK or to become part of a united Ireland. By not "wanting to interfere in the running of another country", SF are repudiating that part of the GFA. Whatever principle a policy of abstention was based on in previous times, it was rendered irrelevant by acceptance of the GFA. The principles of the GFA, which SF claim to uphold, require a dropping of the absention policy.

Well off you go and take a case against them so.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well off you go and take a case against them so.

That is an absurd point. There is no legal requirement on SF to adhere to the GFA.

SF are free to pretend to adhere to the principles of the GFA while implementing a policy - abstentionism - that contradicts the principles of the GFA. I can't do anything about that level of hypocrisy except point it out.

FrancieBrady

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yes I am seriously saying that. It remains guaranteed to be part of any withdrawal agreement and no bleating or moaning from May will change that.

Nothing is 'legally binding' until it is signed. You are 'overselling it' to claim that it is legally binding.

Simple as that.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing is 'legally binding' until it is signed. You are 'overselling it' to claim that it is legally binding.

Simple as that.

Nonsense. Any agreement will be legally binding in relation to the backstop, that is 100% clear.

If there is no agreement, there is no backstop, there is just nothing. Why you thought anything else is probably down to your failure to comprehend what was being said, rather than anything that was actually said.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is an absurd point. There is no legal requirement on SF to adhere to the GFA.

SF are free to pretend to adhere to the principles of the GFA while implementing a policy - abstentionism - that contradicts the principles of the GFA. I can't do anything about that level of hypocrisy except point it out.

You have come up with the idea that it is against the principles of the GFA.
I wouldn't agree with you on the basis that the GFA says nothing about abstentionism and those who vote for SF have no problem with their policy.

You are creating a problem where there isn't one.

trellheim

The UK have committed to the backstop as a last resort; not unexpectedly they are trying to find something better.

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have come up with the idea that it is against the principles of the GFA.
I wouldn't agree with you on the basis that the GFA says nothing about abstentionism and those who vote for SF have no problem with their policy.

You are creating a problem where there isn't one.

Until now, that policy had no real effect on the people of NI and SF's voters. Once the DUP got hold of the balance of power in Westminster, that situation changed. As Seamus said, there's a real chance that no longer pursuing that policy could dramatically change things.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nonsense. Any agreement will be legally binding in relation to the backstop, that is 100% clear.

If there is no agreement, there is no backstop, there is just nothing. Why you thought anything else is probably down to your failure to comprehend what was being said, rather than anything that was actually said.

I refer you to what I originally quoted,

"The backstop is as legally firm as the Government said it would be in December," the spokesman said.

There is 'nothing' legally firm anywhere. There is no backstop.

We are, in fact, back to before the oversold December meeting.

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is 'nothing' legally firm anywhere. There is no backstop.

We are, in fact, back to before the oversold December meeting.

You do know that that was stated in the context of an agreement being reached?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I refer you to what I originally quoted,



There is 'nothing' legally firm anywhere. There is no backstop.

We are, in fact, back to before the oversold December meeting.

And the spokesperson is correct and you are wrong.

FrancieBrady

prawnsambo wrote: »

Until now, that policy had no real effect on the people of NI and SF's voters. Once the DUP got hold of the balance of power in Westminster, that situation changed. As Seamus said, there's a real chance that no longer pursuing that policy could dramatically change things.

Yes, I suppose the negotiation of the GFA on behalf of their voters without the need to take seats had no 'real effect' on them. :rolleyes:

The DUP power is transient and may well be destroying them in the eyes of their more moderate support.

Laois_Man

seamus wrote: »

The principle of their abstentionism is to refuse to recognise the primacy of Westminster over Northern Ireland.

And also that they would be required to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch in order to occupy their seat in Westminister!

blanch152

Laois_Man wrote: »

And also that they would be required to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch in order to occupy their seat in Westminister!

Once they agreed to the principle of consent in the GFA, they agreed to be loyal subjects of the Crown.

Topgear on Dave

Right now, it doesnt matter that SF don't take their seats in parliament.

The Brits are at war with themselves and will certainly not allow SF to rule the roost.

Also good for SF: Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake :pac:

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, I suppose the negotiation of the GFA on behalf of their voters without the need to take seats had no 'real effect' on them. :rolleyes:

No it had no effect. They could have negotiated the GFA in either scenariio. You seem to be agreeing with me here.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP power is transient and may well be destroying them in the eyes of their more moderate support.

And before that happens, they are very likely to have had a lasting influence on the future of NI while SF sit on their principles and watch an historic opportunity sal past. :rolleyes:

Laois_Man

blanch152 wrote: »

Once they agreed to the principle of consent in the GFA, they agreed to be loyal subjects of the Crown.

No, they didn't!

Dyr

blanch152 wrote: »

When did SF welch on the GFA?

The GFA recognises the right of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK or to become part of a united Ireland. By not "wanting to interfere in the running of another country", SF are repudiating that part of the GFA. Whatever principle a policy of abstention was based on in previous times, it was rendered irrelevant by acceptance of the GFA. The principles of the GFA, which SF claim to uphold, require a dropping of the absention policy.

You might want to ease up on the giant leaps of logic there. There is zero in the GFA that requires Sinn Fein to drop abstention or that requires any elected official to attend parliament, it can't force them into Stormont never mind Parliament. Read the damn thing some time.

FrancieBrady

prawnsambo wrote: »

No it had no effect. They could have negotiated the GFA in either scenariio. You seem to be agreeing with me here.


And before that happens, they are very likely to have had a lasting influence on the future of NI while SF sit on their principles and watch an historic opportunity sal past. :rolleyes:

How would they have a 'lasting influence'?

BTW It could be said that the DUP's actions will have 'lasting influence' on the aspirations that SF voters have.

FrancieBrady

Bambi wrote: »

You might want to ease up on the giant leaps of logic there. There is zero in the GFA that requires Sinn Fein to drop abstention or that requires any elected official to attend parliament, it can't force them into Stormont never mind Parliament. Read the damn thing some time.

The tendency to oversell agreements is rather persuasive around here.

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How would they have a 'lasting influence'?

Are you seriously saying you don't know the answer to this?

FrancieBrady

prawnsambo wrote: »

Are you seriously saying you don't know the answer to this?

You said it, lay it out for us.
How would they have had a lasting influence?

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You said it, lay it out for us.
How would they have had a lasting influence?

Right. So you do know.

FrancieBrady

prawnsambo wrote: »

Right. So you do know.

Not so easy when you have to commit it to pixels is it?

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not so easy when you have to commit it to pixels is it?

It's quite easy. But you've clearly got an agenda so I'm not engagng with that.

Agent Smith

SNIP

Mod: Don't dump images here please.

FrancieBrady

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's quite easy. But you've clearly got an agenda so I'm not engagng with that.

An agenda to get you to clearly state what you mean? Yes, I do have an agenda.

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

An agenda to get you to clearly state what you mean? Yes, I do have an agenda.

Indeed.


It wasn't necessary to admit it, but thanks anyway.

FrancieBrady

prawnsambo wrote: »

Indeed.


It wasn't necessary to admit it, but thanks anyway.

Why won't you lay out this 'lasting influence' as you see it?

Nobody is going to sue you.