Why would you vote SF?

maccored

derfderf wrote: »

Sin Fein always strike me as sneaky opportunists. They're playing Brexit well, and claim to want to represent the majority in NI that voted remain.
It never seems to be brought up that they campaigned for a no vote on all EU treaties. That I can recall anyway (Maastricht, Nice, and Lisbon).

whats wrong with voting against treaties that have points they disagree with? are they meant to agree with everything, because if they dont they dont want to be in the EU? Thats ridiculous talk.

McMurphy

sliabh 1956 wrote: »

I just saw a clip from the funeral of Lyra Mc Kee the look on Mary Lous and Forsters faces during t
he standing ovation sums up their attitude to the political crises in the North the could n't care less as long as they keep their tribes happy. They then felt shamed to join in hypocrites the lot of them . Fair play to the priest for putting it up to them.

What had Mary Lou McDonald/Arlene Foster or their respective political parties have to do with Ms McKee's tragic death?

She was shot dead by dissident Republicans (opposed to the GFA) who didn't appreciate the PSNI conducting searches in suspected dissidents homes in the hope of disruption to possibly displaying shows of strength at Easter Parades.

Unless you are blaming either of the two politicians for Easter, the Easter rising, or the PSNI searches, or even the dissidents firing indiscriminately?

• The dissidents oppose SF because the GFA.
• The dissidents oppose the DUP, because no need for me to be stating the bleeding obvious.
• The dissidents oppose the PSNI because see above.

It looks like you either don't have a baldy notion what you're on about, or tried to use Ms McKee's death to score some kind of political point, though I can't think what it would be.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What had Mary Lou McDonald/Arlene Foster or their respective political parties have to do with Ms McKee's tragic death?

She was shot dead by dissident Republicans (opposed to the GFA) who didn't appreciate the PSNI conducting searches in suspected dissidents homes in the hope of disruption to possibly displaying shows of strength at Easter Parades.

Unless you are blaming either of the two politicians for Easter, the Easter rising, or the PSNI searches, or even the dissidents firing indiscriminately?

• The dissidents oppose SF because the GFA.
• The dissidents oppose the DUP, because no need for me to be stating the bleeding obvious.
• The dissidents oppose the PSNI because see above.

It looks like you either don't have a baldy notion what you're on about, or tried to use Ms McKee's death to score some kind of political point, though I can't think what it would be.

The DUP and SF have created a political vacuum in the North by refusing to put back in place the GFA institutions. They are jointly and equally to blame.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

The DUP and SF have created a political vacuum in the North by refusing to put back in place the GFA institutions. They are jointly and equally to blame.

Reread what I just wrote mere mins ago.

The dissidents oppose the GFA.

That political vacum would mean shag all to dissidents who oppose it.

I have literally seen nowhere else (media reports or otherwise) where anyone has tried to blame anyone for the senseless killing other than dissident Republicans.

On here it's the Shinners and the DUP fault.

Unbelievable.

splinter65

blanch152 wrote: »

The DUP and SF have created a political vacuum in the North by refusing to put back in place the GFA institutions. They are jointly and equally to blame.

But that had nothing to do with the journalist getting shot. Why do you think it did?

derfderf

maccored wrote: »

whats wrong with voting against treaties that have points they disagree with? are they meant to agree with everything, because if they dont they dont want to be in the EU? Thats ridiculous talk.

If people followed SF's recommendation Ireland wouldn't be in the EU/ECC.
They've disagreed with every treaty, and now they're promoting themselves as the party trying to keep NI. You don't see a problem with this?

If the wind blows the other way, and the DUP position themselves as a party for same sex marriage, you'd be happy enough with that?

McMurphy

derfderf wrote: »

If people followed SF's recommendation Ireland wouldn't be in the EU/ECC.
They've disagreed with every treaty, and now they're promoting themselves as the party trying to keep NI. You don't see a problem with this?

If the wind blows the other way, and the DUP position themselves as a party for same sex marriage, you'd be happy enough with that?

Disagreeing with a treaty doesn't make a party anti EU/ECC.

Just googled Sinn Fein wanting Ireland to leave either but not having much luck,

I found this.

Overall, Sinn F’s attitude towards the EU can be described as one of “critical engagement”. The party acknowledges the economic benefits of membership, so does not advocate leaving the EU or the Eurozone. Rather, it is a nationalist party that seeks to limit the extent to which supranational institutions like the Commission take power away from national governments.

from here


do you have any examples?

derfderf

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Disagreeing with a treaty doesn't make a party anti EU/ECC.

Just googled Sinn Fein wanting Ireland to leave either but not having much luck,

I found this.

from here


do you have any examples?

It's on wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

They opposed joining the ECC, and opposed every treaty since. Are you saying outside of the treaties they support the project?

To add, the version of the EU they opposed through rejection of the treaties is the exact same version they're now campaigning to keep NI a part of.

Snow Garden

derfderf wrote: »

It's on wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

They opposed joining the ECC, and opposed every treaty since. Are you saying outside of the treaties they support the project?

To add, the version of the EU they opposed through rejection of the treaties is the exact same version they're now campaigning to keep NI a part of.

I always have the perception that SF want to take us back to the 50s. 'Ourselves Alone' and all that. They have been anti-EU for decades (unless it suits them). They are constantly using the Irish language in a pretentious way - changing their names and speaking Irish randomly and unneccessarily in the media. Yeah yeah it's our national language but English is far far more widely understood. I mean I cannot believe an Irish language Act is a red line issue for the Stormont reopening. The mind boggles. Would they waste even more money from their magical money tree on the Irish language if they got to power? That kind of segregated nonsense just alienates normal people/voters.

FrancieBrady

Snow Garden wrote: »

I always have the perception that SF want to take us back to the 50s. 'Ourselves Alone' and all that. They have been anti-EU for decades (unless it suits them). They are constantly using the Irish language in a pretentious way - changing their names and speaking Irish randomly and unneccessarily in the media. Yeah yeah it's our national language but English is far far more widely understood. I mean I cannot believe an Irish language Act is a red line issue for the Stormont reopening. The mind boggles. Would they waste even more money from their magical money tree on the Irish language if they got to power? That kind of segregated nonsense just alienates normal people/voters.

It's a bit trite and simplistic to say that the only block to Stormont getting back is an Irish Language Act.
The absence of one is an indicator of deeper issues.

*I personally think advocating rights for LGBT people and for Same Sex Marriage is anything but a 50's mentality.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

The DUP and SF have created a political vacuum in the North by refusing to put back in place the GFA institutions. They are jointly and equally to blame.

its not the vacuum thats caused the riots.

maccored

derfderf wrote: »

If people followed SF's recommendation Ireland wouldn't be in the EU/ECC.
They've disagreed with every treaty, and now they're promoting themselves as the party trying to keep NI. You don't see a problem with this?

If the wind blows the other way, and the DUP position themselves as a party for same sex marriage, you'd be happy enough with that?

SF have always pointed out the issues with being in the EU. In saying that, they wish to be - and have always stated they wish to be - part of the EU. Thats healthy

Snow Garden

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a bit trite and simplistic to say that the only block to Stormont getting back is an Irish Language Act.
The absence of one is an indicator of deeper issues.

*I personally think advocating rights for LGBT people and for Same Sex Marriage is anything but a 50's mentality.

Fair point and Mary Lou has been superb on recent referendums around SSM and Repeal8th. Arlene and here crew are in the 1800s when it comes to those issues.

Still though, the Irish language being a red line issue? It looks petty and pretentious.

FrancieBrady

Snow Garden wrote: »

Fair point and Mary Lou has been superb on recent referendums around SSM and Repeal8th. Arlene and here crew are in the 1800s when it comes to those issues.

Still though, the Irish language being a red line issue? It looks petty and pretentious.

But it isn't just about the Irish Language, that was the straw that broke the back of the powersharing arrangement and revealed to those who were not watching closely that it wasn't really full and respectful 'powersharing' at all.

This stagnation of the GFA process (that concept is important-that it is meant to be a process) has been ongoing for a good few years now and was pointed to several times.

blackwhite

maccored wrote: »

SF have always pointed out the issues with being in the EU. In saying that, they wish to be - and have always stated they wish to be - part of the EU. Thats healthy

That's patently not true. They campaigned against joining it in the first place.

Whatever their position now, it's a barefaced lie to try and claim that they have "always" wanted to be part of the EU

maccored

blackwhite wrote: »

That's patently not true. They campaigned against joining it in the first place.

Whatever their position now, it's a barefaced lie to try and claim that they have "always" wanted to be part of the EU

well they've been claiming that for at least a few decades now. besides - ireland joined the EEC in 1973. Are you telling me SF campaiging in 1972 against the EEC bears any resemblance to SF now? Jaysus - you really are stretching things

jm08

derfderf wrote: »

It's on wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

They opposed joining the ECC, and opposed every treaty since. Are you saying outside of the treaties they support the project?

To add, the version of the EU they opposed through rejection of the treaties is the exact same version they're now campaigning to keep NI a part of.

Would that not be the 'Officials' which became the Sinn Fein - the Workers Party (Cathal Goulding & Tomas MacGiolla).


Provisional Sinn Fein would not have got much of a hearing up to the mid-90s until the broadcasting ban was lifted.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

That's patently not true. They campaigned against joining it in the first place.

Whatever their position now, it's a barefaced lie to try and claim that they have "always" wanted to be part of the EU

Didn't Labour also campaign against it?

blackwhite

maccored wrote: »

well they've been claiming that for at least a few decades now. besides - ireland joined the EEC in 1973. Are you telling me SF campaiging in 1972 against the EEC bears any resemblance to SF now? Jaysus - you really are stretching things

I'm not the one making false claims on the thread.

Wasn't it you that claimed previously that in September 2016 Sinn Fein were unaware that Article 40 was going to be invoked - 3 months after the Leave vote had passed? And you accuse others of "stretching things"!

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Didn't Labour also campaign against it?

They did. But I haven't seen anyone here perpetuating the lie that Labour have always be in favour of EU membership.

Funny how you are immediately trying to deflect form your fellow travelers postings bare-faced falsehoods with some good old-fashioned whataboutery :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

They did. But I haven't seen anyone here perpetuating the lie that Labour have always be in favour of EU membership.

Funny how you are immediately trying to deflect form your fellow travelers postings bare-faced falsehoods with some good old-fashioned whataboutery :rolleyes:

The poster has clarified what they meant, that for a few decades now SF's position is clear on the EU.

My point is that parties (like Labour) change their positions. So what?

McMurphy

derfderf wrote: »

It's on wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

They opposed joining the ECC, and opposed every treaty since. Are you saying outside of the treaties they support the project?

To add, the version of the EU they opposed through rejection of the treaties is the exact same version they're now campaigning to keep NI a part of.

Did you read the link?

The United Irishman newspaper opposed the state's entry.[9] Official Sinn Féin also opposed the entry, citing anti-imperialism and calling the EC a "rich man's club"[9][10] Provisional Sinn Féin also opposed the entry, saying it would undermine Irish sovereignty and that the "Common Market Empire would threaten Irish ownership of Irish land".[10]

Official Sinn Fein.

Jesus.

derfderf

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Did you read the link?

Official Sinn Fein.

Jesus.

Two lines below:
Provisional Sinn Féin also opposed the entry, saying it would undermine Irish sovereignty and that the "Common Market Empire would threaten Irish ownership of Irish land"

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The poster has clarified what they meant, that for a few decades now SF's position is clear on the EU.

My point is that parties (like Labour) change their positions. So what?

And those parties don't have posters on here lying about their previous positions.

Funny how these threads are always replete with SF supporters "clarifying" what they meant when their lies get pointed out.

Simple tactic - make false claims repeatedly, but fall back to "that wasn't what I really meant" anytime the lies get pointed out. Do it enough and plenty of lies will be slipped through that weren't highlighted.

derfderf

maccored wrote: »

well they've been claiming that for at least a few decades now. besides - ireland joined the EEC in 1973. Are you telling me SF campaiging in 1972 against the EEC bears any resemblance to SF now? Jaysus - you really are stretching things

They've campaigned against every treaty since. The talk from Sinn Fein in the run up to the Lisbon treaty is straight out of the Brexiters handbook.
I actually have no problem with them being eurosceptics, but to position themselves as a foil to the brexit parties is pure opportunism.

derfderf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Didn't Labour also campaign against it?

Maybe they did, but they haven't campaigned against every single trearty since. Now they're the EU party in the north purely to be seen on the other side of the fence from the sh*tshow going on in the UK at the moment.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

And those parties don't have posters on here lying about their previous positions.

Funny how these threads are always replete with SF supporters "clarifying" what they meant when their lies get pointed out.

Simple tactic - make false claims repeatedly, but fall back to "that wasn't what I really meant" anytime the lies get pointed out. Do it enough and plenty of lies will be slipped through that weren't highlighted.

The poster clarified immediately what was meant. Hardly somebody intent on lying.

Is it that you think that they are really anti EU?

jm08

derfderf wrote: »

They've campaigned against every treaty since. The talk from Sinn Fein in the run up to the Lisbon treaty is straight out of the Brexiters handbook.
I actually have no problem with them being eurosceptics, but to position themselves as a foil to the brexit parties is pure opportunism.

I think that pretty much everyone was worried about sovereignty in the Lisbon Treaty - that is why it was defeated the first time. The assurances were given by the EU were about sovereignty (Neutrality, Conscription, tax, social policy). I'm kind of glad there are legal agreements, particularly on the tax situation).

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

The DUP and SF have created a political vacuum in the North by refusing to put back in place the GFA institutions. They are jointly and equally to blame.

Well not exactly. But you knew that.

SF pulled out of power sharing for numerous reasons but mostly related to the sectarian guff of the DUP towards the Irish language and their refusal to implement an Irish language act DESPITE already agreeing to do so.

They also wanted Arlene Foster to step aside while the ongoing investigation into her role in the RHI scheme was investigated.

Hardly unreasonable requests.

Also let it not be forgotten that talks that occurred after the collapse of the executive were successful only to be nixed at the last minute by the Westminster cohort of the DUP.

(Remember Leo and Theresa legging it to Stormont to announce that the executive would be back only for the DUP to change their minds?)

So yeah, by my calculations, this vacuum exists almost solely because of the DUP.

The same DUP that want NI to leave the EU DESPITE the majority of NI wishing to stay.

Yeah, it's all SF's fault!

derfderf

jm08 wrote: »

I think that pretty much everyone was worried about sovereignty in the Lisbon Treaty - that is why it was defeated the first time. The assurances were given by the EU were about sovereignty (Neutrality, Conscription, tax, social policy). I'm kind of glad there are legal agreements, particularly on the tax situation).

Neutrality, Conscription, tax, and social policy weren't even touched in the treaty. The assurances may have been necessary for the electorate who didn't read it all, or maybe didn't understand, but surely a serious political party should have known this and not needed assurances?