Is it just me or have SF vanished?

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

Parity of esteem my ar$e.

It was about bringing about a 32 county Republic.

So it failed.

Shinners have nothing that could not have been gotten had IRA surrendered in 1973 after Sunningdale instead of wasting another 21 years.

Historically and factually wrong.

Unionism collapsed Sunningdale and SF had nothing to do with that.

Bonniedog

So SF supported Sunningdale did it?

Sunningdale which contained everything that was in GFA by the way.

Or do you mean that republicans didnt want a 32 county republic and were only waiting for the chance to run the north for the Brits?

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

So SF supported Sunningdale did it?

SF had nothing to do with the negotiation of it and didn't support it.

Sunningdale which contained everything that was in GFA by the way.

A Seamus Mallon bitter about being forgotten and his party being demolished by the electorate coined the phrase 'The GFA was Sunningdale for slow learners', it wasn't there are quite a few differences and it was never going to work anyway until the British took responsibility and removed the Unionist veto with the Anglo Irish Agreement....then the road was clear to the GFA. Get the history right, then you can pass judgement.

Or do you mean that republicans didnt want a 32 county republic and were only waiting for the chance to run the north for the Brits?

What? Last time I looked republicans live in the north...why should they be beholding to the British for running their own homeland?

Bonniedog

The "unionist veto" in the GFA is exactly the same as it was in Sunningdale:

That a majority in 6 counties have to vote for unity.

This is getting tiresome as you clearly know nothing about any of this other than quick wiki visits that go over your head.

As for your last comment..... where to start. Northern Ireland is not a homeland, nor have republicans ever aspired to running it. Sounds like you are the one that has more in common with Mallon and the SDLP.

Pkiernan

I like that the SF dictatorship has ruled that the freely elected SF councillors were wrong.

Freedom!

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

The "unionist veto" in the GFA is exactly the same as it was in Sunningdale:

That a majority in 6 counties have to vote for unity.

This is getting tiresome as you clearly know nothing about any of this other than quick wiki visits that go over your head.

As for your last comment..... where to start. Northern Ireland is not a homeland, nor have republicans ever aspired to running it. Sounds like you are the one that has more in common with Mallon and the SDLP.

The Anglo Irish Agreement paved the way for the GFA because it removed the Unionist veto.fact.
SF didnt trust it either and opposed it.
Dont ridicule me because you don't know your history. Here's John Hume talking about it:

The Unionist people have a long and strong tradition in Ireland. They have a rich Protestant heritage and a great pride in their tradition. They have pride in their service to the Crown, pride in their contribution to the United States, in their spirit of industry and achievement, in their work ethic and in their faith. Their special metttle is believed by many of them to be expressed in victories in battles long ago, battles regularly commemorated. But that pride is expressed in an archaic supremacism and in a desperate fear that they could not survive in accommodation with other traditions. They must live apart. Living apart may have been acceptable as long as their hold on power was underpinned by successive British goverments: but that is no longer the case.

The fundamental change that has taken place as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a change that is deeply and fully understood by every Unionist. What it means is that their exclusive hold on power has gone and is not coming back. The power of veto on British policy which they have always had, and which goes to the heart of our problem here, has gone and is not coming back. The loss is uncomfortable for their leaders, for while they held that privileged position they never had to be politicians or exercise the art of politics, which is the art of representing one’s own view while treating others with fairness

I suggest you use this as a starting point and research properly. Then come back to us with a view based on what really happened. Yeh?

maccored

Bonniedog wrote: »

So SF supported Sunningdale did it?

Sunningdale which contained everything that was in GFA by the way.

Or do you mean that republicans didnt want a 32 county republic and were only waiting for the chance to run the north for the Brits?

an inaccurate quip invented by the SDLP. stop believing everything youre told without question. smacks of laziness and gullibility

Bonniedog

maccored wrote: »

an inaccurate quip invented by the SDLP. stop believing everything youre told without question. smacks of laziness and gullibility

Consent clause in Sunningdale, Hillsborough and GFA are exactly the same:

A united Ireland if a majority in 6 counties agree.

You band wagon hoppers are an embarrassment.

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

Consent clause in Sunningdale, Hillsborough and GFA are exactly the same:

A united Ireland if a majority in 6 counties agree.

You band wagon hoppers are an embarrassment.

You calling John Hume a band wagon hopper rather than admit you don't know what you are talking about.

Figures.

Bonniedog

I was referring to historical illiterates like yourself who clearly can't understand simple statements.

GFA commits the two governments to " ...recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the union with Great Britain or a sovereign United Ireland."


Sunningdale: "The Irish government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of people in Northern Ireland desired a change in that status."

Hillsborough 1985 - "The two governments affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland."

Perhaps our constitutional experts here will explain the difference?

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

I was referring to historical illiterates like yourself who clearly can't understand simple statements.

GFA commits the two governments to " ...recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the union with Great Britain or a sovereign United Ireland."


Sunningdale: "The Irish government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of people in Northern Ireland desired a change in that status."

Hillsborough 1985 - "The two governments affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland."

Perhaps our constitutional experts here will explain the difference?

Change the goalposts when caught out. You were spouting this rubbish a while ago:

The "unionist veto" in the GFA is exactly the same as it was in Sunningdale:

Do you accept that this was rubbish of the highest order or not?

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Change the goalposts when caught out. You were spouting this rubbish a while ago:



Do you accept that this was rubbish of the highest order or not?

Could you go through that again. I lost you at the first Quote

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

Could you go through that again. I lost you at the first Quote

Bonniedog doesn't even know what the 'Unionist Veto' refers to. I posted the Hume piece to try and educate him.

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Bonniedog doesn't even know what the 'Unionist Veto' refers to. I posted the Hume piece to try and educate him.

And?

Bonniedog

You are not very bright are you, young Francis?

The "unionist veto" is the right to consent to change constitutional status of NI. It's still there.

Only difference between 1973 is that erstwhile republicans are prepared to accept it and administer part of Ireland for the Brits.

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

You are not very bright are you, young Francis?

The "unionist veto" is the right to consent to change constitutional status of NI. It's still there.

Only difference between 1973 is that erstwhile republicans are prepared to accept it and administer part of Ireland for the Brits.

Stop digging Bonnie.

Hume again...read and learn because you know nothing of what you talk about. Embarrassing.

The fundamental change that has taken place as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a change that is deeply and fully understood by every Unionist. What it means is that their exclusive hold on power has gone and is not coming back. The power of veto on British policy which they have always had, and which goes to the heart of our problem here, has gone and is not coming back.

That is why the Unionists see it as the ultimate betrayal. It was pivotal to the GFA coming around because it enabled Hume to do his solo run convincing SF of the change in British attitudes.

Unionist pulled down Sunningdale because it was a nationalist settlement and quite correctly perceived to be a road to a UI.
The GFA is fundamentally different because neither side can see it as one or the other.

Bonniedog

So the Provos did support Sunningdale but decided for the crack to keep killing people and having Volunteers killed for nothing for another 25 years?

Genius.

BTW,when the army surrendered Volunteers were told that the Brits would be gone "within five years." Don't know if you noticed this, but they are still here 22 years after the GFA.

Genius.

So now, the shinners run the 6 for the Brits, the IRA has surrendered and handed over all its weapons, and the party is dominated by people who wouldn't have had had anything to do with it 25 years ago. And no nearer a united Ireland than 1922.

Pure genius.

I wonder do they have a tip for the Derby?

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

So the Provos did support Sunningdale but decided for the crack to keep killing people and having Volunteers killed for nothing for another 25 years?

Genius.

BTW,when the army surrendered Volunteers were told that the Brits would be gone "within five years." Don't know if you noticed this, but they are still here 22 years after the GFA.

Genius.

So now, the shinners run the 6 for the Brits, the IRA has surrendered and handed over all its weapons, and the party is dominated by people who wouldn't have had had anything to do with it 25 years ago. And no nearer a united Ireland than 1922.

Pure genius.

I wonder do they have a tip for the Derby?

On the sauce Bonnie? Fair play.

Caught out and does a complete deflection...complete. Not often you see that on boards,ie. Most posters are more subtle and at least try.

Bonniedog

Am bored. So went to trouble not only of explaining what consent/veto means in context of the three agreements, but posting the relevant sections. You respond with meaningless quote from a man who unlike myself was often on the sauce!

Hume was part of conning the shinners - or rather supplying Adams with enough to con them into the surrender. He was hardly going to say that in public! "By the way lads we rogered you sideways without the courtesy of a reach around." :-)

You are even less coherent than a shinner TD, and that's saying something.

Paper hat in the post :-)

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

Am bored. So went to trouble not only of explaining what consent/veto means in context of the three agreements, but posting the relevant sections. You respond with meaningless quote from a man who unlike myself was often on the sauce!

Hume was part of conning the shinners - or rather supplying Adams with enough to con them into the surrender. He was hardly going to say that in public! "By the way lads we rogered you sideways without the courtesy of a reach around." :-)

You are even less coherent that a shinner TD, and that's saying something.

Paper hat in the post :-)

You had no idea what the Unionist veto was, got found out - deflected more completely than anyone I ever read on boards.ie and have now resorted to the invective of a teenager.

Enjoy the drink.

JohnnyFlash

Don't like to see John Humes name dragged through the mud here, lads. The finest Republican since Collins.

James Brown

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

Only came onto this thread for the pathetic whataboutery, so thank you.

You're cool with O'Leary though, who openly admires the Blueshirts?

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Don't like to see John Humes name dragged through the mud here, lads. The finest Republican since Collins.

Hume's solo run on foot of the Anglo Irish Agreement and Adams/SF's receptiveness to it was pivotal.
For somebody to be so lazy as to not understand what the Unionist veto was and what the AIA did to it, is unforgiveable really. Hume deserves every plaudit he gets for what he did.

Bonniedog

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hume's solo run on foot of the Anglo Irish Agreement and Adams/SF's receptiveness to it was pivotal.
For somebody to be so lazy as to not understand what the Unionist veto was and what the AIA did to it, is unforgiveable really. Hume deserves every plaudit he gets for what he did.

Are you an SF supporter?

Has their degeneracy gotten so bad that people like you vote for them?

To think that people like Bobby Sands died for this. A shame.

Poor_old_gill

Bowie wrote: »

You're cool with O'Leary though, who openly admires the Blueshirts?

From the irony in your posts- I can’t decide whether you are just not very bright or you are the wittiest person on here.

But answering a post where the constant whataboutery of SF supporters is being called out- with more whataboutery- gave me a little chuckle this morning.

Thank you

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

Are you an SF supporter?

Has their degeneracy gotten so bad that people like you vote for them?

To think that people like Bobby Sands died for this. A shame.

And we pivot and deflect again.

Mortelaro

https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1276801701316460544?s=19

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1276801701316460544?s=19

Did Colum offer an opinion on why a party would deliberately embroil themselves in bad publicity?

Like this proposal/nomination came across one of the white bearded old men in the Antrim hill's desk and he thought to himself...'what a brilliant idea to make the party look good, this will really advance our plot to take over the state...approved'.

That how it works?

Bonniedog

Another new Sinn Féin south Dublin councillor Dermot Richardson was given suspended sentence last October for an assault on his former wife's partner.

Headbutted him and knocked two of his teeth out.

Some set up down there it would seem!

Strange mixture of people who should be in Greens or some other touchy feely party, and basically a gang of thugs.

Poor_old_gill

Bonniedog wrote: »

Another new Sinn Féin south Dublin councillor Dermot Richardson was given suspended sentence last October for an assault on his former wife's partner.

Headbutted him and knocked two of his teeth out.

Some set up down there it would seem!

Strange mixture of people who should be in Greens or some other touchy feely party, and basically a gang of thugs.

CHANGE.