Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is it just me or have SF vanished?
Options
Comments
-
Bishop of hope wrote: »That is victim shaming at least if not blaming.
Sometimes you don't help your cause by engaging is such ****e lads.
Maria Cahills, story has been vindicated by both the PSNI and SF.
Marylou even apologised to her for what she had to go through, her and two other women.
Maybe that's not the pretty truth but it's the truth nonetheless.
They are questions not about her alleged abuse but about how she was used and what FF FG ignored to use her for political gain. As is usual she was dropped like a hot potato when she was no longer useful to them.
That's the 'not pretty truth' Bish0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »They are questions not about her alleged abuse but about how she was used and what FF FG ignored to use her for political gain. As is usual she was dropped like a hot potato when she was no longer useful to them.
That's the 'not pretty truth' Bish
Probably true Francie, but doesn't exonerate from the original blame.
Two posters here at least today have been using allegations against Cahill herself to form their opinion and neither mentioned that aspect, just based it on her character, which has been vindicated in relation to the abuse itself.0 -
Bishop of hope wrote: »Probably true Francie, but doesn't exonerate from the original blame.
Two posters here at least today have been using allegations against Cahill herself to form their opinion and neither mentioned that aspect, just based it on her character, which has been vindicated in relation to the abuse itself.
Except the bothersome issue of the alleged's right to vindicate himself. Mary Lou is no more a judge or jury than I am.
Wasn't there great talk of human rights conventions here a while ago?.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Except the bothersome issue of the alleged's right to vindicate himself. Mary Lou is no more a judge or jury than I am.
Wasn't there great talk of human rights conventions here a while ago?.
Don't be fooled by the Pharisees.....They will make twisted arguments to justify their way of life....They don't care how about how many children died in the troubles...They're only interested is in conserving their way of life....ESB, RTE, farms, plant hire to the local council....Understand, these are people who have never worked a day in their lives....If you pulled away their money, and cleansed state agencies of their kind...they'd have nothing....nothing to offer the world.....0 -
blackwhite wrote: »The Maastricht Treaty is about becoming a member of the EU - which replaces the EEC. Sinn Fein campaigned against it. Claiming that they’ve never been opposed to EU membership is a blatant lie - as they campaigned against the referendum to move from EEC membership to EU membership.
Here’s the text of the amendment - that SF campaigned against
4º The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union.
About as clear cut an example of campaigning against EU membership as you can get.
So either you’ve no idea what the 11th Amendment to the Irish Constitution actually was about - and made false claims based on that lack of knowledge - or you’re just pushing a falsehood because it suits the current-day SF narrative.
But sure keep the personal attacks and spinning if it makes you feel better.
i cant be arsed going back over the last few posts and pointing out the web of convoluted bull**** youve been typing. You basically set yourself up a question and then answered it - well done you0 -
Advertisement
-
blackwhite wrote: »The Maastricht Treaty is about becoming a member of the EU - which replaces the EEC. Sinn Fein campaigned against it. Claiming that they’ve never been opposed to EU membership is a blatant lie - as they campaigned against the referendum to move from EEC membership to EU membership.
Here’s the text of the amendment - that SF campaigned against
4º The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht Treaty on the 7th day of February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union.
About as clear cut an example of campaigning against EU membership as you can get.
So either you’ve no idea what the 11th Amendment to the Irish Constitution actually was about - and made false claims based on that lack of knowledge - or you’re just pushing a falsehood because it suits the current-day SF narrative.
But sure keep the personal attacks and spinning if it makes you feel better.
hang on - democratic left and labour opposed it. SF had no TDs to oppose it0 -
hang on - democratic left and labour opposed it. SF had no TDs to oppose it
TDs are irrelevant for a referendum. Maybe you’re really that ignorant of the democratic processes in this country, or maybe you’re just grasping at straws to try and cover up the lies you spewed.
Sinn Fein campaigned to oppose the 11th amendment to the Constitution - which was the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and allowing Ireland to join the EU.
You pushed the lie that Sinn Fein never opposed membership of the EU - and your response to the lie being called out has been a repeated torrent of abuse (as well as more and more lies)
If you’d made a similar false claim about DL or Labour then those claims would have been called out as false as well.
Don’t post complete and utter b***ox if it can easily be disproved - you waded into this thread throwing your usual wild accusations and abuse around , and I referred back to a blatant lie you posted a few months ago. If your memory is so poor that you cannot remember the propaganda you posted to support your party earlier in the year then that’s your problem, and no one else’s. But no doubt you’ll continue as you always do, and throw abuse at anyone who dares to question the BS0 -
blackwhite wrote: »The Maastricht Treaty is about becoming a member of the EU - which replaces the EEC. Sinn Fein campaigned against it. Claiming that they’ve never been opposed to EU membership is a blatant lie - as they campaigned against the referendum to move from EEC membership to EU membership.
Here’s the text of the amendment - that SF campaigned against
4º The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union.
About as clear cut an example of campaigning against EU membership as you can get.
So either you’ve no idea what the 11th Amendment to the Irish Constitution actually was about - and made false claims based on that lack of knowledge - or you’re just pushing a falsehood because it suits the current-day SF narrative.
But sure keep the personal attacks and spinning if it makes you feel better.
How did you get from voting against the Maastricht treaty to being against the EU all in the same sentence.
Maybe if you had quoted a little bit more of the treaty you would see why the Masstricht Treaty was a very bad deal for Ireland and other small countries in Europe. We essentially gave away our right to control currency, have EU laws imposed on us despite no Irish MEP voting for them, and risked potentially losing our Neutrality.
Under Maastricht the European Community would now become the European Union, with a single currency the Euro.
The UK decided to use their opt out option in the Maastricht treaty not to adopt the Euro, but become a member of the EU.
I'm sure there many people in Ireland that might have wished we joined the EU but not adopted the Euro.
Both the the UK and Ireland decided not to adopt the Schengen Agreement which would have abolished ALL border controls that was part of the Maastricht Treaty.
The Maastricht treaty also introduced a Common Foreign and Security Policy and Cooperation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs.
While there were many advantages to this there was also the thorny subject of Irish Neutrality.
It was this that SF were most concerned about, and rightly sought clarification for, but at the time this was very much swept under the carpet as Ireland could not be seen as the 'disruptive schoolboy at the back of the class'
So to claim SF were anti EU could not be further from the truth, what they had was legitimate concerns over the Irish government ceding powers regarding control of our borders, the justice system and the possibility of a EU defence force or Ireland losing its Neutrality.
Our Neutrality has served us well over the years, our defence forces sent on peace keeping missions are hugely respected no matter which country they are posted to.
I think it right and proper that any agreement that would potentially erode our neutrality should be viewed with scepticism or at least have a opt out clause inserted to respect our neutrality if we as a country wish to retain that.0 -
How did you get from voting against the Maastricht treat to being against the EU all in the same sentence.
Maybe if you had quoted a little bit more of the treaty you would see why the Masstricht Treaty was a very bad deal for Ireland and other small countries in Europe.
Under Maastricht the European Community would now become the European Union, with a single currency the Euro.
The UK decided to use their opt out option in the Maastricht treaty not to adopt the Euro, but become a member of the EU.
I'm sure there many people in Ireland that might have wished we joined the EU but not adopted the Euro.
Both the the UK and Ireland decided not to adopt the Schengen Agreement which would have abolished ALL border controls that was part of the Maastricht Treaty.
The Maastricht treaty also introduced a Common Foreign and Security Policy and Cooperation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs.
While there were many advantages to this there was also the thorny subject of Irish Neutrality.
It was this that SF were most concerned about, and rightly sought clarification for, but at the time this was very much swept under the carpet as Ireland could not be seen as the 'disruptive schoolboy at the back of the class'
So to claim SF were anti EU could not be further from the truth, what they had was legitimate concerns over the Irish government ceding powers regarding control of our borders and the possibility of a EU defence force or Ireland losing its Neutrality.
Our Neutrality has served us well over the years, our defence forces sent on peace keeping missions are hugely respected no matter which country they are posted to.
I think it right and proper that any agreement that would potentially erode our neutrality should be viewed with scepticism or at least have a opt out clause inserted to respect our neutrality if we as a country wish to retain that.
The poster claimed that SF have never, ever, been opposed to EU membership.
The Maastricht Treaty created the EU, and the referendum on Maastricht was a vote to permit Ireland to join the EU.
SF campaigning to reject Maastricht is literally SF campaigning to oppose ireland joining the EU.
All of the above is strawmanning - it’s nothing to do with what’s actually being argued. You might think that SF were right to oppose Ireland joining the EU - but you don’t get to publish the lie that SF never opposed Irish membership of the EU0 -
4º The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union.
There’s the text that Sinn Fein opposed being included in the Constitution. It takes one hell of a warped logic to claim that opposing the above doesn’t equate to opposing Irish membership of the EU.0 -
Advertisement
-
blackwhite wrote: »The poster claimed that SF have never, ever, been opposed to EU membership.
The Maastricht Treaty created the EU, and the referendum on Maastricht was a vote to permit Ireland to join the EU.
SF campaigning to reject Maastricht is literally SF campaigning to oppose ireland joining the EU.
All of the above is strawmanning - it’s nothing to do with what’s actually being argued. You might think that SF were right to oppose Ireland joining the EU - but you don’t get to publish the lie that SF never opposed Irish membership of the EU
WE know the EU was a creation of the Maastricht treaty. It was essentially created to enable a Unified Germany to enter the existing European Economic Comunity.
SF never opposed the EEC, it was essentially a fairer system for the smaller countries with each country possessing a veto vote on any legalisation or adopting that legislation. The Maastricht Treaty was the first step to eliminating that veto vote, and later when Nice and Lisbon were adopted that veto was lost.
To suggest that SF were anti EU or EEC is the wrong way to put it. They were fully supportive of the EEC before hand.
They had very legitimate concerns regarding our government having to cede power to unelected bureaucrats in Europe along with our Neutality.0 -
WE know the EU was a creation of the Maastricht treaty. It was essentially created to enable a Unified Germany to enter the existing European Economic Comunity.
SF never opposed the EEC, it was essentially a fairer system for the smaller countries with each country possessing a veto vote on any legalisation or adopting that legislation. The Maastricht Treaty was the first step to eliminating that veto vote, and later when Nice and Lisbon were adopted that veto was lost.
To suggest that SF were anti EU or EEC is the wrong way to put it. They were fully supportive of the EEC before hand.
They had very legitimate concerns regarding our government having to cede power to unelected bureaucrats in Europe along with our Neutality.
The weren’t anti-EU - they just opposed the creation of the EU and opposed Ireland joining the EU. :rolleyes:
They never opposed the EEC - except the referendum to join it of course, and the referendum to approve the single market in 1988 :rolleyes:
Keep spinning the propaganda. I’m sure the overlords in Parnell Sq appreciate it if nothing else0 -
blackwhite wrote: »4º The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union.
There’s the text that Sinn Fein opposed being included in the Constitution. It takes one hell of a warped logic to claim that opposing the above doesn’t equate to opposing Irish membership of the EU.
Maastrict wasn't about pro EU - anti EU, it was about the terms.
Many countries had problems with it and it scraped past the post in Denmark and France if memory serves.
Euro sceptic isn't anti Europe, in fact, in Irish history it is quite a healthy attitude IMO0 -
Are SF not anti everything though?0
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »Maastrict wasn't about pro EU - anti EU, it was about the terms.
Many countries had problems with it and it scraped past the post in Denmark and France if memory serves.
Euro sceptic isn't anti Europe, in fact, in Irish history it is quite a healthy attitude IMO
I’ve posted the text of the constitutional amendment. It was literally about the creation of the EU, and whether or not to join
Shinnerbots loves to throw around the term revisionist at anyone who questions SF. There’s some serious spinning and revisionism going on to try and pretend that SF weren’t opposed to EU membership until the late 1990s
But then again - truth and facts have only ever been an inconvenience to the SF acolytes on here :rolleyes:0 -
blackwhite wrote: »I’ve posted the text of the constitutional amendment. It was literally about the creation of the EU, and whether or not to join
Shinnerbots loves to throw around the term revisionist at anyone who questions SF. There’s some serious spinning and revisionism going on to try and pretend that SF weren’t opposed to EU membership until the late 1990s
But then again - truth and facts have only ever been an inconvenience to the SF acolytes on here :rolleyes:
In all honesty you posted feck all.
No link, no terms, no conditions.
You are trying to argue a point that you simply cannot support.0 -
In all honesty you posted feck all.
No link, no terms, no conditions.
You are trying to argue a point that you simply cannot support.
It's there in black and white, back to our joining the EU.
Sinn Fein at the time opposed that, and every referendum on further integration since.
There's nothing to be proven, it's the truth.
They have changed completely on it, but that makes political sense of course and its very democratic of them to have done so.
The EU is now a gateway to a UI that helps their cause because of brexit.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Except the bothersome issue of the alleged's right to vindicate himself. Mary Lou is no more a judge or jury than I am.
Wasn't there great talk of human rights conventions here a while ago?.
Well it seems your SF party took it on themselves to form that judgement too, admitted they judged others as well and banished them, they said so themselves.
So if it's human rights you're campaigning for, maybe you're on the wrong horse.0 -
blackwhite wrote: »I’ve posted the text of the constitutional amendment. It was literally about the creation of the EU, and whether or not to join
Shinnerbots loves to throw around the term revisionist at anyone who questions SF. There’s some serious spinning and revisionism going on to try and pretend that SF weren’t opposed to EU membership until the late 1990s
But then again - truth and facts have only ever been an inconvenience to the SF acolytes on here :rolleyes:
Wow, wait a minute there horse.
I know exactly where SF have come from on the EEC and the EU...they have evolved their position on it. And were pro the EU long before they were accused of bandwagoning on Brexit.
I actually researched this before on here and showed pro EU membership material from the party in the mid 90's...long before Brexit was even on the horizon.
Here is what Maastrict was about;a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/explainers/tell-me-more/html/25_years_maastricht.en.html#:~:text=The%20Maastricht%20Treaty%2C%20officially%20known,among%20the%20peoples%20of%20Europe%E2%80%9D.&text=European%20citizenship%20was%20created%2C%20allowing,move%20freely%20between%20Member%20States
I don't remember anyone campaigning on an 'in/out' platform.0 -
Bishop of hope wrote: »Well it seems your SF party took it on themselves to form that judgement too, admitted they judged others as well and banished them, they said so themselves.
So if it's human rights you're campaigning for, maybe you're on the wrong horse.
Correct me if I am wrong but was one of the core problems in the conflict/war, trust of the police force and judiciary in a human rights context?
Wasn't that more or less accepted when the above was reformed to gain the trust of Nationalists?0 -
Advertisement
-
Proof, if it was ever needed, that the SF acolytes would argue the sky is purple if they thought it suited the SF agenda.
Revisionists one and all :pac:
This is the text Sinn Fein campaigned against including in the constitution
4° The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1992/ca/11/enacted/en/print.html
And here’s the description of the amendment:
leventh Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992 [Allowed the State to ratify the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht) and to become a member of that union.]
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html
We all know Sinn Fein and their apologies to have had difficulties in acknowledging and respecting the validity of our constitution - appears this is yet another example.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Wow, wait a minute there horse.
I know exactly where SF have come from on the EEC and the EU...they have evolved their position on it. And were pro the EU long before they were accused of bandwagoning on Brexit.
I actually researched this before on here and showed pro EU membership material from the party in the mid 90's...long before Brexit was even on the horizon.
Here is what Maastrict was about;
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/explainers/tell-me-more/html/25_years_maastricht.en.html#:~:text=The%20Maastricht%20Treaty%2C%20officially%20known,among%20the%20peoples%20of%20Europe%E2%80%9D.&text=European%20citizenship%20was%20created%2C%20allowing,move%20freely%20between%20Member%20States
I don't remember anyone campaigning on an 'in/out' platform.
Funny how you decided to omit the title of the section you quoted1. It established the European Union
Not like you to be selective with the truth :rolleyes:
(And I never knew that the European Central Bank was the authority on European Treaties or Irish Constituonal matters - serious straw-clutching going on).0 -
blackwhite wrote: »Funny how you decided to omit the title of the section you quoted
Not like you to be selective with the truth :rolleyes:
(And I never knew that the European Central Bank was the authority on European Treaties or Irish Constituonal matters - serious straw-clutching going on).
Do you understand what 'a further stage' means?
I was in my late 20's years of age in 1992 and Maastricht was not an 'in or out' referendum. It was about whether we wanted to get into a closer relationship.
I.E. if we voted No, the whole thing would not collapse.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Correct me if I am wrong but was one of the core problems in the conflict/war, trust of the police force and judiciary in a human rights context?
Wasn't that more or less accepted when the above was reformed to gain the trust of Nationalists?
Unfortunately the anti Garda/ PSNI bias peculiar to Sinn Fein/ IRA has already oozed through the cracks here so lets not pretend that Sinn Fein IRA give any real support to them.
Been out yesterday and looking back over the posts just see earnest posters hopelessly trying to chase the Sinn Fein IRA crew into some kind of moral or logical showdown. A waste of time,as is evidenced here, they will slither, equivocate and simply lie as it suits. All you can do is call out the lie and move on.
Agree Maria Cahill is a compromised person who certainly was involved with Sinn Sein IRA new IRA real IRA and /or whatever they are called this week. Perhaps she should be in jail for that. When she got no justice from Gerry and the boys she went legit. Nevertheless the man who raped here should certainly be in jail. Justice is not just for nice people - or gang leaders. Endy story.
Francie and his fellow travellers will spend their days covering up and justifying their wretched history and their nights weeping and masturbating before their sick little treasure troves of shell casings, IRA posters and death cult memorabilia. These people are not amenable to change or consideration of the pointless evil of their useless campaign. Just call out the lie each time and move on.0 -
Don't be fooled by the Pharisees.....They will make twisted arguments to justify their way of life....They don't care how about how many children died in the troubles...They're only interested is in conserving their way of life....ESB, RTE, farms, plant hire to the local council....Understand, these are people who have never worked a day in their lives....If you pulled away their money, and cleansed state agencies of their kind...they'd have nothing....nothing to offer the world.....
Another utterly fantastic wet dream of pure resentment. Love it0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Do you understand what 'a further stage' means?
I was in my late 20's years of age in 1992 and Maastricht was not an 'in or out' referendum. It was about whether we wanted to get into a closer relationship.
I.E. if we voted No, the whole thing would not collapse.
Do you understand what IT ESTABLISHED THE EU means? That’s the title of the section that you quoted - but are determined to dishonesty ignore because it undermines your latest bout of revisionism
Maastricht was literally to create the EU - and the referendum was on whether Ireland would ratify the treaty and become a member of the newly create EU
The text of the amendment that people were asked to vote on is there in black and white - you continue your usual spinning all you want, the lies you and your fellow travellers want to peddle can’t change what was voted on
If Maastricht was rejected then one of two things would happen - either the EU would not have been created, or the EU would have been created with Ireland on the outside.
Opposing Ireland ratifying Maastricht is as clear-cut and instance of opposing Irish EU-membership as there could have been. But we all know that pushing SFs latest distortion of history is the only agenda you’re ever interested in on here.0 -
blackwhite wrote: »Do you understand what IT ESTABLISHED THE EU means? That’s the title of the section that you quoted - but are determined to dishonesty ignore because it undermines your latest bout of revisionism
Maastricht was literally to create the EU - and the referendum was on whether Ireland would ratify the treaty and become a member of the newly create EU
The text of the amendment that people were asked to vote on is there in black and white - you continue your usual spinning all you want, the lies you and your fellow travellers want to peddle can’t change what was voted on
If Maastricht was rejected then one of two things would happen - either the EU would not have been created, or the EU would have been created with Ireland on the outside.
Opposing Ireland ratifying Maastricht is as clear-cut and instance of opposing Irish EU-membership as there could have been. But we all know that pushing SFs latest distortion of history is the only agenda you’re ever interested in on here.
I guess you have to ask the question - what would have happened had Maastrict failed...would we still have had an EC?
The answer to that is Yes, I don't remember anyone saying otherwise. If I am wrong, please link to it. I have no problem accepting I am wrong.
A further stage of integration and closer union is what Maastricht was about IMO.
Just as I said SF's attitude to the EEC, EC and EU evolved.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »I guess you have to ask the question - what would have happened had Maastrict failed...would we still have had an EC?
The answer to that is Yes, I don't remember anyone saying otherwise. If I am wrong, please link to it. I have no problem accepting I am wrong.
A further stage of integration and closer union is what Maastricht was about IMO.
Just as I said SF's attitude to the EEC, EC and EU evolved.
It did not evolve. It changed overnight because of Brexit. Essentially SF have a 1 world view.
If its British its bad.
The day the UK voted for Brexit the EU became Gods gift to SF.0 -
It did not evolve. It changed overnight because of Brexit. Essentially SF have a 1 world view.
If its British its bad.
The day the UK voted for Brexit the EU became Gods gift to SF.
Before making the blanket statement above and looking, trite and silly, why not properly research?
Here's a start point.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07907180903274834?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=fips200 -
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »I guess you have to ask the question - what would have happened had Maastrict failed...would we still have had an EC?
The answer to that is Yes, I don't remember anyone saying otherwise. If I am wrong, please link to it. I have no problem accepting I am wrong.
A further stage of integration and closer union is what Maastricht was about IMO.
Just as I said SF's attitude to the EEC, EC and EU evolved.
Your slanted opinions don’t change historic fact. Maastricht created the EU as successor to the EEC. Sinn Fein campaigned against ratification, and campaigned against membership of the EU.
Nobody on here has disputed that SF have evolved their position since then (except of course the few SF members & supporters who repeatedly lies that SF have never opposed membership)
For someone who loves to label others revisionists, you’re a bit too fond of trying to airbrush anything that doesn’t suit the SF agenda.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement