The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

Solutionking

Solutionking wrote: »

Ireland doesn't need a Unified Ireland, hasn't since the Good Friday. It's only the belligerent catholics who want it.

IMO it deos.....NI is poorest region in northern europe....its obscene how the english have run it into the ground


Your arguements againest a utd ireland are same cited here in 1922,for scottish independance referendum few years ago,even identical cited in 1961 in malta,

has it ever occured to yous,that you may be being manipulated by british propaganda??

Noone is claiming a utd ireland will be a land of milk and honey,but realistically its happening and will become an increasing issue going forward,

pretending its a non-issue to be shouted down and its proponants labeled wasters,isnt going to work anymore

FrancieBrady

Solutionking wrote: »

So everyone that has a job and wants to pay a mortgage is now either a partitionist or a belligerent unionist?

Where did I say that SK?

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where does he 'conclude that the GFA 'mandates' a poll here? He doesn't. He actually states at one point,


The government won't decide not to have a poll but he is clearly of the opinion that they have a choice.


Also pay attention to this passage.


He is actually off the same opinion as me, there is no obligation or mandate but they will have one.

Where does he say that because of the 1998 vote, that it is considered a concurrent vote. Francie, stop embarrassing yourself. Read the article and educate yourself. Learn to be humble and admit mistakes. Rumpole you are not. Actually think you are trolling now,

I’ll give you a little help. Open up page 9 and start from the top and don’t finish until you realise that you are embarassimg yourself. Better than starting at the end of page 9 but disregarding all the lovely paragraphs before. But hey, wouldn’t be the first time that you deny or disregarded the truth.

FrancieBrady

Solutionking wrote: »

Everyone to you is a belligerent unionist unless they agree with you. So just even reading these threads would give a good idea of what would happen if a unified Ireland happened.

Ireland doesn't need a Unified Ireland, hasn't since the Good Friday. It's only the belligerent catholics who want it.

I distinguish belligerent Unionists from ordinary moderate Unionists the vast majority of whom accepted the GFA and it's clauses. I debate the future with moderate Unionists all the time SK. They are not afraid of it and accept that the future for them may be in a UI just as I as a moderate republican believe and accept that a UI not happen.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Where does he say that because of the 1998 vote, that it is considered a concurrent vote. Francie, stop embarrassing yourself. Read the article and educate yourself. Learn to be humble and admit mistakes. Rumpole you are not. Actually think you are trolling now,

Like me he clearly believes that we will decide (important that you recognise that he says this is a choice) to run a concurrent referendum and bases his thoughts on this.

It's spelled out there, not once but twice.

...for Northern Ireland decided to hold
a poll in Northern Ireland and if it was decided by the government to hold a poll

Irish Government is not under any express obligation to conduct a simultaneous poll in
Ireland.

And NOWHRE at all does he say the GFA 'mandates' that we have a poll, which is what you claimed.
Not only were you wrong Joe, you were profoundly wrong.

Solutionking

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did I say that SK?

According to you anyone that doesn't want a unified Ireland is either a partionist or a beligerent unionist. For evidence? check your post history.

It's great having the time to sit 24 x 7 on a forum talking about this, the people that will pay for it don't have the time and I can assue you they are not partionist or belligerent "insert random religion".

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like me he clearly believes that we will decide (important that you recognise that he says this is a choice) to run a concurrent referendum and bases his thoughts on this.

It's spelled out there, not once but twice.



And NOWHRE at all does he say the GFA 'mandates' that we have a poll, which is what you claimed.
Not only were you wrong Joe, you were profoundly wrong.

Again Francie, instead of plucking quotes out from three quarters of the way down page 9, do as I said and start at the first word.

It actually states that the referendum is on the same day. The bit you highlighted actually refers to If we decide to hold a referendum after it would be fraught with difficulties.

You are sounding more and more like a SF politician who is inept and understanding the meaning of legislation and plucking buzz words and jumping up and down.

Not only can’t you start at the stop of the page, but you are not profound.

Again, start at the top and stop plucking incorrect answers out. It really is not really that difficult.

Just so you know, the meaning of not required to hold a simultaneous poll, is not the same as concurrent one. He says the law and jurisprudence says we must do that.

Get a dictionary for your self if it helps.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Again Francie, instead of plucking quotes out from three quarters of the way down page 9, do as I said and start at the first word.

It actually states that the referendum is on the same day. The bit you highlighted actually refers to If we decide to hold a referendum after it would be fraught with difficulties.

You are sounding more and more like a SF politician who is inept and understanding the meaning of legislation and plucking buzz words and jumping up and down.

Not only can’t you start at the stop of the page, but you are not profound.

Again, start at the top and stop plucking incorrect answers out. It really is not really that difficult.

Just so you know, the meaning of not required to hold a simultaneous poll, is not the same as concurrent one. He says the law and jurisprudence says we must do that.

Get a dictionary for your self if it helps.

Now now Joe, mind the invective.

He clearly assumes like me, that the Irish government will decide to have a referendum on the same day and bases what he has to say on that. That is WHY he is talking about a referendum on the same day.

But that is a 'choice' we have. Therefore we are NOT mandated by the GFA to have one. Which you still refuse to accept.
He says it quite clearly here, it doesn't matter what page it is on.

Irish Government is not under any express obligation to conduct a simultaneous poll in
Ireland.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now now Joe, mind the invective.

He clearly assumes like me, that the Irish government will decide to have a referendum on the same day and bases what he has to say on that. That is WHY he is talking about a referendum on the same day.

But that is a 'choice' we have. Therefore we are NOT mandated by the GFA to have one. Which you still refuse to accept.
He says it quite clearly here, it doesn't matter what page it is on.

Again go to page 9 and start at the top.

Good man Francie,sick of your attitude now. Why is not one person in agreement with ya. Literally not one. Have a think about it. Don’t answer me again.

FrancieBrady

Solutionking wrote: »

According to you anyone that doesn't want a unified Ireland is either a partionist or a beligerent unionist. For evidence? check your post history.

It's great having the time to sit 24 x 7 on a forum talking about this, the people that will pay for it don't have the time and I can assue you they are not partionist or belligerent "insert random religion".

Where have I said it SK?

You will not find a quote from me that says it anywhere.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Again go to page 9 and start at the top.

Good man Francie,sick of your attitude now. Why is not one person in agreement with ya. Literally not one. Have a think about it. Don’t answer me again.

What?

You want other people to go through this nonsense too?

There is NO mandate in the GFA for a southern poll. Fact.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

Good man Francie,sick of your attitude now. Why is not one person in agreement with ya. Literally not one. Have a think about it. Don’t answer me again.

Kinda sounds like yous want an echo chamber and noone allowed to disagree

Imo thats a really mean spirited comment,when he has been entirely courteous to you

McMurphy

Solutionking wrote: »

According to you anyone that doesn't want a unified Ireland is either a partionist or a beligerent unionist. For evidence? check your post history.

It's great having the time to sit 24 x 7 on a forum talking about this, the people that will pay for it don't have the time and I can assue you they are not partionist or belligerent "insert random religion".

WTF? you do realise unionism isn't a religion This is basic stuff, and implying someone is sectarian isn't on in my view.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

You want other people to go through this nonsense too?

There is NO mandate in the GFA for a southern poll. Fact.

FACT. now let me think of the last person that signed off with FACT as a mic drop.

https://youtu.be/xeh-9nkTfsY

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Kinda sounds like yous want an echo chamber and noone allowed to disagree

Imo thats a really mean spirited comment,when he has been entirely courteous to you

You were the person who demanded it immediately. The boys are in now, with their FACTS.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

FACT. now let me think of the last person that signed off with FACT as a mic drop.

https://youtu.be/xeh-9nkTfsY

I get the mistake you made Joe. I really do.

You thought somebody seeing a simultaneous poll as an 'imperative' was or implied that there was a mandate. It really isn't.

I would see it as imperative and important to have one. But that does not mean that it is 'mandated' by the GFA. Humphries also says the same and recognises that there is a choice. We can choose not to have one. We won't refuse one, but we can if we wish.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

You were the person who demanded it immediately. The boys are in now, with their FACTS.

Facts are,your becoming increasingly rude to anyone who dare disagree with you.....i struggle to understand how you feel your reply to me here,adds to positive dialoge??.

Solutionking

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where have I said it SK?

You will not find a quote from me that says it anywhere.

You accuse anyone that doesn't want a unified Ireland of been a partionist or a belligerent unionist. Fairly easy to check your posts as well. It a very silly opinion to have of people in Rep and Northern Ireland.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Facts are,your becoming increasingly rude to anyone who dare disagree with you.....i struggle to understand how you feel your reply to me here,adds to positive dialoge??.

I will apologise to you first. I should not have been rude.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I get the mistake you made Joe. I really do.

You thought somebody seeing a simultaneous poll as an 'imperative' was or implied that there was a mandate. It really isn't.

I would see it as imperative and important to have one. But that does not mean that it is 'mandated' by the GFA. Humphries also says the same and recognises that there is a choice. We can choose not to have one. We won't refuse one, but we can if we wish.

I apologise if my tone or posts crossed a line and bordered rude. It was not my intention to do that. I disagree with you. I don’t think you are correct but whoever is correct we both agree that there will be a referendum whether mandatory or not.

FrancieBrady

Solutionking wrote: »

You accuse anyone that doesn't want a unified Ireland of been a partionist or a belligerent unionist. Fairly easy to check your posts as well. It a very silly opinion to have of people in Rep and Northern Ireland.

No I don't. There are many people who have come on boards and expressed a view that I have not called partitionist and there is only currently one belligerent Unionist that I know of but quite a number of Unionist persuasion.

So you are telling generalised lies SK. Which of course you didn't back up because you can't/

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fianna Fail ministers arrived to the first Dáil sittings armed.

Which first Dail sitting.

Fianna Fail formerly Sinn Fein didn't enter the Dail until after the June 1927 election.
They were abstentionist prior to that. History does repeat itself.

Sinn Fein also stood for election and got 5 seats but were abstentionist.

When Fianna Fail first entered the Dail they formed the opposition so weren't in government.

Edit. It is accepted that some fianna fail td's did in fact carry guns with them to the Dail sitting after the 1932 election after which they went into government.

FrancieBrady

imme wrote: »

Which first Dail sitting.

Fianna Fail formerly Sinn Fein didn't enter the Dail until after the June 1927 election.
They were abstentionist prior to that. History does repeat itself.

Sinn Fein also stood for election and got 5 seats but were abstentionist.

When Fianna Fail first entered the Dail they formed the opposition so weren't in government.

Edit. It is accepted that some fianna fail td's did in fact carry guns with them to the Dail sitting after the 1932 election after which they went into government.

Should have said 'their' first Dáil sittings. 1932, I think it was. Frank Aitken apparently supplied the weapons.

imme

Nobotty wrote: »

Is that where the term provisional vs official IRA came from
Old Ira being civil war veterans?
Its futile to declare FF FG and the present SF weren't all splinters from the original seed
I didn't know anyone in the old IRA (obviously) but I'm told they were staunch Dev supporters
The vast majority supported the new 26 county Republic's government/institutions/entity whilst arguing/debating for a 32 county Republic
They did this by supporting FF rather than FG,the latter being too fond of the union
Thats the way it was taught to me anyway

What became Fine Gael and Fianna Fail did come from Sinn Fein.
But they had to go through a civil war to become FG and FF.

FF was a straight forward follow on from SF.
FG was an amalgamation of a number of parties, the biggest component of which was Cumann na nGaedheal which was a straight forward follow on from SF. Cumann na nGaedheal supported the Treaty whereas what became FF didn't.

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Should have said 'their' first Dáil sittings. 1932, I think it was. Frank Aitken apparently supplied the weapons.

Their first Dail sitting was 1927 as I've said, their first Dail election was the June 1927 GE.

FF became FF in 1926.
They had been abstentionist SF up to then.

FrancieBrady

imme wrote: »

Their first Dail sitting was 1927 as I've said, their first Dail election was the June 1927 GE.

FF became FF in 1926.
They had been abstentionist SF up to then.

Are you making a point there or am I missing something?

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those who look down their noses and lecture would do well to read up on what happened in post conflict/war Ireland. There was, for instance, no decommissioning and arms dumps were belligerently allowed to rust away and their existence as a threat hung over those early Dáil years as the players in the conflict/war played around with the idea of being 'democrats'.

Lemass, in an off the cuff remark, got himself n hot water at one point, describing Fianna Fail as a 'slightly constitutional party'.
He was leader of FF at the time.

Is it War of Independence and Civil War weapons that you're talking about.

There was no international agreement to end the Civil War.
Who would have conducted the decommissioning that you think was missed out on.

The Civil War created bitterness that some say carries on until the present day.

Who was playing around with being a democrat?

Lemass made that remark in 1929, he wasn't leader of FF until 1959.
FF in 1929 had been in the Dail for 2 years after becoming FF 3 years before having been SF up to that point.

FrancieBrady

imme wrote: »

Is it War of Independence and Civil War weapons that you're talking about.

There was no international agreement to end the Civil War.
Who would have conducted the decommissioning that you think was missed out on.

The Civil War created bitterness that some say carries on until the present day.

Who was playing around with being a democrat?

Lemass made that remark in 1929, he wasn't leader of FF until 1959.
FF in 1929 had been in the Dail for 2 years after becoming FF 3 years before having been SF up to that point.

I think people arriving to the sitting of a parliament 'armed' are playing at being democrats, would you not?

Fair enough on the Lemass one, but like whether it was the first or last Dáil sitting it is immaterial if he was leader or not.

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is the kind of thinking that leads FGers to suggest celebration of the Black and Tans.

They'll never actually confront the idea that there is a deep connection that partition has not broken. A connection to our own struggle for freedom and what was done by the British and in the north a deep conviction that the only solution to the problem they have (which never was as simple as a lack of prosperity) is an end to partition.

Who is celebrating the Black'n'Tans

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think we aren't ready yet for a UI and have said I don't think the threat of Brexit should be the catalyst.

I fully believe that many realise the same thing and have placed a UI on a backburner list of priorities.

But the right time is approaching. Michael's Unity Unit is no accident. Politicians know the day is coming for the first border poll. The campaign will be transformative in my view. That is why Unionists and partitionists fear it so much.

How many do think there would have to be.

This of course won't be the first border poll.
There was one in 1973
See here
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/irish-reunification

There was a 59% turnout with 99% voting to stay in the UK.
SF and SDLP asked supporters to abstain.

Is the proposed next one Border Poll for slow learners so to speak.