The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

FrancieBrady

imme wrote: »

Who is celebrating the Black'n'Tans

Those who tried to deny that it was a celebration. An official state commemoration was that. Leo made feeble attempts to defend it but it was scrapped as it should have been.
People are free to hold the ceremonies they have every year without the state endorsing or eulogising them

FrancieBrady

imme wrote: »

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.

Well read the expert presented by Joe, Judge Humprey's not only does he believe that SF and SDLP ask for a boycott, he believes that nationalists actually boycotted the referendum. A referendum only remembered as being in any way noteworthy by people who are anti a UI or openly partitionist (funnily enough)

imme

Deleted User wrote: »

Now FF members tweet encouraging people to watch the crown on netflix,jokeshop of a party

Maybe FF has shares in Netflix.
Is it officially a party policy. :rolleyes:

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Michael might want to but would Michael have the cahonas? The man waiting in the wings Jim O'Callaghan would have the opposite view.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2020/10/28/news/fianna-fa-il-future-leadership-contender-jim-o-callaghan-says-get-ready-for-a-border-poll-2111778/

Martin's Unity Unit reminds me of one of John Hume's earnest but ultimately futile efforts. It will fail because it will be more or less ignored as a foot note on the road to an actual poll. Events, dear boy, as they say.

McMurphy asked if any party might campaign for a No in a UI vote.
Blaaz said that Fianna Fail.

You think that FF would campaign for a no vote.

Would Micheal Martin have the cahonas to campaign for a no vote you say.
What on earth does that mean.

Why does SF always belittle John Hume.
For shame.

FrancieBrady

imme wrote: »

McMurphy asked if any party might campaign for a No in a UI vote.
Blaaz said that Fianna Fail.

You think that FF would campaign for a no vote.

Would Micheal Martin have the cahonas to campaign for a no vote you say.
What on earth does that mean.

Why does SF always belittle John Hume.
For shame.

For starters I don't 'belittle' John Hume, I praised him for his foresight in accepting Alec Reids invitation to talk with Adams and what happened as a result.
What I don't do is engage in the nonsense that anything he did up to that point worked or succeeded or was even wise.

Would Michael Martin have the balls to lead FF on a NO campaign in a border poll?

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Were they all armed, or was it one or two FF TD's.
They were going to form a minority government having just won the largest number of seats. They were taking over from Cumann na nGaedheal who they had fought in the Civil War which ended 9 years before.

The point about Leamss doesn't matter you say. So nothing means anything.

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those who tried to deny that it was a celebration. An official state commemoration was that. Leo made feeble attempts to defend it but it was scrapped as it should have been.
People are free to hold the ceremonies they have every year without the state endorsing or eulogising them

You are free to hold on to your belief that it was a celebration of the Black'n'Tans.

FrancieBrady

imme wrote: »

Were they all armed, or was it one or two FF TD's.
They were going to form a minority government having just won the largest number of seats. They were taking over from Cumann na nGaedheal who they had fought in the Civil War which ended 9 years before.

Jeepers, are you excusing it? Bad as SF were in the post conflict stage they didn't get caught arriving in armed.

The point about Leamss doesn't matter you say. So nothing means anything.

Lemass was a significant figure. What doesn't matter is whether he was leader or not.

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well read the expert presented by Joe, Judge Humprey's not only does he believe that SF and SDLP ask for a boycott, he believes that nationalists actually boycotted the referendum. A referendum only remembered as being in any way noteworthy by people who are anti a UI or openly partitionist (funnily enough)

I pointed out that SDLP and SF did call for peop to abstain. I'm not sure why you need to confirm this.

So, nothing that ever happens in NI or in relation to NI is able to be discussed unless SF is involved in it.

There was a lot happened before SF took their seats.

FrancieBrady

imme wrote: »

I pointed out that SDLP and SF did call for peop to abstain. I'm not sure why you need to confirm this.

So, nothing that ever happens in NI or in relation to NI is able to be discussed unless SF is involved in it.

There was a lot happened before SF took their seats.

What now?

Yes you did say there was a call to boycott. Which was a strange way of putting it.

It WAS boycotted and is consequently ignored, except by the odd poster clinging to something.

Discuss it all you want if you can find anyone who thinks it was relevant.

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

For starters I don't 'belittle' John Hume, I praised him for his foresight in accepting Alec Reids invitation to talk with Adams and what happened as a result.
What I don't do is engage in the nonsense that anything he did up to that point worked or succeeded or was even wise.

Would Michael Martin have the balls to lead FF on a NO campaign in a border poll?

I will never understand the belittling of John Hume by SF.

You said M Martin wouldn't have the cahonas (as you said) to lead a no vote. Did I not make that clear.

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jeepers, are you excusing it? Bad as SF were in the post conflict stage they didn't get caught arriving in armed.



Lemass was a significant figure. What doesn't matter is whether he was leader or not.

Which SF are you talking about now.

Yes, Lemass was a significant figure.
When was Lemass talking about FF being only slightly constitutional, was it after becoming FF and moving on from abstentionist SF, or was it when FF was in government in 1945 or in opposition in 1948.

It was about the time a couple of years after they abandoned abstention.

imme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What now?

Yes you did say there was a call to boycott. Which was a strange way of putting it.

It WAS boycotted and is consequently ignored, except by the odd poster clinging to something.

Discuss it all you want if you can find anyone who thinks it was relevant.

=nothing has any relevance unless SF has any involvement in it.

FrancieBrady

imme wrote: »

I will never understand the belittling of John Hume by SF.

Where have I 'belittled' him. He made mistakes and had many failed attempts. Just because I mention them isn't belittling the man.

You said M Martin wouldn't have the cahonas (as you said) to lead a no vote. Did I not make that clear.

If I don't understand a word or reference I generally google it. 'Cahonas' https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cahonas

I.E. Doesn't have the courage.

FrancieBrady

imme wrote: »

=nothing has any relevance unless SF has any involvement in it.

A boycotted referendum is not relevant to anything as it just confirms the majority opinion.
SF as a political force was almost non existent then. The SDLP decision to boycott was much more significant.

FrancieBrady

imme wrote: »

Which SF are you talking about now.

Yes, Lemass was a significant figure.
When was Lemass talking about FF being only slightly constitutional, was it after becoming FF and moving on from abstentionist SF, or was it when FF was in government in 1945 or in opposition in 1948.

It was about the time a couple of years after they abandoned abstention.

Again, is there a point here somewhere in reply to the post I made? That people would do well to study how the power swap parties of FF and FG evolved after our own conflict/war period?

Imagine if you would what would be said and what would happen if SF arrived to the Dáil or the Executive armed (1, 2, 3 or the whole lot of them) or if one of the principal members said 'we are only a slightly constitutional party' or if IRA arms were not decommissioned and were rusting away in arms dumps.

a very cool kid

How are we talking about what FF TDs did almost 100 years ago in the context of a United Ireland?

What has any of this got to.do with the number of jobs that would be lost in NI post unification and what parts of the republic's budget would need to be cut in order to maintain a reasonable current account deficit post unification!

piplip87

I SF are announcing a large mixed development in West Belfast, while angry Pearse goes nuts and SF council members votes every one of them is proposed down in the South. Further proof of the hypocrisy. Playing politics with housing yet again. They don't want houses built until they are in government. https://www.facebook.com/718972321502855/posts/3506058722794187/

tikkahunter

piplip87 wrote: »

I SF are announcing a large mixed development in West Belfast, while angry Pearse goes nuts and SF council members votes every one of them is proposed down in the South. Further proof of the hypocrisy. Playing politics with housing yet again. They don't want houses built until they are in government. https://www.facebook.com/718972321502855/posts/3506058722794187/

Unbeliveable shower , they have just objected to a similar scheme being built on the oscar Traynor road and have objected to 2 developments in Finglas Village .

IAmTheReign

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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/

Your post below is a clear implication that you believe the only people who don't want a UI are partitionists or belligerent unionists

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What political party is going to campaign against it? Sure you will have people like Peter Casey trying to court votes opportunistically. But there isn't a single political party here that will be opposed.

It will be fascinating to see partitionists allying with belligerent unionism to try and win a poll.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

You claim to regularly debate moderate unionists but cannot seem to grasp the simple fact that while they may have accepted the GFA they are just as entitled to vote against a UI as anyone else is to vote for it. Acceptance of the GFA is not an obligation to vote for a UI.

If a vote on a UI happens you'll have both belligerent nationalists and belligerent unionists campaigning for or against it but the simple fact is it's not the belligerents that need to be convinced, they've already made their decision and no amount of campaigning will change their minds. It's the moderates on both sides of the argument and both sides of the border that will swing the decision.

It might surprise you but there's a significant number of people who are entirely apathetic about the idea of a UI, myself included. I have no problem with the concept of a UI but I couldn't care less if it happened or not. I feel no more affinity to people north of the border than I do people anywhere else. People like me need to be convinced that there is a tangible benefit to a UI, appeals to history and the nebulous concept of Nationalism won't sway the decision. So tell me Frankie, how would Ireland (the country) be improved by uniting with NI?

Bishop of hope

Interesting article here about the costs of a UI and the myths around the costings created by SF.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-is-still-trying-to-wish-away-economic-realities-of-a-united-ireland-1.4412734?mode=amp

FrancieBrady

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Your post below is a clear implication that you believe the only people who don't want a UI are partitionists or belligerent unionists






You claim to regularly debate moderate unionists but cannot seem to grasp the simple fact that while they may have accepted the GFA they are just as entitled to vote against a UI as anyone else is to vote for it. Acceptance of the GFA is not an obligation to vote for a UI.

If a vote on a UI happens you'll have both belligerent nationalists and belligerent unionists campaigning for or against it but the simple fact is it's not the belligerents that need to be convinced, they've already made their decision and no amount of campaigning will change their minds. It's the moderates on both sides of the argument and both sides of the border that will swing the decision.

My point about the moderates is that they will 'accept' the outcome, not that they will necessarily vote for it.

It might surprise you but there's a significant number of people who are entirely apathetic about the idea of a UI, myself included. I have no problem with the concept of a UI but I couldn't care less if it happened or not. I feel no more affinity to people north of the border than I do people anywhere else. People like me need to be convinced that there is a tangible benefit to a UI, appeals to history and the nebulous concept of Nationalism won't sway the decision. So tell me Frankie, how would Ireland (the country) be improved by uniting with NI?

Why would I waste my time trying to convince somebody who is 'entirely apathetic'? I didn't come on here to campaign for a UI or to defend the idea.

Good lad you are entirely apathetic so you won't mind what happens so.

jh79

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Interesting article here about the costs of a UI and the myths around the costings created by SF.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-is-still-trying-to-wish-away-economic-realities-of-a-united-ireland-1.4412734?mode=amp

Behind a paywall, what's the general gist of it?

blanch152

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.

You have completely ignored the Raymond Crotty case every single time it has been pointed out to you.

There is no choice - there will be a referendum.

blanch152

piplip87 wrote: »

I SF are announcing a large mixed development in West Belfast, while angry Pearse goes nuts and SF council members votes every one of them is proposed down in the South. Further proof of the hypocrisy. Playing politics with housing yet again. They don't want houses built until they are in government. https://www.facebook.com/718972321502855/posts/3506058722794187/

tikkahunter wrote: »

Unbeliveable shower , they have just objected to a similar scheme being built on the oscar Traynor road and have objected to 2 developments in Finglas Village .

That will be ignored by the Sinn Fein supporters on here.

Better to talk about the fantasy of a united Ireland than defend the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein on everyday issues.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You have completely ignored the Raymond Crotty case every single time it has been pointed out to you.

There is no choice - there will be a referendum.

Yes, there will have to be a referendum if there is constitutional change. (As I wagered, this is what will be asked in our version of a Border Poll just as it was the way the GFA question was posed)

If it is a Yes or No plebiscite, as Humpries says, NO there does not HAVE to be a referendum on that if the government so chooses.

jh79

blanch152 wrote: »

That will be ignored by the Sinn Fein supporters on here.

Better to talk about the fantasy of a united Ireland than defend the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein on everyday issues.

Getting a bit of stick on social media for British SF saying in January that the “display of caged animals in enclosures is wrong and unethical” and “the current treatment of animals for entertainment purposes should have no place in modern Belfast”. while Irish SF want Dublin Zoo to be saved.

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/belfast-zoo-facing-closure-sinn-17662632

jh79

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Interesting article here about the costs of a UI and the myths around the costings created by SF.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sinn-f%C3%A9in-is-still-trying-to-wish-away-economic-realities-of-a-united-ireland-1.4412734?mode=amp

Had a look at his twitter, is it the SF theory that the subvention is closer to 3bn rather than 6bn because the UK would have to continue to pay pensions even though legally they are under to obligation to do so?

Nobotty

'British Sinn Féin' thats a good one
Thats been going on for about a month or so,I just laugh
Like I do at most things

https://twitter.com/1rorycowan/status/1329126423957737473?s=19

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Getting a bit of stick on social media for British SF saying in January that the “display of caged animals in enclosures is wrong and unethical” and “the current treatment of animals for entertainment purposes should have no place in modern Belfast”. while Irish SF want Dublin Zoo to be saved.

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/belfast-zoo-facing-closure-sinn-17662632

They are agin it, whatever it is.

That is Sinn Fein policy, if it means hypocritical differences between North and South, they will gloss over it and pretend it doesn't exist.

From housing to coronavirus, that has been nakedly on display all year, not surprised that it extends to zoos.