The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Oh dear, oh dear, that is just wrong. There will be two referenda, you are referencing the second one.

Nobotty

jh79 wrote: »

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?

The EU would pay a lot of the UI costs,just like they did for UG
Its a precedent
Also Ireland would no longer be a net contributer for probably a few years IMO untill the drag of NI from reunification on the whole economy was leveled

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

'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

Having been in both zoos several times I'd agree with these comments.

Very different Zoos. One a top attraction with approved facilities with range of wider educational aspects. The other outdated with poor access and stuck in past

Don’t let the truth get in the way of a cheap SDLP jibe SF been campaigning for investment in the zoo and surrounding area for years the zoo’s been allowed to deteriorate to the point of ruin

As usual with a 'SF outrage' story there may be some nuance that is being steadfastly ignored. As steadfastly ignored as the fact; that in all parties variances in opinion exist from one councillor to another.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear, that is just wrong. There will be two referenda, you are referencing the second one.

So they will attempt to change the constitution first then ask a Yes or No question?????

Nobotty

Just on the UI referendum thing
Our laws dictate equal airtime for yes and no in any referendum and the referendum commission would have to be delivering a leaflet nation wide 50% of which would be making the case for No

Does anyone know what SF's plans are for that situation?
It would need legislation to change it

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

The EU would pay a lot of the UI costs,just like they did for UG
Its a precedent
Also Ireland would no longer be a net contributer for probably a few years IMO untill the drag of NI from reunification on the whole economy was leveled

A UI is a significant advantage to the the rest of our EU partners now. It s also a significant advantage to the UK, who have been severely hampered in what they want to do by having to accommodate a disastrous (all round at this stage) partition of Ireland.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Having been in both zoos several times I'd agree with these comments.




As usual with a 'SF outrage' story there may be some nuance that is being steadfastly ignored. As steadfastly ignored as the fact; that in all parties variances in opinion exist from one councillor to another.

The link i gave says British SF want to turn it into a Tayto Park because 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”.

So is Dublin Zoo unethical or not?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The link i gave says British SF want to turn it into a Tayto Park because 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”.

So is Dublin Zoo unethical or not?

I'd imagine that councillor thinks it is. There is after all many opinions on Zoos and ethics as there is around circuses.

Had a google search for a Sinn Fein policy on it and couldn't find one. Checked other parties (FF and FG) and couldn't find a party policy either.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd imagine that councillor thinks it is. There is after all many opinions on Zoos and ethics as there is around circuses.

Had a google search for a Sinn Fein policy on it and couldn't find one. Checked other parties (FF and FG) and couldn't find a party policy either.

Was it not a British SF motion rather than a solo run by Maskey? I'll have a google.

Bishop of hope

jh79 wrote: »

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?

It's about 12 billion from what I see, this year it will be 20 billion because of covid.
All sorts of figures presented by SF to dispel it, but the figures are the figures.

jh79

"This council agrees to an ambitious plan to transform Belfast Zoo into a world-class visitor attraction by 2025. The display of caged animals in enclosures is wrong and unethical, it doesn't mirror in any way their natural habitat and has no place in modern society.

"Furthermore the council will retain an on-site animal conservation programme for indigenous animals. The five years will also enable the council to consult with trade unions, staff and residents of the city through direct engagement and consultation.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/sinn-fein-hits-out-at-silly-reaction-to-belfast-zoo-motion-38925171.html

So do Irish SF intend to follow British SF lead ?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

"This council agrees to an ambitious plan to transform Belfast Zoo into a world-class visitor attraction by 2025. The display of caged animals in enclosures is wrong and unethical, it doesn't mirror in any way their natural habitat and has no place in modern society.

"Furthermore the council will retain an on-site animal conservation programme for indigenous animals. The five years will also enable the council to consult with trade unions, staff and residents of the city through direct engagement and consultation.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/sinn-fein-hits-out-at-silly-reaction-to-belfast-zoo-motion-38925171.html

So do Irish SF intend to follow British SF lead ?

What 'lead'?

Here is the councillor defending his motion and the 'outrage' around it.

"This was never about closing the zoo, it was about properly investing in the site to ensure we are in keeping with a modern and ethical approach to the city and the animals, and doesn't burden the rate payer."

I would hope all parties would think that way. Belfast Zoo was severely run down and was very much a zoo with an old school ethos because of lack of investment. You would know that if you had been to both Dublin and Belfast Zoos, the differences are stark tbh. Or certainly were when I went.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Having been in both zoos several times I'd agree with these comments.




As usual with a 'SF outrage' story there may be some nuance that is being steadfastly ignored. As steadfastly ignored as the fact; that in all parties variances in opinion exist from one councillor to another.

Unbelievable, if only the Yorkshire Ripper had you as his counsel, he would have been acquitted.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Unbelievable, if only the Yorkshire Ripper had you as his counsel, he would have been acquitted.

Sorry? Is there a point there?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What 'lead'?

Here is the councillor defending his motion and the 'outrage' around it.



I would hope all parties would think that way. Belfast Zoo was severely run down and was very much a zoo with an old school ethos because of lack of investment. You would know that if you had been to both Dublin and Belfast Zoos, the differences are stark tbh. Or certainly were when I went.

I don't think you have been there recently.

Belfast Zoo has improved in recent years, though not as quickly as Dublin Zoo.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A UI is a significant advantage to the the rest of our EU partners now. It s also a significant advantage to the UK, who have been severely hampered in what they want to do by having to accommodate a disastrous (all round at this stage) partition of Ireland.

Say what?

It is the equivalent of adding Cyprus of Malta, nice to have you lads, but insignificant in wider scheme of things.

This is the kind of muddled thinking that imagined that the UN was waiting to intervene in 1969.

IAmTheReign

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

No you specifically said that it will be belligerent unionists and partitionists campaigning against it. This is false, unionists of all persuasions would likely campaign against it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

So you're saying that you're not actively trying to talk up the idea of a UI? Seems from reading your posts on here all you do is talk up the idea.

The reason people like you (who actively want a UI) need to convince people like me (people who aren't really bothered either way) is because unless people like me ARE convinced it's a good idea they'll vote against it. That's what rational thinking people do, they choose to maintain the status quo unless there's a compelling reason otherwise.

The fact that you spend so much time on here supporting the idea of a UI, and yet think explaining why it's a good idea is a waste of time speaks volumes. Do you not want people to vote for it?

FrancieBrady

IAmTheReign wrote: »

No you specifically said that it will be belligerent unionists and partitionists campaigning against it. This is false, unionists of all persuasions would likely campaign against it.

I doubt I said that, because that would be a stupid thing to say.
If I did, let me clarify, I am fascinated to see who partitionists will have to ally with to campaign against a UI. Fascinated to see who will stand up politically to represent them.
I believe moderate Unionists will approach the debate in a moderate way and will not get into the belligerent aspects of the debate in order to win it and I don't expect them to campaign for a UI. They will of course attempt to maintain the union.

So you're saying that you're not actively trying to talk up the idea of a UI? Seems from reading your posts on here all you do is talk up the idea.

The reason people like you (who actively want a UI) need to convince people like me (people who aren't really bothered either way) is because unless people like me ARE convinced it's a good idea they'll vote against it. That's what rational thinking people do, they choose to maintain the status quo unless there's a compelling reason otherwise.

The fact that you spend so much time on here supporting the idea of a UI, and yet think explaining why it's a good idea is a waste of time speaks volumes. Do you not want people to vote for it?

People 'like you' if you are genuinely 'not bothered either way' (I suspect you are very much 'bothered' if you are in here) are not likely to bother to vote.

As I said, not my job to convince you and I can assure I am not 'bothered' to do it either. That ok?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would hope all parties would think that way. Belfast Zoo was severely run down and was very much a zoo with an old school ethos because of lack of investment. You would know that if you had been to both Dublin and Belfast Zoos, the differences are stark tbh. Or certainly were when I went.

I'll take your word for it about Belfast zoo but it's irrelevant anyways. British SF want only indigenous animals in Belfast zoo. Their motion had nothing to do with the condition of the zoo it was about the whole concept of a zoo and it's place in a modern world.

a very cool kid

Nobotty wrote: »

The EU would pay a lot of the UI costs,just like they did for UG
Its a precedent
Also Ireland would no longer be a net contributer for probably a few years IMO untill the drag of NI from reunification on the whole economy was leveled

Either way the South are still paying extra, the EU won't foot the higher social welfare bill for example. We'll be paying marginal rates of 60% for a population where half of them won't want to be part of the nation in general.

Furthermore I can't see the EU funding this beyond some token infrastructure. West Germany have always been huge net contributors to the EC/EU any money they got was just their own taxes.

ohnonotgmail

a very cool kid wrote: »

Either way the South are still paying extra, the EU won't foot the higher social welfare bill for example. We'll be paying marginal rates of 60% for a population where half of them won't want to be part of the nation in general.

Furthermore I can't see the EU funding this beyond some token infrastructure. West Germany have always been huge net contributors to the EC/EU any money they got was just their own taxes.

not forgetting the massive number of people who work for the government up there. they have as many civil servants as we do for a population half the size.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I'll take your word for it about Belfast zoo but it's irrelevant anyways. British SF want only indigenous animals in Belfast zoo. Their motion had nothing to do with the condition of the zoo it was about the whole concept of a zoo and it's place in a modern world.

On which there are many opinions. Failing to find any party with a defined policy on zoo's and circuses here, if anyone knows of one, please link. Found this while searching for party policies, UUP and Alliance in 2015 agreed with SF which suggests the Zoo is run down and lacking in investment.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/call-for-belfast-zoo-to-close-down-what-do-you-think-34186779.html
After my own visits I would have to say that McGimpsey nailed it with 'A Victorian peep show' experience.

It would have been 2013 or 14 when I last was there though.

a very cool kid

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not forgetting the massive number of people who work for the government up there. they have as many civil servants as we do for a population half the size.

Exactly any money saving synergies are just going to inflate dole queues

joeguevara

There could be an issue on the very near horizon for SF and NI SF with MLM being very vocal on the actions of one high profile alleged criminal in Irish press and the reports that a senior SF MLA is personally acting for him in different legal actions (both criminal and civil). Notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, from an optics point of view it looks like a disaster.

IAmTheReign

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I doubt I said that, because that would be a stupid thing to say.
If I did, let me clarify, I am fascinated to see who partitionists will have to ally with to campaign against a UI. Fascinated to see who will stand up politically to represent them.
I believe moderate Unionists will approach the debate in a moderate way and will not get into the belligerent aspects of the debate in order to win it and I don't expect them to campaign for a UI. They will of course attempt to maintain the union.





People 'like you' if you are genuinely 'not bothered either way' (I suspect you are very much 'bothered' if you are in here) are not likely to bother to vote.

As I said, not my job to convince you and I can assure I am not 'bothered' to do it either. That ok?

I'm assuming 'I suspect you are very much 'bothered' if you are in here' is an implication that I am a partitionist or unionist? If not I'd appreciate you explaining what exactly it is you are implying. If it is you'd be very much wrong. Believe it or not people can have an interest in politics and still have a neutral stance on issues.

The fact is most elections and referendums are decided by which side wins the 'I don't knows' in the run up to the vote. As I explained more than once now if a referendum on a UI is called I will look at the arguments for and against it and vote whichever way makes sense. As will the vast majority of people.

You're perfectly entitled to not bother trying to convince people, personally I am fascinated to see what exactly the arguments for a UI are if a referendum is called, and what the plan is after the referendum is passed. What are the positive social and economic benefits to everyone involved? How will the political landscape be restructured to accommodate the addition of a second state? What happens to Stormont? How do we address income inequality on both sides of the border? What do we do with the excess of civil servants and who pays their pension? How do we integrate the PSNI, NHS and school systems?

FrancieBrady

IAmTheReign wrote: »

I'm assuming 'I suspect you are very much 'bothered' if you are in here' is an implication that I am a partitionist or unionist? If not I'd appreciate you explaining what exactly it is you are implying. If it is you'd be very much wrong. Believe it or not people can have an interest in politics and still have a neutral stance on issues.

The fact is most elections and referendums are decided by which side wins the 'I don't knows' in the run up to the vote. As I explained more than once now if a referendum on a UI is called I will look at the arguments for and against it and vote whichever way makes sense. As will the vast majority of people.

You're perfectly entitled to not bother trying to convince people, personally I am fascinated to see what exactly the arguments for a UI are if a referendum is called, and what the plan is after the referendum is passed. What are the positive social and economic benefits to everyone involved? How will the political landscape be restructured to accommodate the addition of a second state? What happens to Stormont? How do we address income inequality on both sides of the border? What do we do with the excess of civil servants and who pays their pension? How do we integrate the PSNI, NHS and school systems?

If somebody is truly 'not bothered either way' but is on a thread challenging somebody to convince them, and then goes on to claim they are 'fascinated to see x, y, and z,' then I am sorry, the 'I'm not bothered' is a contradiction. You clearly are 'bothered' 'fascinated' and interested.

Other than that I have no observations to make on what you believe.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If somebody is truly 'not bothered either way' but is on a thread challenging somebody to convince them, and then goes on to claim they are 'fascinated to see x, y, and z,' then I am sorry, the 'I'm not bothered' is a contradiction. You clearly are 'bothered' 'fascinated' and interested.

Other than that I have no observations to make on what you believe.

I have always grown up as a republican and definitely in favour of a United Ireland. But I wouldn't vote in favour of it blindly. It would be dependent on how well it could be integrated, the cost of it and whether it would further increase tensions or not. Another huge concern would be how it would change the political landscape.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

I have always grown up as a republican and definitely in favour of a United Ireland. But I wouldn't vote in favour of it blindly. It would be dependent on how well it could be integrated, the cost of it and whether it would further increase tensions or not. Another huge concern would be how it would change the political landscape.

I wouldn't vote 'blindly' in any election/referendum. I wouldn't expect any responsible citizen to do it either.

IAmTheReign

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If somebody is truly 'not bothered either way' but is on a thread challenging somebody to convince them, and then goes on to claim they are 'fascinated to see x, y, and z,' then I am sorry, the 'I'm not bothered' is a contradiction. You clearly are 'bothered' 'fascinated' and interested.

Other than that I have no observations to make on what you believe.

You honestly can't understand the difference between having an interest in the process, while not having a vested interest in the outcome? I closely followed the American presidential election, even though I didn't particularly care who the eventual winner was.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wouldn't vote 'blindly' in any election/referendum. I wouldn't expect any responsible citizen to do it either.

So you would potentially vote against a UI referendum? What would it take for you to do that?

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wouldn't vote 'blindly' in any election/referendum. I wouldn't expect any responsible citizen to do it either.

I didn't mean blindly, and it probably was the wrong use of word. I meant that I wouldn't vote it, if all of the materials and evidence showed that it would be a huge burden economically or socially. Some people would vote it irregardless as is their right and they have their reasons. Hope that explains it better.