The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

jh79

Bowie wrote: »

Was is not more about putting a discussion on medical cards for people/terminally ill on the back burner to discuss the Zoo? But sure smiley face smiley face.

Did you read the unification document yet? Think it's any good?

Solutionking

jh79 wrote: »

Did you read the unification document yet? Think it's any good?

Dont be surprised if the SF supporters don't make any comment. Thou shall not say anything bad against SF seems to be the agenda on here. Which suggests something fishy going on.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Remember that time Colum Eastwood galloped off to Westminster to disagree with and thereby stop Brexit? How'd he get on?

Francie, have you read the unification document yet? Any opinions on it?

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Did you read the unification document yet? Think it's any good?

Just got a chance to read it and was gobsmacked at the simplicity of it. Pretty much written at the level of Junior Cert Business.

Assertions are made without any back-up arguments. Arguments are made that allow for much different conclusions.

For example, the figures presented on regional development should have concluded that cities are the most important criterion for prosperity as Belfast bucks the trend of the rest of NI and figures near the top, along with Dublin, South-West (Cork) and Mid-West (Limerick).

On the subvention, the simplistic naivety of the calculations is pretty and nice and it is good to see young Pearse working so hard on his studies, but incomplete would be an understatement. Something someone once said six years ago in a Parliamentary Debate is presented as ultimate proof that €3.5bn would be knocked off the bill!!!!! Hey, what about the law, case law, budgetary economics? Do they have something to say about it?

So, reading on down, I was looking forward to getting to the part where the synergies of economic development were explained in full and in detail, where the harmonisation costs of social welfare systems and taxation systems were presented, where the integration costs of public services were outlined, and finally how the NHS could be dovetailed with the HSE to make a slimmer leaner health system. I got......................................absolutely nothing.

If this is an example of the thinking that goes into SF policy formation, wow, just wow. No wonder they wanted to close the schools in the South and open the pubs in the North. The zoos policy is a beacon of clarity in comparison.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, have you read the unification document yet? Any opinions on it?

Not yet. I have said this before will say it again - until such time as the British outline what the actual cost breakdown is, there is little point in these excercises. Therefore I have the same attitude to them as I have to election manifestos. Glossy brochures/food for thought but little by way of anything definitive.

My view is about more than cost and money. I believe an end to partition would be an investment in a whole lot of things other than an economic one. We'[d have never gone for independence if it was an economic choice only.

Busy here doing the weekly delivery lists. Will have a look later.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not yet. I have said this before will say it again - until such time as the British outline what the actual cost breakdown is, there is little point in these excercises. Therefore I have the same attitude to them as I have to election manifestos. Glossy brochures/food for thought but little by way of anything definitive.

My view is about more than cost and money. I believe an end to partition would be an investment in a whole lot of things other than an economic one. We'[d have never gone for independence if it was an economic choice only.

Busy here doing the weekly delivery lists. Will have a look later.

A cost outline would only clarify how much of the subvention would transfer to Ireland. The real cost of a UI is fixing the economy. This document doesn't answer that question bar suggesting the EU will pay for it.

I sure a Tesla is a good investment too in the long run but not much good if you don't have the means.

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

Did you read the unification document yet? Think it's any good?

No. Not that interested. Likely putting it out to keep the debate open. If a referendum is looking likely I'll have a look, however SF don't decide for me so whether I like their ideas or not I'll vote or support whomever suits my views at the time.

James Brown

Solutionking wrote: »

Dont be surprised if the SF supporters don't make any comment. Thou shall not say anything bad against SF seems to be the agenda on here. Which suggests something fishy going on.

Would it not be easy to simply say, 'read it, great stuff'? Seems some folk think their criticism and judgement carries more weight than it does.

Solutionking

Bowie wrote: »

Would it not be easy to simply say, 'read it, great stuff'? Seems some folk think their criticism and judgement carries more weight than it does.

So no comment?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

A cost outline would only clarify how much of the subvention would transfer to Ireland. The real cost of a UI is fixing the economy. This document doesn't answer that question bar suggesting the EU will pay for it.

I sure a Tesla is a good investment too in the long run but not much good if you don't have the means.

A unified Ireland is never a 'cost' in my book, it is an investment with short medium and long term dividends. Not just in economic terms.

James Brown

Solutionking wrote: »

So no comment?

On the document I've not read? No.

joeguevara

jh79 wrote: »

On a side note, as a legal professional what's your opinion on the Special Criminal Court and SF's opposition to it?

Prima facie, a fundamental tenet of our law is that a man is allowed to stand in front of a jury of their peers and that everyone is presumed innocent. It is understandable, why anyone who stands trial in the Special Criminal Court feels that both of these principles are eroded. Number 1 that his/her outcome is decided by a three judges instead of the jury. The judges are usually one High Court, one Circuit Court and one District Court. Presumably it is also considered equally abhorrent to the accused that the panel that these judges are chosen from are chosen by the Government. If an accused sees, a government member say something lets say for example the remark about a balaclava from Leo to Pearce, they would be reasonable in assuming some bias.

If you wrap up all of that in the presumption of innocence cloak, it becomes equally preposterous (on its face) to an accused as how can they be considered to be innocent, if they have already been dragged into a court that erodes their rights.

However, having sat in the Special and as a devil assisted by first and second year masters (on different years and different cases) one for the prosection and one for the defence on two quite high profile membership cases and as far as i remember possession of blah, i find that it works. The judges aren't swayed by the bombasity of the prosecution, which a jury might and as regards the defence appear fair. All judgments provide written reasons and presented rather than a jury which just provides a verdict. Therefore much easier to attack inaccuracies etc. It is concerning for the accused that inferences can be drawn from indications of facts rather than facts themselves. Because of this access to evidence may be restricted. I get that. That is an issue.

If you look at the purpose originally, it was for specific cases where the administration of justice may be ineffecttive. Also there was fears of juror intimidation or hostility.

However, the Special Criminal Court only gets a paramilitary case once in a blue moon, as the IRA have decomissioned (this can be debated but lack of hostility does support), guerilla warfare has stopped etc. There may be dissidents but these should not be SFs concern.

I feel that the SCC is really only relevant where there is alleged organised gang activity. As long as no issues of justice were prevalent, what is a reason for an accused to be in an ordinary court when there has been such clear evidence of juror intimidation,blackmail, harassment in similar cases worldwide.

If a call is to abolish it, what would replace it? Unless civillian jurors are guaranteed to be protected and safe for the trial and for the rest of their lives, then its a strange thesis. I would support if additional safeguards were put in place, e.g. oversight. one travelling judges or international judges e.g. International Criminal Court where panels of judges determine cases, then this would be in my opinion a much fairer strategy.

I suppose a question would be, what does abolishing the Special achieve. Presumably the previous type of cases would become a thing of the past due to what has been achieved. The new type of cases would be reserved for those considered to be the alleged highest ranking members of recognised or alleged recognised gangs. If there is a risk to justice, it can immediately be judicially reviewed if considered appropriate. Also as the judgments are written, its easier to attack a decision.

It should be made clear that SF should not be tarnished with the brush of they are the only opposition to the existence of it. That is unfair. Human Rights Groups e.g ICCL, legal experts, professors etc are also calling it. It would be too easy to claim that SF are pushing this with some sort of links to organised crime. As the political wing of a republican army, it is fair that they believed that it was an injustice. Especially if certain people were found guilty based on inferences drawn but would have been found not guilty in a normal court. Fair. But with human rights, you must balance it with the greater good for society as well.

Therefore, change it, make sure that there is certain requirements to prove for use of inferences. But it is in my opinion too much of a swing the other way to simply magic it away.

Solutionking

Bowie wrote: »

On the document I've not read? No.

Getting very suspect around here with the SF supporters, 24 x 7 on this forum pulling any piece of information on the government yet don't have the ability to read a Sinn Fein official release

Solutionking

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A unified Ireland is never a 'cost' in my book, it is an investment with short medium and long term dividends. Not just in economic terms.

usual said by someone who isn't paying tax

James Brown

Solutionking wrote: »

Getting very suspect around here with the SF supporters, 24 x 7 on this forum pulling any piece of information on the government yet don't have the ability to read a Sinn Fein official release

Believing your own assumptions. I don't read every document released by every party unless it's relevant to government policy or an up coming election. Where do you get the time? I couldn't be arsed.
Changed my mind, read it, great stuff

James Brown

Solutionking wrote: »

usual said by someone who isn't paying tax

This is not a Noonan/FG thread.

Niallof9

how can they be that thick. the second line has a go at de Brits. You are trying to get Brits onside ffs. To Unionists the British didn't wreck this island at all. Strike a more conciliatory tone ffs to get that shower onboard somehow. Otherwise this document is nothing.

FrancieBrady

Solutionking wrote: »

usual said by someone who isn't paying tax

That the best you have SK?

There have been multiple things taken on in this country not least independence where cost wasn't the primary motivation to do it.

You'd be still sitting in the dark emptying your ****e into a midden with that attitude of yours.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A unified Ireland is never a 'cost' in my book, it is an investment with short medium and long term dividends. Not just in economic terms.

I know but the money still has to be found. Do you think the reason SF have not addressed this part of the equation is that they are afraid the figures might put people off?

Fann Linn

jh79 wrote: »

I know but the money still has to be found. Do you think the reason SF have not addressed this part of the equation is that they are afraid the figures might put people off?

EU would probably help bale us out a la former GDR.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I know but the money still has to be found. Do you think the reason SF have not addressed this part of the equation is that they are afraid the figures might put people off?

No, I would say, like me, they simply don't know what NI costs in truth.

Why bog it down at this stage allowing the anti-UI crowd(who think they know, but don't) shouting about the 10 11 12 and multiples of billions and billions.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I would say, like me, they simply don't know what NI costs in truth.

Why bog it down at this stage allowing the anti-UI crowd(who think they know, but don't) shouting about the 10 11 12 and multiples of billions and billions.

That's why we have Economists. My theory is that SF want to focus on the subvention because we can't afford the necessary investment in NI on our own.

Solutionking

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I would say, like me, they simply don't know what NI costs in truth.

Why bog it down at this stage allowing the anti-UI crowd(who think they know, but don't) shouting about the 10 11 12 and multiples of billions and billions.

If they don't know the costs then why did SF release a document saying they know the costs?

FrancieBrady

Solutionking wrote: »

If they don't know the costs then why did SF release a document saying they know the costs?

I was just going on what the poster said. I haven't read the doc yet. Still working here.

jh79 wrote:

Do you think the reason SF have not addressed this part of the equation

Take it up with jh79

mynamejeff

Solutionking wrote: »

If they don't know the costs then why did SF release a document saying they know the costs?

Because they know it will most likely never happen or not for many many years at least

There's nothing as terrifying to sf/ira as actually having to govern.


just look at the mess they made in the north then had to blame everything on the brits and unionists.

Fann Linn

mynamejeff wrote: »

Because they know it will most likely never happen or not for many many years at least

There's nothing as terrifying to sf/ira as actually having to govern.


just look at the mess they made in the north then had to blame everything on the brits and unionists.

Just to let ye know it's not just the Shinners in that marriage up there, in case you had your head in the sand for the last number of years.

a very cool kid

Fann Linn wrote: »

Just to let ye know it's not just the Shinners in that marriage up there, in case you had your head in the sand for the last number of years.

True but the Shinners are the only one trying to destabilise the political institutions up there publishing nonsense on United Ireland during a pandemic

blanch152

Fann Linn wrote: »

EU would probably help bale us out a la former GDR.

That is equivalent to someone believing that the UN would step in if ireland had invaded the North in 1969.

In other words, it is utter fantasy.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was just going on what the poster said. I haven't read the doc yet. Still working here.



Take it up with jh79

Don’t worry, it won’t take too long to read.

As I pointed out before it is low-level Junior Cert analysis typical of Pearse’s low boredom threshold.

Fann Linn

a very cool kid wrote: »

True but the Shinners are the only one trying to destabilise the political institutions up there publishing nonsense on United Ireland during a pandemic

So everything is off until a cure is found?