The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

guy2231

Finty Lemon wrote: »

This is an interesting and realistic perspective. For clarity, are you saying that SF have to act in a certain way in order to please the (former) IRA, or elements of it? Otherwise there is a risk to state security?

And to follow, how would you see that playing out if SF were in government in Dublin? Would they as leaders of a sovereign national government still have to act to appease former members of the IRA?

The former IRA are both inside and outside Sinn Fein they are devoted to a United Ireland through peaceful means.

jm08

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what other possible candidates? Dont try and pretend that the position of leader isn't dictated from the top. An election with one candidate is not an election it is rubberstamping.

Well, there seems to have been some challenges - francie Molloy challenged Pat Doherty for the Vice president of SF and John O'dowd has challenged Michaelle O'Neill.

blanch152

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Leo was up against Simon for the leadership, TD's and party members actually had a choice. Who were Gerry, Mary-Lou, Michelle competing against?

In contrast, SF leadership is filled as an almost carbon copy of the Chinese communist party process, where the leader is designated and afterwards ratified by the party.

I think that is unfair to the Chinese communist party. SF is more akin to the North Korean Communist Party.

ohnonotgmail

jm08 wrote: »

Well, there seems to have been some challenges - francie Molloy challenged Pat Doherty for the Vice president of SF and John O'dowd has challenged Michaelle O'Neill.

was that the vote that SF refused to publish the results of?

anyway, that is one leadership vote. in 40 years. Not really a normal party is it?

jm08

Finty Lemon wrote: »

This is an interesting and realistic perspective. For clarity, are you saying that SF have to act in a certain way in order to please the (former) IRA, or elements of it? Otherwise there is a risk to state security?

I would say its more to do with acknowledging and respecting these ex-PIRA prisoners their sacrifice (for instance, turning up at funerals etc.) The leadership of SF can't really come and say they were wrong at this stage and apologise for them.



The dissidents hate SF. They think SF are going to be duped by the British and Irish Governments and they were wrong to go down the peaceful route.

And to follow, how would you see that playing out if SF were in government in Dublin? Would they as leaders of a sovereign national government still have to act to appease former members of the IRA?

I'd say the former PIRA would be delighted as that would mean they would be closer to a UI. It would also piss off the dissidents because it would mean that they looked like they backed the wrong horse.


Just on the influencing part of the IRA on SF, there was a report that the Army Council believed that they had influence, but that influence was entirely in support of a UI through peaceful means.

Finty Lemon

Finty Lemon wrote: »

This is an interesting and realistic perspective. For clarity, are you saying that SF have to act in a certain way in order to please the (former) IRA, or elements of it? Otherwise there is a risk to state security?

And to follow, how would you see that playing out if SF were in government in Dublin? Would they as leaders of a sovereign national government still have to act to appease former members of the IRA?

That wouldn't be the way I'd analyse it
The important elders of SF are the ones reigning in the Republicans most prone to going off plan
To be fair, they're doing mostly a good job of that
Those who get elected are not going to upset them as without them, there would be a lot more off plan activities going on, damaging to the country and damaging to SF electorally
Its pragmatism basically
Never be seen, not to be going too far against what the elders want but at the same time knowing that doing that won't result in them getting what they want either
The SCC policy is a good example, I think
I've my criticism's of SF but no fears of them in government because taking part in running a country not hamstringed by westminster is the senior hurling that very quickly levels out the rougher rigeder policies into what's more deliverable, less seismic and more normal
Its every coalition ever

jm08

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

was that the vote that SF refused to publish the results of?

Why would they have to publish the vote?

anyway, that is one leadership vote. in 40 years. Not really a normal party is it?

Reporting on SF was banned up to 1994, so they would not be interviewing anyone from SF, let alone broadcasting a SF Ard Dheis.

Finty Lemon

jm08 wrote: »

Only to those who wanted to see them as bad. I wonder at all of the attacks of sinn fein, particularly by Fine Gael that they would prefer if Sinn Fein didn't try and keep former IRA onside and would prefer if these people were filling the ranks of the New IRA/dissident republicans.



Sinn Fein has to keep them close to them if they want to maintain the peace.

What does the last sentence mean? If former IRA members are devoted to peace, why has peace to be maintained?

Jinglejangle69

Finty Lemon wrote: »

What does the last sentence mean? If former IRA members are devoted to peace, why has peace to be maintained?

Same twisted logic that we should be all grateful to Gerry Adams for finally realising blowing up kids isn't actually very nice and probably should put a stop that idea.

Finty Lemon

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Same twisted logic that we should be all grateful to Gerry Adams for finally realising blowing up kids isn't actually very nice and probably should put a stop that idea.

It seems there is an implicit threat of violence in there somewhere, even though the poster doesn't even seem to realise it themselves. I am confused

jm08

Finty Lemon wrote: »

What does the last sentence mean? If former IRA members are devoted to peace, why has peace to be maintained?

The peace is being maintained by keeping them involved in the political process. Exclude them and they may become disillusioned with the process and become dissident republicans.

jm08

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Same twisted logic that we should be all grateful to Gerry Adams for finally realising blowing up kids isn't actually very nice and probably should put a stop that idea.

I don't think GA was involved in blowing up any kids. He may be guilty though of persuading some others not to do so.

jm08

Finty Lemon wrote: »

It seems there is an implicit threat of violence in there somewhere, even though the poster doesn't even seem to realise it themselves. I am confused

There probably was at some stage, but Sinn Fein has been very successful in going down the peace route and bringing former PIRA with them. From the statement about the PIRA by the PSNI about the influence of ex-PIRA on Shin Fein decision making - it said that they were firmly committed to the political process.

rdwight

jm08 wrote: »

Only to those who wanted to see them as bad. I wonder at all of the attacks of sinn fein, particularly by Fine Gael that they would prefer if Sinn Fein didn't try and keep former IRA onside and would prefer if these people were filling the ranks of the New IRA/dissident republicans.



Sinn Fein has to keep them close to them if they want to maintain the peace.

How many times have we heard the "don't criticize us we're holding the peace process" line over the last 20 years?

ohnonotgmail

jm08 wrote: »

Why would they have to publish the vote?

why wouldn't they?

jm08

rdwight wrote: »

How many times have we heard the "don't criticize us we're holding the peace process" line over the last 20 years?

Thats the first time I've heard that line. How many times have you heard it and have you any links to it being said?

FrancieBrady

rdwight wrote: »

How many times have we heard the "don't criticize us we're holding the peace process" line over the last 20 years?

I give up...how many times? Can you give us some incidents of this being said?

jm08

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why wouldn't they?

What difference would it make to you or me to know whether Mary Lou had the full backing. It depends on the rules of the organisation.



What does it matter whether Kate O'Connell supported Simon Coveney or Leo Varadkar? All that matters is that Leo got more votes than Simon in the Parliamentary Party election.

ohnonotgmail

jm08 wrote: »

What difference would it make to you or me to know whether Mary Lou had the full backing. It depends on the rules of the organisation.

you have lost the run of the thread. the election under discussion was the one for deputy leader. there was no election for mary lou. She was the only candidate. She was appointed.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you have lost the run of the thread. the election under discussion was the one for deputy leader. there was no election for mary lou. She was the only candidate. She was appointed.

A SF member explained how it works. It is a cumann nomination process. Each cumann nominates a candidate.
Mary Lou was the only one to emerge from that and was ratified by a vote at Ard Fheis.
It's a different, no less democratic way of doing it.
There doesnt seem to be an over ride mechanism like other parties, like FG, have if the membetship want somebody the elite or elders dont want.

jm08

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you have lost the run of the thread. the election under discussion was the one for deputy leader. there was no election for mary lou. She was the only candidate. She was appointed.

There might have been abstensions! As for VP - what difference does it make knowing the exact number of votes that Pat Doherty got and what Francie Molloy got?


Take Kate O'Connell supporting Simon Coveney - knowing that only gives rise to gossip as to it being the reason she was dropped by Leo Varadkar!

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A SF member explained how it works. It is a cumann nomination process. Each cumann nominates a candidate.
Mary Lou was the only one to emerge from that and was ratified by a vote at Ard Fheis.
It's a different, no less democratic way of doing it.
There doesnt seem to be an over ride mechanism like other parties, like FG, have if the membetship want somebody the elite or elders dont want.

great but we were discussing the deputy leader election and the refusal by SF to release the results.

It’s mad how Gerry Adams, Mary Lou, and O’Neill were all the only nominees.

Listen, Francie, we all know the truth of it. Adams, Howell, (the late Storey), Murphy etc decide who is leader, they get nominated, and then the useful gombeens in the cumanns give a gloss coat of democracy to the entire charade.

The only question now is Mary Lou a member of the council? Was it Mary Lou who decided that Martina Anderson had to go for example, or was that a decision made by the lads?

ohnonotgmail

jm08 wrote: »

There might have been abstensions! As for VP - what difference does it make knowing the exact number of votes that Pat Doherty got and what Francie Molloy got?

again, you have lost the run of the thread. there has been no mention of the vote on Pat doherty and Francis Molloy. Unless they refused to release those results as well.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

great but we were discussing the deputy leader election and the refusal by SF to release the results.

Why would they have to? You wouldnt believe them anyway.

FrancieBrady

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It’s mad how Gerry Adams, Mary Lou, and O’Neill were all the only nominees.

Listen, Francie, we all know the truth of it. Adams, Howell, (the late Storey), Murphy etc decide who is leader, they get nominated, and then the useful gombeens in the cumanns give a gloss coat of democracy to the entire charade.

The only question now is Mary Lou a member of the council? Was it Mary Lou who decided that Martina Anderson had to go for example, or was that a decision made by the lads?

The relevant monitors say the 'army' is eclusively committed to peace and democratic means.

Tough for you that the Shinisteristic stuff no longer works. New tack required Doc.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would they have to?

why wouldn't they? why the lack of transparency?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You wouldnt believe them anyway.

no need to get personal francie.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The relevant monitors say the 'army' is eclusively committed to peace and democratic means.

Tough for you that the Shinisteristic stuff no longer works. New tack required Doc.

what does that have to do with the post you quoted?

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think the membership vote was over-ruled at the SF Ard Fheis, if you can show it was, work away.

Over 7000 members of FG's choice were ignored in favour of the choice of just over 3000 (Just to set the record straight here)

The CCP membership also didn't overrule Xi Jinping at its national congress. After all, what's the point of overruling when there isn't a choice? Incidentally, What were the numbers voting in favour of Mary Lou at that special Ard fheis - seeing as you know FG numbers, surely you must also know the equivalent transparent number for SF?

FG does use an electoral college voting system; If you want to make a point about that, how about adding another about how Michael Martin is Taoiseach with FF getting only 22% of the popular vote.

Still is vastly more democratically transparent than the Chinese Communist Party system adopted by SF to designate its leaders.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why wouldn't they? why the lack of transparency?


no need to get personal francie.

If the cap fits etc etc.

The Shinisteristcs have form in not believing what SF say Nowt personal really.