Sinn Féin - various articles and discussion. [merged thread]

MT

Violence will fill vacuum, warns Adams

Angelique Chrisafis, Ireland correspondent

The Guardian

Northern Ireland's political vacuum, caused by the breakdown of the peace process, will be filled by the type of people who planted a pipe bomb along the route of the Belfast marathon, Sinn Féin's leader, Gerry Adams, said yesterday.

As he prepared for the last leg of his campaign, Mr Adams said he repudiated the planting of the device, which a caller to a Belfast journalist claimed was intended for Hugh Orde, the province's chief constable, who was taking part in the race on Monday. Mr Adams said: "Our focus and part of the reasons for the initiative which I took [calling on the IRA to consider abandoning armed struggle] is and was a concern that the peace process is on a downward spiral."

He said his party wanted to thwart the prospect of violence filling "a prolonged vacuum" in the peace process. The pipe bomb was blamed on dissident republicans.

Political commentators said the election would polarise politics in Northern Ireland, boosting Sinn Féin and Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist party (DUP) and obliterating the middle ground.

But Sinn Féin's vice-president Pat Doherty said yesterday that Sinn Féin could become the biggest party in Northern Ireland "in terms of popular support" according to an analysis of canvass returns in all 18
constituencies,

The DUP responded by warning of a "nightmare scenario". Its deputy leader, Peter Robinson, said: "Sinn
Féin could not be clearer about the worldwide impact of a victory for them on election day. Unionists must take heed."

The leader of the moderate nationalist SDLP, Mark Durkan, said: "This is just Sinn Féin and the DUP trying to pump each other up.

"The DUP has been trying to make this an election between Sinn Féin and themselves and both of them are trying to reduce things to two-party politics based on them.

"This is the DUP's game plan. Peter Robinson has called for it for a number of years because in a two-party set up, he can declare the Good Friday agreement a bust.

"Sinn Féin is playing into his hands."

This seems to be Gerry Adams yet again hinting at the threat posed by the IRA for political leverage. With the dust settled on the grave of Robert McCartney and the outrage over the Northern Bank heist fading, it’s back to business as usual. Get the ‘historic’ offering of the IRA – I was going to write disbanding but nothing that specific was ever proposed – out of the way and the election it was designed to aid completed and we seem to drift back to where we were ten years ago. Another outing for the tried and tested ‘vacuum’ warning. Let me guess, next Gerry will be informing us in the usual ethereal terms that without some offerings from the governments the ‘historic moment’ could be lost, what with the good ole boys in south Armagh straining at the leash. Then we’ll here about the risk of a split and for all our sakes it’d be better if the IRA was kept in existence for fear of weapons falling into rogue hands. Same old, same old, it would appear.

For how long are the democrats in Ireland going to be held to ransom? And if the IRA is still to remain in existence, still involved in criminality, targeting and recruitment after ten long years, can we now assume that a vote for Sinn Fein is indeed a vote for the armed wing of Republicanism? Lets get rid of all the niceties and the comforting of the extremes and call a vote for SF by what it really is – support for a violent criminal conspiracy. The excuse that the end of violence and brutality is just around the corner and a vote brings that corner closer has surely now worn through completely. If the ‘RA can’t bring itself to cease these appalling activities within the next few months then continued support for Sinn Fein should be seen for nothing other than an endorsement of crime and violence. Not the ‘path to peace’ ramblings of previous years.

At least, the Noble Laureate and genuine founder of what was once the peace process, John Hume, has now seen through Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams:

Hume launches attack on Adams

SUNDAY 01/05/2005 14:50:40

Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams was today accused of insulting the electorate by a former partner in the peace process.

Former nationalist SDLP leader John Hume, whose series of talks with Mr Adams between 1988 and 1994 led to the IRA ceasefire, launched a stinging attack on the Sinn Fein leader for suggesting his rivals had abandoned their initiative.

Mr Hume, whose Foyle seat is being fought over in a fierce General Election battle between SDLP leader Mark Durkan and Sinn Fein general secretary Mitchel McLaughlin, insisted his party had consistently stood for lasting peace unlike Mr Adams` party.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate said: "Gerry Adams` claim that the SDLP has abandoned the Hume-Adams process is nonsense and an insult to the knowledge of the electorate.

"The reason I got involved in the talks with Adams was to secure lasting peace followed by a lasting agreement.

"The people know that the SDLP has always been a party of lasting peace, unlike Sinn Fein, and always proposed the main items of the Good Friday Agreement - power sharing and a North-South Council of Ireland.

"I have no doubt that in this election the people, in very large numbers, will stand shoulder to shoulder with the SDLP, in total support for the consistent work of the party."

At the start of the General Election, Gerry Adams told the IRA in a public speech on April 6 he believed there existed a democratic alternative to armed struggle which it should embrace.

Following confirmation this week that the Provisionals have authorised an internal debate on their future, Sinn Fein also outlined five consequences of the IRA accepting Mr Adams` proposal in its manifesto.

"Doing so would: revive the peace process, deny the DUP a veto over progress, remove unionist excuses for non-engagement (with republicans), expose unionist intransigence, put the onus firmly on the two governments (in London and Dublin) to move forward."

SDLP leader Mark Durkan claimed yesterday Mr Adams` appeal shows Sinn Fein is playing catch up with the position of his party and others in the process who have said the IRA has been an obstacle to political progress for years.

During canvassing in West Belfast, Mr Adams would not be drawn on Mr Hume`s criticism.

However he added: "We have less than a week to go before the election and our focus is on our agenda which is getting the biggest possible vote out for Sinn Fein, to rebuild this process and move the entire situation forward.

"And we want to deal with these other big issues, whether it is the issues of racism or sectarianism or the blight of suicides where young people are taking their own lives.

"There is no anti-suicide strategy here in place in the north (of Ireland). There is only 2% of funding going into mental health.

"Lots of big issues need to be dealt with and the first prerequisite for that is to get the Sinn Fein vote out."

UTV

This is the man who brought Adams in from the cold and gave him the political career he has earned so much from. Clearly, his patience too has been tried to its very limit and beyond by the Republican Movement. When did Hume, in all the years of his distinguished political life, ever fall back on the threat of mayhem or force to push his case? Sure enough, like the rest of us, he originally gave Sinn Fein the benefit of the doubt but ten years on when murder, robbery and racketeering still continue Hume can tolerate no longer the hypocrisy of Adams and his cohorts.

Thankfully, the people of Foyle took onboard his wise counsel and rejected SF’s Mitchel – murder isn’t a crime – McLoughlin. And yet, even when the people had delivered their verdict McLoughlin hadn’t the decency to accept defeat gracefully and respect the voter’s wishes. No, according to the all-knowing Mitchel, the SDLP had committed the unspeakable act of garnering votes from unionists. Heaven help us, how low into the gutter can sectarianism in the north now stoop. It now seems to be unacceptable – in SF’s eyes anyway – that a Nationalist might ask Protestants to vote for him. Are Prod votes unclean or something? So much for Republican’s Ireland of equals when McLoughlin feels he can cast aspersions on Durkin’s mandate due to the presence of themun’s ballot papers in his total. So much for bringing people together. I wonder if Mitchel feels the election would have been more acceptable had nasty Protestants in Derry been denied the vote?

It appears that the North is set for another term of IRA criminality and violence, another term of raving by the fundamentalist Imams in the DUP, yet more Sinn Fein lies and most likely further polarisation into warped sectarian tribalism. With prospects like this even Eastenders doesn’t seem half so gloomy by comparison.

Cork

MT wrote:

This seems to be Gerry Adams yet again hinting at the threat posed by the IRA for political leverage. With the dust settled on the grave of Robert McCartney and the outrage over the Northern Bank heist fading, it’s back to business as usual. .

When people vote for people like the DUP and SF - they don't get anything but hardliners.

It is like the ad for Ronsel - just as descibed on the tin.

They had the choice to vote for people like Trimble but decided that the hard line was the way to go.

Strange.

chris_d_rat

I dont see anything "strange" about voting for Sinn Fein. The only thing I do see as strange is that more so called nationalists dont vote Sinn Fein. The SDLP won their Derry seat with unionist votes therefore Mark Durkin is a unionist, not a nationalist.

Cork

chris_d_rat wrote:

I dont see anything "strange" about voting for Sinn Fein. The only thing I do see as strange is that more so called nationalists dont vote Sinn Fein. The SDLP won their Derry seat with unionist votes therefore Mark Durkin is a unionist, not a nationalist.

The SDLP stood by constitutional republicanism your many years. SF followed the armailite and ballot box stratergy.

Unionists are just as Irish as Adams and his people. It is about time SF/IRA came to accept this.

FF, FG, Labour, SDLP etc believe in constitutional republicanisim. Unionists are entitled to vote as well.

Just some unionists voted for Mark Durkin - it does not make Mark Durkin a Unionist.

If the smurfs voted for Adams - Would it make Adams a smurf?

SF and the DUP have got on shift from the politics of the Battle of the Boyne.

Ireland has moved on.

the_syco

Northern Ireland's political vacuum, caused by the breakdown of the peace process, will be filled by the type of people who planted a pipe bomb along the route of the Belfast marathon, Sinn Féin's leader, Gerry Adams, said yesterday.

Thought that pipe bomb was put there by dissedent republicans

Wertz

Cork wrote:

Unionists are just as Irish as Adams and his people. It is about time SF/IRA came to accept this.

About time the unionists accepted it too. Most still live with a seige mentality and want very little to do with the country as a whole...

Cork wrote:

SF and the DUP have got on shift from the politics of the Battle of the Boyne.

Ireland has moved on.

But it hasn't. The same fears and prejudices exist, the same hardliners and people willing to do bad things to get their own way exist, and the facilities to try and get us away from the current impasse are starting to collapse.

DUP voters opting to vote for Mr Durkin isn't really surprising....anything's better than SF in their opinion.
Anyway it doesn't matter who voted for him; what matters is his mandate and policies.


In this election (and in any election) you'll find that the people who most often turn out to vote are people with strong beliefs one way or other....hence you'll see hardliners from both sides getting the biggest majority...especially in low turn outs.
Trimble going is a big blow. He's been dodging it for years though, and it was easy to see it coming.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

chris_d_rat

Cork wrote:

The SDLP stood by constitutional republicanism your many years. SF followed the armailite and ballot box stratergy.

Unionists are just as Irish as Adams and his people. It is about time SF/IRA came to accept this.

FF, FG, Labour, SDLP etc believe in constitutional republicanisim. Unionists are entitled to vote as well.

Just some unionists voted for Mark Durkin - it does not make Mark Durkin a Unionist.

If the smurfs voted for Adams - Would it make Adams a smurf?

SF and the DUP have got on shift from the politics of the Battle of the Boyne.

Ireland has moved on.

Its about time the IRA accepted this?? Its the dinosaurs of the DUP that wont accept they are Irish, not Sinn Fein. Gerrry Adams constantly states that the Orange are a part of Ireland. When did Ian Paisley ever say that?

MT

chris d rat wrote:

I dont see anything "strange" about voting for Sinn Fein. The only thing I do see as strange is that more so called nationalists dont vote Sinn Fein. The SDLP won their Derry seat with unionist votes therefore Mark Durkin is a unionist, not a nationalist.

It's this sort of thinking that displays the Republican mindset to be every bit as sectarian as that of DUP supporters. Does support from Protestants discredit Durkan's victory in your view? Will they be allowed to vote in a united Ireland? Or only if they vote for the correct parties?

How do you think the world would react if a white candidate's victory in an Alabama election was disparaged because he saught and relied upon the support of black voters to win?

It's interesting how times change. A while ago Gerry Adam's claimed he would appeal to Unionist voters and now when those same voters do give support to a Nationalist candidate they're condemned. So much for Sinn Fein's Ireland of equals.

chris_d_rat

I was simply making the point that the SDLP have entered into an unoffical pact to keep Sinn Fein out. Is that the correct behaviour you should expect from a so-called sister nationalist party???

MT

chris d rat wrote:

I was simply making the point that the SDLP have entered into an unoffical pact to keep Sinn Fein out. Is that the correct behaviour you should expect from a so-called sister nationalist party???

Why not question the behaviour of Sinn Fein that forced Durkan to make such a decision? Is the retention of a private army and the undemocratic activities it carries out the behaviour we should expect from any so-called democratic party?

Was Durkan not entirely entitled to compete fully for seats and for all votes possible in a democratic election? Why should the SDLP have to role over for SF?

Furthermore, it's very interesting that Sinn Fein refused a voting pact in South Belfast when Alasdair McDonnell was the only Nationalist with a chance of winning the seat. It seems Republicans only demand sectarian solidarity when it will suit their own ends. When the SDLP needs electoral support from their 'sister' party they're told in no uncertain terms to get stuffed.

Victor

How is the SDLP to stop people voting for it?

And didn't quiet a few nationalists vote UUP to try to keep the DUP out?

MT

chris d rat wrote:

Its the dinosaurs of the DUP that wont accept they are Irish, not Sinn Fein. Gerrry Adams constantly states that the Orange are a part of Ireland. When did Ian Paisley ever say that?

But clearly from this latest reaction Sinn Fein don't consider the 'Orange' to have a status equal to that of other Irishmen. Why else would the sincere votes of these Irishmen be singled out for condemnation amongst the many others that elected a Mark Durkan.

Maybe, in light of this revelation concerning Republican thinking we should now take it that Sinn Fein view 'Orange' northerners as Irishmen but clearly of a lower class.

'An Ireland of not so equals' anyone?

A Dub in Glasgo

MT wrote:

It's this sort of thinking that displays the Republican mindset to be every bit as sectarian as that of DUP supporters. Does support from Protestants discredit Durkan's victory in your view? Will they be allowed to vote in a united Ireland? Or only if they vote for the correct parties?

I saw no mention of religion in the post you repleied to. In fact I saw a reference to people of a certain politicla stance. It was you who brought religion into the equation.

How do you think the world would react if a white candidate's victory in an Alabama election was disparaged because he saught and relied upon the support of black voters to win?

Not relevant. Of greater relevancy would be a political party relying on their political opponents to give them the punt up. There is nothing wrong with it as it is tactical voting.

It's interesting how times change. A while ago Gerry Adam's claimed he would appeal to Unionist voters and now when those same voters do give support to a Nationalist candidate they're condemned. So much for Sinn Fein's Ireland of equals.

You picked out that chris_d_rat represents SF and from his small message, you imply that SF are not a party of equals?

MT

MT wrote:

But clearly from this latest reaction Sinn Fein don't consider the 'Orange' to have a status equal to that of other Irishmen. Why else would the sincere votes of these Irishmen be singled out for condemnation amongst the many others that elected a Mark Durkan.

In fairness mark durkan was ahead by nearly 6000 votes.
They didnt all come from unionists, maybe a thousand or two did,ergo he would have been elected without them anyway.

But I take your point as regards consistency.
Casting a wry disapproval at unionist votes going to Durkan would seem contrary to being inclusive.

chris_d_rat

chris_d_rat wrote:

I was simply making the point that the SDLP have entered into an unoffical pact to keep Sinn Fein out. Is that the correct behaviour you should expect from a so-called sister nationalist party???

Well, it's certainly more subtle that what was withnessed here ...
Whats that you were saying about sisterly love??

chris_d_rat

MT wrote:

But clearly from this latest reaction Sinn Fein don't consider the 'Orange' to have a status equal to that of other Irishmen. Why else would the sincere votes of these Irishmen be singled out for condemnation amongst the many others that elected a Mark Durkan.

Maybe, in light of this revelation concerning Republican thinking we should now take it that Sinn Fein view 'Orange' northerners as Irishmen but clearly of a lower class.

'An Ireland of not so equals' anyone?

You talk of an Ireland of equals as though Sinn Fein were somehow against the idea. For generations it was the unionists of Ireland who denied equality to the nationalists, i think you will find that is one of the reasons why the IRA came about in the first place.

Cork

chris_d_rat wrote:

I was simply making the point that the SDLP have entered into an unoffical pact to keep Sinn Fein out. Is that the correct behaviour you should expect from a so-called sister nationalist party

Sinn Fein have excluded themselves because of their continued links to the IRA. The SDLP are constitutional republicans.

They are an independant political party with a record of intergrety.

They have never been a " so-called sister nationalist party" to the likes of SF/IRA.

MT

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I saw no mention of religion in the post you repleied to. In fact I saw a reference to people of a certain politicla stance. It was you who brought religion into the equation.

And in Derry in particular that certain political stance is almost entirely confined to one of the city's two religious groups. Mitchel knows this and so his criticism of Durkan's vote was an oblique attack on an SDLP victory requiring Protestant votes. Furthermore, when a unionist votes for a natonalist candidate can s/he even be placed in the former category. So, the only way then to differentiate these 'tarnished' votes from the rest is by the religious persuasion of the elector. Again, Mitchel McLoughlin knew full well what he was hinting at, ie. it was Prods that got the SDLP leader in.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not relevant. Of greater relevancy would be a political party relying on their political opponents to give them the punt up.

I disagree, it's an entirely relevant analogy. McLoughlin cast aspersions on Durkan's victory claiming that the SDLP leader had to rely on the votes of unionists to gain election. Now, because in the North the term unionist largely equates with Protestant, the true meaning of the slur directed at Durkan was quite clear. As in Alabama where there has been a history of animosity between two hostile groups and where relying on votes from the other side was once (still is?) frowned upon, McLoughlin was pulling the same stunt in the North - a place with another woeful record of societal schism and feuding.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

There is nothing wrong with it as it is tactical voting.

I see no problem with inter-religious votes either. To paraphrase an oft used quote, voting should be creed blind. However, Sinn Fein's Mitchel McLoughlin clearly disagrees otherwise he wouldn't have singled out a religious specific share of Durkan's total vote to disparage the SDLP candidate's success.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You picked out that chris_d_rat represents SF and from his small message, you imply that SF are not a party of equals?

I have not picked out that chris_d_rat represents SF. Though it would be entirely impossible to infer from his comments that he favours the party. Furthermore, I have implied that SF are not a party of equals from the beginning of this thread, before chris_d_rat posted, and not from his comments but from those of Mitchel McLoughlin in the wake of his defeat in Foyle.

A Dub in Glasgo

MT wrote:

And in Derry in particular that certain political stance is almost entirely confined to one of the city's two religious groups. Mitchel knows this and so his criticism of Durkan's vote was an oblique attack on an SDLP victory requiring Protestant votes. Furthermore, when a unionist votes for a natonalist candidate can s/he even be placed in the former category. So, the only way then to differentiate these 'tarnished' votes from the rest is by the religious persuasion of the elector. Again, Mitchel McLoughlin knew full well what he was hinting at, ie. it was Prods that got the SDLP leader in.

So you elect to differentiate on religious grounds. I choose political grounds.

I disagree, it's an entirely relevant analogy. McLoughlin cast aspersions on Durkan's victory claiming that the SDLP leader had to rely on the votes of unionists to gain election. Now, because in the North the term unionist largely equates with Protestant, the true meaning of the slur directed at Durkan was quite clear. As in Alabama where there has been a history of animosity between two hostile groups and where relying on votes from the other side was once (still is?) frowned upon, McLoughlin was pulling the same stunt in the North - a place with another woeful record of societal schism and feuding.

Nope, I fail to see the relevancy. The SDLP may have needed the votes of one of their political opponents but yet again you elect to differentiate on the basis of religion.

I see no problem with inter-religious votes either. To paraphrase an oft used quote, voting should be creed blind. However, Sinn Fein's Mitchel McLoughlin clearly disagrees otherwise he wouldn't have singled out a religious specific share of Durkan's total vote to disparage the SDLP candidate's success.

Again, you are raising the religious card here. I merely stated that tactical voting means that you may have to vote for one of your political opponents to further your objectives.

MT

Earthman wrote:

In fairness mark durkan was ahead by nearly 6000 votes.
They didnt all come from unionists, maybe a thousand or two did,ergo he would have been elected without them anyway.

But I take your point as regards consistency. Casting a wry disapproval at unionist votes going to Durkan would seem contrary to being inclusive.

We know now that Durkan would have got in without the unionist votes. However, when the result was anounced - and had yet to be analysed - McLoughlin made the leap that Durkan was only victorious because of additional unionists votes. It's this reaction that my original post was referring to.

MT

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So you elect to differentiate on religious grounds. I choose political grounds.

No, I elect to infer that McLoughlin differentiated on religious grounds. I believe the political reference was a coded sectarian slur.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Nope, I fail to see the relevancy.

Because you are choosing to avoid seeing an implicit sectarian slur for what it is.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The SDLP may have needed the votes of one of their political opponents but yet again you elect to differentiate on the basis of religion.

The SDLP canvassed for votes in Derry from across the sectarian divide unlike Sinn Fein. So, the SDLP did not plan their election strategy from the standpoint of religious differentiation, whereas SF did. In light of SF's sectarian election strategy in the city of Derry I have read between the lines of McLoughlin's veiled comment and called it for what it really is - a sectarian slur. On the other hand, you have yet again chosen to avoid the intended slur contained in the remark.

Cork

MT wrote:

The SDLP canvassed for votes in Derry from across the sectarian divide unlike Sinn Fein. So, the SDLP did not plan their election strategy from the standpoint of religious differentiation, whereas SF did. In light of SF's sectarian election strategy in the city of Derry I have read between the lines of McLoughlin's veiled comment and called it for what it really is - a sectarian slur. On the other hand, you have yet again chosen to avoid the intended slur contained in the remark.

The SDLP attracted some votes from unionists. There was some tactical voting. This is called democracy.

The SDLP had the vision and maturity to canvass and subsequently attract such votes.

Why should voting in NI be down sectarian lines?

The SDLP as a political party always had vision. It never engaged in cheap political stunts.

I am not suprised they have attracted voters from all various communities.

Snickers Man

Typical bloody Provos. Can't take their beating. They hyped up McLoughlin to put the nail into the SDLP coffin and even managed to convince the bookies in Derry that Durkan would lose.

Then when he romps in, 'Oh he took votes from Unionists. The bastard!!!'

What a bunch of low life!! Make all the noises you like about 'inclusive dialogue' and 'peace processes' but the minute they come under pressure it's back to the balaclavas and the macho jibes about fraternising with the enemy.

What this election showed is that there is a large body of NATIONALIST opinion in Northern Ireland that will NEVER vote for the Shinners. In fact, looking at the results, the SDLP outpolled Sinn Fein in eight out of the 18 constituencies. So much for a party being eclipsed.

Sure the SDLP needs to concentrate on youth and replace its old guard that have largely retired now. But as the Northern economy improves, as real jobs come in (just about everybody in Northern Ireland is a state employee anyway) and real economic factors come into play, the pie in the sky state socialism that the Provos are adept at exploiting will diminish in importance.

The SDLP are better placed to become the New Labour of Northern Ireland than the provos with their begging bowl politics.

Too bad the Good Friday agreement has now been comprehensively rejected by the Unionist people and that it is now largely a pan-nationalist position. You wouldn't give Trimble a bone so he got filleted by his own people.

Silly twats.

chris_d_rat

Snickers Man wrote:

Typical bloody Provos. Can't take their beating. They hyped up McLoughlin to put the nail into the SDLP coffin and even managed to convince the bookies in Derry that Durkan would lose.

Then when he romps in, 'Oh he took votes from Unionists. The bastard!!!'

What a bunch of low life!! Make all the noises you like about 'inclusive dialogue' and 'peace processes' but the minute they come under pressure it's back to the balaclavas and the macho jibes about fraternising with the enemy.

What this election showed is that there is a large body of NATIONALIST opinion in Northern Ireland that will NEVER vote for the Shinners. In fact, looking at the results, the SDLP outpolled Sinn Fein in eight out of the 18 constituencies. So much for a party being eclipsed.

Sure the SDLP needs to concentrate on youth and replace its old guard that have largely retired now. But as the Northern economy improves, as real jobs come in (just about everybody in Northern Ireland is a state employee anyway) and real economic factors come into play, the pie in the sky state socialism that the Provos are adept at exploiting will diminish in importance.

The SDLP are better placed to become the New Labour of Northern Ireland than the provos with their begging bowl politics.

Too bad the Good Friday agreement has now been comprehensively rejected by the Unionist people and that it is now largely a pan-nationalist position. You wouldn't give Trimble a bone so he got filleted by his own people.

Silly twats.

Well say what you like about Sinn Fein that is your right but whether the SDLP outvoted them in some contituencies or not is not really relevant, What matters at the end of the day is who wins the seats and last time I checked Sinn Fein left the SDLP at the starting post. What does this say? Well it shows that just as there is a large section of so-called nationalists who will always vote SDLp, there is also an even larger section who will always vote Sinn Fein.

Cork

chris_d_rat wrote:

there is also an even larger section who will always vote Sinn Fein.

But the vote that SF got is small compared to those who voted for the removal of articles 2 & 3 from our constitution.

Lest we forgot the IRA has zero mandate.

cdebru

Cork wrote:

But the vote that SF got is small compared to those who voted for the removal of articles 2 & 3 from our constitution.

Lest we forgot the IRA has zero mandate.

and my lollipop is bigger than yours

lest we forget the IRA never claimed a mandate from articles 2 and 3

lest we forget SF supported the changing of articles 2 and 3

lest we forget we changed articles 2 and 3 we did not remove them we still have an article 2 and an article 3

and your post had nothing to do with the topic of the thread

cdebru

Snickers Man wrote:

Typical bloody Provos. Can't take their beating. They hyped up McLoughlin to put the nail into the SDLP coffin and even managed to convince the bookies in Derry that Durkan would lose.

Then when he romps in, 'Oh he took votes from Unionists. The bastard!!!'

What a bunch of low life!! Make all the noises you like about 'inclusive dialogue' and 'peace processes' but the minute they come under pressure it's back to the balaclavas and the macho jibes about fraternising with the enemy.

What this election showed is that there is a large body of NATIONALIST opinion in Northern Ireland that will NEVER vote for the Shinners. In fact, looking at the results, the SDLP outpolled Sinn Fein in eight out of the 18 constituencies. So much for a party being eclipsed.

Sure the SDLP needs to concentrate on youth and replace its old guard that have largely retired now. But as the Northern economy improves, as real jobs come in (just about everybody in Northern Ireland is a state employee anyway) and real economic factors come into play, the pie in the sky state socialism that the Provos are adept at exploiting will diminish in importance.

The SDLP are better placed to become the New Labour of Northern Ireland than the provos with their begging bowl politics.

Too bad the Good Friday agreement has now been comprehensively rejected by the Unionist people and that it is now largely a pan-nationalist position. You wouldn't give Trimble a bone so he got filleted by his own people.

Silly twats.

the good friday agreement has not been rejected the DUP were prepared to do a deal in december
and in a couple of months they will do another deal
the DUP want power they dont have any in westminister and they will never get any there
in order to get power they willl have to share power with SF
SF know that the IRA will have to go away before they will be able to share power with the DUP

the IRA will go away the DUP will get their photos or some compromise there will be new assembly elections and with in a year it will be all up and running
smoothly


the SDLP are better placed to become the new northern wing of FF than anything else

Sand

the good friday agreement has not been rejected the DUP were prepared to do a deal in december
and in a couple of months they will do another deal
the DUP want power they dont have any in westminister and they will never get any there

You guys dont get it, do you? I predicted back in November and December that the deal would never hold together and it didnt. You know why it didnt? You want to know why I knew it wouldnt? Because SF/IRA simply cant stop being terrorist scum. And the DUP cant stop being fringe religious whackos who were elected on the manifesto that they *wouldnt* deal with SF/IRA again. Hell, the UKIP got a promise from them that they wouldnt do a deal with SF/IRA.

You can have whatever pretty words and promises down on paper but for as long as the people involved are unreformed theyre meaningless. The original GFA has taught us nothing if not that.

Please understand, the only people talking about doing a deal are SF/IRA. The governments are desperate to try and salvage something from the mess. The DUP are comftable that they annialated the UUP. Why would they destroy their vote by doing exactly the opposite of what got them elected? Why in gods name would even moderate unionists want the party whose workers kills men like McCartney and covers up for them in government? Why is that such a draw for them over having London ruling them? Sure, they want local representation, but not with terrorists! The GFA itself didng provide any more guarantees for unionism than the Anglo-Irish agreement already did. Why would they want to sell their children out by letting the IRA - who have no intentions whatsoever of going away - run their police, their schools and their hospitals?

Wake up! Its over. The peace proccess is dead and buried. SF/IRA got greedy. They thought they could enter government and keep their terrorist army too. They fecked the whole thing up. It was based on trust, and SF/IRA pissed all over it. Its over.

Cork

Sand wrote:

They fecked the whole thing up. It was based on trust, and SF/IRA pissed all over it. Its over.

Voting for extremists and expecting them to compromise and work together is pretty far fetched.

Trust was indeed squandered. SF/IRA have to take some of the blame.

Both governments needed to stand up to these people. We got seven years to stalemate after the GFA.

I think both communities in NI wanted to vote for hardline political partys.

David Trimble crompromised and he sacaficed his political career.

cdebru

Sand wrote:

You guys dont get it, do you? I predicted back in November and December that the deal would never hold together and it didnt. You know why it didnt? You want to know why I knew it wouldnt? Because SF/IRA simply cant stop being terrorist scum. And the DUP cant stop being fringe religious whackos who were elected on the manifesto that they *wouldnt* deal with SF/IRA again. Hell, the UKIP got a promise from them that they wouldnt do a deal with SF/IRA.

You can have whatever pretty words and promises down on paper but for as long as the people involved are unreformed theyre meaningless. The original GFA has taught us nothing if not that.

Please understand, the only people talking about doing a deal are SF/IRA. The governments are desperate to try and salvage something from the mess. The DUP are comftable that they annialated the UUP. Why would they destroy their vote by doing exactly the opposite of what got them elected? Why in gods name would even moderate unionists want the party whose workers kills men like McCartney and covers up for them in government? Why is that such a draw for them over having London ruling them? Sure, they want local representation, but not with terrorists! The GFA itself didng provide any more guarantees for unionism than the Anglo-Irish agreement already did. Why would they want to sell their children out by letting the IRA - who have no intentions whatsoever of going away - run their police, their schools and their hospitals?

Wake up! Its over. The peace proccess is dead and buried. SF/IRA got greedy. They thought they could enter government and keep their terrorist army too. They fecked the whole thing up. It was based on trust, and SF/IRA pissed all over it. Its over.

look the deal was basically agreed in december it did not really suit either side to complete it at that stage the DUP wanted to consolidate their position against the UUP
SF wanted to consolidate their position against the SDLP in the looming election


the DUP want power so do SF both sides know that with out each other they can not have it
SF also know that the DUP will not share power with SF whilst the IRA is still going
hence adams call for the IRA to go away
the IRA will go away there will be a decontamination period although SF wont call it that in which we will see if the IRA has indeed gone away
then the DUP and SF will come back to the deal they negoiated in december
there will be fresh assembly elections so that the DUP can say the unionist people have approved of the deal ( the UUP cant credibly opppose the deal as they have already shared power whilst the IRA was in existence)
there will not be any sniping from the sidelines the way the DUP sniped at the UUP

SF will take their place on the police boards having secured some minor changes to the PSNI and the promise that policing and justice will be devolved

the peace process is not over it has entered a diferent phase

as i have said a deal involving the DUP is much more likely to stick because there will not be the sniping and looking over there shoulder that the UUP had to do

what you are failing to understand is that politicians want power wether they are in the DUP UUP PUP SDLP or SF

at the moment SF dont go to westminister and the DUP hardly go why because they are insignificant they dont matter over there they will never be in government they will never have any power they both want it and they both know what they have to do to get it

SF have already shown that they will do anything even things that they originally say would be impossible to secure power
going to stormont
decommisioning
accepting the principle of consent
etc etc

DUP have shown that despite what they say at election time they are prepared to do a deal

it is only a matter of time