SF now the largest political party in the north.

snow ghost · 08-05-2010 9:04am

Caoimhín wrote: »

Id be a little bit hesitant voting for a political representative who refuses to go to the Parliament to represent me..

The parlament in Westminster is becoming increasingly irrelevant to Northern Ireland - most of the day-to-day decisions are now being made n the assembly.

Essentially, Westminister is only there to hand out the cash to the North - and the DUP and SF both want as much as they can and will push who ever is in government in London for it.

You could argue that SF aren't in parliament to comment on the big issues facing the UK as a whole, such as say taxation, etc. But in real terms none of the Northern parties have had any say for quite some time, other than to express their opinions.

It's unlikely this will change, unless the Tories don't form a government with the Lib-Dems and need the DUP's support.

The irony is that whenever anything important for the North comes up - such as transfer of policing powers - the Westminster government goes running to N.I. to listen to SF and the DUP anyway.

Unless Labour somehow form a government the SDLP will be little more than a talkng shop in the Westminster parliament that no one is really listening to.

So essentially the shinners have just as much sway not gong to Westminster as they are likely to have if they are there. They probably actually have more by staying away.

getz · 08-05-2010 9:23am

snow ghost wrote: »

The parlament in Westminster is becoming increasingly irrelevant to Northern Ireland - most of the day-to-day decisions are now being made n the assembly.

Essentially, Westminister is only there to hand out the cash to the North - and the DUP and SF both want as much as they can and will push who ever is in government in London for it.

You could argue that SF aren't in parliament to comment on the big issues facing the UK as a whole, such as say taxation, etc. But in real terms none of the Northern parties have had any say for quite some time, other than to express their opinions.

It's unlikely this will change, unless the Tories don't form a government with the Lib-Dems and need the DUP's support.

The irony is that whenever anything important for the North comes up - such as transfer of policing powers - the Westminster government goes running to N.I. to listen to SF and the DUP anyway.

Unless Labour somehow form a government the SDLP will be little more than a talkng shop in the Westminster parliament that no one is really listening to.

So essentially the shinners have just as much sway not gong to Westminster as they are likely to have if they are there. They probably actually have more by staying away.

there is more to a member of parliament,than sitting at home ,i have used my MP to get problems sorted,,if he had not sat in parliament he would not have had the access to the ministers to get the my problems solved,in one case i had a hand penned letter from one goverment minister fully admitting his responsibility, by some northern irish MPs not representing their voters,they have no grounds to complain if injustices happen

Caoimhín · 08-05-2010 9:38am

snow ghost wrote: »

They probably actually have more by staying away.

Except for the expenses

snow ghost · 08-05-2010 9:44am

getz wrote: »

there is more to a member of parliament,than sitting at home ,i have used my MP to get problems sorted,,if he had not sat in parliament he would not have had the access to the ministers to get the my problems solved,in one case i had a hand penned letter from one goverment minister fully admitting his responsibility, by some northern irish MPs not representing their voters,they have no grounds to complain if injustices happen

I hear what you're saying Getz, and if you lived in England I'd agree totally with you.

But I can't honestly think of many ocassions this would be that relevant for Northern Ireland - if you want to give me an example I'd be grateful.

TBH if there was such an issue that could only be resolved with ministerial intervention from London them I'm sure Martin McGunness could express himself to the N.I. secretary or even pick up the phone - as deputy first minister in the North - to the prime minister, and he'll be listened to more than most opposition party MP's in Britain.

The reality is - regardless of poltcal persaussion - that the government in Westminster is very ego-centric and spends most of its time concerning itself with what is happening in England (more accuratley the South East of England).

getz · 08-05-2010 10:15am

snow ghost wrote: »

I hear what you're saying Getz, and if you lived in England I'd agree totally with you.

But I can't honestly think of many ocassions this would be that relevant for Northern Ireland - if you want to give me an example I'd be grateful.

TBH if there was such an issue that could only be resolved with ministerial intervention from London them I'm sure Martin McGunness could express himself to the N.I. secretary or even pick up the phone - as deputy first minister in the North - to the prime minister, and he'll be listened to more than most opposition party MP's in Britain.

The reality is - regardless of poltcal persaussion - that the government in Westminster is very ego-centric and spends most of its time concerning itself with what is happening in England (more accuratley the South East of England).

the new elected MP has to represent all his/her people living in the constituency,by staying at home,49.999% of will have a legal claim to remove him/her

snow ghost · 08-05-2010 10:31am

getz wrote: »

the new elected MP has to represent all his/her people living in the constituency,by staying at home,49.999% of will have a legal claim to remove him/her

I doubt they'd have any legal claim at all - as 50.111% would have the democratic right to vote for a representative who abstains from parliament.

The point I'm making is that in the real world of Northern politcs SF MP's can represent their constituents just as readily by not going to Westminster.

If someone would like to explain how them flying over to London, booking into a luxurious hotel and sitting watching the main parties debating what they will have no say in anyway - as oppossed to getting on with issues in N.I. - is going to make a difference to their constituents, I'd love to hear it.

ynotdu · 08-05-2010 10:31am

getz wrote: »

there is more to a member of parliament,than sitting at home ,i have used my MP to get problems sorted,,if he had not sat in parliament he would not have had the access to the ministers to get the my problems solved,in one case i had a hand penned letter from one goverment minister fully admitting his responsibility, by some northern irish MPs not representing their voters,they have no grounds to complain if injustices happen

Best argument i have heard so far getz for doing away with only having a choice of one MP in each constituancy to approach for help!

FPTP is a nonsense!

getz · 08-05-2010 10:49am

snow ghost wrote: »

I doubt they'd have any legal claim at all - as 50.111% would have the democratic right to vote for a representative who abstains from parliament.

The point I'm making is that in the real world of Northern politcs SF MP's can represent their constituents just as readily by not going to Westminster.

If someone would like to explain how them flying over to London, booking into a luxurious hotel and sitting watching the main parties debating what they will have no say in anyway - as oppossed to getting on with issues in N.I. - is going to make a difference to their constituents, I'd love to hear it.

if i have to explain that you have no understanding of politics [i take it you dont believe in EU MPs taking their seat in the EU parliament also ? ] , or is this just one of those hate the british threads

karma_ · 08-05-2010 11:03am

SF do go to Westminister, they just don't take the oath or their seats but, they have offices, so to try and say they have no access to other ministers is slightly wide of the mark.

Also, if the nationalists had lost F & ST seat, just which part of the electorate would have been more hurt? that's why the SDLP made a mistake in not pulling out of that seat. They have constantly made these kinds of mistakes for the last 15 years and it's hemorrhaging them nationalists voters who were always strong SDLP supporters. I can see this continue until they eventually lose Durkans seat too.

Another poster made teh point about NI politicians having little effect at Westminister, this is completely true. Unionists were just used for their party vote and teh SDLP numbers meant little, and they just voted with the labour party. Westminister is completely irrelevant to everyday life in NI.

getz · 08-05-2010 11:12am

karma_ wrote: »

SF do go to Westminister, they just don't take the oath or their seats but, they have offices, so to try and say they have no access to other ministers is slightly wide of the mark.

Also, if the nationalists had lost F & ST seat, just which part of the electorate would have been more hurt? that's why the SDLP made a mistake in not pulling out of that seat. They have constantly made these kinds of mistakes for the last 15 years and it's hemorrhaging them nationalists voters who were always strong SDLP supporters. I can see this continue until they eventually lose Durkans seat too.

Another poster made teh point about NI politicians having little effect at Westminister, this is completely true. Unionists were just used for their party vote and teh SDLP numbers meant little, and they just voted with the labour party. Westminister is completely irrelevant to everyday life in NI.

if you take your seat in westminster you have direct access to the ministers shadow ministers face to face. as well as other parties,dont take your seat,and hope your contact picks up the phone, i know what i would prefer

Nodin · 08-05-2010 12:07pm

getz wrote: »

if you take your seat in westminster you have direct access to the ministers shadow ministers face to face. as well as other parties,dont take your seat,and hope your contact picks up the phone, i know what i would prefer

You seem to forget that NI now has its own Government, with its own budget, and control over policing.

Happy Monday · 08-05-2010 12:09pm

snow ghost wrote: »

The reality is - regardless of poltcal persaussion - that the government in Westminster is very ego-centric and spends most of its time concerning itself with what is happening in England (more accuratley the South East of England).

The reality is that the other countries forming the UK have their own parliaments - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Yet they still get to vote on issues affecting England.

The PM and Chancellor are both Scottish.

Cameron, Osborne and Clegg as English MPs will finally redress this balance.

The argument about SF MPs not taking their seats is no longer valid.
SF MPs didn't take their seats in 1918 as they refused to accept Ireland as a constituent part of the UK - SF now accept NI as part of the UK - as a result, they should take their seats and look to wield some influence on behalf of their voters.

Cavehill Red · 08-05-2010 12:20pm

snow ghost wrote: »

Not so sure about that beng as much of a myth as some would like to beleve Cavehill... I remember Nelson Mandella's speech to the Dail and when he unveiled a memorial to the hunger strikers on Robyn sland South Afrca where he was imprisoned... Mandela and the ANC alluded to many similarties with the situation in Ireland and had a considerable rapport and connections with Irish republicans.

Yup, that's the nonsense I was referring to in its fuller version.
Let's undo the myths a little: Nelson Mandela never unveiled any memorial to the Republican hunger strikers.
Irish Republicans themselves had the crass audacity to place their own entirely irrelevant memorial at Robben Island (which is how it's actually spelt) about ten years ago. I don't even think it's still there.
There aren't similarities between the liberation of South Africa from Apartheid and 'the situation in Ireland'. There were no entitlements or curbs on personal freedom based on race in Ireland ever.
Irish Republicans associated and 'had a rapport' with everyone and everything from Soviet Russia to Colonel Gaddafi to FARC, ETA and many other outright terror groups. They've also been to the Whitehouse and down East Belfast at David Irvine's funeral.
Invariably, they have claimed a 'rapport' with all of the above.
Almost equally invariably, it's a one-way rapport.

getz · 08-05-2010 12:30pm

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to forget that NI now has its own Government, with its own budget, and control over policing.

no i am not forgetting but the amount of money they get to run the country is decided in westminster and that is over £3 billion per year,so you need every MP in london to look after your own interests,thats why the scottish and welsh nationalist always make sure they are there.

owenc · 08-05-2010 12:32pm

getz wrote: »

no i am not forgetting but the amount of money they get to run the country is decided in westminster and that is over £3 billion per year,so you need every MP in london to look after your own interests,thats why the scottish and welsh nationalist always make sure they are there.

Agree, typical a person from down south trying to turn ni into its own!

dlofnep · 08-05-2010 12:47pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

There aren't similarities between the liberation of South Africa from Apartheid and 'the situation in Ireland'. There were no entitlements or curbs on personal freedom based on race in Ireland ever.

What utter nonsense.

It may not have revolved around race, but it certainly revolved around identity and cultural affinity. That being - one identity was given an elevated platform over the other.

One side was supported by the police (Dare I even call them that), military and government.

On the other hand - those left over from the partition of Ireland had no political voice. They were routinely attacked and harassed by policing. Straight after the partition of Ireland, nationalists were burnt out of their homes in Derry. The entire political system was against them with a gerrymandered vote. They did not have political, civil or cultural equality.

It was basically an orange state for unionists, and the nationalists just had to tolerate it. No different than Apartheid South Africa where the native black population had to tolerate a white government. So when Nelson Mandela setup bombing campaigns to liberate his people - he was called a terrorist.

So it's irrelevant if it was based on race, identity, cultural affinity or anything else for that matter. When one 'side' (and that's all that matters) has more privileges than the other - there is going to be a problem, and there was.

DoireNod · 08-05-2010 12:47pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The thing is, they're kind of being forced into appearing anti-Sinn Fein because Sinn Fein are being anti-SDLP.

You could easily argue that Sinn Féin was being pro-nationalist rather than anti-SDLP.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It was Gerry Adams who first said Ritchie had failed to show leadership for not goign into a nationalist pact, that was uncalled for. Then in the tv debates he spent more time bullying Ritchie than arguing his points to the Unionists.

That's a bit disingenuous. Certainly, Ritchie was an easy target, but it's not right to say that he bullied her as if she was some helpless kid. They had digs at one another and to be honest, Ritchie's only comeback, that is trying to make an issue of abstentionism, was, to be frank, stupid. In the TV debates, Ritchie was her own worst enemy and came across as being very contrived.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Regarding the nationalist pacts, SDLP knew they could win comfortably without Sinn Fein votes in South Belfast whereas Sinn Fein were worried the unionists could take F/ST, fortunately they didn't but it was very very tight.

So by going into the pact they had little to gain, by staying out they could claim they were against sectarian headcounts and avoid losing unionist votes in South Down. Sinn Fein simply weren't offering them a good deal, perhaps had they offered to stand down in Newry/Armagh the SDLP might have been tempted.

To be honest, I don't think the SDLP would have been tempted at all.

Rebelheart · 08-05-2010 12:48pm

owenc wrote: »

Aye everyone here hates her because she is trying to make the schools like down south... shes a nightmare. plus shes from sf and they will try and make everything into irish!! oh god.

owenc wrote: »

If those people are want a united Ireland that desperately why can't they just move down south so bloody simple... If there was a referndum it should be by the cobstuencies as the Derry one would make us join Ireland even though that is only a small part of the county!

owenc wrote: »

Agree, typical a person from down south trying to turn ni into its own!

:rolleyes: When it comes to producing idiotic, barely literate anti-Irish posts, you continue to surpass yourself.

dlofnep · 08-05-2010 12:50pm

owenc wrote: »

Agree, typical a person from down south trying to turn ni into its own!

Opposed to you, who want's to ethnically cleanse the population of the North and have all nationalists move down south - right? Perhaps if your Government didn't partition Ireland against the will of the population under duress, you wouldn't have any of these problems, now would you?

snow ghost · 08-05-2010 1:16pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yup, that's the nonsense I was referring to in its fuller version.
Let's undo the myths a little: Nelson Mandela never unveiled any memorial to the Republican hunger strikers.
Irish Republicans themselves had the crass audacity to place their own entirely irrelevant memorial at Robben Island (which is how it's actually spelt) about ten years ago. I don't even think it's still there.
There aren't similarities between the liberation of South Africa from Apartheid and 'the situation in Ireland'. There were no entitlements or curbs on personal freedom based on race in Ireland ever.
Irish Republicans associated and 'had a rapport' with everyone and everything from Soviet Russia to Colonel Gaddafi to FARC, ETA and many other outright terror groups. They've also been to the Whitehouse and down East Belfast at David Irvine's funeral.
Invariably, they have claimed a 'rapport' with all of the above.
Almost equally invariably, it's a one-way rapport.

Caevhill,

You're correct, checked and it wasn't actually Mandella that unveiled the memorial to the Irsh hunger stikers it was an ANC hunger Striker imprisoned there and the ANC defence minster.

Mandella met Adams shortly afterwards if my memory serves me correctly, and may have been present at the ceremony which commemorated Irish and ANC hunger strikers. f I recall media reports correctly at the time Mandella was present.

"Kathrada [ANC Hunger striker at the ceremony] added that the hunger strike by IRA political prisoners was an inspiration for prisoners on Robben Island which made them feel more determined to win their struggle."

http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=ct20011003213926876I650891

snow ghost · 08-05-2010 1:26pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

There aren't similarities between the liberation of South Africa from Apartheid and 'the situation in Ireland'. There were no entitlements or curbs on personal freedom based on race in Ireland ever.

Complete and utter nonsense, the 'Old-English' Anglo-Normans locked native Irish people out of Galway city for a start, there are a multitude of other examples. If you don't know any of this you are ignorant of Ireland's history. It wasn't always dressed up as religious difference - and just because racism was dressed up under the guise of religious persaussion e.g. in the penal laws it didn't make it any the less oppressive or inherently racist.

snow ghost · 08-05-2010 1:32pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Irish Republicans associated and 'had a rapport' with everyone and everything from Soviet Russia to Colonel Gaddafi to FARC, ETA and many other outright terror groups. They've also been to the Whitehouse and down East Belfast at David Irvine's funeral.
Invariably, they have claimed a 'rapport' with all of the above.
Almost equally invariably, it's a one-way rapport.

t doesn't sound one way to me considering the quote in my post above from the ANC hunger strker, then consider Mandella's speech to the Dail:

Mr. Mandela: “… We recognise in the possibility you have thus given us the reaffirmation by the Members of this House and the great Irish people whom you represent, of your complete rejection of the apartheid crime against humanity, your support for our endeavours to transform South Africa into a united, democratic, non-racial and nonsexist country, your love and respect for our movement and the millions of people it represents. We know that the joy with which you have received us and the respect for our dignity you have demonstrated, come almost as second nature to a people who were themselves victims of colonial rule for centuries.

We know that your desire that the disenfranchised of our country should be heard in this House and throughout Ireland derives from your determination, born of your experience, that our people should, like yourselves, be free to govern themselves and to determine their destiny. The warm feeling that envelops us as we stand here is therefore but the affinity which belongs to peoples who have suffered in common and who are tied together by unbreakable bonds of friendship and solidarity.

The very fact that there is today an independent Irish State, however long it took to realise the noble goals of the Irish people by bringing it into being, confirms that we too shall become a free people; we too shall have a country which will, as the great Irish patriots said in the proclamation of 1916, cherish all the children of the nation equally."

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28

Then there are the regular ANC visitors to the SF ard fheis.

BTW, I am not a SF supporter nor an 'Irish Republican' - so I have no axe to grind - but I can objectvely see smilarities between such things.

snow ghost · 08-05-2010 1:50pm

Happy Monday wrote: »

The reality is that the other countries forming the UK have their own parliaments - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Yet they still get to vote on issues affecting England.

The PM and Chancellor are both Scottish.

Cameron, Osborne and Clegg as English MPs will finally redress this balance.

How, by breaking up the UK? The British government is London/South East centric, most of the rest of England knows that. Devolution was largely to address this issue and to secure the Union as people in N.I. Scotland and Wales felt disinfranchised with Westminster decisions.

Happy Monday wrote: »

The argument about SF MPs not taking their seats is no longer valid.
SF MPs didn't take their seats in 1918 as they refused to accept Ireland as a constituent part of the UK - SF now accept NI as part of the UK - as a result, they should take their seats and look to wield some influence on behalf of their voters.

Of course it's valid - check out the Good Friday Agreement. Moreover, the majority of the electorate in N.I. voted for SF knowing their MP's wouldn't take their seats, so how can you claim it is no longer valid? It's obviously valid to the majority of voters in N.I.

SF MP's didn't take their seats in 1918 in line with the democratic wishes and mandate bestowed on them by the vast majority of the people of Ireland who gave them approx 75% of the vote on the island, based on their absenteeism and the fact that an Irish parliament had been established in line with the wishes and democratic recognition of the Irish people.

SF, and the DUP, actually yield a dispproprtionate amount of power as MP's in the UK and it has nothing to do with them sitting in the House of commons.

At the end of the day - if they weren't representng their electorate they wouldn't vote for them... thats democracy.

owenc · 08-05-2010 2:11pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Opposed to you, who want's to ethnically cleanse the population of the North and have all nationalists move down south - right? Perhaps if your Government didn't partition Ireland against the will of the population under duress, you wouldn't have any of these problems, now would you?

Them words never came out of my mouth!! I said if they want an Irish government why don't they move 5miles accros the border and give the people of ni head peace... I mean we are fine the way we are why can't they just bug off.. We don't want more trouble again

ardmacha · 08-05-2010 2:15pm

Irish people should be entitled to an Irish government whatever part of Ireland they live in. Likewise for France, Germany, Denmark or whereever.

owenc · 08-05-2010 2:20pm

ardmacha wrote: »

Irish people should be entitled to an Irish government whatever part of Ireland they live in. Likewise for France, Germany, Denmark or whereever.

Well tuff if they want that they can just move down the road

aDeener · 08-05-2010 2:22pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yup, that's the nonsense I was referring to in its fuller version.
Let's undo the myths a little: Nelson Mandela never unveiled any memorial to the Republican hunger strikers.
Irish Republicans themselves had the crass audacity to place their own entirely irrelevant memorial at Robben Island (which is how it's actually spelt) about ten years ago. I don't even think it's still there.
There aren't similarities between the liberation of South Africa from Apartheid and 'the situation in Ireland'. There were no entitlements or curbs on personal freedom based on race in Ireland ever.
Irish Republicans associated and 'had a rapport' with everyone and everything from Soviet Russia to Colonel Gaddafi to FARC, ETA and many other outright terror groups. They've also been to the Whitehouse and down East Belfast at David Irvine's funeral.
Invariably, they have claimed a 'rapport' with all of the above.
Almost equally invariably, it's a one-way rapport.

you have to be a troll. if not, wtf?! the list is endless - penal laws for one

aDeener · 08-05-2010 2:23pm

owenc wrote: »

Well tuff if they want that they can just move down the road

seriously what age are you?

snow ghost · 08-05-2010 2:27pm

owenc wrote: »

Them words never came out of my mouth!! I said if they want an Irish government why don't they move 5miles accros the border and give the people of ni head peace... I mean we are fine the way we are why can't they just bug off.. We don't want more trouble again

Owen, it is perfectly legitimate for Irish nationalsts in Northern Ireland to aspire to an all-Ireland government - especially as an Irish republcan party received most votes in the election. Just as it is for Unionists to want to maintain the Union with Britain. That's democracy.

By suggesting they should move away to achieve their desires implies a lack of understandng of democracy and equality in the North.

Btw, if you asked most people down here in the South, they don't want to make N.I. their own - by and large they don't, if anything they don't really want the North. They are just glad that Republicans and Unionists are peacefully working together for a shared future on this island, and the future of any potential United Ireland largely rests in the democratic wishes of the people of N.I.

coldwood92 · 08-05-2010 2:37pm

dlofnep wrote: »

With the recent win by Gildernew, it takes SF's % to 25.5% (171,942 votes), with the DUP trailing marginly at 25.0% (168,216 votes). the SDLP came in third with 16.5% (110,970).

This is a great day for Sinn Féin. All the hard work put in has paid off.

never thought i'd see the day

owenc · 08-05-2010 2:53pm

coldwood92 wrote: »

never thought i'd see the day

That doesn't mean anything, theres more dup seats. I think more catholics are voting this year, don't know why just have this suspicion that more people are voting.

dlofnep · 08-05-2010 2:58pm

owenc wrote: »

Them words never came out of my mouth!! I said if they want an Irish government why don't they move 5miles accros the border and give the people of ni head peace... I mean we are fine the way we are why can't they just bug off.. We don't want more trouble again

Suggesting a mass population transfer is indeed ethnic cleansing. Why on earth should the native population of Ireland have to move anywhere to suit you?

The is perfectly valid for the nationalist community to aspire for Irish unification. Nobody is going to bug off anywhere. I might suggest that you bug off back to Britain and take your plantations with you, but I'm not on the same level of ignorance as you.

P. Breathnach · 08-05-2010 3:01pm

ardmacha wrote: »

Irish people should be entitled to an Irish government whatever part of Ireland they live in. Likewise for France, Germany, Denmark or whereever.

That's simple-minded sloganeering. You can set against that the suggestion that British people (as a very large proportion of the population of NI consider themselves to be) should be entitled to a British government, whatever part of the United Kingdom they live in.

Where do those two claims get you? At an impasse.

With that sort of thinking, one is going nowhere. Which is pretty well what has been happening in NI for donkey's years.

karma_ · 08-05-2010 3:02pm

owenc wrote: »

That doesn't mean anything, theres more dup seats. I think more catholics are voting this year, don't know why just have this suspicion that more people are voting.

Well, if your going to say that nationalists must accept the union if a majority of people vote for a unionist party, then you must also accept that unionists should accept the possibility of nationalist aims should a majority of NI people vote for it?

Thats twice in this thread now you asked people to leave their homes and move away, which frankly is a scary attitude to have.

dlofnep · 08-05-2010 3:02pm

owenc wrote: »

That doesn't mean anything, theres more dup seats. I think more catholics are voting this year, don't know why just have this suspicion that more people are voting.

More people voted for Sinn Féin than the DUP. Deal with it. Your convenient suspicions won't make it any less of a fact. Unionism is falling. In the 2005 elections, the DUP had 33.7% of the vote - they now only have 25% - that's a drop of 8.7% which is huge. Sinn Féin however had 24.3% of the vote, but they now have 25.5% - an increase of 1.2%. Which by the way, is a trend that has been seen increase steadily over the past decade.

Cavehill Red · 08-05-2010 3:04pm

dlofnep wrote: »

What utter nonsense.

It may not have revolved around race...

I stopped reading here, when it became clear that you agreed I was right.

Cavehill Red · 08-05-2010 3:08pm

snow ghost wrote: »

Complete and utter nonsense, the 'Old-English' Anglo-Normans locked native Irish people out of Galway city for a start, there are a multitude of other examples. If you don't know any of this you are ignorant of Ireland's history. It wasn't always dressed up as religious difference - and just because racism was dressed up under the guise of religious persaussion e.g. in the penal laws it didn't make it any the less oppressive or inherently racist.

Care to cite me the skin colour bars in the penal laws?
Oh, look, there weren't any.
Grow up, people. You didn't live through Apartheid. It's not the West Bank either. Your constant attempts to equate the chequered and in many cases monstrous history of your movement with the likes of Mandela is beyond risible. It's contemptible.
And I say that as an Irish nationalist from North Belfast.

dlofnep · 08-05-2010 3:08pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I stopped reading here, when it became clear that you agreed I was right.

Actually, you were wrong. I pointed out the sheer silliness of your argument. Race is not the only means for which discrimination can occur. Both communities suffered inequality. One for their race, one for their identity. It's irrelevant which it was for - because discrimination in all forms is wrong. Be it on cultural grounds, sex or race.

owenc · 08-05-2010 3:08pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Suggesting a mass population transfer is indeed ethnic cleansing. Why on earth should the native population of Ireland have to move anywhere to suit you?

The is perfectly valid for the nationalist community to aspire for Irish unification. Nobody is going to bug off anywhere. I might suggest that you bug off back to Britain and take your plantations with you, but I'm not on the same level of ignorance as you.

Why don't you bug off to Spain then.. Apparently Irish people come from Spain

dlofnep · 08-05-2010 3:10pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Care to cite me the skin colour bars in the penal laws?

You seem to have a severe problem understanding that discrimination exists in a number of ways. Race is only one of many. Don't be obtuse.

A Dub in Glasgo · 08-05-2010 3:12pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Care to cite me the skin colour bars in the penal laws?
Oh, look, there weren't any.
Grow up, people. You didn't live through Apartheid. It's not the West Bank either. Your constant attempts to equate the chequered and in many cases monstrous history of your movement with the likes of Mandela is beyond risible. It's contemptible.
And I say that as an Irish nationalist from North Belfast.

So rampant discrimination only occurs when somebody has a different skin colour? Really? and you ask people to grow up!

dlofnep · 08-05-2010 3:13pm

owenc wrote: »

Why don't you bug off to Spain then.. Apparently Irish people come from Spain

I'll get right on that.

Nodin · 08-05-2010 3:14pm

getz wrote: »

no i am not forgetting(.....)always make sure they are there.

In their capacity as members of the NI assembly they negotiate with, and meet, the British government on this matter. This has been explained in the thread already.

Cavehill Red · 08-05-2010 3:16pm

dlofnep wrote: »

You seem to have a severe problem understanding that discrimination exists in a number of ways. Race is only one of many. Don't be obtuse.

I have a problem with people seeking to equate unlike experiences.
I LIVED through the entire troubles, right on an interface in North Belfast.
Every discrimination that existed in Northern Ireland affected my family at some point.
And you know what? It still didn't amount to Apartheid or anything remotely like it. This combination of MOPEry and risible self-aggrandisement is unique to Irish Republicanism.

Nodin · 08-05-2010 3:16pm

owenc wrote: »

Why don't you bug off to Spain then.. Apparently Irish people come from Spain

We really don't need this kind of thing.

K-9 · 08-05-2010 3:20pm

owenc wrote: »

Why don't you bug off to Spain then.. Apparently Irish people come from Spain

Nah, everybody should feck of back to Africa where we all began:

Neanderthal genome reveals interbreeding with humans - life - 06 May 2010 - New Scientist

aDeener · 08-05-2010 3:20pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I have a problem with people seeking to equate unlike experiences.
I LIVED through the entire troubles, right on an interface in North Belfast.
Every discrimination that existed in Northern Ireland affected my family at some point.
And you know what? It still didn't amount to Apartheid or anything remotely like it. This combination of MOPEry and risible self-aggrandisement is unique to Irish Republicanism.

barring your fascination with skin colour, the similiarities are remarkable. do you believe that discrimination can only happen on the grounds of skin colour?

how you can say the native irish have never in their history being discriminated against, shows your knowledge, or lack thereof, of history, regardless of where you might be from

TommyT · 08-05-2010 3:27pm

owenc wrote: »

Why don't you bug off to Spain then.. Apparently Irish people come from Spain

Are Northern Protestants not originally from Scotland (planters)? Or are you in Coleraine on holidays?

dlofnep · 08-05-2010 3:28pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I have a problem with people seeking to equate unlike experiences.
I LIVED through the entire troubles, right on an interface in North Belfast.
Every discrimination that existed in Northern Ireland affected my family at some point.
And you know what? It still didn't amount to Apartheid or anything remotely like it. This combination of MOPEry and risible self-aggrandisement is unique to Irish Republicanism.

Nobody said anything about Apartheid. You infact brought it up. The original context for discussion was on the basis of a poster claiming to admire Mandela, while on the same page - claim that no terrorist should be allowed to enter politics. I highlighted the fact that Mandela engaged in exactly the same strategies as the IRA.

You then went on to rant on about racial discrimination for a few posts - claiming that there were no similarities. I explained that there was discrimination on civil/cultural grounds, and that discrimination was and is wrong - and that in that context, the two situations were very much comparable - because one group of people controlled the politics, while the other was oppressed. The grounds for which they were oppressed on is irrelevant, and this is the key point that you have routinely missed.

owenc · 08-05-2010 3:33pm

TommyT wrote: »

Are Northern Protestants not originally from Scotland (planters)? Or are you in Coleraine on holidays?

Yea they are actually... I mention native Irish

SF now the largest political party in the north.

Comments