Irish Far Right Political Parties

FreedomJoe

Hi all, I have been looking around the web for information on Irish Far right Political Parties for a study that I am doing.

So far I have found The Immigration control platform and the Irish National Party.

To be honest neither one of these seem to be legit or proffesional!

I was wondering are there any real far right parties out there or has there ever been?

does Ireland even have a need for a far right political party?

And what in todays world does far right and far left actually mean?

Also I am looking for Far left Political Parties. Now the only one i would have considered at the Socialist Party, but again they dont seem to be that legit.
Maybe I m wrong! Again any help is greatful!

Also With todays current mainstream parties such as FF, Greens, FG, PD`s and sinn Fein what sort of grouping would you consider them? i.e ff left Fg right.

I have also been reading the Inp messageboards wherethey claim to have 3,500 members! would this be considered one of the largest non government political parties out there if they are legis and telling the truth?

Or are there others?

Thanks again for any help!

Dirk Gently

Current lefties would be...

The socialist party
Socialist workers party (including several “I can’t believe it’s not the SWP spin offs)
Communist party of Ireland
Irish socialist network
Workers solidarity movement (anarchist)
Residents against racism

I think only the first four take part in elections, (swp under various umberalla groups but not officially) the last (RAR) being an issue group. Not sure about the communist party, I think their position is that capitalism must run it's course, devolop infrastructure / communications and so on, before progressing to a socialist stage. I think they even advocated a FF vote at some stage as they seen them as the best way to let the capitalist state develop.

There are other even smaller groups consisting of less than 20-30 members but do little more than attend public meetings. I suppose the big two on the left would be the socialist party and to a degree the socialist workers party. The communist party is still going but last I knew they had an aging membership and were not too active. They run Connolly’s books in temple bar, selling socialist news papers, books and pamphlets.

Right wingers would be the ones you mentioned, as well as the Immigration control platform and the Irish National Party, youth defence are another very rightwing group heavily influenced by catholic teaching and preaching mainly on contraception, abortion and so on.

Most other mainstream parties would be right of centre, the PD's being the furthest right economically, FG having more of a social right wing aspect. The greens are a bit wooly on the whole left/right divide having some genuine left and some genuine business minded right wingers too. While in opposition they were seen very much as alligned with the left dominated technical grouping but we will have a better idea the more we see of them in actual power.

SF describe themselves as left and get involved in a lot of the campaigns but it depends what line you get and from whom at any particular time. Then of course there's the Irish republican socialist party (INLA linked reps) who would proclaim to be stronger lefties than SF.

going back a bit, Connolly’s citizen army (fought in 1916) were left wing and Connolly founded the then Labour party who started off on the left and evolved into the right of centre labour party we have today.

On the right we had the blue shirts, a fascist organisation that dissolved into FG after a brief existence.

Various other parties throughout the years resulting from splits in the left republican movement eventually more or less joined the Labour party.

As to if there is need for a far right party in Ireland today, I think we will only see one emerge in a few years, should the economy go bad and we see unemployment rising. Migrant workers will follow the work of course but those remaining, i.e. asylum seekers and so on may find themselves a target. Poor social conditions and mixed racial areas tend to be a breathing ground for fascist easy answers but the vacuum might also be filled by the mainstream parties playing the race card or adopting a get tough attitude. FG would be my best guess at as the most likely mainstream party to utter a uneasy words of caution should such conditions arise to appease or play up to public concern.

When times are good the left / right tend not to get much attention, it's when conditions in society degrade that most people look for alternative solutions and get attracted to left and right politics. (I.e. zomg there be black people working and living in houses and going to school and I've no job and can't afford a house" type situation)Given the short memories and lack of critical analysis a lot of Irish people display I see scope for a rise of the far right to some degree greater than present should the conditions ripen for some fool to get on his soap box and preach. Luckily people are intergrating and making a life for themselves in Ireland while Paddy and Seamus are happy and busy working so hopefully when things aren’t so rosy multiculturalism will be an accepted fact but I still reckon we will try to blame someone, someone a different colour.

Regarding your question on the socialist party, they are a fully functional political party, split away from the labour party. They are revolutionary trotskists but take part in elections, having had one TD elected in the previous Dail. They are an all ireland based party, with most branches in Dub, Cork, Waterford and Belfast and a popular following in many colleges / universities across the state.

The SWP officially do not take part in state elections but have done so under various umberalla groups which they control, narrowly missing out on a seat in the last election in the Dunlaoirge area. (can't remember they're last aka, people before profit I think?? )

cavedave

http://politicalcompass.org/ireland

I would not overly rely on the picture above but it does give some clue what is going on. Right wing might be overly simple. Authoritarian/libertarian is about what people can do in their personal lives. Left/right in the above graph is about how much freedom business has.
If you look at totalitarian leaders they are Authoritarian rather then left/right in an economic sense.

The_Minister

Firstly, the Socialist party did not split from Labour, they were kicked out after a failed coup. They just like to say they split.
Aside from that, Clownbag was pretty much right (if he'll forgive the expression)

Secondly, ignore the political compass. It puts Fine Gael as less authoritarian than Fianna Fail, which (if you look at their policies) just isn't true.

cavedave

Secondly, ignore the political compass. It puts Fine Gael as less authoritarian than Fianna Fail, which (if you look at their policies) just isn't true.
__________________

It is not completely accurate as I have said but it does give you a rough idea of where people stand as i have said. So Hitler, Stalin and Mugabe are extreme authoritarianm FG and FF are not, neither is Ghandhi etc.

Fratton Fred

I was thinking about this when someone posted a link to the Irish nationalist Party (Which seems to be a poor attempt at copying the British Nationalist Party).

My view on extreme right wingers is this. People from the far right I have met, supporters of the BNP and it's forerunner the National front, generally want someone to blame for their pathetic lives. Blaming an immigrant because you can't get a job is easier than actually getting off your arse and finding a job yourself. There seems to be a type of person who always wants someone else to blame.

In Ireland (and I may be treading on thin ice here) these people, as yet, have no need to blame immigrants for having a ****ty life because there's always the British. I am not tarring all republicans with that brush, I know that the majority of republicans are not anti British just Irish repubilicans. However, I can't help thinking that, for example, those four guys arrested in Derry after the Bohs match, if in Britain would be BNP supporters.

Jackie laughlin

Fratton,
You are on firm ground. There is a tendency to glorify disenchanted hooligans by calling them BNP supporters in Britain and Shinners in Ireland. The truth is that such people who are essentially opposed to politics are attracted to any form of anti-establishment movement. OK, it's true that they can be useful to such groups but the point is that they are not committed to any ideas.

For the record, the Socialist Party in Ireland is the rump of the old Militant Tendency, an international "party" which sought election by practicing "entryism", i.e. joining Labour parties and trying to mobilise within and capitalise on the parties' existing support, while all the time they organised separately (own leaders, own newspaper, own staff, own meetings, religious-like discipline, etc.) The Irish Labour Party eventually got fed up with them, formally labelled them a separate organisation and decided at an annual delegate conference that membership of Militant was inconsistent with membership of Labour. Joe Higgins was the head of Militant at the time and is now leader of the Socialist Party.

moe_sizlak

most political partys in this country are so of the centre , there a white line in the middle of the road , the 2 most idealoigical TD,s in the dail lost there seats at the last election , micheal mc dowell and joe higgins , this is not surprising , were a deeply unidealogical people which could explain the phenomenol degree to which FIANNA FAIL have dominated politics in this country , a part who,s only idealogy as has been said on many occasions is actually staying in power

Victor

cavedave wrote: »

http://politicalcompass.org/ireland

Link is mixed up http://politicalcompass.org/ireland

The_Minister wrote:

It puts Fine Gael as less authoritarian than Fianna Fail, which (if you look at their policies) just isn't true.

A few points.

a. It is difficult to represent people as individual points on a graph. Representing parties that have different wings, branches, etc. as single points is a inaccurate.
b. The difference is slight.
c. While FG will tend to have certain authoritarian positions, they also have some quite liberal positions to balance them out (for example, southern unionists and protestants have a tradition of voting for FG). FF have a mixum gatherum of policy that nobody really understands and will pick the one that gets them the best press coverage of the day.

moe_sizlak

Victor wrote: »

Link is mixed up http://politicalcompass.org/ireland

A few points.

a. It is difficult to represent people as individual points on a graph. Representing parties that have different wings, branches, etc. as single points is a inaccurate.
b. The difference is slight.
c. While FG will tend to have certain authoritarian positions, they also have some quite liberal positions to balance them out (for example, southern unionists and protestants have a tradition of voting for FG). FF have a mixum gatherum of policy that nobody really understands and will pick the one that gets them the best press coverage of the day.

not sure why southern unionists voting for FG is an example of FG being liberal or them not being authoritatian , unionists in northern ireland tend to be bother authoritarian and very conservative
FG were always more pluaralist on the national question than FG , hence the reason why protestants in the south were more likely to vote for them , also FG were the part of the rancher and most southern protestants were big farmers

cavedave

It is an interesting as to how the far right (which i think means authoritarian) party could take power.

One obvious way is for an economic downturn to lead to a wave of nationalism "their taking our jobs" one group gets scapegoated and we vote in a "strong leader" to bring calm.

There are other ways a country could slide toward tyranny
One is the red tape always scared world of the film Brazil. Where fear of terrorism induces us all to give power over to the government.

Another is Hayeks "road to serfdom" scheme. http://www.mises.org/books/TRTS/

Are there any other ways a totalitarian state could occur in Ireland?

Voipjunkie

cavedave wrote: »

Where fear of terrorism induces us all to give power over to the government.

Hmmm George W Bush springs to mind

dathi1

I don’t think a New Irish national party need necessarily be "extreme rightwing". We could have a progressive nationalist party along the lines of Pim Fortuyn's Dutch LPF (killed by the "extreme left") a couple of years ago. There is a massive gap in Irish Politics for a party to fill. Let’s face it all the parties here sing of the same hymn sheet. Pro Euro superstate, Uncontrolled Immigration at any cost, Afraid to upset State Unions ie: in Health Care etc. Afraid to introduce draconian measures to tackle massive crime etc etc.

cavedave

There is a massive gap in Irish Politics for a party to fill.

How massive? How many do you think agree with your policies you describe? Are these people just not voting now or are voting for any particular party?

Jackie laughlin

Dathi1,
This is interesting. You criticise all parties for being in agreement in some vague way on a number of issues. OK, let's "invert" your complaints, try to identify policies for your new party, see what we get and ask you to OK them or change them.

1. Re-establish national sovereignty by withdrawing from the EU and negotiate a trade agreement with ex-partner states.

2. Stop immigration other than in exceptional cases where the country needs a talent which is not available locally. Begin a process of repatriation of "non-nationals" who are already here.

3. Criminalise industrial action by State employees.

4. Reintroduce the death penalty for murder and for possession of a handgun. Impose life imprisonment for any third conviction.

This is looking fairly extreme and you had "etc.". It could get even more interesting. Is this the type of society you want?

cavedave

1. Re-establish national sovereignty by withdrawing from the EU and negotiate a trade agreement with ex-partner states.

2. Stop immigration other than in exceptional cases where the country needs a talent which is not available locally. Begin a process of repatriation of "non-nationals" who are already here.

3. Criminalise industrial action by State employees.

4. Reintroduce the death penalty for murder and for possession of a handgun. Impose life imprisonment for any third conviction.

I think these may be a straw man version of dathi1 views. 1. Could mean act like Denmark, 2. USA 3.Make firing state employees practical 4.USA

I do not agree with these views but I think it is interesting that many do (particularly on immigration and crime) but no party seems to espouse these views.

Jackie laughlin

Cavedave,
Very few people would agree with these extreme views. It is a measure of the health and sanity of our democracy that no party exists to represent such barbarism. (I'm getting fond of the word, "barbarism"!)

Dirk Gently

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

It is a measure of the health and sanity of our democracy that no party exists to represent such barbarism.

I think it's more a measure of our indifferance and apathy towards politics while the economy is good and everyone is busy getting on with making money to pay off their excessive credit.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Very few people would agree with these extreme views.

It will be interesting to see how "sane and healthy" our democracy is when actually faced with a problem which requires a solution. It would not surprise me to see such views becoming more popular, corresponding to the less people that are employed and keeping up with their repayments. Sadly there is an undertone of resentment in the air (from my own observations of Irish society) which could manifest itself politically given the right conditions.

cavedave

It is a measure of the health and sanity of our democracy that no party exists to represent such barbarism. (I'm getting fond of the word, "barbarism"!)

It is a measure of the health and sanity of the political system. It would be a measure of the democracy (or more accurately society) if they were not held by at least a sizable minority of the people.

I am not speaking for dathi1 but the view he has expressed at their mildest are only as authoritarian as those of George W Bush
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection
(ie aganst immigration, tough on crime etc) Which are views voted for by the majority in Democracy.

moe_sizlak

clown bag wrote: »

I think it's more a measure of our indifferance and apathy towards politics while the economy is good and everyone is busy getting on with making money to pay off their excessive credit.


It will be interesting to see how "sane and healthy" our democracy is when actually faced with a problem which requires a solution. It would not surprise me to see such views becoming more popular, corresponding to the less people that are employed and keeping up with their repayments. Sadly there is an undertone of resentment in the air (from my own observations of Irish society) which could manifest itself politically given the right conditions.

agree , its more apathy towards present politics than anything else

Jackie laughlin

I hope you are wrong. It is certainly not my experience that such right wing extremism is a common viewpoint. It is the view of a few people but they are not generally respected in Irish society.

As a socialist, I'm not at all happy with the progress of Ireland but is true to say that there have been hard times before and the people did not turn to such extremism.

Apathy and indifference are political perspectives.

By the way, Bush did not win a majority of votes.

cavedave

As a socialist, I'm not at all happy with the progress of Ireland but is true to say that there have been hard times before and the people did not turn to such extremism.

As a libertarian I am also optimistic. And your reasoning for your optimism is well put.

Apathy and indifference are political perspectives.

And pretty understandable ones sadly

By the way, Bush did not win a majority of votes.

in 2004 afaik he did. Possibly not the electoral college if you are a conpsiracy theorist.

Dirk Gently

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I hope you are wrong. It is certainly not my experience that such right wing extremism is a common viewpoint.

You're right there but I'm not talking about people with extreme right wing views, I'm talking about people who are unhappy and resent so many foreign people coming here, people who do not hold extreme right wing views but who could be exploited if the conditions for a national party to exist occur. It's a challenge for people on the left to counter the easy answers and convince any potential supporters of extreme right politics not to go down that road.
If such a party were to try to gain support I very much doubt it would be overtly fascist or extreme, more like a family values, moral guardian of society, tough on crime (by the way foreigners out) type of slick campaign to play on the fears and attract people to their cause.
I'm only speaking hypothetically and I don't really think the rise of a far right group is likely in the near future, just saying that if one were to appear, be marketed right and in a time of social / economic down turn then I could see it attracting support from some of our more ignorant / easily led fellow citizens.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

As a socialist, I'm not at all happy with the progress of Ireland but is true to say that there have been hard times before and the people did not turn to such extremism.

Hard times yes, hard times with easy to blame targets such as refugees / asylum seekers no. It wont be a case of blame the traditional suspects (Irish) single mothers or blame (Irish) dole recipients, it will more likely be a case of blame the weakest and less well established in society, or those whom some people feel don't even belong in our society.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

By the way, Bush did not win a majority of votes..

True, but even after stealing the election it's still scary how many people actually voted for him, and then again a second time. I doubt many Americans voted for Bush because he is a neo con, or because there are a lot of religious nut jobs in his circle, or because they read the Project for a new American century document, or because they want to fight energy resource wars, it's probably more likely they voted Republican because they felt they needed a strong leader to keep them safe, (safe from their own propaganda albeit) and for reasons on the economy and family values.

besides, such groups don't need a majority or even to come second or third, just enough to cause trouble by mobilising small numbers of people or making a lot of noise putting pressure on Government to appease them with new legislation.

As I said all of the above is hypothetical and I'm not predicting a new significant extreme right group anytime soon, just pointing out that all the conditions will be there should things get tough in the economy and I think a lot of Irish people would be sympathetic if a group marketed themselves right and played up to their frustration and fears.

Basically what I'm trying to say is there are a lot of meat heads out there who don't think about things too much who could offer unwitting support to a far right group.

karen3212

Interesting, I have to say in my day to day life that 'the immigration problem' is often brought up by older white US people here and older white English people here. OK I know I don't know all people, but I'm saying at my work place it's the white immigrants that bring up immigration most. It of course could be just me, but I have to laugh when they start at it at work. Does anyone else notice this, or am I just an idiot? Tbh perhaps it's just the because of the irony that I remember it at all.

I agree though, having watched a few of the other threads on immigration on boards, if a political party needed an extra lift during a downturn, I think they could manipulate easily.

Apparently fear really helps win an election. Of course, fear could also be used to stop racecard players.

cranmore

clown bag wrote: »

You're right there but I'm not talking about people with extreme right wing views, I'm talking about people who are unhappy and resent so many foreign people coming here, people who do not hold extreme right wing views but who could be exploited if the conditions for a national party to exist occur............

Basically what I'm trying to say is there are a lot of meat heads out there who don't think about things too much who could offer unwitting support to a far right group.

This is how NationalFront/BritishNationalParty have become so prevalent in English politics, but i can't really see this coming 2 pass here, even though as you stated there is a growing minority (which will grow far quicker in in the bad time than the good) with these more extreme leanings.

Jackie laughlin

I don't disagree substantially with you. I guess it's a matter of optimism Vs pessimism. My experience of day-to-day Irish racism is that it's quite odd and specific. "Foreigners" or "blacks" are not the objects of hateful sentiments but rather it is Roumanians or Nigerians! Anyway, I can't see any sign of extremists gaining political support and, outside of anti-British sentiment, there's nothing in the history of the state to suggest that it might happen.

dathi1

As I said earlier i don't think the LPF we're an "extreme party" but as above I can see why posters here from a liberal socialist persuasion would think so. The massive amount of people who voted against Nice first time around weren't extreme, The massive amount of voters who voted Yes to the citizenship referendum weren't extreme. A new National party in Ireland need not necessarily follow the admittedly extreme example of say the BNP. The BNP is made up of former NF and has hangups on Homosexuality etc.
Yes a Saatchi & Saatchi style campaign aimed at the well informed in Irish Socitey regardless of timing would probably launch a new dynamic into Irish politics.

Jackie laughlin

If in conversation someone were to say to me that they voted against Nice and for the "citizenship amendment", my suspicions and my curiosity would be aroused. I would certainly ask questions to see if they were prepared to "tick any more boxes." I must add that finding anyone who admits to supporting the "citizenship amendment" is difficult.

mrgalway

Interesting discussion.

In just about any other country, draw a line and you would see all political parties position themselves on either side and as some distance.

In Ireland, you need to draw a circle and then you would see all the parties never standing still inside the circle.

Also interesting comparison between FF and FG. I always thought of FG as slightly to the right of FF but many would disagree. But just as you could say that the FF manifesto would be "We want to stay in power" the FG manifesto would be "we are not FF"

mrgalway

My experience of day-to-day Irish racism is that it's quite odd and specific.

I would call it more xenophobic than racist. Funny too, as the proportion of Irish residents who have worked abroad at some point would be significantly higher than any other nations population.

Delboy05

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I must add that finding anyone who admits to supporting the "citizenship amendment" is difficult.

80% voted yes so can't understand how you'd find it difficult to meet people who'd admit to it. I voted for the amendment as did practically all the people I'd socialise with in Dublin and down the country. It was a no brainer as far as I was concerned

moe_sizlak

Delboy05 wrote: »

80% voted yes so can't understand how you'd find it difficult to meet people who'd admit to it. I voted for the amendment as did practically all the people I'd socialise with in Dublin and down the country. It was a no brainer as far as I was concerned

perhaps the contributor here mixes in circles who have similar views to him or her

Delboy05

moe_sizlak wrote: »

perhaps the contributor here mixes in circles who have similar views to him or her

i guess the thrust of my point was that I can't understand why anyone would deny having voted yes to the citizenship referendum

Jackie laughlin

Delboy,
I know the majority was huge. I assure you that very few people will offer the fact that they voted in favour. I find it strange too. Is it possible that many are ashamed of what they did in the privacy of the polling booth?

mrgalway

Just a quirk of the Oirish.

I don't know why, but we must be the most Xenophobic race of the world. We would even put the Americans to shame in that respect:)

dathi1

I don't know why, but we must be the most Xenophobic race of the world. We would even put the Americans to shame in that respect

in what respect? Because we are debating the pros and cons of immigration? Isn't America supposed to be the multicultural trophy that we're aspiring too? If not who else?

moe_sizlak

dathi1 wrote: »

in what respect? Because we are debating the pros and cons of immigration? Isn't America supposed to be the multicultural trophy that we're aspiring too? If not who else?

america has never done multicultarilism in the way the uk and the netherlands have , your american and thats it

Delboy05

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Delboy,
I know the majority was huge. I assure you that very few people will offer the fact that they voted in favour. I find it strange too. Is it possible that many are ashamed of what they did in the privacy of the polling booth?

cannot see for the life of me why anyone would feel ashamed of having voted yes in that referendum...there was a loop hole in our laws which was been disgracefully exploited and it's now closed off. case closed

Hotblack Desiato

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Is it possible that many are ashamed of what they did in the privacy of the polling booth?

No because they would have no reason to be. Also certain idiots like to label anyone who doesn't want to throw our borders wide open as a 'racist' :rolleyes:
Why keep going on about it, it's past history, accept the electorate's decision and move on. The only people still going on about it are the ones who were opposed, why would anyone who voted Yes want to go on about it, the issue is closed as far as they're concerned.

dave2pvd

moe_sizlak wrote: »

america has never done multicultarilism in the way the uk and the netherlands have , your american and thats it

Not true. Walk through any of the New York boroughs: you might as well be walking through different countries. What about any city in CA? Very distinct cultural differences. Even in ex-suburban American you have distinctly different pockets of population; whether it's a Vietnamese area or just a small redneck township - diversity is very much a fundamental of US society. There are exceptions - I've been to places in Kansas where they didn't even have Mexican transient labour.

It's a common mistake to look at Amerca as one great big generic population. I made this error myself years back. Couldn't even hear different accents.

OK: going way OT with the above.

I didn't expect to see the PDs so far right on the graph. And then there is FF. Shouldn't they have a much bigger dot to show just how pandering they can be? There never has been a strict party line.

Jackie laughlin

What's wrong with discussing history? It is becoming tiresome that within Boards so many censors want us to shut up and "move on".

Certain racists accuse tolerant people of being idiots who want to throw our borders open. (See, that kind of invective is as easy as it is pointless.)

Hotblack Desiato

What's wrong with discussing history - nothing - but this thread is supposed to be about Irish Far Right Political Parties, not re-hashing the citizenship referendum. History forum is over there -->

Are you trying to misquote me or something?
One's opinion on throwing borders open (or not) cannot make one an idiot. Putting ridiculous labels on people in an attempt to stifle debate does, however, in my opinion make one an idiot (or some rather worse words I could use.)
Unfortunately there are plenty of people only too quick to throw the "R" word about with zero justification.
So it's not hard to wonder why some people might not want to go shouting about which way they voted in the citizenship referendum, even though it had nothing to do with racism, or support for far right parties (which is miniscule.)

mrgalway

dathi1 wrote: »

in what respect? Because we are debating the pros and cons of immigration? Isn't America supposed to be the multicultural trophy that we're aspiring too? If not who else?

I'm not aware of many Irish aspiring to that. I would say we aspire to be that in what ever country our diaspora takes us to (as long as there is an Irish Pub nearby and we talk s^&t* to each other and listen to U2.) But when we come back, we always complain about how many Eastern Europeans are woking at our local and at McDonalds.

That is neither a pro or a con, that is just a fundamental fact of the Irish.

As for a pro for the debate, at least you can now find a repairman who will not try to con you from the get go.;)

moe_sizlak

mrgalway wrote: »

I'm not aware of many Irish aspiring to that. I would say we aspire to be that in what ever country our diaspora takes us to (as long as there is an Irish Pub nearby and we talk s^&t* to each other and listen to U2.) But when we come back, we always complain about how many Eastern Europeans are woking at our local and at McDonalds.

That is neither a pro or a con, that is just a fundamental fact of the Irish.

As for a pro for the debate, at least you can now find a repairman who will not try to con you from the get go.;)

perfectly put in every way , especially the bit about the repairman

Jackie laughlin

Ninja,
You cannot seriously take the view that history should play no part in political discussion!

I was not misquoting you. I was demonstrating how easy it is to produce a mirror image of your invective.

Moreover, you are not being consistent:
From consecutive posts

Ninja statement 1

“Also certain idiots like to label anyone who doesn't want to throw our borders wide open as a 'racist'”

Ninja statement 2
“One's opinion on throwing borders open (or not) cannot make one an idiot. Putting ridiculous labels on people in an attempt to stifle debate does, however, in my opinion make one an idiot (or some rather worse words I could use.)”

Hotblack Desiato

Jackie, if you want to re-hash the citizenship referendum endlessly, go start a thread on it, and let the mods decide whether it's more appropriate to politics or history.

I am reporting you for abuse for calling my posts 'invective'.

I am being entirely consistent. People who misuse the 'racist' word (e.g. calling anyone who doesn't want totally open borders a racist) are idiots. That's a rather charitable description for them, actually.

Edit: You wondered why people did not want to say that they voted a certain way in a certain referendum. I think your recent posts have amply illustrated why that is.

djpbarry

mrgalway wrote: »

As for a pro for the debate, at least you can now find a repairman who will not try to con you from the get go.;)

Damn straight !

oscarBravo

I can't see this bickering turning into anything useful - thread closed.