Fine Girl open door to Shinners?

mike65

The FG director of elections Frank Flannery appears to have been on the piss. No article to link to yet but I just heard it said on radio that he open to the idea of bringing them onboard. Not sure under what circumstances (last ditch option I presume), needless to say several FGers got texting to decry the idea.

bmaxi

mike65 wrote: »

The FG director of elections Frank Flannery appears to have been on the piss. No article to link to yet but I just heard it said on radio that he open to the idea of bringing them onboard. Not sure under what circumstances (last ditch option I presume), needless to say several FGers got texting to decry the idea.

I think I just saw a pig fly past my window.
Why would FG give FF an option to stay in power if the Greens bottle it?

RealityCheck

That was his own personal opinion. The core support of FG would not be able to stomoch the idea any time this century.

Sully

Now denied by Kenny. It was denied on TodayFM by FG HQ this morning also.

There is no chance that FG would ever consider getting into power with SF - why it was said is beyond me.

The Raven.

mike65 wrote: »

The FG director of elections Frank Flannery appears to have been on the piss. No article to link to yet but I just heard it said on radio that he open to the idea of bringing them onboard. Not sure under what circumstances (last ditch option I presume), needless to say several FGers got texting to decry the idea.

There is a brief article about it in the Wicklow People today:

Controversy has erupted after Fine Gael's Director of Elections said his party would consider entering Government with Sinn Fein.

Speaking today, Frank Flannery said Fine Gael would be willing to work with Gerry Adams if the situation arose.

Fianna Fail said it's astounded by the comments and that it proves Fine Gael would do anything to get into power.

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern says he finds it stomach-churning that a party which considers itself as the law and order party would consider such a move.

But in a statement this afternoon, party leader Enda Kenny says Frank Flannery's personal opinion is not party policy.

He said Fine Gael's position hasn't changed, and it's no intention of negotiating on a partnership with Sinn Fein.

I don't know what this Frank Flannery is playing at. He could loose them the election with this kind of statement. I really don't think it is possible that he could be right on this. I see Fianna Fail have already jumped on it as a political attempt to discredid Fine Gael. Typical :rolleyes:!!

The main reason I have against voting Labour is because of their stance on Sinn Fein the last time. The Fine Gael party should now come out and clearly state their position on this on more than just the radio. Frank Flannery should also publicly provide clarity on his statement. If this is his own personal opinion, then he is in the wrong job.:(

road_high

Big deal imo. Does anybody here think FF would not jump at the chance if it were them? Not half.;)

rcecil

Why would anyone think SF would do a deal with people who are ideological opposites? SF is opposed to gangsters and banksters. Fine Gael is loaded with the same crooks as Fianna Fail....

mike65

mfitzy

Well they, FF, could have brought them onboard last time.

road_high

mike65 wrote: »

mfitzy

Well they, FF, could have brought them onboard last time.

Could have but they did not NEED to. They took the more palatable option i.e. Greesn and a few independents.
If they had to, no doubt they would have taken the Shinners (whom had a poor last election also)

ejmaztec

Heatstroke has a strange affect on people. Mr Flannery should be reminded that only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.

Pablod

bit of a ridiculous comment by Flannery to be honest...

Amongst other reasons -
One of the main many reasons they wouldn't go into power together:
FG want you to vote Yes to the Lisbon Treaty
SF want you to vote No to the Lisbon Treaty

bmaxi

rcecil wrote: »

Why would anyone think SF would do a deal with people who are ideological opposites? SF is opposed to gangsters

:D:D:D:D

Please stop, my sides are aching.

Souljacker

I've read a few threads talking about the FG/SF possibility before but I'm amazed anyone in the party would actually give any credence to these rumours.

I was glad to see Enda categorically rule it out on the radio and express his displeasure at the deal when put on the spot.

He couldn't have been clearer so that's me happy. Also it nice to see a politician not question dodging for once, SF candidates should take note.

gurramok

Souljacker wrote: »

I've read a few threads talking about the FG/SF possibility before but I'm amazed anyone in the party would actually give any credence to these rumours.

I was glad to see Enda categorically rule it out on the radio and express his displeasure at the deal when put on the spot.

He couldn't have been clearer so that's me happy. Also it nice to see a politician not question dodging for once, SF candidates should take note.

If the numbers add up(seats), expect the unexpected!

Who would of thought the Greens would go into power with FF despite them vehemently denying it before the last election?

Power corrupts, take note:)

mango23

RealityCheck wrote: »

That was his own personal opinion. The core support of FG would not be able to stomoch the idea any time this century.

Nor would Sinn Fein stomach being in power with a bunch of ex-facist blue shirts.

Sleepy

I could see them teaming up to get rid of FF but as far as I'm concerned it's another good reason to vote FG despite disagreeing with them on many issues...

jimmycrackcorm

How is the same parties were all for sinn fein power sharing in the north but not here?

mango23

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How is the same parties were all for sinn fein power sharing in the north but not here?

Exactly, free staters is your answer.

KnifeWRENCH

If FG were genuinely willing to go into power with SF that might actually make me consider voting for them. If this isn't true, FG will still not be getting any votes off me.

mango23

FG are only crooks, they might tax nappies by 50% this time.

is_that_so

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How is the same parties were all for sinn fein power sharing in the north but not here?

mango23 wrote: »

Exactly, free staters is your answer.

It might have something to do with SF not having coherent, credible policies. On the topic at hand a pretty nonsense story and a good opportunity for FF to have a go. Fairly obtuse comment to make tbh.

rant_and_rave

If some reason SF find themselves in the driving seat then all the parties will be queuing up to deal with them. It's the nature of politics I am afraid.

mango23

is_that_so wrote: »

It might have something to do with SF not having coherent, credible policies. On the topic at hand a pretty nonsense story and a good opportunity for FF to have a go. Fairly obtuse comment to make tbh.

That's funny, obtuse 'eh. Listen if they had everything you said they didn't, it would still be the same song.

Firetrap

rant_and_rave wrote: »

If some reason SF find themselves in the driving seat then all the parties will be queuing up to deal with them. It's the nature of politics I am afraid.

Never was a truer word spoken.

Souljacker

gurramok wrote: »

If the numbers add up(seats), expect the unexpected!

Who would of thought the Greens would go into power with FF despite them vehemently denying it before the last election?

Power corrupts, take note:)

I know it's a numbers game but it isn't going to happen for a number of reasons:

1. FG are not stupid enough to pull a Gormely/Sargent and expect to come out of ruling one thing before the election and then doing it post.

2. FG will never in a million years find themselves in a situation where they need SF. If they win enough seats to find themselves 4-6 off an overall majority a mixture of Greens and independents will more than equal anything SF have to offer.
If FG are anymore off the target of an overall majority they'll go in with labour.
Even in the unlikely occasion of FG and Labour not winning 83 seats they'll take the greens and/or Independents before SF

3. Their leader has categorically expressed that they will not go in with SF. He couldn’t have been any clear this morning.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How is the same parties were all for sinn fein power sharing in the north but not here?

Different governmental situation. NI is not a mature enough democracy to allow majority rule. Power sharing was the only feasible way of having devolved power.

The south has no such problem and so all the political parties are free to choose who they go into power with.

grenache

Was very glad to hear Enda Kenny categorically ruling out FG ever going into power with SF under his tenureship. As long as Sinn Féin has no new or innovative policies and refuses to condemn the killing of a garda, Kenny is dead right to close the door on them.

grenache

mango23 wrote: »

Nor would Sinn Fein stomach being in power with a bunch of ex-facist blue shirts.

Considering SF have had their own illegal private army on the go for many decades now, the irony of that statement isn't lost on me ;-)

Dalfiatach

rant_and_rave wrote: »

If some reason SF find themselves in the driving seat then all the parties will be queuing up to deal with them. It's the nature of politics I am afraid.

This is a real non-story as you say. It's just politics.

If the next election had results like this:

FG 74
FF 43
Lab 31
SF 10
Green 2
Indos 6

Then the main coalition possibilities would be

FG/Lab 105
FF/Lab/SF 84
FG/SF 84

105 is way too big a majority, too many restless backbenchers with nothing to do, FG would have to give Labour too many Cabinet seats, too much one-upmanship between the two parties, it probably wouldn't work out. FG would on those numbers seriously start considering FG/SF, maybe propped up by surviving Greens and Indos - and they would have to because FF/Lab would already be talking to them and if FG flatly ruled it out they'd soon find themselves back in Opposition looking forlornly over at the new FF/Lab/Green/SF ABFG Government...

Sully

This is a non-runner. Its just simply not possible for many reasons besides the obvious.

Nodin

grenache wrote: »

Considering SF have had their own illegal private army on the go for many decades now,

"had". So did part of the Labour party. They've moved on......

bmaxi

Nodin wrote: »

"had". So did part of the Labour party. They've moved on......

A lot of people remain unconvinced of that.

mango23

Michael Collins was also in an illegal army and was a 'terrorist'.

Some men fight, some men hide.......freestaters just leech off the nation.

Nodin

bmaxi wrote: »

A lot of people remain unconvinced of that.

So I've noticed, and there are some for whom it is a genuine concern. However PSF seem to act as the political equivalent of Nigerian immigrants, for some. All ills and fears can be projected thereon, regardless of rhyme or reason. It becomes tiresome after a while.

grenache

mango23 wrote: »

Michael Collins was also in an illegal army and was a 'terrorist'.

Some men fight, some men hide.......freestaters just leech off the nation.

Collins was considered a ''terrorist'' by the British forces who were themselves an illegal occupying force. Yes some men fight and some men murder i.e. Omagh, Enniskillen, Adare. I'm puzzled by what you mean when you say ''freestaters leech off the state''??

FTA69

grenache wrote: »

Collins was considered a ''terrorist'' by the British forces who were themselves an illegal occupying force. Yes some men fight and some men murder i.e. Omagh, Enniskillen, Adare. I'm puzzled by what you mean when you say ''freestaters leech off the state''??

They weren't illegal at all, they were representitive of the soveriegn government of the United Kingdom, of which Ireland was a member. They were much more "legal" than the IRA who never put themselves up for election.

If you were to say the Brits were illegally occupying the place back then you'd have to say they are illegally occupying the place now.

Lolabugs

Anyone else read the title of this thread as "Fine Girl opens doors to sinners"

Nope???

Must just be me then

FTA69

To get back to the original point, I don't see Fine Gael going into coalition with Sinn Féin, the cool fact of the matter is that they don't need Sinn Féin's seats and they will have numerous other coalition partners to choose from, they would go in with Labour, Independents and the Greens before they would consider Sinn Féin. I don't know what your man is on about, but I'd say he got a right dressing down in Fine Gael HQ.

Sinn Féin would probably not end up going into coalition with Fine Gael, although there is definitely an element of the party which would be bulling for a modicum of state power at all costs.

The Raven.

Frank Flannery may have been foolishly looking for second preference votes from SF voters. Big mistake! He could loose FG first preference votes instead.

mango23

grenache wrote: »

Collins was considered a ''terrorist'' by the British forces who were themselves an illegal occupying force. Yes some men fight and some men murder i.e. Omagh, Enniskillen, Adare. I'm puzzled by what you mean when you say ''freestaters leech off the state''??

As FTA said, there's no difference between the occupation in the 32 then as there is in the 6 now. You do know that the I.R.A. before partition planted bombs in England also?

my point about freestaters leeching can go back to the like of Arthur Griffith etc. taking the buck and betraying the working people of this country........Ray Burke......Bertie onAhern......and so on and on......all leaches of this nation

Liam Byrne

mango23 wrote: »

my point about freestaters leeching can go back to the like of Arthur Griffith etc. taking the buck and betraying the working people of this country........Ray Burke......Bertie onAhern......and so on and on......all leaches of this nation

Do you mean "taking the buck" like the Northern Bank robbery or the fiasco in Adare ?

GuanYin

rcecil wrote: »

Why would anyone think SF would do a deal with people who are ideological opposites? SF is opposed to gangsters and banksters. Fine Gael is loaded with the same crooks as Fianna Fail....

I'll assume this is hyperbole and you're not accusing anyone?

grenache

FTA69 wrote: »

They weren't illegal at all, they were representitive of the soveriegn government of the United Kingdom, of which Ireland was a member. They were much more "legal" than the IRA who never put themselves up for election.

But was Ireland a member of the UK of its own free will? No. Therefore they were an illegal occupying force.

FTA69 wrote: »

If you were to say the Brits were illegally occupying the place back then you'd have to say they are illegally occupying the place now.

mango23 wrote: »

As FTA said, there's no difference between the occupation in the 32 then as there is in the 6 now.

Not necessarily. Since Michael Collins negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty on behalf of the Irish people, and accepted partition, he therefore legitimised the British presence in the 6 counties, whether we in the South like it or not.

mango23

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do you mean "taking the buck" like the Northern Bank robbery or the fiasco in Adare ?

Well with the northern Bank robery it was pretty much taking money from the brits to fund their campaign against them so I like their style.

Now with the other i haven't much to say about it.

mango23

grenache wrote: »

But was Ireland a member of the UK of its own free will? No. Therefore they were an illegal occupying force.





Not necessarily. Since Michael Collins negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty on behalf of the Irish people, and accepted partition, he therefore legitimised the British presence in the 6 counties, whether we in the South like it or not.

But not everybody wanted it, hence the civil war.

grenache

mango23 wrote: »

But not everybody wanted it, hence the civil war.

True, but he still negotiated on behalf of the Irish people, regardless of whether they wanted him to or not.

Pride Fighter

Lolabugs wrote: »

Anyone else read the title of this thread as "Fine Girl opens doors to sinners"

Nope???

Must just be me then

Yeah, I thought it would be about a Gerry Adams based porno.

FTA69

grenache wrote: »

But was Ireland a member of the UK of its own free will? No. Therefore they were an illegal occupying force.

Illegal under what law? Ireland wasn't necessarily a member of the UK by choice, but they weren't necessarily opposed to it either. When Pearse and co launched the 1916 Rising the vast majority of Irish people were supportive of Redmond and the IPP.

Not necessarily. Since Michael Collins negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty on behalf of the Irish people, and accepted partition, he therefore legitimised the British presence in the 6 counties, whether we in the South like it or not.

That's more complete nonsense, the same way membership of the UK was never put to a democratic test, the Treaty was signed in the context of the Brits threatening an immediate and terrible war. Irish sovereignty is inalienable, and British imperialism is plain wrong. That tenet is as true nowadays as it was back then.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

the Treaty was signed in the context of the Brits threatening an immediate and terrible war.

Completely different to the context of the GFA being signed under threats of ongoing violence from terrorist groups, then ?

FTA69 wrote: »

Irish sovereignty is inalienable, and British imperialism is plain wrong.

I agree with your view of British imperialism, however "inalienable" does not apply to something that the majority of the island has voted for since. Whatever about the origins of the division, it has been voted for democratically since.

And while that democratic vote can be argued to have taken place under duress (terrorists saying "we'll do more of the same", therefore intimidating voters vs the Governments saying "this is the only option on the table") it is the only option which we have, because no-one wanted to give in to terrorists and no-one other than those living in the North should have a right to choose.

We all might wish it was different, but in the context of replacing one band of terrorists with another, self-determination is the only reasonable option.

To be honest,there were lots of things that led to the prolonged peace in NI with SF ministers,not least being that the IRA knew post 911 the game for bombing and shooting and raising funds for such in America was up...


As regards Frank Flannery master strategist...All he was at was sending a coded message to FG voters in Dublin not to transfer to FF and to persuade at least some of them to transfer to Mary Lou..
In other words he wanted to save Mary Lou over the other sitting FF candidate.
It's that simple.

The hypocrisy of it though is breath taking,I'd agree there.

Raiser

Well if the formerly squeaky-clean* Green Party could embrace Fianna Fails culture of corruption and general anti-social, self-serving mindlessness - Then would you really be that shocked to see Edna Kenny cuddling up to the Shinners......?

* Apart from investing via Petro-chemical Shares etc. etc.

O'Coonassa

rcecil wrote: »

SF is opposed to gangsters and banksters.

Yes, no gangsters in the Provisional movement, must be why they voted against the bank bailout......