FF want to become an All-Ireland Party

ISAW

OS119 wrote: »

if you believe that the current leadership of SF - Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness - were never members of the IRA then you need to sit down in a dark room and never emerge.

As opposed to Eamon Gilmore, Rabbitte etc. of the workers Party element who currently are leading the Labour Party who had no links whatsoever to the Official IRA?

Or maybe I should say "Group B"?

KeithAFC

What have they got to offer my country? Pffft.

ISAW

KeithAFC wrote: »

What have they got to offer my country? Pffft.

you mean apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health?
oh yes and Peace.

KeithAFC

ISAW wrote: »

you mean apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health?
oh yes and Peace.

We have all that.

Fitzerb

OS119 wrote: »

he's talking about the rather more recent talks/negotiations/contact/whatever - which you obviously know nothing about.

and if you believe that the current leadership of SF - Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness - were never members of the IRA then you need to sit down in a dark room and never emerge.

Well then since you know about the recent secret talks can you please tell me where and when the "secret" talks took place? Apart from Feakale and the Dr John O Connell talks I would be truly interested if you could share your extensive knowledge of NIreland and SF.

Just to clarify. I never mentioned Martin MC Guiness not being a member of the IRA. I am fully aware of his involvement in Derry.

However are you now suggesting that Barron Adams is liar? He has told us time and time again he was never a member of the IRA. You now say he was. And here I am believing him. I am shocked

As for dark rooms, well the real experts on them would be the Shinners,
Just don’t turn on the light switch...........

ISAW

KeithAFC wrote: »

We have all that.

Im sorry I should maybe explain the reference. I though you might have heard of it. It is from The Life of Brian which was banned in the UK but legal in the Republic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

walrusgumble

Fitzerb wrote: »

I think there are some facts worth checking before your forward such inaccurate posts.
Haughey came after Dev.
Are you suggesting that Dev walked away from politics because we were broke………………… That is so of the wall its not even worth a response.
I really suggest that you apologise for such a post

First of all,

Read what was actually said and the posts history to understand the context before making stupid comments and getting smug.

If you knew the context of what we were on about you would not be questioning it. (I put it to the debate that its a sort of new found interest in the North - clearly others think so too as it would not be a topic of debate in this context) And if you had any idea about the history of this state (which i am sure you do but seems questionable, considering I have to explain it), you would appreciate that history repeating itself (sort of). So you can feck off with an apology!.

Yes, Dev and Haughey came before Michael Martin, looking at the sentence, I accept it was badly written, the original post was in reference to Michael Martin (I was commenting on another's post regarding Martin) my post was referring to how Michael is following De Valera (1918-1965 Dail) and Haughey's (circa 1958ish-1992 Dail) footsteps.


Who suggests that Dev walked away from politics? We could not get him away fast enough. Where the hell did you interpret that notion?



What are the similarities?

De Valera only really and truely used the Northern card as a sideshow to remove his inability to sort out the problems the economy had back then. Blame the Brits for all its problems. He made rhethoric after rhethoric on the North. Yet he did nothing; (anyone retarded enough to respond with the so called Churchill offer should really feck off and educate themselves)
clear example is his treatment of the Church in the Constitution and how society was allowed to live (maybe the Constitution was a genuine mirror of what society wanted anyway, but he did nothing to open the door for a united Ireland)

Charles J Haughey, whilst no doubt there was genuine personal feeling towards the North via his parents, and overall sense of anger for what happened during those times, I would not believe he acted the way he did in 1970 in order to embarrass Lynch, but others would. He got badly burned and refused to raise his head over the matter for over a decade. He made sweet damn all forceful efforts to address the hunger strikes (for which many in Belfast did not forgive him, and it paid when the elections of that time cost him an overall majority). Again, he was another prone to playing the green card when it suited. (i know there is the importance of correct timing in making statements) Yet, what does he do, after saying nought for years and in opposition and the economy not in great shakes, he reminds his people, about Northern Ireland and then sets the Unionists on fire talking about it being a failed State (which it was, but it was not the right thing to say publicly especially at that time). And I say this, with actually giving Haughey full credit for starting the Peace campagin that led to Good Friday!

Martin. Whilst Fianna Fáil have done great work under difficult circumstances from all angles with the North, and they have shown interest in getting party candidates in the univiersities in the North and have a past association with the SDLP, the North has not really been on the agenda for Fianna Fáil, until now. Where was there plan ala Eire Nua or speeches about how to actually unite the country? Why complain so hard (that we were some how unpatrotic- weird considering FF's previous attitude on terrorital claim) that Irish people travelled to the north to shop (giving many places so business for the first time in a long time), yet fail to see the big elephant in the room - high retail rent rates for business, uncompetitive prices etc in the South. The country concentrated on the South, financed its own pockets and forgot about the North, well the boards sites have not, as it big debate topic. The party, in the words of Ned O'Keefee (what did he do then?) stated that the party lost its Republican core and became the party of the ............... The northern angle was always a good trick. God forbide, they have taken their tag the Republican Party for granted for far too long. Now that there is a rival, which, they would probably trounce, at least on the respectability stakes, concentrating of their niche, the north, is worth going for.

So hence, the comparission. Not all about economy you know.

Care to respond? It think it might be you that needs to "aplogise" for making such a howler.

Lantus

It's a sad reflection on what were our main political overlords and party that they seem to have no interest in understanding what the people want, what the people need or even what the purpose of a political party is. (namely to make people's lifes and the country as a whole better!)

Instead they are going on a holy crusade up north in an attempt to wield some power against an old enemy.

FF are the party of power for the sake of power only.

Fitzerb

walrusgumble wrote: »

First of all,

Read what was actually said and the posts history to understand the context before making stupid comments and getting smug.

If you knew the context of what we were on about you would not be questioning it. (I put it to the debate that its a sort of new found interest in the North - clearly others think so too as it would not be a topic of debate in this context) And if you had any idea about the history of this state (which i am sure you do but seems questionable, considering I have to explain it), you would appreciate that history repeating itself (sort of). So you can feck off with an apology!.

Yes, Dev and Haughey came before Michael Martin, looking at the sentence, I accept it was badly written, the original post was in reference to Michael Martin (I was commenting on another's post regarding Martin) my post was referring to how Michael is following De Valera (1918-1965 Dail) and Haughey's (circa 1958ish-1992 Dail) footsteps.


Who suggests that Dev walked away from politics? We could not get him away fast enough. Where the hell did you interpret that notion?



What are the similarities?

De Valera only really and truely used the Northern card as a sideshow to remove his inability to sort out the problems the economy had back then. Blame the Brits for all its problems. He made rhethoric after rhethoric on the North. Yet he did nothing; (anyone retarded enough to respond with the so called Churchill offer should really feck off and educate themselves)
clear example is his treatment of the Church in the Constitution and how society was allowed to live (maybe the Constitution was a genuine mirror of what society wanted anyway, but he did nothing to open the door for a united Ireland)

Charles J Haughey, whilst no doubt there was genuine personal feeling towards the North via his parents, and overall sense of anger for what happened during those times, I would not believe he acted the way he did in 1970 in order to embarrass Lynch, but others would. He got badly burned and refused to raise his head over the matter for over a decade. He made sweet damn all forceful efforts to address the hunger strikes (for which many in Belfast did not forgive him, and it paid when the elections of that time cost him an overall majority). Again, he was another prone to playing the green card when it suited. (i know there is the importance of correct timing in making statements) Yet, what does he do, after saying nought for years and in opposition and the economy not in great shakes, he reminds his people, about Northern Ireland and then sets the Unionists on fire talking about it being a failed State (which it was, but it was not the right thing to say publicly especially at that time). And I say this, with actually giving Haughey full credit for starting the Peace campagin that led to Good Friday!

Martin. Whilst Fianna Fáil have done great work under difficult circumstances from all angles with the North, and they have shown interest in getting party candidates in the univiersities in the North and have a past association with the SDLP, the North has not really been on the agenda for Fianna Fáil, until now. Where was there plan ala Eire Nua or speeches about how to actually unite the country? Why complain so hard (that we were some how unpatrotic- weird considering FF's previous attitude on terrorital claim) that Irish people travelled to the north to shop (giving many places so business for the first time in a long time), yet fail to see the big elephant in the room - high retail rent rates for business, uncompetitive prices etc in the South. The country concentrated on the South, financed its own pockets and forgot about the North, well the boards sites have not, as it big debate topic. The party, in the words of Ned O'Keefee (what did he do then?) stated that the party lost its Republican core and became the party of the ............... The northern angle was always a good trick. God forbide, they have taken their tag the Republican Party for granted for far too long. Now that there is a rival, which, they would probably trounce, at least on the respectability stakes, concentrating of their niche, the north, is worth going for.

So hence, the comparission. Not all about economy you know.

Care to respond? It think it might be you that needs to "aplogise" for making such a howler.

It is obvious from your post that I have misread the post I responded too. My sincere apologies for that error
Your response is interesting but one I don’t fully agree with.
In relation to Dev. I agree that he stagnated the Country from economic growth by the ultra-right policies and his protection of the Catholic Church through the constitution held us back for many years. In defence I doubt he could have created any more tension regarding N Ireland as we had come through a civil war and the State was at a very formative stage. Also the Unionists hated him to the core.
Lemass did make a number of attempts to get better relationships between the Republic and N though his discussions with Terrance O Neill. Again I think the scars of the past and the recent border campaign were still too raw to make any real progress but they did both pay the first Official Visits to Dublin and Belfast.
From the time CJ H onwards I would disagree with your views.
Lynch in fairness put the British under as much pressure as he could at the time of the civil rights marches. Haughey, Boland and Blaney did try (or succeed) to import arms to defend the Catholics of NI. Haugheys reluctance to support for the hunger strikers was (in my opinion) more about not seeing to support he Provo’s at a time when the 26 counties was close to anarchy. There was a period of real risk to the stability of the State.
Reynolds in fairness worked very hard to get the NI talks going and Ahern in fairness to him completed the project. Ahern in fairness also got the Bloody Sunday Saville commission formed. From there onwards they became less interested in NI and more interested in promoting themselves and that has been the case for the past 12 years or so.
I think M Martin is right to return to the democratic republican values that a lot of people hold true to. There are many of us who do not want SF to become the flag bearer for Irish Republicans.

Once again my apologies and appreciation of an interesting and history based post.

dilbert2

Are Northerners not a bit on the honest side for Fianna Fail? The SDLP and even Sinn Fein to some extent seem to have principles and Northerners seem to value bluntness and honesty. I can’t see how Fianna Fail’s art of bull****ting and gombeen bribery would go down up in the North.

Riddle101

Why would Fianna Fail want to become an All Ireland party anyway? Unless they want a United Ireland, there really is no reason for them to be going up North.