Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Reunification Question
Options
Comments
-
Which "clown" would that be, out of interest? I'm not aware of anyone making any such statement about SF policy.Crooked Jack wrote: »There's some clown on here keeps saying Sinn Fein are in favour of "shipping people out."
In unrelated news, can someone direct me to the thread we can discuss these things vaguely civilly? Because we already have the Cafe's SF thread for the... other stuff.
Perhaps what you're thinking of is my comment on a post here, from an apparently pro-SF and/or Republican individual. And the deafening silence from any other pro-SF posters regarding such sentiments.
Republican as a movement, and SF as a party, might deserve to be taken seriously on inclusive, "outreachy", just, and equitable idea of unification when their attitude to such sentiments is that they have to be challenged. As opposed to, "great, another supporter of The Cause/vote in the bag".
And your selections from each community are of course in no way biased, of course. Neither is a monolith. There's no particular shortage of people from the C/N community that engage in territory marking, flag burning... and of course, deciding where other people are "not welcome".Look at the expressions of nationalism in the north (feiseanna, féilte, fleadh cheoils) then look at unionism; territory marking, burning flags, marching where they arent welcome etc...)0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Which "clown" would that be, out of interest? I'm not aware of anyone making any such statement about SF policy.
I don´t know of that particular poster either, but regarding the "shipping out" comment raised in the post of the poster you´ve quoted, it has a link to a comment made by Gerry Adams in public in the 1980s where he said that "if anybody from the Unionist community doesn´t like to live in a UI, there´s always the ferry to England". This extract from his speech is more often used by anti-SF Posters to Highlight the attitude that is still at the core of some People within SF. The more recent example for that is taken from Adams´ speech in Enniskillen in November last year when he addressed his audience at a SF "event" and answered a question from the midst of his members regarding the Unionists in NI and said that "we have to break those bigots by equality". Some quote Adams by even using the terms "bigot basterds" in context of that speech. This caused an outcry from the public because the press was there when he made that speech and in the end, he had to apologize also causing some "embarrassment" on McGuinness.
I take it that you know Crooked Jack for long enough on this site. I know him from the time when I´ve had my first account on this site and when I left this place and moved on to other places, I found the same characters like him in These other places too. Some of them were worse some were slightly moderate in compare to him. It´s always the same procedure from that pro-SF faction. Whatever Counter Argument one brings on, they find every way to either downplay things, deny it or simply Twist the truth of it in order to put SF in bright colours.
In all those years since I´ve been reading about SF, dealing with their self-admitted members, fellow travelers and supporters, the patterns of "defence" vary just on the individual approach of the poster to answers anti-SF Posts. In short, I´ve come to the conclusion and I´m convinced by that through my experiences, that SF cannot be trusted.
SF has on their own website their pamphlets with agendas that are similar to core poits of social democracy, like the Labour Party traditionally has. What really distincts the Shinners form the real social democrats is that staunch nationalism within SF, the leadership and their fellowship which is unique for a party that claims to be of left-wing tradition and faction. One can check every real left-wing Party, from Socialists to Social Democratic parties around the world. There is no real socialist Party that has so much nationalism in it than SF. Therefore I regard SF as being a pseudo-left-wing party with strong Nationalist overtones.
When one Looks at the international affiliations of SF, to check whether they are affiliated to the international socialist organisations, like the Socialist International, SF is not listed. Neither for the Republic of Ireland nor for Northern Ireland. Although the Socialist International has some categories of Membership (depending on paying their annual fees or not), a member Party of that Organisation is either a full member or an observing member. No category applies for SF because they have no membership in it. But the Irish Labour Party is there for Ireland and the SDLP is there for NI.
One can argue how important it might be for a left-wing Party to hold a Membership in international socialist organisations and what the benefit from such a memberhsip would be for the Party and their members. The Point is just, that socialist parties have a common cause and that is to make this planet a better and more just place for mankind. Therefore, Nationalist Sentiments are Alien to real socialists, yet in Ireland, North or South, those who call themselves socialists but are hangerson of SF seem to either have no problem with the Shinners nationalism or, and this is what I rather assume, simply ignore that and downplay it by putting the blame for it onto the Unionists.
I´ve had my debates with some of them Shinner friends and supporters regarding that staunch nationalism within SF. When I pointed out to them that the worst nationalists - which Shinners are rather quick to Label others as "fascists" - are to find within SF, they get outrageous. No rational debate on the matter can be conducted. Once you take a stance for the Unionist community simply on the ground of defending their democratic right to Keep their identity, their way of life and culture because this is what makes a real democracy and more to the Point a pluralistic one, they Label you as a Fascist because they see the Unionists as "Fascists".
Curious enough, I´ve never come across any Unionist and/or Loyalist who had the slightest interest in imposing a British identiy on Irish nationalists or even Irish People in NI who regard themselves as being Irish only and separate themselves from any form of Britishness. On the other Hand, SF fellas and those who officially deny being close to SF but hold a staunch Nationalist and Republican creed, they are very eager to impose their sense of Irishness on the Unionists.
This goes from everyday waffle about "you ought to give your allegiance to Ireland only" through always telling them that they are "Irish and not British", that the "British in Great Britain don´t recognise them as being as equal British like anybody from England, Scotland or Wales", that the British govt. has no interest in them and so far. The top of it is to delude themselves and deny the geo-political and administrative realities in present Northern Ireland. Even by addressing the area where they live, the delusion is always there. Like Crooked Jack just yesterday responded to me by "Where I live is Ireland". A reference normally being taken to the Island of Ireland and not the Irish State because South Armagh is still part of NI and thus part of the UK.
These are all old tricks and there´s nothing one can win and nothing one can lose either. It´s just like watching them running around in circles and looking at them the way they practice it in their hope that by ignoring the realities they will go away by the efforts of SF in their "greening of Northern Ireland" campaign that led to the flag issue in December 2012.
A Party with her member and Fellowship that can´t cope with the realities in a way to live and let live regarding their opponents, has no Moral high ground to stand upon. They maintain and propagate their anti-Britishness within their own circles. Unless they Change their attitude there, no real and genuine Change can be expected from SF. What they are doing at the present is just to play by the book and obey the rules of protocol when on the political stage Meeting with the hight representatives of the British State. That is all in order to path the way for a UI in which they hope they will Play the tune and I do not believe that their outset for a UI is based on acceptance and respect of the Unionist community and give them the same full rights every person can enjoy in the Republic of Ireland. I rather fear that for the Unionists, it would be a cold house for them unless they drop their Britishness and assimilate by what the Shinners understand and mean regarding "Irishness".
SF is still a Party that strives for the Establishment of a Socialist Republic in Ireland. At the core of it still lies the old attitude towards the Irish State that emerged from the Anglo-Irish-Treaty and became the present Republic of Ireland. Not less of their alleged followers deny the present Republic of Ireland her lawful right to exist and present the whole of the Irish People. That is more than just a political stance to me, it is the aim to replace this Irish State which is, by all in Irish history, the best although not perfect (but there isn´t any perfect state in this world at all) State the Irish ever had for themselves.
SF has yet to come clean with their past. Not just in relation to her role as being the political arm of the PIRA during the Troubles, but also further back their attitude to the way this Irish state was established. It all goes back to their grassroots and their historical reponsibility for the split within SF and the IRA culminating in the Irish Civil War. But I don´t expect them to do anything on that issues but to carry on the way they always did, representing themselves as the "alternative" for left-wing voters and for staunch nationalists who can´t do without their anti-Britishness.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Which "clown" would that be, out of interest? I'm not aware of anyone making any such statement about SF policy.
Id rather not get another warning but the utterly baseless accusation has been made many timesIn unrelated news, can someone direct me to the thread we can discuss these things vaguely civilly? Because we already have the Cafe's SF thread for the... other stuff.
Absolutely hilarious coming from one of the anti-SF Boards BrigadePerhaps what you're thinking of is my comment on a post here, from an apparently pro-SF and/or Republican individual. And the deafening silence from any other pro-SF posters regarding such sentiments.
Republican as a movement, and SF as a party, might deserve to be taken seriously on inclusive, "outreachy", just, and equitable idea of unification when their attitude to such sentiments is that they have to be challenged. As opposed to, "great, another supporter of The Cause/vote in the bag".
No idea what youre referring to in the first paragraph. Cant even read the second oneAnd your selections from each community are of course in no way biased, of course. Neither is a monolith. There's no particular shortage of people from the C/N community that engage in territory marking, flag burning... and of course, deciding where other people are "not welcome".
Fine, show me a major unionist event that isnt based on this sort of rubbish and is as inclusive as something like the Fleadh. I would actually be delighted if you could.
As for the other stuff, no, actually, Im not being biased. As i said this stuff is far far more prevalent in the unionist community (check out today's Irish News for the latest KKK and Confederate flags raised in unionist areas for the 12th). I'm sorry if that sounds biased but it's the truth.0 -
You're saying it would be uncivil to back this accusation up... but to repeat it, that's just fine?Crooked Jack wrote: »Id rather not get another warning but the utterly baseless accusation has been made many times
Regardless of your earlier impolitic language, I'd be most interested to see any actual basis for your assertion. As opposed to the the exchange that actually happened here, which I just described accurately, and you've ignored.
Well, that was helpful. I'll try to assume it just was a parting shot.Absolutely hilarious coming from one of the anti-SF Boards Brigade
Your lack of curiosity on both points is rather striking. Sure, why discuss what people actually say, when one can instead deal in vague deniables?No idea what youre referring to in the first paragraph. Cant even read the second one
How broadly are you defining "unionist event"? You were certainly construing "nationalist" ones pretty widely. I can see this immediately descending into an exercise where you assert a cultural event in the North isn't "Unionist" if it's notably inclusive or cross-community, and vice-versa. (Or in the UK generally, as you're not restricting "Northern Nationalist" to "Northern" -- or really to "Nationalist" as such at all.)Fine, show me a major unionist event that isnt based on this sort of rubbish and is as inclusive as something like the Fleadh.As for the other stuff, no, actually, Im not being biased. As i said this stuff is far far more prevalent in the unionist community (check out today's Irish News for the latest KKK and Confederate flags raised in unionist areas for the 12th). I'm sorry if that sounds biased but it's the truth.
It looks biased, it sounds biased, but don't let that fool you...
Even by this account, the difference is at most one of prevalence. As opposed to your earlier post, in which we have Irish dancing, they have flag burning, end of. But again, I fail to see how this addresses the underlying issues. It's much more the language of them'uns in their illegitimate statelet are irredeemable bigots, so by all means available, whether they like it or not.0 -
I wasn't aware of that. Then again, a whole lot of things happened in the '80s... Let's hope that Gerry's moved on in his thinking somewhat. Even if not all Republicans have.I don´t know of that particular poster either, but regarding the "shipping out" comment raised in the post of the poster you´ve quoted, it has a link to a comment made by Gerry Adams in public in the 1980s where he said that "if anybody from the Unionist community doesn´t like to live in a UI, there´s always the ferry to England".
Or perhaps vice versa. Or maybe they're making some sort of gradual transition. It may depend, in electoral terms, on how well they do making inroads into outflanking FF for the "Big Republican Party" vote, as against continuing to eat Labour's lunch.Therefore I regard SF as being a pseudo-left-wing party with strong Nationalist overtones.
Obviously, they'd ideally like FG and FF to merge, and Labour to disappear, so they could so both. Life's rarely so convenient, though.
NI isn't a normal society. Be a while before we get "normal" socialism there. (Might be a while before we get it anywhere on the island, actually.) I'd hardly say nationalism is "alien" to socialists. Or else I've never met a "real" socialist. It's considered the done thing to keep it done to a dull roar, though, and make some sort of nod to internationalism, and proposing equal treatment regardless of nationality. As opposed to the naked "[country's name here] first!" type stuff.Therefore, Nationalist Sentiments are Alien to real socialists, yet in Ireland, North or South, those who call themselves socialists but are hangerson of SF seem to either have no problem with the Shinners nationalism or, and this is what I rather assume, simply ignore that and downplay it by putting the blame for it onto the Unionists.
That's clearly a pretty general anxiety among them. And understandable, what with SF being the people "reaching out" to them with the sort of message they in practice actually send. But the realities of an actual UI would very probably be very, very different. (It's hard to say for sure... as it's not a reasonable foreseeable event.) Unless SF had a massive all-island majority, and unless their views and those of their voting base were entirely unreconstructed, forcible "Greening" does not seem a well-grounded fear.I rather fear that for the Unionists, it would be a cold house for them unless they drop their Britishness and assimilate by what the Shinners understand and mean regarding "Irishness".
Post GFA, SF's moved beyond this. The language hasn't quite caught up yet, though. I doubt even the people here insisting that NI is "not legitimate" would typically say that about the RoI -- not that they're happy with either its name, or its "official description".Not less of their alleged followers deny the present Republic of Ireland her lawful right to exist and present the whole of the Irish People.
You can't really "blame" present-day for that, even in a "lineage" sense. That's numerous Republican splits ago -- two of them major ones, that they were on the "small" end of at the time. FF would bear a larger share, if you want to go by that logic, and Labour some too.It all goes back to their grassroots and their historical reponsibility for the split within SF and the IRA culminating in the Irish Civil War.0 -
Advertisement
-
alaimacerc wrote: »I wasn't aware of that. Then again, a whole lot of things happened in the '80s... Let's hope that Gerry's moved on in his thinking somewhat. Even if not all Republicans have.
That´s the point. One earns what he spreeches and so did Paisley and so did Adams. Both of them have made some changes in their views over he years, but their legacy is a bit more harder to change.Or perhaps vice versa. Or maybe they're making some sort of gradual transition. It may depend, in electoral terms, on how well they do making inroads into outflanking FF for the "Big Republican Party" vote, as against continuing to eat Labour's lunch.
I judge SF in different ways depending on where they have more influence. In the Republic they are on the rise and I suspect more because they´re being used as a protest vote against the Establishment. In NI, they have managed to become "the" representative Party of all Irish Nationalists and Republicans (I´m here deliberatedly omitting the term "Catholic", even as that does apply as well). When in the decades before the Troubles and in the early years of it, the NILP later SDLP, was the voice of the CNRs in NI, and thus being a more moderate Party, the PIRA with relating SF to her as her "political arm", they managed to change that.
As for the fact that neither FF nor FG is present in NI, there is just onw "Big Republican Party" left and that is SF. That´s their big Advantage and in that area, NI, they are more likely to speak their mind than in the Republic, given that both leading figures of that party are originally from NI itself.Obviously, they'd ideally like FG and FF to merge, and Labour to disappear, so they could so both. Life's rarely so convenient, though.
I´m not sure whether this might be even possible, given the history of each of those parties. The one (FF) emerging from the anti-Treaty faction of the former (old) SF, the other (FG) emerging from the pro-Treaty faction and absorbing the Blue-Shirts in the 1930s.
I fear that, if Labour can´t win back voters and former members a adjusting their policies and thus by listening to the People, it might give the Shinners further Advantage in the Republic to gain more votes and establish herself as the left-wing alternative to the traditional Social Democratic Party which is Labour. But the Shinners can take as much as they like from Labour, they remain a Socialist Party with strong Nationalist overtones.
When you take a look at the list of the various Party factions in the EP, you see SF listed among other far-left and Communist parties and further EU-sceptic parties. I think that this speaks for itself because every Party can choose for her own to which "Club" they affiliate themselves with.NI isn't a normal society. Be a while before we get "normal" socialism there. (Might be a while before we get it anywhere on the island, actually.) I'd hardly say nationalism is "alien" to socialists. Or else I've never met a "real" socialist. It's considered the done thing to keep it done to a dull roar, though, and make some sort of nod to internationalism, and proposing equal treatment regardless of nationality. As opposed to the naked "[country's name here] first!" type stuff.
Well, I would say that you might be not that far from the truth when it Comes about individuals speaking for themselves and being a member of a traditional left-wing Party. Personal Sentiments Play a role in that too. I was referring to the official Party line and how her members and followers are acting in public, expressing their views accordingly. I don´t say that no Party member or follower has no right to disagree with policies of his Party, that´s normal and so it should be if one feels that the Party is not representing what he thinks would be the better alternative to some policy. I say that a party like SF, who claims and is perceived as being that "inclusive" to every people but to maintaines a sort of anti-Britishness which is more expressed by some of her members and followers than by her leading figures, it is like proving themselves being lying through their own teeth regarding "inclusiveness" but can´t get over this silly anti-British sentiments. As a result, they appear to being not genuine and therefore can´t be trusted on that one.That's clearly a pretty general anxiety among them. And understandable, what with SF being the people "reaching out" to them with the sort of message they in practice actually send. But the realities of an actual UI would very probably be very, very different. (It's hard to say for sure... as it's not a reasonable foreseeable event.) Unless SF had a massive all-island majority, and unless their views and those of their voting base were entirely unreconstructed, forcible "Greening" does not seem a well-grounded fear.
Many of the Unionists I´ve known on Internet Forums like this are naturally not very fond, less to day interested in this idea of a UI. Some of the moderate minded among them could maybe do with that but not if SF would be the Party that would take the leading role in this. That is out of question for them. There´s too much left of distrust from the past and SF´s link to the PIRA is still an issue for Unionists.Post GFA, SF's moved beyond this. The language hasn't quite caught up yet, though. I doubt even the people here insisting that NI is "not legitimate" would typically say that about the RoI -- not that they're happy with either its name, or its "official description".
I´d just recommend to read the Posts from some Irish Republican Nationalists, whether they are members or just followers of SF, some of them are more radical than them. It is all a matter of principle and principal. They refer to the Easter Proclamation as being the founding Stone for the Irish State. If that´s not doing the Job, they go further to the Setting of the 1st Dáil 1919. These two things are at the core of it and this is what they want. To establish a Socialist Republic on the grounds of the Easter Proclamation (where the word "Socialist" isn´t even written there), but that tells about the aim of them, to replace this present Republic of Ireland and of course, based on Irish unity which would demand to re-unification of the South with the North.
In due course of the GFA, the Republic of Ireland altered her constitution after the received aproval by the public in a Referendum. Since then, the claim of the Republic for the 6 counties that contain NI has been struck off from the constitution. That´s a thing most Republicans can´t get on with it. Therefore, the attitude to deny geo-political realities and refusing to refer to NI by that Name and instead using other terms like "O6C" etc.You can't really "blame" present-day for that, even in a "lineage" sense. That's numerous Republican splits ago -- two of them major ones, that they were on the "small" end of at the time. FF would bear a larger share, if you want to go by that logic, and Labour some too.
It´s not about putting the blame on present-day SF for her predecessor party organisation and the people who founded it. It is about reference to the past that lies at the grassroots of SF. That´s the point I´m on about.
This past is more dominant in NI than it is in the Republic of Ireland because it´s just about one question to be taken as an example for it. How often do you see commemoration marches of SF in the Republic of Ireland and how often do such things occure in NI? The legacy of the Troubles? Partly of course, but it´s not just some "Display" of the troubles when they are on marching, it´s dating back to the times of the Irish War of Independence, when the IRA was "glorious" in fighting the British.
The Shinners are very eager in their efforts of PR on their own website. They also have their own YouTube channel on the internet and one can see the videos from such marches there, whithout standing alongside the road watching them passing by.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I wasn't aware of that. Then again, a whole lot of things happened in the '80s... Let's hope that Gerry's moved on in his thinking somewhat. Even if not all Republicans have.
And of course you would swallow that without requesting any proof to back up that such a thing was ever said.0 -
Silly me, where would we be without the ever-moving burden of proof.Crooked Jack wrote: »And of course you would swallow that without requesting any proof to back up that such a thing was ever said.
OK, Thomas: was this actually said, and if so, what's the precise quote, date, and occasion.
Jack: are you actually saying this wasn't said, or just making a shot-in-the-dark point about my supposed bias and credulity?0 -
Sure, that's the underlying reason. That plus the massive incentive of the parties to much so much as admit the possibility of coalition with each other would be electorally self-defeating.I´m not sure whether this might be even possible, given the history of each of those parties. The one (FF) emerging from the anti-Treaty faction of the former (old) SF, the other (FG) emerging from the pro-Treaty faction and absorbing the Blue-Shirts in the 1930s.
Eventually, though, it'll have to change. You can't just dine out on the CW forever. Either they'll realign on some big, as yet unforeseen, issue in the future. Or they'll continue to become less and less dominant. Once the only way they can foreseeably get into government is with each other, they'll change their tune.
Not necessarily: look at Democratic Left. FG may still get "Blueshirts" thrown regularly at them at on these forums, but no-one with any sense thinks they have the "indelible character" of a fascist party just because they'd some rum characters resting in their ranks 80 years ago.But the Shinners can take as much as they like from Labour, they remain a Socialist Party with strong Nationalist overtones.
Subject to being let in by the others, IIRC. But there's strong incentives to belong to an EP group, and some fairly constraining rules about minimum numbers of MEPs and numbers of countries required to form one. Not a lot of potential for a "economically left, socially not quite sure, irredentist nationalist" grouping.When you take a look at the list of the various Party factions in the EP, you see SF listed among other far-left and Communist parties and further EU-sceptic parties. I think that this speaks for itself because every Party can choose for her own to which "Club" they affiliate themselves with.
So it makes for some very strange bedfellows.
But the "core" of the FF vote would say just the same. (If they have a core as such these days.)I´d just recommend to read the Posts from some Irish Republican Nationalists, whether they are members or just followers of SF, some of them are more radical than them. It is all a matter of principle and principal. They refer to the Easter Proclamation as being the founding Stone for the Irish State. If that´s not doing the Job, they go further to the Setting of the 1st Dáil 1919.
#Since then, the claim of the Republic for the 6 counties that contain NI has been struck off from the constitution. That´s a thing most Republicans can´t get on with it. Therefore, the attitude to deny geo-political realities and refusing to refer to NI by that Name and instead using other terms like "O6C" etc.
And "not legitimate", etc. As I said, they're signed up to it, and eventually the feet will surely catch up with the brain. One can only maintain that level of cognitive dissonance for so long. I hope.
I don't think this stands up to examination or observation, as I said before. Their association with that isn't unique... or even primary, or essential.Partly of course, but it´s not just some "Display" of the troubles when they are on marching, it´s dating back to the times of the Irish War of Independence, when the IRA was "glorious" in fighting the British.0 -
This was a loaded proposal to try to force unionists into a minority in Ulster.Irish Rationalist wrote: »When a majority eventually do vote for reunification in a referendum, a united Ireland shall probably initially take the form of a federal all-Ireland republic, with power being devolved from Dublin and Belfast to the four provinces of Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught. Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and Dáithí Ó Conaill developed the concept of Eire Nua back in the 70s.
As to who would set up Connacht as a regional government, I don't know. Dublin, Antrim, Down and Cork each have larger populations, with each side of Dublin having a larger population.0 -
Advertisement
-
As to who would set up Connacht as a regional government, I don't know. Dublin, Antrim, Down and Cork each have larger populations, with each side of Dublin having a larger population.
If one were to design regional government (or consultative assemblies, or some such) on vaguely rational basis, you'd probably end up with something like the MEP constituencies a couple of iterations ago. Connacht-"Ulster"; Munster; Dublin; (rest of) Leinster.
You might not immediately have "symmetrical" devolution/federalism, though. It would make sense to start the NIA (or whatever you'd call it) with powers similar to what it has in the UK. But if you're creating the others from scratch, giving them all those might not make much sense. If you're setting them up in advance of a UI, though, that's more feasible.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Silly me, where would we be without the ever-moving burden of proof.
OK, Thomas: was this actually said, and if so, what's the precise quote, date, and occasion.
Jack: are you actually saying this wasn't said, or just making a shot-in-the-dark point about my supposed bias and credulity?
That was told by someone who witnessed that when Adams expressed it in public in the 1980s. I´ve tried to find some link to that Quotation but couldn´t find it now. The reference in that speech was towards a UI and when Unionists doesn´t like to live in a UI, there´s always the ferry to England. That was the core of the Quotation.
If I would find that quotation on a Unionists website, SF supporters like Crooked Jack would as well dismiss it as anti-SF Propaganda.
Personally, I have no much doubt to believe that this was said by Adams and I also have Little doubt that if the Shinners fail (as the always do) to persuade the Unionists of the benefits of a UI, as desperate as the Shinners can become on their dream of a UI, they would finally give them this "advice" regarding "the Ferry to England".
The Shinners know that they can´t get any credit from the Unionists community. Not yet in two generations to come. But it doesn´t matter, most of them Shinners simply reckon on the "higher birth rates" on the CNRs side that assures them the required majority in a border Referendum the Shinners will stress to be set up when they think that the time is right to do it. With a certain chance to win it.
Some point which Shinners like to deflect from is, that the people in the Republic of Ireland also will have a say on Irish re-unification by referendum. It is often taken for granted that a majority in the Republic is no problem at all and secure out of "patriotic" reasons. They forget that there is still some amount of people who don´t give a fiddlers about such "patriotism" and don´t want to have them trouble makers from NI in their State. The reference by the term "Trouble maker" doesn´t distinguish between Republican/Nationalists and Unionists/Loyalists. These people objecting Irish re-unification are of course anti-SF but more to the point, they don´t like to have the present Republic of Ireland replaced by a Socialist Republic of SF outset. I´ve met some people of that mindset first on boards.ie but not only here, I´ve come across such alike people on other sites too. Still, the Shinners regard them as minority that can be ignored, but that might be another point of the Shinners attitude to simply ignore things that stand in the way of their idea of a UI and press on to bring more people onto their side.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Silly me, where would we be without the ever-moving burden of proof.
OK, Thomas: was this actually said, and if so, what's the precise quote, date, and occasion.
Jack: are you actually saying this wasn't said, or just making a shot-in-the-dark point about my supposed bias and credulity?
Im making the totally unreasonable request for proof because no link was provided, i certainly couldnt find anything googling it, it's completely out of step with anything else Adams has said and with republican thinking and then there's the small matter of that particular poster being, how should i put this without getting another warning...unreliable at best.
But hey, my buddy once said he heard Enda Kenny say that he loves eating live puppies and grooming children on the internet. I've no proof whatsoever but my buddy swears it's totes legit. It was like in the 80s or something0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Sure, that's the underlying reason. That plus the massive incentive of the parties to much so much as admit the possibility of coalition with each other would be electorally self-defeating.
Eventually, though, it'll have to change. You can't just dine out on the CW forever. Either they'll realign on some big, as yet unforeseen, issue in the future. Or they'll continue to become less and less dominant. Once the only way they can foreseeably get into government is with each other, they'll change their tune.
It´s more a matter of posts getting and supplying in the even of them being in government. It also depends on the common ground they (FF and FG) have or can set up for the benefit of both of them. If they would merge into a new Conservative Party in Ireland, it might put the Claim of being Republican off the centre because every old Party, even the Labour Party, sees itself in the Irish republican tradition, the hub from which they either emerged or always have been part of it. It would lead to a more common left-centre-right scheme in parliamentarian politics. Same as in many European countries. For the time being, it doesn´t seem as if they would take up such a thought.
Meanwhile, there is something else established as a result of the current FG/LAB coalition. This links was first posted on the Internet Website "Politicalworld.org" and you might have a look into that if you like:
(first the link to the site where the link was posted in a thread about it)
http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?16166-The-Collins-Institute-Fine-Gael-s-just-society-just-for-whom
(here´s the link to the specific site)
http://www.collinsinstitute.ie/
Having read what this Institute is all about, it doesn´t Sound that unattractive imo. It´s a mixture of conservative and social democratic principles and suggestions how to make things better.Not necessarily: look at Democratic Left. FG may still get "Blueshirts" thrown regularly at them at on these forums, but no-one with any sense thinks they have the "indelible character" of a fascist party just because they'd some rum characters resting in their ranks 80 years ago.
It isn´t just on boards.ie. You can find that same "Approach" towards FGers on politicalworld.org, politics.ie and any other political website that deals with Irish politics. Politicalworld.org is a place where - from my Impression - the majority is left-wing, from SF supporters to others but all with a strong republican background. Politics.ie is going down the gutter - from my experiences there - and other blogs to read depends on what political or cultural background the owner of the blog is.
I don´t share this stupid labelling of FGers as being "fascists". I see them just as Conservatives, nothing more. The extremists are more to find either within SF or those surrounding them on the political edges of the right or left faction.
FF gets the lot of the buckets and if it wasn´t for their republican traditions, as they see themselves to be rooted in, they would be more like a Party that serves the interests of interpreneurs and the rich. More like the LibDems in GB.Subject to being let in by the others, IIRC. But there's strong incentives to belong to an EP group, and some fairly constraining rules about minimum numbers of MEPs and numbers of countries required to form one. Not a lot of potential for a "economically left, socially not quite sure, irredentist nationalist" grouping.
So it makes for some very strange bedfellows.
Of course, that´s a certain point. I´m not argueing about that. On the other hand, they affiliate on the basis of what they have on common ground, even if it´s the minimum of it and the benefits from being in such a group does some part to it. Conservatives usually allie themselves in one group and they are all pro-EU, as well as the Social Democratic Parties are. SF chosed to join the group they are in because what they have in common is to be left-wing and anti-EU. Such is the case with the UKIP bing in the same group with other right-wing and anti-EU parties. Those members who aren´t in any of these groups are either independent or to extreme to find a place within a Party. This might change for the worse in case more representatives from far-right extremist parties get elected to the EP.But the "core" of the FF vote would say just the same. (If they have a core as such these days.)
I don´t doubt FF´s republican Tradition. The Thing is just, what does it mean to be a Republican These days apart from being in a somewhat republican Tradition that is equal to that of SF, Éirígí, RSF, 1916Societies etc.. I wonder, isn´t it quite normal to be a republican when living in a Republic and supporting that State which is the present Republic of Ireland? Most other European People within the EU live in a Republic, yet their Republicanism isn´t comparable to that of Irish Republicanism which you find among those who label themselves as "Republicans". The link to the revolutionary period in modern Irish history makes it that different because it has some link to a kind of militarism that goes with it.
Would you think that someone who is a member of the Green Party of Ireland would see himself in the same tradition like the Shinners and other "traditional" Republicans see themselves? I´d rather assume that for the Greens to be Republicans has not the same meaning as to the others, it´s a quite normal reference to the system of the State in which they live and whose politics they try to influence in accordance to their own policies. Greens are traditionally also left-wing, so to say as this is the case in many European countries.And "not legitimate", etc. As I said, they're signed up to it, and eventually the feet will surely catch up with the brain. One can only maintain that level of cognitive dissonance for so long. I hope.
Maybe.I don't think this stands up to examination or observation, as I said before. Their association with that isn't unique... or even primary, or essential.
There are more complaints and reports about Ulster Protestant Bands marching and the OO than there are of Republican ones. But besides the variety in the numbers of marches on each side, they both march.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Im making the totally unreasonable request for proof because no link was provided, i certainly couldnt find anything googling it, it's completely out of step with anything else Adams has said and with republican thinking and then there's the small matter of that particular poster being, how should i put this without getting another warning...unreliable at best.
But hey, my buddy once said he heard Enda Kenny say that he loves eating live puppies and grooming children on the internet. I've no proof whatsoever but my buddy swears it's totes legit. It was like in the 80s or something
I see. You´re one of those who believe that everything has to be find on the Internet and if it isn´t there, it doesn´t exists and never has been expressed in a speech. The Internet is a wide space, and still gowing very fast but unless someone bothers to make an entry and have the facilities to scan a document or provide a link to a site where it is already quoted, it means to be of no existence.
Carry on with your attitude and bringing rather ridiculous examples to the fore in order to prove your point which can´t be proven at all times.
In fairness, I wouldn´t expect any SF follower to come up with a link to this particular Expression of the Big SF leader. No, not at all.0 -
I see. You´re one of those who believe that everything has to be find on the Internet and if it isn´t there, it doesn´t exists and never has been expressed in a speech. The Internet is a wide space, and still gowing very fast but unless someone bothers to make an entry and have the facilities to scan a document or provide a link to a site where it is already quoted, it means to be of no existence.
Carry on with your attitude and bringing rather ridiculous examples to the fore in order to prove your point which can´t be proven at all times.
In fairness, I wouldn´t expect any SF follower to come up with a link to this particular Expression of the Big SF leader. No, not at all.
Given the "right to be forgotten" changes that have been brought in by the EU, you can be certain that there is a huge amount of airbrushing taking place (by both sides) of what happened in the North and what was said by various political leaders. They probably have someone employed full-time in Shinner Central working away on it.0 -
I see. You´re one of those who believe that everything has to be find on the Internet and if it isn´t there, it doesn´t exists and never has been expressed in a speech. The Internet is a wide space, and still gowing very fast but unless someone bothers to make an entry and have the facilities to scan a document or provide a link to a site where it is already quoted, it means to be of no existence.
Carry on with your attitude and bringing rather ridiculous examples to the fore in order to prove your point which can´t be proven at all times.
In fairness, I wouldn´t expect any SF follower to come up with a link to this particular Expression of the Big SF leader. No, not at all.
But i would expect an ardent anti-shinner to go to the ends of the earth to find proof for such a statement, and yet here we are, with nothing but "your mate's" word from 30 odd years ago0 -
Given the "right to be forgotten" changes that have been brought in by the EU, you can be certain that there is a huge amount of airbrushing taking place (by both sides) of what happened in the North and what was said by various political leaders. They probably have someone employed full-time in Shinner Central working away on it.
Definitely! It's definitely more likely that there is a shady Sinn Fein team working away in a 1984 style Ministry of Truth Records Department than the possibility that Thomas is just telling naughty fibs.
My God, sometimes I think you guys are actually really clever Shinners on here parodying the anti-shinners to make them look even more ridiculous and narrow minded0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »But i would expect an ardent anti-shinner to go to the ends of the earth to find proof for such a statement, and yet here we are, with nothing but "your mate's" word from 30 odd years ago
I wouldn´t go to the end of the earth to prove anything to a Shinner because it´s all in vain. They just believe what they like to believe even if someone is rubbing them the truth under their nose.0 -
Given the "right to be forgotten" changes that have been brought in by the EU, you can be certain that there is a huge amount of airbrushing taking place (by both sides) of what happened in the North and what was said by various political leaders. They probably have someone employed full-time in Shinner Central working away on it.
Yes, I got your point there.:)0 -
Advertisement
-
I wouldn´t go to the end of the earth to prove anything to a Shinner because it´s all in vain. They just believe what they like to believe even if someone is rubbing them the truth under their nose.
Of course, very convenient. Well in that case my accusation about Enda has the same validity as your about Adams.
And what exactly is this truth youre rubbing under my nose? 'Cause so far all I've seen is "my mate sez" and then outrage at being asked for proof0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Definitely! It's definitely more likely that there is a shady Sinn Fein team working away in a 1984 style Ministry of Truth Records Department than the possibility that Thomas is just telling naughty fibs.
My God, sometimes I think you guys are actually really clever Shinners on here parodying the anti-shinners to make them look even more ridiculous and narrow minded
You may find the mirror Image of that assumption on LAD (Loyalists against Democracy), which is a "Satire" site and the posters there like to appear as being Loyalists while in fact, they are just Shinners ridiculing the Loyalists.
As for me telling naughty fibs, the day Gerry Adams will admit his Membership in the PIRA and his place within the IRA Army Council with nothing withholding and expressing that publicly will be the day when I accept your saying about me telling naughty fibs. Until then, I stay to what I said and I merely repeated what some others have heard.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Of course, very convenient. Well in that case my accusation about Enda has the same validity as your about Adams.
And what exactly is this truth youre rubbing under my nose? 'Cause so far all I've seen is "my mate sez" and then outrage at being asked for proof
I wasn´t outraging at all. In contrast to you, I have no problem to admit when I couldn´t find any link on the Internet to back up what I said.0 -
You may find the mirror Image of that assumption on LAD (Loyalists against Democracy), which is a "Satire" site and the posters there like to appear as being Loyalists while in fact, they are just Shinners ridiculing the Loyalists.
As for me telling naughty fibs, the day Gerry Adams will admit his Membership in the PIRA and his place within the IRA Army Council with nothing withholding and expressing that publicly will be the day when I accept your saying about me telling naughty fibs. Until then, I stay to what I said and I merely repeated what some others have heard.
So then you agree, Enda eats lives puppies and grooms children? i mean, i have the same source as you do.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »So then you agree, Enda eats lives puppies and grooms children? i mean, i have the same source as you do.
No, I do not agree with your example and it´s obvious that you couldn´t come up with anything more sustainable than that.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »I can see Northern Ireland exiting with a devolved Parliament within a United Ireland but there won't be a Parliament in the other provinces.
In that case, what would be the point? It wouldn't be a unified nation.0
Advertisement