Irish Language Act in the North: Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal?

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

Plenty SF 'policies' will be jettisoned when they do a coalition deal down south. I wouldn't be too caring about that particular dinosaur. As soon as it is abandoned it will be a yawn.

SF in the Brexit matter are in pivotal position to make a huge positive economic contribution to their supporters and the general population of the State north and south. They are not even prepared to try.
Obviously they prefer to windbag and spoof.

All parties jettison promises when they are part of a coalition government. Or even like here, when being supported as a minority government.
I do not think you understand the NI situation as to how a great many nationalists there view a pledge of allegiance to the British crown being a requirement for taking up a seat in Westminster.

With the reality of the Westminster figures,, how do you actually think SF reneging on their pre-election pledges would make any difference whatsoever to the general population North or south on Brexit ?

The DUP could not give a toss for the general population of the Republic as regards Brexit, but for the sake of N I (where a majority voted to stay within the EU), are they not the party you should be calling on to renege on their promises ?
After all they are the party that are supporting the Tory party on Brexit.

recedite

If SF were going to oppose Brexit in Westminster, I wonder how many seats would switch from being DUP to SF? And would it be enough to change the maths there? We can only guess, but we'll never actually know.
Its quite likely that the DUP would instead be forced to become anti-brexit in response, just to keep their votes.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

If SF were going to oppose Brexit in Westminster, I wonder how many seats would switch from being DUP to SF? And would it be enough to change the maths there? We can only guess, but we'll never actually know.
Its quite likely that the DUP would instead be forced to become anti-brexit in response, just to keep their votes.

:D I don't think you quite grasp politics in northern Ireland tbh.

McMurphy

recedite wrote: »

If SF were going to oppose Brexit in Westminster, I wonder how many seats would switch from being DUP to SF? And would it be enough to change the maths there? We can only guess, but we'll never actually know.
Its quite likely that the DUP would instead be forced to become anti-brexit in response, just to keep their votes.

Zero.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

If SF were going to oppose Brexit in Westminster, I wonder how many seats would switch from being DUP to SF? And would it be enough to change the maths there? We can only guess, but we'll never actually know.
Its quite likely that the DUP would instead be forced to become anti-brexit in response, just to keep their votes.

The DUP campaigned in favour of Brexit in the referendum. When the British GE came around they did not lose any seats to any party that opposed Brexit.

The chances of them losing any too SF on that basis would have even the most hard bitten bookie directing anyone trying to put a bet on it happening to the nearest mental hospital.

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

The DUP campaigned in favour of Brexit in the referendum. When the British GE came around they did not lose any seats to any party that opposed Brexit.

That is true. But your previous point is also true....

charlie14 wrote: »

The DUP could not give a toss for the general population of the Republic as regards Brexit, but for the sake of N I (where a majority voted to stay within the EU), are they not the party you should be calling on to renege on their promises ?
After all they are the party that are supporting the Tory party on Brexit.

Therefore there must be a significant number of DUP voters who opposed Brexit, despite the DUP party line. And there is probably another batch of them who only voted for Brexit simply because they always vote according to the party line.

As it turned out, taking that pro-Brexit line was a gamble that paid off, because it put the DUP in a strong bargaining position at Westminster. But supposing it had suited them politically to be anti-Brexit? They could have taken that stance, and still been the same DUP.

But they didn't have to do that, because the SF abstentionism policy made it possible for the DUP to choose either pro or anti, and the best rewards for the party would come from being pro, if pro won. Bad for the people, but good for the party.

In much the same way, Cameron called the Brexit referendum in the first place knowing it would be bad for Britain, but very good for his party before the GE to promise the referendum. So he also put the party before the people. He calculated correctly that by promising the referendum he could take UKIP votes in the GE, and then when he held the referendum afterwards it would finish off the UKIP threat once and for all. But he gambled incorrectly that the people would overwhelmingly vote Remain.

Now obviously in NI there is not going to be much crossover between the hard core supporters of DUP and SF. But a lot of people who vote for these parties are not hard core supporters, they are more moderate, but vote one way or the other for "strategic voting" reasons. These are the votes that "might" have strategically swayed towards SF if people believed they would actually try to use that mandate in Westminster to thwart Brexit.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

That is true. But your previous point is also true....
Therefore there must be a significant number of DUP voters who opposed Brexit, despite the DUP party line. And there is probably another batch of them who only voted for Brexit simply because they always vote according to the party line.

As it turned out, taking that pro-Brexit line was a gamble that paid off, because it put the DUP in a strong bargaining position at Westminster. But supposing it had suited them politically to be anti-Brexit? They could have taken that stance, and still been the same DUP.

But they didn't have to do that, because the SF abstentionism policy made it possible for the DUP to choose either pro or anti, and the best rewards for the party would come from being pro, if pro won. Bad for the people, but good for the party.

In much the same way, Cameron called the Brexit referendum in the first place knowing it would be bad for Britain, but very good for his party before the GE to promise the referendum. So he also put the party before the people. He calculated correctly that by promising the referendum he could take UKIP votes in the GE, and then when he held the referendum afterwards it would finish off the UKIP threat once and for all. But he gambled incorrectly that the people would overwhelmingly vote Remain.

Now obviously in NI there is not going to be much crossover between the hard core supporters of DUP and SF. But a lot of people who vote for these parties are not hard core supporters, they are more moderate, but vote one way or the other for "strategic voting" reasons. These are the votes that "might" have strategically swayed towards SF if people believed they would actually try to use that mandate in Westminster to thwart Brexit.

SF are going to give up a principled stand against influencing the parliament of another country (what abstentionism is) for the sake of a few floating voters???

You really don't understand Irish politics do you?

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

a principled stand against influencing the parliament of another country..

This?

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

This?

If you also don't understand the difference between the IRA and SF, you really have a problem.

recedite

Okay. Well, we all have our problems.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

That is true. But your previous point is also true....
Therefore there must be a significant number of DUP voters who opposed Brexit, despite the DUP party line. And there is probably another batch of them who only voted for Brexit simply because they always vote according to the party line.

As it turned out, taking that pro-Brexit line was a gamble that paid off, because it put the DUP in a strong bargaining position at Westminster. But supposing it had suited them politically to be anti-Brexit? They could have taken that stance, and still been the same DUP.

But they didn't have to do that, because the SF abstentionism policy made it possible for the DUP to choose either pro or anti, and the best rewards for the party would come from being pro, if pro won. Bad for the people, but good for the party.

In much the same way, Cameron called the Brexit referendum in the first place knowing it would be bad for Britain, but very good for his party before the GE to promise the referendum. So he also put the party before the people. He calculated correctly that by promising the referendum he could take UKIP votes in the GE, and then when he held the referendum afterwards it would finish off the UKIP threat once and for all. But he gambled incorrectly that the people would overwhelmingly vote Remain.

Now obviously in NI there is not going to be much crossover between the hard core supporters of DUP and SF. But a lot of people who vote for these parties are not hard core supporters, they are more moderate, but vote one way or the other for "strategic voting" reasons. These are the votes that "might" have strategically swayed towards SF if people believed they would actually try to use that mandate in Westminster to thwart Brexit.

The DUP did not take any gamble on Brexit.
They did what unionist parties do.
They take whatever position the Tory party takes.

There were numerous other parties standing in the Westminster election that were in favour of staying in the EU.
Those "moderate DUP" voters, (if such voters exist), did not vote for them, so it is fanciful to even imagine they would consider voting for SF even had SF said they would bring their own seats to Westminster and not only swear allegiance, but crawl on their bellies to kiss the Queens two feet while doing so.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

Okay. Well, we all have our problems.

What?

charlie14

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

An admission perhaps ?

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

The DUP did not take any gamble on Brexit.
They did what unionist parties do.
They take whatever position the Tory party takes.

What position was that? Both Cameron and May were Remainers.

Very often politicians will lead their nation down the wrong road because there are small political victories to be won along the way, and political points to be scored, for themselves or their own party.
Tories, DUP and SF have all been guilty of this. They all allowed Brexit to happen.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

What position was that? Both Cameron and May were Remainers.

Very often politicians will lead their nation down the wrong road because there are small political victories to be won along the way, and political points to be scored, for themselves or their own party.
Tories, DUP and SF have all been guilty of this. They all allowed Brexit to happen.

Sinn Féin campaigned against Brexit before the referendum.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

I'm saying somebody else's problem might be that they have compartmentalised their own mind, such that they now believe SF/IRA are, and always were, completely separate and independent of each other.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sinn F campaigned against Brexit before the referendum.

Of course they did in NI, but never at Parliament.
Mind you, there was that one time they went over to "sign up for office space, register for staff allowances and expenses - despite their century-long policy of abstention in the UK Parliament."

recedite

One peculiar thing that emerged after the Brexit referendum was that over in Britain they seemed to be mostly unaware that it would create a problem at the Irish border. Like it was some kind of surprise to them.
Hardly surprising to us though, considering the Irish perspective was being delivered in London by the DUP, unopposed by any alternative speeches.

A far cry from the days of the Blackbird of Avondale, whose tactics were the exact opposite to SF. He'd have drilled his viewpoint into their brains and newspapers with long and boring speeches, so that they could not ignore it.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

What position was that? Both Cameron and May were Remainers.

Very often politicians will lead their nation down the wrong road because there are small political victories to be won along the way, and political points to be scored, for themselves or their own party.
Tories, DUP and SF have all been guilty of this. They all allowed Brexit to happen.

I did not say the DUP take whatever position a Tory individual takes.
I said the DUP takes whatever position the Tory Party takes.

With Cameron being leader of the Tories who do you think forced him to have the referendum other than his own party who were the main drivers for a go vote in that referendum ?

AS to your Tories, DUP and SF allowing Brexit to happen.
Of those three parties do you actually not know that SF were the only party that campaigned for a remain vote in that referendum

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

One peculiar thing that emerged after the Brexit referendum was that over in Britain they seemed to be mostly unaware that it would create a problem at the Irish border. Like it was some kind of surprise to them.
Hardly surprising to us though, considering the Irish perspective was being delivered in London by the DUP, unopposed by any alternative speeches.

A far cry from the days of the Blackbird of Avondale, whose tactics were the exact opposite to SF. He'd have drilled his viewpoint into their brains and newspapers with long and boring speeches, so that they could not ignore it.

If you actually believe that the Irish border issue would have mattered one iota to Brits in favour of leaving the EU when their own economic suicide didn`t, then you are greatly mistaken imho

Charles Stewart Parnell "the Blackbird of Avondale" held the balance of power in Westminster after the 1885 election that left a hung parliament.
How did that work out for him and his Irish Parliamentary Party ?

jm08

recedite wrote: »

Now obviously in NI there is not going to be much crossover between the hard core supporters of DUP and SF. But a lot of people who vote for these parties are not hard core supporters, they are more moderate, but vote one way or the other for "strategic voting" reasons. These are the votes that "might" have strategically swayed towards SF if people believed they would actually try to use that mandate in Westminster to thwart Brexit.

So why didn't they vote for the SDLP or UUP?

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

So why didn't they vote for the SDLP or UUP?

Unfortunately, the message that you need our extremists in power to keep their extremists quiet seems to have hit home in both sides of the divide.

We won't sell out to the DUP/SF (delete as appropriate) while SDLP/UUP (delete as appropriate) will.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Unfortunately, the message that you need our extremists in power to keep their extremists quiet seems to have hit home in both sides of the divide.

We won't sell out to the DUP/SF (delete as appropriate) while SDLP/UUP (delete as appropriate) will.

From the Brexit and the subsequent Westminster GE 2017 votes if there is one section of the Northern Ireland community where that is most obviously prevalent it is unionism.

The DUP campaigned for a leave vote in the Brexit referendum, whereas all nationalist parties and the UUP campaigned to remain.

Northern Ireland voted 56% remain as opposed to 44% voting leave.
In the subsequent Westminster election the DUP recieved 55.6% of the vote.

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

I said the DUP takes whatever position the Tory Party takes.

With Cameron being leader of the Tories who do you think forced him to have the referendum other than his own party who were the main drivers for a go vote in that referendum ?

The party itself did not have a unified position. As I mentioned earlier, Cameron himself wanted the referendum in order to kill off the ongoing UKIP threat to Tory votes, but he miscalculated the outcome of that referendum.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

The party itself did not have a unified position. As I mentioned earlier, Cameron himself wanted the referendum in order to kill off the ongoing UKIP threat to Tory votes, but he miscalculated the outcome of that referendum.

Cameron did not give a commitment to UKIP that he would hold a referendum on the EU.
He gave it to his own Tory party whose members were the main drivers behind the Leave campaign.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

I'm saying somebody else's problem might be that they have compartmentalised their own mind, such that they now believe SF/IRA are, and always were, completely separate and independent of each other.

It's the juvenile way people insinuate stuff about what SF might do and then post stuff the IRA did in a conflict war.

Similar to somebody insinuating that the Tory's might bomb Berlin during Brexit and posting stories from WW2 to prove their case.

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

Charles Stewart Parnell "the Blackbird of Avondale" held the balance of power in Westminster after the 1885 election that left a hung parliament.
How did that work out for him and his Irish Parliamentary Party ?

Parnell came close enough to achieving Home Rule, but in the end he was destroyed politically by an unholy alliance of Unionists, Conservatives and the RC hierarchy.
If he had succeeded we might now be living in a prosperous 32 county unified country having vague historical links to Britain, not unlike Canada or Australia.
The whole history of the "troubles" might have have been avoided.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nicky-kehoe-facing-hefty-legal-bill-despite-defamation-case-win-36647724.html


Another own goal by Sinn Fein.

They have been trying to stop the media by launching defamation actions and serial complaints to the Press Ombudsman with Gerry Adams being particularly adept at the latter.

While they can claim a partial victory on this one, winning one count out of five, how will poor Nicky be able to pay his and RTE's costs out of his average industrial wage?

This will embolden the media in dealing with Sinn Fein.

FrancieBrady

RTE and one of it's guests get pinged for fairly scurrilous defamanation and it's a SF own goal.
Brill

Red_Wake

Could any legal bod explain to me why Eoin O'Broin wasn't in some way held liable, seeing as he identified Mr Kehoe?

Costello made the allegation that an IRA army council member, but as it was O'Broin that actually identified this person as Mr Kehoe, surely he should be on the hook as much as Mr Costello?

Seems a bit bizarre to me.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RTE and one of it's guests get pinged for fairly scurrilous defamanation and it's a SF own goal.
Brill

Did you even read about the case?

Five questions asked, only one answered in favour of Kehoe.

Lowest ever award for defamation i.e. jury found he was barely defamed. A very mild defamation rather than the fairly scurrilous you paint it as.

Most of the blame for Costello rather than RTE, and it appears Kehoe forgot to sue Costello.

Kehoe left with a huge legal bill, both his costs and probably RTE's as well to pay out of the average industrial wage.

Media now will be less afraid to name SF members (if any) involved in illegal activity.

Where the real own goal is that the apparent SF tactic of launching defamation actions and complaints to the Press Ombudsman has backfired for once on them and left one of their members with a hefty bill.