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

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How can you be 'hypocritical' when you do what you say you are gonna do?

You have been voting for FG FF Greens etc for too long there!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are standing for election in their own country though. They dispute the legitimacy of the British to run it.

And here is what you said was hypocritical. (moving goalposts did you say? )

Thank you for the backhanded compliment.

In defending the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein on the representation and majority view issue, you are equating my own personal hypocrisy (in your opinion) with that of Sinn Fein, rather than explaining why Sinn Fein isn't hypocritical.

In the long list of SF whataboutery, "what about the anonymous internet poster who is just as bad?" ranks right up there.

Sinn Fein are standing for election to the British parliament, not the Stormont Assembly. If Sinn Fein only ran candidates for the Stormont Assembly and refused to run candidates for the British parliament in Westminister, then there would be nothing hypocritical about their stance. Unfortunately, like most politicians, the snouts in the trough argument wins out each time.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Why is there this constant fallacy for the defenders of all things Sinn Fein that if someone is against Sinn Fein, then they must also be for the DUP?

The fact that the DUP won 10 out of 18 under the first past the post system and that SF won 7 of the others is the biggest reason to get rid of it. Both of them are sectarian political parties unfit for a modern democracy. You know well that is my view.

Your post also brings to mind another aspect of the SF hypocrisy. Since the Brexit referendum, we have heard ad nauseun from SF about how the result in the North should be respected because a majority voted for Brexit, yet here I am being told that the fact that a majority want their political representatives to take their seats in Westminister shouldn't be repsected.

I shouldn't be surprised I suppose.

You want a political party to not do what they have plainly and transparently said they would do.
That makes you the hypocrite here, nobody else.

The Brexit referendum was 'a referendum' by the way. Think about that.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Thank you for the backhanded compliment.

In defending the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein on the representation and majority view issue, you are equating my own personal hypocrisy (in your opinion) with that of Sinn Fein, rather than explaining why Sinn Fein isn't hypocritical.

In the long list of SF whataboutery, "what about the anonymous internet poster who is just as bad?" ranks right up there.

Sinn Fein are standing for election to the British parliament, not the Stormont Assembly. If Sinn Fein only ran candidates for the Stormont Assembly and refused to run candidates for the British parliament in Westminister, then there would be nothing hypocritical about their stance. Unfortunately, like most politicians, the snouts in the trough argument wins out each time.

My answer above will do for this ^^ re-hash of the same old same old.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You want a political party to not do what they have plainly and transparently said they would do.
That makes you the hypocrite here, nobody else.

The Brexit referendum was 'a referendum' by the way. Think about that.

That is not what I am asking or saying.

What I am pointing out is that the mere act of standing for parliament and not taking seats is hypocritical, especially when the majority of people in Northern Ireland want their representatives to take their seats.

The fact that Sinn Fein are standing up and sticking to their hypocritical stance is neither here nor there. It is their stance that is hypocritical, not the fact they stick to it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is not what I am asking or saying.

What I am pointing out is that the mere act of standing for parliament and not taking seats is hypocritical, especially when the majority of people in Northern Ireland want their representatives to take their seats.

The fact that Sinn Fein are standing up and sticking to their hypocritical stance is neither here nor there. It is their stance that is hypocritical, not the fact they stick to it.

If people want representation in parliament, then they have to elect somebody who says they will take their seats. That they don't all get behind a candidate to ensure that is not SF's fault or problem.
SF are clear that they won't.

Are you suggesting they should change after being mandated not to?

You are all over the shop here.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Why is there this constant fallacy for the defenders of all things Sinn Fein that if someone is against Sinn Fein, then they must also be for the DUP?

The fact that the DUP won 10 out of 18 under the first past the post system and that SF won 7 of the others is the biggest reason to get rid of it. Both of them are sectarian political parties unfit for a modern democracy. You know well that is my view.

Your post also brings to mind another aspect of the SF hypocrisy. Since the Brexit referendum, we have heard ad nauseun from SF about how the result in the North should be respected because a majority voted for Brexit, yet here I am being told that the fact that a majority want their political representatives to take their seats in Westminister shouldn't be repsected.

I shouldn't be surprised I suppose.

All i know of your views is that virtually regardless of the subject under discussion you have to somehow attempt to wedge SF into the discussion.

I do not know where "the fact that a majority want their political representatives to take their seats in Westminster shouldn`t be respected" comes from.
SF stood on a mandate of not taking their seats in Westminster and were elected under that mandate.
Whereas the DUP who actually took their seats are supporting Brexit when a majority in Northern Ireland voted to remain.
But you somehow refuse to recognise the DUP hypocrisy.

I shouldn`t be surprised I suppose.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

All i know of your views is that virtually regardless of the subject under discussion you have to somehow attempt to wedge SF into the discussion.

I do not know where "the fact that a majority want their political representatives to take their seats in Westminster shouldn`t be respected" comes from.
SF stood on a mandate of not taking their seats in Westminster and were elected under that mandate.
Whereas the DUP who actually took their seats are supporting Brexit when a majority in Northern Ireland voted to remain.
But you somehow refuse to recognise the DUP hypocrisy.

I shouldn`t be surprised I suppose.

Classic whataboutery.

I haven't been asked about the DUP hypocrisy, neither is this thread about DUP hypocrisy but yes, the DUP are hypocritical in their stance on Brexit and if you want to start a thread on it, I will say that there and there won't be anyone on the DUP thread arguing night and day that the DUP are not hypocritical.

However, none of that makes Sinn Fein any less hypocritical. Is it not possible to actually debate the merits and demerits of something that Sinn Fein do, without dragging the DUP/British/FG/Unionists/Protestants/partitionists/anonymous internet posters into it?

Junkyard Tom

recedite wrote: »

While leaving the interests of NI severely under-represented politically at Westminster.

How? How would:

7 SF/IRA TAKE THEIR SEATS IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT


How would 7 'IRA' MP's in Westminster have any more influence than SF already does via local government in the north, national parliament in Ireland and an MEP in Europe? If anything it would help shore up the Tories as per this point you've ignored.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Classic whataboutery.

I haven't been asked about the DUP hypocrisy, neither is this thread about DUP hypocrisy but yes, the DUP are hypocritical in their stance on Brexit and if you want to start a thread on it, I will say that there and there won't be anyone on the DUP thread arguing night and day that the DUP are not hypocritical.

However, none of that makes Sinn Fein any less hypocritical. Is it not possible to actually debate the merits and demerits of something that Sinn Fein do, without dragging the DUP/British/FG/Unionists/Protestants/partitionists/anonymous internet posters into it?

You never explained how it is 'hypocritical' to do something you said plainly and clearly to all concerned that you would do.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You never explained how it is 'hypocritical' to do something you said plainly and clearly to all concerned that you would do.

I think I explained my views here. I didn't say what you think I said.

blanch152 wrote: »

That is not what I am asking or saying.

What I am pointing out is that the mere act of standing for parliament and not taking seats is hypocritical, especially when the majority of people in Northern Ireland want their representatives to take their seats.

The fact that Sinn Fein are standing up and sticking to their hypocritical stance is neither here nor there. It is their stance that is hypocritical, not the fact they stick to it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I think I explained my views here. I didn't say what you think I said.

You just don't like the policy you mean. Because it is not in the slightest hypocritical.
If the 'majority' want their MP to take their seats then the 'majority' have to vote for a single candidate that will.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You just don't like the policy you mean. Because it is not in the slightest hypocritical.
.

In your opinion, it isn't hypocritical. In mine, and based on the clear arguments put forward (which haven't been refuted just whatabouted), it is.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the 'majority' want their MP to take their seats then the 'majority' have to vote for a single candidate that will.

You see, this is the type of entrenched politics that the North is infamous for. On the one side we have the sectarian "No surrender" bigots, on the other we have the "we won't take our seats" sectarians.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

In your opinion, it isn't hypocritical. In mine, and based on the clear arguments put forward (which haven't been refuted just whatabouted), it is.





You see, this is the type of entrenched politics that the North is infamous for. On the one side we have the sectarian "No surrender" bigots, on the other we have the "we won't take our seats" sectarians.

People in the North now have a reason, with Brexit that could very well upend the political paradigm. I fully expect to see a Border poll in the next 5 to 10 years and I also think it could very well pass.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

In your opinion, it isn't hypocritical. In mine, and based on the clear arguments put forward (which haven't been refuted just whatabouted), it is.





You see, this is the type of entrenched politics that the North is infamous for. On the one side we have the sectarian "No surrender" bigots, on the other we have the "we won't take our seats" sectarians.

I have refuted your 'hypocritical' assessment.

It is not SF's problem if the electorate do not pick another single candidate who will take their seat.

The absolutely astonishing idea that a party must change it's clear and transparent policy because the combined majority of other voters want that is stunningly ludicrous and entirely typical of somebody who can never find a good word to say about SF.

BTW. Politics in the north of Ireland is entrenched. This has been known for sometime by everybody and is not news. And there are very clear reasons why it is 'entrenched'.

FrancieBrady

Havockk wrote: »

People in the North now have a reason, with Brexit that could very well upend the political paradigm. I fully expect to see a Border poll in the next 5 to 10 years and I also think it could very well pass.

The absurdity of partition is coming into sharp focus alright.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are standing for election in their own country though. They dispute the legitimacy of the British to run it.

If you need to set aside objective reality and peer through a particular political prism in order for your position to make sense, you don't really get to sneer at people who aren't prepared to follow the same contortions.

There's a great deal of cakeism about a strategy of signing up to the GFA - which makes it clear that Northern Ireland is part of the UK until its people decide otherwise - while still mouthing the tired rhetoric of the government of the UK not having legitimacy to rule that part of the UK.

Cakeism is a transparently feeble strategy on the part of the Tories, and Sinn Féin are no better.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you need to set aside objective reality and peer through a particular political prism in order for your position to make sense, you don't really get to sneer at people who aren't prepared to follow the same contortions.

There's a great deal of cakeism about a strategy of signing up to the GFA - which makes it clear that Northern Ireland is part of the UK until its people decide otherwise - while still mouthing the tired rhetoric of the government of the UK not having legitimacy to rule that part of the UK.

Cakeism is a transparently feeble strategy on the part of the Tories, and Sinn Féin are no better.

Divert again? Sigh.

The GFA makes it legitimate to aspire to Irish Unity. What is hindering Irish unity in the mind of a republican or a SF member?

The illegitimate presence of a foreign power.

That is what a republican or SF voter sees when they look through their prism.

Good loser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Divert again? Sigh.

The GFA makes it legitimate to aspire to Irish Unity. What is hindering Irish unity in the mind of a republican or a SF member?

The illegitimate presence of a foreign power.

That is what a republican or SF voter sees when they look through their prism.

Are Sinn Fein paying you to make these posts? All day every day you're on here defending every SF policy to the absolute limit.

Their policies (so called) are of very little interest to me on the whole but this abstentionist issue does matter and it is live and SF could make themselves useful to the entire electorate north and south. It would be an act of true patriotism.

It may make no difference to the SF vote but it would do the State some service. Didn't the Copenhagen group say a hard border would cut GDP in the North by a massive 16%?

If nothing else think how discomfited the DUP and the Tories would be if they took their seats. And Jeremy Corbyn.
If a United Ireland was on offer in Westminster and depended on the SF seven seats to achieve it what would they do?

The current value of these seats is £100 m per seat on the DUP comparison.

Junkyard Tom

Good loser wrote: »

If nothing else think how discomfited the DUP and the Tories would be if they took their seats. And Jeremy Corbyn.

Precisely. SF's anti-Brexit stance would galvanise support for Brexit. Why can't you see this as very probable?

Do you really envision British newspapers, ITV, SKY and the BBC saying: 'actually those Irish guys who supported the IRA campaign that killed hundreds of British soldiers are talking sense'?

Stop fooling yourself.

FrancieBrady

Good loser wrote: »

Are Sinn Fein paying you to make these posts? All day every day you're on here defending every SF policy to the absolute limit.

Their policies (so called) are of very little interest to me on the whole but this abstentionist issue does matter and it is live and SF could make themselves useful to the entire electorate north and south. It would be an act of true patriotism.

It may make no difference to the SF vote but it would do the State some service. Didn't the Copenhagen group say a hard border would cut GDP in the North by a massive 16%?

If nothing else think how discomfited the DUP and the Tories would be if they took their seats. And Jeremy Corbyn.
If a United Ireland was on offer in Westminster and depended on the SF seven seats to achieve it what would they do?

The current value of these seats is £100 m per seat on the DUP comparison.

Can we first stop with the sensationalist, 'on here all day every day?'.

I get a notification when somebody has posted, I answer that post if I have something to say. It is a very simple thing with a phone in your pocket.
Even simpler it seems when struggling with your argument to start hyperventilating about spooks and bots etc. A number of posters seem to start that. Don't be that poster!

Contrary to other issues were SF could have had a temporary gain by taking seats I would strongly imagine that they see a huge opportunity here politically.
The DUP are driving the statelet into the ground all on their own. FG are talking about a UI ffs!

Funny that you are looking for SF to do the state some service after ignoring them and their electorate for decades.

EDIT: FG have been convinced (IMO by SF and others truly concerned about northern Ireland) that Special Status for northern Ireland is the bottom line in the negotiations.
Enda, - 'doing the state some service' - was against this at one point. Now that they have been convinced it is evident that SF are happy to have Dublin do the heavy lifting for a change. To have nationalists and moderate unionists looking to Dublin for leadership is a good thing ultimately.
Keeping Leo on message is the job for SF now imo.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have refuted your 'hypocritical' assessment.

It is not SF's problem if the electorate do not pick another single candidate who will take their seat.

The absolutely astonishing idea that a party must change it's clear and transparent policy because the combined majority of other voters want that is stunningly ludicrous and entirely typical of somebody who can never find a good word to say about SF.

BTW. Politics in the north of Ireland is entrenched. This has been known for sometime by everybody and is not news. And there are very clear reasons why it is 'entrenched'.

I am now going to apply the whataboutery test to your statement to show how absurd and hypocritical the SF position is.

So you think it is absolutely astonishing and stunningly ludicrous that Sinn Fein and others have called for the DUP to oppose Brexit?

Seriously?

You also think it absolutely astonishing and stunningly ludicrous that the DUP should be asked to accept a hypotethical future majority vote in favour of unity?

As always with Sinn Fein, it is one rule for them and another rule for everyone else. The DUP should accept the North's majority vote against Brexit but Sinn Fein can reject the North's majority vote for candidates to take seats in Westminister. Stunning hypocrisy as always from that party.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

EDIT: FG have been convinced (IMO by SF and others truly concerned about northern Ireland) that Special Status for northern Ireland is the bottom line in the negotiations.
Enda, - 'doing the state some service' - was against this at one point. Now that they have been convinced it is evident that SF are happy to have Dublin do the heavy lifting for a change. To have nationalists and moderate unionists looking to Dublin for leadership is a good thing ultimately.
Keeping Leo on message is the job for SF now imo.

Sinn Fein are reduced to attempting to keep FG on message and that is somehow a success?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The GFA makes it legitimate to aspire to Irish Unity. What is hindering Irish unity in the mind of a republican or a SF member?

The illegitimate presence of a foreign power.

Cakeism. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom until its people decide otherwise. Aspiration to unity is a perfectly valid position; this inane carping on about it being "illegitimate" for the government of the UK to govern all parts of the UK is just tiresome nonsense.

We amended the Constitution of the Republic to relinquish our claim on Northern Ireland and replace it with an aspiration to future unity. In the meantime, it's part of the UK. You may not want it to be a part of the UK, but that doesn't change facts, and what you or any other republican wants isn't the arbiter of legitimacy.

That is what a republican or SF voter sees when they look through their prism.

Yes, I know. Prisms distort your view of the world.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Cakeism. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom until its people decide otherwise. Aspiration to unity is a perfectly valid position; this inane carping on about it being "illegitimate" for the government of the UK to govern all parts of the UK is just tiresome nonsense.

We amended the Constitution of the Republic to relinquish our claim on Northern Ireland and replace it with an aspiration to future unity. In the meantime, it's part of the UK. You may not want it to be a part of the UK, but that doesn't change facts, and what you or any other republican wants isn't the arbiter of legitimacy. Yes, I know. Prisms distort your view of the world.

Those who have accepted the absurity of partition dont get to tell anybody what is legitimate and what is not.

In fact it is those who accepted partition that are moving toward the SF and republican position

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein are reduced to attempting to keep FG on message and that is somehow a success?

Reduced?
I would say they have done the state some service convincing FG on separate status.
Leo is getting kudos for finally looking after the interests of Irish people in the north.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those who have accepted the absurity of partition dont get to tell anybody what is legitimate and what is not.

In fact it is those who accepted partition that are moving toward the SF and republican position

SF have accepted partition. Their MLA's are part of the partitionist infastructure.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

SF have accepted partition. Their MLA's are part of the partitionist infastructure.

SF have accepted the GFA. They have a legitimate aspiration to end partition.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those who have accepted the absurity of partition dont get to tell anybody what is legitimate and what is not.

In fact it is those who accepted partition that are moving toward the SF and republican position

There is nothing absurd about a particular line drawn on a map that is any more or less absurd than any other line drawn on a map.

You are mistaking people wanting the best outcome for people on the ground for acceptance of republicanism. It just so happens at this point in time when Brexit is the worst outcome for these islands, that some people believe that the North having special status within the EU (that doesn't mean unity on this island by the way) is a less bad option.

Most of the time the SF position has been one that making the ordinary people of Northern Ireland suffer is the best one.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Reduced?
I would say they have done the state some service convincing FG on separate status.
Leo is getting kudos for finally looking after the interests of Irish people in the north.

Delusion extraordinaire here. SF haven't convinced anyone of anything.

For Leo and for most Irish people reversal of Brexit and maintenance of the constitutional status quo is the best option. The other options are only fallbacks.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Most of the time the SF position has been one that making the ordinary people of Northern Ireland suffer is the best one.

How do you explain the large vote Sinn Fein gets in NI? Its not as if there are not other parties they could vote for.

I think Sinn Fein is correct to let Dublin negotiate on behalf of those who want to remain in the EU. All you have to do is look at how much hop Scotland and Wales get from the Tories to realise that they are irrelevant. Dublin has a much bigger say in the Brexit negotiations than any of the devolved Governments of the UK.