European Parliament Elections 2019

tobsey

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Should be noted one of the parties goals has always been a United Ireland. Brexit has cast doubt on the relationship of Northern Ireland to the UK as a whole its just a money pit problem child. Sinn Fein will gladly gloss away any Euro skeptics if it helps get a glimmer of light to achieve this.

SF have been pro EU for as long as I can remember, maybe they were anti in the past, bit I’ve always thought they were nationalist from an Irish point of view but wanted a strong relationship with Europe.

I don’t blame Mary Lou for her stance on the 8th which meant Toibin left the party. SF have always stayed they put policy decisions to their membership and then stand on that policy. I have a lot more respect for that than when the FF membership voted against repeal and Martin went ahead and canvassed for it, purely because he knew they’d struggle to attract new voters if they supported a no vote.

I don’t like FF because I don’t like what their membership stand for. As far as I can tell it’s all about populist policies, shady deals and an it’ll be alright jack attitude. Similarly I don’t like SF because I don’t share the same opinions as their members and supporters. If SF are representing them then they don’t represent me. However at least they were consistent on their stance on the 8th.

Zubeneschamali

tobsey wrote: »

SF have been pro EU for as long as I can remember

You are either very young or have a short memory: they were against joining and against every EU referendum since.

BarryD2

Still can't figure out how Mick Wallace has got his bum in the EU seat, I mean what the hell is he going to do? At least we won't hear much for a few years. As for SF and €1 million for a recount - they should be absolutely ashamed on themselves. Do they think we run a slush fund to keep them happy?

Dyr

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Are they any bigger on such crusading now than they were five years ago, when they won three Euro seats and were just behind FF and FG in FPV?

Far more so now than five years ago. A lot of their new elected reps were big on this stuff so once they were up in the saddle it really came to the fore

votecounts

Do people really believe Clune or O'Sullivan would have done anything differently or is it a stick to SF with?

tobsey

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are either very young or have a short memory: they were against joining and against every EU referendum since.

To be fair I wasn’t born when we joined, so you might have me on that one . I believe SF weren’t even allowed on TV at he time, so they’re a bit different now than then. Saying they’re pro-EU is probably a bit strong, but they're not pro-leaving from anything I’ve heard.

Danzy

decies wrote: »

Rubbish O Sullivan’s campaign manager said after the recheck today and the extra 1 vote if in same position they would not have asked for recount . Joke of a decision by the shinners and will be remembered in Waterford at next general election .

If O'Sullivan did not ask for a recount In a similar scenario then she would be a fool, advised by fools.

Your opinion of her, not mine.

300 votes out of 750,000 cast.

mickmackmcgoo

votecounts wrote:

Do people really believe Clune or O'Sullivan would have done anything differently or is it a stick to SF with?

Of course they would have called for a recount. I'm not a member of any party but I think sinn Fein are right looking for a recount. 750 thousand votes were cast. It came down to approx 350 votes , that's less than 0.05% .

For Forks Sake

tobsey wrote: »

SF have been pro EU for as long as I can remember, maybe they were anti in the past, bit I’ve always thought they were nationalist from an Irish point of view but wanted a strong relationship with Europe.

You're joking right? They have campaigned against every EU-related referendum since 1972 starting with the referendum on Ireland joining the EU, and every one subsequently.

AndrewJRenko

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I strongly doubt that - they were clearly just a prolife SF party, like Renua are prolife FG.

I have pro-life family members who did exactly this - they'd vote for anything with a pro-life label, and Renua weren't running in their area.

blanch152

tobsey wrote: »

SF have been pro EU for as long as I can remember, maybe they were anti in the past, bit I’ve always thought they were nationalist from an Irish point of view but wanted a strong relationship with Europe.

.

You must have a very short memory. Let us go back to the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#Ireland

"In the first referendum, all members from the three government parties supported the yes campaign, as did all the opposition parties with members in the Oireachtas, with the exception of Sinn Féin"

Jamie2k9

Must admit had NI voted out of EU, wonder how the fake nationalists i.e. SF would have handled it both sides of border.

There vote dropped because of a good economy, did nothing on DCC for 5 years (besides fly Palestine flag) and no longer support workers. I also don't think Boylen spending most of her time helping an Egyptian who got himself into trouble did any favours.

The traveler bill was just unforgivable, I could never consider a transfer to them now.

feargale

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

With FF or FG is what she said, in fairness. A widely held position across all shades of the Irish left.

And what would you say if an election candidate of your party said they would resign from the party if the party coalesced with any party other than FF or FG, regardless of what position was held by the majority in your party? What if a coalition should prove impossible in the absence of FF or FG? You would have Stormont style silly buggery allover again. "No coalition" was once the arrogant overriding "core value" of FF until they were forced to divest themselves of that nonsense. Individuals and parties may hold any position they wish on the issue. My point is that when you join the club you have a say in drafting the rules but you have to follow all the rules, not just the ones you like.

P.S. When you say the Irish left are you including self-proclaimed pro-business parties such as Sinn Fein?

feargale

Riskymove wrote: »

it was notable that the other winners/losers at the end of MNW vote were all talking quite normally and perhaps thanking someone or whatever

Matt Carty was just basically roaring about SF, the SF policy and SF votes and we'll be back etc...

You will see exactly how radical SF are next week when Mr.Trump comes calling. I doubt you will see many of them protesting in Clare, certainly not showing their colours. I don't think there will be much appetite for upsetting the dollar donating armchair "revolutionaries" of New York and Boston who have been assured that SF is a "pro-business" party.

Loafing Oaf

feargale wrote: »

And what would you say if an election candidate of your party said they would resign from the party if the party coalesced with any party other than FF or FG, regardless of what position was held by the majority in your party? What if a coalition should prove impossible in the absence of FF or FG? You would have Stormont style silly buggery allover again. "No coalition" was once the arrogant overriding "core value" of FF until they were forcedvto divest themselves of that nonsense. Individuals and parties may hold any position they wish on the issue. My point is that when you join the club you have a say in drafting the rules but you have to follow all the rules, not just the ones you like.

And if the club takes a course of action you vehemently disapprove of surely you have a right to walk away from the club? I don't think it was wise of her to state her position publicly at this stage but IMO it's an entirely honourable position for any member of a left/progressive party to hold.

feargale

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And if the club takes a course of action you vehemently disapprove of surely you have a right to walk away from the club? I don't think it was wise of her to state her position publicly at this stage but IMO it's an entirely honourable position for any member of a left/progressive party to hold.

Not honourable to wait until you have got the nomination before you disclose your position to your comrades. We are talking about an issue that will almost inevitably arise at some time.

BTW you may have missed the P.S. to my last post and as a courtesy I'm repeating it:

P.S. When you say the Irish left are you including self-proclaimed pro-business parties such as Sinn Fein?

Eric Cartman

I think most of us can agree , the biggest thing to tale away from this election was that SF last time round was a protest vote , all this talk of coalitions in the next GE is completely arbitrary and we can go back to not having to worry that IRA apologists / members ( depending on how you perceive it) will get in to power

eagle eye

votecounts wrote:

Do people really believe Clune or O'Sullivan would have done anything differently or is it a stick to SF with?

They would have certainly looked for a recount.

tobsey

blanch152 wrote: »

You must have a very short memory. Let us go back to the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#Ireland

"In the first referendum, all members from the three government parties supported the yes campaign, as did all the opposition parties with members in the Oireachtas, with the exception of Sinn Féin"

You might also recall that was rejected by the people too. That led to assurances for Ireland on tax sovereignty amongst other things. Yes they doubled down on the second referendum and tried for a no vote but their campaign was on the basis of getting a better deal for Ireland, not on a particularly anti EU platform.

I don’t even like the party and yet here I am giving them credit on their EU policy.

Zubeneschamali

tobsey wrote: »

You might also recall that was rejected by the people too. That led to assurances for Ireland on tax sovereignty amongst other things. Yes they doubled down on the second referendum and tried for a no vote but their campaign was on the basis of getting a better deal for Ireland, not on a particularly anti EU platform.

They campaigned against Ireland entering in the first place and then for a No on every treaty referendum since:

1973: Accession.
1987: Single European Act.
1992: Maastricht.
1998: Amsterdam
2001: Nice 1
2002: Nice 2
2008: Lisbon 1
2009: Lisbon 2
2012: Fiscal Compact

BarryD2

mickmackmcgoo wrote: »

Of course they would have called for a recount. I'm not a member of any party but I think sinn Fein are right looking for a recount. 750 thousand votes were cast. It came down to approx 350 votes , that's less than 0.05% .

Yes, but unless there has been some gross error with bundles of votes mixed up (and that has been checked I think), it's as likely that errors will be distributed fairly evenly across all three candidates. So Ni Riada may gain some but lose others. If it was down to 50 votes or less, grand but c350?? Just an excuse to keep the name and brand in the news media.

LuckyLloyd

SF absolutely correct to call for a recount, and Clune would have done the exact same thing in this position. The attempt at party political point scoring on it is lame, but completely unsurprising.

BarryD2

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

SF absolutely correct to call for a recount

Put it this way, would you be prepared to put a decent bet on the result changing? I doubt it.

blanch152

tobsey wrote: »

You might also recall that was rejected by the people too. That led to assurances for Ireland on tax sovereignty amongst other things. Yes they doubled down on the second referendum and tried for a no vote but their campaign was on the basis of getting a better deal for Ireland, not on a particularly anti EU platform.

I don’t even like the party and yet here I am giving them credit on their EU policy.

They have never campaigned for a YES vote in any single EU referendum ever. How you can call them pro-EU with that record is astonishing.

eagle eye

BonnieSituation wrote:

Speak for yourself. Walsh hasn't embarrassed me one iota.

Some European looks at what she said and finds out that she was 3 years old and living in the USA when Mary Robinson was elected and realises that she is full of lies.
Then he sees she got elected.
What should he think, that our MEP is a liar? Well it's true. That Irish people are not very smart? Well a certain amount of them appear to be because they voted for somebody who told lies and got caught out on it before the election.

Rebelbrowser

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yes, but unless there has been some gross error with bundles of votes mixed up (and that has been checked I think), it's as likely that errors will be distributed fairly evenly across all three candidates. So Ni Riada may gain some but lose others. If it was down to 50 votes or less, grand but c350?? Just an excuse to keep the name and brand in the news media.

Agree with this. When a recheck has already been done and only 1 additional vote found then a full recount, with a gap of 350, really seems unjustified to me. There has to be a de minimus criteria with such increased cost and the (admittedly temporary) loss of representation caused by a full recount. Of course it is possible that Ni Riada will make up 350 votes but its so unlikely as to be unreasonable for the tax payer to have to stump up. Anything over 100 votes seems too much to me.

Harry Palmr

I'll bet SF decide not to demand the full recount. The logistics are crazy 28 days - working days is 5 and a half weeks when does the parliament being its new session?

amcalester

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

Agree with this. When a recheck has already been done and only 1 additional vote found then a full recount, with a gap of 350, really seems unjustified to me. There has to be a de minimus criteria with such increased cost and the (admittedly temporary) loss of representation caused by a full recount. Of course it is possible that Ni Riada will make up 350 votes but its so unlikely as to be unreasonable for the tax payer to have to stump up. Anything over 100 votes seems too much to me.

I saw someone else say that 350 votes in the Euro elections equates to 5 votes in the local, a recount in this situation doesn’t seem unfair or over the top.

Rebelbrowser

amcalester wrote: »

I saw someone else say that 350 votes in the Euro elections equates to 5 votes in the local, a recount in this situation doesn’t seem unfair or over the top.

But to put that in prospective, that would be a gap of 70 votes in a local election. Even that is borderline too much - let alone 350.

amcalester

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

But to put that in prospective, that would be a gap of 70 votes in a local election. Even that is borderline too much - let alone 350.

Don’t think so, it’s already in perspective. The difference in the Euro election is the same as 5 votes in a local election.

I’m no SF fan but think she’s right to ask for a recount given the small margins, 0.0005% of the total votes cast.