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
Why would you vote SF?
Options
Comments
-
Sinn Fein belongs to the European United Left-Nordic Green Left grouping in the European Parliament (along with Ming Flanagan). A summary of their policies:
Position
According to its 1994 constituent declaration, the group is opposed to the present European Union political structure, but it is committed to integration.[13] That declaration sets out three aims for the construction of another European Union, namely the total change of institutions to make them fully democratic, breaking with neo-liberal monetarist policies, and a policy of co-development and equitable cooperation. The group wants to disband the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and strengthen the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
The group is ambiguous between reformism and revolution, leaving it up to each party to decide on the manner they deem best suited to achieve these aims. As such, it has simultaneously positioned itself as insiders within the European institutions, enabling it to influence the decisions made by co-decision; and as outsiders by its willingness to seek another Europe which would abolish the Maastricht Treaty.
The Maastricht Treaty was the Treaty that created the EU. Specifically it is the TEU (Treaty on European Union). Anyone favouring abolishing the TEU is by definition favouring abolishing the EU, since it would leave the other EU Treaty - the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) - completely moot.0 -
Sinn Fein belongs to the European United Left-Nordic Green Left grouping in the European Parliament (along with Ming Flanagan). A summary of their policies:
Position
According to its 1994 constituent declaration, the group is opposed to the present European Union political structure, but it is committed to integration.[13] That declaration sets out three aims for the construction of another European Union, namely the total change of institutions to make them fully democratic, breaking with neo-liberal monetarist policies, and a policy of co-development and equitable cooperation. The group wants to disband the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and strengthen the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
The group is ambiguous between reformism and revolution, leaving it up to each party to decide on the manner they deem best suited to achieve these aims. As such, it has simultaneously positioned itself as insiders within the European institutions, enabling it to influence the decisions made by co-decision; and as outsiders by its willingness to seek another Europe which would abolish the Maastricht Treaty.
Had a look at their website, it is clearly the mad left version of the anti-EU.
https://www.guengl.eu/groups/delegation/
Here is a list of the members, including such great Europeans as Syriza and various communist parties.
Of note is the statement that "Our group is a confederal one where each component party retains its own identity and policies ". Effectively, SF (lucky for them) hasn't committed itself to any of the group's policies.
Despite 86 staff (!), half the links on the website don't work.0 -
In the context of a referendum on an EU Treaty, the question you are asked is whether you agree or not to explicitly give the Oireachtas permission, if IT SO CHOOSES, to ratify an international Treaty.
In saying No, you are vetoing the Oireachtas, from exercising its constitutional duties. The only reason for a person to do so is if they want to hamstring the Oireachtas from carrying out its constitutional duties, and the purpose of that is to undermine our membership as I explained previously.
Nor, is your “veto” analogy apt since that only applies in contexts where unanimity is mandatory in the decision making processes set out in the EU Treaties, and it only applies at member state level when they are attempting to make decisions. More importantly, a failure, by the member states, to make a unanimous decision today, does not preclude them making a unanimous decision tomorrow and it is normal practice that discussions immediately continue on as the member states attempt to move the issue(s) concerned toward a common solution.
That is an entirely different context, from our referendums, where the No side seeks to hamstring the Oireachtas from exercising its duties concerning an international treaty that has already been unanimously agreed to by our democratically elected government.
The Oireachtas has only a 'duty' when it is directed to have it by it's people who have a right to say yay or nay.
That is why we have to have referendums on such things.0 -
blanch152 wrote:The DUP and SF have created a political vacuum in the North by refusing to put back in place the GFA institutions. They are jointly and equally to blame.
A number of people have been killed in the North while the Assembly was sitting. Convenient of you not to remember that.0 -
The Maastricht Treaty was the Treaty that created the EU. Specifically it is the TEU (Treaty on European Union). Anyone favouring abolishing the TEU is by definition favouring abolishing the EU, since it would leave the other EU Treaty - the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) - completely moot.
The Maastricht Treaty was in 1992. Declarations come after 1992 from this grouping (1994) which it says is committed to integration.
They declared three aims then were: 1. Reform of EU to make them fully democratic; 2. Breaking with neo-liberal monetarist policies and co-development with equitable cooperation. 3. Disbandment of NATO.
That doesn't sound like abolishing the EU to me.0 -
Advertisement
-
Had a look at their website, it is clearly the mad left version of the anti-EU.
https://www.guengl.eu/groups/delegation/
Here is a list of the members, including such great Europeans as Syriza and various communist parties.
Of note is the statement that "Our group is a confederal one where each component party retains its own identity and policies ". Effectively, SF (lucky for them) hasn't committed itself to any of the group's policies.
Despite 86 staff (!), half the links on the website don't work.
And does any of those parties want to abolish the EU?0 -
This entire thread is basically just to troll SF.
The very title says it all: "[Northern Ireland] Why would you vote SF? wtf" complete with a grumpy emoji.
But i do concur that SF's posturing on the EU needs maturing.0 -
And does any of those parties want to abolish the EU?
Where did I say they wanted to abolish the EU? I have said that they are anti-EU.
The premise of the EU is anti-nationalism, which is why SF can never support the EU. The ever closer union means that the primary identification becomes European, Irishness becomes secondary, just like a Dubliner is now.
As I said already, "the European project is anathema to nationalist parties, be they the DUP, Sinn Fein, Tory Brexiteers or the likes of Le Pen."Well, yes, they would be classed as anti-EU as the premise of the Treaties. The Preamble, which sets out the reasons for the Treaties, includes inter alia the following provisions:
"RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,"
"RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries,"
"DESIRING to deepen the solidarity between their peoples while respecting their history, their culture and their traditions,"
"DETERMINED to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into account the principle of sustainable development and within the context of the accomplishment of the internal market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental protection, and to implement policies ensuring that advances in economic integration are accompanied by parallel progress in other fields,"
So, unless you can sign up to these principles, then you are an anti-EU party. For varying reasons, Sinn Fein would have problems with more than one of those. For example, they would be against a deeper union. They would also have problems with the solidarity and common citizenship provisions, as they would firstly show up their abstentionist policy and secondly, see Irishness, Englishness and Britishness as subservient to Europeanness, making a united Ireland pointless. Essentially, the European project is anathema to nationalist parties, be they the DUP, Sinn Fein, Tory Brexiteers or the likes of Le Pen.0 -
Where did I say they wanted to abolish the EU? I have said that they are anti-EU.
The premise of the EU is anti-nationalism, which is why SF can never support the EU. The ever closer union means that the primary identification becomes European, Irishness becomes secondary, just like a Dubliner is now.
As I said already, "the European project is anathema to nationalist parties, be they the DUP, Sinn Fein, Tory Brexiteers or the likes of Le Pen."
You can be nationalist, celebrate your country, heritage, culture without being a bigot, isolationist, racist etc. When I go to France I want to see and experience quintessentially French things.
Name one country in the EU that sees itself or would even plan on seeing itself as European only or even over and above their country? The EU is an institution and Europe a continent. Nations can be both but I don't see nation coming second, even if it were to there is always a place for individual culture and heritage. Should we brush up on our Esperato? Sure, don't see it taking over myself. A blending of cultures is far more attractive than a bland assimilation.0 -
Where did I say they wanted to abolish the EU? I have said that they are anti-EU.
Bearing in mind that the DUP are definately anti-EU, wouldn't Sinn Fein be the opposite?The premise of the EU is anti-nationalism, which is why SF can never support the EU. The ever closer union means that the primary identification becomes European, Irishness becomes secondary, just like a Dubliner is now.
That is nonsense. The EU has been hugely supportive of regional identities - down to making languages official languages of the EU, to protecting regional foods and drinks as being specialty's to a particular country (Irish / Scotch Whiskey) or regions.As I said already, "the European project is anathema to nationalist parties, be they the DUP, Sinn Fein, Tory Brexiteers or the likes of Le Pen."
IMO, only some people have a problem with it - peoples who are worried about their own cultural identity. Most peoples are secure with their identities - unionists represented by the DUP and English nationalists are not. Le Pen is just a racist. The French are very secure in their cultural identity along with the Scots and Welsh and most people in Europe. There is a cultural identity war going on in Northern Ireland, but I think NI nationalists are very secure in their identity since the GFA.0 -
Advertisement
-
That is nonsense. The EU has been hugely supportive of regional identities - down to making languages official languages of the EU, to protecting regional foods and drinks as being specialty's to a particular country (Irish / Scotch Whiskey) or regions.
Indeed, Juncker in his last speech to the EU Parl, lambasted toxic or 'kneejerk' nationalism (that has brought about Brexit) and praised patriotism.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »The Oireachtas has only a 'duty' when it is directed to have it by it's people who have a right to say yay or nay.
That is why we have to have referendums on such things.
No. That’s not correct.
The Oireachtas is explicitly given the duty to ratify international treaties in the Constitution. It has had that duty since 1937 when the people gave it that duty when the people approved the Constitution.
The only thing you can do as a citizen in the referenda on EU Treaties is either grant the Oireachtas explicit permission to carry out its constitutional duties as it sees fit[ or hamstring it from doing its duties. And it is the latter that the No side in our referenda favours since most (but not all) of the repeated campaigners in these referenda are fundamentally opposed to the EU and our membership of it.
Nor is it correct to say, we have to have referenda on EU Treaties since we have only had two constitutional rulings on EU Treaties. The first ruling raised an issue with one clause in the entire SEA back in 87; the other on the ESM Treaty (I think) green lighted that treaty. For all the treaties in between we have literally no idea if we had to have referenda on them (or on what parts of them) since our governments have adopted an unsubtle “blunderbuss” approach to ratifying EU Treaties and have chosen to refer them to referenda.
That stands in sharp contrast to a country like Denmark which involves its Supreme Court to give rulings both before it agrees to an EU Treaty and afterwards before it formally ratifies it; and to countries like Germany where its Constitutional Court zooms in and highlights the problem clauses in any EU Treaty and in their Basic Law (ie their constitution) and leaves it to others to resolve the conflict one way or another.0 -
The Maastricht Treaty was in 1992. Declarations come after 1992 from this grouping (1994) which it says is committed to integration.
They declared three aims then were: 1. Reform of EU to make them fully democratic; 2. Breaking with neo-liberal monetarist policies and co-development with equitable cooperation. 3. Disbandment of NATO.
That doesn't sound like abolishing the EU to me.
I refer you to the last line of YOUR post from circa 13:07. It states abolish the Maastricht Treaty.0 -
No. That’s not correct.
The Oireachtas is explicitly given the duty to ratify international treaties in the Constitution.
If it is given permission by the citizens via referendum.
Either the citizens have the right to vote yay or nay...or they don't.
Voting no, would not mean we wish to Leave or are anti the EU.0 -
I think it's safe to say they are not anti-EU but have questions and disagreement on how it runs it's affairs. FG have gone so far as to take the EU to court over 13bn in taxes owing but I wouldn't consider them anti-EU either.0
-
Bearing in mind that the DUP are definately anti-EU, wouldn't Sinn Fein be the opposite?
That is nonsense. The EU has been hugely supportive of regional identities - down to making languages official languages of the EU, to protecting regional foods and drinks as being specialty's to a particular country (Irish / Scotch Whiskey) or regions.
IMO, only some people have a problem with it - peoples who are worried about their own cultural identity. Most peoples are secure with their identities - unionists represented by the DUP and English nationalists are not. Le Pen is just a racist. The French are very secure in their cultural identity along with the Scots and Welsh and most people in Europe. There is a cultural identity war going on in Northern Ireland, but I think NI nationalists are very secure in their identity since the GFA.
Regional identity within a common European identity is anathema to people like the DUP, SF, Brexiteers, Syriza and Le Pen, because the nationalist identity is played down. That is why all of those are anti-EU to one degree or another, not always to the same extent, not always from the same direction, but anti-EU is one thing they have in common.
There is no need for any cultural identity war in Northern Ireland, that is the language of sectarianism. Two cultural identities are well able to sit beside each other in Northern Ireland, without any need to change the constitutional status, which is the essence of the GFA.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I think it's safe to say they are not anti-EU but have questions and disagreement on how it runs it's affairs. FG have gone so far as to take the EU to court over 13bn in taxes owing but I wouldn't consider them anti-EU either.
Seeing as it is the European Commission (and that does not mean the EU) that is taking the Irish State to court (and not FG) over not collecting taxes from Apple and the Irish State (again, not FG) is defending itself, I think that you have it the wrong way round. Ireland, as is it's sovereign right, collected taxes in a certain way, the EU Commission disagreed and took action agaisnt Ireland to collect the taxes. Ireland disagrees, and is making an appeal against the EU Commission ruling, as is its right.
How you manage to turn that into FG being anti-EU is bizarre, to say the least.0 -
I refer you to the last line of YOUR post from circa 13:07. It states abolish the Maastricht Treaty.
This line:
..... and as outsiders by its willingness to seek another Europe which would abolish the Maastricht Treaty.
I think that is generally referred to as 'reform', not abolition of the EU.0 -
-
Regional identity within a common European identity is anathema to people like the DUP, SF, Brexiteers, Syriza and Le Pen, because the nationalist identity is played down. That is why all of those are anti-EU to one degree or another, not always to the same extent, not always from the same direction, but anti-EU is one thing they have in common.
I just don't see SF in that grouping (or Syriza) either. Both are just Hard Left/Socialist parties. The DUP think the EU is a popish plot and it might get too influential when it comes to banning LGBT conversion therapy. EU is far too liberal for them.There is no need for any cultural identity war in Northern Ireland, that is the language of sectarianism. Two cultural identities are well able to sit beside each other in Northern Ireland, without any need to change the constitutional status, which is the essence of the GFA.
Perhaps you might explain that there is no need for any cultural identity war in Northern Ireland to Arlene and Co. I'm sure they will be reassured by your assertion.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »It goes back to options. Pre 2011 I was full on Labour and a few Indies. Often I might give SF a nod. Went Lab/FG in 2011. Now I'm pretty much anyone but FF/FG. I've written off Labour. So I'd be more inclined to vote Indies/SD/SF these days. That's based on the performance and track records of FF/FG. That's why I'd vote SF. It's tough to sit back and read about the disaster of a SF in government from people often advocating support for the bulls**t 'stability' con of FF/FG*.
Labour really blew it. They could have been a close third in the current running if they showed political ethics.
*Disclaimer: I am not for one minute suggesting any person in this forum or thread supports Fine Gael. No insult intended.
Labour have no political ethics.
Labour has come a long way 110 years ago since the days of Larkin, Connolly, & X O'Brien and now up to 2019 to like a cross between FF, FG the British Lib Dem party.0 -
I voted for SF and never knew this OP. It's not brought up constantly by their opposition here (or even by word of mouth, something you'd know as a kid up here for instance).
Thanks for this unbiased critique. I am disgusted and will never vote for SF again.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I think it's safe to say they are not anti-EU but have questions and disagreement on how it runs it's affairs. FG have gone so far as to take the EU to court over 13bn in taxes owing but I wouldn't consider them anti-EU either.
I'd consider that opposing every EU referendum without exception since Ireland joined the -then-EEC in 1973 goes well beyond "having questions and disagreement on how it runs it's affairs". Not to mention gabbing on for decades about how all our kids are going to be dragooned into some EU army that's always just around the corner.( It's probably our grand kids now, the first generation that were going to be conscripted for the EU's African resource wars-or whatever bogey it was-are a bit long in the tooth for trudging over the desert)The premise of the EU is anti-nationalism, which is why SF can never support the EU. The ever closer union means that the primary identification becomes European, Irishness becomes secondary, just like a Dubliner is now.
As I said already, "the European project is anathema to nationalist parties, be they the DUP, Sinn Fein, Tory Brexiteers or the likes of Le Pen."
It's no surprise that Farage has quoted statements by Mary Lou with approval.Bearing in mind that the DUP are definately anti-EU, wouldn't Sinn Fein be the opposite?
Most likely one of the reasons that Sinn Fein claim to be Europhiles now. If themuns say black, then we say white. Ah, Breixit, source of such embarrassment and coat-changing for Europhobes. Look how the bould Jeremy Corbyn over the water is suddenly pro-EU (or as pro-EU as he can stomach without looking like a hypocritical tool).0 -
I'd consider that opposing every EU referendum without exception since Ireland joined the -then-EEC in 1973 goes well beyond "having questions and disagreement on how it runs it's affairs". Not to mention gabbing on for decades about how all our kids are going to be dragooned into some EU army that's always just around the corner.( It's probably out grand kids now, the first generation that were going to be conscripted for the EU's African resource wars-or whatever bogey it was-are a bit long in the tooth for trudging over the desert)
It's no surprise that Farage has quoted statements by Mary Lou with approval.
Most likely one of the reasons that Sinn Fein claim to be Europhiles now. If themuns say black, then we say white. Ah, Breixit, source of such embarrassment and coat-changing for Europhobes. Look how the bould Jeremy Corbyn over the water is suddenly pro-EU (or as pro-EU as he can stomach without looking like a hypocritical tool).
So politicians can't flip or backtrack or god forbid, change their minds? You seem to be holding SF and Lab (UK) to a different standard than practically every political entity in the history of the state. If government parties can promise one thing only to do the opposite once in power, I think opposition parties should have more free reign to change policy, considering they weren't given the democratic power to do one thing and once elected reneged on those promises.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »So politicians can't flip or backtrack or god forbid, change their minds? You seem to be holding SF and Lab (UK) to a different standard than practically every political entity in the history of the state. If government parties can promise one thing only to do the opposite once in power, I think opposition parties should have more free reign to change policy, considering they weren't given the democratic power to do one thing and once elected reneged on those promises.
To be fair, Sinn Fein are the ones who hold themselves up as being true to some ancient tradition of boycotting Westminister.
Surely, if they can change their mind on one thing - the EU - they can change their mind on the other - Westminister or vice versa. The inconsistency is the issue.
If you proclaim yourself as beholden to promise-keeping and consistency of policy by boycotting Westminister, expect your contrasting behaviour to be held up to the light.0 -
To be fair, Sinn Fein are the ones who hold themselves up as being true to some ancient tradition of boycotting Westminister.
Surely, if they can change their mind on one thing - the EU - they can change their mind on the other - Westminister or vice versa. The inconsistency is the issue.
If you proclaim yourself as beholden to promise-keeping and consistency of policy by boycotting Westminister, expect your contrasting behaviour to be held up to the light.
This is just arrogant dictation of your views to others. 'Do as I say you should do'.
Not being willing to interfere in the affairs of other countries is a legitimate position to have. As is; growing into acceptance of the EU as a necessary thing.
Personally as a voter I know I have moved from somebody who was suspicious of and skeptical of the EU until Brexit happened. I know for a fact there are many others across all political beliefs (SF included) who have changed similarly. I have also come to believe even more, that having anything to do with an uncaring, selfish UK is a bad thing tbh.0 -
To be fair, Sinn Fein are the ones who hold themselves up as being true to some ancient tradition of boycotting Westminister.
Surely, if they can change their mind on one thing - the EU - they can change their mind on the other - Westminister or vice versa. The inconsistency is the issue.
If you proclaim yourself as beholden to promise-keeping and consistency of policy by boycotting Westminister, expect your contrasting behaviour to be held up to the light.
By 'some ancient tradition' do you mean party policy?
The logic is odd here. Just because a party can change their policy doesn't mean they want to or should.
You see inconsistency because they seem to change their mind on one set of policies but not others? That's a bizarre take quite frankly.
So again, if you stick with one policy but change others, what exactly? And show me one party that doesn't do that? You are criticising SF for keeping some policies but changing others.
'Held up to the light'? You seem to be trying to make a political party changing a policy out to be nefarious.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »So politicians can't flip or backtrack or god forbid, change their minds? You seem to be holding SF and Lab (UK) to a different standard than practically every political entity in the history of the state. If government parties can promise one thing only to do the opposite once in power, I think opposition parties should have more free reign to change policy, considering they weren't given the democratic power to do one thing and once elected reneged on those promises.
Fair 'Nuff, but I always considered that Sinn Fein were-for good or ill-more , say,"ideological" (those who like them might say 'principled') than Fine Gael or Fianna Fail, who, as we know, believe in basically nothing but that which garners votes and can shift like a weather vane. It's amusing to see that they are no different to all the rest.0 -
Fair 'Nuff, but I always considered that Sinn Fein were-for good or ill-to be more , say,"ideological" (those who like them might say 'principled') than Fine Gael or Fianna Fail, who, as we know, believe in basically nothing but that which garners votes and can shift like a weather vane. It's amusing to see that they are no different to all the rest.
Of course supporters of any party would say 'principled'.
You seem to suggest disappointment. Are you a disgruntled former SF supporter? I find it odd when people criticise parties they don't support or vote for because they fall short of a higher standard than that they hold parties they do support to.
It's a get out of jail free card for FF/FG, where it's expected but if Labour, SF or whomever engage in similar practices it's a deal breaker.0 -
Advertisement
-
Seems the voters in the recent local & Euro elections more or less agreed with the OP. Some SF policy is grand, admirable even but then they let themselves down by wanting to be elected but then happy to sit on the fence and tell others what to do. You can only do that so long before voters get tired of it and move onto someone else. Not convinced calling the recount in Irl South was a good idea for them, best hope is that it's done & dusted fairly quickly, otherwise people will get really p**ed off at the waste of resources. Unless some clanger was dropped, can't see any change there as mistakes will go for & against most candidates and 300+ would be a big differential in that respect.0
Advertisement