Why would you vote SF?

BarryD2

derfderf wrote: »

They campaigned against membership, and campaigned against three further treaties (two of them twice). Is it really that much of a stretch to think they're anti-eu?

I'd have always thought that SF were broadly euro skeptics. Their position up north is surely to take an opposing position to whatever the DUP propose. Put it this way, if the Republic was angling to get out of the EU and the DUP wanted to remain, then SF would soon switch - whatever works in the moment.

Listening to Arlene and Mary Lou this morning, despite squirming a bit, it's clear they are 'happy' enough with the status quo of their relevant positions. Normal service to be resumed.

derfderf

BarryD2 wrote: »

I'd have always thought that SF were broadly euro skeptics. Their position up north is surely to take an opposing position to whatever the DUP propose. Put it this way, if the Republic was angling to get out of the EU and the DUP wanted to remain, then SF would soon switch - whatever works in the moment.

That was my point to begin with a few pages back. They're opportunistic.

If Ireland was angling to leave the EU, and that became their position, I'd actually find it more believable to the foil to Brexit position they're taking now.

They can't deny the benefits of the EU, and I'm not saying they have, but they're against the costs and responsibilities that come with membership. Would a pro EU party really have been cheerleading Syriza's approach?

BarryD2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would the leader of a party (not normally afraid to speak up on his beliefs) say 'that Ireland's place is within the EU in 2008, if he believed otherwise at that point?

Because simply SF (and the Republic) perceived that seeing NI as an entity within a broader EU framework along with the Republic and England, Scotland & Wales was closer to the United Ireland ideal - than one where NI is perceived part of a narrower UK framework. All a means to an end, a way of stepping of the agenda forward.

And I like probably most citizens of the Republic have no issue with that agenda, as long as it is achieved by broad consensus among all the people of the island, including our unionist brethren. That consensus can only be achieved by moving closer to unionism, by reaching out to them and accommodating them. We sadly just don't see that.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You make it sound like there were hundreds of referendums.

I have plenty of criticisms of SF's economic policies etc which is why I am not a voter for them. (excepting M. McG for Pres and some local candidates)

Again I ask you too, have you reviewed the work of their MEP's and arrived at them having an 'anti-EU' stance?

Why would the leader of a party (not normally afraid to speak up on his beliefs) say 'that Ireland's place is within the EU in 2008, if he believed otherwise at that point?

Are you perhaps the one now trying to promote a simplistic falsehood?

No - I'm simply surmising their position based on their actions - not on their spin. Not everyone unquestioningly takes the statements of politicians as fact - judging on their actions tend to give more solid evidence.

maccored

blackwhite wrote: »

Maybe the SF-approved dictionary has a different definition of the word "always" to the one the rest of the world uses?

Does the SF dictionary have a definition of "always" that excludes every single EU referendum held in Ireland?


Most people have the common decency to hold their hand up and admit a mistake when the blindingly obvious is pointed out to them. Not so for the SF support on here it seems. Quelle surprise :rolleyes:

maybe because the rest of us are quite aware of the massive difference between the SF party we know today compared to at its very very beginnings? You on the other hand dont seem to.

maccored

derfderf wrote: »

What about 1992, 2001, 2002, 2008, and 2009?

what is your point? To be in the EU means you cant disagree with anything? Thats not a very democratic viewpoint

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

No - I'm simply surmising their position based on their actions - not on their spin. Not everyone unquestioningly takes the statements of politicians as fact - judging on their actions tend to give more solid evidence.

But you didn't seem to know what they were saying in 2008.

Being under-informed is your problem really if you wish to make serious political comment.
I think you 'surmised' before you researched tbh.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you didn't seem to know what they were saying in 2008.

Being under-informed is your problem really if you wish to make serious political comment.
I think you 'surmised' before you researched tbh.

What they are doing is considerably more weighty that whatever spin or propaganda they put out. Actions speak louder than words after all - especially when those words come from a politician.

Most people have the brain power to assess the evidence in front of them, and not just blindly accept every word that comes out of a politicians mouth as gospel.

You seem to have one hell of a blind spot when it comes to "critically appraising" statements from Sinn Féin - especially when those statements run contrary to how Sinn Féin have actually acted.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

What they are doing is considerably more weighty that whatever spin or propaganda they put out. Actions speak louder than words after all - especially when those words come from a politician.

Most people have the brain power to assess the evidence in front of them, and not just blindly accept every word that comes out of a politicians mouth as gospel.

You seem to have one hell of a blind spot when it comes to "critically appraising" statements from Sinn Féin - especially when those statements run contrary to how Sinn Féin have actually acted.

But I have watched my local MEP's in action...like actually done research on them, and during this term Mairead McGuinness comes in as my number 1 followed by Matt Carthy of SF.

What Carthy has done would come under the heading of 'actions' too, as would the work of the other SF MEP's - but of course some people only want to see the stuff that fits the narrative/spin they wish to post.

What they have done fits in perfectly with what their leader said: 'Ireland's place is in the EU...etc' because they have worked for the region and the country and most certainly don't portray an 'anti-EU' stance that I can see.

You seem blinded to this reality tbh.

derfderf

maccored wrote: »

what is your point? To be in the EU means you cant disagree with anything? Thats not a very democratic viewpoint

Of course you can disagree. To say you're on board with it, but disagree every time a question is out to you, is disingenuous.
To me it's like voting against a party, or something like ssm, but also saying you support it.

James Brown

derfderf wrote: »

Of course it could, they wanted us to copy Greece.

Was NI bailed out by the IMF too?

Snow Garden wrote: »

Fair point and Mary Lou has been superb on recent referendums around SSM and Repeal8th. Arlene and here crew are in the 1800s when it comes to those issues.

Still though, the Irish language being a red line issue? It looks petty and pretentious.

That's not the case though. The spin would have us believe it was a red line issue for the DUP. The DUP were willing to use it as a beard for dodging corruption charges and bowing to rights for gays among other things.

derfderf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Was NI bailed out by the IMF too?

Good point. I think a lot of what I've said is relevant to SF as a whole, but I didn't mean to derail.

maccored

derfderf wrote: »

Of course you can disagree. To say you're on board with it, but disagree every time a question is out to you, is disingenuous.
To me it's like voting against a party, or something like ssm, but also saying you support it.

pesky democracy

derfderf

maccored wrote: »

pesky democracy

That makes no sense. I didn't see they can't vote how they want. I said they they can't/ shouldn't vote one way and claim they support the opposite.

So your position is that Sinn Fein opposition to three EU treaties across five referendums is not an indicator that they're anti-eu, and their opposition to actually joining the eu/ecc is irrelevant now.

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As do the SDLP, Alliance, UUP and PBP.

But SF are 'the' EU party? :rolleyes:

Well PBP were pro Brexit. The charlatans.

Not to pick you out on that. But it needs to be said and they and their supporters should be reminded of that at every opportunity.

blackwhite

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Well PBP were pro Brexit. The charlatans.

Not to pick you out on that. But it needs to be said and they and their supporters should be reminded of that at every opportunity.

I'd give SF a preference long before I'd go near PBP.
Quite a nasty undercurrent to a lot of their members and representatives. Lowest of the low in many cases, and quite happy to resort to bullying, thuggery and intimidation when it suits them.

One of their local councillers in my home town is nothing more than a violent thug - as was the person he inherited the seat from. The fact that they'd even consider either of them as candidates speaks to what sort of party they are.

joe swanson

blackwhite wrote: »

I'd give SF a preference long before I'd go near PBP.
Quite a nasty undercurrent to a lot of their members and representatives. Lowest of the low in many cases, and quite happy to resort to bullying, thuggery and intimidation when it suits them.

One of their local councillers in my home town is nothing more than a violent thug - as was the person he inherited the seat from. The fact that they'd even consider either of them as candidates speaks to what sort of party they are.

The irony 🀔

blackwhite

joe swanson wrote: »

The irony ��

There's an element of it in some of the old guard in SF - but they do seem to be making an effort to have a more "respectful" younger generation.

PBP seem to be actively recruiting anyone who's confrontational, regardless of how nasty a piece of work they are.

FrancieBrady

derfderf wrote: »

That makes no sense. I didn't see they can't vote how they want. I said they they can't/ shouldn't vote one way and claim they support the opposite.

So your position is that Sinn Fein opposition to three EU treaties across five referendums is not an indicator that they're anti-eu, and their opposition to actually joining the eu/ecc is irrelevant now.

The treaty referendums weren't pro or anti EU.

Are they full and participating and active MEP's? Compare and contrast to 'actual' anti EU MEP's.

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Well PBP were pro Brexit. The charlatans.

Not to pick you out on that. But it needs to be said and they and their supporters should be reminded of that at every opportunity.

Sorry, I couldn't find a clear position on it from them. Happy to admit that was wrong.

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, I couldn't find a clear position on it from them. Happy to admit that was wrong.

No bother.

Many people don't seem to be aware of it. Has been neatly whitewashed in the intervening period.

James Brown

BonnieSituation wrote: »

No bother.

Many people don't seem to be aware of it. Has been neatly whitewashed in the intervening period.

TBF averaging 1% support only FF/FG crises deniers* seem to give them any weight.

* disclaimer, not suggesting anyone on Boards supports either Fine Gael or Fianna Fail.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

We've had one mod warning already and yet this thread continues to go the way of the last Northern Ireland thread.

If people can't discuss this topic like adults, without resort trolling, name calling, and the usual laundry list of whatabouttery, the thread will be closed and repeat offenders will be banned from the forum.

derfderf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The treaty referendums weren't pro or anti EU.

Are they full and participating and active MEP's? Compare and contrast to 'actual' anti EU MEP's.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't class them in the same catagory UKIP or anything like that. I also wouldn't say they're as anti-eu as they are anti-uk.
Actively taking part doesn't necessarily mean they're not anti-eu. Look at Le Pen's party in France.

FrancieBrady

derfderf wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't class them in the same catagory UKIP or anything like that. I also wouldn't say they're as anti-eu as they are anti-uk.
Actively taking part doesn't necessarily mean they're not anti-eu. Look at Le Pen's party in France.

So a party gives their honest position (outlined above) which is supportive of Ireland's(north and south) only place being within the EU, but spell out that they are against any further erosion of sovereignty and advocate a vote against that as they are fully entitled to do.
And when they lose those referendums they accept the democratic decision of the majority and continue to take an active and full part in the EU to the benefit of their constituents...is somehow hypocritically 'anti the whole EU'?

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The treaty referendums weren't pro or anti EU.

Are they full and participating and active MEP's? Compare and contrast to 'actual' anti EU MEP's.

The Treaty referenda most definitely were about being pro or anti EU. They were, and are, used by groups seeking to undermine our position as a (full) EU member state as they seek to follow the example of Brexiters and park us in a “half-in/half-out” situation much like the U.K. has been in for the last few decades. The only reason to do that is so they, like Brexiters, can eventually turn the “half-in/half-out” situation into a “fully out” situation.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So a party gives their honest position (outlined above) which is supportive of Ireland's(north and south) only place being within the EU, but spell out that they are against any further erosion of sovereignty and advocate a vote against that as they are fully entitled to do.
And when they lose those referendums they accept the democratic decision of the majority and continue to take an active and full part in the EU to the benefit of their constituents...is somehow hypocritically 'anti the whole EU'?

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.

FrancieBrady

View wrote: »

The Treaty referenda most definitely were about being pro or anti EU. They were, and are, used by groups seeking to undermine our position as a (full) EU member state as they seek to follow the example of Brexiters and park us in a “half-in/half-out” situation much like the U.K. has been in for the last few decades. The only reason to do that is so they, like Brexiters, can eventually turn the “half-in/half-out” situation into a “fully out” situation.

The option to 'veto' exists for every member state of the EU. And states use those veto's in many areas.
FG/FF led governments have used our veto on tax policy for instance. Are they 'anti-EU' therefore?
Seeking to veto is not necessarily an 'anti- the entire EU' stance.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

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.

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The option to 'veto' exists for every member state of the EU. And states use those veto's in many areas.
FG/FF led governments have used our veto on tax policy for instance. Are they 'anti-EU' therefore?
Seeking to veto is not necessarily an 'anti- the entire EU' stance.

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.