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

https://www.rte.ie/amp/950483/?__twitter_impression=true

I see the Senator has been fulsome in her apology to the Stack family, and that the leader of Sinn Fein has also apologised. If they are sincere, that might be the end of it. However, it is over to Austin Stack to see if the apology is accepted and whether there are any weasel words in it.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/amp/950483/?__twitter_impression=true

I see the Senator has been fulsome in her apology to the Stack family, and that the leader of Sinn Fein has also apologised. If they are sincere, that might be the end of it. However, it is over to Austin Stack to see if the apology is accepted and whether there are any weasel words in it.

In all fairness his acceptance or not of it dissent change the sincerity or not of it either ways.

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/amp/950483/?__twitter_impression=true

I see the Senator has been fulsome in her apology to the Stack family, and that the leader of Sinn Fein has also apologised. If they are sincere, that might be the end of it. However, it is over to Austin Stack to see if the apology is accepted and whether there are any weasel words in it.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/stack-family-still-waiting-for-personal-apology-after-senators-sadist-tweet-36782822.html

It seems the apology was for show and hasn't been followed through with a personal apology to the Stacks. Is it a case of her apologising for the hurt she caused and the upset but not apologising for the label she placed on Stack?

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/stack-family-still-waiting-for-personal-apology-after-senators-sadist-tweet-36782822.html

It seems the apology was for show and hasn't been followed through with a personal apology to the Stacks. Is it a case of her apologising for the hurt she caused and the upset but not apologising for the label she placed on Stack?

She retweeted someone else's 'label'.

Should Austin not be going after them? :rolleyes:

The indo need to make up their minds.

This was the headline from the 27th of March....

You don't need me to explain to you that the indo are rehashing a story, any story will do, at Shinner bashing blanch, do you?

And of course, like a moth to a fire light, you zoned in on it.

Brendan Bendar

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The indo need to make up their minds.

This was the headline from the 27th of March....

You don't need me to explain to you that the indo are rehashing a story, any story will do, at Shinner bashing blanch, do you?

And of course, like a moth to a fire light, you zoned in on it.

Lad is entitled to display his views ,Dogs.

Not everyone like yourself thinks the Shinners can do no wrong.

Letting yourself down, mate.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Lad is entitled to display his views ,Dogs.

Indeed he is. Absolutely. (Who's trying to stop him though

) even if some of his views are fundamentally wrong.

Not everyone like yourself thinks the Shinners can do no wrong.

The shinners can do lots wrong, so much so that looking for measly rehashed non story's like the indos should be rightly laughed at.

First they run a story about your one making a public apology to the family, (some infer that the apology wouldn't be sincere unless the stack family accept it. Lol)
Then they run a story that about how she hasn't apologised to the family (in person) a paper never refuses ink as they say.

Letting yourself down, mate.

I'm ok with that.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Lad is entitled to display his views ,Dogs.

Not everyone like yourself thinks the Shinners can do no wrong.

Letting yourself down, mate.

Thing is, it isn't his view. It is a manufactured story to conform to his view.

Who said she was going to go to the Stacks personally anyway?
Austin Stack doesn't strike me as a reasonable man willing to accept an apology.

He had no problem attacking the headstone of a recently dead father and husband and has never saw fit to apologise for his intemperate outburst.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thing is, it isn't his view. It is a manufactured story to conform to his view.

Who said she was going to go to the Stacks personally anyway?
Austin Stack doesn't strike me as a reasonable man willing to accept an apology.

People who defend Sinn Fein don't really get it, do they?

Why would Austin Stack be a reasonable man, given the lies he was told for years and when some of the truth was finally revealed, most was kept hidden and Sinn Fein keep insulting his father's memory? Seriously?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He had no problem attacking the headstone of a recently dead father and husband and has never saw fit to apologise for his intemperate outburst.

Was that some innocent man?

blanch152 wrote: »

People who defend Sinn Fein don't really get it, do they?

Why would Austin Stack be a reasonable man, given the lies he was told for years and when some of the truth was finally revealed, most was kept hidden and Sinn Fein keep insulting his father's memory? Seriously?

I think she was right to apologise for not fully reading the tweet she retweeted.
Of course it hurt.

She has done so.
Glad you agree he doesn't come across as reasonable.

I am sure those who alleged they were brutalised by the heavy gang and prison authorities feel similar about the truth. But some people think all that was fine if it happened and don't want it inquired into. Under the carpet it will go like so much in Ireland.
At least the IRA did eventually say what happened. (and they have no intention and never had of handing over anybody until there is a full and transparent truth process, which will also reveal what went on in the gardai and Prison Service before you waste time asking them or expecting them to.)

Was that some innocent man?

No suprise that you think the family of a SF man is not due any peace to grieve.
I doubt the hissy fit about his grave affected Martin. I'm sure Mr Stack didn't realise that. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No suprise that you think the family of a SF man is not due any peace to grieve.
I doubt the hissy fit about his grave affected Martin. I'm sure Mr Stack didn't realise that. :rolleyes:

You said he attacked the headstone:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He had no problem attacking the headstone of a recently dead father and husband and has never saw fit to apologise for his intemperate outburst.

I haven't seen any evidence of him attacking the headstone or defacing it or damaging it. I have seen this:

http://www.thejournal.ie/martin-mcguinness-headstone-3345470-Apr2017/

It is fair comment. Martin McGuinness was a convicted terrorist and self-admitted member of the IRA. That is known and proven truth.

Really, that is "attacking the headstone"?

blanch152 wrote: »

You said he attacked the headstone:

I haven't seen any evidence of him attacking the headstone or defacing it or damaging it. I have seen this:

http://www.thejournal.ie/martin-mcguinness-headstone-3345470-Apr2017/

It is fair comment. Martin McGuinness was a convicted terrorist and self-admitted member of the IRA. That is known and proven truth.

Really, that is "attacking the headstone"?

Really, do we need to do this?

'Criticize or oppose fiercely and publicly.'

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/attack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Really, do we need to do this?

'Criticize or oppose fiercely and publicly.'

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/attack

You know, Martin McGuinness was involved in the organisation that killed his father, and you are criticising him for not liking the wording on the headstone.

Amazing.

blanch152 wrote: »

You know, Martin McGuinness was involved in the organisation that killed his father, and you are criticising him for not liking the wording on the headstone.

Amazing.

He had loads of opportunities to attack the idea that the IRA style themselves as Óglaigh na hÉireann but he chose the erection of a gravestone.

Did Martin McGuinness forgive? Did he put aside grievances and go beyond what might be expected of him?

He was a bigger man than Stack was in this context in fairness. There is a time and a place.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He had loads of opportunities to attack the idea that the IRA style themselves as Óglaigh na hÉireann but he chose the erection of a gravestone.

Did Martin McGuinness forgive? Did he put aside grievances and go beyond what might be expected of him?

He was a bigger man than Stack was in this context in fairness. There is a time and a place.

There was nothing for McGuinness to forgive.

There is an awful lot he needs to be forgiven for.

blanch152 wrote: »

There was nothing for McGuinness to forgive.

There is an awful lot he needs to be forgiven for.

Ok.

We'll leave that one there.

Chips Lovell

This thread is about Sinn Fein's stance on an Irish language act in Northern Ireland. Its gone waaaay off-topic and descended into the usual SF-related sniping between the usual suspects.

The forum is for debate, not bickering. If you're looking for trench warfare, look elsewhere.

I've changed the thread title to make clear what this thread is about.

Thanks.

Given that it has emerged that the DUP have lied about what they agreed, the question asked in the OP has been answered anyway.

Did Sinn Fein score an own goal from the DUP reneging on something they had agreed to, and wanted to be introduced by all the other major party's in the north?

Surely the answer is a big hefty resounding no.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Given that it has emerged that the DUP have lied about what they agreed, the question asked in the OP has been answered anyway.

Did Sinn Fein score an own goal from the DUP reneging on something they had agreed to, and wanted to be introduced by all the other major party's in the north?

Surely the answer is a big hefty resounding no.

Like so many things in politics, it all depends on your perspective.

If you take the view that Sinn Fein should hurl from the ditch and pontificate from the high moral ground, without actually having to make any decisions, then there wasn't an own goal.

If you take the view that it is better for Sinn Fein to actually be in government and to take part in the devolved government, be able to have a say on Brexit from a position of authority, and take the image of power back from the DUP in Westminister, then yes, it was an own goal.

Fionn1952

So bending over and telling the DUP they can do whatever they like, renege on any promises they make, exhibit any and all corruption they want.....and SF will still sit in government with them with no consequences....THAT takes the image of power back from the DUP?!

blanch152 wrote: »

Like so many things in politics, it all depends on your perspective.

If you take the view that Sinn Fein should hurl from the ditch and pontificate from the high moral ground, without actually having to make any decisions, then there wasn't an own goal.

If you take the view that it is better for Sinn Fein to actually be in government and to take part in the devolved government, be able to have a say on Brexit from a position of authority, and take the image of power back from the DUP in Westminister, then yes, it was an own goal.

Funny that you would mention perspective, because you seem to have missed a rather important aspect which i mentioned rather specifically in the post you quoted.

and wanted to be introduced by all the other major party's in the north?

What you're suggesting is that all other party's (not just Sinn Fein) should suck it up, and let one other party have the final say in things.

That is not how democracy works.

I can only imagine the outrage from you if all the other party's were forced to reluctantly go along with something only Sinn Fein wanted/didn't want "for the greater good".

The days of the DUP riding roughshod over everyone else's wishes are over, and I would have expected anyone that supports fairness and democracy to support that.

Especially constitutional nationalists.

But then again, perspective.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Funny that you would mention perspective, because you seem to have missed a rather important aspect which i mentioned rather specifically in the post you quoted.

What you're suggesting is that all other party's (not just Sinn Fein) should suck it up, and let one other party have the final say in things.

That is not how democracy works.

I can only imagine the outrage from you if all the other party's were forced to reluctantly go along with something only Sinn Fein wanted/didn't want "for the greater good".

The days of the DUP riding roughshod over everyone else's wishes are over, and I would have expected anyone that supports fairness and democracy to support that.

Especially constitutional nationalists.

But then again, perspective.

None of that addresses the points I made. If your number one objective is to stop Brexit or lessen the effects, then you pay whatever price necessary to get an Executive in place that gives you the authority to speak on the issue. Otherwise, you continue to sit on your hands, hurling from the ditch and pontificating from the high moral ground - but nobody will listen to you.

LuckyLloyd

blanch152 wrote: »

Like so many things in politics, it all depends on your perspective.

If you take the view that Sinn Fein should hurl from the ditch and pontificate from the high moral ground, without actually having to make any decisions, then there wasn't an own goal.

If you take the view that it is better for Sinn Fein to actually be in government and to take part in the devolved government, be able to have a say on Brexit from a position of authority, and take the image of power back from the DUP in Westminister, then yes, it was an own goal.

That's a ridiculous post in so many ways. This is so much simpler than 'hurling from the ditch', 'pontificating', 'not making decisions', 'having a say on Brexit from a position of authority' and whatever else you're having. There was an agreement. The agreement was reneged upon. What else can you do but hold the reneging party to account?

In anycase, SF's interests on Brexit (and the interests of all parties in the Dail) are being adequately represented by the government currently. In that sense there is no loss being suffered currently. The 'image of power' thing - again, it is excellent from SF's perspective for the DUP to be where they are on Brexit as they will fully own all of the negative consequences that are coming. Moreover, if you consider SF's ultimate objective - having the devolved institutions currently not in session due to DUP intransigence is a fine situation for SF given the focus on those institutions and the concept of the Northern Statelet.

Ultimately, your post is desperately reaching, twisting and contorting to see the negatives for SF. It's more hoping and wishing than attempting to analyse anything.

blanch152 wrote: »

None of that addresses the points I made. If your number one objective is to stop Brexit or lessen the effects, then you pay whatever price necessary to get an Executive in place that gives you the authority to speak on the issue. Otherwise, you continue to sit on your hands, hurling from the ditch and pontificating from the high moral ground - but nobody will listen to you.

David Davis seems to think they are leading the Irish government on Brexit.

Two agreements on an ILA have now been welched on. One by the British Government at St Andrew's and one at the talks to get the institutions up and running again.

For a constitutional nationalist to blame SF for the absence of an executive is incredible tbh.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

David Davis seems to think they are leading the Irish government on Brexit.

Two agreements on an ILA have now been welched on. One by the British Government at St Andrew's and one at the talks to get the institutions up and running again.

For a constitutional nationalist to blame SF for the absence of an executive is incredible tbh.

I am not blaming SF for the absence of an executive, there are plenty of people up there at fault, in their typical blunt approach.

However, what I am saying is that there is an opportunity for Sinn Fein to drop their demands, get the Assembly up and running, and bring a domestic Northern Ireland focus to what is happening with Brexit. Unfortunately, an ILA has greater importance to them than Brexit.

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not blaming SF for the absence of an executive, there are plenty of people up there at fault, in their typical blunt approach.

However, what I am saying is that there is an opportunity for Sinn Fein to drop their demands, get the Assembly up and running, and bring a domestic Northern Ireland focus to what is happening with Brexit. Unfortunately, an ILA has greater importance to them than Brexit.

How about, the DUP dropping their blockades to equality in a number of key areas?

Problem solved overnight and northern Ireland is a better place for all.

Would that not be an inherently more natural and comfortable stance for a constitutional nationalist to have?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How about, the DUP dropping their blockades to equality in a number of key areas?

Problem solved overnight and northern Ireland is a better place for all.

Would that not be an inherently more natural and comfortable stance for a constitutional nationalist to have?

The DUP have Westminister, don't need the Assembly, they are happy that there is no domestic limelight shining on their Brexit policies, why would they want to restore the Assembly? There is nothing to be gained from them, so why would I waste my time?

On the other hand, there is a lot to be gained by nationalists, particularly in relation to Brexit, the most important issue for Northern Ireland since the GFA. Appealing to that logic of self-interest seems to be the correct option.

blanch152 wrote: »

The DUP have Westminister, don't need the Assembly, they are happy that there is no domestic limelight shining on their Brexit policies, why would they want to restore the Assembly? There is nothing to be gained from them, so why would I waste my time?

On the other hand, there is a lot to be gained by nationalists, particularly in relation to Brexit, the most important issue for Northern Ireland since the GFA. Appealing to that logic of self-interest seems to be the correct option.

But SF are happy with the all island approach to Brexit, just like you say the DUP are happy in Westminster.