bilbot79 wrote: » Presumably they hold the only real hope of reuniting the country, a romantic idea that few want to let go of
christy c wrote: » Personally I wouldn't go near them due to the nonsense they proposed around the time of the bailout. If we had taken that approach we would be in a far worse position than we are now IMO, even taking in to account our current problems.
hmmm wrote: » No unionist is going to vote for an 32 county Ireland if they think SF will be in power. We've tried the IRA approach of ethnic slaughter of unionists to force them into a United Ireland and it failed. A Marxist republic isn't going to be attractive either. The best hope for getting unionists to agree (and it has to an agreement) is through convincing them that they will be economically better off & their culture will be respected in a United Ireland, neither of which are SF strong points.
bilbot79 wrote: Today's economy seems great because millennials are spending deposit money on coffee and burgers. The bottom will soon fall out of that and we may wish we'd gone Icelandic
bilbot79 wrote: » Theres no way of knowing that. There was definitely an argument at the time for burning bondholders and only Gerry Adams was advocating it. We would definitely have had the 'nuclear winter's of job losses etc that Brian Lenihan predicted but lots of problems would have been solved.
Topgear on Dave wrote: » Whataboutery much?
bilbot79 wrote: » 100% agree. But we're it not for SF the moderate Irish parties would probably just drop the idea of a United ireland
road_high wrote: » I’ve no idea why anyone in the south would vote SF. In the north they have a clearly defined purpose and role. Unless you’re a life long dole head then they offer absolutely nothing and even then given their Zaney “economics” such people are better off under FG FF regimes which have broadly offered economic stability
christy c wrote: » That's the usual "look over there" response when SF's economic policies are mentioned. What's your view on them leaving aside your views on FF & FG? Personally I wouldn't go near them due to the nonsense they proposed around the time of the bailout. If we had taken that approach we would be in a far worse position than we are now IMO, even taking in to account our current problems.
christy c wrote: » True, there's no way of knowing what would have happened, we can only make reasonable assumptions based on what we were told they would do. I don't remember Gerry saying his proposals would lead to any nuclear winter of job losses or anything of the sort, maybe I missed that but I do remember soundbites like "a fairer way".
bilbot79 wrote: » Gerry said burn the bondholders, Lenihan said no because he refused to impose a nuclear winter of job losses on the country..cue bailout
bilbot79 wrote: » Theres no way of knowing that. There was definitely an argument at the time for burning bondholders and only Gerry Adams was advocating it. We would definitely have had the 'nuclear winter's of job losses etc that Brian Lenihan predicted but lots of problems would have been solved. Today's economy seems great because millennials are spending deposit money on coffee and burgers. The bottom will soon fall out of that and we may wish we'd gone Icelandic
Wtf ? wrote: » They were voted into Stormont, They pulled out ?, They have seats in House of Commons, They don't attend (But collect expenses) They could be in London now downing the DUP and helping the no border brexit thing but they aint. They talk the talk etc. Why bother with them really. Flushing your ballot paper down the toilet would be better methinks. They are a wasted vote
Good loser wrote: » If they're going to abstain from Westminster why don't they just not put up candidates? Of course that would be logical - not something they major in.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Because by not putting up candidates they don't give a voice to the nationalist community who show their disdain for the UK's position in Ireland by voting for abstentionist candidates. There is nothing stopping people in those constituencies voting for any number of of other parties. But they choose to vote for an abstentionist party. Who have had the same policy for over 100 years.
For 100 years now, Irish republicans have refused to validate British sovereignty over the island of Ireland by sitting in the parliament of Westminster. As an abstentionist Sinn F MP, I can provide an Irish republican perspective on this issue. To the British public, it may seem strange to stand for election to an institution and then refuse to participate in that institution. For British citizens with a progressive world view, and those with an anti-Brexit disposition, it might appear logical to take these seats, and for British MPs that is entirely logical – because the Westminster parliament is the democratic institution that makes decisions on behalf of the British people. In recent weeks, in the light of Brexit negotiations and the Conservatives’ fragile majority propped up by the Democratic Unionist party, there have been calls from various quarters for Sinn F MPs to abandon the Irish republican principle of abstentionism and take part in the British parliament. A debate has opened up around this principle, particularly for a British audience which may not be aware of its political significance in Ireland. Westminster does not now act – and never has acted – other than in the interests of Britain. As our difficult and troubled history tells us, the interests of the Irish people have rarely been the concern of the British government or parliament. In fact, these institutions have often acted against the interests of the Irish people – not just in the past, but as we are seeing now, through the efforts to drag us out of Europe against the democratically expressed wishes of the people in the north of Ireland. The crucial point here is that we are not British MPs. We are Irish MPs and we believe the interests of the Irish people can only be served by democratic institutions on the island of Ireland. Sinn F goes to the electorate seeking a mandate for that position. We are elected as MPs by people who vote for Sinn F not to take seats at Westminster. As MPs, therefore, we take no part in the Westminster parliament but in every other way we provide active representation for our constituents. We engage with British political parties, civic society and the Irish diaspora in Britain. We challenge the British government directly in our meetings with them. We lobby on constituents’ issues, and on all the political matters that affect the Irish people. We do all of this without drawing a salary from Westminster, or by taking our seats in the British parliament.Fundamentally, we believe that Britain and its political institutions should have no part in governing the people of Ireland. Why then, as Irish citizens, would we want to make decisions on behalf of the people of Britain? The nature of the political and economic implications of British rule in Ireland has changed during this century, but the desire of Irish people to determine our own fortunes has not wilted. The view of Westminster from Belfast is profoundly different to the view from Brighton or Bradford. Many Irish citizens in the north of Ireland view Westminster as a parliament that facilitated and supported 50 years of anti-Irish apartheid and supremacist sectarian rule in their towns and villages. They see a parliament that excused and endorsed the murder of Irish citizens by the British state during a period of conflict. They see Westminster as the parliament that has denied them basic economic and political sovereignty, and decimated public services and social protections for the most vulnerable citizens. Westminster is not their parliament, and never will be. That was demonstrated most cynically when, in 1981, the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone elected the hunger striker Bobby Sands as their MP. Rather than recognise him as a political prisoner (how much more political can you get?), the Westminster parliament voted to stop this happening again. The lesson for the electorate of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and the Irish people more widely, was clear: if we don’t like who you elect, we will change the rules to prevent you doing this. The Irish people now see a parliament that runs roughshod over the integrity of their democratically expressed decision by enforcing Brexit upon them, threatening disruption to their border communities, and to their most basic rights and livelihoods. The people of Ireland will not find a solution to Brexit in the parliament that is imposing it. On Brexit, Irish people in the north look to Sinn F, to the Irish government, the Irish parliament and to Europe to defend their interests. Westminster cannot provide the solutions when Westminster is the problem. Its role in Ireland has never been positive. Numerically, culturally and politically, the people of Ireland are inconsequential to Britain’s ambitions. Westminster has always turned its back on the people of Ireland, so the people have turned their backs resolutely on the British parliament. This year republicans and progressives in Ireland celebrate the election of the first female MP to the British parliament 100 years ago. Her name was Constance Markievicz. She never sat in the Westminster parliament. She was an Irish republican, a feminist, a socialist, and a member of Sinn F elected on an abstentionist mandate – rejecting Britain’s claim to sovereignty over Ireland. One hundred years later I am proud to follow in the footsteps of radical pioneers such as Markievicz.In 2017, I and other MPs were elected on a mandate to actively abstain from Westminster. We intend to honour that mandate.
RainNeverBow wrote: » To vote out corruption and for progress. Simple enough really
Seth Brundle wrote: » Looking at the current government, how have they been corrupt? What do you mean by progress?
Matt Barrett wrote: » There's no proven corruption currently, a little inappropriate behaviour and dinners is all. Some 'looking after our own' and the like.
Matt Barrett wrote: » As regards progress I would cite any of the worsening societal crises that break records. Or if we are talking moving forward with projects or new builds, I'd cite the childrens hospital with both a health minister and finance minister claiming they knew nothing about any over spend, well an over spend but not the bigger figure.
Matt Barrett wrote: » But still 'the others would be worse' and so on.
Seth Brundle wrote: » Are you the official spokesperson for RainNeverBow? So no corruption then :rolleyes: I'd put that down to the incompetence provided by the civil servants rather than political incompetence but I doubt we'll ever know the full facts. Nonetheless I don't see it changing with a different government, SF or otherwise. Are you trying to quote something that I didn't say?
JPCN1 wrote: » Same type of Venezuelan progress I'd imagine.
