jm08 wrote: » 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 wrote: » 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.
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.
View wrote: » 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.
blanch152 wrote: » 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.
jm08 wrote: » And does any of those parties want to abolish the EU?
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.
blanch152 wrote: » 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."
blanch152 wrote: » 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."
jm08 wrote: » 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.
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.
jm08 wrote: » 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.
View wrote: » No. That’s not correct. The Oireachtas is explicitly given the duty to ratify international treaties in the Constitution.
jm08 wrote: » 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.
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.
View wrote: » I refer you to the last line of YOUR post from circa 13:07. It states abolish the Maastricht Treaty.
blanch152 wrote: » How you manage to turn that into FG being anti-EU is bizarre, to say the least.
I wouldn't consider them anti-EU either.
blanch152 wrote: » 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.
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.
blanch152 wrote: » 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."
jm08 wrote: » Bearing in mind that the DUP are definately anti-EU, wouldn't Sinn Fein be the opposite?
ilkhanid wrote: » 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).
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.
blanch152 wrote: » 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.
ilkhanid wrote: » 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.
