blackwhite wrote: » The poster claimed that SF have never, ever, been opposed to EU membership. The Maastricht Treaty created the EU, and the referendum on Maastricht was a vote to permit Ireland to join the EU. SF campaigning to reject Maastricht is literally SF campaigning to oppose ireland joining the EU. All of the above is strawmanning - it’s nothing to do with what’s actually being argued. You might think that SF were right to oppose Ireland joining the EU - but you don’t get to publish the lie that SF never opposed Irish membership of the EU
efanton wrote: » WE know the EU was a creation of the Maastricht treaty. It was essentially created to enable a Unified Germany to enter the existing European Economic Comunity. SF never opposed the EEC, it was essentially a fairer system for the smaller countries with each country possessing a veto vote on any legalisation or adopting that legislation. The Maastricht Treaty was the first step to eliminating that veto vote, and later when Nice and Lisbon were adopted that veto was lost. To suggest that SF were anti EU or EEC is the wrong way to put it. They were fully supportive of the EEC before hand. They had very legitimate concerns regarding our government having to cede power to unelected bureaucrats in Europe along with our Neutality.
blackwhite wrote: » 4º The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union. There’s the text that Sinn Fein opposed being included in the Constitution. It takes one hell of a warped logic to claim that opposing the above doesn’t equate to opposing Irish membership of the EU.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Maastrict wasn't about pro EU - anti EU, it was about the terms. Many countries had problems with it and it scraped past the post in Denmark and France if memory serves. Euro sceptic isn't anti Europe, in fact, in Irish history it is quite a healthy attitude IMO
blackwhite wrote: » I’ve posted the text of the constitutional amendment. It was literally about the creation of the EU, and whether or not to join Shinnerbots loves to throw around the term revisionist at anyone who questions SF. There’s some serious spinning and revisionism going on to try and pretend that SF weren’t opposed to EU membership until the late 1990s But then again - truth and facts have only ever been an inconvenience to the SF acolytes on here :rolleyes:
efanton wrote: » In all honesty you posted feck all. No link, no terms, no conditions. You are trying to argue a point that you simply cannot support.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Except the bothersome issue of the alleged's right to vindicate himself. Mary Lou is no more a judge or jury than I am. Wasn't there great talk of human rights conventions here a while ago?.
a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe
Bishop of hope wrote: » Well it seems your SF party took it on themselves to form that judgement too, admitted they judged others as well and banished them, they said so themselves. So if it's human rights you're campaigning for, maybe you're on the wrong horse.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Wow, wait a minute there horse. I know exactly where SF have come from on the EEC and the EU...they have evolved their position on it. And were pro the EU long before they were accused of bandwagoning on Brexit. I actually researched this before on here and showed pro EU membership material from the party in the mid 90's...long before Brexit was even on the horizon. Here is what Maastrict was about;https://www.ecb.europa.eu/explainers/tell-me-more/html/25_years_maastricht.en.html#:~:text=The%20Maastricht%20Treaty%2C%20officially%20known,among%20the%20peoples%20of%20Europe%E2%80%9D.&text=European%20citizenship%20was%20created%2C%20allowing,move%20freely%20between%20Member%20States I don't remember anyone campaigning on an 'in/out' platform.
1. It established the European Union
blackwhite wrote: » Funny how you decided to omit the title of the section you quoted Not like you to be selective with the truth :rolleyes: (And I never knew that the European Central Bank was the authority on European Treaties or Irish Constituonal matters - serious straw-clutching going on).
FrancieBrady wrote: » Correct me if I am wrong but was one of the core problems in the conflict/war, trust of the police force and judiciary in a human rights context? Wasn't that more or less accepted when the above was reformed to gain the trust of Nationalists?
cyllyn28 wrote: » Don't be fooled by the Pharisees.....They will make twisted arguments to justify their way of life....They don't care how about how many children died in the troubles...They're only interested is in conserving their way of life....ESB, RTE, farms, plant hire to the local council....Understand, these are people who have never worked a day in their lives....If you pulled away their money, and cleansed state agencies of their kind...they'd have nothing....nothing to offer the world.....
FrancieBrady wrote: » Do you understand what 'a further stage' means? I was in my late 20's years of age in 1992 and Maastricht was not an 'in or out' referendum. It was about whether we wanted to get into a closer relationship. I.E. if we voted No, the whole thing would not collapse.
blackwhite wrote: » Do you understand what IT ESTABLISHED THE EU means? That’s the title of the section that you quoted - but are determined to dishonesty ignore because it undermines your latest bout of revisionism Maastricht was literally to create the EU - and the referendum was on whether Ireland would ratify the treaty and become a member of the newly create EU The text of the amendment that people were asked to vote on is there in black and white - you continue your usual spinning all you want, the lies you and your fellow travellers want to peddle can’t change what was voted on If Maastricht was rejected then one of two things would happen - either the EU would not have been created, or the EU would have been created with Ireland on the outside. Opposing Ireland ratifying Maastricht is as clear-cut and instance of opposing Irish EU-membership as there could have been. But we all know that pushing SFs latest distortion of history is the only agenda you’re ever interested in on here.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I guess you have to ask the question - what would have happened had Maastrict failed...would we still have had an EC? The answer to that is Yes, I don't remember anyone saying otherwise. If I am wrong, please link to it. I have no problem accepting I am wrong. A further stage of integration and closer union is what Maastricht was about IMO. Just as I said SF's attitude to the EEC, EC and EU evolved.
paul71 wrote: » It did not evolve. It changed overnight because of Brexit. Essentially SF have a 1 world view. If its British its bad. The day the UK voted for Brexit the EU became Gods gift to SF.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Before making the blanket statement above and looking, trite and silly, why not properly research? Here's a start point.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07907180903274834?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=fips20
blackwhite wrote: » And here’s some SF election material from 1989 - 2 years prior to Maastricht Definitely not opposed to membership of the EEC then https://irishelectionliterature.com/2011/02/27/eec-means-jobs-out-imports-in-kevin-dunphy-sinn-fein-1989-european-elections-leinster/ I’m sure the mental gymnastics to spin this one will be entertaining Or maybe this one from 1989https://irishelectionliterature.com/2009/12/14/anne-speed-sinn-fein-1989-european-elections-dublin/ “Please transfer your preferences to other anti-EC candidates”
paul71 wrote: » Research? When talking to the SF trollfarm? Oh the irony. Have you got over the spinal injuries from the water charge backflip yet?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Seriously? 'Evolved'...do I need to explain what that word means?
blackwhite wrote: » Point me to where I said they haven’t evolved. More strawmanning and lies :rolleyes: Sure just keep spinning Francie - all you can do when you’d been beating a false drum I guess The SF cheerleaders are the ones who’ve peddled the lies that SF never opposed membership of the EEC or of the EU. Proven revisionists anyone who makes claims like that
FrancieBrady wrote: » Predictable reaction. Somebody was preaching about 'truth' earlier. Seems you don't want any of it to cross your desk. Fair enough.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Point me to where I said 'never'. Maastricht was not about being in or out of the European project. Masstricht was about developing ever closer union and other developments. Voting against it did not mean you wanted to leave the European project and it would not have ended the project if it had failed. Denmark rejected the treaty, they got reassurances and guarantees and voted and then ratified it. In other words they rejected the version of the EU presented to them but once it was modified they accepted it. It isn't a fair thing to say that 'Denmark opposed joining the EU' therefore. Of course if you wanted to present Denmark in a certain light you could say they were opposed to the EU, fullstop.
paul71 wrote: » Yes it is predictable. I dont read SF propaganda, for the same reason I don't read anti-vax research, Flat Earth Theory, Climate change denial or Creationalism.
blackwhite wrote: » Keep strawmanning Francie - anything at all to distract from the lies your fellow travellers have been peddling (and you saw fit to wade in to try and defend). SF were opposed to Irish membership of the EEC, and to both the establishment of and Irish membership of the EEC’s successor organisation, the EU. It was only after seeing that their anti-EEC/EU platform was deeply unpopular that they changed tack in the mid-90s. But keep up the revisionism - it’s clear to everyone what the revisionist propaganda narrative that Parnell Sq wants pushed is - mission accomplished :pac:
