Is it just me or have SF vanished?

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.

The weren’t anti-EU - they just opposed the creation of the EU and opposed Ireland joining the EU. :rolleyes:

They never opposed the EEC - except the referendum to join it of course, and the referendum to approve the single market in 1988 :rolleyes:

Keep spinning the propaganda. I’m sure the overlords in Parnell Sq appreciate it if nothing else

Are SF not anti everything though?

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:

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?.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Funny how you decided to omit the title of the section you quoted

1. It established the European Union

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?

Unfortunately the anti Garda/ PSNI bias peculiar to Sinn Fein/ IRA has already oozed through the cracks here so lets not pretend that Sinn Fein IRA give any real support to them.

Been out yesterday and looking back over the posts just see earnest posters hopelessly trying to chase the Sinn Fein IRA crew into some kind of moral or logical showdown. A waste of time,as is evidenced here, they will slither, equivocate and simply lie as it suits. All you can do is call out the lie and move on.

Agree Maria Cahill is a compromised person who certainly was involved with Sinn Sein IRA new IRA real IRA and /or whatever they are called this week. Perhaps she should be in jail for that. When she got no justice from Gerry and the boys she went legit. Nevertheless the man who raped here should certainly be in jail. Justice is not just for nice people - or gang leaders. Endy story.

Francie and his fellow travellers will spend their days covering up and justifying their wretched history and their nights weeping and masturbating before their sick little treasure troves of shell casings, IRA posters and death cult memorabilia. These people are not amenable to change or consideration of the pointless evil of their useless campaign. Just call out the lie each time and move on.

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.

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.

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: »

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.

Your slanted opinions don’t change historic fact. Maastricht created the EU as successor to the EEC. Sinn Fein campaigned against ratification, and campaigned against membership of the EU.

Nobody on here has disputed that SF have evolved their position since then (except of course the few SF members & supporters who repeatedly lies that SF have never opposed membership)

For someone who loves to label others revisionists, you’re a bit too fond of trying to airbrush anything that doesn’t suit the SF agenda.

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

Research? When talking to the SF trollfarm?

Oh the irony. Have you got over the spinal injuries from the water charge backflip yet?

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?

Predictable reaction.

Somebody was preaching about 'truth' earlier. Seems you don't want any of it to cross your desk. Fair enough.

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

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.

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.

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:

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:

I never disagreed with you on them being originally opposed. No matter how much you want to lump all opinion on here together ('fellow travellers')

I said their position on it evolved to what it is today.

I also said, I lived through the Maastricht campaign as an adult and I have no memory of it being an 'in/out' of the European project referendum.

I have also demonstrated by way of the 'Denmark' example that opposing the terms and clauses of the treaty did not necessarily mean you opposed the whole project.

Blanket claims are no help to understanding something.