Nobotty wrote: » 'British Sinn Féin' thats a good one Thats been going on for about a month or so,I just laugh Like I do at most thingshttps://twitter.com/1rorycowan/status/1329126423957737473?s=19
Very different Zoos. One a top attraction with approved facilities with range of wider educational aspects. The other outdated with poor access and stuck in past
Don’t let the truth get in the way of a cheap SDLP jibe SF been campaigning for investment in the zoo and surrounding area for years the zoo’s been allowed to deteriorate to the point of ruin
blanch152 wrote: » Oh dear, oh dear, that is just wrong. There will be two referenda, you are referencing the second one.
Nobotty wrote: » The EU would pay a lot of the UI costs,just like they did for UG Its a precedent Also Ireland would no longer be a net contributer for probably a few years IMO untill the drag of NI from reunification on the whole economy was leveled
FrancieBrady wrote: » Having been in both zoos several times I'd agree with these comments. As usual with a 'SF outrage' story there may be some nuance that is being steadfastly ignored. As steadfastly ignored as the fact; that in all parties variances in opinion exist from one councillor to another.
jh79 wrote: » The link i gave says British SF want to turn it into a Tayto Park because the "display of caged animals in enclosures is wrong and unethical” and “the current treatment of animals for entertainment purposes should have no place in modern Belfast”. So is Dublin Zoo unethical or not?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I'd imagine that councillor thinks it is. There is after all many opinions on Zoos and ethics as there is around circuses. Had a google search for a Sinn Fein policy on it and couldn't find one. Checked other parties (FF and FG) and couldn't find a party policy either.
jh79 wrote: » Had a look at his twitter, is it the SF theory that the subvention is closer to 3bn rather than 6bn because the UK would have to continue to pay pensions even though legally they are under to obligation to do so?
jh79 wrote: » "This council agrees to an ambitious plan to transform Belfast Zoo into a world-class visitor attraction by 2025. The display of caged animals in enclosures is wrong and unethical, it doesn't mirror in any way their natural habitat and has no place in modern society."Furthermore the council will retain an on-site animal conservation programme for indigenous animals. The five years will also enable the council to consult with trade unions, staff and residents of the city through direct engagement and consultation.https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/sinn-fein-hits-out-at-silly-reaction-to-belfast-zoo-motion-38925171.html So do Irish SF intend to follow British SF lead ?
"This was never about closing the zoo, it was about properly investing in the site to ensure we are in keeping with a modern and ethical approach to the city and the animals, and doesn't burden the rate payer."
blanch152 wrote: » Unbelievable, if only the Yorkshire Ripper had you as his counsel, he would have been acquitted.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What 'lead'? Here is the councillor defending his motion and the 'outrage' around it. I would hope all parties would think that way. Belfast Zoo was severely run down and was very much a zoo with an old school ethos because of lack of investment. You would know that if you had been to both Dublin and Belfast Zoos, the differences are stark tbh. Or certainly were when I went.
FrancieBrady wrote: » A UI is a significant advantage to the the rest of our EU partners now. It s also a significant advantage to the UK, who have been severely hampered in what they want to do by having to accommodate a disastrous (all round at this stage) partition of Ireland.
FrancieBrady wrote: » My point about the moderates is that they will 'accept' the outcome, not that they will necessarily vote for it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why would I waste my time trying to convince somebody who is 'entirely apathetic'? I didn't come on here to campaign for a UI or to defend the idea. Good lad you are entirely apathetic so you won't mind what happens so.
IAmTheReign wrote: » No you specifically said that it will be belligerent unionists and partitionists campaigning against it. This is false, unionists of all persuasions would likely campaign against it.
So you're saying that you're not actively trying to talk up the idea of a UI? Seems from reading your posts on here all you do is talk up the idea. The reason people like you (who actively want a UI) need to convince people like me (people who aren't really bothered either way) is because unless people like me ARE convinced it's a good idea they'll vote against it. That's what rational thinking people do, they choose to maintain the status quo unless there's a compelling reason otherwise. The fact that you spend so much time on here supporting the idea of a UI, and yet think explaining why it's a good idea is a waste of time speaks volumes. Do you not want people to vote for it?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I would hope all parties would think that way. Belfast Zoo was severely run down and was very much a zoo with an old school ethos because of lack of investment. You would know that if you had been to both Dublin and Belfast Zoos, the differences are stark tbh. Or certainly were when I went.
a very cool kid wrote: » Either way the South are still paying extra, the EU won't foot the higher social welfare bill for example. We'll be paying marginal rates of 60% for a population where half of them won't want to be part of the nation in general. Furthermore I can't see the EU funding this beyond some token infrastructure. West Germany have always been huge net contributors to the EC/EU any money they got was just their own taxes.
jh79 wrote: » I'll take your word for it about Belfast zoo but it's irrelevant anyways. British SF want only indigenous animals in Belfast zoo. Their motion had nothing to do with the condition of the zoo it was about the whole concept of a zoo and it's place in a modern world.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » not forgetting the massive number of people who work for the government up there. they have as many civil servants as we do for a population half the size.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I doubt I said that, because that would be a stupid thing to say. If I did, let me clarify, I am fascinated to see who partitionists will have to ally with to campaign against a UI. Fascinated to see who will stand up politically to represent them. I believe moderate Unionists will approach the debate in a moderate way and will not get into the belligerent aspects of the debate in order to win it and I don't expect them to campaign for a UI. They will of course attempt to maintain the union. People 'like you' if you are genuinely 'not bothered either way' (I suspect you are very much 'bothered' if you are in here) are not likely to bother to vote. As I said, not my job to convince you and I can assure I am not 'bothered' to do it either. That ok?
IAmTheReign wrote: » I'm assuming 'I suspect you are very much 'bothered' if you are in here' is an implication that I am a partitionist or unionist? If not I'd appreciate you explaining what exactly it is you are implying. If it is you'd be very much wrong. Believe it or not people can have an interest in politics and still have a neutral stance on issues. The fact is most elections and referendums are decided by which side wins the 'I don't knows' in the run up to the vote. As I explained more than once now if a referendum on a UI is called I will look at the arguments for and against it and vote whichever way makes sense. As will the vast majority of people. You're perfectly entitled to not bother trying to convince people, personally I am fascinated to see what exactly the arguments for a UI are if a referendum is called, and what the plan is after the referendum is passed. What are the positive social and economic benefits to everyone involved? How will the political landscape be restructured to accommodate the addition of a second state? What happens to Stormont? How do we address income inequality on both sides of the border? What do we do with the excess of civil servants and who pays their pension? How do we integrate the PSNI, NHS and school systems?
FrancieBrady wrote: » If somebody is truly 'not bothered either way' but is on a thread challenging somebody to convince them, and then goes on to claim they are 'fascinated to see x, y, and z,' then I am sorry, the 'I'm not bothered' is a contradiction. You clearly are 'bothered' 'fascinated' and interested. Other than that I have no observations to make on what you believe.
joeguevara wrote: » I have always grown up as a republican and definitely in favour of a United Ireland. But I wouldn't vote in favour of it blindly. It would be dependent on how well it could be integrated, the cost of it and whether it would further increase tensions or not. Another huge concern would be how it would change the political landscape.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I wouldn't vote 'blindly' in any election/referendum. I wouldn't expect any responsible citizen to do it either.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why would it have an effect on the GFA? There have been many arrests since the GFA.
FrancieBrady wrote: » On which there are many opinions. Failing to find any party with a defined policy on zoo's and circuses here, if anyone knows of one, please link. Found this while searching for party policies, UUP and Alliance in 2015 agreed with SF which suggests the Zoo is run down and lacking in investment.https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/call-for-belfast-zoo-to-close-down-what-do-you-think-34186779.html After my own visits I would have to say that McGimpsey nailed it with 'A Victorian peep show' experience. It would have been 2013 or 14 when I last was there though.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
