The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the British go ahead with their plan (Boris talked about it at one stage) to turn the Commonwealth into a trading bloc/alliance then it would conflict with our membership of the EU.

Agreed, and in that case my point wouldn't work due to the same citizenship issues that arise currently vis-a-vis Ireland and Brexit; however, my point was clearly not that Ireland should be a part of the Commonwealth, I just don't see a downside if some citizens want to "feel" part of it and have some stupid paper or whatever that says they can move to the UK no questions asked (as is already the case in NI).

If we just said: you can still like the queen if you want and be her "subject" if you want, and feel free to be "British" but the rest of us are going to go about our day and there is no legal claim to the Island... what's the harm?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Did you bother to read what I wrote or just skimmed it?

Yes. I found it very silly. You can't tweak such things.
We already have people living here who consider themselves French/English/Spanish and are legally recognised as such.
Creating a 'special case' for allegiance to any monarchy/crown to be worked into the constitution of a Republic, is a nonsense IMO.

Bowie wrote: »

Yes. I found it very silly. You can't tweak such things.
We already have people living here who consider themselves French/English/Spanish and are legally recognised as such.
Creating a 'special case' for allegiance to any monarchy/crown to be worked into the constitution of a Republic, is a nonsense IMO.

Constitutionally speaking, why would it need to be worked into our Constitution and do you genuinely believe (and on what basis) that a United Ireland could continue with our current Constitution. That's the part I find to be nonsense IMLO.

Bowie wrote: »

Yes. I found it very silly. You can't tweak such things.

I do find it amusing you believe this to be a serious thread based on its contents to date.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Agreed, and in that case my point wouldn't work due to the same citizenship issues that arise currently vis-a-vis Ireland and Brexit; however, my point was clearly not that Ireland should be a part of the Commonwealth, I just don't see a downside if some citizens want to "feel" part of it and have some stupid paper or whatever that says they can move to the UK no questions asked (as is already the case in NI).

If we just said: you can still like the queen if you want and be her "subject" if you want, and feel free to be "British" but the rest of us are going to go about our day and there is no legal claim to the Island... what's the harm?

Let Unionists apply to the British and work that out themselves? I don't care what organisations my neighbours are in...no skin off my nose.

Any truck officially with the monarchy or her Commonwealth is a redline for me. No problem with the other issues regarding anthems and flags.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Let Unionists apply to the British and work that out themselves? I don't care what organisations my neighbours are in...no skin off my nose.

Any truck officially with the monarchy or her Commonwealth is a redline for me. No problem with the other issues regarding anthems and flags.

That's fine - I understand that if this is actually going to happen there has to be compromise, otherwise this may as well be a crayon thread in the infrastructure forum. Personally, I couldn't care less about the monarchy or anyone who does, but I think it's probably a digression arising from a throwaway post by someone else.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's fine - I understand that if this is actually going to happen there has to be compromise, otherwise this may as well be a crayon thread in the infrastructure forum. Personally, I couldn't care less about the monarchy or anyone who does, but I think it's probably a digression arising from a throwaway post by someone else.

No problem as I said that concessions will have to be made. But Unionists need to realise they have to too. If a majority want a UI, Unionists are not in much of a bargaining position.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Constitutionally speaking, why would it need to be worked into our Constitution and do you genuinely believe (and on what basis) that a United Ireland could continue with our current Constitution. That's the part I find to be nonsense IMLO.

It's your assumption you find nonsensical. I never said it wouldn't need changing. Any constitution in any form would be ours.
Again, our Republic working in recognition of a monarchy for any of it's citizenry is a nonsense IMO.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I do find it amusing you believe this to be a serious thread based on its contents to date.

I was responding in kind.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No problem as I said that concessions will have to be made. But Unionists need to realise they have to too. If a majority want a UI, Unionists are not in much of a bargaining position.

...and as you well know from years posting in the various guises of politics fora (and as I effectively stated above) I think the SF/IRA link is a tired argument which is a total deflection from the actual problem I have with them - their politics and economic policies

Bowie wrote: »

It's your assumption you find nonsensical. I never said it wouldn't need changing. Any constitution in any form would be ours.
Again, our Republic working in recognition of a monarchy for any of it's citizenry is a nonsense IMO.

I was responding in kind.

I made a joke earlier, you misread it and you are continuing to have a meltdown over it. Take a breath. I've obviously struck a nerve with this Constitutional expert over here.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

...and as you well know from years posting in the various guises of politics fora (and as I effectively stated above) I think the SF/IRA link is a tired argument which is a total deflection from the actual problem I have with them - their politics and economic policies

Which is relevant to the current discussion in what way?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I made a joke earlier, you misread it and you are continuing to have a meltdown over it. Take a breath. I've obviously struck a nerve with this Constitutional expert over here.

On the contrary.
You made a silly post. I responded. You inferred I skimmed it, based on my conclusion. Then you dismissed your own comments as trivial based on your view of the thread. Now you are passing off the discussion you put forward as a joke I missed.
Fair enough *smiley face emoji*

Brendan Bendar

Lot of anger out there........ building up here.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I made a joke earlier, you misread it and you are continuing to have a meltdown over it. Take a breath. I've obviously struck a nerve with this Constitutional expert over here.

You struck a nerve by proposing that "republicans" should have to make any compromise other than a majority-rule socialist republic which doesn't allow any allegiance to Britain.

That is all they see, that is all they can conceive, oh, and it won't cost a penny!!!

blanch152 wrote: »

You struck a nerve by proposing that "republicans" should have to make any compromise other than a majority-rule socialist republic which doesn't allow any allegiance to Britain.

That is all they see, that is all they can conceive, oh, and it won't cost a penny!!!

Inventing stuff again.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wasn't he criticised for that by Adams?

Didn't somebody ask was he a member of SF and he isn't?

Not sure what your point is after that.

Former member of all parties have done illegal stuff, tax evasion wouldn't be a unique crime in this country would it?

I think he has been used as an example to illustrate that not all members of the IRA are members of Sinn Fein and vice versa. However, all are good republicans, no matter what crime they are convicted of.

blanch152 wrote: »

You struck a nerve by proposing that "republicans" should have to make any compromise other than a majority-rule socialist republic which doesn't allow any allegiance to Britain.

That is all they see, that is all they can conceive, oh, and it won't cost a penny!!!

To quote a pal:

blanch152 wrote: »

Will you get up the yard with your made-up quotes and embellishments of what everyone else posts.
....

blanch152 wrote: »

I think he has been used as an example to illustrate that not all members of the IRA are members of Sinn Fein and vice versa. However, all are good republicans, no matter what crime they are convicted of.

Does FG dodging a tax for 9 years until called on it by revenue, make them pine any less for the empire days?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

I think he has been used as an example to illustrate that not all members of the IRA are members of Sinn Fein and vice versa. However, all are good republicans, no matter what crime they are convicted of.

Some are good dissident republicans too blanch. Never forget that chief.

taoiseach-enda-kenny-with-abuse-survivor-mairia-cahill-following-a-meeting-at-government-buildings-dublin-over-allegations-that-she-was-interrogated-by-the-ira-after-she-claimed-she-was-abused-by-a-member-of-the-terror-group-2D345HN.jpg

taoiseach-enda-kenny-with-abuse-survivor-mairia-cahill-following-a-meeting-at-government-buildings-dublin-over-allegations-that-she-was-interrogated-by-the-ira-after-she-claimed-she-was-abused-by-a-member-of-the-terror-group-2D345HN.jpg

McMurphy wrote: »

Some are good dissident republicans too blanch. Never forget that chief.

No, I don't forget the way she has been treated on social media, subject to horrendous misogyny and lies about who she is and what she did.

Any decent person would not repeat those lies and insinuations.

Bowie wrote: »

Does FG dodging a tax for 9 years until called on it by revenue, make them pine any less for the empire days?

Are we back on the FG thread again? Why is it impossible to discuss SF without someone needlessly drawing FG into it. We had another poster try to spuriously drag Mairia Cahill into it, and this as well?

Is there so much insecurity among SF acolytes that they can't defend the actions without saying look over there?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I don't forget the way she has been treated on social media, subject to horrendous misogyny and lies about who she is and what she did.

Any decent person would not repeat those lies and insinuations.

Oh but you do though, you tried to handwave away her being a high ranking member of the same group responsible for the Omagh bomb, because "shure she only did it for a wee while - and the Shinners drove her to it".

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I don't forget the way she has been treated on social media, subject to horrendous misogyny and lies about who she is and what she did.

Any decent person would not repeat those lies and insinuations.

She was a dissident Republican,(is?). But that's okay?

Dyr

McMurphy wrote: »

Sinn Fein don't own republicanism, I thought that was a universally recognised fact.

If Gerry referred to him as a good country singer, would they own country and western music too

Can you name an organisation that SF considers "Republican"

I assumed Gerry used the term "Republican" in the same way SF uses the terms "Activist" and "Community Worker": a euphemism for the few former provies that are still on board with SF.

blanch152 wrote: »

Are we back on the FG thread again? Why is it impossible to discuss SF without someone needlessly drawing FG into it. We had another poster try to spuriously drag Mairia Cahill into it, and this as well?

Is there so much insecurity among SF acolytes that they can't defend the actions without saying look over there?

You are just after making a post about SF on the FG/FF/Green thread FFS.

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I don't forget the way she has been treated on social media, subject to horrendous misogyny and lies about who she is and what she did.

Any decent person would not repeat those lies and insinuations.

From the legend who repeats lies and insinuations about republicans that aren't 'good' in his opinion.

Face it blanch, you are like Gerry, you have your own good republicans too.

blanch152 wrote: »

Are we back on the FG thread again? Why is it impossible to discuss SF without someone needlessly drawing FG into it. We had another poster try to spuriously drag Mairia Cahill into it, and this as well?

Is there so much insecurity among SF acolytes that they can't defend the actions without saying look over there?

I'm also discussing SF in the FF/FG/Green thread with you, but I digress

Spurious? Would that not be someone pointing to her as a Republican that's okay with FG and you using her victimhood to try score points? That's pretty spurious IMO.

Ha, I say. Gufaw, if I may borrow from the Beano.
You made a claim and rather than back it up you use Maria Cahill's victimhood once again.

McMurphy

Bambi wrote: »

Can you name an organisation that SF considers "Republican"

I assumed Gerry used the term "Republican" in the same way SF uses the terms "Activist" and "Community Worker": a euphemism for the few former provies that are still on board with SF.

Republicanism does not belong to any organisation, so whether the Shinners considers any individual(s) organisation or not isnt really important.

The post made inferred because the bearded one referred to someone as "a good republican" that automatically made them a member of Sinn Fein, not so and obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense.

Republican takes many shapes and forms, it doesn't belong to Sinn Fein, everyone except the incredibly stupid and purposely contrariann know this, rocket science it ain't.