The national question clearly was a major priority for the ROI, every poll taken during the troubles showed the majority of people in Ireland wanted complete and immediate unilateral British withdrawal from Northern Ireland, this would have been obviously disastrous for the Republic of Ireland economically (in the short term) due to the situation in Northern Ireland at the time but people didn't care.
Sinn Fein only started contesting seats in the ROI in the late 80s and they were barely contesting any seats as they hadn't properly set up in the Republic yet.
That was then, during the troubles. Now the troubles are over, northern Ireland is a lovely place to visit or live.
I Agree completely.
We're going to need a really strong permanent government.
Okay but there's still a quarter-century gap between then and when people started voting for SF in sufficient numbers to make them a 'major party' in the Republic.
The poster I was replying to said
it's likely that the reason that SF are so high in the polls is out of respect, thanks and trust in those who fought for the Irish Republic.
It doesn't make sense to me that huge swathes of people in the Republic would start voting for SF for that reason, when they hadn't done so before, 20-25 years after those 'freedom fighters' had laid down their arms.
They didn't contest enough seats for them to do so back then, there was also a blanket ban on Sinn Fein in the Republic.
They're not voting for Sinn Fein for that reason but anyone who does vote for them clearly has no problem with their past, for example if the political wing of the UVF started contesting elections here then hardly anyone would vote for them no matter how good their economic policies were.
“Anyone who votes for them clearly has no problem with their past”. !!!
That is some generalized assumption to make , a chara.
since you took up the baton recently I haven’t seen anything as blatant as that, to be fair.
Of course there are folk whose agenda is anarchy who have no problem with ‘anything’ but most electors have an issue or two with every political party.
Folk need to be carefull not adopt the auld ‘ABU’ tactic….anyone but these, and then discover their big mistake when this lot get their legs under the table.
Get informed folks…… don’t be fooled.
I am sure this will keep popping up again...clearly SF correctly objected to some for correct reason but can't see a reason to object to them all...
FrancieBrady threadban lifted
https://images.app.goo.gl/s2oJwZ1sqra1zg4d9
You appear to be another poster who's not actually engaging in honest, serious debate.
It matters not, what paragraph, from which item of the agreement we are discussing, because that relevant paragraph from the article is part and parcel of the agreement as a whole. You cannot disregard parts of a multilateral agreement, because Sinn Fein look likely to be in govt soon.
Let's compare your analogy to some govt introduced legislation. Would your lawyer argue in your defence, that whatever section of the law you've been accused of breaking was only from a paragraph in a certain article?
Of course not. Similarly the Good Friday agreement isn't an "À la carte" agreement. As a democratic country we signed up to it, warts and all.
The journal??
Really???
😁😁 First up to shoot the messenger is JJ.
Can you dispute anything in a very comprehensive and detailed take down of Martin's and others lies?
It's factual maybe read it first?
What in it isn't accurate?
It’s pure nonsense.
The fact is they did object.
So the claim is true no matter how the journal and SFs online army try to bend and twist and deflect.
The fact that they did object to the houses yet the journal come up with some nonsense conclusion that is is misleading.
As in he was and wasn’t lying.
They can’t even come to a proper conclusion.
Give me a break.
So you see the housing crisis as a charter for bad planning? Just build build build and to hell with any consequences?
Do you still believe they objected solely to exacerbate the crisis for their own political ends, which is what Martin and others lied about.
Yes I definitely do.
They aren’t fooling me.
At least you agree they did in fact object like was claimed and the journal and SFs army tried to discredit.
Are you trying to say the only 'claim' made was 'they objected'?
That would be another lie.
Eh
The fact check says
”Did SF object to the construction of 6,000 houses”
Pretty clear what their fact check is.
Continue to twist deflect and whatever else your online army does.
Hang on do you not believe the facts in the article or is it where the article was published?
What about those FF councillors who also opposed the same planning applications for the same reason SF did? Are looking to cause problems for Martin as well or maybe could there be legitimate reasons for the objections but that doesn't suit the FFG narrative of blaming SF for everything?
Nope I’m saying the fact check is wrong.
I am not talking about FF or anything else.
My original point stands about the Journal.
But that wasn't the only 'claim' made about them. Stop being coy, you know what you are doing here.
The sheen of perfection has dimmed a lot for the Shinners recently as the public begin(at long last) to see through them.
while they kept the lid on stuff to a large extent recently , Gerry’s activity, Eoineens expenses, their car crash appearance on Prime Time, where it became obvious that some had no problem seemingly of recruiting hardened criminals as ‘advisors’.
Small stuff as what happened even here, all combine to display the kind of hard neck some , not all, have and portray their outlook as the be all and end all of ‘discussion,’ accusing folk of ‘telling lies, when the biggest liars of them all are themselves..
Hard to swallow.
So can you back up the claims made about them re: housing or not Brendi?
It's not really much of an assumption to make, according to polls taken during the troubles in the Republic including the largest poll taken in 1979, around half the population of the Republic had no problem with the IRA at all, in the largest poll taken on IRA support in the Republic in 1979 it showed 22% of people supported the IRA and a further 27% answered that they were neutral, meaning they were not in support of the IRA but they were not opposed to them either.
Not really that hard to believe now years later their voters have no problem with their past, as I said if the political wing of the UVF were running for election here they would hardly get any votes no matter how good their economic policies were.
Scroll to 1979 if you want to see the poll I was referring to.
Can you prove the fact check is wrong? I would be interested to see this. Other than all you are doing is trying to deflect from MM being found out for using misleading facts.
1979!!
That's the point if half the people of the Republic weren't opposed to the IRA at the height of their campaign in 1979, why would SF voters have such a problem with Sinn Feins past now when the IRA have been gone for a long time. I doubt anyone who votes Sinn Fein now sees it as a problem that they were the political wing of the IRA during the troubles.
The fact check looks correct, the claim is misleading, SF didn't directly object to 6000 houses being built, they objected to about half that and objected to re-zoning of lands for various reasons, some of which were sound reasons (adding flood defences).
However, it's still not a good look for a party that wants to build lots of housing as their plans will be blocked the exact same way if they get into power and they'll have absolutely 0 people to blame for it other than themselves. It's inevitable how it will all play out.
(in saying that, if they go the LA route, they'd be out of power again before any units get finished ;)).
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
