When/why did SF become so pro EU ?

maccored · 06-11-2019 12:49pm

blackwhite wrote: »

In your rush to blindly defend all things SF, you are the one who made the idiotic claim that SF have "always been pro-EU".

Instead of being man enough to admit that you made a mistake and that the claim isn't true, you've doubled down on it and are now trying to claim that the word "always" doesn't actually mean always :pac:

I don't think it's other people who are having trouble getting their head around facts TBH. Maybe start with here https://www.dictionary.com/browse/always?s=t and see what "always" means

FTA69 has given a good summary of the actual facts. SF were completely anti-EU through the 70s and 80s, but then softened their stance through the 90s and 00s.

Pity you don't like the facts when they prove you posted BS in your original claim

BS eh? Bull**** is thinking SF of 40 years ago are the same party as now. any understanding of their advancement as a political party would have saved you that misunderstanding. If you dont know what you are arguing about, that is not my problem. Read your history. SF changed in 1986 and changed again pre peace process. For the past 20 years they have been supportive, though critical of, the EU.

It is NOT, as I already stated, a new phenomena. Do you need that written out in big letters by any chance?

maccored · 06-11-2019 12:52pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, if you had said that in the first place things mightn't have kicked off the way they did. To recollect, here is the fourth post of the thread when you said that SF have always been pro-EU:

Quite clearly, this is very different to your latest post. However, what remains concerning is that despite the many clarifications and links provided across the thread, you are still denying the facts.

I linked to the 1989 Sinn Fein EU Election manifesto which said that "SF wants a negotiated withdrawal from the EC while keeping close economic and trading links", which any Tory in England would stand by today.

Yet, you are saying that Sinn Fein changed in the 1980s, which clearly is false as my link shows.

Sinn Fein were and are against the European project. In that way, they are closer to the UK Tories than any other political party here.

As I jsut posted - if you dont understand northern politics and how SF have changed over the years (particularly since Adams took the reins) then this really isnt a subject you should be blathering on about. I made the mistake of assuming you DID know that SF in 1970 is nothing like SF in 1998, but then again, I was sorely mistaken on that.

The point still remains - they havent changed this outlook in the past 20 years no matter how much you harp on.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 06-11-2019 12:55pm

blackwhite wrote: »

FTA69 has given a good summary of the actual facts. SF were completely anti-EU through the 70s and 80s, but then softened their stance through the 90s and 00s.

And yet its stance has still not softened to the point where it can be called "pro-EU."

"Ever closer union" is an official EU ambition shared by those who legitimately call themselves pro-EU. But that ambition has never been endorsed by Sinn Fein, which has spent its entire history as a nationalist, separatist organization.

Setting aside semantic games about whether Sinn Fein is "anti-EU," "Euroskeptic," or "Euro-critical," the one thing it clearly isn't is pro-EU.

Only when Sinn Fein endorses the goal of "ever closer union," and begins supporting EU treaties to that effect, can it be described as pro-EU.

FTA69 · 06-11-2019 12:57pm

In fairness I did say “more pro-EU” which I admit is vague enough but their stance has softened.

The EU can go and whistle anyway, horrible institution run by horrible people.

FrancieBrady · 06-11-2019 1:01pm

FTA69 wrote: »

In fairness I did say “more pro-EU”

A few lads around here don't get nuances like that, if words were snow they'd suffer from snow-blindness, I suppose you'd call it.

blackwhite · 06-11-2019 1:08pm

maccored wrote: »

BS eh? Bull**** is thinking SF of 40 years ago are the same party as now. any understanding of their advancement as a political party would have saved you that misunderstanding. If you dont know what you are arguing about, that is not my problem. Read your history. SF changed in 1986 and changed again pre peace process. For the past 20 years they have been supportive, though critical of, the EU.

It is NOT, as I already stated, a new phenomena. Do you need that written out in big letters by any chance?

You made the claim that they have "always been pro-EU"

Are you trying to invent a new definition of the word always? You made the claim - but now seem to be intent on pretending you posted something else entirely

It's not that big a deal to admit you were wrong in your original claim - if you are really so insecure in yourself that you cannot even do that, and instead need to resort to repeatedly abusing anyone who points out your mistake then that's your own problem

blanch152 · 06-11-2019 1:08pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A few lads around here don't get nuances like that, if words were snow they'd suffer from snow-blindness, I suppose you'd call it.

It seems that we understood "always pro-EU" better than most.

ancapailldorcha · 06-11-2019 1:10pm

FTA69 wrote: »

Of course they’re lying, all politicians are liars essentially.

Would you give Boris Johnson or Donald Trump a pass on the same basis?

blackwhite · 06-11-2019 1:11pm

maccored wrote: »

BS eh? Bull**** is thinking SF of 40 years ago are the same party as now.

Indeed.

Except that exactly what YOU CLAIMED in your first post on the thread.

maccored wrote: »

SF have always been pro-EU in regards being part of the EU.

Can't imagine why your posts on anything SF-related always bring this man to mind

derfderf · 06-11-2019 1:12pm

You can be pro-eu and reject some of the treaties. To reject every treaty and claim to be pro-eu it is a bit of a stretch.

Their campaign against Lisbon was a pack of lies, as the campaign posters earlier in the thread show. I don't see how anyone can claim they are pro eu when they're distributing that crap.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 06-11-2019 1:15pm

FTA69 wrote: »

In fairness I did say “more pro-EU” which I admit is vague enough but their stance has softened.

I think "less anti-EU" might be a fairer description.

You can't really put "pro-EU" in the same sentence as a party that has never supported a single EU treaty in nearly 50 years.

FrancieBrady · 06-11-2019 1:16pm

blanch152 wrote: »

It seems that we understood "always pro-EU" better than most.

Says the guy who posited the theory that they have been'rabidly anti EU' for most of their existence.

Dear oh dear.

facehugger99 · 06-11-2019 1:18pm

If the populist wind changes direction in a few years, you can be sure that SF have always been staunchly anti-EU.

FrancieBrady · 06-11-2019 1:19pm

Zayden Most Rating wrote: »

I think "less anti-EU" might be a fairer description.

You can't really put "pro-EU" in the same sentence as a party that has never supported a single EU treaty in nearly 50 years.

Are they pro-EU in terms of being a part of it? Yes, that is demonstratively (I linked to Mary Lou saying this in 2005 and Carthy saying it earlier this year)

They are against closer integration, so rejecting treaties that do this is consistent, or am I missing something?

FTA69 · 06-11-2019 1:19pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Would you give Boris Johnson or Donald Trump a pass on the same basis?

I’m not giving anyone a pass. I’ve often criticised Adams on this site. Personally I don’t care about Adams’ relationship with the IRA, he was never convicted of it and from my point of view being in the IRA is nothing to be ashamed of.

The stuff with his brother is far more sinister to be honest.

FTA69 · 06-11-2019 1:20pm

Zayden Most Rating wrote: »

I think "less anti-EU" might be a fairer description.

You can't really put "pro-EU" in the same sentence as a party that has never supported a single EU treaty in nearly 50 years.

Come on now lad we’re into hair splitting territory now.

kowloon · 06-11-2019 1:51pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Would you give Boris Johnson or Donald Trump a pass on the same basis?

The standard defence of Trump and BJ supporters: 'sure all politicians lie'. The bar has fallen onto the ground and is sinking in the mud (the swamp even).

maccored · 06-11-2019 2:29pm

blackwhite wrote: »

You made the claim that they have "always been pro-EU"

Are you trying to invent a new definition of the word always? You made the claim - but now seem to be intent on pretending you posted something else entirely

It's not that big a deal to admit you were wrong in your original claim - if you are really so insecure in yourself that you cannot even do that, and instead need to resort to repeatedly abusing anyone who points out your mistake then that's your own problem

I admit I was wrong in assuming a lot of people on here knew what they were talking about. had I known they needed history lessons then yes, I would have made the obvious point that SF in 1970, when they opposed EU membership, isn't anything like SF in 1998 when they were very much behind EU membership.

Then again, 1998 was 21 years ago and far from recent so basically thats the answer to the OP.

Mortelaro · 06-11-2019 2:42pm

There would have still been customs borders on the island of Ireland by the way if all the treaties opponents had got their way
There would have been no single market

blackwhite · 06-11-2019 2:56pm

maccored wrote: »

I admit I was wrong in assuming a lot of people on here knew what they were talking about. had I known they needed history lessons then yes, I would have made the obvious point that SF in 1970, when they opposed EU membership, isn't anything like SF in 1998 when they were very much behind EU membership.

Then again, 1998 was 21 years ago and far from recent so basically thats the answer to the OP.

I’m sure you can point out to us then where your new definition of the word “always” comes from :pac:

If you’re going to lie - try and pick things that can’t be disproved within 5 seconds

You’d argue the sky was green if you thought it would paint SF in a good light

:D

ancapailldorcha · 06-11-2019 3:02pm

FTA69 wrote: »

I’m not giving anyone a pass. I’ve often criticised Adams on this site. Personally I don’t care about Adams’ relationship with the IRA, he was never convicted of it and from my point of view being in the IRA is nothing to be ashamed of.

The stuff with his brother is far more sinister to be honest.

The "all politicians lie" line is usually used to normalise this sort of thing so in a roundabout way, you are. I am aware that you've criticised Adams. However, Sinn Féin trying to pretend that they weren't a left wing Irish equivalent of UKIP is absurd and they deserve to be called out for it.

FrancieBrady · 06-11-2019 3:08pm

Mortelaro wrote: »

There would have still been customs borders on the island of Ireland by the way if all the treaties opponents had got their way
There would have been no single market

This is true and the GFA would not have been possible without the 'open border' accommodated by membership of the EU.
That was key in evolving positions and outlooks.

Just as the UK now wanting to leave that Union is key again.

And as I said earlier, I think you will see a further shift here, in the politics and policies of FG and FF and of SF.
All 3 seem to be assured now that our place is firmly with the EU and to shirk off the dependence on the UK.
The biggest evidence of this is the shift in FG thinking imo., now a party willing to speak up on behalf of all Irish citizens and to stand up to the British in this regard. And they are getting a bounce for doing it. So expect more of it.

blackwhite · 06-11-2019 3:08pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The "all politicians lie" line is usually used to normalise this sort of thing so in a roundabout way, you are. I am aware that you've criticised Adams. However, Sinn Féin trying to pretend that they weren't a left wing Irish equivalent of UKIP is absurd and they deserve to be called out for it.

To be fair - SF haven’t ever really pushed the anti-immigrant bile that UKIP tended to spout.

Outside of that, there’s lots of similarities on the rest of their attitude toward the EU - but xenophobia (other than towards “de Brits” - and any Irish person who wasn’t blindly devoted to the cause) wasn’t on their agenda

Skylinehead · 06-11-2019 3:09pm

maccored wrote: »

I admit I was wrong in assuming a lot of people on here knew what they were talking about.

Sorry for knowing what words mean :pac:

ancapailldorcha · 06-11-2019 3:19pm

blackwhite wrote: »

To be fair - SF haven’t ever really pushed the anti-immigrant bile that UKIP tended to spout.

Outside of that, there’s lots of similarities on the rest of their attitude toward the EU - but xenophobia (other than towards “de Brits” - and any Irish person who wasn’t blindly devoted to the cause) wasn’t on their agenda (other than towards “de Brits” - and any Irish person who wasn’t blindly devoted to the cause)

A little careless on my part. I did say leftwing though. I have no issue with this and don't recall seeing any xenophbia from SF in fairness to them.

FTA69 · 06-11-2019 3:57pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The "all politicians lie" line is usually used to normalise this sort of thing so in a roundabout way, you are. I am aware that you've criticised Adams. However, Sinn Féin trying to pretend that they weren't a left wing Irish equivalent of UKIP is absurd and they deserve to be called out for it.

They weren’t an equivalent of UKIP because they opposed the EU (correctly) for left-wing reasons as opposed to wanting to relive an imperial past and privatise everything. By your logic Bob Crow was exactly the same as Jacob Rees-Mogg because they didn’t like the European Union when in reality it’s far more complex than that.

maccored · 06-11-2019 5:16pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

Sorry for knowing what words mean :pac:

sorry for being pedantic more like. pedantic and still incorrect in your assumption that SF of 40 years ago has the same ideals as the present version.

ancapailldorcha · 06-11-2019 5:17pm

FTA69 wrote: »

They weren’t an equivalent of UKIP because they opposed the EU (correctly) for left-wing reasons as opposed to wanting to relive an imperial past and privatise everything. By your logic Bob Crow was exactly the same as Jacob Rees-Mogg because they didn’t like the European Union when in reality it’s far more complex than that.

My logic? No, it was you who dropped the "all politicians lie" line. It's your logic.

maccored · 06-11-2019 5:17pm

blackwhite wrote: »

I’m sure you can point out to us then where your new definition of the word “always” comes from :pac:

If you’re going to lie - try and pick things that can’t be disproved within 5 seconds

You’d argue the sky was green if you thought it would paint SF in a good light :D

You may point out where I was lying. I've already pointed out you need to read up on your history.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 06-11-2019 5:26pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are they pro-EU in terms of being a part of it? Yes, that is demonstratively (I linked to Mary Lou saying this in 2005 and Carthy saying it earlier this year) the case.

They are against closer integration, so rejecting treaties that do this is consistent, or am I missing something?

The EU is pursuing "an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe," a goal enshrined in the EU treaties ratified by its member states. As you acknowledge, Sinn Fein oppose this project of closer integration and have consistently voted against every treaty designed to pursue it.

A party that stands opposed to the EU's core objective cannot be called "pro-EU." A grudging acceptance of the status quo but a determination to stymie further integration among member states is not "pro-EU."

When/why did SF become so pro EU ?

Comments