Border Poll discussion

I saw that this morning and couldn't help but think that's how it came across. Especially with our resident partitionists here.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The issue isn't the banner (as pointlessly,vacuously "Irish-American" as it is) - That banner or at least a variant of it has been in the NYC Parade since 1948


The issue is the leader of Sinn Fein parading with it in 2019 - I would have thought that much was obvious to all.

Why is it an issue now when it wasn't last year?

Is this on behalf of Unionist sensitivities?

blanch152 wrote: »

Unless Mary Lou has changed her hair colour since last year, I don't see her posing with the banner last year.

The issue is one of leadership, or in this case, the lack of it.

She isn't leading me nor you, as far as I know. So who is complaining about her 'leadership'?

Peregrinus wrote: »

She's leading Sinn Fein, Francie. Surely you knew this?

Yes, I did know that.

So who is questioning her 'leadership' only those who always questioned the SF leadership from outside it...obsessively so.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And rightly so. And SF should be very attentive. Now that they've embraced the ballot box, the only way to progress is to attract support from people who don't already support you. Which means the views of people who are not already your supporters are very, very important to you, and you need to pay attention to them.

The issue here, as I see is, is that the "England Get Out Of Ireland" slogan is, literally, 40 years old or more. Rightly or wrongly it comes across as fossilised thinking by a bunch of out-of-touch sentimental Irish-Americans. SF doesn't want to alienate potential support in Irish America, I get that, but at the same time this is not a stance, or an analysis of the question, with which SF ought to be associating itself. SF should have the confidence to say that, no, Ireland needs a slightly more realistic, nuanced and thoughtful analysis of the question that this, which doesn't focus on the perfidy of Albion but on the need to change thinking in Ireland. Which means they should be a bit embarrassed to have their leader photographed marching behind this banner. It's not a good look.

I agree about the attracting support bit. But I don't think attracting the demographic who go into outrage overdrive at a quick snap at a St Patrick's Day Parade or who wait around for similar opportunities to take offence is SF's goal tbh.
It would be a bit like me or anyone else making a big song and dance about Leo in the parade with McGregor, it is all kinda desperate really. No change from Adams time at all.
That Coveney was probably distracting from the McGregor thing shows how this outrage demographic has brought political debate down.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I take your point. But for every person who has clutched at their pearls in public over this there are probably ten or twenty who saw the picture, felt as I felt about it and are that bit more distant from SF as a result. They don't post to social media about it, is all.

And, of course, quite a few of the those people probably only saw the picture because of the pearl-clutchers who posted about it. So you may think that the pearl-clutchers are histrionic over-reactors whose own views you can sneer at, but that doesn't mean that their actions don't cause the party a problem, even if not an immediately visible problem.

So, yeah, a party leader needs to not give them this kind of opportunity.

And, like they did with the previous leader, if they can't find anything current to distract, they will find something in the past.
They will begin the 'SF need to change their leader and then they might attract our vote' disingenuous stuff soon.

*never heard the 'pearl-clutchers' term...nice one!

Peregrinus wrote: »

They don't have to look for somethign in the past if you give them something in the present . . . like this.

This was a slip by McDonald. She should not have let herself be photographed anywhere near that banner. If there was to be any coverage about this, it should have been of McDonald urging people to move forward from such thinking, or at least of her modelling that behaviour herself. The party and its supporters need to learn from this, not whinge about it.

Well forgive me for thinking it is just more of the 'get Gerry' stuff as the outrage is coming from the same quarters.

What 'thinking'? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of threat in what ML was doing? That she wishes to return to a military campaign?

I would not be a huge fan of Irish-American input into Ireland or think for a minute they understand it, just as I would think the same of middle England understanding. But like any political leader they have a demographic they need to keep on board as well as a demographic they need to win over. It think SF have shown quite clearly that there are demographics they have no real interest in impressing or winning over, even if getting to power is the price they have to pay.

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Tbf Peregrinus, you seem like someone who is quite far removed from SF anyhow, and the party’s leadership may already have calculated that jettisoning the trappings of traditional republicanism to try and attract people unlikely to vote for them is not a good strategy.

SF’s baggage from the Northern conflict already puts them beyond the pale for older, moderate voters in the Republic (I don’t think I know anyone over 50 who’d support them, and certainly none who’d admit it); what progress the party has made has been in appealing to and mobilizing voters from traditionally low turnout groups: young people and those in working class areas. Those people are just as put off by FG making an issue of this as you are by McDonald doing it in the first place.

I’d also add that tongue in cheek use of outmoded republican slogans and terminology is fashionable on social media now, so there are plenty of people who are as much amused as put off by the banner.

I heard the SDLP leader Colum Eastwood on Pat Kenny this morning about it.

His views on the issue would be as strong if not stronger than anything posted in this thread about it. Comments like "silly", "stupid", "plastic Paddy stuff", "lack of leadership", "astonishing lack of judgment", etc. were peppered throughout his contribution that pretty much dismantled any argument in support of Mary Lou.

That will not stop her receiving blind unqualified support on here.

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Well, firstly I’d point out that I’m not offering “blind unqualified support” to the leader of a party I don’t even support.

I never said you were offering blind unqualified support to Mary-Lou Mcdonald, yet you will find such support all over social media (and on this thread) for her stance on this.

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Secondly, why don’t you actually present those arguments, rather than just assuring us the leader of SF’s main rival for the nationalist vote in NI “demolished” all contrary views on this?

"demolished" is not the word I used, yet you presented it in quotation marks. I used the word "dismantled", and it was a comprehensive dismantling of the type of defence of her we have seen. I didn't see a need to repeat the details, because they have been made eloquently on this thread be peregrinus et al, and by many others on other threads. All I was pointing to was some outside support for such views on it.

Speaking of which, are there any non-SF commentators or politicians out there supporting Mary-Lou and her banner?

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Finally, I wouldn’t appeal to Colum Eastwood as an authority on how Northern nationalists perceive this, as his party has been consistently beaten in the polls by SF for years.

Firstly, I never said Colum Eastwood is an authority on how Northern nationalists view this, I found his views as a commentator both eloquent and convincing.

Secondly, even if I was representing Eastwood as an authority on nationalist views, electoral success isn't necessarily an indicator of reflection of popular views in Northern Ireland, particularly given the sectarian pattern of voting. For example, there are many people on here that say that the DUP don't represent Unionist thinking on Brexit despite their electoral success. That argument applies both ways

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Has Coveney apologised? He's the only person with something to answer for. Using the murders in NZ to score points is disgusting. I expected that level of discourse from Varadkar but I had given Coveney more credit. Misplaced obviously.
Nationalist party leader who's remit is a united Ireland marches with regularly used flag regarding getting the English out of Ireland, so what?

We've enough serious issues to be talking about, but I suppose that's the point.

I think Coveney was at least clumsy in what he was trying to convey, but I don't think he has the greater need to apologise.

When one person on one side of the world is shooting people in order to convey a message of kicking a religious/racial minority (Muslims) out of one country (New Zealand) it is beyond tasteless to be marching behind a banner on the other side of the world that to a visitor from outer space effectively calls for the same outcome in a different country (albeit with no suggestion of violence to achieve that end).

In a world of inclusiveness, the difference between English and Irish should be immaterial and the concept of nation should not be about territory.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've a very bizarre take on this.
One is a leader of a party whose main goal is ushering in a United Ireland and having any form of English/British authority removed. Marching on St. Patrick's Day, behind a flag saying as much. I don't see the political shock and awe value others do obviously.
Furthermore your comparison is absolutely flawed. Since when is seeking a united Ireland the same as looking to kick out a religious minority? What of the Jews? What of the Protestants in the south? You're not making much of an argument but more of a massive leap. It's not credible and gymnastics of Olympic proportions.
Coveney was way out of order using the killings to score a point on SF IMO. It was gutter politics. 'Clumsy' is a cop out on your behalf TBF.

The banner didn't say "Let's work for a united Ireland" which I would have no problem with her marching behind. It said "English out of Ireland" which is a very different slogan and the type of thing we should have left behind decades ago.

jm08 wrote: »

Seriously, you don't know a lot about McGregor? His tuggish behaviour (which has seen him arrested twice now) in the US is what is embarrassing (not to mention his lack of respect for the Irish courts).

I note you failed to respond to the rest of my post. Unionists are not English. If it was 'Brits out' unionists might have some reason for being annoyed.

I have some English friends living here, how do I explain your post to them?