For years I really respected them especially when Hume was at the helm. Since Durkan gave up the leadership I think they have went into terminal decline and as there isn't much of an SDLP youth wing I would say they are a spent political force at this stage. That doesn't mean they will lose Westminster seats though, I think there are a hardcore of people who will never vote for shinners who would vote SDLP now. Unless some kind of middle ground politics starts to become the order of the day the SDLP will disappear while the extremists on the nationalist side will benefit ultimately
They were in decline before Durkan stepped aside. Admittedly, since Richie took over, they've nose dived.
Never had much respect for them, never seen them doing much locally. In fact you wouldn't see them locally unless there was an election.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 23, 2010, 09:37:22 PM
Never had much respect for them, never seen them doing much locally. In fact you wouldn't see them locally unless there was an election.
I can say the same for Sinn Fein in West Belfast, maybe they just take it for granted.
Quote from: Minder on April 23, 2010, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 23, 2010, 09:37:22 PM
Never had much respect for them, never seen them doing much locally. In fact you wouldn't see them locally unless there was an election.
I can say the same for Sinn Fein in West Belfast, maybe they just take it for granted.
Local Shinners would do a lot in our area, just a pity the can't/won't get rid of the ceasefire soldiers and sheep.
Sinn Fein will go the same way as the SDLP in a few years when McGuinness and Adams step aside.
I had reason to contact SF and the SDLP over an issue my wife was having. Neither of them really did anything about it even though it was clearly within their power to do so, shinners sent an email while the SDLP did a bit of donkey work in terms of phone calls, emails, letters, I won't go into details on here about it for obvious reasons but nothing seemed to work. By chance I happened to bump into Ken Magennis on a bus from Belfast to Enniskillen and I thought I would chance my arm with him. I was wearing an Armagh shirt at the time and had a bit of craic with him about Tyrone and that he was a bit of a hypocrite watching matches on TV when he wouldn't go to one if it was on a Sunday. He proved to be way more helpful than either of the SDLP or the shinners.
Jeyes - yer wan Ritchie really is hard to like! She seems to lack any human or personal touch that would appeal to the masses. Also, would be the last one to laugh at a joke methinks as humour would not be her strong point. Just goes to show: once a schoolteacher, always a schoolteacher - I'm sure many in the SDLP ranks have had had a degrading lecture from that ice maiden. God help her other half - if there is one?
To be honest, I don't think Ritchie is the worst politician - she seems to do a decent job as DSD Minister and I get the impression she's very genuine. But she's a terrible public speaker, very unnatural, and a poor choice as party leader.
The SDLP will always have a core vote and I think it's important the Nationalists have an alternative to SF.
Wearing the Armagh shirt was the key, brought out the sympathy for a constituent who can only suffer so much.
Seamus Mallon was the best ever SDLP politician. Dont know if he ever wore a red tie.
Quote from: Orior on April 24, 2010, 12:15:30 AM
Seamus Mallon was the best ever SDLP politician. Dont know if he ever wore a red tie.
:o
John Hume was the best.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 23, 2010, 09:45:14 PM
Quote from: Minder on April 23, 2010, 09:40:33 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 23, 2010, 09:37:22 PM
Never had much respect for them, never seen them doing much locally. In fact you wouldn't see them locally unless there was an election.
I can say the same for Sinn Fein in West Belfast, maybe they just take it for granted.
Local Shinners would do a lot in our area, just a pity the can't/won't get rid of the ceasefire soldiers and sheep.
Sinn Fein will go the same way as the SDLP in a few years when McGuinness and Adams step aside.
Dont know about that, Conor Murphy looks a nailed on successor to these boys and he seems shrewd enough, plus if the SDLP remain as woeful, SF will still be dominant by default.
The Shinners rely on Westminster money to keep a lot of their backroom staff jobs going in West Tyrone.
Some would call this irony. I am one of them.
I enjoyed Gerry slagging Ritchie for the SDLP taking a paid trip to Afghanistan from the UK govt,yet Sinn Fein are taking thousands upon thousands from the same govt for cushy flats in London.
Quote from: sandwiches_in_the_boot on April 24, 2010, 02:08:53 AM
The Shinners rely on Westminster money to keep a lot of their backroom staff jobs going in West Tyrone.
Indeed and Stoops like Durkan rely on Westminster to keep him and his family in style.
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on April 23, 2010, 09:54:38 PM
Jeyes - yer wan Ritchie really is hard to like! She seems to lack any human or personal touch that would appeal to the masses. Also, would be the last one to laugh at a joke methinks as humour would not be her strong point. Just goes to show: once a schoolteacher, always a schoolteacher - I'm sure many in the SDLP ranks have had had a degrading lecture from that ice maiden. God help her other half - if there is one?
There isn't.
Ritchie does not have great public persona
But she has done good job in DSD.
Very good locally but def not a leader
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 24, 2010, 07:30:47 AM
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on April 23, 2010, 09:54:38 PM
Jeyes - yer wan Ritchie really is hard to like! She seems to lack any human or personal touch that would appeal to the masses. Also, would be the last one to laugh at a joke methinks as humour would not be her strong point. Just goes to show: once a schoolteacher, always a schoolteacher - I'm sure many in the SDLP ranks have had had a degrading lecture from that ice maiden. God help her other half - if there is one?
There isn't.
There isn't an other half or there isn't a God?
Quote from: Zapatista on April 24, 2010, 08:04:15 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on April 24, 2010, 07:30:47 AM
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on April 23, 2010, 09:54:38 PM
Jeyes - yer wan Ritchie really is hard to like! She seems to lack any human or personal touch that would appeal to the masses. Also, would be the last one to laugh at a joke methinks as humour would not be her strong point. Just goes to show: once a schoolteacher, always a schoolteacher - I'm sure many in the SDLP ranks have had had a degrading lecture from that ice maiden. God help her other half - if there is one?
There isn't.
There isn't an other half or there isn't a God?
All of the above.
Richie seems a bit our of her depth as a leader, maybe that will change as she gains more experience but she alwas carries some credit for refusing to hand over £1m+ to the UDA for "Conflict Transformation" or whatever they call it.
Quote from: Minder on April 24, 2010, 09:53:28 AM
Richie seems a bit our of her depth as a leader, maybe that will change as she gains more experience but she alwas carries some credit for refusing to hand over £1m+ to the UDA for "Conflict Transformation" or whatever they call it.
Was she not over-ruled on that in court?
Quote from: Ulick on April 24, 2010, 10:12:32 AM
Quote from: Minder on April 24, 2010, 09:53:28 AM
Richie seems a bit our of her depth as a leader, maybe that will change as she gains more experience but she alwas carries some credit for refusing to hand over £1m+ to the UDA for "Conflict Transformation" or whatever they call it.
Was she not over-ruled on that in court?
I think Minders point is that she was prepared to take a stand on a point of principle. A rare commodity on the hill.
Quote from: Ulick on April 24, 2010, 10:12:32 AM
Quote from: Minder on April 24, 2010, 09:53:28 AM
Richie seems a bit our of her depth as a leader, maybe that will change as she gains more experience but she alwas carries some credit for refusing to hand over £1m+ to the UDA for "Conflict Transformation" or whatever they call it.
Was she not over-ruled on that in court?
She was.
stoops round my door canvasing there
Quote from: The Worker on April 24, 2010, 11:28:46 AM
stoops round my door canvasing there
Stoops on your stoop?
Quote from: gorm agus bui on April 24, 2010, 08:00:53 AM
Ritchie does not have great public persona
But she has done good job in DSD.
Very good locally but def not a leader
As a Minister, I'd rate her very highly. She's not a leader as you say. I heard she's a nightmare to work with.
Quote from: ziggysego on April 24, 2010, 12:08:09 PM
Quote from: gorm agus bui on April 24, 2010, 08:00:53 AM
Ritchie does not have great public persona
But she has done good job in DSD.
Very good locally but def not a leader
As a Minister, I'd rate her very highly. She's not a leader as you say. I heard she's a nightmare to work with.
You're not a Minister ::)
Quote from: Zapatista on April 24, 2010, 12:24:00 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 24, 2010, 12:08:09 PM
Quote from: gorm agus bui on April 24, 2010, 08:00:53 AM
Ritchie does not have great public persona
But she has done good job in DSD.
Very good locally but def not a leader
As a Minister, I'd rate her very highly. She's not a leader as you say. I heard she's a nightmare to work with.
:D
You're not a Minister ::)
Quote from: Zapatista on April 24, 2010, 12:24:00 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 24, 2010, 12:08:09 PM
Quote from: gorm agus bui on April 24, 2010, 08:00:53 AM
Ritchie does not have great public persona
But she has done good job in DSD.
Very good locally but def not a leader
As a Minister, I'd rate her very highly. She's not a leader as you say. I heard she's a nightmare to work with.
Did someone say I was? Did I say I was?
You're not a Minister ::)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 24, 2010, 12:25:16 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 24, 2010, 12:24:00 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 24, 2010, 12:08:09 PM
Quote from: gorm agus bui on April 24, 2010, 08:00:53 AM
Ritchie does not have great public persona
But she has done good job in DSD.
Very good locally but def not a leader
As a Minister, I'd rate her very highly. She's not a leader as you say. I heard she's a nightmare to work with.
:D
You're not a Minister ::)
John Hume and Seamus Mallon may have brought the SDLP to the fore but it is both sad and ironic that those two men also destroyed the party. For two decades they dominated every position within the party, took every press conference, featured in every photograph and article. Looking back now it seems that they deliberately prevented any other party member from raising their public profile. Even riding on their coat tails seems to be have been banned.
As such, when they stepped down, they left behind a chasm, filled with faceless, bland politicans - people who meant well, but were used to following the party line from a distance.
Sinn Fein will face a similar problem within a decade. They've done much more than Hume & Mallon every did to promote other public profiles, but the more renowned of these will be up for retirement around the same time as the main men. Also, good luck to anyone who wants to keep that party united once Adams and McGuinness movie along.
they might have stood a chance with Allister McDonnell as the leader but Marguerite is so annoying. Adams blew her out of the water on itv and hes not even the strongest debater the shinners have. the stoops are just too goody goody they try to be everything to everyone but get so diluted that they say nothing at all. they damaged themselves by trying to tie up with Fianna fall and Bertie when their sister party in the south was labour which shows they are power hungry and without principles. when Hume finished with Derry it was a thriving city mallon however had little to show for a lenghty career in Parliament, indeed his success is largely due to unionists giving the stoops their second preference votes to keep the shinners out
Quote from: lawnseed on April 24, 2010, 07:18:42 PM
they might have stood a chance with Allister McDonnell as the leader but Marguerite is so annoying. Adams blew her out of the water on itv and hes not even the strongest debater the shinners have. the stoops are just too goody goody they try to be everything to everyone but get so diluted that they say nothing at all. they damaged themselves by trying to tie up with Fianna fall and Bertie when their sister party in the south was labour which shows they are power hungry and without principles. when Hume finished with Derry it was a thriving city mallon however had little to show for a lenghty career in Parliament, indeed his success is largely due to unionists giving the stoops their second preference votes to keep the shinners out
No transferable vote in Westminster, so that argument is blown out of the water. Seamus was another one of the school teacher class in the SDLP just like Ritchie. She really comes over as a dragon without a sense of humour or irony. While I find McDonnell arrogant, he does have a human touch and, of course, is a GAA man. I hope the SDLP do self-destruct - they really are just a shower of offspring from the historical pig-owning classes on this ISLAND.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 23, 2010, 09:32:25 PM
For years I really respected them especially when Hume was at the helm. Since Durkan gave up the leadership I think they have went gone into terminal decline and as there isn't much of an SDLP youth wing I would say they are a spent political force at this stage..
FFS if you're going to trumpet about the Stoopers, at least get your native English language right! ;)
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 24, 2010, 10:24:34 AM
Quote from: Ulick on April 24, 2010, 10:12:32 AM
Quote from: Minder on April 24, 2010, 09:53:28 AM
Richie seems a bit our of her depth as a leader, maybe that will change as she gains more experience but she alwas carries some credit for refusing to hand over £1m+ to the UDA for "Conflict Transformation" or whatever they call it.
Was she not over-ruled on that in court?
I think Minders point is that she was prepared to take a stand on a point of principle. A rare commodity on the hill.
Well it sounds like then either she was grandstanding if she knew she had no authority or incompetent because she didn't know.
Quote from: Ulick on April 24, 2010, 10:09:25 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 24, 2010, 10:24:34 AM
Quote from: Ulick on April 24, 2010, 10:12:32 AM
Quote from: Minder on April 24, 2010, 09:53:28 AM
Richie seems a bit our of her depth as a leader, maybe that will change as she gains more experience but she alwas carries some credit for refusing to hand over £1m+ to the UDA for "Conflict Transformation" or whatever they call it.
Was she not over-ruled on that in court?
I think Minders point is that she was prepared to take a stand on a point of principle. A rare
commodity on the hill.
Well it sounds like then either she was grandstanding if she knew she had no authority or incompetent because she didn't know.
Maybe she should have caved in and gave them the money and then she would have been criticised more. Damned if you do.........
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 24, 2010, 09:46:11 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on April 23, 2010, 09:32:25 PM
For years I really respected them especially when Hume was at the helm. Since Durkan gave up the leadership I think they have went gone into terminal decline and as there isn't much of an SDLP youth wing I would say they are a spent political force at this stage..
FFS if you're going to trumpet about the Stoopers, at least get your native English language right! ;)
:D
I don't trumpet about anyone FoSB. You know what though, I have more trouble with gramadách na Gaeilge and I worry more about that than I do about my English
Quote from: thewobbler on April 24, 2010, 06:49:58 PM
John Hume and Seamus Mallon may have brought the SDLP to the fore but it is both sad and ironic that those two men also destroyed the party. For two decades they dominated every position within the party, took every press conference, featured in every photograph and article. Looking back now it seems that they deliberately prevented any other party member from raising their public profile. Even riding on their coat tails seems to be have been banned.
As such, when they stepped down, they left behind a chasm, filled with faceless, bland politicans - people who meant well, but were used to following the party line from a distance.
Sinn Fein will face a similar problem within a decade. They've done much more than Hume & Mallon every did to promote other public profiles, but the more renowned of these will be up for retirement around the same time as the main men. Also, good luck to anyone who wants to keep that party united once Adams and McGuinness movie along.
when adams and mcguinness move along sf chances might improve big time in the south
Think that is a bit of a fallacy magic as I don't think people vote for personality or if they do its a minor factor. SF need to build their core vote and expand their organisation in the south and that for me that means getting back to community activism.
Quote from: thewobbler on April 24, 2010, 06:49:58 PM
John Hume and Seamus Mallon may have brought the SDLP to the fore but it is both sad and ironic that those two men also destroyed the party. For two decades they dominated every position within the party, took every press conference, featured in every photograph and article. Looking back now it seems that they deliberately prevented any other party member from raising their public profile. Even riding on their coat tails seems to be have been banned.
As such, when they stepped down, they left behind a chasm, filled with faceless, bland politicans - people who meant well, but were used to following the party line from a distance.
Sinn Fein will face a similar problem within a decade. They've done much more than Hume & Mallon every did to promote other public profiles, but the more renowned of these will be up for retirement around the same time as the main men. Also, good luck to anyone who wants to keep that party united once Adams and McGuinness movie along.
I don't think that was their destruction. Hume knew when he went into talks with Adams it might cost the SDLP dearly if they went by the ballod box only rather than the armalite as well. He was prepared to do that for peace and took the risk agaisnt the wishes of many in his own party. There were a lot of people couldn't go with the armed struggle, or watever you wish to call it, that went over to vote for Sinn Fein after the ceasefire. Certainly the SDLP politicains are bland but there aren't too many with the personality or charm of Martin Luther Kings or JFK in Sinn Fein either.
I could write an essay on how I feel the stoops are a joke of an entity. I'll list a number of examples which to me, typify the SDLP and their shade of 'nationalism'.
1. Post Nationalism
The phrase which sums up th SDLP westminster campaign of 2001. Describing themselves as post nationalist seems to have been the turning point in that key election and they have never properly recovered.
2. Pretence
Again, in 2001, Brid Rodgers canvassed for votes at a Tyrone game in Clones wearing a fake Tyrone shirt with her name printed across the back and holding a soccer ball.
3. Complete disrespect for nationalists who vote for the other main nationalist party
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhqlidcwmhsn/ - In this instance they showed a complete disregard for the mandate given to SF by their voters and showed their level of committment to nationalism by joining a dirty pact with the two unionist parties. This was evidenced at a local level in my own are also at several recent elections. Coming from a Republican area, the SDLP in my local polling station often had a tactic of objecting to as many people as possible inside the station in the evening time; thereby preventing the lines of people still in the queue outside from voting once closing time came.
4. Confusion
- As I pointed out on this board before, When SF proposed, in 13 councils, that these councils press the Dublin Govn to be more proactive in developing All Ireland strategies, only two got full SDLP support, the rest either got a split SDLP vote, SDLP members abstaining, SDLP refusing to attend etc. Even their party whips could not encourage their membership to give their full support to it. How can this party be trusted to stand up for Irish Unity when even the idea of increased All Ireland strategies/co-operation is too much for them to handle?
I honestly don't understand how any party can claim to represent nationalism when it
- Felt that equality had been achieved in the 1980's claiming this equality was "now a reality"
- Takes an oath of allegience to a British monarchy all to have the right to sit in Westminster, despite rarely attending anyway
- Stated that they have "have no difficulty with a continuing MI5 role" in the north of Ireland
- Voted in favour of 28 day detention
- In 2006, argued in favour of diplock courts stating it was "essential that adequate provision for non-jury trials for appropriate offences in Northern Ireland is maintained"
- Supported Irish citizens in the north being legally compelled to be included in a "British National Identity Register".
- Regarded Ronnie Flanagan as a man who "wanted to edge policing forward"
- Opposed Derry Council proceeding with its stated policy of petitioning the Privy Council to restore the name of Derry to the city
- Through their intransigience, are currently assisting the Orange Order in having their joint unionist candidate capture the Fermanagh/South Tyrone seat just to avoid a SF member taking the seat.
- Sends a member of it's Assembly team on a British Ministry of Defence trip to Afghanistan
- Voted in in the Assembly for increased pensions for the RUC Part-Time Reservists
- Voted in Belfast City Council for the placing of dozens of British Army plaques, including two UDR plaques around the walls inside City Hall.
- For years claimed allegations of collusion between the British state and Loyalist gangs was "republican propeganda"
Unfortunately, I could go on. It almost appears that this party regards Nationalism as a sectarian mindset and tries to avoid anything which makes them open about being Nationalist. Their public appearances make them sound more and more like the Alliance Party as time goes on.
Not once has a stoop came to my door canvassing for a vote. Not even a chance for
anyone in our area to challenge their policies face to face.
We have a lot of local problems with anti-social behaviour, drugs, etc and they seem to avoid tackling these issues apart from condeming acts in the local paper.
Agreed... they are absolutely toothless. Allister McDonnell slabbering on about the Hunger Strike ceremony held in Galbally was also nausiating.
IF this thread is a reflection of the general opinion of the SDLP then they are in serious trouble.
The SDLP became nothing after Hume packed it in. Even Mallon was second rate who never achieved anything in his political career. Since it became clear that the Peace process would mean SF sctive in political institutions the SDLP became the atni SF party. Ever since peace became a real possibility after the Adams and Hume talks the SDLP went into defence mode trying to protect their electoral success against SF. This inculded and includes pacts with Unionists and British Governments in an attempt to isolate SF. They have some neck complaining about SF not taking seats in westminster when over the years the stood hand in hand with unionists and british Governments while SF were locked outside the gates.
Quote from: Zapatista on April 25, 2010, 11:58:25 AM
IF this thread is a reflection of the general opinion of the SDLP then they are in serious trouble.
The SDLP became nothing after Hume packed it in. Even Mallon was second rate who never achieved anything in his political career. Since it became clear that the Peace process would mean SF sctive in political institutions the SDLP became the atni SF party. Ever since peace became a real possibility after the Adams and Hume talks the SDLP went into defence mode trying to protect their electoral success against SF. This inculded and includes pacts with Unionists and British Governments in an attempt to isolate SF. They have some neck complaining about SF not taking seats in westminster when over the years the stood hand in hand with unionists and british Governments while SF were locked outside the gates.
History repeating itself then with SF doing the same thing now. What's new ?
Martin Morgan former SDLP councillor in Belfast was young and had a bit of vibrancy about him. I once asked him if he got much hassle from Republicans in North Belfast and he said he got more from members of his own party when he spoke out against the behaviour of the police and the state. They accused him of sounding like a Sinn Feiner. Says it all... now he is nowhere to be seen.
Quote from: orangeman on April 25, 2010, 12:03:41 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 25, 2010, 11:58:25 AM
IF this thread is a reflection of the general opinion of the SDLP then they are in serious trouble.
The SDLP became nothing after Hume packed it in. Even Mallon was second rate who never achieved anything in his political career. Since it became clear that the Peace process would mean SF sctive in political institutions the SDLP became the atni SF party. Ever since peace became a real possibility after the Adams and Hume talks the SDLP went into defence mode trying to protect their electoral success against SF. This inculded and includes pacts with Unionists and British Governments in an attempt to isolate SF. They have some neck complaining about SF not taking seats in westminster when over the years the stood hand in hand with unionists and british Governments while SF were locked outside the gates.
History repeating itself then with SF doing the same thing now. What's new ?
I don't get ye?
Quote from: Zapatista on April 25, 2010, 12:46:06 PM
Quote from: orangeman on April 25, 2010, 12:03:41 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 25, 2010, 11:58:25 AM
IF this thread is a reflection of the general opinion of the SDLP then they are in serious trouble.
The SDLP became nothing after Hume packed it in. Even Mallon was second rate who never achieved anything in his political career. Since it became clear that the Peace process would mean SF sctive in political institutions the SDLP became the atni SF party. Ever since peace became a real possibility after the Adams and Hume talks the SDLP went into defence mode trying to protect their electoral success against SF. This inculded and includes pacts with Unionists and British Governments in an attempt to isolate SF. They have some neck complaining about SF not taking seats in westminster when over the years the stood hand in hand with unionists and british Governments while SF were locked outside the gates.
History repeating itself then with SF doing the same thing now. What's new ?
I don't get ye?
SDLP accuse SF today of doing what you say the SDLP did to SF in the previous generation.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 25, 2010, 12:20:37 PM
Martin Morgan former SDLP councillor in Belfast was young and had a bit of vibrancy about him. I once asked him if he got much hassle from Republicans in North Belfast and he said he got more from members of his own party when he spoke out against the behaviour of the police and the state. They accused him of sounding like a Sinn Feiner. Says it all... now he is nowhere to be seen.
I think he stood a few years ago, and came across as a very good candidate. Talked publicly about many in the SDLP wanting to drop the re-unification idea
If there is a more strident, illogical,ill prepared leader of a party, than Margaret Ritchie, then i have yet to come across them. The only place she will lead the S.D.L.P. is to complete oblivion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mMKQd8nsSA&feature=related
Its Richie's fault if Unionist's take fermanagh and south Tyrone as the SDLP are not going to claim a seat they are only there to make up numbers and possibility take the deciding votes. McKinney was on TV last sunday and make look a fool by Gerry Kelly in a debate. Another celebrity politician - crap
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 26, 2010, 11:10:15 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mMKQd8nsSA&feature=related
1957 views
The real SDLP PEB - 1704 views :D
Quote from: unitedireland on April 26, 2010, 11:40:45 AM
Its Richie's fault if Unionist's take fermanagh and south Tyrone as the SDLP are not going to claim a seat they are only there to make up numbers and possibility take the deciding votes. McKinney was on TV last sunday and make look a fool by Gerry Kelly in a debate. Another celebrity politician - crap
She admitted as much on the radio yesterday morning that it was about building for the Assembly elections next year i.e. she will hand the Westminster seat to the unionists so she can increase Fearghals chances of getting an Assembly seat.
Is that not a legitimate enough move by a party leader then? To maximise their vote in a constituency? A SF or any Nationalist victory in FST Westminster elections won't bring a UI any closer, if the constitutional issue is your big concern.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 04:22:56 PM
Is that not a legitimate enough move by a party leader then? To maximise their vote in a constituency? A SF or any Nationalist victory in FST Westminster elections won't bring a UI any closer, if the constitutional issue is your big concern.
I'd imagine if the SDLP were looking to build their strength for the Assembly elections they would have been better served to take part in the electoral pact. In refusing they have done their credibility no good amongst nationalists. Again.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 26, 2010, 04:43:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 04:22:56 PM
Is that not a legitimate enough move by a party leader then? To maximise their vote in a constituency? A SF or any Nationalist victory in FST Westminster elections won't bring a UI any closer, if the constitutional issue is your big concern.
I'd imagine if the SDLP were looking to build their strength for the Assembly elections they would have been better served to take part in the electoral pact. In refusing they have done their credibility no good amongst nationalists. Again.
Obviously Margaret Ritchie thought otherwise. The impact on their credibility will be seen in a few weeks and in the subsequent Assembly elections and they will have to live with that. Their credibility in the eyes of SF and staunch SF supporters such as yourself will probably be of little concern.
Maguire01...from what I can tell their credibility has taken a big blow in F&ST.
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on April 26, 2010, 05:00:14 PM
Maguire01...from what I can tell their credibility has taken a big blow in F&ST.
Quite possibly - we'll soon find out. Although I'd imagine that the most vocal would be SF supporters, as is the case on here. At the end of the day, it's in the hands of the electorate in FST - they can still choose to return Gildernew, the SDLP hasn't removed that option.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 04:50:38 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 26, 2010, 04:43:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 04:22:56 PM
Is that not a legitimate enough move by a party leader then? To maximise their vote in a constituency? A SF or any Nationalist victory in FST Westminster elections won't bring a UI any closer, if the constitutional issue is your big concern.
I'd imagine if the SDLP were looking to build their strength for the Assembly elections they would have been better served to take part in the electoral pact. In refusing they have done their credibility no good amongst nationalists. Again.
Obviously Margaret Ritchie thought otherwise. The impact on their credibility will be seen in a few weeks and in the subsequent Assembly elections and they will have to live with that. Their credibility in the eyes of SF and staunch SF supporters such as yourself will probably be of little concern.
Well either Margaret Ritchie thought different, (in which case she could be regarded as even worse a party leader than the posters on this thread have already alleged) or else, which I suggest is the more likely scenario, she is of the "anyone but SF" mindset that seems to permeate everything the SDLP says and does in the past number of years. I would agree with you when you say you expect the SDLP would not be all that concerned with how they are seen by SF supporters. Unfortunately they should be concerned with how the general nationalist population sees them. Again, this move by them indicated that they aren't actually too bothered with that.
Quote from: Ulick on April 26, 2010, 11:48:01 AM
She admitted as much on the radio yesterday morning that it was about building for the Assembly elections next year i.e. she will hand the Westminster seat to the unionists so she can increase Fearghals chances of getting an Assembly seat.
Is that a U turn on the claims that she wouldn't be part of a sectarian pact? Does she finally accept that nobody bought into that?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 05:06:23 PM
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on April 26, 2010, 05:00:14 PM
Maguire01...from what I can tell their credibility has taken a big blow in F&ST.
Quite possibly - we'll soon find out. Although I'd imagine that the most vocal would be SF supporters, as is the case on here. At the end of the day, it's in the hands of the electorate in FST - they can still choose to return Gildernew, the SDLP hasn't removed that option.
Quite a few traditional SDLP supporters I've met too. They're furious at Ritchie & McKinney.
Quote from: Zapatista on April 26, 2010, 05:25:41 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 26, 2010, 11:48:01 AM
She admitted as much on the radio yesterday morning that it was about building for the Assembly elections next year i.e. she will hand the Westminster seat to the unionists so she can increase Fearghals chances of getting an Assembly seat.
Is that a U turn on the claims that she wouldn't be part of a sectarian pact? Does she finally accept that nobody bought into that?
Does it have to be one or the other?
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on April 26, 2010, 05:45:11 PM
Quite a few traditional SDLP supporters I've met too. They're furious at Ritchie & McKinney.
Maybe. I'd assume they'll now vote for Gildernew? If enough people care enough and want Gildernew, she will still be elected, regardless of the lack of a pact. If she isn't elected, then we can assume she doesn't appeal to enough nationalist voters(?)
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 05:56:03 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 26, 2010, 05:25:41 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 26, 2010, 11:48:01 AM
She admitted as much on the radio yesterday morning that it was about building for the Assembly elections next year i.e. she will hand the Westminster seat to the unionists so she can increase Fearghals chances of getting an Assembly seat.
Is that a U turn on the claims that she wouldn't be part of a sectarian pact? Does she finally accept that nobody bought into that?
Does it have to be one or the other?
The question is, is it both or is it just one? If it's just one which one is it? If it's both it waters down her original position.
I'm not sure why.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 09:39:05 PM
I'm not sure why.
Well what ever has you not sure is probably my point.
I just had Alex Maskey at my doorstep canvasing. Its a pity Alex is not running himself as he is a very intelligent and articulate man.
Quote from: Orior on April 26, 2010, 10:04:48 PM
I just had Alex Maskey at my doorstep canvasing. Its a pity Alex is not running himself as he is a very intelligent and articulate man.
What constituency?
North Beal Feirste
Have yet to have any of them near my door. The Stoops must have us down as "hostile", though I can't imagine why.
Quote from: Orior on April 26, 2010, 10:04:48 PM
I just had Alex Maskey at my doorstep canvasing. Its a pity Alex is not running himself as he is a very intelligent and articulate man.
Agree, but the men in grey suits told him he wasn' t standing !!
Quote from: Gaffer on April 26, 2010, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 26, 2010, 10:04:48 PM
I just had Alex Maskey at my doorstep canvasing. Its a pity Alex is not running himself as he is a very intelligent and articulate man.
Agree, but the men in grey suits told him he wasn' t standing !!
He wasn't standig in north Belfast.
We have been hearing a lot of talk about integrity from S.D.L.P. candidates, which is difficult to square with the fact, that in order to enter Westminister, they are prepared to swear a solemn oath of loyalty , which by their own admission they dont believe in. Not much integrity there. Perhaps some moral theologian might care to comment on this stance
Quote from: Pangurban on April 27, 2010, 01:42:47 AM
We have been hearing a lot of talk about integrity from S.D.L.P. candidates, which is difficult to square with the fact, that in order to enter Westminister, they are prepared to swear a solemn oath of loyalty , which by their own admission they dont believe in. Not much integrity there. Perhaps some moral theologian might care to comment on this stance
Michael Collins did it?
Does that make it right, or moral
Quote from: Zapatista on April 27, 2010, 01:01:05 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 26, 2010, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 26, 2010, 10:04:48 PM
I just had Alex Maskey at my doorstep canvasing. Its a pity Alex is not running himself as he is a very intelligent and articulate man.
Agree, but the men in grey suits told him he wasn' t standing !!
He wasn't standig in north Belfast.
Isn't Alex south Belfast or is that just for the assembly?
Quote from: johnneycool on April 27, 2010, 09:22:05 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 27, 2010, 01:01:05 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 26, 2010, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 26, 2010, 10:04:48 PM
I just had Alex Maskey at my doorstep canvasing. Its a pity Alex is not running himself as he is a very intelligent and articulate man.
Agree, but the men in grey suits told him he wasn' t standing !!
He wasn't standig in north Belfast.
Isn't Alex south Belfast or is that just for the assembly?
South BelfastMLA but over working for Gerry Kelly in the North of the city
Quote from: Pangurban on April 27, 2010, 02:01:58 AM
Does that make it right, or moral
Nah, it was wrong then too.
Why is this tread the focus of debate about the upcoming elections? It looks like Sinn Fein are more into SDLP bashing than focusing on their own policies.
Quote from: Main Street on April 27, 2010, 12:25:53 PM
Why is this tread the focus of debate about the upcoming elections? It looks like Sinn Fein are more into SDLP bashing than focusing on their own policies.
How do you work that out?
Quote from: Main Street on April 27, 2010, 12:25:53 PM
Why is this tread the focus of debate about the upcoming elections? It looks like Sinn Fein are more into SDLP bashing than focusing on their own policies.
Agree totally. You dont see them bashing their good mates......... the unionists.
Quote from: glens abu on April 27, 2010, 12:39:31 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 27, 2010, 12:25:53 PM
Why is this tread the focus of debate about the upcoming elections? It looks like Sinn Fein are more into SDLP bashing than focusing on their own policies.
How do you work that out?
I read the thread.
Quote from: Main Street on April 27, 2010, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 27, 2010, 12:39:31 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 27, 2010, 12:25:53 PM
Why is this tread the focus of debate about the upcoming elections? It looks like Sinn Fein are more into SDLP bashing than focusing on their own policies.
How do you work that out?
I read the thread.
so do you really think all the people on here complaining about the SDLP are Sinn Fein members
Quote from: glens abu on April 27, 2010, 01:14:22 PM
so do you really think all the people on here complaining about the SDLP are Sinn Fein members
I think it's clear that a number of the main contributers are either SF members or staunch supporters. Some people clearly have an agenda.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 27, 2010, 01:57:18 PM
Quote from: glens abu on April 27, 2010, 01:14:22 PM
so do you really think all the people on here complaining about the SDLP are Sinn Fein members
I think it's clear that a number of the main contributers are either SF members or staunch supporters. Some people clearly have an agenda.
Well as I told you before I am but would say more supporters than members,but I might be wrong.
Quote from: Gaffer on April 27, 2010, 12:49:02 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 27, 2010, 12:25:53 PM
Why is this tread the focus of debate about the upcoming elections? It looks like Sinn Fein are more into SDLP bashing than focusing on their own policies.
Agree totally. You dont see them bashing their good mates......... the unionists.
I think the SDLP have proven by their attitude to Fermanagh/South Tyrone that they indeed are the true friends of unionism. I think the examples I outlined on page one of this thread would substantiate that argument further.
I have no problem being good mates with Unionists.
Good lad. Me either. It doesnt mean I agree with the SDLP accommodating them at the cost of nationalist majority consitituents in Fermanagh/South Tyrone.
Quote from: Gaffer on April 27, 2010, 12:49:02 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 27, 2010, 12:25:53 PM
Why is this tread the focus of debate about the upcoming elections? It looks like Sinn Fein are more into SDLP bashing than focusing on their own policies.
Agree totally. You dont see them bashing their good mates......... the unionists.
There is an election on. SF and the SDLP are fighting for the same floating vote.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 27, 2010, 06:20:33 PM
Good lad. Me either. It doesnt mean I agree with the SDLP accommodating them at the cost of nationalist majority consitituents in Fermanagh/South Tyrone.
Whoever wins F/ST will have been democratically elected by the constituents. Get over it.
I was dissapointed to hear the sitting MP for South Belfast say that the withdrawal of Alex Maskey was a stunt. It was also dissapointing to hear Ms Ritchie say that the withdrawal would not affect the SDLP vote in the area. Without going into specifics some of the electorate who would ordinarily have voted Sinn Fein/Unionist at the last election voted for the MP currently in situ, simply to help the area move away from tribal politics. I may be wrong but I firmly believe the arrogance demonstrated recently by Ms Ritchie and Alisdair McDonnell could well come back to bite. My late grandfather always told me never to pull the ladder up behind you as you never know when you have to go back down again, wise words indeed. Hopefully for them they haven't cut off their nose to spite their face by dismissing in particular Sinn Fein voters out of hand. (It is ironic that for years the SDLP pleaded for nationalist votes in the South Belfast area in order to secure a nationalist seat and now they treat the same voters with disdain?)
Quote from: Rosie McCann on April 27, 2010, 09:09:40 PM
I was dissapointed to hear the sitting MP for South Belfast say that the withdrawal of Alex Maskey was a stunt. It was also dissapointing to hear Ms Ritchie say that the withdrawal would not affect the SDLP vote in the area. Without going into specifics some of the electorate who would ordinarily have voted Sinn Fein/Unionist at the last election voted for the MP currently in situ, simply to help the area move away from tribal politics. I may be wrong but I firmly believe the arrogance demonstrated recently by Ms Ritchie and Alisdair McDonnell could well come back to bite. My late grandfather always told me never to pull the ladder up behind you as you never know when you have to go back down again, wise words indeed. Hopefully for them they haven't cut off their nose to spite their face by dismissing in particular Sinn Fein voters out of hand. (It is ironic that for years the SDLP pleaded for nationalist votes in the South Belfast area in order to secure a nationalist seat and now they treat the same voters with disdain?)
That's shocking bad electioneering :o
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 27, 2010, 06:20:33 PM
Good lad. Me either. It doesnt mean I agree with the SDLP accommodating them at the cost of nationalist majority consitituents in Fermanagh/South Tyrone.
IDEA ! Gildernew steps aside. Sinn Fein call for Nationalists to support McKinney to ensure a nationalist is returned.
If however, Sinn FEin are still prepared to split the nationalist vote and let a unionist become elected then they are as nuch to blame as the SDLP.
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 27, 2010, 02:32:48 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on April 27, 2010, 12:49:02 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 27, 2010, 12:25:53 PM
Why is this tread the focus of debate about the upcoming elections? It looks like Sinn Fein are more into SDLP bashing than focusing on their own policies.
Agree totally. You dont see them bashing their good mates......... the unionists.
I think the SDLP have proven by their attitude to Fermanagh/South Tyrone that they indeed are the true friends of unionism. I think the examples I outlined on page one of this thread would substantiate that argument further.
Well if you'd rather turf grenades . . .
Quote from: Gaffer on April 27, 2010, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 27, 2010, 06:20:33 PM
Good lad. Me either. It doesnt mean I agree with the SDLP accommodating them at the cost of nationalist majority consitituents in Fermanagh/South Tyrone.
IDEA ! Gildernew steps aside. Sinn Fein call for Nationalists to support McKinney to ensure a nationalist is returned.
If however, Sinn FEin are still prepared to split the nationalist vote and let a unionist become elected then they are as nuch to blame as the SDLP.
OK so your "IDEA!" for a nationalist pact is for SF to pull out of two constituencies to facilitate an SDLP victory in both? Sound reasoning. Have you not read the newspapers? Sinn Fein already pulled out of a consitituency to facilitate an SDLP candidate. The SDLP would not reciprocate in another consitituency.
The SDLP and Orange Order will be
totally responsible if/when a tory unionist is elected to Fermanagh/South Tyrone.
Quote from: Main Street on April 27, 2010, 12:25:53 PM
Why is this tread the focus of debate about the upcoming elections? It looks like Sinn Fein are more into SDLP bashing than focusing on their own policies.
Policies? It's a Brit election, policy is irrelevant. Given that the amount of influence anyone this side of the water will have amounts to the square root of f**k all, the only policy that matters is position on the National Question. The Stoops appear to want to doff their caps to the old colonial masters and Durkan and McDonnell have been seduced by the pomp, circumstance and cash of the Brit establishment - Irish nationalists my hole. West Brits or Uncle Toms would be a more fitting description.
had the shinners at the door last week, the main aim is to become the biggest party here, gildernew needs 9 out of 10 nationlist votes in fst to win the seat, lets be honest winning westminister seats for sinn fein is just muscle flexing so its not the end of the world if they dont. unfortunately for the sdlp they have to try for jobs or they're gonna disappear altogether, they'll hold onto a couple of mps this time but they're in terminal decline like their wishy washy mates the unionist party ::)
Lets not forget another aspect of this equation,Margaret Ritchie will need Unionist votes to retain South Down for the SDLP, probably her primary reason for rejecting a pact, pure self interest
Quote from: Gaffer on April 27, 2010, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 27, 2010, 06:20:33 PM
Good lad. Me either. It doesnt mean I agree with the SDLP accommodating them at the cost of nationalist majority consitituents in Fermanagh/South Tyrone.
IDEA ! Gildernew steps aside. Sinn Fein call for Nationalists to support McKinney to ensure a nationalist is returned.
If however, Sinn FEin are still prepared to split the nationalist vote and let a unionist become elected then they are as nuch to blame as the SDLP.
IDEA!! Watch the Politics Show "debate" with McKinney & Kelly. McKinney wouldn't get elected if he was the only one standing...Question for McKinney supporters...how long has he been a member of the SDLP??
It'd probably make more sense to let the sitting MP stand if its an election pact you 'd be entering in to.
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on April 28, 2010, 09:06:32 AM
IDEA!! Watch the Politics Show "debate" with McKinney & Kelly. McKinney wouldn't get elected if he was the only one standing...Question for McKinney supporters...how long has he been a member of the SDLP??
Firstly, I think some people are placing too much importance on that episode of The Politics Show. McKinney was bad, but it's hardly a primetime show. It's impact will be limited.
Also I'm not sure of the relevance of McKinney's time in the SDLP. How long was Ruane a member of SF before she stood for them as a candidate?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 28, 2010, 01:05:58 PM
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on April 28, 2010, 09:06:32 AM
IDEA!! Watch the Politics Show "debate" with McKinney & Kelly. McKinney wouldn't get elected if he was the only one standing...Question for McKinney supporters...how long has he been a member of the SDLP??
Firstly, I think some people are placing too much importance on that episode of The Politics Show. McKinney was bad, but it's hardly a primetime show. It's impact will be limited.
Also I'm not sure of the relevance of McKinney's time in the SDLP. How long was Ruane a member of SF before she stood for them as a candidate?
Haven't a clue, I would never vote for Ruane as she's been promoted way above her level of competence (plus she's not standing in my constituency). However I do know that she was involved in community "activism" in West Belfast for a good while before she became an elected representative but that's probably not relevant.
Fearghal McKinney is looking for my vote judging by the leaflet stuck on my car at Mass on Sunday and the same leaflet through the letter box. So his background and experience are relevant. The SDLP will loook back on his candidacy next Friday and think "Well it seemed like a good idea at the time" I would guess the thinking was "We'll get a high profile celeb candidate to eat into Gildernew's vote and maybe set us up for a decent tilt at Gerry McHugh's Assembly seat". Maybe not a bad strategy. They were scuppered by two things 1) The single Unionist/Tory candidate (over which the SDLP had no control) and 2) A poor candidate who clearly doesn't have a grasp of the issues (over which they do have control).
Quote from: the_daddy on April 28, 2010, 01:46:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 28, 2010, 01:05:58 PM
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on April 28, 2010, 09:06:32 AM
IDEA!! Watch the Politics Show "debate" with McKinney & Kelly. McKinney wouldn't get elected if he was the only one standing...Question for McKinney supporters...how long has he been a member of the SDLP??
Firstly, I think some people are placing too much importance on that episode of The Politics Show. McKinney was bad, but it's hardly a primetime show. It's impact will be limited.
Also I'm not sure of the relevance of McKinney's time in the SDLP. How long was Ruane a member of SF before she stood for them as a candidate?
McKinney's performance wasn't of Cecil Walker proportions, but it was pretty bad by anyone's standards. It was certainly poor enough to make me seriously reconsider about lumping heavily on Connor.
the daddy..don't lump on anyone here...I still think Connor will win but it's going to be too close to consider a big bet IMHO
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 28, 2010, 01:05:58 PM
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on April 28, 2010, 09:06:32 AM
IDEA!! Watch the Politics Show "debate" with McKinney & Kelly. McKinney wouldn't get elected if he was the only one standing...Question for McKinney supporters...how long has he been a member of the SDLP??
Firstly, I think some people are placing too much importance on that episode of The Politics Show. McKinney was bad, but it's hardly a primetime show. It's impact will be limited.
Also I'm not sure of the relevance of McKinney's time in the SDLP. How long was Ruane a member of SF before she stood for them as a candidate?
How do you make that?
He goes on the show to debate with Gerry Kelly about why Nationalists should vote SDLP instead of Sinn Fein. He makes a complete hash of it. Spurting out tired cliches and losing every single debate against him.
To me that is important. It highlights that rather than selecting a candidate of substance, the SDLP parashooted in a local celebrity to win votes. Quite frankly, that's insulting to the local electorate.
A further note, you may say Fergal McKinney is new to politics. Mike Nesbitt is new to politics too, but he handled himself a lot better against Jeffrey Donaldson.
Quote from: Pangurban on April 28, 2010, 12:06:30 AM
Lets not forget another aspect of this equation,Margaret Ritchie will need Unionist votes to retain South Down for the SDLP, probably her primary reason for rejecting a pact, pure self interest
Nail on the head. It is within the SDLP's interest to appeal to the centre ground to help maintain their vote in areas like South Down and Foyle. Making any pact with SF may scupper this.
Quote from: ziggysego on April 28, 2010, 01:52:20 PM
How do you make that?
He goes on the show to debate with Gerry Kelly about why Nationalists should vote SDLP instead of Sinn Fein. He makes a complete hash of it. Spurting out tired cliches and losing every single debate against him.
To me that is important. It highlights that rather than selecting a candidate of substance, the SDLP parashooted in a local celebrity to win votes. Quite frankly, that's insulting to the local electorate.
Ziggy, not saying that his appearance wasn't a diaster, just wondering what propotion of the electorate actually watched that show - it's not exactly primetime. If few people saw it, it's impact may not be very significant.
As for 'substance', there's more to that than performing in a TV interview; there are plenty of politicians who can talk the talk but do little else. Difficult to judge whether he has any substance at this stage. And as for being dropped into Fermanagh, he does at least have a proper connection to the area - there are many instances of parachuting in candidates across all parties.
And I agree, Nesbitt performed well against Donaldson, but that doesn't necessarily mean McKinney can't improve with time.
Quote from: cusack og on April 28, 2010, 06:31:22 PM
Quote from: Pangurban on April 28, 2010, 12:06:30 AM
Lets not forget another aspect of this equation,Margaret Ritchie will need Unionist votes to retain South Down for the SDLP, probably her primary reason for rejecting a pact, pure self interest
Nail on the head. It is within the SDLP's interest to appeal to the centre ground to help maintain their vote in areas like South Down and Foyle. Making any pact with SF may scupper this.
Spot on. Why would they even countenance the shinners' approach for a pact? It makes no long-term sense, if they accepted a pact there would be no need for them.
Does anyone know why the shinners pulled out of South Belfast rather than FST?
Quote from: DickyRock on April 29, 2010, 08:52:57 AM
Does anyone know why the shinners pulled out of South Belfast rather than FST?
Presumably since the SDLP are the incumbent in Sth Belfast and SF are the incumbent in FST, the Shinners are giving up 3,000 votes in Sth Belfast whereas they'd be giving up 19,000 in FST?
I was told it was a policy of SDLP not to enter into pacts so if this is the case, why the anger at them this time, what's changed from any other time? Is there historical precedence of them doing it (in the last 20 years anyway)?
On another point, jeez I can't listen to Catriona Ruane - she was on Radio Ulster this morning and for once I thought Margaret Ritchie spoke more sense.
Quote from: Rois on April 29, 2010, 09:36:39 AM
On another point, jeez I can't listen to Catriona Ruane - she was on Radio Ulster this morning and for once I thought Margaret Ritchie spoke more sense.
The two of them are hard to listen to :D
Quote from: Rois on April 29, 2010, 09:36:39 AM
I was told it was a policy of SDLP not to enter into pacts so if this is the case, why the anger at them this time, what's changed from any other time? Is there historical precedence of them doing it (in the last 20 years anyway)?
On another point, jeez I can't listen to Catriona Ruane - she was on Radio Ulster this morning and for once I thought Margaret Ritchie spoke more sense.
What is that called...Hobson's Choice??
Did anyone see this pack of clowns on over the weekend? That Richie one is an absolute nightmare. She has no charisma, no humour, no intellect and ... I could go on. Shower of arrogant Castle Snobs..
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on November 07, 2010, 07:54:08 PM
Did anyone see this pack of clowns on over the weekend? That Richie one is an absolute nightmare. She has no charisma, no humour, no intellect and ... I could go on. Shower of arrogant Castle Snobs..
Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party.
You're right about that bundle of joy that is Margaret Richie; and it's because of her lack of charisma, humour, intellect, charm, tactical awareness, personality etc that I hope & pray she remains as the stoops leader, and with any luck will do untold damage to their electoral prospects.
Rant over.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 09:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on November 07, 2010, 07:54:08 PM
Did anyone see this pack of clowns on over the weekend? That Richie one is an absolute nightmare. She has no charisma, no humour, no intellect and ... I could go on. Shower of arrogant Castle Snobs..
Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party.
You're right about that bundle of joy that is Margaret Richie; and it's because of her lack of charisma, humour, intellect, charm, tactical awareness, personality etc that I hope & pray she remains as the stoops leader, and with any luck will do untold damage to their electoral prospects.
Rant over.
Solicitors and Lawyers are the same thing ::)
Quote from: Gaffer on November 07, 2010, 10:04:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 09:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on November 07, 2010, 07:54:08 PM
Did anyone see this pack of clowns on over the weekend? That Richie one is an absolute nightmare. She has no charisma, no humour, no intellect and ... I could go on. Shower of arrogant Castle Snobs..
Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party.
You're right about that bundle of joy that is Margaret Richie; and it's because of her lack of charisma, humour, intellect, charm, tactical awareness, personality etc that I hope & pray she remains as the stoops leader, and with any luck will do untold damage to their electoral prospects.
Rant over.
Solicitors and Lawyers are the same thing ::)
Not strictly true. All solicitors are lawyers but not all lawyers are solicitors.
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
Not to mention Barristers, Gallsman
(http://thumbnails.truveo.com/0022/2D/D2/2DD25EBD0819CEFFC49A32_Large.jpg)
Good to see you have resigned yourself to acceptance of SF dominance all the same ;)
Quote from: Gaffer on November 07, 2010, 10:04:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 09:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on November 07, 2010, 07:54:08 PM
Did anyone see this pack of clowns on over the weekend? That Richie one is an absolute nightmare. She has no charisma, no humour, no intellect and ... I could go on. Shower of arrogant Castle Snobs..
Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party.
You're right about that bundle of joy that is Margaret Richie; and it's because of her lack of charisma, humour, intellect, charm, tactical awareness, personality etc that I hope & pray she remains as the stoops leader, and with any luck will do untold damage to their electoral prospects.
Rant over.
Solicitors and Lawyers are the same thing ::)
1. ::)
2. Is that all you have to say about my post? Does that mean you agree with everything else?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 10:21:28 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on November 07, 2010, 10:04:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 09:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on November 07, 2010, 07:54:08 PM
Did anyone see this pack of clowns on over the weekend? That Richie one is an absolute nightmare. She has no charisma, no humour, no intellect and ... I could go on. Shower of arrogant Castle Snobs..
Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party.
You're right about that bundle of joy that is Margaret Richie; and it's because of her lack of charisma, humour, intellect, charm, tactical awareness, personality etc that I hope & pray she remains as the stoops leader, and with any luck will do untold damage to their electoral prospects.
Rant over.
Solicitors and Lawyers are the same thing ::)
1. ::)
2. Is that all you have to say about my post? Does that mean you agree with everything else?
Yip, that's all I have to say...Why?
Quote from: Gaffer on November 07, 2010, 10:24:21 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 10:21:28 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on November 07, 2010, 10:04:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 09:26:37 PM
Quote from: Hurler on the Bitch on November 07, 2010, 07:54:08 PM
Did anyone see this pack of clowns on over the weekend? That Richie one is an absolute nightmare. She has no charisma, no humour, no intellect and ... I could go on. Shower of arrogant Castle Snobs..
Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party.
You're right about that bundle of joy that is Margaret Richie; and it's because of her lack of charisma, humour, intellect, charm, tactical awareness, personality etc that I hope & pray she remains as the stoops leader, and with any luck will do untold damage to their electoral prospects.
Rant over.
Solicitors and Lawyers are the same thing ::)
1. ::)
2. Is that all you have to say about my post? Does that mean you agree with everything else?
Yip, that's all I have to say...Why?
No reason. Thanks for the conversation!
I don't understand this snobbery for such professions, especially (as has already been pointed out) as there are plenty of SF voters at University aiming to join those ranks. They may tick the SF box, but they don't want no 'average industrial wage'.
Also even (or especially) in the darkest days, getting a good education was always highly valued in the Catholic community. That having a profession is a source of ridicule baffles me.
Although I'm sure you'd never call on the services of a Doctor, Solicitor or Lawyer yourself NS.
Jaysus lads ye are all awful men for getting your knickers in a twist.
What if I just stick to the original... Stoop Down Low Party? Happy everyone?
Good.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 10:37:51 PM
Jaysus lads ye are all awful men for getting your knickers in a twist.
What if I just stick to the original... Stoop Down Low Party? Happy everyone?
Good.
I'd rather you explained why being a professional was such a source of ridicule.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 07, 2010, 10:39:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 10:37:51 PM
Jaysus lads ye are all awful men for getting your knickers in a twist.
What if I just stick to the original... Stoop Down Low Party? Happy everyone?
Good.
I'd rather you explained why being a professional was such a source of ridicule.
Professions a source of ridicule? I don't remember ridiculing any professions.
Sinn Fein dominance?! Oh right, you mean in the occupied six counties. By being so narrow minded and limiting your scope you're not really buying into the whole "we're an all-Ireland party" ideal, are you? So, in reality, you can't really consider yourself a Republican. How disappointing for you.
You remark on snobbery (which is just prejudice) and then crudely attempt to insult certain professions. Is that not snobbery?
So you've just found out you're a snob and you're not even a Republican? I'd call that a bad evening all round.
So what was the purpose of the 'Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party' line?
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 07, 2010, 10:51:18 PM
So what was the purpose of the 'Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party' line?
A reference to the SDLP being a party which markets itself towards the "middle classes" and maintains minimal interest in the "working class" communities. The Alliance Party, in other words.
I've seen Sinn Fein out and about the Malone Road on many occasions. Is this not marketing to the middle class?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 10:57:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 07, 2010, 10:51:18 PM
So what was the purpose of the 'Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party' line?
A reference to the SDLP being a party which markets itself towards the "middle classes" and maintains minimal interest in the "working class" communities. The Alliance Party, in other words.
I thought it was generally a reference to the background of the party's elected representatives. I also thought the 'S' stood for Schoolteachers.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 07, 2010, 11:05:15 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 10:57:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 07, 2010, 10:51:18 PM
So what was the purpose of the 'Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party' line?
A reference to the SDLP being a party which markets itself towards the "middle classes" and maintains minimal interest in the "working class" communities. The Alliance Party, in other words.
I thought it was generally a reference to the background of the party's elected representatives. I also thought the 'S' stood for Schoolteachers.
Glad to have clarified my point. Apologies for any mass confusion.
Sin sin, mar a deirtear.
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
Jesus christ what a generalisation. How or why would you jump to that conclusion?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:12:45 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
Jesus christ what a generalisation. How or why would you jump to that conclusion?
Because I'm of that generation and have many friends who would be part of those lectures, perhaps?
Perhaps I should have said would be more sympathetic to Sinn Fein than the SDLP considering how many people of my generation (yes Pints, I'm reinforcing the point that my insight is a lot greater than yours) don't bother to vote.
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:22:05 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:12:45 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
Jesus christ what a generalisation. How or why would you jump to that conclusion?
Because I'm of that generation and have many friends who would be part of those lectures, perhaps?
Perhaps I should have said would be more sympathetic to Sinn Fein than the SDLP considering how many people of my generation (yes Pints, I'm reinforcing the point that my insight is a lot greater than yours) don't bother to vote.
Right so we've gone from the majority of those wearing GAA tops in lectures would be Sinn Fein voters to many of your generation would be more sympathetic to Sinn Fein (and you don't need any major political insight in to know Sinn Fein would be more popular amongst young people).
I think you see how stupid your comment was.
Em, no, not really. What I was doing was pointing out that after NS had his little dig (in his head) at "middle class" professions I pointed out that an awful lot of Sinn Fein supporters aspire to enter such professions.
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:40:17 PM
Em, no, not really. What I was doing was pointing out that after NS had his little dig (in his head) at "middle class" professions I pointed out that an awful lot of Sinn Fein supporters aspire to enter such professions.
What you did was make a strange generalisation about people wearing GAA tops to university lectures.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:41:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:40:17 PM
Em, no, not really. What I was doing was pointing out that after NS had his little dig (in his head) at "middle class" professions I pointed out that an awful lot of Sinn Fein supporters aspire to enter such professions.
What you did was make a strange generalisation about people wearing GAA tops to university lectures.
Strange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:47:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:41:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:40:17 PM
Em, no, not really. What I was doing was pointing out that after NS had his little dig (in his head) at "middle class" professions I pointed out that an awful lot of Sinn Fein supporters aspire to enter such professions.
What you did was make a strange generalisation about people wearing GAA tops to university lectures.
Strange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.
How do you know you have more of an insight than me?
I'm also pretty sure you have never conducted a survey among gaa top wearing students in queens or jordanstown - you didn't even go to university there as I recall.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:51:53 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:47:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:41:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:40:17 PM
Em, no, not really. What I was doing was pointing out that after NS had his little dig (in his head) at "middle class" professions I pointed out that an awful lot of Sinn Fein supporters aspire to enter such professions.
What you did was make a strange generalisation about people wearing GAA tops to university lectures.
Strange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.
How do you know you have more of an insight than me?
I'm also pretty sure you have never conducted a survey among gaa top wearing students in queens or jordanstown - you didn't even go to university there as I recall.
Believe what you want, I actually don't give a shit. I'm pretty secure in my belief in the original statement.
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:53:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:51:53 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:47:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:41:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:40:17 PM
Em, no, not really. What I was doing was pointing out that after NS had his little dig (in his head) at "middle class" professions I pointed out that an awful lot of Sinn Fein supporters aspire to enter such professions.
What you did was make a strange generalisation about people wearing GAA tops to university lectures.
Strange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.
How do you know you have more of an insight than me?
I'm also pretty sure you have never conducted a survey among gaa top wearing students in queens or jordanstown - you didn't even go to university there as I recall.
Believe what you want, I actually don't give a shit. I'm pretty secure in my belief in the original statement.
aye alright - you know all about the voting habits of gaa top wearing students in universities you never even attended. ::)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:57:52 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:53:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:51:53 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:47:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:41:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:40:17 PM
Em, no, not really. What I was doing was pointing out that after NS had his little dig (in his head) at "middle class" professions I pointed out that an awful lot of Sinn Fein supporters aspire to enter such professions.
What you did was make a strange generalisation about people wearing GAA tops to university lectures.
Strange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.
How do you know you have more of an insight than me?
I'm also pretty sure you have never conducted a survey among gaa top wearing students in queens or jordanstown - you didn't even go to university there as I recall.
Believe what you want, I actually don't give a shit. I'm pretty secure in my belief in the original statement.
aye alright - you know all about the voting habits of gaa top wearing students in universities you never even attended. ::)
A lot more than you do, yes.
Pints, what Gallsman is trying to say is that you are too old to understand and are simply below him.
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:53:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:51:53 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:47:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:41:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:40:17 PM
Em, no, not really. What I was doing was pointing out that after NS had his little dig (in his head) at "middle class" professions I pointed out that an awful lot of Sinn Fein supporters aspire to enter such professions.
What you did was make a strange generalisation about people wearing GAA tops to university lectures.
Strange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.
How do you know you have more of an insight than me?
I'm also pretty sure you have never conducted a survey among gaa top wearing students in queens or jordanstown - you didn't even go to university there as I recall.
Believe what you want, I actually don't give a shit. I'm pretty secure in my belief in the original statement.
Needless to say, Gallsman is the mule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh33bGAxl58)
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 12:14:21 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:57:52 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:53:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:51:53 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:47:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 07, 2010, 11:41:31 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 11:40:17 PM
Em, no, not really. What I was doing was pointing out that after NS had his little dig (in his head) at "middle class" professions I pointed out that an awful lot of Sinn Fein supporters aspire to enter such professions.
What you did was make a strange generalisation about people wearing GAA tops to university lectures.
Strange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.
How do you know you have more of an insight than me?
I'm also pretty sure you have never conducted a survey among gaa top wearing students in queens or jordanstown - you didn't even go to university there as I recall.
Believe what you want, I actually don't give a shit. I'm pretty secure in my belief in the original statement.
aye alright - you know all about the voting habits of gaa top wearing students in universities you never even attended. ::)
A lot more than you do, yes.
Aye, you know everything ::)
QuoteStrange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.How do you know you have more of an insight than me?
I'm also pretty sure you have never conducted a survey among gaa top wearing students in queens or jordanstown - you didn't even go to university there as I recall.
Believe what you want, I actually don't give a shit. I'm pretty secure in my belief in the original statement.
Tell you what Gallsman you certainly bought into the Trinity education when you went down there. Your attitude seems to be, we debate your point of view and the other one then decide you are right. You put me in mind of alasdair mcdonnell ::)
I too am of the same generation as gallsman and his comments would be fairly accurate. There actually was a survey carried out which found that 25% of the students would support sinn fein, and the three other main parties fared around 10%-14% or so. A large proportion of students didn't care
Quote from: Banana Man on November 08, 2010, 10:29:51 AM
QuoteStrange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.How do you know you have more of an insight than me?
I'm also pretty sure you have never conducted a survey among gaa top wearing students in queens or jordanstown - you didn't even go to university there as I recall.
Believe what you want, I actually don't give a shit. I'm pretty secure in my belief in the original statement.
Tell you what Gallsman you certainly bought into the Trinity education when you went down there. Your attitude seems to be, we debate your point of view and the other one then decide you are right. You put me in mind of alasdair mcdonnell ::)
Well that's just shite of the highest order, isn't it? I've stated what my belief is based on and in return all that has been presented is a load of crap with no evidence to justify any other opinion. I've already stated that I have no firm evidence and my belief purely comes from generational insight and frienships amongst the various classes mentioned earlier.
The higlighted bit makes no sense. Maybe it's because you didn't go to Trinity or something that you can't communicate effectively. You know, seeing as I go on about it so much and try to remind everyone of my superiority. ::) ::)
QuoteQuote from: Banana Man on Today at 10:29:51 AM
Quote
Strange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.How do you know you have more of an insight than me?
I'm also pretty sure you have never conducted a survey among gaa top wearing students in queens or jordanstown - you didn't even go to university there as I recall.
Believe what you want, I actually don't give a shit. I'm pretty secure in my belief in the original statement.
Tell you what Gallsman you certainly bought into the Trinity education when you went down there. Your attitude seems to be, we debate your point of view and the other one then decide you are right. You put me in mind of alasdair mcdonnell
Well that's just shite of the highest order, isn't it? I've stated what my belief is based on and in return all that has been presented is a load of crap with no evidence to justify any other opinion. I've already stated that I have no firm evidence and my belief purely comes from generational insight and frienships amongst the various classes mentioned earlier.
The higlighted bit makes no sense. Maybe it's because you didn't go to Trinity or something that you can't communicate effectively. You know, seeing as I go on about it so much and try to remind everyone of my superiority.
Is that your attempt at debate? label everything as shite?
Maybe I gave you too much credit. Trinity would be seen as one of the last bastions of imperialism in Dublin, the last of the blueblood etc, they would foster and encourage the condescending attitude that you continuously represent here, with the sweeping generalisations of the 'bog Irish'.
If you had read what I posted you would see I was referring to you dismissing pints argument simply because you believed you were better qualified than him despite not knowing what experience he would have on the matter.
Certainly looks like you bought into the arrogant dogma of trinity very well. Mission accomplished.
I think that's a very sweeping generalisation that Gallsman has made there. I would have worn the odd Gaelic jersey around Queen's but have never and would never vote Sinn Fein.
Having said that I have not voted for anyone in years as the SDLP nor any of the other parties have put forward somebody I want to vote for. Our political system is a joke and the sooner we can get real leaders who get things done rather than people who like to take cheap shots and settle old scores the better in my view!!
PS. Gregory Campbell is the worst excuse of a Public Representative I have ever come across. Cannot stand him at all!
Quote from: Banana Man on November 08, 2010, 01:38:38 PM
QuoteQuote from: Banana Man on Today at 10:29:51 AM
Quote
Strange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.How do you know you have more of an insight than me?
I'm also pretty sure you have never conducted a survey among gaa top wearing students in queens or jordanstown - you didn't even go to university there as I recall.
Believe what you want, I actually don't give a shit. I'm pretty secure in my belief in the original statement.
Tell you what Gallsman you certainly bought into the Trinity education when you went down there. Your attitude seems to be, we debate your point of view and the other one then decide you are right. You put me in mind of alasdair mcdonnell
Well that's just shite of the highest order, isn't it? I've stated what my belief is based on and in return all that has been presented is a load of crap with no evidence to justify any other opinion. I've already stated that I have no firm evidence and my belief purely comes from generational insight and frienships amongst the various classes mentioned earlier.
The higlighted bit makes no sense. Maybe it's because you didn't go to Trinity or something that you can't communicate effectively. You know, seeing as I go on about it so much and try to remind everyone of my superiority.
Is that your attempt at debate? label everything as shite?
Maybe I gave you too much credit. Trinity would be seen as one of the last bastions of imperialism in Dublin, the last of the blueblood etc, they would foster and encourage the condescending attitude that you continuously represent here, with the sweeping generalisations of the 'bog Irish'.
If you had read what I posted you would see I was referring to you dismissing pints argument simply because you believed you were better qualified than him despite not knowing what experience he would have on the matter.
Certainly looks like you bought into the arrogant dogma of trinity very well. Mission accomplished.
Can you not even see the hypocrisy here? What exactly do you know of Trinity? I'd happily wager the answer is something close to nothing based on this post. I also went to DCU - perhaps you'd care to elaborate on what I picked up from there?
I never once dismissed Pints - my point was that I believe I'm slightly better qualified than Pints to comment on such matters due to certain factors. Whether or not he or you dispute this is irrelevant.
Quote
On Hiatus/Retired
Re: The SDLP
« Reply #156 on: Today at 05:05:43 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Banana Man on Today at 01:38:38 PM
Quote
Quote from: Banana Man on Today at 10:29:51 AM
Quote
Strange to you perhaps? As I pointed out, I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so am slightly more qualified to comment.How do you know you have more of an insight than me?
I'm also pretty sure you have never conducted a survey among gaa top wearing students in queens or jordanstown - you didn't even go to university there as I recall.
Believe what you want, I actually don't give a shit. I'm pretty secure in my belief in the original statement.
Tell you what Gallsman you certainly bought into the Trinity education when you went down there. Your attitude seems to be, we debate your point of view and the other one then decide you are right. You put me in mind of alasdair mcdonnell
Well that's just shite of the highest order, isn't it? I've stated what my belief is based on and in return all that has been presented is a load of crap with no evidence to justify any other opinion. I've already stated that I have no firm evidence and my belief purely comes from generational insight and frienships amongst the various classes mentioned earlier.
The higlighted bit makes no sense. Maybe it's because you didn't go to Trinity or something that you can't communicate effectively. You know, seeing as I go on about it so much and try to remind everyone of my superiority.
Is that your attempt at debate? label everything as shite?
Maybe I gave you too much credit. Trinity would be seen as one of the last bastions of imperialism in Dublin, the last of the blueblood etc, they would foster and encourage the condescending attitude that you continuously represent here, with the sweeping generalisations of the 'bog Irish'.
If you had read what I posted you would see I was referring to you dismissing pints argument simply because you believed you were better qualified than him despite not knowing what experience he would have on the matter.
Certainly looks like you bought into the arrogant dogma of trinity very well. Mission accomplished.
Can you not even see the hypocrisy here? What exactly do you know of Trinity? I'd happily wager the answer is something close to nothing based on this post. I also went to DCU - perhaps you'd care to elaborate on what I picked up from there?
I never once dismissed Pints - my point was that I believe I'm slightly better qualified than Pints to comment on such matters due to certain factors. Whether or not he or you dispute this is irrelevant.
That's the cusp of it there, in your version of debating, if someone disagrees with you it is irrelevant ::)
Yes, that's what I said.
I offered up evidence of why I believe I'm qualified to comment on such matters. What have you offered?
I'm still waiting to find out what you know of Trinity and DCU.
Some sweeping statements on this thread.
Just as well we aren't into generalisations on this board!
Was Margaret trying to fly away like a wee birdie at the end of the SDLP report on UTV?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 11:10:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 07, 2010, 11:05:15 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 10:57:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 07, 2010, 10:51:18 PM
So what was the purpose of the 'Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party' line?
A reference to the SDLP being a party which markets itself towards the "middle classes" and maintains minimal interest in the "working class" communities. The Alliance Party, in other words.
I thought it was generally a reference to the background of the party's elected representatives. I also thought the 'S' stood for Schoolteachers.
Glad to have clarified my point. Apologies for any mass confusion.
Sin sin, mar a deirtear.
You clarified your point? The reference to the professions generally relates to the background of SDLP members, not their 'target audience'.
And is this an example of the 'minimal interest' in the "working class" communities?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11706738
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
You have a crack at nally for being a snob and then come out with the bit i have highlighted? Reads a bit snobbish to me. Are you saying that nobody from a city club votes Sinn Féin?
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:31:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
You have a crack at nally for being a snob and then come out with the bit i have highlighted? Reads a bit snobbish to me. Are you saying that nobody from a city club votes Sinn Féin?
Em, no.
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:31:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
You have a crack at nally for being a snob and then come out with the bit i have highlighted? Reads a bit snobbish to me. Are you saying that nobody from a city club votes Sinn Féin?
Em, no.
So then why stick the country GAA supporters in your point?
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:39:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:31:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
You have a crack at nally for being a snob and then come out with the bit i have highlighted? Reads a bit snobbish to me. Are you saying that nobody from a city club votes Sinn Féin?
Em, no.
So then why stick the country GAA supporters in your point?
Sheer weight of numbers, perhaps???
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:40:41 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:39:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:31:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
You have a crack at nally for being a snob and then come out with the bit i have highlighted? Reads a bit snobbish to me. Are you saying that nobody from a city club votes Sinn Féin?
Em, no.
So then why stick the country GAA supporters in your point?
Sheer weight of numbers, perhaps???
Perhaps? And say for instance if a person wasn't wearing their own area or counties GAA top, say someone from west belfast wearing a crossmaglen shirt, would this not impact your point of people in a law or medicine lecture voting for the shinners based on their clothes?
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:39:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:31:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
You have a crack at nally for being a snob and then come out with the bit i have highlighted? Reads a bit snobbish to me. Are you saying that nobody from a city club votes Sinn Féin?
Em, no.
So then why stick the country GAA supporters in your point?
Maybe there aren't not that many city GAA tops around the universities?
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:45:53 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:40:41 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:39:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:31:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
You have a crack at nally for being a snob and then come out with the bit i have highlighted? Reads a bit snobbish to me. Are you saying that nobody from a city club votes Sinn Féin?
Em, no.
So then why stick the country GAA supporters in your point?
Sheer weight of numbers, perhaps???
Perhaps? And say for instance if a person wasn't wearing their own area or counties GAA top, say someone from west belfast wearing a crossmaglen shirt, would this not impact your point of people in a law or medicine lecture voting for the shinners based on their clothes?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here.
If someone from West Belfast was wearing a Crossmaglen jersey, would it impact my thoughts on their likely voting preferences?
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:50:21 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:45:53 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:40:41 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:39:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:31:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
You have a crack at nally for being a snob and then come out with the bit i have highlighted? Reads a bit snobbish to me. Are you saying that nobody from a city club votes Sinn Féin?
Em, no.
So then why stick the country GAA supporters in your point?
Sheer weight of numbers, perhaps???
Perhaps? And say for instance if a person wasn't wearing their own area or counties GAA top, say someone from west belfast wearing a crossmaglen shirt, would this not impact your point of people in a law or medicine lecture voting for the shinners based on their clothes?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here.
If someone from West Belfast was wearing a Crossmaglen jersey, would it impact my thoughts on their likely voting preferences?
Yes though without you knowing where they are from. You see a person in a country GAA shirt in a medicine lecture and you think they vote for...?
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 08, 2010, 06:18:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 11:10:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 07, 2010, 11:05:15 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 10:57:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 07, 2010, 10:51:18 PM
So what was the purpose of the 'Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party' line?
A reference to the SDLP being a party which markets itself towards the "middle classes" and maintains minimal interest in the "working class" communities. The Alliance Party, in other words.
I thought it was generally a reference to the background of the party's elected representatives. I also thought the 'S' stood for Schoolteachers.
Glad to have clarified my point. Apologies for any mass confusion.
Sin sin, mar a deirtear.
You clarified your point? The reference to the professions generally relates to the background of SDLP members, not their 'target audience'.
And is this an example of the 'minimal interest' in the "working class" communities?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11706738
Jaysus Maguire01, you are now telling me what I meant by my own post? I'm sorry if I didn't mean it the way it would have suited you most to have a pop at me.
Tell you what, interpret it whatever way you feel suits you, and that way you can untwist them knickers of yours. It's bound to be getting uncomfortable.
As for your link, no.... a press statement from Miss Personality doesn't change the SDLP into the people's party just like that. Ol' maggie spent most of her conference speech making sure people knew they aren't Sinn Féin. She would have been better off trying to distance themselves from the Alliance party if you ask me.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 08, 2010, 06:48:54 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:39:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:31:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
You have a crack at nally for being a snob and then come out with the bit i have highlighted? Reads a bit snobbish to me. Are you saying that nobody from a city club votes Sinn Féin?
Em, no.
So then why stick the country GAA supporters in your point?
Maybe there aren't not that many city GAA tops around the universities?
But there are still some, so why make the distinction in the first place? Why not just say "GAA jerseys"?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 08, 2010, 06:56:47 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 08, 2010, 06:18:16 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 11:10:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 07, 2010, 11:05:15 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 07, 2010, 10:57:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 07, 2010, 10:51:18 PM
So what was the purpose of the 'Solicitors Doctors & Lawyers Party' line?
A reference to the SDLP being a party which markets itself towards the "middle classes" and maintains minimal interest in the "working class" communities. The Alliance Party, in other words.
I thought it was generally a reference to the background of the party's elected representatives. I also thought the 'S' stood for Schoolteachers.
Glad to have clarified my point. Apologies for any mass confusion.
Sin sin, mar a deirtear.
You clarified your point? The reference to the professions generally relates to the background of SDLP members, not their 'target audience'.
And is this an example of the 'minimal interest' in the "working class" communities?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11706738
Jaysus Maguire01, you are now telling me what I meant by my own post? I'm sorry if I didn't mean it the way it would have suited you most to have a pop at me.
Tell you what, interpret it whatever way you feel suits you, and that way you can untwist them knickers of yours. It's bound to be getting uncomfortable.
As for your link, no.... a press statement from Miss Personality doesn't change the SDLP into the people's party just like that. Ol' maggie spent most of her conference speech making sure people knew they aren't Sinn Féin. She would have been better off trying to distance themselves from the Alliance party if you ask me.
I wasn't.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 08, 2010, 06:59:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 08, 2010, 06:48:54 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:39:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:31:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
You have a crack at nally for being a snob and then come out with the bit i have highlighted? Reads a bit snobbish to me. Are you saying that nobody from a city club votes Sinn Féin?
Em, no.
So then why stick the country GAA supporters in your point?
Maybe there aren't not that many city GAA tops around the universities?
But there are still some, so why make the distinction in the first place? Why not just say "GAA jerseys"?
Maybe he didn't see any of the 'some'? I don't know, i'm just suggesting.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 08, 2010, 07:03:17 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 08, 2010, 06:59:22 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 08, 2010, 06:48:54 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:39:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on November 08, 2010, 06:31:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 07, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
Jesus Nally, I know lots of solicitors and doctors who vote Sinn Fein, I doubt they'd be very happy with you.
Walk into a Queen's medicine lecture or a Queens or Jordanstown law lecture and count how many country GAA tops you see, the majority of who I presume would be Sinn Fein voters.
Perhaps you'd prefer things to return to the bad old days when Catholics couldn't get work and were forced to rely on benefits to survive.
You have a crack at nally for being a snob and then come out with the bit i have highlighted? Reads a bit snobbish to me. Are you saying that nobody from a city club votes Sinn Féin?
Em, no.
So then why stick the country GAA supporters in your point?
Maybe there aren't not that many city GAA tops around the universities?
But there are still some, so why make the distinction in the first place? Why not just say "GAA jerseys"?
Maybe he didn't see any of the 'some'? I don't know, i'm just suggesting.
Maybe, but if I was in Belfast and seen twenty people in GAA jerseys from rural areas, I would say "people in GAA jerseys" not "people in country GAA jerseys". I just can't understand the actual reason of adding "country".
Haven't you heard? If you're not from Belfast, you're a culchie. And if you wear a GAA jersey by-God you vote Sinn Fein. A bit off-topic here but I can't stand this attitude some Belfast people have that the world revolves around their city! >:(
Quote from: fitzroyalty on November 08, 2010, 08:37:20 PM
Haven't you heard? If you're not from Belfast, you're a culchie. And if you wear a GAA jersey by-God you vote Sinn Fein. A bit off-topic here but I can't stand this attitude some Belfast people have that the world revolves around their city! >:(
Not what I was trying to imply at all. In Dublin people call me a culchie for being from Belfast so I'm well aware of the big bad world outside Belfast.
Doire, if you're asking me if I knew someone from West Belfast wearing a Crossmaglen top, yes I would 100% believe that it's reasonable to believe Sinn Fein would be their party of choice, if that particular person voted at all.
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 09:05:17 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on November 08, 2010, 08:37:20 PM
Haven't you heard? If you're not from Belfast, you're a culchie. And if you wear a GAA jersey by-God you vote Sinn Fein. A bit off-topic here but I can't stand this attitude some Belfast people have that the world revolves around their city! >:(
Not what I was trying to imply at all. In Dublin people call me a culchie for being from Belfast so I'm well aware of the big bad world outside Belfast.
Doire, if you're asking me if I knew someone from West Belfast wearing a Crossmaglen top, yes I would 100% believe that it's reasonable to believe Sinn Fein would be their party of choice, if that particular person voted at all.
I never knew a Gaa top was a political statement!
Quote from: The Worker on November 08, 2010, 09:14:40 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 09:05:17 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on November 08, 2010, 08:37:20 PM
Haven't you heard? If you're not from Belfast, you're a culchie. And if you wear a GAA jersey by-God you vote Sinn Fein. A bit off-topic here but I can't stand this attitude some Belfast people have that the world revolves around their city! >:(
Not what I was trying to imply at all. In Dublin people call me a culchie for being from Belfast so I'm well aware of the big bad world outside Belfast.
Doire, if you're asking me if I knew someone from West Belfast wearing a Crossmaglen top, yes I would 100% believe that it's reasonable to believe Sinn Fein would be their party of choice, if that particular person voted at all.
I never knew a Gaa top was a political statement!
Me either. The things you learn on this board eh :o
Quote from: The Worker on November 08, 2010, 09:14:40 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 09:05:17 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on November 08, 2010, 08:37:20 PM
Haven't you heard? If you're not from Belfast, you're a culchie. And if you wear a GAA jersey by-God you vote Sinn Fein. A bit off-topic here but I can't stand this attitude some Belfast people have that the world revolves around their city! >:(
Not what I was trying to imply at all. In Dublin people call me a culchie for being from Belfast so I'm well aware of the big bad world outside Belfast.
Doire, if you're asking me if I knew someone from West Belfast wearing a Crossmaglen top, yes I would 100% believe that it's reasonable to believe Sinn Fein would be their party of choice, if that particular person voted at all.
I never knew a Gaa top was a political statement!
Where did I say it was?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 08, 2010, 09:16:24 PM
Quote from: The Worker on November 08, 2010, 09:14:40 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 09:05:17 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on November 08, 2010, 08:37:20 PM
Haven't you heard? If you're not from Belfast, you're a culchie. And if you wear a GAA jersey by-God you vote Sinn Fein. A bit off-topic here but I can't stand this attitude some Belfast people have that the world revolves around their city! >:(
Not what I was trying to imply at all. In Dublin people call me a culchie for being from Belfast so I'm well aware of the big bad world outside Belfast.
Doire, if you're asking me if I knew someone from West Belfast wearing a Crossmaglen top, yes I would 100% believe that it's reasonable to believe Sinn Fein would be their party of choice, if that particular person voted at all.
I never knew a Gaa top was a political statement!
Me either. The things you learn on this board eh :o
You're yet to attempt to explain your pseudo-republican snobbery towards solicitors and doctors.
I know threads go a bit of topic here but this is pretty left field.
Quote from: ziggysego on November 08, 2010, 06:15:58 PM
Was Margaret trying to fly away like a wee birdie at the end of the SDLP report on UTV?
http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/133454/108848 (http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/133454/108848)
Go to 2:00.
Quote from: Minder on November 08, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
I know threads go a bit of topic here but this is pretty left field.
True, but I'm a stubborn bastard.
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 09:24:44 PM
Quote from: Minder on November 08, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
I know threads go a bit of topic here but this is pretty left field.
True, but I'm a stubborn b**tard.
With quite an ego.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 08, 2010, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 09:24:44 PM
Quote from: Minder on November 08, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
I know threads go a bit of topic here but this is pretty left field.
True, but I'm a stubborn b**tard.
With quite an ego.
Who thinks if you are from West Belfast and you wear a Cross top you either vote SF or dont vote at all!
Quote from: The Worker on November 08, 2010, 09:30:16 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 08, 2010, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 09:24:44 PM
Quote from: Minder on November 08, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
I know threads go a bit of topic here but this is pretty left field.
True, but I'm a stubborn b**tard.
With quite an ego.
Who thinks if you are from West Belfast and you wear a Cross top you either vote SF or dont vote at all!
That's it, put words in my mouth. What I pointed out was an
indicator, based on likelihood and probability, nothing more.
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 08, 2010, 09:16:24 PM
Quote from: The Worker on November 08, 2010, 09:14:40 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 09:05:17 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on November 08, 2010, 08:37:20 PM
Haven't you heard? If you're not from Belfast, you're a culchie. And if you wear a GAA jersey by-God you vote Sinn Fein. A bit off-topic here but I can't stand this attitude some Belfast people have that the world revolves around their city! >:(
Not what I was trying to imply at all. In Dublin people call me a culchie for being from Belfast so I'm well aware of the big bad world outside Belfast.
Doire, if you're asking me if I knew someone from West Belfast wearing a Crossmaglen top, yes I would 100% believe that it's reasonable to believe Sinn Fein would be their party of choice, if that particular person voted at all.
I never knew a Gaa top was a political statement!
Me either. The things you learn on this board eh :o
You're yet to attempt to explain your pseudo-republican snobbery towards solicitors and doctors.
Snobbery towards doctors & solicitors? :D Right! You obviously missed my explanation.
I think the only snob here is your good self through your attitude in last few pages of posts, which could be summed up as "I'm right. If you don't agree with me, it doesn't matter because you are all wrong anyway. I'm much too qualified to speak on these matters to be bothered discussing these things with any of you properly".
In fact, here are a few of the Gallsman snobbery quotes at their finest:
- "I'm reinforcing the point that
my insight is a lot greater than yours"
- "
I'd have a lot more insight into that demographic's mindset so
am slightly more qualified to comment."
- "Believe what you want,
I actually don't give a shit."
-
[I know] "A
lot more
[about the voting habits of GAA jersey wearers in universities] than you do, yes."
- "What exactly do you know of Trinity?"
- "I believe
I'm slightly better qualified than Pints to comment on such matters....
Whether or not he or you dispute this is irrelevant."
:D :D :D And
I'M a snob!!?
How is that snobbery in any way?
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 09:05:17 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on November 08, 2010, 08:37:20 PM
Haven't you heard? If you're not from Belfast, you're a culchie. And if you wear a GAA jersey by-God you vote Sinn Fein. A bit off-topic here but I can't stand this attitude some Belfast people have that the world revolves around their city! >:(
Not what I was trying to imply at all. In Dublin people call me a culchie for being from Belfast so I'm well aware of the big bad world outside Belfast.
Doire, if you're asking me if I knew someone from West Belfast wearing a Crossmaglen top, yes I would 100% believe that it's reasonable to believe Sinn Fein would be their party of choice, if that particular person voted at all.
So you judge people you have never met simply by the clothes they randomly pick out that day and make calls on what they might or might not do and you don't think that snobbish? If a person wearing a jersey is representitive of a demographic then i hope you are not a representation of people who went to trinity with the stuff you have written on this thread.
Judge? Where did I say anything about judging them? In order to judge them I'd have to make some sort of objective decision about that particular person. I simply pointed to the jersey representing an increased likelihood.
If I see a fella walking down the street in Belfast wearing a Rangers top I automatically assume he's a prod. Anyone on the board who says they don't is talking through their holes.
Ref: UTV Live - The unelected Cooonnaalll and his "shared 'Northern Ireland'" sounds like the Alliance Party about 15 years ago; the joke about McGuinness and Robinson is straight out of the Two Ronnies cliche book, the lack of radicalism or relevancy was evident for all to see. Waiting on 'Simply the Best' belting out as yer woman did the Birdie Song at the end. Heaven save us from the People's Front of the Malone Road! Watch out for a Ulster Unionist / Alliance / SDLP coalition ticket at some stage.
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 10:11:51 PM
Judge? Where did I say anything about judging them? In order to judge them I'd have to make some sort of objective decision about that particular person. I simply pointed to the jersey representing an increased likelihood.
If I see a fella walking down the street in Belfast wearing a Rangers top I automatically assume he's a prod. Anyone on the board who says they don't is talking through their holes.
but you wouldnt start assuming that he was a UUP voter or DUP voter etc, or maybe you would.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 08, 2010, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 10:11:51 PM
Judge? Where did I say anything about judging them? In order to judge them I'd have to make some sort of objective decision about that particular person. I simply pointed to the jersey representing an increased likelihood.
If I see a fella walking down the street in Belfast wearing a Rangers top I automatically assume he's a prod. Anyone on the board who says they don't is talking through their holes.
but you wouldnt start assuming that he was a UUP voter or DUP voter etc, or maybe you would.
No I wouldn't but then again, I'd have nothing else to go on. Which isn't the case for the example above, is it?
I dont understand that.
The read again more carefully, it makes perfect sense.
Considering some of the accusations on this thread pints I've been looking for this gem of yours from quite a while back. Do you remember a discussion about Steve Redgrave potentially being one of the greatest sportsmen of all time? When you started to lose your way and got shouted down your response was:
QuoteI see no point in discussing it further with you, it's my opinion, get over it.
At the very least I've tried to explain my point of view and the experiences I've based it on. You offer nothing.
Also Pints, we've done this before several times and we'll no doubt do it again. We both know neither is going to suddenly accept the other's arguement as legitimate.
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 11:25:01 PM
The read again more carefully, it makes perfect sense.
Considering some of the accusations on this thread pints I've been looking for this gem of yours from quite a while back. Do you remember a discussion about Steve Redgrave potentially being one of the greatest sportsmen of all time? When you started to lose your way and got shouted down your response was:
QuoteI see no point in discussing it further with you, it's my opinion, get over it.
At the very least I've tried to explain my point of view and the experiences I've based it on. You offer nothing.
No, post the thread.
I'd safely assume though that I wasn't pigeon holing people in to voting patterns based on the "country gaa jersies" they were wearing (when I first seen that I thought you mistyped and meant county gaa jersies )
Quote from: pintsofguinness on August 20, 2009, 02:29:24 PM
I see no point in discussing it further with you, it's my opinion, get over it.
Pigeon-holing? Like the majority of night-time cinema-goers being dicks?
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 11:37:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on August 20, 2009, 02:29:24 PM
I see no point in discussing it further with you, it's my opinion, get over it.
Pigeon-holing? Like the majority of night-time cinema-goers being dicks?
They are, have you ever been at the cinema at night. Though I have no idea who they vote for.
Are you going to post that thread...
Click the link, it takes you right to the thread.
I presume the last bit was meant to be tongue-in-cheek so I won't bite.
Am I missing something? There's no link?
Have you got a link to the thread where you said you had an ego? :D
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 11:37:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on August 20, 2009, 02:29:24 PM[/color]
I see no point in discussing it further with you, it's my opinion, get over it.
Pigeon-holing? Like the majority of night-time cinema-goers being dicks?
That's a link. Your welcome for the free lesson - I know you old farts struggle with technology sometimes.
I don't have a link to that thread, but if you find it maybe you can read it again to see how much of a piss take it was. If I recall it started when I criticised the likes of ross4life for spending all their time on the Hot Ladies thread. Again if I recall correctly, which i do, you stated that you agreed with me :D
Um, that's a quote. A link is something you click on to bring you to a page i.e. the thread where I said that.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 08, 2010, 11:56:22 PM
Um, that's a quote. A link is something you click on to bring you to a page i.e. the thread where I said that.
See where it says
QuoteQuote from: pintsofguinness on August 20, 2009, 02:29:24 PM
and it's underlined? Click that.
Oh yeah, I remember that thread. You were acting a snob in it too and I wasn't so keen on continuing the discussion with you when you called me a bigot due to my views on rowing ::)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:05:09 AM
Oh yeah, I remember that thread. You were acting a snob in it too and I wasn't so keen on continuing the discussion with you when you called me a bigot due to my views on rowing ::)
No, the bigot comment had nothing to do with your views on rowing, just your personality in general
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 12:05:57 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:05:09 AM
Oh yeah, I remember that thread. You were acting a snob in it too and I wasn't so keen on continuing the discussion with you when you called me a bigot due to my views on rowing ::)
No, the bigot comment had nothing to do with your views on rowing, just your personality in general
And there you go again, you know everything about everything and everyone, even me :D
I'm not sure what word use to describe you - you've the Trinity education, what would a big word me for "an oul know-it-all".
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 11:52:07 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2010, 11:37:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on August 20, 2009, 02:29:24 PM[/color]
I see no point in discussing it further with you, it's my opinion, get over it.
Pigeon-holing? Like the majority of night-time cinema-goers being dicks?
That's a link. Your welcome for the free lesson - I know you old farts struggle with technology sometimes.
I don't have a link to that thread, but if you find it maybe you can read it again to see how much of a piss take it was. If I recall it started when I criticised the likes of ross4life for spending all their time on the Hot Ladies thread. Again if I recall correctly, which i do, you stated that you agreed with me :D
Totally untrue! Connacht GAA,Roscommon & Man Utd threads is where i spend all my time
Sorry for going off topic, you just had to include me :-[ BTW I'm enjoying this debate riveting stuff
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:11:19 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 12:05:57 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:05:09 AM
Oh yeah, I remember that thread. You were acting a snob in it too and I wasn't so keen on continuing the discussion with you when you called me a bigot due to my views on rowing ::)
No, the bigot comment had nothing to do with your views on rowing, just your personality in general
And there you go again, you know everything about everything and everyone, even me :D
I'm not sure what word use to describe you - you've the Trinity education, what would a big word me for "an oul know-it-all".
Another to ignore the fact that I also went to DCU. I find this fixation with Trinity hilarious - I'm not the one who keeps mentioning it.
I'd love someone to try and explain these accusations of snobbery. I've stated my belief of the likelihood of a certain demographic to be Sinn Fein supporters - how is that snobbish or prejudiced in any way? In order for it to be so I would have to condemn being a Sinn Fein supporter as some form of inferiority. I happily challenge you all to point out where exactly this occurred.
Then again, I did go to Trinity so am obviously immediately intellectually superior to the lot of you and so am actually capable of understanding the meaning of the word "snob" ::) ::) ::)
The sexual tension in here is palpable.
QuoteYes, that's what I said.
I offered up evidence of why I believe I'm qualified to comment on such matters. What have you offered?
I'm still waiting to find out what you know of Trinity and DCU.
I don't know why you are waiting to find out what I know, I would tell you, you would disagree, tell me that I don't know what I claim too and then decide that you were correct thus rendering all previous dialogue void and a waste of time ::)
Quote from: Banana Man on November 09, 2010, 09:02:27 AM
QuoteYes, that's what I said.
I offered up evidence of why I believe I'm qualified to comment on such matters. What have you offered?
I'm still waiting to find out what you know of Trinity and DCU.
I don't know why you are waiting to find out what I know, I would tell you, you would disagree, tell me that I don't know what I claim too and then decide that you were correct thus rendering all previous dialogue void and a waste of time ::)
:D
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 12:48:32 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:11:19 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 12:05:57 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:05:09 AM
Oh yeah, I remember that thread. You were acting a snob in it too and I wasn't so keen on continuing the discussion with you when you called me a bigot due to my views on rowing ::)
No, the bigot comment had nothing to do with your views on rowing, just your personality in general
And there you go again, you know everything about everything and everyone, even me :D
I'm not sure what word use to describe you - you've the Trinity education, what would a big word me for "an oul know-it-all".
Another to ignore the fact that I also went to DCU. I find this fixation with Trinity hilarious - I'm not the one who keeps mentioning it.
I'd love someone to try and explain these accusations of snobbery. I've stated my belief of the likelihood of a certain demographic to be Sinn Fein supporters - how is that snobbish or prejudiced in any way? In order for it to be so I would have to condemn being a Sinn Fein supporter as some form of inferiority. I happily challenge you all to point out where exactly this occurred.
Then again, I did go to Trinity so am obviously immediately intellectually superior to the lot of you and so am actually capable of understanding the meaning of the word "snob" ::) ::) ::)
Ehhh - already did, I'll not go through it all again but he's a couple of examples
- "I'm reinforcing the point that my insight is a lot greater than yours"
- "I believe I'm slightly better qualified than Pints to comment on such matters....Whether or not he or you dispute this is irrelevant."
Hopefully you will now realise that passing comment on who you assume people vote for due to their clothes isn't the only way you can be a snob. Quotes like those above and others I posted a page or two back should give plenty proof of that.
Glad to be of help.
(However I do expect that, despite what you said, you really wouldn't have loved to have had it pointed out to you; as no doubt you will blindly ignore all the proof of your snobbery, claiming it wasn't proof of snobbery at all.)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sGPvSo0bA9w/SxonBLdNE6I/AAAAAAAAA9Q/ZwcouksEv5w/s320/300px-Puppetgovernment.jpg)
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 09, 2010, 10:05:07 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 12:48:32 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:11:19 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 12:05:57 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:05:09 AM
Oh yeah, I remember that thread. You were acting a snob in it too and I wasn't so keen on continuing the discussion with you when you called me a bigot due to my views on rowing ::)
No, the bigot comment had nothing to do with your views on rowing, just your personality in general
And there you go again, you know everything about everything and everyone, even me :D
I'm not sure what word use to describe you - you've the Trinity education, what would a big word me for "an oul know-it-all".
Another to ignore the fact that I also went to DCU. I find this fixation with Trinity hilarious - I'm not the one who keeps mentioning it.
I'd love someone to try and explain these accusations of snobbery. I've stated my belief of the likelihood of a certain demographic to be Sinn Fein supporters - how is that snobbish or prejudiced in any way? In order for it to be so I would have to condemn being a Sinn Fein supporter as some form of inferiority. I happily challenge you all to point out where exactly this occurred.
Then again, I did go to Trinity so am obviously immediately intellectually superior to the lot of you and so am actually capable of understanding the meaning of the word "snob" ::) ::) ::)
Ehhh - already did, I'll not go through it all again but he's a couple of examples
- "I'm reinforcing the point that my insight is a lot greater than yours"
- "I believe I'm slightly better qualified than Pints to comment on such matters....Whether or not he or you dispute this is irrelevant."
Hopefully you will now realise that passing comment on who you assume people vote for due to their clothes isn't the only way you can be a snob. Quotes like those above and others I posted a page or two back should give plenty proof of that.
Glad to be of help.
(However I do expect that, despite what you said, you really wouldn't have loved to have had it pointed out to you; as no doubt you will blindly ignore all the proof of your snobbery, claiming it wasn't proof of snobbery at all.)
Those quotes probably better describe arrogance than snobbery.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on November 09, 2010, 10:25:13 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 09, 2010, 10:05:07 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 12:48:32 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:11:19 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 12:05:57 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:05:09 AM
Oh yeah, I remember that thread. You were acting a snob in it too and I wasn't so keen on continuing the discussion with you when you called me a bigot due to my views on rowing ::)
No, the bigot comment had nothing to do with your views on rowing, just your personality in general
And there you go again, you know everything about everything and everyone, even me :D
I'm not sure what word use to describe you - you've the Trinity education, what would a big word me for "an oul know-it-all".
Another to ignore the fact that I also went to DCU. I find this fixation with Trinity hilarious - I'm not the one who keeps mentioning it.
I'd love someone to try and explain these accusations of snobbery. I've stated my belief of the likelihood of a certain demographic to be Sinn Fein supporters - how is that snobbish or prejudiced in any way? In order for it to be so I would have to condemn being a Sinn Fein supporter as some form of inferiority. I happily challenge you all to point out where exactly this occurred.
Then again, I did go to Trinity so am obviously immediately intellectually superior to the lot of you and so am actually capable of understanding the meaning of the word "snob" ::) ::) ::)
Ehhh - already did, I'll not go through it all again but he's a couple of examples
- "I'm reinforcing the point that my insight is a lot greater than yours"
- "I believe I'm slightly better qualified than Pints to comment on such matters....Whether or not he or you dispute this is irrelevant."
Hopefully you will now realise that passing comment on who you assume people vote for due to their clothes isn't the only way you can be a snob. Quotes like those above and others I posted a page or two back should give plenty proof of that.
Glad to be of help.
(However I do expect that, despite what you said, you really wouldn't have loved to have had it pointed out to you; as no doubt you will blindly ignore all the proof of your snobbery, claiming it wasn't proof of snobbery at all.)
Those quotes probably better describe arrogance than snobbery.
I suppose an argument could be made for both alright!
That's it, someone points out where you're wrong and you try to make it appear as if they were supporting you.
TAM - When posted like so, with selctive quoting, yes it can appear arrogant. However, when all posts are read in context it is quite clear that I stated my opinion, and then stated the reasons I believe entitle me to have that opinion. Is that arrogant?
What I would consider far more arrogant is a bunch of clowns attempting to shout me down and complaining about this and that, offerinf no evidence to support their claims and dismissing my opinion because, you know, I went to Trinity.
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 10:39:36 AM
That's it, someone points out where you're wrong and you try to make it appear as if they were supporting you.
TAM - When posted like so, with selctive quoting, yes it can appear arrogant. However, when all posts are read in context it is quite clear that I stated my opinion, and then stated the reasons I believe entitle me to have that opinion. Is that arrogant?
What I would consider far more arrogant is a bunch of clowns attempting to shout me down and complaining about this and that, offerinf no evidence to support their claims and dismissing my opinion because, you know, I went to Trinity.
What EVIDENCE have
you presented? All I have heard from you is that you have some friends who study law, therefor you believe that most law students who wear GAA jerseys support SF.
That is NOT "evidence". Why criticise people for not having any evidence with which to counter your opinion, when that opinion is one that you yourself cannot back up with any single solitary shred of evidence?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 09, 2010, 10:47:31 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 10:39:36 AM
That's it, someone points out where you're wrong and you try to make it appear as if they were supporting you.
TAM - When posted like so, with selctive quoting, yes it can appear arrogant. However, when all posts are read in context it is quite clear that I stated my opinion, and then stated the reasons I believe entitle me to have that opinion. Is that arrogant?
What I would consider far more arrogant is a bunch of clowns attempting to shout me down and complaining about this and that, offerinf no evidence to support their claims and dismissing my opinion because, you know, I went to Trinity.
What EVIDENCE have you presented? All I have heard from you is that you have some friends who study law, therefor you believe that most law students who wear GAA jerseys support SF.
That is NOT "evidence". Why criticise people for not having any evidence with which to counter your opinion, when that opinion is one that you yourself cannot back up with any single solitary shred of evidence?
It's evidence of my insight you clown, which is what I've been talking about from the beginning. From the outset I stated my belief that this was the case. No matter what way you or anyone else tries to spin it, I did not come out and say I don't give a shit about anyone else's opinion on the matter becaus mine had to be right - what I stated was that I didn't give a shit about anyone's opinion of my qualification to state that belief seeing as nobody had attempted to offer any valid reason for why my insights might be invalid.
First of all, I come from the generation under discussion - Pints does not. I'd wager that you do as well, but are unwilling to admit it. I pray to God you're no older than me or I'll abandon my faith in humanity.
Secondly, I have MANY friends who study both law and medicine and have done over the last five or six years. These people come from all corners of this island, but are primarily from the six counties.
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 11:16:53 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 09, 2010, 10:47:31 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 10:39:36 AM
That's it, someone points out where you're wrong and you try to make it appear as if they were supporting you.
TAM - When posted like so, with selctive quoting, yes it can appear arrogant. However, when all posts are read in context it is quite clear that I stated my opinion, and then stated the reasons I believe entitle me to have that opinion. Is that arrogant?
What I would consider far more arrogant is a bunch of clowns attempting to shout me down and complaining about this and that, offerinf no evidence to support their claims and dismissing my opinion because, you know, I went to Trinity.
What EVIDENCE have you presented? All I have heard from you is that you have some friends who study law, therefor you believe that most law students who wear GAA jerseys support SF.
That is NOT "evidence". Why criticise people for not having any evidence with which to counter your opinion, when that opinion is one that you yourself cannot back up with any single solitary shred of evidence?
It's evidence of my insight you clown, which is what I've been talking about from the beginning. From the outset I stated my belief that this was the case. No matter what way you or anyone else tries to spin it, I did not come out and say I don't give a shit about anyone else's opinion on the matter becaus mine had to be right - what I stated was that I didn't give a shit about anyone's opinion of my qualification to state that belief seeing as nobody had attempted to offer any valid reason for why my insights might be invalid.
First of all, I come from the generation under discussion - Pints does not. I'd wager that you do as well, but are unwilling to admit it. I pray to God you're no older than me or I'll abandon my faith in humanity.
Secondly, I have MANY friends who study both law and medicine and have done over the last five or six years. These people come from all corners of this island, but are primarily from the six counties.
I have insight of students in law who wear GAA jerseys (and in medicine since you bring it up) who unfortunately wouldn't vote SF in a fit. So we both have "evidence" which contradicts each other. Well well well where do we go from here? Both of us have rock solid evidence which point to different conclusions :o !!
I assume you didn't do law? I'm guessing you didn't simply because if you did, you would have a firmer grasp of the idea of evidence.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 09, 2010, 11:41:50 AM
I have insight of students in law who wear GAA jerseys (and in medicine since you bring it up) who unfortunately wouldn't vote SF in a fit. So we both have "evidence" which contradicts each other. Well well well where do we go from here? Both of us have rock solid evidence which point to different conclusions :o !!
I assume you didn't do law? I'm guessing you didn't simply because if you did, you would have a firmer grasp of the idea of evidence.
Congratulations! You've finally grasped the point. Thank you for finally explaining your insight, something you'dfailed to do so far. Your opinion is perfectly valid (becuase you've offered something to back it up) - that doesn't make mine invalid though, does it??
I also am being sarcastic when I refer to my friends' views as "evidence". It is not "evidence". It is still a plain old generalisation with no scientific or credible basis on which to prove it's accuracy. Like your generalisation.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 09, 2010, 01:26:04 PM
I also am being sarcastic when I refer to my friends' views as "evidence". It is not "evidence". It is still a plain old generalisation with no scientific or credible basis on which to prove it's accuracy. Like your generalisation.
Bullshit, you're on the run again.
Poor choice of words, perhaps - you probably think of it as a compliment.
If you say so.
QuoteQuote from: Nally Stand on Today at 01:26:04 PM
I also am being sarcastic when I refer to my friends' views as "evidence". It is not "evidence". It is still a plain old generalisation with no scientific or credible basis on which to prove it's accuracy. Like your generalisation.
Bullshit, you're on the run again.
Poor choice of words, perhaps - you probably think of it as a compliment.
So when Nally tells you what he is thinking (that he was being sarcastic) you refuse to believe and tell him what you perceive his thoughts to be, I didn't realise Trinity done a course on reading other people's thoughts or was that what you done in DCU?? Perhaps you are Dereck Acorah :D
That's before I even consider your pathetic attempt at political satire
Quote from: Banana Man on November 09, 2010, 02:30:45 PM
QuoteQuote from: Nally Stand on Today at 01:26:04 PM
I also am being sarcastic when I refer to my friends' views as "evidence". It is not "evidence". It is still a plain old generalisation with no scientific or credible basis on which to prove it's accuracy. Like your generalisation.
Bullshit, you're on the run again.
Poor choice of words, perhaps - you probably think of it as a compliment.
So when Nally tells you what he is thinking (that he was being sarcastic) you refuse to believe and tell him what you perceive his thoughts to be, I didn't realise Trinity done a course on reading other people's thoughts or was that what you done in DCU?? Perhaps you are Dereck Acorah :D
That's before I even consider your pathetic attempt at political satire
Satire? Where? I was being completely serious.
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 12:48:32 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:11:19 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 12:05:57 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 09, 2010, 12:05:09 AM
Oh yeah, I remember that thread. You were acting a snob in it too and I wasn't so keen on continuing the discussion with you when you called me a bigot due to my views on rowing ::)
No, the bigot comment had nothing to do with your views on rowing, just your personality in general
And there you go again, you know everything about everything and everyone, even me :D
I'm not sure what word use to describe you - you've the Trinity education, what would a big word me for "an oul know-it-all".
Another to ignore the fact that I also went to DCU. I find this fixation with Trinity hilarious - I'm not the one who keeps mentioning it.
I'd love someone to try and explain these accusations of snobbery. I've stated my belief of the likelihood of a certain demographic to be Sinn Fein supporters - how is that snobbish or prejudiced in any way? In order for it to be so I would have to condemn being a Sinn Fein supporter as some form of inferiority. I happily challenge you all to point out where exactly this occurred.
Then again, I did go to Trinity so am obviously immediately intellectually superior to the lot of you and so am actually capable of understanding the meaning of the word "snob" ::) ::) ::)
Prejudice does not necessarily have to be negative, it is merely a preconceived judgement or opinion.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 09, 2010, 10:47:31 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 10:39:36 AM
That's it, someone points out where you're wrong and you try to make it appear as if they were supporting you.
TAM - When posted like so, with selctive quoting, yes it can appear arrogant. However, when all posts are read in context it is quite clear that I stated my opinion, and then stated the reasons I believe entitle me to have that opinion. Is that arrogant?
What I would consider far more arrogant is a bunch of clowns attempting to shout me down and complaining about this and that, offerinf no evidence to support their claims and dismissing my opinion because, you know, I went to Trinity.
What EVIDENCE have you presented? All I have heard from you is that you have some friends who study law, therefor you believe that most law students who wear GAA jerseys support SF.
That is NOT "evidence". Why criticise people for not having any evidence with which to counter your opinion, when that opinion is one that you yourself cannot back up with any single solitary shred of evidence?
Well it
is evidence. It's probably anecdotal evidence and you can argue over the quality / reliability of it, but it is evidence.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 09, 2010, 06:34:27 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 09, 2010, 10:47:31 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 10:39:36 AM
That's it, someone points out where you're wrong and you try to make it appear as if they were supporting you.
TAM - When posted like so, with selctive quoting, yes it can appear arrogant. However, when all posts are read in context it is quite clear that I stated my opinion, and then stated the reasons I believe entitle me to have that opinion. Is that arrogant?
What I would consider far more arrogant is a bunch of clowns attempting to shout me down and complaining about this and that, offerinf no evidence to support their claims and dismissing my opinion because, you know, I went to Trinity.
What EVIDENCE have you presented? All I have heard from you is that you have some friends who study law, therefor you believe that most law students who wear GAA jerseys support SF.
That is NOT "evidence". Why criticise people for not having any evidence with which to counter your opinion, when that opinion is one that you yourself cannot back up with any single solitary shred of evidence?
Well it is evidence. It's probably anecdotal evidence and you can argue over the quality / reliability of it, but it is evidence.
:D :D Honestly Maguire01, I don't know if you are Gallsmans cheerleader or my stalker!
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 09, 2010, 07:13:42 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 09, 2010, 06:34:27 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 09, 2010, 10:47:31 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2010, 10:39:36 AM
That's it, someone points out where you're wrong and you try to make it appear as if they were supporting you.
TAM - When posted like so, with selctive quoting, yes it can appear arrogant. However, when all posts are read in context it is quite clear that I stated my opinion, and then stated the reasons I believe entitle me to have that opinion. Is that arrogant?
What I would consider far more arrogant is a bunch of clowns attempting to shout me down and complaining about this and that, offerinf no evidence to support their claims and dismissing my opinion because, you know, I went to Trinity.
What EVIDENCE have you presented? All I have heard from you is that you have some friends who study law, therefor you believe that most law students who wear GAA jerseys support SF.
That is NOT "evidence". Why criticise people for not having any evidence with which to counter your opinion, when that opinion is one that you yourself cannot back up with any single solitary shred of evidence?
Well it is evidence. It's probably anecdotal evidence and you can argue over the quality / reliability of it, but it is evidence.
:D :D Honestly Maguire01, I don't know if you are Gallsmans cheerleader or my stalker!
Hilarious i'm sure.
What are the SDLP doing. I fear this is the end of this party pairing up with that Finna fail crowd.
The fact that nobody on here has posted a thing about the SDLP since 2010 sort of sums the whole thing up.
I suppose. My gripe with the SDLP is that they take every opportunity to make a swipe at SF. If you look at the UUP and the DUP you don't see this happening. You could say that the unionist have agreed to show a strong front where as our side look to make fools of each other.
Has any UUP member spoke out against what Paisley jr has been up to or the path the DUP is taking with brexit, very few.
I suppose the OO is keeping the thing together on a united front.
Just reading back over this thread and had a good oul laugh.
Seems like some lads were arguing about nawhin years ago still have to be arguing about nawhin
It's a last throw of the dice. SDLP has failed to make itself relevant in recent times. Perhaps this can bring a normality to their politics. Time will tell if that can help to regain the middle ground from SF.
Quote from: trailer on January 25, 2019, 06:23:19 AM
It's a last throw of the dice. SDLP has failed to make itself relevant in recent times. Perhaps this can bring a normality to their politics. Time will tell if that can help to regain the middle ground from SF.
Trailer agree with the point on relevancy and last throw of the dice for the sdlp but regards middle ground would you not think that in the main the middle ground have opted out and it's for the sdlp to reach out to those nationalists who want the United ireland eventually but want education health Brexit etc dealt with immediately.
There's maybe some alliance in there too. I think parties like the greens (in south belfast anyway) get more than they used to as well but yeah I would say you're right in that a lot of the middle ground maybe don't vote any more and that would be half the reason we are in the mess we are in with those pricks the DUP supposedly representing us.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 25, 2019, 09:29:15 AM
There's maybe some alliance in there too. I think parties like the greens (in south belfast anyway) get more than they used to as well but yeah I would say you're right in that a lot of the middle ground maybe don't vote any more and that would be half the reason we are in the mess we are in with those pricks the DUP supposedly representing us.
In the likes of South Belfast, do you think pairing up with FF will do more harm than good?
The SDLP are being whacked from both sides. Firstly there has been a big drift to SF a) because SF became more acceptable post GFA and b) as a response to the ever more entrenched unionist electorate backing the DUP and their antics.
Secondly the Alliance party, since overly unionist Allardice left as leader they have become a lot more neutral as opposed to previously pro UK. A move which has resulted in them getting a number of pale green votes from previous SDLP voters. Recent research shows Alliance draw the majority of their votes from the catholic community background something confirmed at the the last euro election when the transfers were broken down.
Nationalism needs a second all Ireland party. If pbp or the green party had any wit about them they could have really exploited the SDLP's perilous position but instead they continue to dance around the constitutional question. This SDLP/FF arrangement is underwhelming. It makes a mockery of FF's promise to contest elections in 2019 some 5 yrs ago. Its also a problem for SDLP who have a green and red wing. Its a risk I think is worth taking though to stop the rot. The Irish labour party are at rock bottom and offer nothing so that really just left FF as a possible partner. The big loss in all this will be Clare Hanna who is one of the more capable politicians and probably had their best chance of winning back a Westminster seat as she would have got a broad coalition of votes to beat pengelly something MacDonnell used to have until people realised he was a bit of a bollox
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on January 25, 2019, 09:51:35 AM
The SDLP are being whacked from both sides. Firstly there has been a big drift to SF a) because SF became more acceptable post GFA and b) as a response to the ever more entrenched unionist electorate backing the DUP and their antics.
Secondly the Alliance party, since overly unionist Allardice left as leader they have become a lot more neutral as opposed to previously pro UK. A move which has resulted in them getting a number of pale green votes from previous SDLP voters. Recent research shows Alliance draw the majority of their votes from the catholic community background something confirmed at the the last euro election when the transfers were broken down.
Nationalism needs a second all Ireland party. If pbp or the green party had any wit about them they could have really exploited the SDLP's perilous position but instead they continue to dance around the constitutional question. This SDLP/FF arrangement is underwhelming. It makes a mockery of FF's promise to contest elections in 2019 some 5 yrs ago. Its also a problem for SDLP who have a green and red wing. Its a risk I think is worth taking though to stop the rot. The Irish labour party are at rock bottom and offer nothing so that really just left FF as a possible partner. The big loss in all this will be Clare Hanna who is one of the more capable politicians and probably had their best chance of winning back a Westminster seat as she would have got a broad coalition of votes to beat pengelly something MacDonnell used to have until people realised he was a bit of a bollox
The thing about a UI is that the North will be subsumed into the South
SF is now a Dublin party. O'Neill is only deputy leader
The North needs a party to fight its corner in a UI
But it would be a much nicer problem to have than a hard border
I would have voted SF in the past. But they have done nothing for anyone in the last few years.
If The SDLP had Claire Hanna as a leader then they may well start to make gains. Joining with FF i think is not the answer.
Sf sit back while health education etc is collapsing around them all just to get one over the DUP. Its fine for mary lou she has no family in the North. I live in Dublin now but i see with elderly parents what the outcome of this sf dup stand off is. Its time for a change from both sides.
Agree here - have lost major respect for SF at a very local level over the past year!
Apart from John Finucane - not many if any inspire me.
Quote from: snoopdog on January 25, 2019, 11:27:30 AM
I would have voted SF in the past. But they have done nothing for anyone in the last few years.
If The SDLP had Claire Hanna as a leader then they may well start to make gains. Joining with FF i think is not the answer.
Sf sit back while health education etc is collapsing around them all just to get one over the DUP. Its fine for mary lou she has no family in the North. I live in Dublin now but i see with elderly parents what the outcome of this sf dup stand off is. Its time for a change from both sides.
Interesting that there's a lot of support for Claire Hanna, who wouldn't be a huge advocate for a UI. Claire would also be on the very left of the party.
Agree the whole link up is a bit underwhelming but get the impression that both parties have left room to reverse out of the link-up should it tank.
Quote from: snoopdog on January 25, 2019, 11:27:30 AM
I would have voted SF in the past. But they have done nothing for anyone in the last few years.
If The SDLP had Claire Hanna as a leader then they may well start to make gains. Joining with FF i think is not the answer.
Sf sit back while health education etc is collapsing around them all just to get one over the DUP. Its fine for mary lou she has no family in the North. I live in Dublin now but i see with elderly parents what the outcome of this sf dup stand off is. Its time for a change from both sides.
Can you explain that?
My reading of the current scenario is that SF made concessions and came to a deal with the DUP, which was then veto'ed by 'shadowy forces' behind the DUP. What would you have SF do? The ball clearly isn't in their court - they don't even have anyone to negotiate with, as the DUP don't appear to have any power to agree a deal!!
Quote from: snoopdog on January 25, 2019, 11:27:30 AM
I would have voted SF in the past. But they have done nothing for anyone in the last few years.
If The SDLP had Claire Hanna as a leader then they may well start to make gains. Joining with FF i think is not the answer.
Sf sit back while health education etc is collapsing around them all just to get one over the DUP. Its fine for mary lou she has no family in the North. I live in Dublin now but i see with elderly parents what the outcome of this sf dup stand off is. Its time for a change from both sides.
I think the SDLP still have a few decent politicians out there but the damage done by the years of Dr Death (McDonnell) and Ritchie leaves them way back. Hanna is one and I don't think Eastwood is that bad. They have made out to be west brits by SF now and the fact that they were seen to have delivered nothing in the years they had the majority has left them on the outside.
Will SF be accused of the same in future years - Stormont as good as closed down for the foreseeable future with the Brexit issues and there is a genuine threat of a border in Ireland again. SF didn't cause that but they were in the front seat during it.
Quote from: haranguerer on January 25, 2019, 02:54:05 PM
Quote from: snoopdog on January 25, 2019, 11:27:30 AM
I would have voted SF in the past. But they have done nothing for anyone in the last few years.
If The SDLP had Claire Hanna as a leader then they may well start to make gains. Joining with FF i think is not the answer.
Sf sit back while health education etc is collapsing around them all just to get one over the DUP. Its fine for mary lou she has no family in the North. I live in Dublin now but i see with elderly parents what the outcome of this sf dup stand off is. Its time for a change from both sides.
Can you explain that?
My reading of the current scenario is that SF made concessions and came to a deal with the DUP, which was then veto'ed by 'shadowy forces' behind the DUP. What would you have SF do? The ball clearly isn't in their court - they don't even have anyone to negotiate with, as the DUP don't appear to have any power to agree a deal!!
Mc Guinness tried very hard to make things work - for the betterment of everyone, regardless of who they were or where they lived. The DUP did everything in their power to walk all over nationalists. The list is endless. Was so happy when Mc Guinness pulled the pin on Stormont to be honest. There was no power sharing at that time. The DUP still have the 1920 mentalitybut times have changed. No return to Stormont for me.
Heard Colm Eastwood on Radio Ulster yesterday morning saying he is ready to go into Stormont and get the institutions up and running again. Interesting perspective there. I wonder which of the important basic, reasonable measures that SF are looking for would the SDLP relinquish for that goal? Irish Language act? Marriage Equality? SF voters gave the party a very clear message that the policy of appeasing the DUP and giving them their way was not going to be tolerated any more. In fact, in the two elections during which time SF were in power with the DUP, the entire nationalist vote went down because they decided not to vote for either party. Colm Eastwood is totally out of touch if he thinks that the position of northern nationalists has changed one iota from that position. In fact, if anything, the Brexit thing has probably entrenched us even more. The DUP went against the advice of all the other parties in NI, the entire business community and every analysis from normal rational people and voted against the Backstop which would have been a genuine financial dynamo for this unworkable entity of NO, but they turned against it, despite knowing a majority here voted to Remain. None of this is evidence of new, reasonable thinking within that party which would make them amenable to nationalist aspirations if Stormont were to return. In fact, every time you watch their interviews, it just entrenches us even more. Colm Eastwood stating he is prepared to walk into Stormont with them without stating under which conditions, is further evidence of his waffle type answers and why the SDLP is dead in the water.
SF were quite prepared to sacrifice ILA & marriage equality, if you remember correctly
DOn't think they were. there was a choreography agreed that would see both of these introduced in time through the ending of the petition of concern and the fact that the ILA is a Westminster piece of legislation.
I don't know anyone that thinks marriage equality is enough not to have a functioning government, SF know it isn't too, they were content without marriage equality or an ILA for years, marriage equality is just yet another cause that SF aligned themselves with.
Standard exchange
'SF should do whatever it takes to get back into government'
'well, they did make a lot of compromises to reach an agreement with the DUP, but it was then veto'ed by others, so the balls not really in their court'
'ha, SF obviously don't care about any of those issues they were going to compromise on'
'Well, they do, but they were willing to compromise like you said'
'...................none of those issues matter anyway'
::) ::) ::)
SF do not care one iota for an ILA or marriage equality and if you think they do you're a fool. This is about playing to the Felons club who have seen the DUP run rings around an inept SF leadership and have simply called time because the political ability doesn't exist in the party to take on the DUP.
I am not a sf fan by any stretch but I really don't think the dup have been running rings round them. All the dups "ducks" have lined up but they will come unstuck soon enough.
I would agree that I don't think they care about an ila or marriage equality mind you. They probably are the right things to take them on at though.
The only people the DUP have been running rings around are the people in the north whose livelihoods they are treating with complete contempt.
MLA Claire Hanna seems to have deleted all SDLP mentions from social media, where next for what seems like a very competent politician?
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on February 09, 2019, 11:55:06 PM
MLA Claire Hanna seems to have deleted all SDLP mentions from social media, where next for what seems like a very competent politician?
Alliance Party.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on February 10, 2019, 07:32:53 AM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on February 09, 2019, 11:55:06 PM
MLA Claire Hanna seems to have deleted all SDLP mentions from social media, where next for what seems like a very competent politician?
Alliance Party.
Alliance party would be extremely risky. They already have ex uup Bradshaw as an mla they wont get enough votes for 2 even with Hanna bringing some personal vote with her. Likewise an independent is risky for the same reasons. All academic since stormont isnt going to be up and running again anytime soon. I think Hanna made the mistake of being so vocal. Fair play to her for sticking to her principles but she has kind of cornered herself she could have just said she wasnt happy and left it at that. It could be yrs if ever before sdlp candidates have to stand under FF banner.
Continuity SDLP.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on February 10, 2019, 07:32:53 AM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on February 09, 2019, 11:55:06 PM
MLA Claire Hanna seems to have deleted all SDLP mentions from social media, where next for what seems like a very competent politician?
Alliance Party.
She'll never join Alliance. She's a Social Democrat.
Be interesting to see how this plays out for the SDLP. Will the presence of prominent FF politicians on the campaign trail be enough to give them the polling boost they so badly need.
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on February 10, 2019, 08:49:14 AM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on February 10, 2019, 07:32:53 AM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on February 09, 2019, 11:55:06 PM
MLA Claire Hanna seems to have deleted all SDLP mentions from social media, where next for what seems like a very competent politician?
Alliance Party.
Alliance party would be extremely risky. They already have ex uup Bradshaw as an mla they wont get enough votes for 2 even with Hanna bringing some personal vote with her. Likewise an independent is risky for the same reasons. All academic since stormont isnt going to be up and running again anytime soon. I think Hanna made the mistake of being so vocal. Fair play to her for sticking to her principles but she has kind of cornered herself she could have just said she wasnt happy and left it at that. It could be yrs if ever before sdlp candidates have to stand under FF banner.
They may not be standing under a FF banner but as far as the voters are concerned it is now FF.
With PR voting there is always room for an independent, just look at the Dail. Hanna could easily form another party if she shows true left wing, social democratic credentials with a nationalist standpoint, what the SDLP should have become. It might survive mostly in the east while Tobin makes in-road into the rural areas of the west. PR gives breathing space to multiple parties but Stormont denies them the power found in normal parliamentary systems.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 10, 2019, 10:59:55 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on February 10, 2019, 08:49:14 AM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on February 10, 2019, 07:32:53 AM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on February 09, 2019, 11:55:06 PM
MLA Claire Hanna seems to have deleted all SDLP mentions from social media, where next for what seems like a very competent politician?
Alliance Party.
Alliance party would be extremely risky. They already have ex uup Bradshaw as an mla they wont get enough votes for 2 even with Hanna bringing some personal vote with her. Likewise an independent is risky for the same reasons. All academic since stormont isnt going to be up and running again anytime soon. I think Hanna made the mistake of being so vocal. Fair play to her for sticking to her principles but she has kind of cornered herself she could have just said she wasnt happy and left it at that. It could be yrs if ever before sdlp candidates have to stand under FF banner.
They may not be standing under a FF banner but as far as the voters are concerned it is now FF.
With PR voting there is always room for an independent, just look at the Dail. Hanna could easily form another party if she shows true left wing, social democratic credentials with a nationalist standpoint, what the SDLP should have become. It might survive mostly in the east while Tobin makes in-road into the rural areas of the west. PR gives breathing space to multiple parties but Stormont denies them the power found in normal parliamentary systems.
Tobin's party is a single issue party. Like most other single issue parties I can't see him making any in roads at all.
Hanna should sit tight for a few years, she would be the ideal candidate for South Belfast as an independent get that sc**bag Pengelly out. If the Shinners do the right thing and stand aside for her.
Quote from: pbat on February 10, 2019, 11:34:24 AM
Hanna should sit tight for a few years, she would be the ideal candidate for South Belfast as an independent get that sc**bag Pengelly out. If the Shinners do the right thing and stand aside for her.
Pengelly is an excellent constituency MP, running around trying to make sure that the bus stops don't have bad words on them like "Short Strand".
Ah good old Emma - uvf flags are not sectarian or intimidating to catholics, if you need new windows after the bonfires claim on your home insurance, we must change the name of this bus stop as it makes us sound like taigues - pengelly.
A wonderful mp she is too ;D
The sad thing is that the so-called "progressive" parties in South Belfast can't, or won't, unite around an agreed candidate to unseat her. Mind you, nor do I think that Hanna is the answer either inside, or outside, the SDLP. SF will probably never give anyone else a free run anyway, so it looks like we're stuck with a complete bigot.
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on February 10, 2019, 12:30:09 PM
The sad thing is that the so-called "progressive" parties in South Belfast can't, or won't, unite around an agreed candidate to unseat her. Mind you, nor do I think that Hanna is the answer either inside, or outside, the SDLP. SF will probably never give anyone else a free run anyway, so it looks like we're stuck with a complete bigot.
Yeah the SF "free run" only seems to work one way with them, they would rather have a bigot like Pengelly than SDLP
Same old story.
Chat about reviving democratic institutions out of one side of our mouths and then playing electoral gains to keep themmuns out of South Belfast from the other. Absolute nonsense.
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2019, 02:02:25 PM
Same old story.
Chat about reviving democratic institutions out of one side of our mouths and then playing electoral gains to keep themmuns out of South Belfast from the other. Absolute nonsense.
The only nonsense is the constituency with the highest remain vote in NI is represented by a cnut.
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on February 10, 2019, 02:08:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2019, 02:02:25 PM
Same old story.
Chat about reviving democratic institutions out of one side of our mouths and then playing electoral gains to keep themmuns out of South Belfast from the other. Absolute nonsense.
The only nonsense is the constituency with the highest remain vote in NI is represented by a cnut.
The constituency is represented by the democratic winner on the basis of the electoral system in place. Whether she's a **** or not (she clearly is) is moot.
It's the 21st century. People talk of moving on and a brighter future and all that but are hypocritically blinded when it comes to the idea that electoral pacts are by definition anti democratic.
Next thing you'll be telling us is that the "democratic" in Democratic Unionist Party is a fair reflection of the views of that particular band of upstanding citizens....oh , apart from corruption, drink driving convictions among Councillors, sexual assault convictions, dodgy planning applications, package holidays galore, Ulster Resistance, RHI etc etc. Fit representatives of the people indeed.
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2019, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on February 10, 2019, 02:08:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2019, 02:02:25 PM
Same old story.
Chat about reviving democratic institutions out of one side of our mouths and then playing electoral gains to keep themmuns out of South Belfast from the other. Absolute nonsense.
The only nonsense is the constituency with the highest remain vote in NI is represented by a cnut.
The constituency is represented by the democratic winner on the basis of the electoral system in place. Whether she's a **** or not (she clearly is) is moot.
It's the 21st century. People talk of moving on and a brighter future and all that but are hypocritically blinded when it comes to the idea that electoral pacts are by definition anti democratic.
If the majority of Nationalists in South Belfast wanted a Nationalist MP they should've went out and voted Alasdair McDonnell. It's rather quite simple.
Some people, believe it or not, are capable of looking past the fact that McDonnell represents a supposedly nationalist party and voting with their conscience.
He is a thoroughly dislikeable f**ker altogether with plenty of skeletons in his closet. Voting for him just to keep out the DUP would have been reprehensible.
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2019, 07:57:10 PM
Some people, believe it or not, are capable of looking past the fact that McDonnell represents a supposedly nationalist party and voting with their conscience.
He is a thoroughly dislikeable f**ker altogether with plenty of skeletons in his closet. Voting for him just to keep out the DUP would have been reprehensible.
Please tell us more of his skeletons.
Sinn fein could never get the voter nos for south Belfast but could to enough to skewer the SDLP which had been s long term objective. So we get Pengelly for that mentality. And it not be lost on me nxt time caoimhe Arch. Coming round looking a vote..
A pact for north/south belfast along with one for FST & Upper Bann would seem fairly logical esp for the SDLP.
If we haven't seen it yet doubt we'll see it now with FF involved who would love to give the shinners a bloody nose in the north. The root of it all seems to me mainly cos the stoops are too proud.
Quote from: trailer on February 10, 2019, 07:13:33 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2019, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on February 10, 2019, 02:08:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2019, 02:02:25 PM
Same old story.
Chat about reviving democratic institutions out of one side of our mouths and then playing electoral gains to keep themmuns out of South Belfast from the other. Absolute nonsense.
The only nonsense is the constituency with the highest remain vote in NI is represented by a cnut.
The constituency is represented by the democratic winner on the basis of the electoral system in place. Whether she's a **** or not (she clearly is) is moot.
It's the 21st century. People talk of moving on and a brighter future and all that but are hypocritically blinded when it comes to the idea that electoral pacts are by definition anti democratic.
If the majority of Nationalists in South Belfast wanted a Nationalist MP they should've went out and voted Alasdair McDonnell. It's rather quite simple.
Was Alasdair a social democrat or just a member of the SDLP?
Electoral pacts serve what purpose? Keep themmuns out? That's the politics of a cess pit. That mentality has this place in the mess it is. Every party should stand on its manifesto. The electorate should then go out and vote for the party they think best represents them. Vote for something. Argue, disagree etc, but go out and vote for something rather than voting against something.
Quote from: johnnycool on February 11, 2019, 10:45:16 AM
Quote from: trailer on February 10, 2019, 07:13:33 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2019, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on February 10, 2019, 02:08:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2019, 02:02:25 PM
Same old story.
Chat about reviving democratic institutions out of one side of our mouths and then playing electoral gains to keep themmuns out of South Belfast from the other. Absolute nonsense.
The only nonsense is the constituency with the highest remain vote in NI is represented by a cnut.
The constituency is represented by the democratic winner on the basis of the electoral system in place. Whether she's a **** or not (she clearly is) is moot.
It's the 21st century. People talk of moving on and a brighter future and all that but are hypocritically blinded when it comes to the idea that electoral pacts are by definition anti democratic.
If the majority of Nationalists in South Belfast wanted a Nationalist MP they should've went out and voted Alasdair McDonnell. It's rather quite simple.
Was Alasdair a social democrat or just a member of the SDLP?
Are you asking me? I don't know. Keen to find out more about his skeletons though. Being a doctor he probably has at least one skeleton alright.
He was fond of a good auld expense claim. I don't know the full ins and outs but I suspect if you google you should find it out.
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 11, 2019, 11:26:56 AM
He was fond of a good auld expense claim. I don't know the full ins and outs but I suspect if you google you should find it out.
What politician isn't ?
Quote from: trailer on February 11, 2019, 10:55:40 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on February 11, 2019, 10:45:16 AM
Quote from: trailer on February 10, 2019, 07:13:33 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2019, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on February 10, 2019, 02:08:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 10, 2019, 02:02:25 PM
Same old story.
Chat about reviving democratic institutions out of one side of our mouths and then playing electoral gains to keep themmuns out of South Belfast from the other. Absolute nonsense.
The only nonsense is the constituency with the highest remain vote in NI is represented by a cnut.
The constituency is represented by the democratic winner on the basis of the electoral system in place. Whether she's a **** or not (she clearly is) is moot.
It's the 21st century. People talk of moving on and a brighter future and all that but are hypocritically blinded when it comes to the idea that electoral pacts are by definition anti democratic.
If the majority of Nationalists in South Belfast wanted a Nationalist MP they should've went out and voted Alasdair McDonnell. It's rather quite simple.
Was Alasdair a social democrat or just a member of the SDLP?
Are you asking me? I don't know. Keen to find out more about his skeletons though. Being a doctor he probably has at least one skeleton alright.
Well certainly SF played a pretty dirty campaign last time leaking all sorts of accusations against McDonnell. No idea if they were true or not but nothing to this day has come of them. McDonnell surprisingly increased his vote share despite the smear campaign last time unfortunately the UUP vote collapsed and all nice moderate Unionists decided to vote for the bigot DUP just to keep a taig out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47200039
Not good news for the SDLP. Essentially, the SDL part of the party was sacrificed for Saturday's agreement to enter into an 'understanding' with Fianna Fail. Now, an majorl part of the P has gone too.
Quote from: Seany on February 11, 2019, 02:29:17 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47200039
Not good news for the SDLP. Essentially, the SDL part of the party was sacrificed for Saturday's agreement to enter into an 'understanding' with Fianna Fail. Now, an majorl part of the P has gone too.
It would appear Claire is only a Democrat when it suits her. Sad but something has to change or there'll be no party to resign from.
Quote from: trailer on February 11, 2019, 03:06:04 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 11, 2019, 02:29:17 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47200039
Not good news for the SDLP. Essentially, the SDL part of the party was sacrificed for Saturday's agreement to enter into an 'understanding' with Fianna Fail. Now, an majorl part of the P has gone too.
It would appear Claire is only a Democrat when it suits her. Sad but something has to change or there'll be no party to resign from.
Pathetic.
You can be a democrat, accept a vote has gone against you and then take whatever actions your principles demand. In her case, the party she belonged to voted to become a branch of FF, a centre right party and moved away from its founding principles and any pretence of being social democrats with left leaning policies. She has her principles and decided to resign her portfolio and become an independent. Strange though that she wants to remain a member of the party.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 11, 2019, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 11, 2019, 03:06:04 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 11, 2019, 02:29:17 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47200039
Not good news for the SDLP. Essentially, the SDL part of the party was sacrificed for Saturday's agreement to enter into an 'understanding' with Fianna Fail. Now, an majorl part of the P has gone too.
It would appear Claire is only a Democrat when it suits her. Sad but something has to change or there'll be no party to resign from.
Pathetic.
You can be a democrat, accept a vote has gone against you and then take whatever actions your principles demand. In her case, the party she belonged to voted to become a branch of FF, a centre right party and moved away from its founding principles and any pretence of being social democrats with left leaning policies. She has her principles and decided to resign her portfolio and become an independent. Strange though that she wants to remain a member of the party.
There's nothing pathetic about it. Claire should shite or get off the pot. She hasn't resigned from the party just the assembly whip.
It was a simple choice for the SDLP. Adapt or die. In my view they should have went much further and taken the Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortez's approach and burned the ships.
Quote from: trailer on February 11, 2019, 10:49:26 AM
Electoral pacts serve what purpose? Keep themmuns out? That's the politics of a cess pit. That mentality has this place in the mess it is. Every party should stand on its manifesto. The electorate should then go out and vote for the party they think best represents them. Vote for something. Argue, disagree etc, but go out and vote for something rather than voting against something.
Agreed. I personally only vote for one party that i agree with on a majority of issues. A pact would be no good to me as i would not vote for a different party just so another "side" wont get in.
Claire Hanna is undoubtedly articulate, but like most politicians a little too rehearsed in her arguments. I think Claire and her supporters like Briege Rogers represent the cultural nationalist wing of the SDLP and the slightly greener part has cast them adrift with the Fianna Fail alliance. The Shinners seem to be mopping up the yoof so difficult for the SDLP to keep going with out a broader all-Ireland approach. Their mistake is in only going half way.
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
SDLP are a busted flush now....but what gets me is SF voters who see no wrong in their party.....a party that endorsed Tory austerity and awarded PIP assessment contracts to Capita.
Dunno if the parties have a hatred of Sinn Fein it's just very easy to point out their hypocrisy on a range of issues
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
Fianna Fáil the so-called Republican party.
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
No they don't think that. They just think it's the right thing to do. Imagine that?
Quote from: LCohen on February 23, 2019, 11:00:53 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
No they don't think that. They just think it's the right thing to do. Imagine that?
At this stage, SF are one of the greatest obstacles to United Ireland, both in their coat trailing demeanour and their inability to put forward a credible economic policy that does not involve taxing the shite out of people. The challenge for SF is not whether they can please their own cultists but whether they can in fact actually advance a United Ireland.
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
SF have created a two party sectarian state in NI. They think the election results in the North are an honest reflective of their popularity. The recent Presidential election showed were they are. A protest vote
Quote from: armaghniac on February 24, 2019, 12:30:36 AM
Quote from: LCohen on February 23, 2019, 11:00:53 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
No they don't think that. They just think it's the right thing to do. Imagine that?
At this stage, SF are one of the greatest obstacles to United Ireland, both in their coat trailing demeanour and their inability to put forward a credible economic policy that does not involve taxing the shite out of people. The challenge for SF is not whether they can please their own cultists but whether they can in fact actually advance a United Ireland.
SF could look to Brexit. Brexit shows that you can win a referendum on the basis of sloganeering. But major constitutional change against the backdrop of a divided electorate needs detailed planning. At this stage there is no indication that SF can or are even trying to achieve that. Right now a special place in hell awaits for them and their Faragesque posturing
Quote from: trailer on February 24, 2019, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
SF have created a two party sectarian state in NI. They think the election results in the North are an honest reflective of their popularity. The recent Presidential election showed were they are. A protest vote
The DUP and SF votes are protest votes that are encouraged by the D'Hondt/Jefferson system. Nationalists are encouraged to vote SF to prevent a DUP FM. And vice versa
Quote from: LCohen on February 24, 2019, 09:35:34 AM
Quote from: trailer on February 24, 2019, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
SF have created a two party sectarian state in NI. They think the election results in the North are an honest reflective of their popularity. The recent Presidential election showed were they are. A protest vote
The DUP and SF votes are protest votes that are encouraged by the D'Hondt/Jefferson system. Nationalists are encouraged to vote SF to prevent a DUP FM. And vice versa
As institutionalised by the flawed St Andrews agreement to provide a fig leaf for SF and DUP to get together in government and have SF onboard with policing.
Quote from: Insane Bolt on February 23, 2019, 06:51:18 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
SDLP are a busted flush now....but what gets me is SF voters who see no wrong in their party.....a party that endorsed Tory austerity and awarded PIP assessment contracts to Capita.
I vote SF, but do not agree with all that they do and would love the chance to vote for a proper nationalist party without the baggage associated with memorials etc... The SDLP though criticise SF for not rolling over on the assembly, I don't want nationalists to go into Stormont without proper recognition of our rights as Irish citizens and equality for all that it embraces, which is the problem I have with the SDLP.
Quote from: LCohen on February 23, 2019, 11:00:53 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
No they don't think that. They just think it's the right thing to do. Imagine that?
All the Nationalist parties north and south are all over the show on this, it is up to them all to carve out a way forward not just the Shinners.
If I was advising the SDLP, I would tell them to Green up. Now that they have embraced FF, they need to accept that the Social Democracy element of their party is gone and they need to be working for and planning towards a United Ireland. They need to be at one voice with SF on Stormont, Brexit and DUP dysfunction and be very clear that under the current situation, they two could not countenance going back into the Executive. And they certainly need to stop the complete nonsense on abstenstionism. When the election comes, nationalists are then clear that both their parties are at one voice on the national question, therefore it comes down to a vote on who is the better candidate. The current SDLP approach is just plain ridiculous. Nobody, including themselves really have a clue what they are about, so it becomes a vague 'Get back into Stormont' rant that makes no acknowledgement at all towards the issues that got us to where we are. The other thing that keeps them going is that they spend their time 'marking' SF and making counter statements nit picking the SF approach and not offering one pragmatic idea themselves.
Quote from: LCohen on February 24, 2019, 09:35:34 AM
Quote from: trailer on February 24, 2019, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
SF have created a two party sectarian state in NI. They think the election results in the North are an honest reflective of their popularity. The recent Presidential election showed were they are. A protest vote
The DUP and SF votes are protest votes that are encouraged by the D'Hondt/Jefferson system. Nationalists are encouraged to vote SF to prevent a DUP FM. And vice versa
Really???
Quote from: Seany on February 25, 2019, 11:58:27 AM
If I was advising the SDLP, I would tell them to Green up. Now that they have embraced FF, they need to accept that the Social Democracy element of their party is gone and they need to be working for and planning towards a United Ireland. They need to be at one voice with SF on Stormont, Brexit and DUP dysfunction and be very clear that under the current situation, they two could not countenance going back into the Executive. And they certainly need to stop the complete nonsense on abstenstionism. When the election comes, nationalists are then clear that both their parties are at one voice on the national question, therefore it comes down to a vote on who is the better candidate. The current SDLP approach is just plain ridiculous. Nobody, including themselves really have a clue what they are about, so it becomes a vague 'Get back into Stormont' rant that makes no acknowledgement at all towards the issues that got us to where we are. The other thing that keeps them going is that they spend their time 'marking' SF and making counter statements nit picking the SF approach and not offering one pragmatic idea themselves.
If Sinn Fein deliver a United Ireland it will be a nasty, troubled affair because Unionists simply don't trust SF and never will, in fact they despise them. SDLP could have a much better chance of getting there more peacefully and probably more quickly, if only they could see the opportunity and had the talent in their ranks to attract voters back.
Quote from: Sportacus on February 25, 2019, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 25, 2019, 11:58:27 AM
If I was advising the SDLP, I would tell them to Green up. Now that they have embraced FF, they need to accept that the Social Democracy element of their party is gone and they need to be working for and planning towards a United Ireland. They need to be at one voice with SF on Stormont, Brexit and DUP dysfunction and be very clear that under the current situation, they two could not countenance going back into the Executive. And they certainly need to stop the complete nonsense on abstenstionism. When the election comes, nationalists are then clear that both their parties are at one voice on the national question, therefore it comes down to a vote on who is the better candidate. The current SDLP approach is just plain ridiculous. Nobody, including themselves really have a clue what they are about, so it becomes a vague 'Get back into Stormont' rant that makes no acknowledgement at all towards the issues that got us to where we are. The other thing that keeps them going is that they spend their time 'marking' SF and making counter statements nit picking the SF approach and not offering one pragmatic idea themselves.
If Sinn Fein deliver a United Ireland it will be a nasty, troubled affair because Unionists simply don't trust SF and never will, in fact they despise them. SDLP could have a much better chance of getting there more peacefully and probably more quickly, if only they could see the opportunity and had the talent in their ranks to attract voters back.
History clearlyy shows that unionists 'simply don't trust' nationalists' of any sort...whatever shade of green they are.
Unionists are ok with nationalists if they just keep the head down and don't rock the boat. That day is over.
Quote from: haranguerer on February 25, 2019, 12:18:51 PM
Quote from: LCohen on February 24, 2019, 09:35:34 AM
Quote from: trailer on February 24, 2019, 09:15:57 AM
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
SF have created a two party sectarian state in NI. They think the election results in the North are an honest reflective of their popularity. The recent Presidential election showed were they are. A protest vote
The DUP and SF votes are protest votes that are encouraged by the D'Hondt/Jefferson system. Nationalists are encouraged to vote SF to prevent a DUP FM. And vice versa
Really???
Yes
Quote from: Applesisapples on February 25, 2019, 11:24:11 AM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on February 23, 2019, 06:51:18 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
SDLP are a busted flush now....but what gets me is SF voters who see no wrong in their party.....a party that endorsed Tory austerity and awarded PIP assessment contracts to Capita.
I vote SF, but do not agree with all that they do and would love the chance to vote for a proper nationalist party without the baggage associated with memorials etc... The SDLP though criticise SF for not rolling over on the assembly, I don't want nationalists to go into Stormont without proper recognition of our rights as Irish citizens and equality for all that it embraces, which is the problem I have with the SDLP.
You do realise that the SDLP are the only party to date that have a plan as to what an Irish Language Act would look like and how it would be implemented. It's all soundbites and spin from the Shinners. Check out Mick Fealty's tweets.
Quote from: Seany on February 25, 2019, 11:58:27 AM
If I was advising the SDLP, I would tell them to Green up. Now that they have embraced FF, they need to accept that the Social Democracy element of their party is gone and they need to be working for and planning towards a United Ireland. They need to be at one voice with SF on Stormont, Brexit and DUP dysfunction and be very clear that under the current situation, they two could not countenance going back into the Executive. And they certainly need to stop the complete nonsense on abstenstionism. When the election comes, nationalists are then clear that both their parties are at one voice on the national question, therefore it comes down to a vote on who is the better candidate. The current SDLP approach is just plain ridiculous. Nobody, including themselves really have a clue what they are about, so it becomes a vague 'Get back into Stormont' rant that makes no acknowledgement at all towards the issues that got us to where we are. The other thing that keeps them going is that they spend their time 'marking' SF and making counter statements nit picking the SF approach and not offering one pragmatic idea themselves.
Why don't you go and read the proposals that the SDLP have published, rather than spouting incoherent SF gibberish.
Quote from: trailer on February 25, 2019, 09:13:22 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 25, 2019, 11:58:27 AM
If I was advising the SDLP, I would tell them to Green up. Now that they have embraced FF, they need to accept that the Social Democracy element of their party is gone and they need to be working for and planning towards a United Ireland. They need to be at one voice with SF on Stormont, Brexit and DUP dysfunction and be very clear that under the current situation, they two could not countenance going back into the Executive. And they certainly need to stop the complete nonsense on abstenstionism. When the election comes, nationalists are then clear that both their parties are at one voice on the national question, therefore it comes down to a vote on who is the better candidate. The current SDLP approach is just plain ridiculous. Nobody, including themselves really have a clue what they are about, so it becomes a vague 'Get back into Stormont' rant that makes no acknowledgement at all towards the issues that got us to where we are. The other thing that keeps them going is that they spend their time 'marking' SF and making counter statements nit picking the SF approach and not offering one pragmatic idea themselves.
Why don't you go and read the proposals that the SDLP have published, rather than spouting incoherent SF gibberish.
This is the perfect articulation of the SDLPs problem. Someone has gone to the hassle to outline what it would take to make them pick the SDLP the next time they enter the ballot box. The response (from people who I assume are sympathetic to the SDLP) is to 1) Preach at them 2) Illustrate how badly the SDLP are at promoting their own policies (Note: Political parties "sell" their vision to the electorate - they do not "instruct" them to go read their proposals)
Quote from: Chief on February 25, 2019, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 25, 2019, 09:13:22 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 25, 2019, 11:58:27 AM
If I was advising the SDLP, I would tell them to Green up. Now that they have embraced FF, they need to accept that the Social Democracy element of their party is gone and they need to be working for and planning towards a United Ireland. They need to be at one voice with SF on Stormont, Brexit and DUP dysfunction and be very clear that under the current situation, they two could not countenance going back into the Executive. And they certainly need to stop the complete nonsense on abstenstionism. When the election comes, nationalists are then clear that both their parties are at one voice on the national question, therefore it comes down to a vote on who is the better candidate. The current SDLP approach is just plain ridiculous. Nobody, including themselves really have a clue what they are about, so it becomes a vague 'Get back into Stormont' rant that makes no acknowledgement at all towards the issues that got us to where we are. The other thing that keeps them going is that they spend their time 'marking' SF and making counter statements nit picking the SF approach and not offering one pragmatic idea themselves.
Why don't you go and read the proposals that the SDLP have published, rather than spouting incoherent SF gibberish.
This is the perfect articulation of the SDLPs problem. Someone has gone to the hassle to outline what it would take to make them pick the SDLP the next time they enter the ballot box. The response (from people who I assume are sympathetic to the SDLP) is to 1) Preach at them 2) Illustrate how badly the SDLP are at promoting their own policies (Note: Political parties "sell" their vision to the electorate - they do not "instruct" them to go read their proposals)
The detailed policies are there but it's now the SDLP's fault people can't be arsed to go and read the information they actually want. They want someone to read it for them and summarise it on a GAA board for them.
They complain the information isn't there when it is then take offence when their own laziness is pointed out.
Quote from: trailer on February 25, 2019, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Chief on February 25, 2019, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: trailer on February 25, 2019, 09:13:22 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 25, 2019, 11:58:27 AM
If I was advising the SDLP, I would tell them to Green up. Now that they have embraced FF, they need to accept that the Social Democracy element of their party is gone and they need to be working for and planning towards a United Ireland. They need to be at one voice with SF on Stormont, Brexit and DUP dysfunction and be very clear that under the current situation, they two could not countenance going back into the Executive. And they certainly need to stop the complete nonsense on abstenstionism. When the election comes, nationalists are then clear that both their parties are at one voice on the national question, therefore it comes down to a vote on who is the better candidate. The current SDLP approach is just plain ridiculous. Nobody, including themselves really have a clue what they are about, so it becomes a vague 'Get back into Stormont' rant that makes no acknowledgement at all towards the issues that got us to where we are. The other thing that keeps them going is that they spend their time 'marking' SF and making counter statements nit picking the SF approach and not offering one pragmatic idea themselves.
Why don't you go and read the proposals that the SDLP have published, rather than spouting incoherent SF gibberish.
This is the perfect articulation of the SDLPs problem. Someone has gone to the hassle to outline what it would take to make them pick the SDLP the next time they enter the ballot box. The response (from people who I assume are sympathetic to the SDLP) is to 1) Preach at them 2) Illustrate how badly the SDLP are at promoting their own policies (Note: Political parties "sell" their vision to the electorate - they do not "instruct" them to go read their proposals)
The detailed policies are there but it's now the SDLP's fault people can't be arsed to go and read the information they actually want. They want someone to read it for them and summarise it on a GAA board for them.
They complain the information isn't there when it is then take offence when their own laziness is pointed out.
I like lists so:
1) Yes it is the SDLP's fault people don't read their policies.Who else's fault would it be? Just so it's completely clear, it's the responsibility of political parties who are seeking public office to "sell" their policies to the demos. Especially when you have less activists that the main opposition. This is literally Politics 101.
2) Yes people want summaries - what amount of people do you ever think read full manifestos before voting? I'd guess a third of people if your lucky. Therefore in order to help the people make a decision you help make the decision simple for them - think "It's The Economy Stupid", "Yes We Can", "Make America Great Again", "Tiocfaidh ar la", "Take Back Control" etc etc
3) Yes a lot of people are lazy when it come to political analysis - know your audience and adapt accordingly - see point 2
4) When someone is motivated enough to suggest a strategy that will attract them to a party they want to be listened to, not preached at - see points 2 and 3 (FYI this also helps explain some of SF's problems down south.
5) People aren't complaining that information isn't out there, they are complaining they don't know what the SDLP stands for - see points 2 -5
Quote from: LooseCannon on February 25, 2019, 08:54:35 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on February 25, 2019, 11:24:11 AM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on February 23, 2019, 06:51:18 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
SDLP are a busted flush now....but what gets me is SF voters who see no wrong in their party.....a party that endorsed Tory austerity and awarded PIP assessment contracts to Capita.
I vote SF, but do not agree with all that they do and would love the chance to vote for a proper nationalist party without the baggage associated with memorials etc... The SDLP though criticise SF for not rolling over on the assembly, I don't want nationalists to go into Stormont without proper recognition of our rights as Irish citizens and equality for all that it embraces, which is the problem I have with the SDLP.
You do realise that the SDLP are the only party to date that have a plan as to what an Irish Language Act would look like and how it would be implemented. It's all soundbites and spin from the Shinners. Check out Mick Fealty's tweets.
Mick hates the Shinners every bit as much as the likes of RDE and the Sindo ilk and is blinded by that.
If the Shinners don't have an ILA and a plan to implement it then what did the DUP team agree to take back to their party/OO/Jamwie Bwyson and Co for ratification?
Quote from: johnnycool on February 26, 2019, 10:46:11 AM
Quote from: LooseCannon on February 25, 2019, 08:54:35 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on February 25, 2019, 11:24:11 AM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on February 23, 2019, 06:51:18 PM
Quote from: Seany on February 23, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
Colm Eastwood spoke at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis today and for his greatest ovations when he criticized SF for their abstentionnistes policy and for having the audacity to suggest that a referendum on irish unity should be a consideration after Brexit. Do they really think that this sort of rhetoric is going to drive SF voters in their droves and into the arms of the SDFF 'understanding', This sort of nonsense drives northern nationalists up the walls. it is just the very self same thing that will lose them even more voters. Those to parties are connected by only one thing and that is their hatred for Sinn Fein.
SDLP are a busted flush now....but what gets me is SF voters who see no wrong in their party.....a party that endorsed Tory austerity and awarded PIP assessment contracts to Capita.
I vote SF, but do not agree with all that they do and would love the chance to vote for a proper nationalist party without the baggage associated with memorials etc... The SDLP though criticise SF for not rolling over on the assembly, I don't want nationalists to go into Stormont without proper recognition of our rights as Irish citizens and equality for all that it embraces, which is the problem I have with the SDLP.
You do realise that the SDLP are the only party to date that have a plan as to what an Irish Language Act would look like and how it would be implemented. It's all soundbites and spin from the Shinners. Check out Mick Fealty's tweets.
Mick hates the Shinners every bit as much as the likes of RDE and the Sindo ilk and is blinded by that.
If the Shinners don't have an ILA and a plan to implement it then what did the DUP team agree to take back to their party/OO/Jamwie Bwyson and Co for ratification?
It was a useless ILA about as watered down as you could get and still wasnt acceptable to the UDA oops i mean unionists. As for Featly as much as I like his site he himself is odd and cerainly doesnt have much time for nationalism. I dont know if he is just playing devils advocate or feels he needs to make up for an imbalance on his site that doesnt actually exist. I dont know.
Mark Durcan wtf ::)
Any ould job will do, with any party.
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on March 04, 2019, 02:55:51 PM
Mark Durcan wtf ::)
Well that was unexpected. A massive coup for fine gael, timed perfectly after the sdlp/fianna fail partnership last month.
Seems like the call went out to abandon ship and the former captain jumped first. Sad. Sad for the legacy of John Hume and the party he helped build.
Strange move and it looks to be the end of the SDLP
I thought durkan a decent skin but for a supposed nationalist to join Fine Gael it doesnt reflect well Imo
Strange that the stoops are falling over themselves to join FF & FG I would always thought that Labour wudda been more natural bedfellows. But on the other hand it was a badly kept secret that SDLPs position on the left was more a hangover from their foundation and not reflective of the present day middle class base.
Surely more middle class nationalists support SF than SDLP?
Quote from: Walter Cronc on March 05, 2019, 08:29:41 AM
Surely more middle class nationalists support SF than SDLP?
Probably true of the midde class nationalists who can be arsed to vote.
Which is the same thing, I suppose.
This is bad news for SDLP. Who knows where they go from here. They should've just bit the bullet and threw all in with FF. At this rate there'll be nothing left for FF to take over.
Quote from: trailer on March 05, 2019, 10:04:20 AM
This is bad news for SDLP. Who knows where they go from here. They should've just bit the bullet and threw all in with FF. At this rate there'll be nothing left for FF to take over.
I once would have advocated FF standing in the North and would under Bertie's leadership have voted for them. But Martin's constant anti Nordie SF sniping is a turn off.
The SDLP seem to have more issues with SF than any other party. Daniel McCrossan's life seems to be about slabbering as much as he can about SF.
It's also a 2 fingered salute from Durkan to Colm Eastwood so soon after the official link up with FF. Their perceived sister party was Labour, they formed a recent alliance with FF and now their former leader has thrown in his lot with FG. Hanna and Durkan's defections have meant that it has been a bad few weeks for SDLP.
Councillor Cahill on Lisburn Council is another one seemingly without a clue as to what party she wants to affiliate to.
Quote from: yellowcard on March 05, 2019, 10:54:53 AM
It's also a 2 fingered salute from Durkan to Colm Eastwood so soon after the official link up with FF. Their perceived sister party was Labour, they formed a recent alliance with FF and now their former leader has thrown in his lot with FG. Hanna and Durkan's defections have meant that it has been a bad few weeks for SDLP.
I heard it described as Eastwood and Mallons link up with FF on the radio, Was Nicola Mallon a prominent supporter of it? I always considered her and Hanna as 2 of their better performers so to see of them going off in differing directions can only weaken them.
Quote from: LeoMc on March 05, 2019, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 05, 2019, 10:54:53 AM
It's also a 2 fingered salute from Durkan to Colm Eastwood so soon after the official link up with FF. Their perceived sister party was Labour, they formed a recent alliance with FF and now their former leader has thrown in his lot with FG. Hanna and Durkan's defections have meant that it has been a bad few weeks for SDLP.
I heard it described as Eastwood and Mallons link up with FF on the radio, Was Nicola Mallon a prominent supporter of it? I always considered her and Hanna as 2 of their better performers so to see of them going off in differing directions can only weaken them.
Mallon has the best record of any MLA of working on social issues and achieving something for mostly her N.Belfast constituents but for all in relation to the welfare reforms handed by SF to the Tories to implement. Therefore, it was a shock that she would be alongside Eastwood in moving to FF.
SDLP has always had its FF, FG and Labour factions. By forcing through the FF alliance, Eastwood has opened up these fissures in the party and is prepared to allow them to grow in return for FF money to keep his party afloat. The loss of the 3 WM seats meant that income was severely reduced and would mean that a party machine without a grass roots base of volunteers could no longer compete with the other NI parties. Durkan's move will allow the merger/takeover to happen faster than planned.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 05, 2019, 11:24:19 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on March 05, 2019, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 05, 2019, 10:54:53 AM
It's also a 2 fingered salute from Durkan to Colm Eastwood so soon after the official link up with FF. Their perceived sister party was Labour, they formed a recent alliance with FF and now their former leader has thrown in his lot with FG. Hanna and Durkan's defections have meant that it has been a bad few weeks for SDLP.
I heard it described as Eastwood and Mallons link up with FF on the radio, Was Nicola Mallon a prominent supporter of it? I always considered her and Hanna as 2 of their better performers so to see of them going off in differing directions can only weaken them.
Mallon has the best record of any MLA of working on social issues and achieving something for mostly her N.Belfast constituents but for all in relation to the welfare reforms handed by SF to the Tories to implement. Therefore, it was a shock that she would be alongside Eastwood in moving to FF.
SDLP has always had its FF, FG and Labour factions. By forcing through the FF alliance, Eastwood has opened up these fissures in the party and is prepared to allow them to grow in return for FF money to keep his party afloat. The loss of the 3 WM seats meant that income was severely reduced and would mean that a party machine without a grass roots base of volunteers could no longer compete with the other NI parties. Durkan's move will allow the merger/takeover to happen faster than planned.
To my knowledge that is inaccurate. The party has plenty of money. This linkup was about political profile.
Nicola Mallon was central to this link up as deputy leader.
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 05, 2019, 10:44:05 AM
The SDLP seem to have more issues with SF than any other party. Daniel McCrossan's life seems to be about slabbering as much as he can about SF.
He's a joke. He must have got a dig from a shinner on the football pitch growing up. It's the only explanation for the chip on his shoulder.
Quote from: trailer on March 05, 2019, 11:37:58 AM
To my knowledge that is inaccurate. The party has plenty of money. This linkup was about political profile.
Nicola Mallon was central to this link up as deputy leader.
Nonsense, SDLP is on its knees when it comes to money. Donations are so far behind all other parties and they are dependent on expenses from Stormont which are much reduced:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans
(https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans)
To run a modern election, money is everything. FF brings that resource.
Just because you are deputy leader does not mean you cannot think for yourself or stay true to your principles.
Their expenses are nearly the same (with one exception), it's their salaries that have been cut.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 05, 2019, 02:09:46 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 05, 2019, 11:37:58 AM
To my knowledge that is inaccurate. The party has plenty of money. This linkup was about political profile.
Nicola Mallon was central to this link up as deputy leader.
Nonsense, SDLP is on its knees when it comes to money. Donations are so far behind all other parties and they are dependent on expenses from Stormont which are much reduced:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans
(https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans)
To run a modern election, money is everything. FF brings that resource.
Just because you are deputy leader does not mean you cannot think for yourself or stay true to your principles.
OK you seem to know it all. ;)
Quote from: trailer on March 05, 2019, 03:03:26 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 05, 2019, 02:09:46 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 05, 2019, 11:37:58 AM
To my knowledge that is inaccurate. The party has plenty of money. This linkup was about political profile.
Nicola Mallon was central to this link up as deputy leader.
Nonsense, SDLP is on its knees when it comes to money. Donations are so far behind all other parties and they are dependent on expenses from Stormont which are much reduced:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans
(https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans)
To run a modern election, money is everything. FF brings that resource.
Just because you are deputy leader does not mean you cannot think for yourself or stay true to your principles.
OK you seem to know it all. ;)
Just factual.
Ivan Cooper: Northern Ireland civil rights leader dies
One of Northern Ireland's best-known civil rights leaders, Ivan Cooper, has died aged 75.
Obituary - Ivan Cooper
Mr Cooper was one of the leaders of the civil rights march in Londonderry in 1972 that ended in 13 people being shot dead on Bloody Sunday.
He was a founding member of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and played a major role in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association.
SDLP leader Colum Eastwood said he was "born to break the mould".
Mr Cooper was born into a working-class Protestant and unionist family in Killaloo, County Londonderry, in January 1944.
He was briefly involved in unionist politics before later becoming involved with the civil rights movement and with constitutional nationalism.
'Driving ambition'
Mr Eastwood said Mr Cooper "embodied the contrasting traditions of this island".
"A working class Protestant man who saw a common injustice and inequality that had taken root in Protestant and Catholic communities, he dedicated his life to fighting it," he said.
"As an early leader in the civil rights movement, few have contributed as much to peace and equality on this island than Ivan.
"Alongside his close friend John Hume, he helped blaze the trail on the path that led to the Good Friday Agreement."
As violence escalated in Northern Ireland, Mr Cooper remained involved in constitutional nationalism, becoming a Stormont MP and eventually community relations minister in the power-sharing executive at Stormont in 1974.
That power-sharing arrangement between nationalists and moderate unionists was brought down by the Ulster Workers' Council strike, supported by the muscle of loyalist paramilitaries like the Ulster Defence Association.
He left active politics in 1983 and went on to work as an insolvency consultant in Derry.
In a statement on behalf of former SDLP leader John Hume, his wife Pat Hume said: "We are deeply saddened to learn of the death of our dear friend Ivan Cooper.
"Ivan and John walked side by side, hand in hand, in their shared desire for equality, justice and peace in Ireland.
"Ivan was the embodiment of the non-violent and non-sectarian movement for change that was the campaign for civil rights."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-45049734 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-45049734)
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
Hardly a surprise;
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/49936000/jpg/_49936706_ritchiepoppy.jpg)
Margaret still taking the soup.
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
the SDLP are not Irish nationalists, they take an oath of allegiance to lizzy windsor and doth the cap to their english overlords in Westminster.
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
HTF can any nationalist administer British Rule in Ireland , dine with the Queen etc etc
Quote from: charlieTully on September 10, 2019, 04:24:45 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
the SDLP are not Irish nationalists, they take an oath of an allegiance to lizzy windsor and doth the cap to their english overlords in Westminster.
In that case you'd better take down Parnell's statue from O'Connell St and rename it back to Sackville St.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on September 10, 2019, 05:33:29 PM
OK, it's about time this was brought to a head on here...
Can someone point out to me an authoritative link on the internet that clearly defines whom or what an Irish nationalist is, or indeed what is considered to be a baseline as to whom can be labelled "Irish" and those that can't?
Otherwise, can someone give a list of bullet points of what the criteria should be along with an explanation for each one as to why it is the case and if necessary why it is unique to Irish nationalism as opposed to other forms of nationalism in Europe or elsewhere.
The last bit there is important IMHO, as if someone can't be an Irish nationalist because they take up a seat at either house in Westminster, does the same criteria apply to those affiliated to the SNP or Plaid Cymru for Scottish and Welsh nationalism respectively?
Some people would have it you weren't an Irishman if you criticised the Provisional IRA
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on September 10, 2019, 05:33:29 PM
OK, it's about time this was brought to a head on here...
Can someone point out to me an authoritative link on the internet that clearly defines whom or what an Irish nationalist is, or indeed what is considered to be a baseline as to whom can be labelled "Irish" and those that can't?
Otherwise, can someone give a list of bullet points of what the criteria should be along with an explanation for each one as to why it is the case and if necessary why it is unique to Irish nationalism as opposed to other forms of nationalism in Europe or elsewhere.
The last bit there is important IMHO, as if someone can't be an Irish nationalist because they take up a seat at either house in Westminster, does the same criteria apply to those affiliated to the SNP or Plaid Cymru for Scottish and Welsh nationalism respectively?
Might be slightly different as in their current vision of sovereign Independence they envisage the crown as the head of state
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
Presumably Baroness O'Loan had already been peddlng an SDLP type line in the Lords, given her connections?
Quote from: johnnycool on September 10, 2019, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
Hardly a surprise;
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/49936000/jpg/_49936706_ritchiepoppy.jpg)
Margaret still taking the soup.
What a truly awful comment.
I never actually knew the SDLP abstained from the house of lords. Why hasn't this been thrown at them before?
Quote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2019, 09:12:22 AM
I never actually knew the SDLP abstained from the house of lords. Why hasn't this been thrown at them before?
Because they don't abstain. They don't accept peerages (rightly in my view) to an unelected house. That's the difference.
Quote from: trailer on September 11, 2019, 09:34:01 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2019, 09:12:22 AM
I never actually knew the SDLP abstained from the house of lords. Why hasn't this been thrown at them before?
Because they don't abstain. They don't accept peerages (rightly in my view) to an unelected house. That's the difference.
So instead of entering a house in parliament and representing Irish nationalism, giving us a voice, they choose not to as a matter of principle?
Quote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2019, 10:17:12 AM
Quote from: trailer on September 11, 2019, 09:34:01 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on September 11, 2019, 09:12:22 AM
I never actually knew the SDLP abstained from the house of lords. Why hasn't this been thrown at them before?
Because they don't abstain. They don't accept peerages (rightly in my view) to an unelected house. That's the difference.
So instead of entering a house in parliament and representing Irish nationalism, giving us a voice, they choose not to as a matter of principle?
No, they don't accept peerages. So they can't enter the HOL. Now if they accepted the peerage and then didn't turn up, that would be abstaining.
Hope that clears that up for you.
Typical stoop. Won't seek election to the Dáil but happy to take a Tory granted title and seat in a House of Lords that she herself long described as an "anachronistic institution".
Some record for SDLP leaders:
Gerry Fitt - Joined the House of Lords and became 'Barron Fitt of Bell's Hill'.
Mark Duran - Left to join the conservative FG.
Margaret Ritchie - Announced she was "delighted" to accept a Tory bestowed peerage (she has yet to choose where she wants to become 'Baroness' of, for her title)
Alasdair McDonnell - Attempted to forge links with the right wing PD's and regularly invited the right-wing, borderline racist Michael McDowell to canvass with him.
Colm Eastwood - Forged an "alliance" with Fianna Fáil - a conservative party led by a dyed-in-the-wool partitionist.
Some nationalists!
Do you have to be a loony leftie to qualify as a "nationalist"??
Quote from: Rossfan on September 11, 2019, 11:17:21 AM
Do you have to be a loony leftie to qualify as a "nationalist"??
SDLP = Socialist Democratic Labour Party
From their website...
As the party of civil rights, the SDLP is working for an Ireland free from poverty, prejudice and injustice; a vibrant country of energy, enterprise and endeavour, where economic prosperity delivers better public services and greater opportunities for allSo they are a left wing party.
So if you are in that party and decide to become a Lord or join a right wing party somewhere else, I think it is fair to call that person as a hypocrite. Nothing to do with being a loony leftie.
Quote from: Rossfan on September 11, 2019, 11:17:21 AM
Do you have to be a loony leftie to qualify as a "nationalist"??
f**k me. Any "nationalist" that joins the House of Lords will rightfully have their credentials questioned.
The point made was that some SDLP people joined FG or were consorting with FF who are both right wing and therefore couldn't be called "nationalist".
Quote from: Rossfan on September 11, 2019, 12:09:16 PM
The point made was that some SDLP people joined FG or were consorting with FF who are both right wing and therefore couldn't be called "nationalist".
To be fair they may as well just join the UUP in the north
Nothing the stoops do would surprise me.
Quote from: johnnycool on September 10, 2019, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
Hardly a surprise;
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/49936000/jpg/_49936706_ritchiepoppy.jpg)
Margaret still taking the soup.
Typical stoop. Brits wave a wee bauble or bit of ermine their way and they're bowing and scraping. A failed politician who claims she will represent nationakists in Lords. She can fcuk right off
I eagerly await her advocating for Irish unity in the House of lords.
Quote from: red hander on September 11, 2019, 01:02:05 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 10, 2019, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
Hardly a surprise;
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/49936000/jpg/_49936706_ritchiepoppy.jpg)
Margaret still taking the soup.
Typical stoop. Brits wave a wee bauble or bit of ermine their way and they're bowing and scraping. A failed politician who claims she will represent nationakists in Lords. She can fcuk right off
Three hundred quid a day, just for turning up + Assembly pension. There's a good living to be made out of it.
To me any right thinking Irish Nationalist could not on principle take an oath to s foreign state or head of state. I know Margaret, not well but still. I can not fathom why she has sold out. I support SF and their abstention policy.
Didn't SDLP MPs take their Commons seats and that Oath for years?
Quote from: red hander on September 11, 2019, 01:02:05 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 10, 2019, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
Hardly a surprise;
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/49936000/jpg/_49936706_ritchiepoppy.jpg)
Margaret still taking the soup.
Typical stoop. Brits wave a wee bauble or bit of ermine their way and they're bowing and scraping. A failed politician who claims she will represent nationakists in Lords. She can fcuk right off
And when Martin dined with Mrs Windsor and the Chief off Staff of the Parachute regiment your thoughts were...........?
Quote from: Jim Bob on September 14, 2019, 12:17:26 AM
Quote from: red hander on September 11, 2019, 01:02:05 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 10, 2019, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
Hardly a surprise;
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/49936000/jpg/_49936706_ritchiepoppy.jpg)
Margaret still taking the soup.
Typical stoop. Brits wave a wee bauble or bit of ermine their way and they're bowing and scraping. A failed politician who claims she will represent nationakists in Lords. She can fcuk right off
And when Martin dined with Mrs Windsor and the Chief off Staff of the Parachute regiment your thoughts were...........?
Keep your enemies close?
I hope she will be a strong voice for us Irish living in the six counties occupied by the British, unlike Gerry Fitt
Quote from: red hander on September 11, 2019, 01:02:05 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 10, 2019, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
Hardly a surprise;
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/49936000/jpg/_49936706_ritchiepoppy.jpg)
Margaret still taking the soup.
Typical stoop. Brits wave a wee bauble or bit of ermine their way and they're bowing and scraping. A failed politician who claims she will represent nationakists in Lords. She can fcuk right off
Hardly typical. Second in nearly 50 years to go to the HoL. I'd presume many more were offered.
Quote from: hardstation on September 13, 2019, 11:44:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 13, 2019, 11:00:24 PM
suddenly shaking the queen's hand is actually what the war was about achieving.
Shaking someone's hand in a spirit of reconciliation and "moving on" is a bit different than swearing allegiance.
Quote from: currychip on September 14, 2019, 07:15:14 AM
Quote from: red hander on September 11, 2019, 01:02:05 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 10, 2019, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
Hardly a surprise;
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/49936000/jpg/_49936706_ritchiepoppy.jpg)
Margaret still taking the soup.
Typical stoop. Brits wave a wee bauble or bit of ermine their way and they're bowing and scraping. A failed politician who claims she will represent nationakists in Lords. She can fcuk right off
Hardly typical. Second in nearly 50 years to go to the HoL. I'd presume many more were offered.
There were indeed sdlp members offered over the years, but they choose to abstain from this house of parliament and not represent Irish nationalism.
Quote from: Orior on September 14, 2019, 05:23:49 AM
Quote from: Jim Bob on September 14, 2019, 12:17:26 AM
Quote from: red hander on September 11, 2019, 01:02:05 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on September 10, 2019, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 10, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Margaret Ritchie to enter the lords. Jesus wept, I know the SDLP are sore at having no MP's and I know that she has technically resigned. But HTF on principle can any Irish Nationalist join the lords?
Hardly a surprise;
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/49936000/jpg/_49936706_ritchiepoppy.jpg)
Margaret still taking the soup.
Typical stoop. Brits wave a wee bauble or bit of ermine their way and they're bowing and scraping. A failed politician who claims she will represent nationakists in Lords. She can fcuk right off
And when Martin dined with Mrs Windsor and the Chief off Staff of the Parachute regiment your thoughts were...........?
Keep your enemies close?
Ah Jaysus. I've heard some good excuses in my day but that one takes the biccie
There is a massive difference between Martin McGuinness going toWIndsor Castle/Meeting the Queen and Margaret Ritchie going to the Lords.
Martin McGuinness had absolutely nothing whatsoever to gain personally from doing what he did. In fact, he had a lot to lose within his own constituency of The Creggan and the Bogside. He did it because he took his role as DFM very seriously and genuinely wanted to undertake confidence building measures to sustain the peace process. This, like many other risks he took were not reciprocated by the DUP and so the Assembly fell.
Margaret Ritchie going to the Lords - Money, red leather and the nice feel of ermine. Same as Austin Currie who went to FG, Mark Durkan who did the same and Gerry Fitt.
I cannot think of one cause, d'écrire or need within Ireland that could be advanced by her heading to the House of Lords. It is an even more ridiculous place than the House of Commons.
Durkan adored the pomp and ceremony of Westminster. He fully embraced it. Got involved in the minutiae of legislation and was apparently 'a great parliamentarian'. He is an exceptionally able man, granted.
Quote from: hardstation on September 13, 2019, 11:44:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 13, 2019, 11:00:24 PM
To me any right thinking Irish Nationalist could not on principle take an oath to s foreign state or head of state. I know Margaret, not well but still. I can not fathom why she has sold out. I support SF and their abstention policy.
Not that I disagree with you but this is a Custer's last stand. For 30 years, Sinn Féin have been masters in making even the most unpalatable acts political successes for "Irish Nationalists". They get a kick back calling them sell outs and then their PR operation kicks in and suddenly shaking the queen's hand is actually what the war was about achieving.
I've no problem with SF putting out the hand of friendship to the Royals, friends and neighbours hold them dear. I don't believe as a nationalist on principle you can take an oath to a foreign state/monarch. So I do support the abstention. There is also much that SF do that I don't agree with, the SDLP though provide no alternative.
Quote from: Seany on September 15, 2019, 09:53:09 AM
Margaret Ritchie going to the Lords - Money, red leather and the nice feel of ermine. Same as Austin Currie who went to FG, Mark Durkan who did the same and Gerry Fitt.
So you are comparing joining an unelected body in Britain with standing for election in a different part of Ireland?
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 17, 2019, 10:55:35 AM
Quote from: hardstation on September 13, 2019, 11:44:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 13, 2019, 11:00:24 PM
To me any right thinking Irish Nationalist could not on principle take an oath to s foreign state or head of state. I know Margaret, not well but still. I can not fathom why she has sold out. I support SF and their abstention policy.
Not that I disagree with you but this is a Custer's last stand. For 30 years, Sinn Féin have been masters in making even the most unpalatable acts political successes for "Irish Nationalists". They get a kick back calling them sell outs and then their PR operation kicks in and suddenly shaking the queen's hand is actually what the war was about achieving.
I've no problem with SF putting out the hand of friendship to the Royals, friends and neighbours hold them dear. I don't believe as a nationalist on principle you can take an oath to a foreign state/monarch. So I do support the abstention. There is also much that SF do that I don't agree with, the SDLP though provide no alternative.
What of Parnell? What of O'Connell?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 17, 2019, 04:02:38 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 17, 2019, 10:55:35 AM
Quote from: hardstation on September 13, 2019, 11:44:15 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 13, 2019, 11:00:24 PM
To me any right thinking Irish Nationalist could not on principle take an oath to s foreign state or head of state. I know Margaret, not well but still. I can not fathom why she has sold out. I support SF and their abstention policy.
Not that I disagree with you but this is a Custer's last stand. For 30 years, Sinn Féin have been masters in making even the most unpalatable acts political successes for "Irish Nationalists". They get a kick back calling them sell outs and then their PR operation kicks in and suddenly shaking the queen's hand is actually what the war was about achieving.
I've no problem with SF putting out the hand of friendship to the Royals, friends and neighbours hold them dear. I don't believe as a nationalist on principle you can take an oath to a foreign state/monarch. So I do support the abstention. There is also much that SF do that I don't agree with, the SDLP though provide no alternative.
What of Parnell? What of O'Connell?
Same, but that said I suppose the dynamic then was slightly different in that they didn't necessarily want to leave the empire.
Still take the money though, at the end of the day, gonna show principles go the full nine yards. Not we not going to Westminster but please give us the money!!
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on September 17, 2019, 09:16:23 PM
Still take the money though, at the end of the day, gonna show principles go the full nine yards. Not we not going to Westminster but please give us the money!!
And there was a time when SF wouldn't sit in Stormont or Leinster House either, but those principles were jettisoned by them over time.
Anyway the posts by Shinner heads here conform to type, everything their guys do is right, anything the SDLP does is wrong. So predictable.
Quote from: Owenmoresider on September 18, 2019, 09:37:27 AM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on September 17, 2019, 09:16:23 PM
Still take the money though, at the end of the day, gonna show principles go the full nine yards. Not we not going to Westminster but please give us the money!!
And there was a time when SF wouldn't sit in Stormont or Leinster House either, but those principles were jettisoned by them over time.
Anyway the posts by Shinner heads here conform to type, everything their guys do is right, anything the SDLP does is wrong. So predictable.
You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Quote from: Owenmoresider on September 18, 2019, 09:37:27 AM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on September 17, 2019, 09:16:23 PM
Still take the money though, at the end of the day, gonna show principles go the full nine yards. Not we not going to Westminster but please give us the money!!
And there was a time when SF wouldn't sit in Stormont or Leinster House either, but those principles were jettisoned by them over time.
Stormont and the Dáil don't require you to take an oath of allegiance to a foreign Head of State.
Mark H Durkan on GMU this morning blaming everything on the DUP and SF re the collapse of Stormont, unchallenged as usual. So we can take it from this that the SDLP don't care about the Irish language, equal marriage or women's rights. They don't care about RHI, Red Sky or luxury holidays. SF should suck it up and go back into government with out any agreement on these issues from the DUP whom we should trust implicitly. Just when Eastwood convinces me that the SDLP may be worth considering Durkan opens his trap abut the Shinners. Many nationalist voters are sick of the ongoing sniping from both SDLP and SF especially on issue of identity and culture, unionists what ever their disagreements come together to oppose things like the Irish Language, but no not the SDLP/SF. Both parties need to take a long hard look at some of the clowns in their midst.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2019/sdlps-claire-hanna-lodges-respectful-protest-over-pledge-to-queen-in-commons-38796681.html
Ms Hanna wrote to Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to raise concerns about the pledge required by politicians before they can take their seats in the House of Commons.
MPs are required by law to make an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Crown and are not allowed to speak in debates, vote or receive their salary until they do so.
Some SNP MPs also stressed they were making the pledge in order to serve their constituents.
Ms Hanna, the new SDLP MP for Belfast South, opted to affirm before outlining her reasons for doing so.
Speaking in the Commons, she said: "I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law."
Ms Hanna added: "My allegiance is to the people of South Belfast in order to serve them.
"I've made this affirmation. My political commitment is to the Good Friday Agreement, relationships in Northern Ireland, between north and south of Ireland and between these islands based on mutual respect and co-operation."
In a letter to Sir Lindsay, the MP said: "I submit this letter to you to register a respectful protest against the requirement that I make a statement of allegiance to the Crown as a precondition for taking my seat.
"I chose an affirmation rather than an oath, but the words do not reflect my outlook."
After reiterating her commitment to the Good Friday Agreement, she added: "I do not believe it serves trust in Parliament for MPs to be obliged to rehearse pledges that are not true for them.
"I believe a better pledge would be one to parliamentary service on behalf of our constituents, with an allegiance pledge for those who wish to make one."
The SNP's Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) said he was affirming in order to "serve my constituents".
His party colleague Mhairi Black said her allegiance is "first and foremost" to her Paisley and Renfrewshire South constituents and she was making the pledge "for the purpose of the job".
Anne McLaughlin, also from the SNP, said her "primary allegiance is to the people of Glasgow North East and the people of Scotland".
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2019, 11:01:11 AM
Mark H Durkan on GMU this morning blaming everything on the DUP and SF re the collapse of Stormont, unchallenged as usual. So we can take it from this that the SDLP don't care about the Irish language, equal marriage or women's rights. They don't care about RHI, Red Sky or luxury holidays. SF should suck it up and go back into government with out any agreement on these issues from the DUP whom we should trust implicitly. Just when Eastwood convinces me that the SDLP may be worth considering Durkan opens his trap abut the Shinners. Many nationalist voters are sick of the ongoing sniping from both SDLP and SF especially on issue of identity and culture, unionists what ever their disagreements come together to oppose things like the Irish Language, but no not the SDLP/SF. Both parties need to take a long hard look at some of the clowns in their midst.
SF were willing to go back into the executive without SSM and abortion rights resolved. So to hold them up as the custodians of equality and Irishness is a bit rich.
And therein lies the problem. If SF go back without an ILA people will rightly ask what was the last 3 years about? If the DUP do likewise they will be asked why didn't they agree to this 3 years ago? It's a mess of both parties making. It will be interesting to see the spin when they do actually go back in the NY as is looking likely.
Quote from: trailer on December 19, 2019, 11:27:25 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2019, 11:01:11 AM
Mark H Durkan on GMU this morning blaming everything on the DUP and SF re the collapse of Stormont, unchallenged as usual. So we can take it from this that the SDLP don't care about the Irish language, equal marriage or women's rights. They don't care about RHI, Red Sky or luxury holidays. SF should suck it up and go back into government with out any agreement on these issues from the DUP whom we should trust implicitly. Just when Eastwood convinces me that the SDLP may be worth considering Durkan opens his trap abut the Shinners. Many nationalist voters are sick of the ongoing sniping from both SDLP and SF especially on issue of identity and culture, unionists what ever their disagreements come together to oppose things like the Irish Language, but no not the SDLP/SF. Both parties need to take a long hard look at some of the clowns in their midst.
SF were willing to go back into the executive without SSM and abortion rights resolved. So to hold them up as the custodians of equality and Irishness is a bit rich.
And therein lies the problem. If SF go back without an ILA people will rightly ask what was the last 3 years about? If the DUP do likewise they will be asked why didn't they agree to this 3 years ago? It's a mess of both parties making. It will be interesting to see the spin when they do actually go back in the NY as is looking likely.
I'm not defending SF position, expressing my exasperation at the playing of party politics on both sides when a unified approach would give both parties cover and a stronger hand. Neither party serving nationalists well imo.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2019, 11:01:11 AM
Mark H Durkan on GMU this morning blaming everything on the DUP and SF re the collapse of Stormont, unchallenged as usual. So we can take it from this that the SDLP don't care about the Irish language, equal marriage or women's rights. They don't care about RHI, Red Sky or luxury holidays. SF should suck it up and go back into government with out any agreement on these issues from the DUP whom we should trust implicitly. Just when Eastwood convinces me that the SDLP may be worth considering Durkan opens his trap abut the Shinners. Many nationalist voters are sick of the ongoing sniping from both SDLP and SF especially on issue of identity and culture, unionists what ever their disagreements come together to oppose things like the Irish Language, but no not the SDLP/SF. Both parties need to take a long hard look at some of the clowns in their midst.
At least they aren't doing a Raymond McCartney
Quote from: trailer on December 19, 2019, 11:27:25 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2019, 11:01:11 AM
Mark H Durkan on GMU this morning blaming everything on the DUP and SF re the collapse of Stormont, unchallenged as usual. So we can take it from this that the SDLP don't care about the Irish language, equal marriage or women's rights. They don't care about RHI, Red Sky or luxury holidays. SF should suck it up and go back into government with out any agreement on these issues from the DUP whom we should trust implicitly. Just when Eastwood convinces me that the SDLP may be worth considering Durkan opens his trap abut the Shinners. Many nationalist voters are sick of the ongoing sniping from both SDLP and SF especially on issue of identity and culture, unionists what ever their disagreements come together to oppose things like the Irish Language, but no not the SDLP/SF. Both parties need to take a long hard look at some of the clowns in their midst.
SF were willing to go back into the executive without SSM and abortion rights resolved. So to hold them up as the custodians of equality and Irishness is a bit rich.
And therein lies the problem. If SF go back without an ILA people will rightly ask what was the last 3 years about? If the DUP do likewise they will be asked why didn't they agree to this 3 years ago? It's a mess of both parties making. It will be interesting to see the spin when they do actually go back in the NY as is looking likely.
Sos seems to be putting the blame on DUP now but SDLap will snipe from the sidelines - what's their take on ILA?
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
Cupla focal act anois.
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
ILA is not just about the language - it's more important than that.
Quote from: marty34 on December 19, 2019, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
ILA is not just about the language - it's more important than that.
It's really not!! The Irish language is a hobby and having an Irish Language act serves no real purpose only than to wind up Unionists!
Don't get me wrong I love Irish and was decent at it back in the day but it's nowhere near important enough to be collapsing Government. There are myriad other reasons why the institutions could have been collapsed but an ILA should not have been close to one of them and should not be the stumbling block now to get things up and running again!!
Quote from: screenexile on December 20, 2019, 09:40:16 AM
Quote from: marty34 on December 19, 2019, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
ILA is not just about the language - it's more important than that.
It's really not!! The Irish language is a hobby and having an Irish Language act serves no real purpose only than to wind up Unionists!
Don't get me wrong I love Irish and was decent at it back in the day but it's nowhere near important enough to be collapsing Government. There are myriad other reasons why the institutions could have been collapsed but an ILA should not have been close to one of them and should not be the stumbling block now to get things up and running again!!
Ah christ it wasn't just the IL act, DUP were acting and treating SF and nationalists as white trash, this state is officially mono cultural. It is vital to sort health and education but the DUP need to embrace equality.
Looks like an ILA has been sorted and the main sticking point now is the DUP veto with POC powers or they're bringing the proposals back to Jamie and his muckers for their thoughts
Quote from: hardstation on December 19, 2019, 10:00:22 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
100% correct and if you aren't black, why would you give a shite about the racial discrimination of black people.
I'm not a nurse either, so fcuk their pay rise.
Equating the converting of government documents to irish with struggling to pay your mortgage or the systematic discrimination because of race is pure bullshit and you know it.
By such an argument I could equate the importance of the Irish language act with Brexit or Scottish independence.
It's the "piss off the prods" bill pure and simple.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 20, 2019, 09:52:49 AM
Quote from: screenexile on December 20, 2019, 09:40:16 AM
Quote from: marty34 on December 19, 2019, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
ILA is not just about the language - it's more important than that.
It's really not!! The Irish language is a hobby and having an Irish Language act serves no real purpose only than to wind up Unionists!
Don't get me wrong I love Irish and was decent at it back in the day but it's nowhere near important enough to be collapsing Government. There are myriad other reasons why the institutions could have been collapsed but an ILA should not have been close to one of them and should not be the stumbling block now to get things up and running again!!
Ah christ it wasn't just the IL act, DUP were acting and treating SF and nationalists as white trash, this state is officially mono cultural. It is vital to sort health and education but the DUP need to embrace equality.
Yeah I'd agree with this. The removal of funding for an Irish language scheme was the straw that broke the camel's back with SF and it showed the complete lack of respect the DUP had for any Irish culture.
Whilst the ILA may seem like a nothing to some people, it forces the DUP to give respect to Irish Culture and is part of the bigger picture of equality. DUP are very good at calling out the erosion of their culture, but in this instance they blatantly tried to erode Irish culture and I for one would be all for putting legislation in place that stops them doing this again.
The Petition of Concern is the big ticket item though. I don't know the mechanics of it, other than the DUP have been able to use it to veto anything they didn't like (SF have too, but not to the same extent) and could basically ride rough shod over democratic votes or even stop votes from happening.
With the evening up of the demographic of polititions here, perhaps the POC could be scrapped altogether? If it was, then things like ILA could be brought up as a bill in the Assembly at any time and voted on in a fair and balanced way without fear of a veto.
Quote from: screenexile on December 20, 2019, 09:40:16 AM
Quote from: marty34 on December 19, 2019, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
ILA is not just about the language - it's more important than that.
It's really not!! The Irish language is a hobby and having an Irish Language act serves no real purpose only than to wind up Unionists!
Don't get me wrong I love Irish and was decent at it back in the day but it's nowhere near important enough to be collapsing Government. There are myriad other reasons why the institutions could have been collapsed but an ILA should not have been close to one of them and should not be the stumbling block now to get things up and running again!!
The collapse of the Executive had as much to do with RHI as anything else. However, the restoration of the Executive is being based on completing the elements in the St Andrew's Agreement. Twelve years was long enough to do that. You can't have agreements made and then ignored indefinitely, what would be the point of making such agreements?
I think there should be an Irish language act. But elevating it above peoples health and children's education is too much. SF and The DUP are in a mess of their own making. Stormont was a carve up years before it collapsed. When the SDLP, UUP and Alliance pulled out of the executive thus leaving the big two exposed it was no surprise that it collapsed in months. They had no cover. M'oM couldnt even get a budget together. Incompetence and unelected SPADs were running the show.
So yes RHI and equality rights are issues that need resolved but how these two function in government is the real problem that needs resolved.
Quote from: trailer on December 20, 2019, 11:44:34 AM
I think there should be an Irish language act. But elevating it above peoples health and children's education is too much.
Of course, as long as you recognise that it is the DUP who is the block here.
Quote from: hardstation on December 20, 2019, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: trileacman on December 20, 2019, 09:58:25 AM
Quote from: hardstation on December 19, 2019, 10:00:22 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
100% correct and if you aren't black, why would you give a shite about the racial discrimination of black people.
I'm not a nurse either, so fcuk their pay rise.
Equating the converting of government documents to irish with struggling to pay your mortgage or the systematic discrimination because of race is pure bullshit and you know it.
By such an argument I could equate the importance of the Irish language act with Brexit or Scottish independence.
It's the "piss off the prods" bill pure and simple.
I wasn't equating those things and you know it.
Not having knowledge of a language doesn't exclude you from supporting the rights of those who do, as he was suggesting.
Not to forget SF were under pressure from their own constituency on the IL, that pressure has switched to health but its not one or the other.
Bryson has just tweeted that any irish word spoken is like a bullet fired for Irish Freedom.
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on December 20, 2019, 12:42:30 PM
Bryson has just tweeted that any irish word spoken is like a bullet fired for Irish Freedom.
He's also calling for a rerun in north Belfast and FST. You'd miss Willie.
Quote from: Ambrose on December 20, 2019, 01:30:17 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on December 20, 2019, 12:42:30 PM
Bryson has just tweeted that any irish word spoken is like a bullet fired for Irish Freedom.
He's also calling for a rerun in north Belfast and FST. You'd miss Willie.
Quite right he has a point - he knows of 22 votes that should have been registered in South Belfast I mean thats the difference right there that makes Claire Hannas 16000 majority look very shaky
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on December 20, 2019, 12:42:30 PM
Bryson has just tweeted that any irish word spoken is like a bullet fired for Irish Freedom.
He'd better have a focal nó dó with Linda Ervine agus a Gaelgeóiri 😆😃
Quote from: screenexile on December 20, 2019, 09:40:16 AM
Quote from: marty34 on December 19, 2019, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
ILA is not just about the language - it's more important than that.
It's really not!! The Irish language is a hobby and having an Irish Language act serves no real purpose only than to wind up Unionists!
Don't get me wrong I love Irish and was decent at it back in the day but it's nowhere near important enough to be collapsing Government. There are myriad other reasons why the institutions could have been collapsed but an ILA should not have been close to one of them and should not be the stumbling block now to get things up and running again!!
Pure waffle from you - the ILA is about recognition of being Irish in the north. The English and unionists, by extension, did everything they could to destroy it and wipe it from the island of Ireland and make us all 'little englanders'.
That's what the Irish Language Act is about - seems you have become 'the little englander', as envisaged by the Sassanaigh.
Plus, at the time, I never heard heard one nationalist complain when the assembly was pulled - the list of Liofa grants, RHI, Red Sky etc. etc. was endless in how the DUP were treating the nationalist people.
The Irish language is 'a hobby' oh my good God.
Quote from: marty34 on December 20, 2019, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 20, 2019, 09:40:16 AM
Quote from: marty34 on December 19, 2019, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
ILA is not just about the language - it's more important than that.
It's really not!! The Irish language is a hobby and having an Irish Language act serves no real purpose only than to wind up Unionists!
Don't get me wrong I love Irish and was decent at it back in the day but it's nowhere near important enough to be collapsing Government. There are myriad other reasons why the institutions could have been collapsed but an ILA should not have been close to one of them and should not be the stumbling block now to get things up and running again!!
Pure waffle from you - the ILA is about recognition of being Irish in the north. The English and unionists, by extension, did everything they could to destroy it and wipe it from the island of Ireland and make us all 'little englanders'.
That's what the Irish Language Act is about - seems you have become 'the little englander', as envisaged by the Sassanaigh.
Plus, at the time, I never heard heard one nationalist complain when the assembly was pulled - the list of Liofa grants, RHI, Red Sky etc. etc. was endless in how the DUP were treating the nationalist people.
The Irish language is 'a hobby' oh my good God.
Oh no I'm less Irish because you say so ... :'( Wise up!!
You need recognition of being Irish in the North? Get an Irish Passport/play Irish Music/be involved in the GAA. You can't even speak Irish what the f**k are you on about?
I was OK with the assembly being pulled for the reasons you listed and more. Not an Irish Language Act. That is not the hill to die on.
There is no discernible reason to learn the Irish language other than working for TG4/RNG/working as an Irish teacher. Ergo it is a hobby and while it's nice to know it and history and everything else it shouldn't be holding up pay increases for our Nurses or funding for our schools!
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
I would say that is exactly why an ILA is needed
Quote from: screenexile on December 20, 2019, 03:38:43 PM
There is no discernible reason to learn the Irish language other than working for TG4/RNG/working as an Irish teacher. Ergo it is a hobby and while it's nice to know it and history and everything else it shouldn't be holding up pay increases for our Nurses or funding for our schools!
I agree with half this part of your post (last half) and fundamentally disagree with the other half (first half). Weird.
Stephen Farry spoke a few words as gaeilge in his maiden WM speech there. I believe he and Chris Hazzard were educated at the same school, so maybe not that surprising.
Quote from: screenexile on December 20, 2019, 03:38:43 PM
Quote from: marty34 on December 20, 2019, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 20, 2019, 09:40:16 AM
Quote from: marty34 on December 19, 2019, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
ILA is not just about the language - it's more important than that.
It's really not!! The Irish language is a hobby and having an Irish Language act serves no real purpose only than to wind up Unionists!
Don't get me wrong I love Irish and was decent at it back in the day but it's nowhere near important enough to be collapsing Government. There are myriad other reasons why the institutions could have been collapsed but an ILA should not have been close to one of them and should not be the stumbling block now to get things up and running again!!
Pure waffle from you - the ILA is about recognition of being Irish in the north. The English and unionists, by extension, did everything they could to destroy it and wipe it from the island of Ireland and make us all 'little englanders'.
That's what the Irish Language Act is about - seems you have become 'the little englander', as envisaged by the Sassanaigh.
Plus, at the time, I never heard heard one nationalist complain when the assembly was pulled - the list of Liofa grants, RHI, Red Sky etc. etc. was endless in how the DUP were treating the nationalist people.
The Irish language is 'a hobby' oh my good God.
Oh no I'm less Irish because you say so ... :'( Wise up!!
You need recognition of being Irish in the North? Get an Irish Passport/play Irish Music/be involved in the GAA. You can't even speak Irish what the f**k are you on about?
I was OK with the assembly being pulled for the reasons you listed and more. Not an Irish Language Act. That is not the hill to die on.
There is no discernible reason to learn the Irish language other than working for TG4/RNG/working as an Irish teacher. Ergo it is a hobby and while it's nice to know it and history and everything else it shouldn't be holding up pay increases for our Nurses or funding for our schools!
Irish comes with a huge cultural back catalogue. Ireland is easier to understand with the language. It gets to the places English can't.
Quote from: tonto1888 on December 20, 2019, 05:23:56 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
I would say that is exactly why an ILA is needed
People are confused about ILA. It won't increase the numbers learning it.. Its mostly a bereaucratic, governance and regulatory tool. It won't change my life as an irish speaker unfortunately, I just resent how unionists view it in such a sectarian manner
Quote from: tonto1888 on December 20, 2019, 05:23:56 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
I would say that is exactly why an ILA is needed
Tongue in cheek. An ILA would be all fine & dandy. However, it's not in the same league as needing a Fair Employment Act & agency, because Catholics couldn't get a job; having to set up the N Ireland Housing Executive, to remove control of housing from Unionists; ending gerrymandering, which ensured total Unionist control of local government ; dealing with the Unionist government's refusal to fund 100% of building costs for Catholic schools. Those were serious systemic issues, that took years to resolve. The ILA would be a piece of piss, by comparison. No one is stopping Irish medium schools from springing up, as far as I know.
Interesting discussion on the Irish Language Act.
Perhaps you might be interested in the perspective of a Unionist (though never a DUPer) who is actually quite handy with foreign languages himself and so reasonably well-disposed to the idea of people learning another language.
First and foremost, SF have devalued the IL by "weaponising" it. That is, they have already gained almost all of what they demanded in return for coming in from the cold at St.Andrews, which gains have served them well at the ballot box. So that by now they're running out of excuses for not just buckling down to the task of providing good government for NI, which itself would constitute a tacit recognition of the state which they dare not make explicitly. (In that sense, I sometimes think we Unionists should call their bluff and just give them the bloody act, and then see what they've got to complain about next);
Two, with the way things are in NI, whenever one tribe declares that they want something, the other tribe is instinctively against it. Or comes up with their own wee makey-uppy version - in this case, Ulster Scots. Such posturing by both sides serves no-one;
Three, it is well known that while some people have a flair for languages, especially when young, nonetheless it is firmly established that anyone can learn any language providing they're sufficiently committed to the task. Therefore it is galling to be lectured on the need for Irish by people who patently couldn't be arsed to learn it for themselves, even when eg they were in prison, and might have been expected to have time on their hands;
Four, the whole point of language - any language - is that it should be a means of communication. Yet in this present context, it is being commandeered by partisan politicians for exactly the opposite purpose i.e. we've got a language that the Prods can't understand. Frankly, that is pathetic (imo).
Finally, I suspect that those people who genuinely love the language for its own sake, its beauty, its poetry and its rich position in the cultural history of this island etc, must despair at the way its being abused (by both sides), but fear to speak out, or get ignored when they do.
So for all those reasons, I believe that the Irish Language should be promoted and supported in schools, arts, festivals and night classes etc, but only in the same way as any other hobby, whether it be Scottish Country dancing, Gaelic games, flute bands or flower arranging.
Then if or when we got to the stage where it was beginning to be revived amongst the wider population (ideally both sides), that is the point at which we should consider making it official/enshrined in law.
Of course, such an event will never come about, not least because rather than getting their head down and actually learning the language, the likes of Gerry Adams prefer instead to just bang on and on about it from a public stage.
In English. ::)
Whether SF have a particular policy on the ILA is neither here nor there, they are not the only people in Northern Ireland, as Stephen Farry's opening words in Westminster showed.
It simply isn't acceptable to "oppose Sinn Féin", if SF proposes more buses then you cannot just abolish buses to spite them and the same with the Irish language.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 20, 2019, 07:41:20 PM
Whether SF have a particular policy on the ILA is neither here nor there, they are not the only people in Northern Ireland, as Stephen Farry's opening words in Westminster showed.
It simply isn't acceptable to "oppose Sinn Féin", if SF proposes more buses then you cannot just abolish buses to spite them and the same with the Irish language.
Yes, some people here would do away with the Irish language if they got a chance - only a hobby. Only job you can do is be a teacher etc. etc. Same people are the biggest GAA people about!!!
The ILA, according to Conradh na Gaeilge and An Dream Dearg etc. is the best way, through the various language experts, to protect minority languages. It's best practice but it needs to be a stand alone act.
Welsh and the Scots have their own acts and there's not the same uproar.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on December 20, 2019, 06:17:42 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on December 20, 2019, 05:23:56 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
I would say that is exactly why an ILA is needed
People are confused about ILA. It won't increase the numbers learning it.. Its mostly a bereaucratic, governance and regulatory tool. It won't change my life as an irish speaker unfortunately, I just resent how unionists view it in such a sectarian manner
Agree totally.
Quote from: screenexile on December 20, 2019, 03:38:43 PM
Quote from: marty34 on December 20, 2019, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 20, 2019, 09:40:16 AM
Quote from: marty34 on December 19, 2019, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 19, 2019, 09:14:29 PM
If all the Irish you know is "Dia duit, Sinn Fein", "A Chara" & "GRMA", then feck knows why an ILA is needed in the first place.
ILA is not just about the language - it's more important than that.
It's really not!! The Irish language is a hobby and having an Irish Language act serves no real purpose only than to wind up Unionists!
Don't get me wrong I love Irish and was decent at it back in the day but it's nowhere near important enough to be collapsing Government. There are myriad other reasons why the institutions could have been collapsed but an ILA should not have been close to one of them and should not be the stumbling block now to get things up and running again!!
Pure waffle from you - the ILA is about recognition of being Irish in the north. The English and unionists, by extension, did everything they could to destroy it and wipe it from the island of Ireland and make us all 'little englanders'.
That's what the Irish Language Act is about - seems you have become 'the little englander', as envisaged by the Sassanaigh.
Plus, at the time, I never heard heard one nationalist complain when the assembly was pulled - the list of Liofa grants, RHI, Red Sky etc. etc. was endless in how the DUP were treating the nationalist people.
The Irish language is 'a hobby' oh my good God.
Oh no I'm less Irish because you say so ... :'( Wise up!!
You need recognition of being Irish in the North? Get an Irish Passport/play Irish Music/be involved in the GAA. You can't even speak Irish what the f**k are you on about?
I was OK with the assembly being pulled for the reasons you listed and more. Not an Irish Language Act. That is not the hill to die on.
There is no discernible reason to learn the Irish language other than working for TG4/RNG/working as an Irish teacher. Ergo it is a hobby and while it's nice to know it and history and everything else it shouldn't be holding up pay increases for our Nurses or funding for our schools!
[/b]
You sound like my old careers teacher - Irish is no good, a dead language, no future in it etc. etc.
Funding our schools...lol...I take it you don't mean gaelscoileanna...they only teach that old 'hobby' language.
Ironic you're using the name 'screenexile' don't you think?
Marty34,what the extent of your Irish? And what do you think makes you Irish?
Tell you what! No one is a single dot more Irish than me... with or without the Irish Language act. I'm as 100% Irish as I want to be with or without Gailige. Yes /No.
Quote from: bannside on December 21, 2019, 12:16:04 AM
Tell you what! No one is a single dot more Irish than me... with or without the Irish Language act. I'm as 100% Irish as I want to be with or without Gailige. Yes /No.
Exactly
Hard to be Danish if you can't speak Danish.
Quote from: Rossfan on December 21, 2019, 12:34:26 AM
Hard to be Danish if you can't speak Danish.
Same for French
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 21, 2019, 12:19:44 AM
Quote from: bannside on December 21, 2019, 12:16:04 AM
Tell you what! No one is a single dot more Irish than me... with or without the Irish Language act. I'm as 100% Irish as I want to be with or without Gailige. Yes /No.
Exactly
Croppy lie down
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on December 21, 2019, 02:05:44 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 21, 2019, 12:19:44 AM
Quote from: bannside on December 21, 2019, 12:16:04 AM
Tell you what! No one is a single dot more Irish than me... with or without the Irish Language act. I'm as 100% Irish as I want to be with or without Gailige. Yes /No.
Exactly
Croppy lie down
crystal clear on this board who are the castle catholics/west brits. without our own language we are nothing but serfs
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on December 21, 2019, 01:11:39 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 21, 2019, 12:34:26 AM
Hard to be Danish if you can't speak Danish.
So what about, say, Austria?
Never heard of an Austrian language.
There is a Danish language and an Irish language.
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on December 21, 2019, 02:20:08 AM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on December 21, 2019, 02:05:44 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 21, 2019, 12:19:44 AM
Quote from: bannside on December 21, 2019, 12:16:04 AM
Tell you what! No one is a single dot more Irish than me... with or without the Irish Language act. I'm as 100% Irish as I want to be with or without Gailige. Yes /No.
Exactly
Croppy lie down
crystal clear on this board who are the castle catholics/west brits. without our own language we are nothing but serfs
Rubbish, just cause you say it doesn't make it true. What's you're criteria for this castle catholic/West Brit?
Do they have an Irish passport? Do they play GAA? Are they members of the GAA association? Will they vote in favour of a UI in a border poll/ referendum? Or is it all of the above plus a smattering of Irish learnt at school or went to the Gaeltacht?
After Slovakia became independent I heard they passed a law making it a crime to speak Hungarian/Magyar.
I expect/hope that died with EU membership!!.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 20, 2019, 06:28:35 PM
SF have devalued the IL by "weaponising" it.
...
...I suspect that those people who genuinely love the language for its own sake, its beauty, its poetry and its rich position in the cultural history of this island etc, must despair at the way its being abused (by both sides), but fear to speak out, or get ignored when they do...
...So for all those reasons, I believe that the Irish Language should be promoted and supported in schools, arts, festivals and night classes etc, but only in the same way as any other hobby...
Interesting post EG, good to get your view. I agree with much of it, particularly the first two bits I've quoted.
On the third one, I disagree. I studied Irish (and French) to A Level years ago, and have had cause and occasion to speak both since to varying degrees, albeit much of it forgotten.
I don't think an ILA as currently being discussed should be a priority in law, but formal recognition for the legitimacy of the language is long overdue. Back in the mists of time I applied to a well-regarded London university with Irish as an A Level, but they wouldn't accept it as a qualifying grade. That would have been easily challenged if the language had had official status in law. it makes me wonder on how many other (more important) occasions has the study of this language and its literature been disrespected?
Quote from: hardstation on December 21, 2019, 01:21:13 PM
Sinn Fein 'weaponising' the Irish language is not the reason Unionists oppose it. It is merely a smokescreen and sounds like a more legitimate reason than the real one. They oppose it because it is Irish and they have done so for centuries, long before Sinn Fein even existed.
Well said HS - this is why they are having great difficulty signing up to a stand alone (ironically the Scots and Welsh have one) ILA. An Ghaeilge was here long before the OO and it'll be here long after the OO has gone.
As I say, it's not about the Irish language, it's more important in terms of what it's mean - the symbolism of it. It wouldn't bother me if there is a stand alone US act.
I find it ironic all these GAA heads saying "we don't need it", it's a hobby" and it's a dead language etc." Who needs enemies when you have 'friends' like these.
Another post - bilingualism is good. Most children in Europe are bilingual. Research has proven that bilingual has enormous benefits. Funny how any gaelscoils have come from demand from working class areas for the most part. Probably deserves a thread on it own - the advantages of bi-lingualism.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on December 21, 2019, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 21, 2019, 08:57:41 AM
Never heard of an Austrian language.
Precisely the point. Many European countries have their borders built around a common or popular language but it is most certainly not a requirement.
Germans and Austrians can easily understand each other, but Austria's national identity doesn't rely on having a unique, distinct national language.
On the other hand, the majority of Swiss people are nominally regarded as speaking German as their first language - but the dialect(s) of "Swiss German" is almost incomprehensible to most other German speakers save for those living near the border with Switzerland - if German or Austrian media are using video or audio of someone speaking Swiss German, most of the time it is subtitled or dubbed. For these reasons, school children in the Swiss German language area are taught "Swiss standard German" as a separate language subject in order to be able to speak to other German speakers at large.
For the record, there is a small ethnic & linguistic German speaking minority in Denmark in the North Schleswig/South Jutland area, though most of them can also speak Danish as a second language. Conversely, there is also a Danish speaking minority in the Schleswig-Holstein state in Germany whom have access to their own schools and community associations, as well as their own political party to represent their interests.
And what about those Indo-European languages that don't lend themselves to a (mostly) monolingual nation, and by & large whose groups of speakers have little or no nationalist movement? The Romansh speakers in Switzerland, Ladin speakers in Italy, Frisians in both the Netherlands & Germany, various dialects of Sami speakers in northern Scandinavia, Galician speakers in Spain, numerous local languages in Russia (Tatar, Bashir etc.) and so on? Then also flip it around with say the significant amount of Hungarian speakers in Slovakia, Serbia & Romania, the German/Alsatian speakers of Alsace/Elass in France, Swedish speakers in Finland, German speakers outside of the main German language area in central & eastern Europe inc. Poland, Romania, Italy, Russia, among others due to historic migration patterns and borders drawn after the endings of battles or wars. None of these linguistic and/or ethnic minorities in another country are generally regarded as fifth columnists because the speak the language of a neighbouring or nearby country, the same way not all monolingustic anglophones in Scotland are freverent supporters of the UK.
TL;DR version - a language can be a backbone to a nation or country, but it is most certainly not a prerequisite - other cultural principles can apply.
So as it stands, the one-upmanship of "No True Irishman" comes up again - funny how the majority of such claim to be inclusive yet give their definition of Irishness based on exclusiveness (which of course never excludes them). Can't have it both ways.
That's irrelevant to the situation in Ireland though because the people you have mentioned that speak the minority language (Or variants of the dominant one) are still going to be able to speak the dominant language of the country they're in because it's spoken by everyone, unlike Irish here.
Quote from: marty34 on December 21, 2019, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: hardstation on December 21, 2019, 01:21:13 PM
Sinn Fein 'weaponising' the Irish language is not the reason Unionists oppose it. It is merely a smokescreen and sounds like a more legitimate reason than the real one. They oppose it because it is Irish and they have done so for centuries, long before Sinn Fein even existed.
Well said HS - this is why they are having great difficulty signing up to a stand alone (ironically the Scots and Welsh have one) ILA. An Ghaeilge was here long before the OO and it'll be here long after the OO has gone.
As I say, it's not about the Irish language, it's more important in terms of what it's mean - the symbolism of it. It wouldn't bother me if there is a stand alone US act.
I find it ironic all these GAA heads saying "we don't need it", it's a hobby" and it's a dead language etc." Who needs enemies when you have 'friends' like these.
Another post - bilingualism is good. Most children in Europe are bilingual. Research has proven that bilingual has enormous benefits. Funny how any gaelscoils have come from demand from working class areas for the most part. Probably deserves a thread on it own - the advantages of bi-lingualism.
I don't think you'll find an Irish man against an Irish language act, how we are going about it currently (over a 1000 days of no assembly) could have been done better. Arguing with Irishmen over who's more Irish is bizarre.
It's a pathetic show from politicians here, dig your heels in stuff
Exactly. No Irishman would have anything other than a positive outlook towards an act that allows Irish to be used whenever, wherever. My point is that I will still feel every bit as Irish as I already do whether it is implemented now or in five years. That's my point....Hardstation wasnt a mile away either lol.
Ongoing debate about whether the Irish language has been weaponised. What is completely clear is that the ILA has been weaponised.
We are in "Brexit means Brexit" and "Get Brexit Done" territory here. People are are for against a label rather than something of substance i.e. the content behind the label.
I know there was a supposed leak of a draft ILA but the act is certainly not finalised.
Is impossible to have an opinion on the ILA until we see it.
Personally I think we should be trying to put an ILA in place but that ILA has to pass a test of reasonableness. I would propose the following test.
A filling station in Larne offers fuel and groceries to the local community. Today anyone going in trying to order for example £30 of unleaded petrol and a cake iced with a message in favour of equal marriage and trying to conduct the transaction in Irish is likely to be faced with blank faces. Any ILA is unlikely to change this. Any ILA that attempts to change this is not one I could support.
Anybody with a full command of English but insisted on attempting to conduct the transaction in Irish with the non Irish speaking till operator deserves neither sympathy nor legal support.
The more interesting aspect is where someone wants to buy a TV licence. The required documentation is provided by the post office. The post office is provided by the same filling station and the member of staff is the same one providing the iced cake and fuel at the other till. Bilingual documentation seems fair enough. Bilingual signage is a grey area. There are a lot of signs and a lot of small print. How much of this is to be bilingual and how quickly is it to be replaced and at what cost to competing priorities? An ILA will have to address this.
But then there is the verbal interaction with the counter staff. What requirement will be placed on the service station in order to allow them to provide a needed public service?
As recently as 2009 the Slovaks weren't being nice to their Hungarians.
https://www.cleveland.com/world/2009/09/new_language_ban_in_slovakia_f.html
Quote from: hardstation on December 21, 2019, 01:21:13 PM
Sinn Fein 'weaponising' the Irish language is not the reason Unionists oppose it. It is merely a smokescreen and sounds like a more legitimate reason than the real one. They oppose it because it is Irish and they have done so for centuries, long before Sinn Fein even existed.
Bourdieu defined doxa as a realm of unquestioned orthodoxy in which things cannot be thought or said.
In the DUP the doxa is that NI is British and that anything Irish is the enemy.
This is very worn and tattered at this stage.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 20, 2019, 07:41:20 PM
It simply isn't acceptable to "oppose Sinn Féin", if SF proposes more buses then you cannot just abolish buses to spite them and the same with the Irish language.
False analogy, since no-one is proposing to "abolish Irish" i.e. even with no ILA, people will still be free to speak Irish whenever they wish (indeed they should be supported to do so imo)
A better analogy would be proposing to introduce special bus lanes on roads where there currently are no buses, there being no buses because virtually no-one uses them.
Quote from: marty34 on December 20, 2019, 08:39:15 PM
Yes, some people here would do away with the Irish language if they got a chance - only a hobby.
Sorry, but that's a Straw Man, since such people (if they exist) are idiots, who should not be taken seriously.
Quote from: marty34 on December 20, 2019, 08:39:15 PM
The ILA, according to Conradh na Gaeilge and An Dream Dearg etc. is the best way, through the various language experts, to protect minority languages. It's best practice but it needs to be a stand alone act.
I'm not sure either of those sources could be said to be objective?
And in any case, whether they are correct or not, it is not a case of "protecting" the language, since like it or not, it has long since died out in NI.
The question should be whether an ILA would
revive the language. I see no reason why it would, if only because so few people in NI currently make much of an effort to learn it beyond the rudimentary level they reached when required/persuaded to learn it at school.
Quote from: marty34 on December 20, 2019, 08:39:15 PM
Welsh and the Scots have their own acts and there's not the same uproar.
Both Wales and Scotland have areas where Welsh and Gallic are the primary language, spoken by the local population on a day-to-day basis. Northern Ireland does not.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 20, 2019, 11:38:37 PM
Marty34,what the extent of your Irish? And what do you think makes you Irish?
I don't speak Irish, but I'm as Irish as anyone on this board.
Conversely, I do speak French to a good level, but I'm not French.
Obviously.
Quote from: Mikhail Prokhorov on December 21, 2019, 02:20:08 AM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on December 21, 2019, 02:05:44 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 21, 2019, 12:19:44 AM
Quote from: bannside on December 21, 2019, 12:16:04 AM
Tell you what! No one is a single dot more Irish than me... with or without the Irish Language act. I'm as 100% Irish as I want to be with or without Gailige. Yes /No.
Exactly
Croppy lie down
crystal clear on this board who are the castle catholics/west brits. without our own language we are nothing but serfs
Go on then, what is the Irish for "playing the man", rather than the "ball"?
Quote from: hardstation on December 21, 2019, 01:21:13 PM
Sinn Fein 'weaponising' the Irish language is not the reason Unionists oppose it. It is merely a smokescreen and sounds like a more legitimate reason than the real one. They oppose it because it is Irish and they have done so for centuries, long before Sinn Fein even existed.
Whom do you mean by "Unionists"?
Do you imagine we are a monolithic bloc, all following exactly the same orthodoxy?
Many people on here casually invoke "the DUP" on this issue, as though they are the spokespersons for all Unionists, when their vote doesn't constitute a majority within Unionism, or anything like it.
And even of those who do vote DUP, many do so simply in order to keep SF out (as many SF voters do in reverse).
Indeed one recent poster mentioned the Orange Order. He/she might do well to note that the OO has long declined to publish its membership numbers, doubtless because it is estimated to have as few as 25,000 members, which equates to around 2.5% of the one million Protestants in NI.
So having got that out of the way, do you deny that SF are currently weaponising Irish? And does such a policy help or hinder the cause?
Quote from: Rois on December 21, 2019, 12:35:08 PM
I studied Irish (and French) to A Level years ago, and have had cause and occasion to speak both since to varying degrees, albeit much of it forgotten.
In Northern Ireland?
Quote from: Rois on December 21, 2019, 12:35:08 PM
I don't think an ILA as currently being discussed should be a priority in law, but formal recognition for the legitimacy of the language is long overdue.
What do you mean by "formal recognition"?
I personally would have no problem with some sort of Act from Stormont declaring that Irish was long the ancient language in these parts, that all those who wish to revive it should be encouraged and that those who do use it should not be discriminated against etc.
But that is a sight different from eg spending money on bilingual road signs, which would lead to the English version being scrubbed out in Nationalist areas and the Irish version in Unionist areas, leading to further segregation and sectarianising (word?) of the places we all have to live in.
Quote from: marty34 on December 21, 2019, 01:34:33 PM
Another post - bilingualism is good. Most children in Europe are bilingual. Research has proven that bilingual has enormous benefits.
Of course bi-lingualism is good. And no-one is saying (or at least no-one reasonable) that Irish language teaching, or Irish language schools, should be banned. Imo, there is a good argument for encouraging them.
But that is a long way short of pretending that Irish has equal standing* in NI with English, when it patently does not.
Otherwise we'd be introducing eg Polish or Chinese Language Acts as well.
* - "Standing" is not the same as "value" or "merit", btw.
Quote from: seafoid on December 21, 2019, 09:05:42 PM
Bourdieu defined doxa as a realm of unquestioned orthodoxy in which things cannot be thought or said.
In the DUP the doxa is that NI is British and that anything Irish is the enemy.
Once more, just because the DUP may gain the most votes of any party from those Unionists who bother to vote at all, does not mean they speak for every Unionist on this topic any more than they do eg on gay rights or Brexit.
Ditto SF on the Nationalist side.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 22, 2019, 02:40:40 AM
Quote from: hardstation on December 21, 2019, 01:21:13 PM
Sinn Fein 'weaponising' the Irish language is not the reason Unionists oppose it. It is merely a smokescreen and sounds like a more legitimate reason than the real one. They oppose it because it is Irish and they have done so for centuries, long before Sinn Fein even existed.
Whom do you mean by "Unionists"?
Do you imagine we are a monolithic bloc, all following exactly the same orthodoxy?
Many people on here casually invoke "the DUP" on this issue, as though they are the spokespersons for all Unionists, when their vote doesn't constitute a majority within Unionism, or anything like it.
And even of those who do vote DUP, many do so simply in order to keep SF out (as many SF voters do in reverse).
Indeed one recent poster mentioned the Orange Order. He/she might do well to note that the OO has long declined to publish its membership numbers, doubtless because it is estimated to have as few as 25,000 members, which equates to around 2.5% of the one million Protestants in NI.
So having got that out of the way, do you deny that SF are currently weaponising Irish? And does such a policy help or hinder the cause?
I don't like the term weaponising the Irish language. The only other person I've really seen using it is Bryson. That said, I do think an ILA should be out to the side to get storming up and running. Once it is and things like health and education are back in track then it will be time to get an ILA
Going to be an interesting few days as the DUP scramble from one crisis to the next. My guess is they will make a calculated gesture of concession on ILA but it will be watered down just enough to be wholly devisive to those seeking a full blown no holds barred version. A Devide and Conquer policy. Some in favour some against....muddy the waters...make it look like they aren't conceding too much to their hardline opponents etc etc.
If the shoe was on the other foot it would be exactly the same. That's the way politics works here isnt it. And the official communication from DUP will be released at 2.30pm.on Christmas Eve, just so that it gets lost for a bit while people are distracted by the festivities. Or am I just being cynical!
^^^ agree with this 100%
It was the brits that tried to ban it back in the 1300's first, before we had unionists, it died after the famine and was only used in poor rural areas in the west of Ireland.
Since partition the unionist have tried their best to eradicate Irish culture in the north but it's not going away, and it's in a far better place than before, so continuing as it is, surely it will grow organically and develop?
Unionist bigots and loyalists hate it with a vengence no doubt about that. And I hope it hurts that shower hard. But not all Protestant people are bigots and many have no objection to the right of Irish people to obtain a proper platform for the language to be used - as long as it's not used as a big stick to beat them with at every opportunity. That's the problem though. There will be plenty queuing up to do just that.... and in doing so will turn off the exact profile of middle of the road "unionist" that will be key to securing approval from the middle ground when it comes to the Big vote!
The Protestant "ruling class" trampled all over Irish people for generations, but the vast majority of them have come to realise that that was plain wrong and has no place in modern society. In the event of a satisfactory ILA I would like to see its implementation rolled out with dignity, as evidence that in an AI situation the rights and traditions of their community will be safeguarded.
Of course that will be too soft a stance for many who havent the vision to realise that if the ILA is heralded as a massive "up your nose" to all and sundry, that they are doing a disservice to Irish nationalism in the medium term.
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 22, 2019, 02:07:28 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 20, 2019, 07:41:20 PM
It simply isn't acceptable to "oppose Sinn Féin", if SF proposes more buses then you cannot just abolish buses to spite them and the same with the Irish language.
False analogy, since no-one is proposing to "abolish Irish" i.e. even with no ILA, people will still be free to speak Irish whenever they wish (indeed they should be supported to do so imo)
A better analogy would be proposing to introduce special bus lanes on roads where there currently are no buses, there being no buses because virtually no-one uses them.
That's very neighbourly of you allowing people to speak Irish if they wish😂😂 . I'm very grateful for That admirable generosity of spirit in allowing people to speak their native tongue .
I feel many are deliberately or otherwise missing the point about an ILA, it's merely asking for similar status as Welsh or Gallic. It's not about how many speak it on a day to day to basis , it's about cultural protection. I would compare it to listed buildings protection. Belfast City Hall is cold and damp and economically inefficient . It probably would make sense to pull it to the ground and selling off the prime real estate for tower block development , but thankfully the building's listed for protection of our historical environment. We should look to do the same for positive aspects of our cultural heritage .
I'm totally opposed to an ILA holding up Stormont, when there are urgent issues around health and the economy. However, I think DUP resistance to Irish Language status equivalent to Scots/Welsh betrays a lack of generosity , a continued desire for dominance and an elevation of British culture over Irish culture-which is a contravention of the GFA
On another note good to see EG back!
Only you would think that
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on December 22, 2019, 03:34:52 PM
Only you would think that
You much prefer one way traffic? I don't agree with some of his views but hes put plenty back in their box
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 22, 2019, 03:02:25 AM
Quote from: seafoid on December 21, 2019, 09:05:42 PM
Bourdieu defined doxa as a realm of unquestioned orthodoxy in which things cannot be thought or said.
In the DUP the doxa is that NI is British and that anything Irish is the enemy.
Once more, just because the DUP may gain the most votes of any party from those Unionists who bother to vote at all, does not mean they speak for every Unionist on this topic any more than they do eg on gay rights or Brexit.
Ditto SF on the Nationalist side.
Unionism's identity is more fragile because the power it is based on is changing. It's really weird driving through Loyalist areas in NI because identity is so in your face. What if the Queen doesn't care?
She has more important things to think of. Prince Of Greece is in hospital & she needs to find young filly for Andrew, before Wednesday.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2019, 02:31:36 PM
On another note good to see EG back!
You'd miss th'oul hoor right enough. ;D
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on December 22, 2019, 04:48:38 PM
She has more important things to think of. Prince Of Greece is in hospital & she needs to find young filly for Andrew, before Wednesday.
She will sign off Brexit
The UK Constitution is broken
God Save the Queen second verse
« 2. O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all! . »
God doesn't seem interested
It's only Banter....
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2019, 12:49:43 PM
It was the brits that tried to ban it back in the 1300's first, before we had unionists, it died after the famine and was only used in poor rural areas in the west of Ireland.
Since partition the unionist have tried their best to eradicate Irish culture in the north but it's not going away, and it's in a far better place than before, so continuing as it is, surely it will grow organically and develop?
When was this famine that you speak off?
Anyone who is against an ILa (standalone) at this time is a bigot in my opinion.
People are pushing it as an ILA or health, or an ILA or education etc. It can be and should be the two together etc. instead of one over the other.
I read someone on here saying we'll sort health first, then down the line we'll sort the ILA. Fantasy stuff - health will never be sorted properly!! Wait to the yanks in comes and we'll see what happens.
Others say it's an hobby...a f##king hobby!!!
Speaking Irish or not does not define your Irishness. SF like the GAA and many other organisations that are culturally Irish encourage the use of Irish in everyday situations and to me that is to be lauded. Languages die with out use. Even a few words spoken in Irish helps the growth in the language what is so wrong with that. An ILA is a separate proposition which in my view needs careful thought. It should be their to facilitate and promote the language but should not bestow on Irish speakers any advantage over the general population, ie no quota for jobs etc... I have stated it many times on this board and it remains true that Irish is opposed by hard core Unionism in much the same way as the GAA or any semblance of Irish culture purely on the basis that it dilutes their Union and by extension their Britishness and is a sure path to a UI. I would actually contend the opposite. Had they embraced equality and made the NI state more reflective of both nationalities the Union would not be in question. But the old Boer mentality and fear of the natives still fuels everything they do.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2019, 03:44:13 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on December 22, 2019, 03:34:52 PM
Only you would think that
You much prefer one way traffic? I don't agree with some of his views but hes put plenty back in their box
+1 ;D
Quote from: marty34 on December 23, 2019, 01:53:14 PM
Anyone who is against an ILa (standalone) at this time is a bigot in my opinion.
People are pushing it as an ILA or health, or an ILA or education etc. It can be and should be the two together etc. instead of one over the other.
I read someone on here saying we'll sort health first, then down the line we'll sort the ILA. Fantasy stuff - health will never be sorted properly!! Wait to the yanks in comes and we'll see what happens.
Others say it's an hobby...a f##king hobby!!!
Absolute Drivel!!
Anyone against an Irish Language Act is a bigot. . . I think you need to check the definition of what a bigot is.
Take a poll of everyone in the North and see how many want a standalone Irish Language Act yet you want to do it in tandem with fixing the Health Service??
Like many in the Irish language lobby... fanatics!!
People are free to speak Irish if they want and councils that have Nationalist majorities are free to have bilingual signs. There is absolutely ZERO need for it to be legislated for as a standalone act!
Quote from: screenexile on December 23, 2019, 04:08:05 PM
People are free to speak Irish if they want and councils that have Nationalist majorities are free to have bilingual signs. There is absolutely ZERO need for it to be legislated for as a standalone act!
Yes there is, not everyone lives in an area with a nationalist majority. Irish people should be able to use Irish in all parts of their own country.
Quote from: marty34 on December 23, 2019, 01:53:14 PM
Anyone who is against an ILa (standalone) at this time is a bigot in my opinion.
An exhibition of weapons grade stupidity at work there.
Probably the stupidest thing ever posted on this site
Quote from: screenexile on December 23, 2019, 04:08:05 PM
Quote from: marty34 on December 23, 2019, 01:53:14 PM
Anyone who is against an ILa (standalone) at this time is a bigot in my opinion.
People are pushing it as an ILA or health, or an ILA or education etc. It can be and should be the two together etc. instead of one over the other.
I read someone on here saying we'll sort health first, then down the line we'll sort the ILA. Fantasy stuff - health will never be sorted properly!! Wait to the yanks in comes and we'll see what happens.
Others say it's an hobby...a f##king hobby!!!
Absolute Drivel!!
Anyone against an Irish Language Act is a bigot. . . I think you need to check the definition of what a bigot is.
Take a poll of everyone in the North and see how many want a standalone Irish Language Act yet you want to do it in tandem with fixing the Health Service??
Like many in the Irish language lobby... fanatics!!
People are free to speak Irish if they want and councils that have Nationalist majorities are free to have bilingual signs. There is absolutely ZERO need for it to be legislated for as a standalone act!
The latest statement from the TUV in regatds to the Irish language.
Chsnge your name to Draperstown Exile.....
Quote from: screenexile on December 23, 2019, 04:08:05 PM
Quote from: marty34 on December 23, 2019, 01:53:14 PM
Anyone who is against an ILa (standalone) at this time is a bigot in my opinion.
People are pushing it as an ILA or health, or an ILA or education etc. It can be and should be the two together etc. instead of one over the other.
I read someone on here saying we'll sort health first, then down the line we'll sort the ILA. Fantasy stuff - health will never be sorted properly!! Wait to the yanks in comes and we'll see what happens.
Others say it's an hobby...a f##king hobby!!!
Absolute Drivel!!
Anyone against an Irish Language Act is a bigot. . . I think you need to check the definition of what a bigot is.
Take a poll of everyone in the North and see how many want a standalone Irish Language Act yet you want to do it in tandem with fixing the Health Service??
Like many in the Irish language lobby... fanatics!!
People are free to speak Irish if they want and councils that have Nationalist majorities are free to have bilingual signs. There is absolutely ZERO need for it to be legislated for as a standalone act!
There most certainly is need for one. Although I agree it shouldn't be prioritised over other things like health or education
Quote from: tonto1888 on December 23, 2019, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 23, 2019, 04:08:05 PM
Quote from: marty34 on December 23, 2019, 01:53:14 PM
Anyone who is against an ILa (standalone) at this time is a bigot in my opinion.
People are pushing it as an ILA or health, or an ILA or education etc. It can be and should be the two together etc. instead of one over the other.
I read someone on here saying we'll sort health first, then down the line we'll sort the ILA. Fantasy stuff - health will never be sorted properly!! Wait to the yanks in comes and we'll see what happens.
Others say it's an hobby...a f##king hobby!!!
Absolute Drivel!!
Anyone against an Irish Language Act is a bigot. . . I think you need to check the definition of what a bigot is.
Take a poll of everyone in the North and see how many want a standalone Irish Language Act yet you want to do it in tandem with fixing the Health Service??
Like many in the Irish language lobby... fanatics!!
People are free to speak Irish if they want and councils that have Nationalist majorities are free to have bilingual signs. There is absolutely ZERO need for it to be legislated for as a standalone act!
There most certainly is need for one. Although I agree it shouldn't be prioritised over other things like health or education
The point is that it has nothing to do with health and little to do with education, 21 years after the GFA and 12 after the St Andrews agreement do you go along with DUP bigotry or not.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 23, 2019, 11:10:23 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on December 23, 2019, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 23, 2019, 04:08:05 PM
Quote from: marty34 on December 23, 2019, 01:53:14 PM
Anyone who is against an ILa (standalone) at this time is a bigot in my opinion.
People are pushing it as an ILA or health, or an ILA or education etc. It can be and should be the two together etc. instead of one over the other.
I read someone on here saying we'll sort health first, then down the line we'll sort the ILA. Fantasy stuff - health will never be sorted properly!! Wait to the yanks in comes and we'll see what happens.
Others say it's an hobby...a f##king hobby!!!
Absolute Drivel!!
Anyone against an Irish Language Act is a bigot. . . I think you need to check the definition of what a bigot is.
Take a poll of everyone in the North and see how many want a standalone Irish Language Act yet you want to do it in tandem with fixing the Health Service??
Like many in the Irish language lobby... fanatics!!
People are free to speak Irish if they want and councils that have Nationalist majorities are free to have bilingual signs. There is absolutely ZERO need for it to be legislated for as a standalone act!
There most certainly is need for one. Although I agree it shouldn't be prioritised over other things like health or education
The point is that it has nothing to do with health and little to do with education, 21 years after the GFA and 12 after the St Andrews agreement do you go along with DUP bigotry or not.
Have DUP and SF issued a statement to the effect that even if ILA is not resolved they will resume decision making on health and education?
Quote from: marty34 on December 23, 2019, 01:53:14 PM
Anyone who is against an ILa (standalone) at this time is a bigot in my opinion.
People are pushing it as an ILA or health, or an ILA or education etc. It can be and should be the two together etc. instead of one over the other.
I read someone on here saying we'll sort health first, then down the line we'll sort the ILA. Fantasy stuff - health will never be sorted properly!! Wait to the yanks in comes and we'll see what happens.
Others say it's an hobby...a f##king hobby!!!
Unalloyed ignorance writ large.
Health is difficult but get back to work in the executive and do the work. A failure to do their job by the executive passes the buck to the front line who (in what I accept is a difficult sector) are at and now sadly beyond breaking point
Quote from: smelmoth on December 23, 2019, 11:40:35 PM
Quote from: marty34 on December 23, 2019, 01:53:14 PM
Anyone who is against an ILa (standalone) at this time is a bigot in my opinion.
People are pushing it as an ILA or health, or an ILA or education etc. It can be and should be the two together etc. instead of one over the other.
I read someone on here saying we'll sort health first, then down the line we'll sort the ILA. Fantasy stuff - health will never be sorted properly!! Wait to the yanks in comes and we'll see what happens.
Others say it's an hobby...a f##king hobby!!!
Unalloyed ignorance writ large.
Health is difficult but get back to work in the executive and do the work. A failure to do their job by the executive passes the buck to the front line who (in what I accept is a difficult sector) are at and now sadly beyond breaking point
But more importantly is get those work documents bilingual, insure the medical report you get is in Irish also and I think Irish subtitles on tv is a must
Quote from: armaghniac on December 23, 2019, 04:29:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 23, 2019, 04:08:05 PM
People are free to speak Irish if they want and councils that have Nationalist majorities are free to have bilingual signs. There is absolutely ZERO need for it to be legislated for as a standalone act!
Yes there is, not everyone lives in an area with a nationalist majority. Irish people should be able to use Irish in all parts of their own country.
You are free to use Irish. You are free to use it anywhere you like. You might reasonably be expected to be circumspect in your expectation that your interlocutor will be or indeed should be be conversant in Irish
Quote from: smelmoth on December 23, 2019, 11:50:03 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 23, 2019, 04:29:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 23, 2019, 04:08:05 PM
People are free to speak Irish if they want and councils that have Nationalist majorities are free to have bilingual signs. There is absolutely ZERO need for it to be legislated for as a standalone act!
Yes there is, not everyone lives in an area with a nationalist majority. Irish people should be able to use Irish in all parts of their own country.
You are free to use Irish. You are free to use it anywhere you like. You might reasonably be expected to be circumspect in your expectation that your interlocutor will be or indeed should be be conversant in Irish
Why the need for a language act in any country then? If the mighty empire had their way they would have gotten rid of every language except english. It's important to protect it. Not a case of shoving it down the throat of anybody that doesn't want to learn or use it. It's giving them the same rights to use it as their native language. The number of children being educated primarily through Irish is growing and will continue to do so.
You wouldn't have been "free" to use Irish, or be openly gay in a lot of places here not so long ago, and especially with the kind of attitude you's are peddling.
Quote from: JohnDenver on December 24, 2019, 09:13:32 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 23, 2019, 11:50:03 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 23, 2019, 04:29:10 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 23, 2019, 04:08:05 PM
People are free to speak Irish if they want and councils that have Nationalist majorities are free to have bilingual signs. There is absolutely ZERO need for it to be legislated for as a standalone act!
Yes there is, not everyone lives in an area with a nationalist majority. Irish people should be able to use Irish in all parts of their own country.
You are free to use Irish. You are free to use it anywhere you like. You might reasonably be expected to be circumspect in your expectation that your interlocutor will be or indeed should be be conversant in Irish
Why the need for a language act in any country then? If the mighty empire had their way they would have gotten rid of every language except english. It's important to protect it. Not a case of shoving it down the throat of anybody that doesn't want to learn or use it. It's giving them the same rights to use it as their native language. The number of children being educated primarily through Irish is growing and will continue to do so.
You wouldn't have been "free" to use Irish, or be openly gay in a lot of places here not so long ago, and especially with the kind of attitude you's are peddling.
I am very happy for the Irish language to be protected. There are steps that be taken to encourage it. That is not the same as saying we must have a stand alone carte blanche act. And it's not the same as saying we cannot address any other problem until the ILA is agreed.
As I posted earlier we are in Brexit means Brexit or Get Brexit Done territory here. People are fixating on the creation or denial of a thing to be called the ILA. Surely the content of the act is the really critical point. It's anazi that people can have such strong views on the ILA and no bloody clue as to its content
Quote from: smelmoth on December 24, 2019, 01:03:49 PM
I am very happy for the Irish language to be protected. There are steps that be taken to encourage it. That is not the same as saying we must have a stand alone carte blanche act. And it's not the same as saying we cannot address any other problem until the ILA is agreed.
This issue has been on the go since the GFA. Exactly how long do you propose the allow the DUP ensure there are no signs of Taigs about the place?
Quote from: armaghniac on December 24, 2019, 01:58:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 24, 2019, 01:03:49 PM
I am very happy for the Irish language to be protected. There are steps that be taken to encourage it. That is not the same as saying we must have a stand alone carte blanche act. And it's not the same as saying we cannot address any other problem until the ILA is agreed.
This issue has been on the go since the GFA. Exactly how long do you propose the allow the DUP ensure there are no signs of Taigs about the place?
I'll start with some things I wouldn't do.
I wouldn't run away from executive responsibilities now. This place needs government. Either do your job or piss off and let someone else do it. In essence I would not make ILA a precondition of addressing other problems.
Secondly I would not set a deadline in isolation by which an ILA has to be place. The content of the act is more important than its title so anything that focuses on the title in isolation should be dismissed for the childishness that it is.
As for what I would do.
I would work towards publishing a detailed draft of the bill. This would be done to prove the reasonableness and feasibility of its provisions. Move the debate on from the title. Expose any unreasonable opposition to the Act and simultaneously expose unreasonable demands for what should be in it.
In essence break away from the idiocy that SF and DUP provide today and actually govern this place
Quote from: smelmoth on December 24, 2019, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 24, 2019, 01:58:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 24, 2019, 01:03:49 PM
I am very happy for the Irish language to be protected. There are steps that be taken to encourage it. That is not the same as saying we must have a stand alone carte blanche act. And it's not the same as saying we cannot address any other problem until the ILA is agreed.
This issue has been on the go since the GFA. Exactly how long do you propose the allow the DUP ensure there are no signs of Taigs about the place?
I'll start with some things I wouldn't do.
I wouldn't run away from executive responsibilities now. This place needs government. Either do your job or piss off and let someone else do it. In essence I would not make ILA a precondition of addressing other problems.
Secondly I would not set a deadline in isolation by which an ILA has to be place. The content of the act is more important than its title so anything that focuses on the title in isolation should be dismissed for the childishness that it is.
As for what I would do.
I would work towards publishing a detailed draft of the bill. This would be done to prove the reasonableness and feasibility of its provisions. Move the debate on from the title. Expose any unreasonable opposition to the Act and simultaneously expose unreasonable demands for what should be in it.
In essence break away from the idiocy that SF and DUP provide today and actually govern this place
How do you break away from the idiocy of the DUP when they are the majority party in the state? As long as the unionist electorate keep returning the DUP then forming a government is impossible from a nationalist viewpoint.
Quote from: Angelo on December 25, 2019, 07:18:21 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 24, 2019, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 24, 2019, 01:58:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 24, 2019, 01:03:49 PM
I am very happy for the Irish language to be protected. There are steps that be taken to encourage it. That is not the same as saying we must have a stand alone carte blanche act. And it's not the same as saying we cannot address any other problem until the ILA is agreed.
This issue has been on the go since the GFA. Exactly how long do you propose the allow the DUP ensure there are no signs of Taigs about the place?
I'll start with some things I wouldn't do.
I wouldn't run away from executive responsibilities now. This place needs government. Either do your job or piss off and let someone else do it. In essence I would not make ILA a precondition of addressing other problems.
Secondly I would not set a deadline in isolation by which an ILA has to be place. The content of the act is more important than its title so anything that focuses on the title in isolation should be dismissed for the childishness that it is.
As for what I would do.
I would work towards publishing a detailed draft of the bill. This would be done to prove the reasonableness and feasibility of its provisions. Move the debate on from the title. Expose any unreasonable opposition to the Act and simultaneously expose unreasonable demands for what should be in it.
In essence break away from the idiocy that SF and DUP provide today and actually govern this place
How do you break away from the idiocy of the DUP
Things like the above. Work with the idiots who are elected, expose their idiocy but don't match or mirror it
Quote from: Angelo on December 25, 2019, 07:18:21 PM
when they are the majority party in the state?
No they are not
Quote from: Angelo on December 25, 2019, 07:18:21 PM
As long as the unionist electorate keep returning the DUP then forming a government is impossible from a nationalist viewpoint.
We all have the same responsibility to make this place governable
Quote from: smelmoth on December 26, 2019, 09:10:37 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 25, 2019, 07:18:21 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 24, 2019, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 24, 2019, 01:58:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 24, 2019, 01:03:49 PM
I am very happy for the Irish language to be protected. There are steps that be taken to encourage it. That is not the same as saying we must have a stand alone carte blanche act. And it's not the same as saying we cannot address any other problem until the ILA is agreed.
This issue has been on the go since the GFA. Exactly how long do you propose the allow the DUP ensure there are no signs of Taigs about the place?
I'll start with some things I wouldn't do.
I wouldn't run away from executive responsibilities now. This place needs government. Either do your job or piss off and let someone else do it. In essence I would not make ILA a precondition of addressing other problems.
Secondly I would not set a deadline in isolation by which an ILA has to be place. The content of the act is more important than its title so anything that focuses on the title in isolation should be dismissed for the childishness that it is.
As for what I would do.
I would work towards publishing a detailed draft of the bill. This would be done to prove the reasonableness and feasibility of its provisions. Move the debate on from the title. Expose any unreasonable opposition to the Act and simultaneously expose unreasonable demands for what should be in it.
In essence break away from the idiocy that SF and DUP provide today and actually govern this place
How do you break away from the idiocy of the DUP
Things like the above. Work with the idiots who are elected, expose their idiocy but don't match or mirror it
Quote from: Angelo on December 25, 2019, 07:18:21 PM
when they are the majority party in the state?
No they are not
Quote from: Angelo on December 25, 2019, 07:18:21 PM
As long as the unionist electorate keep returning the DUP then forming a government is impossible from a nationalist viewpoint.
We all have the same responsibility to make this place governable
How do you work with the DUP though? How do you work with Arlene? We've all seen their casual bigotry at every turn, we've seen their indifference to corruption and scandals with the RHI.
As long as the unionists keep returning the DUP, the north will remain ungovernable.
They are the majority party in the state, plain and simple, power sharing cannot work without them and it won't work with them either.
SF and DUP can work quite well together when they are dishing out money to their pet projects and cronies at local government and council level, let's not fool ourselves
Quote from: Kidder81 on December 26, 2019, 11:26:00 AM
SF and DUP can work quite well together when they are dishing out money to their pet projects and cronies at local government and council level, let's not fool ourselves
So you're saying that SF should go back in and be lackeys for the DUP?
That's not remotely what hes saying. His standalone point is entirely valid without linking it to any other situation. Why do you struggle with that....and what part of his comment do you disagree with??
Quote from: bannside on December 26, 2019, 03:31:29 PM
That's not remotely what hes saying. His standalone point is entirely valid without linking it to any other situation. Why do you struggle with that....and what part of his comment do you disagree with??
Because it doesn't bear context into the current situation, it's not local government issues we are talking about. Which bit of that do you not understand?
Quote from: Angelo on December 26, 2019, 10:25:28 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 26, 2019, 09:10:37 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 25, 2019, 07:18:21 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 24, 2019, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 24, 2019, 01:58:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on December 24, 2019, 01:03:49 PM
I am very happy for the Irish language to be protected. There are steps that be taken to encourage it. That is not the same as saying we must have a stand alone carte blanche act. And it's not the same as saying we cannot address any other problem until the ILA is agreed.
This issue has been on the go since the GFA. Exactly how long do you propose the allow the DUP ensure there are no signs of Taigs about the place?
I'll start with some things I wouldn't do.
I wouldn't run away from executive responsibilities now. This place needs government. Either do your job or piss off and let someone else do it. In essence I would not make ILA a precondition of addressing other problems.
Secondly I would not set a deadline in isolation by which an ILA has to be place. The content of the act is more important than its title so anything that focuses on the title in isolation should be dismissed for the childishness that it is.
As for what I would do.
I would work towards publishing a detailed draft of the bill. This would be done to prove the reasonableness and feasibility of its provisions. Move the debate on from the title. Expose any unreasonable opposition to the Act and simultaneously expose unreasonable demands for what should be in it.
In essence break away from the idiocy that SF and DUP provide today and actually govern this place
How do you break away from the idiocy of the DUP
Things like the above. Work with the idiots who are elected, expose their idiocy but don't match or mirror it
Quote from: Angelo on December 25, 2019, 07:18:21 PM
when they are the majority party in the state?
No they are not
Quote from: Angelo on December 25, 2019, 07:18:21 PM
As long as the unionist electorate keep returning the DUP then forming a government is impossible from a nationalist viewpoint.
We all have the same responsibility to make this place governable
How do you work with the DUP though? How do you work with Arlene? We've all seen their casual bigotry at every turn, we've seen their indifference to corruption and scandals with the RHI.
As long as the unionists keep returning the DUP, the north will remain ungovernable.
They are the majority party in the state, plain and simple, power sharing cannot work without them and it won't work with them either.
Firstly you decide that running away solves nothing for the people of NI.
You work with Arlene and DUP by doing exactly that - turning up for work. Do your work well and resist any urge for bigotry and corruption (probably best to examine each party's track record on these fronts). By all means the bigotry and corruption of others. Always make sure your own hands are clean.
Nationalism and Unionism each have a responsibility to make sure NI is governable. Nationalists have the greater motivation for obvious reasons.
Power sharing is here for ever. The only people with an interest in it not working are those who despise their child and grand.
DUP are not a majority party. Plain and simple.
Quote from: Angelo on December 26, 2019, 02:59:59 PM
Quote from: Kidder81 on December 26, 2019, 11:26:00 AM
SF and DUP can work quite well together when they are dishing out money to their pet projects and cronies at local government and council level, let's not fool ourselves
So you're saying that SF should go back in and be lackeys for the DUP?
It would be hugely depressing if we were lulled into the absolute stupidity of thinking that to share power with DUP was to become their lackey.
With a fair wind and a bit of proper scrutiny we can get beyond this SF/DUP duopoly. These parties need to be exposed. Don't run away from them. Run towards them armed with a torch
A bad week for Colum Eastwood. First off he failed to live up to his election promise to "Stop Brexit", and now two of his MLA's have been busy making a mockery of his big FF link up.
Claire Hanna, who opposed the FF link up and who shortly afterwards appeared at the Labour Party Conference, and who has in the past been pictured on the canvass trail for Labour, and regularly speaks of her support for Labour, was out canvassing this week for...you guessed it....Neale Richmond and Emer Currie of the blueshirts.
And then we have Pat Catney MLA who has been busy tweeting about his canvassing efforts on behalf of Aodhan O'Riordan of Labour.
Lest we forget that not long after his big FF link up was announced, his former party leader actually stood in the European elections for FG.
Laughable.
Terrible election for the SDLP. They seemed to back every house but the winning one.
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 10, 2020, 07:37:06 PM
Terrible election for the SDLP. They seemed to back every house but the winning one.
And not one SDLP candidate elected....oops wait!!!
Quote from: Snapchap on February 03, 2020, 02:34:33 PM
A bad week for Colum Eastwood. First off he failed to live up to his election promise to "Stop Brexit", and now two of his MLA's have been busy making a mockery of his big FF link up.
Claire Hanna, who opposed the FF link up and who shortly afterwards appeared at the Labour Party Conference, and who has in the past been pictured on the canvass trail for Labour, and regularly speaks of her support for Labour, was out canvassing this week for...you guessed it....Neale Richmond and Emer Currie of the blueshirts.
And then we have Pat Catney MLA who has been busy tweeting about his canvassing efforts on behalf of Aodhan O'Riordan of Labour.
Lest we forget that not long after his big FF link up was announced, his former party leader actually stood in the European elections for FG.
Laughable.
But credit where it is due he did manage to "stop Boris"....No?
Quote from: Applesisapples on February 11, 2020, 10:52:39 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 10, 2020, 07:37:06 PM
Terrible election for the SDLP. They seemed to back every house but the winning one.
And not one SDLP candidate elected....oops wait!!!
"Not a bullet, not an ounce" .......oops wait !!!
Quote from: Jim Bob on February 11, 2020, 10:24:18 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on February 11, 2020, 10:52:39 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 10, 2020, 07:37:06 PM
Terrible election for the SDLP. They seemed to back every house but the winning one.
And not one SDLP candidate elected....oops wait!!!
"Not a bullet, not an ounce" .......oops wait !!!
Applesisapples - Want some Aloe Vera for that?
Quote from: Chief on February 11, 2020, 10:38:26 PM
Quote from: Jim Bob on February 11, 2020, 10:24:18 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on February 11, 2020, 10:52:39 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on February 10, 2020, 07:37:06 PM
Terrible election for the SDLP. They seemed to back every house but the winning one.
And not one SDLP candidate elected....oops wait!!!
"Not a bullet, not an ounce" .......oops wait !!!
Applesisapples - Want some Aloe Vera for that?
Not really that's an issue for the Shinners, in my view decommissioning was the right thing to do.
What happened in Fermanagh and Tyrone council meeting? I see sdlp politicians apologising left right and centre on twitter but I can't seem to see what about. Looks like something relating to Omagh bombing?
Their councillors supported a motion to oppose the extradition of one of the Omagh Bomb accused to Lithuania to answer charges relating to buying arms for the Real IRA.
Think they were all rapped on the knuckles by Colm.
It was a council motion with no implications.
Fermanagh South Tyrone Council haven't a very big role in Extradition right enough :D.
Quote from: Rois on July 09, 2020, 08:24:02 PM
Their councillors supported a motion to oppose the extradition of one of the Omagh Bomb accused to Lithuania to answer charges relating to buying arms for the Real IRA.
Think they were all rapped on the knuckles by Colm.
It was a council motion with no implications.
Ah - thanks. I couldn't see what they had done.
Someone asked for my opinion on the FST motion. It was wrong and the SDLP councillors shouldn't have supported it. Colum Eastwood intervened and told them to reverse their position which last I checked I understand they have. Sometimes holding your hands up and admitting you got it wrong is the right thing to do. I think people will respect them for doing that.
Quote from: trailer on July 10, 2020, 10:30:47 AM
Someone asked for my opinion on the FST motion. It was wrong and the SDLP councillors shouldn't have supported it. Colum Eastwood intervened and told them to reverse their position which last I checked I understand they have. Sometimes holding your hands up and admitting you got it wrong is the right thing to do. I think people will respect them for doing that.
Has he stopped Brexit yet? (sorry I had to get it in before someone else)
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on July 10, 2020, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: trailer on July 10, 2020, 10:30:47 AM
Someone asked for my opinion on the FST motion. It was wrong and the SDLP councillors shouldn't have supported it. Colum Eastwood intervened and told them to reverse their position which last I checked I understand they have. Sometimes holding your hands up and admitting you got it wrong is the right thing to do. I think people will respect them for doing that.
Has he stopped Brexit yet? (sorry I had to get it in before someone else)
Sure there'd be more brains in a false face if you ever believed that he would stop Brexit ;D
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on July 10, 2020, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: trailer on July 10, 2020, 10:30:47 AM
Someone asked for my opinion on the FST motion. It was wrong and the SDLP councillors shouldn't have supported it. Colum Eastwood intervened and told them to reverse their position which last I checked I understand they have. Sometimes holding your hands up and admitting you got it wrong is the right thing to do. I think people will respect them for doing that.
Has he stopped Brexit yet? (sorry I had to get it in before someone else)
A work in progress. Probably just like SF's Unification strategy for this last.......checks notes......... 99 years!!
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40018595.html
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 01:15:07 PM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40018595.html
Just four years after they announced they were going to do it. ::)
Interesting that it has come now, just two or three days after Michael Martin, the leader of their new sister party ('the Republican Party') in an interview on RTÉ, was asked if he actually even wanted to see a United Ireland at some unspecified time in the future, and he spent around 3 minutes dodging the question, refusing to say yes.
Chanting "Border Poll Now" hasn't done the trick.
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 06:00:31 PM
Chanting "Border Poll Now" hasn't done the trick.
Tethering your dying party to a FF leader who seems not so much disinterested as downright opposed to reunification should bring instant results alright.
Quote from: Snapchap on July 20, 2020, 03:10:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 01:15:07 PM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40018595.html
Just four years after they announced they were going to do it. ::)
Interesting that it has come now, just two or three days after Michael Martin, the leader of their new sister party ('the Republican Party') in an interview on RTÉ, was asked if he actually even wanted to see a United Ireland at some unspecified time in the future, and he spent around 3 minutes dodging the question, refusing to say yes.
100%. If you're a republican but vote FF or SDLP you might as well draw a c*ck on the ballot paper.
Quote from: Snapchap on July 20, 2020, 08:38:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 06:00:31 PM
Chanting "Border Poll Now" hasn't done the trick.
Tethering your dying party to a FF leader who seems not so much disinterested as downright opposed to reunification should bring instant results alright.
As opposed to Sinn Féin who will give us a UI ...
Next week?
Next month?
Next year?
Maybe ye need to chant louder :D
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 08:50:44 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on July 20, 2020, 08:38:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 06:00:31 PM
Chanting "Border Poll Now" hasn't done the trick.
Tethering your dying party to a FF leader who seems not so much disinterested as downright opposed to reunification should bring instant results alright.
As opposed to Sinn Féin who will give us a UI ...
Next week?
Next month?
Next year?
Maybe ye need to chant louder :D
SF have done more than chant though. They've held countless forums on the topic. Holding such a forum is unchartered territory for the SDLP who are now tethered to the coat tails of a Taoiseach who seems bitterly opposed to the very notion of unity.
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on July 10, 2020, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: trailer on July 10, 2020, 10:30:47 AM
Someone asked for my opinion on the FST motion. It was wrong and the SDLP councillors shouldn't have supported it. Colum Eastwood intervened and told them to reverse their position which last I checked I understand they have. Sometimes holding your hands up and admitting you got it wrong is the right thing to do. I think people will respect them for doing that.
Has he stopped Brexit yet? (sorry I had to get it in before someone else)
Moaning Mary certainly didn't stop it.
Quote from: Snapchap on July 20, 2020, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 08:50:44 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on July 20, 2020, 08:38:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 06:00:31 PM
Chanting "Border Poll Now" hasn't done the trick.
Tethering your dying party to a FF leader who seems not so much disinterested as downright opposed to reunification should bring instant results alright.
As opposed to Sinn Féin who will give us a UI ...
Next week?
Next month?
Next year?
Maybe ye need to chant louder :D
SF have done more than chant though. They've held countless forums on the topic. Holding such a forum is unchartered territory for the SDLP who are now tethered to the coat tails of a Taoiseach who seems bitterly opposed to the very notion of unity.
Genuine question...
Who attended the SF forums on Unity?
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 11:28:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on July 20, 2020, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 08:50:44 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on July 20, 2020, 08:38:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 06:00:31 PM
Chanting "Border Poll Now" hasn't done the trick.
Tethering your dying party to a FF leader who seems not so much disinterested as downright opposed to reunification should bring instant results alright.
As opposed to Sinn Féin who will give us a UI ...
Next week?
Next month?
Next year?
Maybe ye need to chant louder :D
SF have done more than chant though. They've held countless forums on the topic. Holding such a forum is unchartered territory for the SDLP who are now tethered to the coat tails of a Taoiseach who seems bitterly opposed to the very notion of unity.
Genuine question...
Who attended the SF forums on Unity?
Do you want Unity?
Genuine question...why isnt every Irish man and woman, north and South, disgusted that part of our Island is ruled by Britain in the 21st century?
We make up 90percent of the population of Ireland. Why do we let colonial masters set the goalposts? The "i'm all right Jack" mentally is nauseating
The people voted for the GFA which says that the 6 Cos remains in the "UK" unless a majority there vote differently.
The GFA was supported by Political parties who represent what % of voters?
You refer to "every Irish man and wonan" who make up 90% of the population.
Who are the 10% who arent Irish?
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 11:57:14 PM
The people voted for the GFA which says that the 6 Cos remains in the "UK" unless a majority there vote differently.
The GFA was supported by Political parties who represent what % of voters?
You refer to "every Irish man and wonan" who make up 90% of the population.
Who are the 10% who arent Irish?
Wrong. The GFA was not a 'referendum' on the constitutional status of the 6 counties. I've already pointed that out to you before.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 12:05:12 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 11:57:14 PM
The people voted for the GFA which says that the 6 Cos remains in the "UK" unless a majority there vote differently.
The GFA was supported by Political parties who represent what % of voters?
You refer to "every Irish man and wonan" who make up 90% of the population.
Who are the 10% who arent Irish?
Wrong. The GFA was not a 'referendum' on the constitutional status of the 6 counties. I've already pointed that out to you before.
Hair splitting. The GFA was a referendum on the principle of consent, and it was adopted by voters north and south. And since Articles 2&3 were given up, the constitutional status of the north very much WAS part of what the people voted on.
Quote from: Gold on July 20, 2020, 11:46:47 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 11:28:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on July 20, 2020, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 08:50:44 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on July 20, 2020, 08:38:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 06:00:31 PM
Chanting "Border Poll Now" hasn't done the trick.
Tethering your dying party to a FF leader who seems not so much disinterested as downright opposed to reunification should bring instant results alright.
As opposed to Sinn Féin who will give us a UI ...
Next week?
Next month?
Next year?
Maybe ye need to chant louder :D
SF have done more than chant though. They've held countless forums on the topic. Holding such a forum is unchartered territory for the SDLP who are now tethered to the coat tails of a Taoiseach who seems bitterly opposed to the very notion of unity.
Genuine question...
Who attended the SF forums on Unity?
Do you want Unity?
Genuine question...why isnt every Irish man and woman, north and South, disgusted that part of our Island is ruled by Britain in the 21st century?
We make up 90percent of the population of Ireland. Why do we let colonial masters set the goalposts? The "i'm all right Jack" mentally is nauseating
I used to care deeply about this, and then I woke up and saw the damage toxic nationalism, and it's rare there is any other kind, does around the world.
Territorial matters are forever destined to cause conflict for the simple reason that different people who live in the same place want that place to be governed by different people in different places.
But what really matters is whether a society is fair and just rather than the flag or anthem you live under. People are people.
The North is by no means perfect on that score but its a damn sight better than it was 30 years ago, and the people who don't want Dublin to be their capital are not going away.
So its best you learn to live with them, no matter what jurisdiction you're under.
A united Ireland will come when it's ready to come.
Quote from: Gold on July 20, 2020, 11:46:47 PM
Genuine question...why isnt every Irish man and woman, north and South, disgusted that part of our Island is ruled by Britain in the 21st century?
This Irishman is quite happy to be part of the UK, for a whole host of reasons.
And as people regularly tell me, I'm one in a million. ;)
Quote from: Gold on July 20, 2020, 11:46:47 PM
We make up 90percent of the population of Ireland. Why do we let colonial masters set the goalposts? The "i'm all right Jack" mentally is nauseating
Where do you get your 90%?
There are a million avowed Unionists in NI.
And as every opinion poll demonstrates, of the other one million people in NI, whilst "Nationalist" in outlook, a significant proportion would either not vote in a UI referendum, or even vote to stay in the UK.
Meanwhile, a very large proportion of the population of the Irish Republic either respect the principle enshrined in the GFA that NI will not leave the UK until/unless a majority in NI votes for it, and/or don't actually care much about unification either way.
So instead of expressing "disgust" at my/our/their preference, why don't you make an effort to understand us?
After all, this must surely be the first step towards persuading us to
become disgusted at ourselves er, see things your way.
Which itself must be the second step towards your winning a referendum.
I mean, after 99 years of failing to murder/intimidate/browbeat/insult us into seeing things your way, why not try a different tack?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 20, 2020, 10:14:00 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on July 10, 2020, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: trailer on July 10, 2020, 10:30:47 AM
Someone asked for my opinion on the FST motion. It was wrong and the SDLP councillors shouldn't have supported it. Colum Eastwood intervened and told them to reverse their position which last I checked I understand they have. Sometimes holding your hands up and admitting you got it wrong is the right thing to do. I think people will respect them for doing that.
Has he stopped Brexit yet? (sorry I had to get it in before someone else)
Moaning Mary certainly didn't stop it.
Eastwood said, if election, he'd stop Brexit. That's the point. Nothing to do with MLMD.
It was his kind of 'election pledge'.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 21, 2020, 12:14:01 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 12:05:12 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 11:57:14 PM
The people voted for the GFA which says that the 6 Cos remains in the "UK" unless a majority there vote differently.
The GFA was supported by Political parties who represent what % of voters?
You refer to "every Irish man and wonan" who make up 90% of the population.
Who are the 10% who arent Irish?
Wrong. The GFA was not a 'referendum' on the constitutional status of the 6 counties. I've already pointed that out to you before.
Hair splitting. The GFA was a referendum on the principle of consent, and it was adopted by voters north and south. And since Articles 2&3 were given up, the constitutional status of the north very much WAS part of what the people voted on.
No it WASN'T. Even if the GFA was voted against, the 6 counties would still have been under british rule, even more so.
Therefore it wasn't a one-off vote on the constitutional status of the 6 counties.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2020, 12:22:37 AM
Quote from: Gold on July 20, 2020, 11:46:47 PM
Genuine question...why isnt every Irish man and woman, north and South, disgusted that part of our Island is ruled by Britain in the 21st century?
This Irishman is quite happy to be part of the UK, for a whole host of reasons.
And as people regularly tell me, I'm one in a million. ;)
Quote from: Gold on July 20, 2020, 11:46:47 PM
We make up 90percent of the population of Ireland. Why do we let colonial masters set the goalposts? The "i'm all right Jack" mentally is nauseating
Where do you get your 90%?
There are a million avowed Unionists in NI.
And as every opinion poll demonstrates, of the other one million people in NI, whilst "Nationalist" in outlook, a significant proportion would either not vote in a UI referendum, or even vote to stay in the UK.
Meanwhile, a very large proportion of the population of the Irish Republic either respect the principle enshrined in the GFA that NI will not leave the UK until/unless a majority in NI votes for it, and/or don't actually care much about unification either way.
So instead of expressing "disgust" at my/our/their preference, why don't you make an effort to understand us?
After all, this must surely be the first step towards persuading us to become disgusted at ourselves er, see things your way.
Which itself must be the second step towards your winning a referendum.
I mean, after 99 years of failing to murder/intimidate/browbeat/insult us into seeing things your way, why not try a different tack?
Why are you talking about the artificial created statelet, one party rule, discrimination, inequality, sectarian deaths squads in collusion with the RUC and various state agencies?
Quote from: marty34 on July 21, 2020, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2020, 12:22:37 AM
Quote from: Gold on July 20, 2020, 11:46:47 PM
Genuine question...why isnt every Irish man and woman, north and South, disgusted that part of our Island is ruled by Britain in the 21st century?
This Irishman is quite happy to be part of the UK, for a whole host of reasons.
And as people regularly tell me, I'm one in a million. ;)
Quote from: Gold on July 20, 2020, 11:46:47 PM
We make up 90percent of the population of Ireland. Why do we let colonial masters set the goalposts? The "i'm all right Jack" mentally is nauseating
Where do you get your 90%?
There are a million avowed Unionists in NI.
And as every opinion poll demonstrates, of the other one million people in NI, whilst "Nationalist" in outlook, a significant proportion would either not vote in a UI referendum, or even vote to stay in the UK.
Meanwhile, a very large proportion of the population of the Irish Republic either respect the principle enshrined in the GFA that NI will not leave the UK until/unless a majority in NI votes for it, and/or don't actually care much about unification either way.
So instead of expressing "disgust" at my/our/their preference, why don't you make an effort to understand us?
After all, this must surely be the first step towards persuading us to become disgusted at ourselves er, see things your way.
Which itself must be the second step towards your winning a referendum.
I mean, after 99 years of failing to murder/intimidate/browbeat/insult us into seeing things your way, why not try a different tack?
Why are you talking about the artificial created statelet, one party rule, discrimination, inequality, sectarian deaths squads in collusion with the RUC and various state agencies?
+1 he has a quare neck on him ;D
Quote from: marty34 on July 21, 2020, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2020, 12:22:37 AM
Quote from: Gold on July 20, 2020, 11:46:47 PM
Genuine question...why isnt every Irish man and woman, north and South, disgusted that part of our Island is ruled by Britain in the 21st century?
This Irishman is quite happy to be part of the UK, for a whole host of reasons.
And as people regularly tell me, I'm one in a million. ;)
Quote from: Gold on July 20, 2020, 11:46:47 PM
We make up 90percent of the population of Ireland. Why do we let colonial masters set the goalposts? The "i'm all right Jack" mentally is nauseating
Where do you get your 90%?
There are a million avowed Unionists in NI.
And as every opinion poll demonstrates, of the other one million people in NI, whilst "Nationalist" in outlook, a significant proportion would either not vote in a UI referendum, or even vote to stay in the UK.
Meanwhile, a very large proportion of the population of the Irish Republic either respect the principle enshrined in the GFA that NI will not leave the UK until/unless a majority in NI votes for it, and/or don't actually care much about unification either way.
So instead of expressing "disgust" at my/our/their preference, why don't you make an effort to understand us?
After all, this must surely be the first step towards persuading us to become disgusted at ourselves er, see things your way.
Which itself must be the second step towards your winning a referendum.
I mean, after 99 years of failing to murder/intimidate/browbeat/insult us into seeing things your way, why not try a different tack?
Why are you talking about the artificial created statelet, one party rule, discrimination, inequality, sectarian deaths squads in collusion with the RUC and various state agencies?
Amd the 2020 "Prize For Spectacularly Missing The Point" goes to... ::)
Quote from: marty34 on July 21, 2020, 12:32:12 AM
Why are you talking about the artificial created statelet, one party rule, discrimination, inequality, sectarian deaths squads in collusion with the RUC and various state agencies?
All territorial entities are artificial.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 12:23:36 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 21, 2020, 12:14:01 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 12:05:12 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 11:57:14 PM
The people voted for the GFA which says that the 6 Cos remains in the "UK" unless a majority there vote differently.
The GFA was supported by Political parties who represent what % of voters?
You refer to "every Irish man and wonan" who make up 90% of the population.
Who are the 10% who arent Irish?
Wrong. The GFA was not a 'referendum' on the constitutional status of the 6 counties. I've already pointed that out to you before.
Hair splitting. The GFA was a referendum on the principle of consent, and it was adopted by voters north and south. And since Articles 2&3 were given up, the constitutional status of the north very much WAS part of what the people voted on.
No it WASN'T. Even if the GFA was voted against, the 6 counties would still have been under british rule, even more so.
Therefore it wasn't a one-off vote on the constitutional status of the 6 counties.
Wasn't what? Wasn't a referendum on the principle of consent? Wasn't a referendum on Articles 2 & 3?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 21, 2020, 12:55:09 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 12:23:36 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 21, 2020, 12:14:01 AM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 12:05:12 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 11:57:14 PM
The people voted for the GFA which says that the 6 Cos remains in the "UK" unless a majority there vote differently.
The GFA was supported by Political parties who represent what % of voters?
You refer to "every Irish man and wonan" who make up 90% of the population.
Who are the 10% who arent Irish?
Wrong. The GFA was not a 'referendum' on the constitutional status of the 6 counties. I've already pointed that out to you before.
Hair splitting. The GFA was a referendum on the principle of consent, and it was adopted by voters north and south. And since Articles 2&3 were given up, the constitutional status of the north very much WAS part of what the people voted on.
No it WASN'T. Even if the GFA was voted against, the 6 counties would still have been under british rule, even more so.
Therefore it wasn't a one-off vote on the constitutional status of the 6 counties.
Wasn't what? Wasn't a referendum on the principle of consent? Wasn't a referendum on Articles 2 & 3?
Wasn't a referendum on the constitutional status of the 6 counties.
::)
Quote from: marty34 on July 21, 2020, 12:23:23 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 20, 2020, 10:14:00 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on July 10, 2020, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: trailer on July 10, 2020, 10:30:47 AM
Someone asked for my opinion on the FST motion. It was wrong and the SDLP councillors shouldn't have supported it. Colum Eastwood intervened and told them to reverse their position which last I checked I understand they have. Sometimes holding your hands up and admitting you got it wrong is the right thing to do. I think people will respect them for doing that.
Has he stopped Brexit yet? (sorry I had to get it in before someone else)
Moaning Mary certainly didn't stop it.
Eastwood said, if election, he'd stop Brexit. That's the point. Nothing to do with MLMD.
It was his kind of 'election pledge'.
And likely he would have stopped it, if he has a majority.
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 11:28:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on July 20, 2020, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 08:50:44 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on July 20, 2020, 08:38:32 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 20, 2020, 06:00:31 PM
Chanting "Border Poll Now" hasn't done the trick.
Tethering your dying party to a FF leader who seems not so much disinterested as downright opposed to reunification should bring instant results alright.
As opposed to Sinn Féin who will give us a UI ...
Next week?
Next month?
Next year?
Maybe ye need to chant louder :D
SF have done more than chant though. They've held countless forums on the topic. Holding such a forum is unchartered territory for the SDLP who are now tethered to the coat tails of a Taoiseach who seems bitterly opposed to the very notion of unity.
Genuine question...
Who attended the SF forums on Unity?
Representatives from juat about every major political party in Ireland at various points. Cross commmunity academics/political commentators/civic leaders. British government figures.
They have been proactive more so than any party.
Good to see the SDLP finally taking an interest and all, but it's hard not to believe its just a smokescreen to reclaim lost ground among nationalists in the north. Hence why Colum Eastwood's pitch about his new "all inclusive" forum included some of his usual nasty SF bashing rhetoric. In reality, if they were remotely serious about reunification, they wouldn't have gone into a political partnership with Micheal Martin.
Totally convinced that a UI is the way forward economically. I would vote for it. But id fear it may only get 70% support across entire island. What would be an acceptable majority? One that would not leave us with significant problems afterwards. I don't think 50+1, which SF are in support of, is either sensible or realistic.
Snapchat, are you referring to the Think 32 forums?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 08:27:17 AM
Totally convinced that a UI is the way forward economically. I would vote for it. But id fear it may only get 70% support across entire island. What would be an acceptable majority? One that would not leave us with significant problems afterwards. I don't think 50+1, which SF are in support of, is either sensible or realistic.
All those who voted for the GFA including Seamus Mallon ratified that so move on.
The problem that both Sinn Fein and the DUP have is that both need to win over the ever increasing middle ground, the castle catholics and economic unionists with a small u so to speak and both seem incapable of doing that as they feel the need to feed their bases with the usual old bullshit setting both causes back in the eyes of the middle ground.
Colm is almost apologetic for wanting a UI and whilst getting into bed with FF seemed like a good move towards an AI party he's been badly let down by Martin, who's as poor a leader as there has been and that takes some doing.
Quote from: Rois on July 21, 2020, 08:29:45 AM
Snapchat, are you referring to the Think 32 forums?
No though they were very good during the Brexit debate.
Quote from: johnnycool on July 21, 2020, 08:37:21 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 08:27:17 AM
Totally convinced that a UI is the way forward economically. I would vote for it. But id fear it may only get 70% support across entire island. What would be an acceptable majority? One that would not leave us with significant problems afterwards. I don't think 50+1, which SF are in support of, is either sensible or realistic.
All those who voted for the GFA including Seamus Mallon ratified that so move on.
The problem that both Sinn Fein and the DUP have is that both need to win over the ever increasing middle ground, the castle catholics and economic unionists with a small u so to speak and both seem incapable of doing that as they feel the need to feed their bases with the usual old bullshit setting both causes back in the eyes of the middle ground.
Colm is almost apologetic for wanting a UI and whilst getting into bed with FF seemed like a good move towards an AI party he's been badly let down by Martin, who's as poor a leader as there has been and that takes some doing.
Well 51% should be easily got, but maintaining a happy country afterwards will be the hard bit- it is just my personal opinion. It seems a low bar for such an monumental change. The castle catholics and economic unionists will eventually settle into it. But we have 1 million unionists on this island who will be a very different prospect.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 21, 2020, 08:37:21 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 08:27:17 AM
Totally convinced that a UI is the way forward economically. I would vote for it. But id fear it may only get 70% support across entire island. What would be an acceptable majority? One that would not leave us with significant problems afterwards. I don't think 50+1, which SF are in support of, is either sensible or realistic.
All those who voted for the GFA including Seamus Mallon ratified that so move on.
The problem that both Sinn Fein and the DUP have is that both need to win over the ever increasing middle ground, the castle catholics and economic unionists with a small u so to speak and both seem incapable of doing that as they feel the need to feed their bases with the usual old bullshit setting both causes back in the eyes of the middle ground.
Colm is almost apologetic for wanting a UI and whilst getting into bed with FF seemed like a good move towards an AI party he's been badly let down by Martin, who's as poor a leader as there has been and that takes some doing.
Well 51% should be easily got, but maintaining a happy country afterwards will be the hard bit- it is just my personal opinion. It seems a low bar for such an monumental change. The castle catholics and economic unionists will eventually settle into it. But we have 1 million unionists on this island who will be a very different prospect.
And indeed a majority of them voted for it as well.
Quote from: johnnycool on July 21, 2020, 09:18:18 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 21, 2020, 08:37:21 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 08:27:17 AM
Totally convinced that a UI is the way forward economically. I would vote for it. But id fear it may only get 70% support across entire island. What would be an acceptable majority? One that would not leave us with significant problems afterwards. I don't think 50+1, which SF are in support of, is either sensible or realistic.
All those who voted for the GFA including Seamus Mallon ratified that so move on.
The problem that both Sinn Fein and the DUP have is that both need to win over the ever increasing middle ground, the castle catholics and economic unionists with a small u so to speak and both seem incapable of doing that as they feel the need to feed their bases with the usual old bullshit setting both causes back in the eyes of the middle ground.
Colm is almost apologetic for wanting a UI and whilst getting into bed with FF seemed like a good move towards an AI party he's been badly let down by Martin, who's as poor a leader as there has been and that takes some doing.
Well 51% should be easily got, but maintaining a happy country afterwards will be the hard bit- it is just my personal opinion. It seems a low bar for such an monumental change. The castle catholics and economic unionists will eventually settle into it. But we have 1 million unionists on this island who will be a very different prospect.
And indeed a majority of them voted for it as well.
Yes I know. But Im not sure the reality of that situation would be a god place to be. Anyhow Francie Molloy MP doesn't see the GFA as a good vehicle for reunification
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 01:33:36 AM
Quote from: marty34 on July 21, 2020, 12:23:23 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 20, 2020, 10:14:00 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on July 10, 2020, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: trailer on July 10, 2020, 10:30:47 AM
Someone asked for my opinion on the FST motion. It was wrong and the SDLP councillors shouldn't have supported it. Colum Eastwood intervened and told them to reverse their position which last I checked I understand they have. Sometimes holding your hands up and admitting you got it wrong is the right thing to do. I think people will respect them for doing that.
Has he stopped Brexit yet? (sorry I had to get it in before someone else)
Moaning Mary certainly didn't stop it.
Eastwood said, if election, he'd stop Brexit. That's the point. Nothing to do with MLMD.
It was his kind of 'election pledge'.
And likely he would have stopped it, if he has a majority.
Lol.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 09:29:36 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 21, 2020, 09:18:18 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 21, 2020, 08:37:21 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 08:27:17 AM
Totally convinced that a UI is the way forward economically. I would vote for it. But id fear it may only get 70% support across entire island. What would be an acceptable majority? One that would not leave us with significant problems afterwards. I don't think 50+1, which SF are in support of, is either sensible or realistic.
All those who voted for the GFA including Seamus Mallon ratified that so move on.
The problem that both Sinn Fein and the DUP have is that both need to win over the ever increasing middle ground, the castle catholics and economic unionists with a small u so to speak and both seem incapable of doing that as they feel the need to feed their bases with the usual old bullshit setting both causes back in the eyes of the middle ground.
Colm is almost apologetic for wanting a UI and whilst getting into bed with FF seemed like a good move towards an AI party he's been badly let down by Martin, who's as poor a leader as there has been and that takes some doing.
Well 51% should be easily got, but maintaining a happy country afterwards will be the hard bit- it is just my personal opinion. It seems a low bar for such an monumental change. The castle catholics and economic unionists will eventually settle into it. But we have 1 million unionists on this island who will be a very different prospect.
And indeed a majority of them voted for it as well.
Yes I know. But Im not sure the reality of that situation would be a god place to be. Anyhow Francie Molloy MP doesn't see the GFA as a good vehicle for reunification
Reinforcing the point I was making that the likes of Francie fail to understand that it's going to take someone or something to win over the middle third and Francie and his ilk seem incapable of understanding that.
Quote from: johnnycool on July 21, 2020, 09:42:24 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 09:29:36 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 21, 2020, 09:18:18 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on July 21, 2020, 08:37:21 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 08:27:17 AM
Totally convinced that a UI is the way forward economically. I would vote for it. But id fear it may only get 70% support across entire island. What would be an acceptable majority? One that would not leave us with significant problems afterwards. I don't think 50+1, which SF are in support of, is either sensible or realistic.
All those who voted for the GFA including Seamus Mallon ratified that so move on.
The problem that both Sinn Fein and the DUP have is that both need to win over the ever increasing middle ground, the castle catholics and economic unionists with a small u so to speak and both seem incapable of doing that as they feel the need to feed their bases with the usual old bullshit setting both causes back in the eyes of the middle ground.
Colm is almost apologetic for wanting a UI and whilst getting into bed with FF seemed like a good move towards an AI party he's been badly let down by Martin, who's as poor a leader as there has been and that takes some doing.
Well 51% should be easily got, but maintaining a happy country afterwards will be the hard bit- it is just my personal opinion. It seems a low bar for such an monumental change. The castle catholics and economic unionists will eventually settle into it. But we have 1 million unionists on this island who will be a very different prospect.
And indeed a majority of them voted for it as well.
Yes I know. But Im not sure the reality of that situation would be a god place to be. Anyhow Francie Molloy MP doesn't see the GFA as a good vehicle for reunification
Reinforcing the point I was making that the likes of Francie fail to understand that it's going to take someone or something to win over the middle third and Francie and his ilk seem incapable of understanding that.
Agreed
Fear, Evil and others the " 1 million Unionists" is surely an out of date figure.
Wasn't it 48% of 1.8m in the 2011 Census.
The future all Ireland political entity will not be
An incorporation of the 6 Cos into the 26 Co State or
A type of Gröss South Armagh run by SF.
Quote from: Rossfan on July 21, 2020, 10:10:17 AM
Fear, Evil and others the " 1 million Unionists" is surely an out of date figure.
Wasn't it 48% of 1.8m in the 2011 Census.
The future all Ireland political entity will not be
An incorporation of the 6 Cos into the 26 Co State or
A type of Gröss South Armagh run by SF.
Possibly
Not all unionists are in the six counties.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 09:29:36 AM
Yes I know. But Im not sure the reality of that situation would be a god place to be. Anyhow Francie Molloy MP doesn't see the GFA as a good vehicle for reunification
The GFA allows a border poll and all you have to do is persuade a majority. What has Francie Molloy done to persuade anyone to vote for a United Ireland? His entire focus is in preaching to the converted.
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 21, 2020, 10:37:27 AM
Not all unionists are in the six counties.
Really?
People who want to rejoin the "United" Kingdom?
Of the 140 something Countries and Territories who left the British Empire I'm not aware of any ONE that wanted to go back under it.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 11:10:01 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 09:29:36 AM
Yes I know. But Im not sure the reality of that situation would be a god place to be. Anyhow Francie Molloy MP doesn't see the GFA as a good vehicle for reunification
The GFA allows a border poll and all you have to do is persuade a majority. What has Francie Molloy done to persuade anyone to vote for a United Ireland? His entire focus is in preaching to the converted.
To me it seems Francie's gripe was that, in light of recent comments by Micheal Martin, he doesn't see a scenario where the British and Irish Government will agree to a border poll, particularly in light of the recent attempts at moving the goalposts on 50%+1.
If the GFA says a simple majority is all that is required, and if successive polls consistently suggest even a narrow majority favour reunification (which any/all available indicators suggest is only a matter of time) and the British and Irish Governments refuse to allow the poll to take place, then his comments on being sold a pup would be accurate enough. Time will tell.
Quote from: Rossfan on July 21, 2020, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 21, 2020, 10:37:27 AM
Not all unionists are in the six counties.
Really?
People who want to rejoin the "United" Kingdom?
Of the 140 something Countries and Territories who left the British Empire I'm not aware of any ONE that wanted to go back under it.
John Bruton is one example.
Correct me if I'm wrong but does the GFA state that if it appears to the British " Secretary of State for Northern Ireland" that there MAY be a majority (in the 6 Cos) in favour of a UI then the S of S MAY hold a Referendum or is it WILL hold....??
1. The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the
purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order.
2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power
under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of
those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to
be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.
So, paragraph one confers the power to call a border poll on the SoS, and paragraph 2 confers the requirement to use that power, but only when he himself believes it is likely to result in Irish reunification.
So he is obliged to use the power, unless he decides he doesn't haveto/want to.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on July 21, 2020, 11:48:31 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 21, 2020, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 21, 2020, 10:37:27 AM
Not all unionists are in the six counties.
Really?
People who want to rejoin the "United" Kingdom?
Of the 140 something Countries and Territories who left the British Empire I'm not aware of any ONE that wanted to go back under it.
John Bruton is one example.
And Ruth Dudley Edwards.
Quote from: RedHand88 on July 21, 2020, 01:07:22 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on July 21, 2020, 11:48:31 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 21, 2020, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 21, 2020, 10:37:27 AM
Not all unionists are in the six counties.
Really?
People who want to rejoin the "United" Kingdom?
Of the 140 something Countries and Territories who left the British Empire I'm not aware of any ONE that wanted to go back under it.
John Bruton is one example.
And Ruth Dudley Edwards.
I'd vote that way myself tomorrow if afforded the opportunity. The State my grandparents' generation worked to bring about was a failure long before I was even born. Only for the safety valve of emigration, we'd be living in a third world hellhole. And the north. if anything, is worse.
Quote from: Snapchap on July 21, 2020, 12:55:31 PM
1. The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the
purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order.
2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power
under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of
those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to
be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.
So, paragraph one confers the power to call a border poll on the SoS, and paragraph 2 confers the requirement to use that power, but only when he himself believes it is likely to result in Irish reunification.
So he is obliged to use the power, unless he decides he doesn't haveto/want to.
Thanks Snap.
Depends on how the SoS decides a majority might want to change.
Will it be if Nationalist Parties get more votes than Unionist ones or
If Nationalist Parties get more votes than all the others combined.
The latter may never happen.
Quote from: RedHand88 on July 21, 2020, 01:07:22 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on July 21, 2020, 11:48:31 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 21, 2020, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 21, 2020, 10:37:27 AM
Not all unionists are in the six counties.
Really?
People who want to rejoin the "United" Kingdom?
Of the 140 something Countries and Territories who left the British Empire I'm not aware of any ONE that wanted to go back under it.
John Bruton is one example.
And Ruth Dudley Edwards.
Neale Richmond, is the most recent to express an interest in exploring joining the commonwealth. I'd say there is a similar sentiment throughout fg especially with the likes of Flanagan and Regina Doherty in their ranks.
Quote from: Snapchap on July 21, 2020, 11:29:36 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 11:10:01 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 09:29:36 AM
Yes I know. But Im not sure the reality of that situation would be a god place to be. Anyhow Francie Molloy MP doesn't see the GFA as a good vehicle for reunification
The GFA allows a border poll and all you have to do is persuade a majority. What has Francie Molloy done to persuade anyone to vote for a United Ireland? His entire focus is in preaching to the converted.
To me it seems Francie's gripe was that, in light of recent comments by Micheal Martin, he doesn't see a scenario where the British and Irish Government will agree to a border poll, particularly in light of the recent attempts at moving the goalposts on 50%+1.
If the GFA says a simple majority is all that is required, and if successive polls consistently suggest even a narrow majority favour reunification (which any/all available indicators suggest is only a matter of time) and the British and Irish Governments refuse to allow the poll to take place, then his comments on being sold a pup would be accurate enough. Time will tell.
Short version - Francis's gripe articulates a nationalist frustration that 50%+1 is enough to legitimise British rule in the north but not Irish rule seemingly - the bar for which appears to be a level of consensus not seen in centuries, if ever, and which is not documented anywhere in the GFA.
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 01:35:54 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on July 21, 2020, 01:07:22 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on July 21, 2020, 11:48:31 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 21, 2020, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 21, 2020, 10:37:27 AM
Not all unionists are in the six counties.
Really?
People who want to rejoin the "United" Kingdom?
Of the 140 something Countries and Territories who left the British Empire I'm not aware of any ONE that wanted to go back under it.
John Bruton is one example.
And Ruth Dudley Edwards.
Neale Richmond, is the most recent to express an interest in exploring joining the commonwealth. I'd say there is a similar sentiment throughout fg especially with the likes of Flanagan and Regina Doherty in their ranks.
To be fair to them - If that was the price of a United Ireland I think most nationalists in the north would pay it.
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
FG have done .ore gor Irish independence than FF...
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on July 21, 2020, 03:25:48 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
FG have done .ore gor Irish independence than FF...
Hardly a ringing endorsement as RDE has done more for a United Ireland than both.
Big difference between being a sovereign state in that Commonwealth thingy and being a subject territory of the old British Empire.
Outside of the 3 Ulster Counties, Leitrim, Longford, parts of Roscommon, Sligo, Westmeath, Meath and Louth there wouldnt be too much concern about a United Ireland among the general populace.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
yes and yes.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
yes and yes.
;D ;D would you care to provide evidence for that statement?
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
yes and yes.
Yes, Leo "Belfast is Overseas" Varadkar is famously anti-partition.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
yes and yes.
OMG...is this statement for real.
They have as much interest in a re-united Ireland as the SDLP have...nothing plus zero !!
Quote from: Snapchap on July 21, 2020, 04:36:28 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
yes and yes.
Yes, Leo "Belfast is Overseas" Varadkar is famously anti-partition.
Nearly as bad as Londonderry Lou and her poppy scarves
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 09:48:39 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on July 21, 2020, 04:36:28 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
yes and yes.
Yes, Leo "Belfast is Overseas" Varadkar is famously anti-partition.
Nearly as bad as Londonderry Lou and her poppy scarves
Yes, because Mary Lou is famously pro-partition.
When are Sinn Féin "delivering" a United Ireland?
How nearer have they brought it than FF/FG/Greens/SDLP etc?
Quote from: Snapchap on July 21, 2020, 10:01:31 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on July 21, 2020, 09:48:39 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on July 21, 2020, 04:36:28 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
yes and yes.
Yes, Leo "Belfast is Overseas" Varadkar is famously anti-partition.
Nearly as bad as Londonderry Lou and her poppy scarves
Yes, because Mary Lou is famously pro-partition.
She is famously finger in the wind, wishy washy , moaning , crass, tube.
Londonderry FFS. Poppies FFS
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:35:08 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
yes and yes.
;D ;D would you care to provide evidence for that statement?
Coveney has said several times that he wants to see a United Ireland. In order for there to be serious discussion on a United Ireland people have to believe the there is a feasible plan, that the economics work. They are not going to believe in a plan produced by Martina Anderson or Barry "Bread on the Head" McElduff or in an Ireland run by these people. Coveney's calm demeanor alongside the clowns from London going on about Brexit did more for a UI than the whole of NI Sinn Féin put together.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 10:28:00 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:35:08 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
yes and yes.
;D ;D would you care to provide evidence for that statement?
Coveney has said several times that he wants to see a United Ireland. In order for there to be serious discussion on a United Ireland people have to believe the there is a feasible plan, that the economics work. They are not going to believe in a plan produced by Martina Anderson or Barry "Bread on the Head" McElduff or in an Ireland run by these people. Coveney's calm demeanor alongside the clowns from London going on about Brexit did more for a UI than the whole of NI Sinn Féin put together.
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
You can't base this decision on economic expediency - that's no basis for building a nation.
I agree it is vital to the long term success of a United Ireland - but not to its delivery.
Quote from: Chief on July 21, 2020, 11:14:30 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 10:28:00 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:35:08 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
yes and yes.
;D ;D would you care to provide evidence for that statement?
Coveney has said several times that he wants to see a United Ireland. In order for there to be serious discussion on a United Ireland people have to believe the there is a feasible plan, that the economics work. They are not going to believe in a plan produced by Martina Anderson or Barry "Bread on the Head" McElduff or in an Ireland run by these people. Coveney's calm demeanor alongside the clowns from London going on about Brexit did more for a UI than the whole of NI Sinn Féin put together.
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
You can't base this decision on economic expediency - that's no basis for building a nation.
I agree it is vital to the long term success of a United Ireland - but not to its delivery.
This is the backwards approach of Sinn Fein. Somehow unite Ireland first, and only then do we start figuring out how to make it work.
The more sensible approach is to figure out ways to make it work that we can sell to northern Protestants in terms that will benefit them. If we do a good job of that then we'll get enough floating voters on board to swing the vote in our favour, and the transition to unity will be smoother and more peaceful. The SF approach is a recipe for another civil war.
In practice any Referendum will be decided by the "others".
Nationalists and Unionists will vote emotionally (44-40 when Ref is held) .
The 16% "others" will decide on the basis of economics, what plans or structure for the New Ireland and various other practicalities.
Remember some Northern "nationalists" on this forum previously informed us they wouldnt be voting UI of it cost them money or took away their NHS.
Quote from: Chief on July 21, 2020, 11:14:30 PM
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
I read this post, indeed this whole thread damn near, and to paraphrase Robbie Burns:
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie youse, To see Themmuns as they see themsels!"I mean, "People need to decide they want to accept the north [
sic] as part of the Irish nation"...
When are Nationalists (ROI and NI) going to recognise that a UI is not within their gift to accept/deliver/negotiate/coerce or anything else?
The GFA made it crystal clear that the only way there will be a UI is if a majority of people in NI voting for it in a referendum. And effectively, that means the Unionist people voting for it, as follows.
Basically, as eg the Scottish Independence or Brexit votes demonstrated, such Referenda are not about politics, they are about Identity.
And as far as Unionists are concerned, No Union = No Unionism = No Unionists. Therefore in the absence of some overriding, irresistable reason, why would we want to erase our own British identity and vote ourselves out of existence?
Now I accept that Nationalists have severe difficulty in understanding why our British identity is so important to us, fair enough. But surely even the most fervent Shinner cannot deny that it is, and that after nearly a century when it was under almost continuous threat from a variety of quarters, we're not simply going to give it up for a few kind words and promises from Dublin.
All of which explains why Unionist support for the Union remains as strong as ever, even from amongst "Garden Centre Unionists" who ordinarily have no interest in politics and don't vote in elections etc. As I show below, Unionist support for the Union is rock-solid, indeed never more so than when we saw the rise in support for Sinn Fein down south at the last election. I mean, if there was any chance whatever of us finding ourselves in a UI where SF formed even part of the government, then even the most moderate and reasonable Unionist would find himself clambering to the top of the nearest barricade to gaulder "Never! Never! Never!"
Which brings us next to the Nationalist population of NI. The long awaited demographic wave which was going to swamp the North has just about reached high tide without washing us all into a United Ireland (RC's appreciate the benefits of contraception and smaller families, too!). And even if it may still achieve the magic 50%+ 1 "majority" sometime reasonably soon, that's still nowhere near doing the trick, ironically for the self-same reason of Identity.
For the other unappreciated or misunderstood aspect of the GFA is that it finally satisfied the desire of Nationalists in NI to have their own (Irish) identity formally recognised: "Sure we're as Irish as anyone in the South".
And that identity having been recognised, given a vote in a Referendum, a high proportion of NI "Nationalists" will either not bother to vote, or will even vote to remain, for essentially socio-economic reasons: government jobs, NHS, pensions etc, above all the massive Westminster subsidy of the NI economy which Dublin either could not, or would not, take over.
All of which is consistently reflected in every opinion poll which has ever been conducted in NI this century, including eg this one from February:
Just 29% in Northern Ireland would vote for unity, major study reveals
A total of 99% of DUP and UUP voters wanted to remain in the UK compared to 92% of Sinn Fein and 81% of SDLP voters saying they would support Irish unity in a border poll.
Just 30% of Alliance voters backed a united Ireland compared to 70% supporting the Union.https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html)
So there you have it: all the Conferences, Study Groups, Manifestos and Five Year Plans emanating from Nationalism won't make a blind bit of difference to the Unionist population in NI, nor move us to consider giving a UI a go.
Which is not to say that we could never (never, never) be persuaded, but it's late and you're probably all bored beyond tears long ago, so I'll withhold my wisdom on that score for another day!
Sure we all know Unionists (i.e. union to GB for now, England/Wales later) won't vote for a UI.
They wouldn't be Unionists then.
But they are not the majority any more.
The outcome will be decided by the "others".
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on July 21, 2020, 11:14:30 PM
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
I read this post, indeed this whole thread damn near, and to paraphrase Robbie Burns:
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie youse, To see Themmuns as they see themsels!"
I mean, "People need to decide they want to accept the north [sic] as part of the Irish nation"...
When are Nationalists (ROI and NI) going to recognise that a UI is not within their gift to accept/deliver/negotiate/coerce or anything else?
The GFA made it crystal clear that the only way there will be a UI is if a majority of people in NI voting for it in a referendum. And effectively, that means the Unionist people voting for it, as follows.
Basically, as eg the Scottish Independence or Brexit votes demonstrated, such Referenda are not about politics, they are about Identity.
And as far as Unionists are concerned, No Union = No Unionism = No Unionists. Therefore in the absence of some overriding, irresistable reason, why would we want to erase our own British identity and vote ourselves out of existence?
Now I accept that Nationalists have severe difficulty in understanding why our British identity is so important to us, fair enough. But surely even the most fervent Shinner cannot deny that it is, and that after nearly a century when it was under almost continuous threat from a variety of quarters, we're not simply going to give it up for a few kind words and promises from Dublin.
All of which explains why Unionist support for the Union remains as strong as ever, even from amongst "Garden Centre Unionists" who ordinarily have no interest in politics and don't vote in elections etc. As I show below, Unionist support for the Union is rock-solid, indeed never more so than when we saw the rise in support for Sinn Fein down south at the last election. I mean, if there was any chance whatever of us finding ourselves in a UI where SF formed even part of the government, then even the most moderate and reasonable Unionist would find himself clambering to the top of the nearest barricade to gaulder "Never! Never! Never!"
Which brings us next to the Nationalist population of NI. The long awaited demographic wave which was going to swamp the North has just about reached high tide without washing us all into a United Ireland (RC's appreciate the benefits of contraception and smaller families, too!). And even if it may still achieve the magic 50%+ 1 "majority" sometime reasonably soon, that's still nowhere near doing the trick, ironically for the self-same reason of Identity.
For the other unappreciated or misunderstood aspect of the GFA is that it finally satisfied the desire of Nationalists in NI to have their own (Irish) identity formally recognised: "Sure we're as Irish as anyone in the South".
And that identity having been recognised, given a vote in a Referendum, a high proportion of NI "Nationalists" will either not bother to vote, or will even vote to remain, for essentially socio-economic reasons: government jobs, NHS, pensions etc, above all the massive Westminster subsidy of the NI economy which Dublin either could not, or would not, take over.
All of which is consistently reflected in every opinion poll which has ever been conducted in NI this century, including eg this one from February:
Just 29% in Northern Ireland would vote for unity, major study reveals
A total of 99% of DUP and UUP voters wanted to remain in the UK compared to 92% of Sinn Fein and 81% of SDLP voters saying they would support Irish unity in a border poll.
Just 30% of Alliance voters backed a united Ireland compared to 70% supporting the Union.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html)
So there you have it: all the Conferences, Study Groups, Manifestos and Five Year Plans emanating from Nationalism won't make a blind bit of difference to the Unionist population in NI, nor move us to consider giving a UI a go.
Which is not to say that we could never (never, never) be persuaded, but it's late and you're probably all bored beyond tears long ago, so I'll withhold my wisdom on that score for another day!
So EG essentially you are saying that there are no hopes of negotiation about a settlement path to UI that would gain general acceptance among Unionists, striking a sword to Varadkar's "I have a UI dream". That NI on its own is not a viable concern and is addicted to the substantial British Gov subsidy. That it comes down to a numbers game. Should 50% plus one vote for a UI in a referendum, then and only then would you (Unionists) accept the majority opinion and sit down to negotiate identity issues with a helping of a piece of the EU Central Bank pie,
OR refuse to - instead engage in riots, burn stuff and general mayhem.
This is why I talk about persuading "northern Protestants" rather than persuading "unionists" about the benefits of a UI. And they're not a monolithic block, there are plenty of nuances within northern Protestants, you only have to see the sheer number of churches they belong to.
Here are (roughly) the main groups as I see them from across the spectrum:
- Dizzies - The Dissident Republican types who are as fervent in their hatred for all things British as in their love for a British soccer team called Celtic, and aren't averse to doing things the old fashioned way using brute force
- Chuckies - The boys that support SF like they're a football team and whose command of the Irish language is limited to one republican slogan, but don't want to reignite the Troubles
- Stoops - Middle-of-the-road nationalists who consider getting a few street lights installed on their road to be a more immediate priority than big constitutional changes.
- Ex-pat paddies - Fenians that moved to England for uni and didn't come back, but could still cast a proxy vote
- Boat non-rockers - 1st & 2nd generation immigrants who just want a quiet life and would be reluctant to cause any trouble that would be brought about by big constitutional changes
- Fence-sitters - A new but rare breed who was raised in the integrated education sector and may be open to persuasion either way
- Zombies - Political illiterates who wouldn't know the DUP from Interflora and wouldn't know how to vote even if they wanted to
- Ex-pat unionists - Prods who went to England for uni and didn't come back, probably willing to cast a proxy vote
- Rugby fans and garden center types - Small u unionists who won't be voting for a UI any time soon but aren't going to put up a fight if it does happen
- Jaffas - Newsletter-reading no-surrender-fear-God-honor-the-Queen types who don't recognise the democratic mandate of anyone who plays football on a Sunday or doesn't accept the Lord Jesus Christ (TM) as their saviour
- Blackmen - Like Jaffas but with a bit more money behind them. Too polite to advertise their bitterness in public.
- Pallet-burners - Will watch an orange parade if the 11th Night hangover isn't too bad, and is hoarse from roaring with delight when the flames reached as high as the effigy of the pope and the tricolour
- Orange Gaeilgeoirs - Speak Irish better than half the Falls Road, probably signing up to join that East Belfast GAA team as we speak, open to Irish culture if not nationalism, but still very much protestant and very much unionist.
You could probably slice it up a bit finer than that. The goal should be not just to single out who in there you can persuade to support a UI. The goal should also be to persuade as many people as possible to accept reunification if it happens, even if they disagree with it, and not to sign another Ulster Covenant in their own blood vowing to fight back against it using weapons shipped in from the rogue state de jour (which in today's case would probably be Russia).
The bottom line is that the unionist vote is now in the 42-43% range and even a few of those are open to persuasion. Polls re Brexit showed that many of the rest are influenced by the detail. As we have seen in Scotland, which actually is in Britain, the present London regime does tend to drive centrifugal tendencies. Unification is like electric cars, you might not think the electric car adds up today but you expect not to be buying many more fossil fuel driven ones. But while eco crowd might say we should all buy electric cars now and range etc will improve in time, people want the range improved first and the charging infrastructure in place, then they'll buy the car. Likewise the 'Greens' want a UI now and work it out afterwards, but people won't buy that.
EG, I enjoy reading your posts on this topic.
The socio-economic points you list as being a large part of why nationalists (and "other" I'd imagine) wouldn't vote for unity are valid but not insurmountable. I think the New Ireland Forum idea should be used to consider the realities and alternatives in a unification scenario (eg NICS pension scheme is run by NILGOSC and could continue as-is, like any other private investment fund). Let's find out how that could work. Prior to Brexit NI had successfully argued its case to get corp tax devolved, and developed its own business case to remove itself from the London teat, even if only in part. Take that a few steps further. A civic-led forum should explore the myths and realities.
Your point on how nationalists are happy that under the GFA they can claim their Irishness grossly misunderstands the impact of Brexit and DUP identity nonsense on this group. Brexit has/will force us to be treated in many respects in the same way as Finchley or Great Yarmouth or Sunderland. You seemingly fail to see the impact this has and will have on nationalists who are being forced into something by Britain.
Brexit changes everything IMO. It could be a game changer. I think Johnson changes a lot too. To me he's the worst pm in my life and is a dangerous man to all bar his cronies. This in itself also would swing a lot of moderate people.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on July 21, 2020, 11:14:30 PM
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
I read this post, indeed this whole thread damn near, and to paraphrase Robbie Burns:
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie youse, To see Themmuns as they see themsels!"
I mean, "People need to decide they want to accept the north [sic] as part of the Irish nation"...
When are Nationalists (ROI and NI) going to recognise that a UI is not within their gift to accept/deliver/negotiate/coerce or anything else?
The GFA made it crystal clear that the only way there will be a UI is if a majority of people in NI voting for it in a referendum. And effectively, that means the Unionist people voting for it, as follows.
Basically, as eg the Scottish Independence or Brexit votes demonstrated, such Referenda are not about politics, they are about Identity.
And as far as Unionists are concerned, No Union = No Unionism = No Unionists. Therefore in the absence of some overriding, irresistable reason, why would we want to erase our own British identity and vote ourselves out of existence?
Now I accept that Nationalists have severe difficulty in understanding why our British identity is so important to us, fair enough. But surely even the most fervent Shinner cannot deny that it is, and that after nearly a century when it was under almost continuous threat from a variety of quarters, we're not simply going to give it up for a few kind words and promises from Dublin.
All of which explains why Unionist support for the Union remains as strong as ever, even from amongst "Garden Centre Unionists" who ordinarily have no interest in politics and don't vote in elections etc. As I show below, Unionist support for the Union is rock-solid, indeed never more so than when we saw the rise in support for Sinn Fein down south at the last election. I mean, if there was any chance whatever of us finding ourselves in a UI where SF formed even part of the government, then even the most moderate and reasonable Unionist would find himself clambering to the top of the nearest barricade to gaulder "Never! Never! Never!"
Which brings us next to the Nationalist population of NI. The long awaited demographic wave which was going to swamp the North has just about reached high tide without washing us all into a United Ireland (RC's appreciate the benefits of contraception and smaller families, too!). And even if it may still achieve the magic 50%+ 1 "majority" sometime reasonably soon, that's still nowhere near doing the trick, ironically for the self-same reason of Identity.
For the other unappreciated or misunderstood aspect of the GFA is that it finally satisfied the desire of Nationalists in NI to have their own (Irish) identity formally recognised: "Sure we're as Irish as anyone in the South".
And that identity having been recognised, given a vote in a Referendum, a high proportion of NI "Nationalists" will either not bother to vote, or will even vote to remain, for essentially socio-economic reasons: government jobs, NHS, pensions etc, above all the massive Westminster subsidy of the NI economy which Dublin either could not, or would not, take over.
All of which is consistently reflected in every opinion poll which has ever been conducted in NI this century, including eg this one from February:
Just 29% in Northern Ireland would vote for unity, major study reveals
A total of 99% of DUP and UUP voters wanted to remain in the UK compared to 92% of Sinn Fein and 81% of SDLP voters saying they would support Irish unity in a border poll.
Just 30% of Alliance voters backed a united Ireland compared to 70% supporting the Union.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html)
So there you have it: all the Conferences, Study Groups, Manifestos and Five Year Plans emanating from Nationalism won't make a blind bit of difference to the Unionist population in NI, nor move us to consider giving a UI a go.
Which is not to say that we could never (never, never) be persuaded, but it's late and you're probably all bored beyond tears long ago, so I'll withhold my wisdom on that score for another day!
Great post - Weirdly enough I think I've been misunderstood and perfectly understood all at the one time.
I agree unionists are British, believe wholeheartedly in the union, and therefore for intrinsic emotional reasons will never be persuaded of a UI regardless of economics, regional assemblies etc.
Therefore - sadly and depressingly - the NI state is reduced to a numbers game. And you are right, all the forums, meetings etc won't make a blind bit of difference to those who feel British - it wouldn't move the needle for me in terms of my Irishness, so why would anyone assume the Britishness of unionism is any less dearly held?
50%+1 is all that is needed to deliver Unity - for those that want Unity this is the goal. It's what was agreed in 1998 and is the only show in town.
Where economics, admin etc come in, and where they are important in a UI context, is in reassuring unionists in the same way the GFA reassured nationalists - I.e. identity etc will be accepted and protected within the state. When 50%+1 is reached every Irish person should break their backs pursuing this effort, as the success of the unified state relies on it.
And guess what - it still won't be enough for every unionist out there and there will inevitably be terrorists that will have to be faced down by the new Irish state.
That reassurance only kicks in though when the border poll is called and won. Up and until then, unionism's self interests, by its very etymological definition, is best served in a Union with GB.
Therefore, acknowledging all of the above, the order of proceeding should be:
- Win the border poll to deliver the new state - I.e. 50%+1
- Then through a (long) process of engagement, make the constitutional and economic arrangements that secure the future of the new state and which protect Britishness for unionism - incredibly important not to repeat the mistakes NI made after it's formation.
- Face down any terrorism that flares up as a reaction to the new state
The whole thing relies on a poll being called and won in the first instance though.
I keep seeing the NHS being mentioned as an obstruction to a UI. Why? Have people short memories. Before Covid kicked in the NHS was never out of the news in NI for the ridiculous number of people on lengthy waiting lists. The NHS esp in NI is in serious trouble
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on July 22, 2020, 09:25:39 AM
The NHS esp in NI is in serious trouble
Wholeheartedly agree.
Quote from: Rois on July 22, 2020, 09:28:00 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on July 22, 2020, 09:25:39 AM
The NHS esp in NI is in serious trouble
Wholeheartedly agree.
The number of ICU beds we have here is frightening. 95 in total and 60 are used. If the outbreak they predicted had happened with coronavirus , or if it does happen yet, we'd be in big big trouble.
We also have too many hospitals and too much real estate taking up funds. Bengoa had many suggestions that were not implemented, and it's falling down around us. C-19 has helped in showing people that reform can be achieved when the push/immediate need is there. Therefore changing how it works in a UI context is not unimaginable and could lead to serious improvements.
Quote from: Rois on July 22, 2020, 09:38:38 AM
We also have too many hospitals and too much real estate taking up funds. Bengoa had many suggestions that were not implemented, and it's falling down around us. C-19 has helped in showing people that reform can be achieved when the push/immediate need is there. Therefore changing how it works in a UI context is not unimaginable and could lead to serious improvements.
No local politician is going to close the Mater, Lagan Valley and or the Ulster Hospital or the City hospital so expect the usual wastage and inefficiency.
Quote from: johnnycool on July 22, 2020, 09:42:09 AM
Quote from: Rois on July 22, 2020, 09:38:38 AM
We also have too many hospitals and too much real estate taking up funds. Bengoa had many suggestions that were not implemented, and it's falling down around us. C-19 has helped in showing people that reform can be achieved when the push/immediate need is there. Therefore changing how it works in a UI context is not unimaginable and could lead to serious improvements.
No local politician is going to close the Mater, Lagan Valley and or the Ulster Hospital or the City hospital so expect the usual wastage and inefficiency.
Exactly, but 5 hospitals in such a small geographical area is a joke
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on July 21, 2020, 11:14:30 PM
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
I read this post, indeed this whole thread damn near, and to paraphrase Robbie Burns:
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie youse, To see Themmuns as they see themsels!"
I mean, "People need to decide they want to accept the north [sic] as part of the Irish nation"...
When are Nationalists (ROI and NI) going to recognise that a UI is not within their gift to accept/deliver/negotiate/coerce or anything else?
The GFA made it crystal clear that the only way there will be a UI is if a majority of people in NI voting for it in a referendum. And effectively, that means the Unionist people voting for it, as follows.
Basically, as eg the Scottish Independence or Brexit votes demonstrated, such Referenda are not about politics, they are about Identity.
And as far as Unionists are concerned, No Union = No Unionism = No Unionists. Therefore in the absence of some overriding, irresistable reason, why would we want to erase our own British identity and vote ourselves out of existence?
etc.
A good and reasoned post, but can you ever explain why you want to belong to an 'edifice' that is almost utterly ignorant and indifferent to your existence or fate, and one which is in itself pulling asunder through a bonkers-Brexit sense of exceptionalism and nationalism? When the DUP went 'confidence and supply' with the Tories in 2017, a lot of the British press scarcely knew who they were and called them 'Irish'. At least if you 'turn your head south' you'd be more assured of a warmer welcome.
Quote from: Chief on July 22, 2020, 07:56:51 AM
Therefore, acknowledging all of the above, the order of proceeding should be:
- Win the border poll to deliver the new state - I.e. 50%+1
- Then through a (long) process of engagement, make the constitutional and economic arrangements that secure the future of the new state and which protect Britishness for unionism - incredibly important not to repeat the mistakes NI made after it's formation.
- Face down any terrorism that flares up as a reaction to the new state
The whole thing relies on a poll being called and won in the first instance though.
So, Chief, what strategy do you have to reach 50%+1?
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on July 21, 2020, 11:14:30 PM
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
I read this post, indeed this whole thread damn near, and to paraphrase Robbie Burns:
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie youse, To see Themmuns as they see themsels!"
I mean, "People need to decide they want to accept the north [sic] as part of the Irish nation"...
When are Nationalists (ROI and NI) going to recognise that a UI is not within their gift to accept/deliver/negotiate/coerce or anything else?
The GFA made it crystal clear that the only way there will be a UI is if a majority of people in NI voting for it in a referendum. And effectively, that means the Unionist people voting for it, as follows.
Basically, as eg the Scottish Independence or Brexit votes demonstrated, such Referenda are not about politics, they are about Identity.
And as far as Unionists are concerned, No Union = No Unionism = No Unionists. Therefore in the absence of some overriding, irresistable reason, why would we want to erase our own British identity and vote ourselves out of existence?
Now I accept that Nationalists have severe difficulty in understanding why our British identity is so important to us, fair enough. But surely even the most fervent Shinner cannot deny that it is, and that after nearly a century when it was under almost continuous threat from a variety of quarters, we're not simply going to give it up for a few kind words and promises from Dublin.
All of which explains why Unionist support for the Union remains as strong as ever, even from amongst "Garden Centre Unionists" who ordinarily have no interest in politics and don't vote in elections etc. As I show below, Unionist support for the Union is rock-solid, indeed never more so than when we saw the rise in support for Sinn Fein down south at the last election. I mean, if there was any chance whatever of us finding ourselves in a UI where SF formed even part of the government, then even the most moderate and reasonable Unionist would find himself clambering to the top of the nearest barricade to gaulder "Never! Never! Never!"
Which brings us next to the Nationalist population of NI. The long awaited demographic wave which was going to swamp the North has just about reached high tide without washing us all into a United Ireland (RC's appreciate the benefits of contraception and smaller families, too!). And even if it may still achieve the magic 50%+ 1 "majority" sometime reasonably soon, that's still nowhere near doing the trick, ironically for the self-same reason of Identity.
For the other unappreciated or misunderstood aspect of the GFA is that it finally satisfied the desire of Nationalists in NI to have their own (Irish) identity formally recognised: "Sure we're as Irish as anyone in the South".
And that identity having been recognised, given a vote in a Referendum, a high proportion of NI "Nationalists" will either not bother to vote, or will even vote to remain, for essentially socio-economic reasons: government jobs, NHS, pensions etc, above all the massive Westminster subsidy of the NI economy which Dublin either could not, or would not, take over.
All of which is consistently reflected in every opinion poll which has ever been conducted in NI this century, including eg this one from February:
Just 29% in Northern Ireland would vote for unity, major study reveals
A total of 99% of DUP and UUP voters wanted to remain in the UK compared to 92% of Sinn Fein and 81% of SDLP voters saying they would support Irish unity in a border poll.
Just 30% of Alliance voters backed a united Ireland compared to 70% supporting the Union.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html)
So there you have it: all the Conferences, Study Groups, Manifestos and Five Year Plans emanating from Nationalism won't make a blind bit of difference to the Unionist population in NI, nor move us to consider giving a UI a go.
Which is not to say that we could never (never, never) be persuaded, but it's late and you're probably all bored beyond tears long ago, so I'll withhold my wisdom on that score for another day!
A typical negative post - never, never, never.
You're not seliing the union to us. Just no, no, no generic stuff. The problem is partition has failed, failed everybody in Ireland. It's been a mess. The 6 counties rely on London for all the handouts and jobs. It's not as British as Finchley - Boris has sold you a pup, like Thatcher in '85.
Ireland is too small to justify 2 health care systems (NHS is a mess anyway), 2 education authorities etc. The duplication of everything is a joke. It's the most pragmatic and sensible option.
mouview sometimes I wonder would you get a warmer welcome from the south. There's a few on here I don't think you would anyway and I know a few in "the real world" where I don't think you would either. I would hope they are very much in the minority mind you.
Quote from: mouview on July 22, 2020, 10:30:52 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on July 21, 2020, 11:14:30 PM
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
I read this post, indeed this whole thread damn near, and to paraphrase Robbie Burns:
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie youse, To see Themmuns as they see themsels!"
I mean, "People need to decide they want to accept the north [sic] as part of the Irish nation"...
When are Nationalists (ROI and NI) going to recognise that a UI is not within their gift to accept/deliver/negotiate/coerce or anything else?
The GFA made it crystal clear that the only way there will be a UI is if a majority of people in NI voting for it in a referendum. And effectively, that means the Unionist people voting for it, as follows.
Basically, as eg the Scottish Independence or Brexit votes demonstrated, such Referenda are not about politics, they are about Identity.
And as far as Unionists are concerned, No Union = No Unionism = No Unionists. Therefore in the absence of some overriding, irresistable reason, why would we want to erase our own British identity and vote ourselves out of existence?
etc.
A good and reasoned post, but can you ever explain why you want to belong to an 'edifice' that is almost utterly ignorant and indifferent to your existence or fate, and one which is in itself pulling asunder through a bonkers-Brexit sense of exceptionalism and nationalism? When the DUP went 'confidence and supply' with the Tories in 2017, a lot of the British press scarcely knew who they were and called them 'Irish'. At least if you 'turn your head south' you'd be more assured of a warmer welcome.
The same reason we look south to a country that at best is indifferent to uniting with us.
It's tribal, ancient and emotional and it's a viewpoint that deserves the same respect as ours.
Patronising with forums, meetings etc, this side of a vote, is a waste of everyone's time.
Have the vote, win or lose, be sound about the result in either direction, and work with each other afterwards.
That's the only way forward.
Chief, only 1 individual can instigate this "vote" or " Border Poll" and only if it appears to him/her that there could be a majority in the 6 Cos in favour of reunification.
That individual is not a member of the Dáil/Irish Government or Stormont/Executive or any Political party in Ireland.
Neither is he/she a poster on GAA Board.
In the meantime it is up to those parties in favour of reunification to be looking at what kind of State and what kind of Constitutional arrangements might be appropriate.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 22, 2020, 10:44:32 AM
Quote from: Chief on July 22, 2020, 07:56:51 AM
Therefore, acknowledging all of the above, the order of proceeding should be:
- Win the border poll to deliver the new state - I.e. 50%+1
- Then through a (long) process of engagement, make the constitutional and economic arrangements that secure the future of the new state and which protect Britishness for unionism - incredibly important not to repeat the mistakes NI made after it's formation.
- Face down any terrorism that flares up as a reaction to the new state
The whole thing relies on a poll being called and won in the first instance though.
So, Chief, what strategy do you have to reach 50%+1?
First things first, have the vote so we can see what the true state of play is, instead of relying on Belfast telegraph or Rte polls.
You can't address a problem until you look at it squarely and uncomfortably in the face, and understand truly the motivations of the demographics who would tip the scale in favour of a UI.
I'd imagine though the key to getting the vote across the line is the destruction of the easy pro-union arguments that will be trotted out:
For example
1) Constructing an Irish Health Service that rivals any NHS scaremongering that is done. At a time when governments can borrow at negative interest rates, lack of affordability is no excuse any more.
2) Proactively building into the existing 26 county constitution, a protected place for unionists and their culture - thereby removing concerns about their treatment in a new state.
3) Creating interest and momentum ahead of a vote by permitting northern speaking and voting rights in the Dail, and voting rights for Northern people in Irish presidential and senate elections.
4) Construction of a Unity Fund - to address concerns about the admin cost associated with unity (again the markets are paying governments to borrow at present so affordability is not an excuse).
5) Acknowledging that either elected reps from the 6 counties will have a guaranteed amount of representation in a new UI parliament, or allow for a retention of devolution.
6) Acknowledge, as a matter of official policy -, without mandating what the outcome will be - that the new state will need new flags, anthems and symbols
Do/Guarantee all that and I'm sure the only thing that prevents 50%+1 are ancient loyalties - which we should never be arrogant enough to think we can persuade away, and which will manifest themselves in a border poll whenever it's called, and which no amount of forums or meetings will ever solve for.
Quote from: Chief on July 22, 2020, 10:47:44 AM
The same reason we look south to a country that at best is indifferent to uniting with us.
It's tribal, ancient and emotional and it's a viewpoint that deserves the same respect as ours.
Patronising with forums, meetings etc, this side of a vote, is a waste of everyone's time.
Have the vote, win or lose, be sound about the result in either direction, and work with each other afterwards.
That's the only way forward.
This presumes that there are only two mutually exclusive groups and that the continuation of the present situation is only support by out and out planters like EG. In reality there is a spectrum of people, EamonnCa alluded to this, and there is a large and increasing bloc in the middle. These people reasonably want a proper case to be made if you want them to change their arrangements. Having a half baked vote would be a disaster and you'd then have to have forums, meetings, etc. afterwards anyway according to your post.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on July 21, 2020, 11:14:30 PM
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
I read this post, indeed this whole thread damn near, and to paraphrase Robbie Burns:
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie youse, To see Themmuns as they see themsels!"
I mean, "People need to decide they want to accept the north [sic] as part of the Irish nation"...
When are Nationalists (ROI and NI) going to recognise that a UI is not within their gift to accept/deliver/negotiate/coerce or anything else?
The GFA made it crystal clear that the only way there will be a UI is if a majority of people in NI voting for it in a referendum. And effectively, that means the Unionist people voting for it, as follows.
Basically, as eg the Scottish Independence or Brexit votes demonstrated, such Referenda are not about politics, they are about Identity.
And as far as Unionists are concerned, No Union = No Unionism = No Unionists. Therefore in the absence of some overriding, irresistable reason, why would we want to erase our own British identity and vote ourselves out of existence?
Now I accept that Nationalists have severe difficulty in understanding why our British identity is so important to us, fair enough. But surely even the most fervent Shinner cannot deny that it is, and that after nearly a century when it was under almost continuous threat from a variety of quarters, we're not simply going to give it up for a few kind words and promises from Dublin.
All of which explains why Unionist support for the Union remains as strong as ever, even from amongst "Garden Centre Unionists" who ordinarily have no interest in politics and don't vote in elections etc. As I show below, Unionist support for the Union is rock-solid, indeed never more so than when we saw the rise in support for Sinn Fein down south at the last election. I mean, if there was any chance whatever of us finding ourselves in a UI where SF formed even part of the government, then even the most moderate and reasonable Unionist would find himself clambering to the top of the nearest barricade to gaulder "Never! Never! Never!"
Which brings us next to the Nationalist population of NI. The long awaited demographic wave which was going to swamp the North has just about reached high tide without washing us all into a United Ireland (RC's appreciate the benefits of contraception and smaller families, too!). And even if it may still achieve the magic 50%+ 1 "majority" sometime reasonably soon, that's still nowhere near doing the trick, ironically for the self-same reason of Identity.
For the other unappreciated or misunderstood aspect of the GFA is that it finally satisfied the desire of Nationalists in NI to have their own (Irish) identity formally recognised: "Sure we're as Irish as anyone in the South".
And that identity having been recognised, given a vote in a Referendum, a high proportion of NI "Nationalists" will either not bother to vote, or will even vote to remain, for essentially socio-economic reasons: government jobs, NHS, pensions etc, above all the massive Westminster subsidy of the NI economy which Dublin either could not, or would not, take over.
All of which is consistently reflected in every opinion poll which has ever been conducted in NI this century, including eg this one from February:
Just 29% in Northern Ireland would vote for unity, major study reveals
A total of 99% of DUP and UUP voters wanted to remain in the UK compared to 92% of Sinn Fein and 81% of SDLP voters saying they would support Irish unity in a border poll.
Just 30% of Alliance voters backed a united Ireland compared to 70% supporting the Union.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html)
So there you have it: all the Conferences, Study Groups, Manifestos and Five Year Plans emanating from Nationalism won't make a blind bit of difference to the Unionist population in NI, nor move us to consider giving a UI a go.
Which is not to say that we could never (never, never) be persuaded, but it's late and you're probably all bored beyond tears long ago, so I'll withhold my wisdom on that score for another day!
Fair post EG. However there has been polls that have shown it's not quite as clear a majority as you state. The Lord Ashcroft poll had a stat on a border poll and it was 51% for leaving the UK and joining ROI. Brexit hasn't gone away and the impact of such will be significant over the next few years and may influence the voting pattern of your "garden center unionists" and definitely the "castle Catholics" if the impact is negative.
With regards to the bit in bold, the same is true for nationalists with the DUP (And the UK Government) being every bit as distasteful as SF and is therefore why the clamor for a UI will not die away. Which means whatever happens - status quo with NI or move towards a UI, the country/ies are destine for division internally for the foreseeable. And unfortunately there is nothing that can be done.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/public-consultation-on-format-of-any-future-border-poll-begins-1.4310688?mode=amp
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on July 21, 2020, 11:14:30 PM
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
I read this post, indeed this whole thread damn near, and to paraphrase Robbie Burns:
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie youse, To see Themmuns as they see themsels!"
I mean, "People need to decide they want to accept the north [sic] as part of the Irish nation"...
When are Nationalists (ROI and NI) going to recognise that a UI is not within their gift to accept/deliver/negotiate/coerce or anything else?
The GFA made it crystal clear that the only way there will be a UI is if a majority of people in NI voting for it in a referendum. And effectively, that means the Unionist people voting for it, as follows.
Basically, as eg the Scottish Independence or Brexit votes demonstrated, such Referenda are not about politics, they are about Identity.
And as far as Unionists are concerned, No Union = No Unionism = No Unionists. Therefore in the absence of some overriding, irresistable reason, why would we want to erase our own British identity and vote ourselves out of existence?
Now I accept that Nationalists have severe difficulty in understanding why our British identity is so important to us, fair enough. But surely even the most fervent Shinner cannot deny that it is, and that after nearly a century when it was under almost continuous threat from a variety of quarters, we're not simply going to give it up for a few kind words and promises from Dublin.
All of which explains why Unionist support for the Union remains as strong as ever, even from amongst "Garden Centre Unionists" who ordinarily have no interest in politics and don't vote in elections etc. As I show below, Unionist support for the Union is rock-solid, indeed never more so than when we saw the rise in support for Sinn Fein down south at the last election. I mean, if there was any chance whatever of us finding ourselves in a UI where SF formed even part of the government, then even the most moderate and reasonable Unionist would find himself clambering to the top of the nearest barricade to gaulder "Never! Never! Never!"
Which brings us next to the Nationalist population of NI. The long awaited demographic wave which was going to swamp the North has just about reached high tide without washing us all into a United Ireland (RC's appreciate the benefits of contraception and smaller families, too!). And even if it may still achieve the magic 50%+ 1 "majority" sometime reasonably soon, that's still nowhere near doing the trick, ironically for the self-same reason of Identity.
For the other unappreciated or misunderstood aspect of the GFA is that it finally satisfied the desire of Nationalists in NI to have their own (Irish) identity formally recognised: "Sure we're as Irish as anyone in the South".
And that identity having been recognised, given a vote in a Referendum, a high proportion of NI "Nationalists" will either not bother to vote, or will even vote to remain, for essentially socio-economic reasons: government jobs, NHS, pensions etc, above all the massive Westminster subsidy of the NI economy which Dublin either could not, or would not, take over.
All of which is consistently reflected in every opinion poll which has ever been conducted in NI this century, including eg this one from February:
Just 29% in Northern Ireland would vote for unity, major study reveals
A total of 99% of DUP and UUP voters wanted to remain in the UK compared to 92% of Sinn Fein and 81% of SDLP voters saying they would support Irish unity in a border poll.
Just 30% of Alliance voters backed a united Ireland compared to 70% supporting the Union.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html)
So there you have it: all the Conferences, Study Groups, Manifestos and Five Year Plans emanating from Nationalism won't make a blind bit of difference to the Unionist population in NI, nor move us to consider giving a UI a go.
Which is not to say that we could never (never, never) be persuaded, but it's late and you're probably all bored beyond tears long ago, so I'll withhold my wisdom on that score for another day!
The bit in bold is utter nonsense.
I've a great many friends who would be in the 'castle catholic' bracket so-to-speak. The idiocy of Brexit and the lies/spin/corruption of the current UK govt have ensured that this demographic are voting for a UI in their droves.
And this 'massive' Westminster subvention? This would be chump change to an EU who would only be too delighted to see the 6 counties flourishing whilst watching the rest of the old UK (England) stagger around oafishly, drunk on the spirit of Dunkirk.
Quote from: Franko on July 22, 2020, 12:05:20 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on July 21, 2020, 11:14:30 PM
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
I read this post, indeed this whole thread damn near, and to paraphrase Robbie Burns:
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie youse, To see Themmuns as they see themsels!"
I mean, "People need to decide they want to accept the north [sic] as part of the Irish nation"...
When are Nationalists (ROI and NI) going to recognise that a UI is not within their gift to accept/deliver/negotiate/coerce or anything else?
The GFA made it crystal clear that the only way there will be a UI is if a majority of people in NI voting for it in a referendum. And effectively, that means the Unionist people voting for it, as follows.
Basically, as eg the Scottish Independence or Brexit votes demonstrated, such Referenda are not about politics, they are about Identity.
And as far as Unionists are concerned, No Union = No Unionism = No Unionists. Therefore in the absence of some overriding, irresistable reason, why would we want to erase our own British identity and vote ourselves out of existence?
Now I accept that Nationalists have severe difficulty in understanding why our British identity is so important to us, fair enough. But surely even the most fervent Shinner cannot deny that it is, and that after nearly a century when it was under almost continuous threat from a variety of quarters, we're not simply going to give it up for a few kind words and promises from Dublin.
All of which explains why Unionist support for the Union remains as strong as ever, even from amongst "Garden Centre Unionists" who ordinarily have no interest in politics and don't vote in elections etc. As I show below, Unionist support for the Union is rock-solid, indeed never more so than when we saw the rise in support for Sinn Fein down south at the last election. I mean, if there was any chance whatever of us finding ourselves in a UI where SF formed even part of the government, then even the most moderate and reasonable Unionist would find himself clambering to the top of the nearest barricade to gaulder "Never! Never! Never!"
Which brings us next to the Nationalist population of NI. The long awaited demographic wave which was going to swamp the North has just about reached high tide without washing us all into a United Ireland (RC's appreciate the benefits of contraception and smaller families, too!). And even if it may still achieve the magic 50%+ 1 "majority" sometime reasonably soon, that's still nowhere near doing the trick, ironically for the self-same reason of Identity.
For the other unappreciated or misunderstood aspect of the GFA is that it finally satisfied the desire of Nationalists in NI to have their own (Irish) identity formally recognised: "Sure we're as Irish as anyone in the South".
And that identity having been recognised, given a vote in a Referendum, a high proportion of NI "Nationalists" will either not bother to vote, or will even vote to remain, for essentially socio-economic reasons: government jobs, NHS, pensions etc, above all the massive Westminster subsidy of the NI economy which Dublin either could not, or would not, take over.
All of which is consistently reflected in every opinion poll which has ever been conducted in NI this century, including eg this one from February:
Just 29% in Northern Ireland would vote for unity, major study reveals
A total of 99% of DUP and UUP voters wanted to remain in the UK compared to 92% of Sinn Fein and 81% of SDLP voters saying they would support Irish unity in a border poll.
Just 30% of Alliance voters backed a united Ireland compared to 70% supporting the Union.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html)
So there you have it: all the Conferences, Study Groups, Manifestos and Five Year Plans emanating from Nationalism won't make a blind bit of difference to the Unionist population in NI, nor move us to consider giving a UI a go.
Which is not to say that we could never (never, never) be persuaded, but it's late and you're probably all bored beyond tears long ago, so I'll withhold my wisdom on that score for another day!
The bit in bold is utter nonsense.
I've a great many friends who would be in the 'castle catholic' bracket so-to-speak. The idiocy of Brexit and the lies/spin/corruption of the current UK govt have ensured that this demographic are voting for a UI in their droves.
And this 'massive' Westminster subvention? This would be chump change to an EU who would only be too delighted to see the 6 counties flourishing whilst the rest of the old UK staggers around oafishly, drunk on the spirit of Dunkirk.
The subvention is overstated.
To what extent nobody really knows -I'm guessing less than the UK govt says it is, but more than SF say it is.
It covers things like UK defence spending, public sector pensions etc that quite simply the north would no longer be paying for in a United Ireland to anywhere near the same extent.
Quote from: Franko on July 22, 2020, 12:05:20 PM
I've a great many friends who would be in the 'castle catholic' bracket so-to-speak. The idiocy of Brexit and the lies/spin/corruption of the current UK govt have ensured that this demographic are voting for a UI in their droves.
And this 'massive' Westminster subvention? This would be chump change to an EU who would only be too delighted to see the 6 counties flourishing whilst watching the rest of the old UK (England) stagger around oafishly, drunk on the spirit of Dunkirk.
The EU doesn't care two hoots about the six counties, apart possibly as a future net contributor to their budget. Look at the piss-poor deal that they foisted on the Irish govt this week. We're paying in per capita terms twice what the Germans are paying and 4 times what the French are paying. In that context, it's laughable to expect the EU ever to pay the north the equivalent of the Westminster subvention, although they might do so for a couple of years to get you hooked.
Quote from: mouview on July 22, 2020, 10:30:52 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 12:20:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on July 21, 2020, 11:14:30 PM
I disagree - people need to decide they want to accept the north as part of the Irish nation as a matter of principle first, only then can there be a discussion on how to best make it work.
I read this post, indeed this whole thread damn near, and to paraphrase Robbie Burns:
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie youse, To see Themmuns as they see themsels!"
I mean, "People need to decide they want to accept the north [sic] as part of the Irish nation"...
When are Nationalists (ROI and NI) going to recognise that a UI is not within their gift to accept/deliver/negotiate/coerce or anything else?
The GFA made it crystal clear that the only way there will be a UI is if a majority of people in NI voting for it in a referendum. And effectively, that means the Unionist people voting for it, as follows.
Basically, as eg the Scottish Independence or Brexit votes demonstrated, such Referenda are not about politics, they are about Identity.
And as far as Unionists are concerned, No Union = No Unionism = No Unionists. Therefore in the absence of some overriding, irresistable reason, why would we want to erase our own British identity and vote ourselves out of existence?
etc.
A good and reasoned post, but can you ever explain why you want to belong to an 'edifice' that is almost utterly ignorant and indifferent to your existence or fate, and one which is in itself pulling asunder through a bonkers-Brexit sense of exceptionalism and nationalism? When the DUP went 'confidence and supply' with the Tories in 2017, a lot of the British press scarcely knew who they were and called them 'Irish'. At least if you 'turn your head south' you'd be more assured of a warmer welcome.
This is something I can never really understand as well. It always appears to be mostly a one way connection. Can someone, perhaps EG, explain this?
Quote from: Rossfan on July 22, 2020, 12:35:57 AM
Sure we all know Unionists (i.e. union to GB for now, England/Wales later) won't vote for a UI.
They wouldn't be Unionists then.
But they are not the majority any more.
The outcome will be decided by the "others".
The only "majority" which counts is that which emerges from a Referendum.
And whether the participants be designated "Unionist", "Nationalist" or "Other", every poll this century (and previously) indicates that a clear and decisive majority of the
votes will be pro-Union.
Time will tell but firstly it has to appear to the SoS that reunification might get a majority.
Quote from: Main Street on July 22, 2020, 12:50:33 AM
So EG essentially you are saying that there are no hopes of negotiation about a settlement path to UI that would gain general acceptance among Unionists, striking a sword to Varadkar's "I have a UI dream".
No, am not saying
that.
Nor would it need "general" acceptance among Unionists either, merely a proportion of them - say 25%?
Rather my point is that the various strategies which have been employed by the different strands of Nationalism and Republicanism over the course of a century have all failed.
And as someone (Einstein?) once observed, a definition of insanity is "repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results."
Quote from: Main Street on July 22, 2020, 12:50:33 AM
So EG essentially you are saying that... ... NI on its own is not a viable concern and is addicted to the substantial British Gov subsidy.
NI is hardly any less a "viable concern" than (post-oil) Scotland, Wales or large parts of England. Though all have thrived at various times in the past, and who knows, could be so again.
Likewise, who would have thought as recently as the late 1970's/early 1980's that the Republic, which had always been an economic basket case throughout its existence, would be the economic success story it is now?
in any case, we are where we are, and if NI were to join a UI in such circumstances, who is going to foot the bill?
Dublin? I think not.
The EU? Just ask eg the Greeks what they think of your chances there!
A dowry from Westminster? Good luck with that one.
Or maybe you're expecting a letter from America any day now?
Quote from: Main Street on July 22, 2020, 12:50:33 AM
That it comes down to a numbers game. Should 50% plus one vote for a UI in a referendum, then and only then would you (Unionists) accept the majority opinion and sit down to negotiate identity issues with a helping of a piece of the EU Central Bank pie, OR refuse to - instead engage in riots, burn stuff and general mayhem.
And the numbers (votes) are massively in our favour, with no sign of that changing in the foreseeable future.
Which was only the point injudiciously conceded by SF's favourite psephologist, Prof. Brendan O'Leary, at a SF fundraiser in New York a few years back. (Of course, SF tried to erase the record, but weren't able to get to an Irish Times reporter quickly enough to, er, "persuade" him that he'd misheard O'Leary, so it slipped out.)
Quote from: Main Street on July 22, 2020, 12:50:33 AM
Should 50% plus one vote for a UI in a referendum, then and only then would you (Unionists) accept the majority opinion and sit down to negotiate identity issues with a helping of a piece of the EU Central Bank pie, OR refuse to - instead engage in riots, burn stuff and general mayhem.
As I keep saying, in the present or foreseeable political dispensation, there is no prospect of the pro-UI vote eventually creeping up to 50%+1.
I mean, look at the Nationalist vote in NI (SF, SDLP, minor parties etc). As O'Leary pointed out, it has plateaued at around 43% in
every election this century, with no sign of it rising again. (And that's only votes cast in an election. As I've pointed out, you cannot simply transpose those votes to a Referendum, where different people vote for different reasons.)
The key to winning any such debate lies not in increasing the Nationalist vote (ain't happening), but in persuading a significant section of the pro-Union electorate to change their stance.
And while I accept that that might be possible in time and without causing a violent backlash, it is never going to happen while there is a chance we may be entrusting our future to a government in Dublin in which SF has power and influence.
For the dogs on the streets know that SF in Dublin take their orders from SF in Belfast, who in turn take their orders from The Army Council.
And the Council?
"Well they haven't gone away, you know", as someone famously said, even if the late Bobby Storey has:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.extra.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F06%2F30182746%2FPRI156187998.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 22, 2020, 12:35:57 AM
Sure we all know Unionists (i.e. union to GB for now, England/Wales later) won't vote for a UI.
They wouldn't be Unionists then.
But they are not the majority any more.
The outcome will be decided by the "others".
The only "majority" which counts is that which emerges from a Referendum.
And whether the participants be designated "Unionist", "Nationalist" or "Other", every poll this century (and previously) indicates that a clear and decisive majority of the votes will be pro-Union.
I'd just wish we could find out for sure. I.e. call the border poll and see who wins, we talk about it enough. It's just democracy.
I beg to differ that the outcome is as you say it would be. I'd have confidence (just a personal feeling - nothing more scientific) that a UI would be won if a border poll was called now.
I suspect unionists have the same fear, otherwise I have a feeling they would be more relaxed about a poll.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 22, 2020, 02:22:23 AM
The bottom line is that the unionist vote is now in the 42-43% range...
The "Unionist vote" as measured by votes cast in elections for DUP/UUP/TUV etc.
But my whole point is that people do not necessarily vote along party lines in Referenda of this sort. Look eg at Scotland, where the SNP was by far the biggest party, but lost their Referendum. Or the Brexit vote, where party lines were completely ignored, in both GB and NI.
(Your 42-43% range - pretty much identical to the Nationalist vote btw - conveniently ignores the 15%-odd who vote "Other", but who would be strongly and demonstrably pro-Union if it came to a UI Referendum)
Quote from: armaghniac on July 22, 2020, 02:22:23 AM
... and even a few of those are open to persuasion.
I agree we could be open to persuasion.
But Nationalism is going have to "write a new script" before that will happen.
For as long as the largest Nationalist Party sees eg Bobby Storey as a great man/true patriot/Republican royalty, while Unionists see him as a mass murderer/terrorist/gangster, then regardless of which view is valid, we are not going to take a chance on a future in the hands of people like that.
Sorry, but it simply ain't gonna happen.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 10:28:00 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:35:08 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 21, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 21, 2020, 03:13:15 PM
Quote from: ardtole on July 21, 2020, 02:27:19 PM
Has anyone from fg in recent times expressed any interest in a united Ireland.
Of course not, they're basically irish tories and west brits.
I wouldn't oversimplify things, Coveney has made his views clear and I think Helen McEntee likewise.
The difference would be that these people actually want a United Ireland, not just to spout off about it without doing anything to achieve it.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that Coveney and others in FG want a UI, and are doing something to achieve it?
yes and yes.
;D ;D would you care to provide evidence for that statement?
Coveney has said several times that he wants to see a United Ireland. In order for there to be serious discussion on a United Ireland people have to believe the there is a feasible plan, that the economics work. They are not going to believe in a plan produced by Martina Anderson or Barry "Bread on the Head" McElduff or in an Ireland run by these people. Coveney's calm demeanor alongside the clowns from London going on about Brexit did more for a UI than the whole of NI Sinn Féin put together.
Said it but put it off as a priority, ie done nothing. Actions speak louder than words. FG have as much interest in a united ireland as the man on the moon, if anything they can do without it. Oh so because he's "calm" then that has done more for a UI? ;D Catch yourself on
EG posts are laughable, wouldn't know where to start if I was to address them individually. Think he knows a UI is inevitable and he's doing his utmost to convince himself, and others, otherwise.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 02:28:07 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 22, 2020, 02:22:23 AM
The bottom line is that the unionist vote is now in the 42-43% range...
The "Unionist vote" as measured by votes cast in elections for DUP/UUP/TUV etc.
But my whole point is that people do not necessarily vote along party lines in Referenda of this sort. Look eg at Scotland, where the SNP was by far the biggest party, but lost their Referendum. Or the Brexit vote, where party lines were completely ignored, in both GB and NI.
(Your 42-43% range - pretty much identical to the Nationalist vote btw - conveniently ignores the 15%-odd who vote "Other", but who would be strongly and demonstrably pro-Union if it came to a UI Referendum)
Quote from: armaghniac on July 22, 2020, 02:22:23 AM
... and even a few of those are open to persuasion.
I agree we could be open to persuasion.
But Nationalism is going have to "write a new script" before that will happen.
For as long as the largest Nationalist Party sees eg Bobby Storey as a great man/true patriot/Republican royalty, while Unionists see him as a mass murderer/terrorist/gangster, then regardless of which view is valid, we are not going to take a chance on a future in the hands of people like that.
Sorry, but it simply ain't gonna happen.
The reality is that a new script is being written for the island with Brexit. And that could significantly impact the direction any fringe/ floating voters are going to vote for. While Covid has taken the focus away from Brexit for the time being it's impact hasn't decreased. With the DUP as the largest Unionist party, Unionists are never going to win (current)nationalists over to wanting to continue in the status quo. So the impact of an extraordinary event like Brexit can not be underestimated.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 02:28:07 PM
But my whole point is that people do not necessarily vote along party lines in Referenda of this sort. Look eg at Scotland, where the SNP was by far the biggest party, but lost their Referendum. Or the Brexit vote, where party lines were completely ignored, in both GB and NI.
I agree there is a lot for those in the pro-unity camp to learn from the aforementioned. Perhaps a tacit campaign of lies and misinformation?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on July 22, 2020, 02:56:35 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 02:28:07 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 22, 2020, 02:22:23 AM
The bottom line is that the unionist vote is now in the 42-43% range...
The "Unionist vote" as measured by votes cast in elections for DUP/UUP/TUV etc.
But my whole point is that people do not necessarily vote along party lines in Referenda of this sort. Look eg at Scotland, where the SNP was by far the biggest party, but lost their Referendum. Or the Brexit vote, where party lines were completely ignored, in both GB and NI.
(Your 42-43% range - pretty much identical to the Nationalist vote btw - conveniently ignores the 15%-odd who vote "Other", but who would be strongly and demonstrably pro-Union if it came to a UI Referendum)
Quote from: armaghniac on July 22, 2020, 02:22:23 AM
... and even a few of those are open to persuasion.
I agree we could be open to persuasion.
But Nationalism is going have to "write a new script" before that will happen.
For as long as the largest Nationalist Party sees eg Bobby Storey as a great man/true patriot/Republican royalty, while Unionists see him as a mass murderer/terrorist/gangster, then regardless of which view is valid, we are not going to take a chance on a future in the hands of people like that.
Sorry, but it simply ain't gonna happen.
The reality is that a new script is being written for the island with Brexit. And that could significantly impact the direction any fringe/ floating voters are going to vote for. While Covid has taken the focus away from Brexit for the time being it's impact hasn't decreased. With the DUP as the largest Unionist party, Unionists are never going to win (current)nationalists over to wanting to continue in the status quo. So the impact of an extraordinary event like Brexit can not be underestimated.
The Boris Johnston factor is huge too. There has never in my mind been a more incompetent or "morally bankrupt" tory government and that is saying something. We would need to get away from them if possible IMO for the good of anyone and everyone. They could not give one hoot about this place. Johnston just makes that more apparent.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on July 22, 2020, 02:52:55 PM
EG posts are laughable, wouldn't know where to start if I was to address them individually. Think he knows a UI is inevitable and he's doing his utmost to convince himself, and others, otherwise.
You can laugh all you like but he's not wrong.
The middle ground who don't vote for the out and out unionist parties (who no longer have a 50% majority) will decide on a UI or not.
One minute the DUP and their Brexit strategy push this group towards a UI till the shinners make yet another f**k up..
Sorry but it simply ain't gonna happen
OK then we'll just forget about it then. Can't stand such arrogance. Like it or not the prospect of a UI has progressed much quicker in the last 10/20 years than anyone ever expected. Even discussing the possibility of a vote on Irish Unity was unthinkable ten years ago. Where will we be in another ten years? I didn't think I'd ever see a united Ireland in my lifetime but I'm convinced more than ever now that I will.
Sorry but it is going to happen.
Quote from: An Watcher on July 22, 2020, 03:44:59 PM
Sorry but it simply ain't gonna happen
OK then we'll just forget about it then. Can't stand such arrogance. Like it or not the prospect of a UI has progressed much quicker in the last 10/20 years than anyone ever expected. Even discussing the possibility of a vote on Irish Unity was unthinkable ten years ago. Where will we be in another ten years? I didn't think I'd ever see a united Ireland in my lifetime but I'm convinced more than ever now that I will.
Sorry but it is going to happen.
Ironic that it was Brexit that is driving the speed of change-not SF who of course were openly anti-EU until Brexit.
Quote from: An Watcher on July 22, 2020, 03:44:59 PM
Sorry but it simply ain't gonna happen
OK then we'll just forget about it then. Can't stand such arrogance. Like it or not the prospect of a UI has progressed much quicker in the last 10/20 years than anyone ever expected. Even discussing the possibility of a vote on Irish Unity was unthinkable ten years ago. Where will we be in another ten years? I didn't think I'd ever see a united Ireland in my lifetime but I'm convinced more than ever now that I will.
Sorry but it is going to happen.
I think it will happen in my lifetime too, but the increasing nationalist demographics won't be enough and work will need to be done to persuade those from a protestant background that their needs will be served in a UI..
So do I and I didn't until Brexit.
Quote from: Rois on July 22, 2020, 06:14:58 AM
EG, I enjoy reading your posts on this topic.
The socio-economic points you list as being a large part of why nationalists (and "other" I'd imagine) wouldn't vote for unity are valid but not insurmountable. I think the New Ireland Forum idea should be used to consider the realities and alternatives in a unification scenario (eg NICS pension scheme is run by NILGOSC and could continue as-is, like any other private investment fund). Let's find out how that could work. Prior to Brexit NI had successfully argued its case to get corp tax devolved, and developed its own business case to remove itself from the London teat, even if only in part. Take that a few steps further. A civic-led forum should explore the myths and realities.
Thank you.
As regards the socio-economic factor, yes, these could be surmounted as you say, but the task is harder than, say, 15 years ago than it is now, essentially for three reasons:
1. The Celtic Tiger is no longer roaring so loudly as previously, so Dublin must be less able/willing to take on the burden than before;
2. With the entry of so many new countries (plus the loss of the UK's contribution), the economic balance of the EU has changed, such that ROI is no longer a net financial beneficiary, nor is it likely to become one again any time soon;
3. Covid-19. No government anywhere in the world is going to take on extra financial commitments it doesn't absolutely have to, including the one in Dublin. Whereas for better or worse, Westminster is stuck with NI and knows it.
Quote from: Rois on July 22, 2020, 06:14:58 AM
Your point on how nationalists are happy that under the GFA they can claim their Irishness grossly misunderstands the impact of Brexit and DUP identity nonsense on this group. Brexit has/will force us to be treated in many respects in the same way as Finchley or Great Yarmouth or Sunderland. You seemingly fail to see the impact this has and will have on nationalists who are being forced into something by Britain.
If you tell me that I've got it wrong as to the reasons
why a section of the Nationalist population in NI either wouldn't vote in a Referendum, or would vote to stay, then fair enough: you doubtless understand their thinking better than me.
But it still doesn't detract from my central thesis that they would
still either abstain to vote to remain.
As for Brexit, the vote was in 2016, and has had only a limited effect on Nationalist thinking over a UI, and none whatever on Unionist thinking.
Proof of this comes in the various opinion polls which have been conducted since eg this one from October 2017
(https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/10/26/news/opinion-poll-finds-one-third-in-favour-irish-unity-1171518/ (https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/10/26/news/opinion-poll-finds-one-third-in-favour-irish-unity-1171518/)), or the BelTel one I quoted previously, from February 2020.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 01:55:10 PM
"Well they haven't gone away, you know", as someone famously said, even if the late Bobby Storey has:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.extra.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F06%2F30182746%2FPRI156187998.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
You stay classy. ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 04:34:54 PM
Quote from: Rois on July 22, 2020, 06:14:58 AM
EG, I enjoy reading your posts on this topic.
The socio-economic points you list as being a large part of why nationalists (and "other" I'd imagine) wouldn't vote for unity are valid but not insurmountable. I think the New Ireland Forum idea should be used to consider the realities and alternatives in a unification scenario (eg NICS pension scheme is run by NILGOSC and could continue as-is, like any other private investment fund). Let's find out how that could work. Prior to Brexit NI had successfully argued its case to get corp tax devolved, and developed its own business case to remove itself from the London teat, even if only in part. Take that a few steps further. A civic-led forum should explore the myths and realities.
Thank you.
As regards the socio-economic factor, yes, these could be surmounted as you say, but the task is harder than, say, 15 years ago than it is now, essentially for three reasons:
1. The Celtic Tiger is no longer roaring so loudly as previously, so Dublin must be less able/willing to take on the burden than before;
2. With the entry of so many new countries (plus the loss of the UK's contribution), the economic balance of the EU has changed, such that ROI is no longer a net financial beneficiary, nor is it likely to become one again any time soon;
3. Covid-19. No government anywhere in the world is going to take on extra financial commitments it doesn't absolutely have to, including the one in Dublin. Whereas for better or worse, Westminster is stuck with NI and knows it.
Quote from: Rois on July 22, 2020, 06:14:58 AM
Your point on how nationalists are happy that under the GFA they can claim their Irishness grossly misunderstands the impact of Brexit and DUP identity nonsense on this group. Brexit has/will force us to be treated in many respects in the same way as Finchley or Great Yarmouth or Sunderland. You seemingly fail to see the impact this has and will have on nationalists who are being forced into something by Britain.
If you tell me that I've got it wrong as to the reasons why a section of the Nationalist population in NI either wouldn't vote in a Referendum, or would vote to stay, then fair enough: you doubtless understand their thinking better than me.
But it still doesn't detract from my central thesis that they would still either abstain to vote to remain.
As for Brexit, the vote was in 2016, and has had only a limited effect on Nationalist thinking over a UI, and none whatever on Unionist thinking.
Proof of this comes in the various opinion polls which have been conducted since eg this one from October 2017
(https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/10/26/news/opinion-poll-finds-one-third-in-favour-irish-unity-1171518/ (https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/10/26/news/opinion-poll-finds-one-third-in-favour-irish-unity-1171518/)), or the BelTel one I quoted previously, from February 2020.
;D
"I will concede that the reasons I gave for having this opinion are nonsense. In no way does that lead me to consider changing said opinion"
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 04:34:54 PM
Quote from: Rois on July 22, 2020, 06:14:58 AM
EG, I enjoy reading your posts on this topic.
The socio-economic points you list as being a large part of why nationalists (and "other" I'd imagine) wouldn't vote for unity are valid but not insurmountable. I think the New Ireland Forum idea should be used to consider the realities and alternatives in a unification scenario (eg NICS pension scheme is run by NILGOSC and could continue as-is, like any other private investment fund). Let's find out how that could work. Prior to Brexit NI had successfully argued its case to get corp tax devolved, and developed its own business case to remove itself from the London teat, even if only in part. Take that a few steps further. A civic-led forum should explore the myths and realities.
Thank you.
As regards the socio-economic factor, yes, these could be surmounted as you say, but the task is harder than, say, 15 years ago than it is now, essentially for three reasons:
1. The Celtic Tiger is no longer roaring so loudly as previously, so Dublin must be less able/willing to take on the burden than before;
2. With the entry of so many new countries (plus the loss of the UK's contribution), the economic balance of the EU has changed, such that ROI is no longer a net financial beneficiary, nor is it likely to become one again any time soon;
3. Covid-19. No government anywhere in the world is going to take on extra financial commitments it doesn't absolutely have to, including the one in Dublin. Whereas for better or worse, Westminster is stuck with NI and knows it.
Quote from: Rois on July 22, 2020, 06:14:58 AM
Your point on how nationalists are happy that under the GFA they can claim their Irishness grossly misunderstands the impact of Brexit and DUP identity nonsense on this group. Brexit has/will force us to be treated in many respects in the same way as Finchley or Great Yarmouth or Sunderland. You seemingly fail to see the impact this has and will have on nationalists who are being forced into something by Britain.
If you tell me that I've got it wrong as to the reasons why a section of the Nationalist population in NI either wouldn't vote in a Referendum, or would vote to stay, then fair enough: you doubtless understand their thinking better than me.
But it still doesn't detract from my central thesis that they would still either abstain to vote to remain.
As for Brexit, the vote was in 2016, and has had only a limited effect on Nationalist thinking over a UI, and none whatever on Unionist thinking.
Proof of this comes in the various opinion polls which have been conducted since eg this one from October 2017
(https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/10/26/news/opinion-poll-finds-one-third-in-favour-irish-unity-1171518/ (https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/10/26/news/opinion-poll-finds-one-third-in-favour-irish-unity-1171518/)), or the BelTel one I quoted previously, from February 2020.
There are polls that say differently. I mentioned Lord Ashcroft's survey - https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/09/my-northern-ireland-survey-finds-the-union-on-a-knife-edge/ which ahs a 51% to 49% in favour.
Also the Lucis talks polls discuss the impact of Brexit and would appear to be significant. https://2514bea3-91c5-415b-a4d7-2b7f18f64d4f.filesusr.com/ugd/024943_c045b5bf2425450fb00275818eab9733.pdf
I think you are severely underestimating the impact of Brexit. Before it I never believed I would see a UI. Now I do.
Why is Brexit so pivotal? With the Republic caught on the hook this week for €16 billion, I suspect that support for EU membership will wane down here over the next while as cutbacks and tax hikes arising from Covid-19 start to bite.
Quote from: five points on July 22, 2020, 05:10:44 PM
Why is Brexit so pivotal? With the Republic caught on the hook this week for €16 billion, I suspect that support for EU membership will wane down here over the next while as cutbacks and tax hikes arising from Covid-19 start to bite.
Yeah, that's not likely to happen any time soon.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-survey-italy-ireland-portugal-eurosceptic-poll-a8888126.html
When Irish people watch the "cutbacks and tax hikes arising from Covid-19" that the UK will inevitably introduce, it would take some snake oil salesman to convince them that the fault for this lies with the EU.
Would I be right in thinking that some people from the Nationalist side would have been content enough with the status quo in 2915 but Brexit and the DUPUDA trying to re establish 1 party rule during 2016 has sent them back to their roots and would vote overwhelmingly for a UI now?
As for 5 points....the right wingers are sputtering all over the place the last few days trying to convince themselves that we want to leave the EU.
Quote from: Franko on July 22, 2020, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: five points on July 22, 2020, 05:10:44 PM
Why is Brexit so pivotal? With the Republic caught on the hook this week for €16 billion, I suspect that support for EU membership will wane down here over the next while as cutbacks and tax hikes arising from Covid-19 start to bite.
Yeah, that's not likely to happen any time soon.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-survey-italy-ireland-portugal-eurosceptic-poll-a8888126.html
When Irish people watch the "cutbacks and tax hikes arising from Covid-19" that the UK will inevitably introduce, it would take some snake oil salesman to convince them that the fault for this lies with the EU.
You know all those surveys tend to be paid for by the EU?
Quote from: Rossfan on July 22, 2020, 05:27:51 PM
As for 5 points....the right wingers are sputtering all over the place the last few days trying to convince themselves that we want to leave the EU.
I didn't say that or anything like it. I did pose a question which nobody has yet answered. I'll wait.
Quote from: Rossfan on July 22, 2020, 05:27:51 PM
Would I be right in thinking that some people from the Nationalist side would have been content enough with the status quo in 2915 but Brexit and the DUPUDA trying to re establish 1 party rule during 2016 has sent them back to their roots and would vote overwhelmingly for a UI now?
As for 5 points....the right wingers are sputtering all over the place the last few days trying to convince themselves that we want to leave the EU.
That's a popular narrative - I.e. nationalists had forgotten themselves and were happy to be patted on the head.
Again, I think what they would have said in a Belfast telegraph survey and done in a real life border poll would have been (and will be) night and day.
Belfast Telegraph polls always skew to the unionist side.
https://uclspp.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0B5YWEzSSbGiuSF (https://uclspp.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0B5YWEzSSbGiuSF)
Public consultation on referendum - l just saw this tonight. Needs a good bit of thought.
Quote from: five points on July 22, 2020, 05:30:12 PM
Quote from: Franko on July 22, 2020, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: five points on July 22, 2020, 05:10:44 PM
Why is Brexit so pivotal? With the Republic caught on the hook this week for €16 billion, I suspect that support for EU membership will wane down here over the next while as cutbacks and tax hikes arising from Covid-19 start to bite.
Yeah, that's not likely to happen any time soon.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-survey-italy-ireland-portugal-eurosceptic-poll-a8888126.html
When Irish people watch the "cutbacks and tax hikes arising from Covid-19" that the UK will inevitably introduce, it would take some snake oil salesman to convince them that the fault for this lies with the EU.
You know all those surveys tend to be paid for by the EU?
Lol, a cracking response. The Czechs must have stiffed them on the bill. 😂
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 04:34:54 PM
As regards the socio-economic factor, yes, these could be surmounted as you say, but the task is harder than, say, 15 years ago than it is now, essentially for three reasons:
1. The Celtic Tiger is no longer roaring so loudly as previously, so Dublin must be less able/willing to take on the burden than before;
2. With the entry of so many new countries (plus the loss of the UK's contribution), the economic balance of the EU has changed, such that ROI is no longer a net financial beneficiary, nor is it likely to become one again any time soon;
3. Covid-19. No government anywhere in the world is going to take on extra financial commitments it doesn't absolutely have to, including the one in Dublin. Whereas for better or worse, Westminster is stuck with NI and knows it.
The ROI economy remains the fastest growing in W. Europe, even this year it grew at 1.2% in Q4 despite being lockded down for the last fortnight. NI has little prospect of growing 1.2% in a year, so the gap is continuing to grow. EU contributions are a relatively small part of the budget and of course in a UI they would probably disappear for a few years. Covid is an issue, but please God Covid will be sorted this time next year by one of the 100+ vaccines and a UI is not going to happen in that timescale.
Quote from: Evil GeniusBrexit, the vote was in 2016, and has had only a limited effect on Nationalist thinking over a UI, and none whatever on Unionist thinking.
I tihink you underestimate the effect on nationalist and "middle of the road" thinking. In its geographic position the EU was an ideal entity for NI, a neutral body to conduct necessary coordination of practical matters on this island without bringing politics into it. The unionist population voted against the EU that was benefiting them in an attempt to overthrow the GFA. This made it clear to everyone else that NI had no future in its present configuration.
Your selective use of polls ignores the many that show a marked change after 2016, for example the Ashcroft poll
(https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/1-Border-poll-vote-1-768x384.png)
that said, the union is still safe among the OAPs.
Quote from: Chief on July 22, 2020, 05:47:38 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 22, 2020, 05:27:51 PM
Would I be right in thinking that some people from the Nationalist side would have been content enough with the status quo in 2915 but Brexit and the DUPUDA trying to re establish 1 party rule during 2016 has sent them back to their roots and would vote overwhelmingly for a UI now?
That's a popular narrative - I.e. nationalists had forgotten themselves and were happy to be patted on the head.
Again, I think what they would have said in a Belfast telegraph survey and done in a real life border poll would have been (and will be) night and day.
There's truth in both of these in my experience - some nationalists wouldn't have pushed too hard for a border poll/UI before Brexit - though if it happened, I dare say they'd have voted with their hearts in favour. of a UI The narrative has now changed with the Brexit vote in terms of how vocal and active this previously silent bunch are getting. I count myself in this group.
So the results of a border poll may not have been much different, but the determination/restlessness to bring it about has definitely strengthened.
I would feel exactly the same Rois. Brexit is a game changer for me. To me it should also show to unionists how little the DUP actually care about them and how it's all about themselves and feathering their own nests.
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 23, 2020, 08:21:37 AM
I would feel exactly the same Rois. Brexit is a game changer for me. To me it should also show to unionists how little the DUP actually care about them and how it's all about themselves and feathering their own nests.
I think we (nationalists) always knew the DUP feathered their nests but their dogma in wanting to align with the very right wing of the torys and even Aaron Banks and the likes should be a wake up call for unionists but as we haven't really felt the pain of Brexit as yet I think those types of unionists will look to their pockets and maybe consider a UI just like some small n nationalists who would maybe have wavered slightly on a UI will be reinforced.
Shinners should be out with their appeasement rhetoric to at least attempt to win them over, but then Martina and Francie will open their gobs...
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 23, 2020, 08:21:37 AM
I would feel exactly the same Rois. Brexit is a game changer for me. To me it should also show to unionists how little the DUP actually care about them and how it's all about themselves and feathering their own nests.
As if that will make a difference. They still vote for IPJ in their droves to despite all his antics. Neighbours of my parents in SB who seem on face value moderate at the 2017 GE said they were voting DUP to keep SF out. SF didnt have a hope in that seat. UUP and Alliance were standing but didnt get a mention. Of course the real reason was DUP pengelly was still prefereable even than moderate SDLP in their minds and in that election it worked
Hopefully that was a lesson to south belfast. There shouldn't be a DUPer in south belfast.
Eventually they will waken up. Currently the policy is basically if you don't vote for us SF will get in and in a lot of areas it is working. Eventually that has to die out - hopefully anyway.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 22, 2020, 01:55:10 PM
NI is hardly any less a "viable concern" than (post-oil) Scotland, Wales or large parts of England. Though all have thrived at various times in the past, and who knows, could be so again.
Likewise, who would have thought as recently as the late 1970's/early 1980's that the Republic, which had always been an economic basket case throughout its existence, would be the economic success story it is now?
in any case, we are where we are, and if NI were to join a UI in such circumstances, who is going to foot the bill?
Dublin? I think not.
The EU? Just ask eg the Greeks what they think of your chances there!
A dowry from Westminster? Good luck with that one.
Or maybe you're expecting a letter from America any day now?
You are 7 years behind the times when it comes to EU and ECB economic policy since 2013.
The Greek fiscal deficit was +1% last year.
NI's fiscal deficit since the turn of the century is about - 35% to -38% on average. Year in year out in NI, the difference between income and expenditure hovers around the 10bn mark for the last 20 years
All this GBP 200bn paid for by the extending the UK national debt by 200BN to a total of 2Tn.
The EU stood solid in support of the GFA, in fact George Mitchell claimed recently that there would have been no GFA but for the EU.
Why do you think the EU would not stand behind and support a UI referendum and offer solid support should the outcome be a 'positive' yes to a UI? The ECB could purchase Irish Gov bonds at zero interest ad infinitum for years..
QuoteAnd while I accept that that might be possible in time and without causing a violent backlash, it is never going to happen while there is a chance we may be entrusting our future to a government in Dublin in which SF has power and influence.
For the dogs on the streets know that SF in Dublin take their orders from SF in Belfast, who in turn take their orders from The Army Council.
And the Council? "Well they haven't gone away, you know", as someone famously said, even if the late Bobby Storey has:
The old Unionist bogeyman use to be Roman Rule and the harlot Pope whose apparent goal in life was to destroy all Ulster protestants after raping all the women. Now this bogey is replaced by the hidden demonic hands of the old ageing IRA council, as they depart one by one (socially distant) to their hereafter.
Quote from: Main Street on July 23, 2020, 09:37:01 AM
The EU stood solid in support of the GFA, in fact George Mitchell claimed recently that there would have been no GFA but for the EU.
Mitchell is talking through his behind sadly. The EU barely lifted a finger to assist the cause of peace and in its predecessor EC & EEC forms tolerated 20 years of the Troubles and did nothing in response.
Quote from: Franko on July 22, 2020, 11:41:28 PM
Quote from: five points on July 22, 2020, 05:30:12 PM
Quote from: Franko on July 22, 2020, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: five points on July 22, 2020, 05:10:44 PM
Why is Brexit so pivotal? With the Republic caught on the hook this week for €16 billion, I suspect that support for EU membership will wane down here over the next while as cutbacks and tax hikes arising from Covid-19 start to bite.
Yeah, that's not likely to happen any time soon.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-survey-italy-ireland-portugal-eurosceptic-poll-a8888126.html
When Irish people watch the "cutbacks and tax hikes arising from Covid-19" that the UK will inevitably introduce, it would take some snake oil salesman to convince them that the fault for this lies with the EU.
You know all those surveys tend to be paid for by the EU?
Lol, a cracking response. The Czechs must have stiffed them on the bill. 😂
Laugh away. This was a Eurobarometer poll, bought and paid for by the European Parliament.
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm
https://www.newstalk.com/news/80-irish-people-vote-stay-eu-poll-finds-852096
Quote
A new survey has shown that, if a referendum on EU membership were held tomorrow, 83% of people in Ireland would vote to remain.
This is the second highest result in the EU, after the Netherlands.
The European Parliament survey found that 8% here would vote to leave the bloc, while 9% were not sure.
While the same question asked in Britain saw 35% saying they would vote to leave the bloc, 53% would remain and 12% were not sure.
The Spring 2019 Eurobarometer was conducted three months ahead of the European elections.
Some 68% of respondents across the EU27 believe that their countries have benefited from being part of the EU.
Quote from: johnnycool on July 23, 2020, 08:39:56 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 23, 2020, 08:21:37 AM
I would feel exactly the same Rois. Brexit is a game changer for me. To me it should also show to unionists how little the DUP actually care about them and how it's all about themselves and feathering their own nests.
I think we (nationalists) always knew the DUP feathered their nests but their dogma in wanting to align with the very right wing of the torys and even Aaron Banks and the likes should be a wake up call for unionists but as we haven't really felt the pain of Brexit as yet I think those types of unionists will look to their pockets and maybe consider a UI just like some small n nationalists who would maybe have wavered slightly on a UI will be reinforced.
Shinners should be out with their appeasement rhetoric to at least attempt to win them over, but then Martina and Francie will open their gobs...
I think we all thought the DUP would feather their nests but that in general their voters would act to support the union, yet they all rolled in behind Brexit which is the biggest threat to the union since 1920. I find all of this very strange.
They were conned.
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 23, 2020, 10:58:41 AM
They were conned.
Something that nobody seems very annoyed about, no heads rolled in the DUP, there has been no reflection on the issue at all.
Mind you, the likes of Simon Hamilton left and the DUP haven't a great profile among the younger voters.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 23, 2020, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 23, 2020, 10:58:41 AM
They were conned.
Something that nobody seems very annoyed about, no heads rolled in the DUP, there has been no reflection on the issue at all.
Mind you, the likes of Simon Hamilton left and the DUP haven't a great profile among the younger voters.
Armaghniac - no one is annoyed yet because nothing has really changed yet.
Just wait until January when they start to see changes and more importantly less money in their pockets.
The majority of people in NI care more about putting bread on the table than a political party - if you are hit in your pocket things change very quickly
Presumably DUPUDA and their voters thought Brexit would reintroduce a hard border and drive a wedge between 6 and 26?
Also of course it proved their überBritness.
When their annual heat period ends on 1st September will they have the brains to realise having a foot in the GB market and the 440m EU market is a unique positive for the North that they might be able to cash in on for the greater good?
Quote from: Taylor on July 23, 2020, 11:29:56 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 23, 2020, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 23, 2020, 10:58:41 AM
They were conned.
Something that nobody seems very annoyed about, no heads rolled in the DUP, there has been no reflection on the issue at all.
Mind you, the likes of Simon Hamilton left and the DUP haven't a great profile among the younger voters.
Armaghniac - no one is annoyed yet because nothing has really changed yet.
Just wait until January when they start to see changes and more importantly less money in their pockets.
The majority of people in NI care more about putting bread on the table than a political party - if you are hit in your pocket things change very quickly
It will make no difference.
Check out the stories about the pogroms in the shipyards in the 1920's - it's all about being more british than the british. The mentality is always no, no, no. Will never change.
Unionists have only the DUP now. It's back to a one party outfit for them. The UUP have been swallowed up.
It really is a head count now. All boils down to the numbers game.
Quote from: marty34 on July 23, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Taylor on July 23, 2020, 11:29:56 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 23, 2020, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 23, 2020, 10:58:41 AM
They were conned.
Something that nobody seems very annoyed about, no heads rolled in the DUP, there has been no reflection on the issue at all.
Mind you, the likes of Simon Hamilton left and the DUP haven't a great profile among the younger voters.
Armaghniac - no one is annoyed yet because nothing has really changed yet.
Just wait until January when they start to see changes and more importantly less money in their pockets.
The majority of people in NI care more about putting bread on the table than a political party - if you are hit in your pocket things change very quickly
It will make no difference.
Check out the stories about the pogroms in the shipyards in the 1920's - it's all about being more british than the british. The mentality is always no, no, no. Will never change.
Unionists have only the DUP now. It's back to a one party outfit for them. The UUP have been swallowed up.
It really is a head count now. All boils down to the numbers game.
I take your point but back then most people only ever knew poverty and tough times.
There is a new generation of people who have had disposable income for a long time - if that starts to change expect a major shift and God forbid an independent party who is not about the green or orange...........I thought Alliance were that party but they cant keep from getting caught up in the mire of the hatred
Quote from: Taylor on July 23, 2020, 11:41:12 AM
Quote from: marty34 on July 23, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Taylor on July 23, 2020, 11:29:56 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 23, 2020, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 23, 2020, 10:58:41 AM
They were conned.
Something that nobody seems very annoyed about, no heads rolled in the DUP, there has been no reflection on the issue at all.
Mind you, the likes of Simon Hamilton left and the DUP haven't a great profile among the younger voters.
Armaghniac - no one is annoyed yet because nothing has really changed yet.
Just wait until January when they start to see changes and more importantly less money in their pockets.
The majority of people in NI care more about putting bread on the table than a political party - if you are hit in your pocket things change very quickly
It will make no difference.
Check out the stories about the pogroms in the shipyards in the 1920's - it's all about being more british than the british. The mentality is always no, no, no. Will never change.
Unionists have only the DUP now. It's back to a one party outfit for them. The UUP have been swallowed up.
It really is a head count now. All boils down to the numbers game.
I take your point but back then most people only ever knew poverty and tough times.
There is a new generation of people who have had disposable income for a long time - if that starts to change expect a major shift and God forbid an independent party who is not about the green or orange...........I thought Alliance were that party but they cant keep from getting caught up in the mire of the hatred
Alliance are ok until you ask the important question: where do they stand on the union etc.?
All well being 'neutral' but no good when the elephant is in the room. Only thing is that when their voters realise what will happen after Brexit, then they might think twice.
Weren't most Alliance voters anti Brexit?
They're also the ones who will in effect decide the "Border Poll".
Quote from: marty34 on July 23, 2020, 01:29:29 PM
Quote from: Taylor on July 23, 2020, 11:41:12 AM
Quote from: marty34 on July 23, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Taylor on July 23, 2020, 11:29:56 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 23, 2020, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 23, 2020, 10:58:41 AM
They were conned.
Something that nobody seems very annoyed about, no heads rolled in the DUP, there has been no reflection on the issue at all.
Mind you, the likes of Simon Hamilton left and the DUP haven't a great profile among the younger voters.
Armaghniac - no one is annoyed yet because nothing has really changed yet.
Just wait until January when they start to see changes and more importantly less money in their pockets.
The majority of people in NI care more about putting bread on the table than a political party - if you are hit in your pocket things change very quickly
It will make no difference.
Check out the stories about the pogroms in the shipyards in the 1920's - it's all about being more british than the british. The mentality is always no, no, no. Will never change.
Unionists have only the DUP now. It's back to a one party outfit for them. The UUP have been swallowed up.
It really is a head count now. All boils down to the numbers game.
I take your point but back then most people only ever knew poverty and tough times.
There is a new generation of people who have had disposable income for a long time - if that starts to change expect a major shift and God forbid an independent party who is not about the green or orange...........I thought Alliance were that party but they cant keep from getting caught up in the mire of the hatred
Alliance are ok until you ask the important question: where do they stand on the union etc.?
All well being 'neutral' but no good when the elephant is in the room. Only thing is that when their voters realise what will happen after Brexit, then they might think twice.
On a day to day basis it is not the important question. Day to day most people are more concerned about whether their bins will be lifted and roads fixed than they are about who the leisure centre or play park is named after.
Quote from: LeoMc on July 23, 2020, 01:54:05 PM
Quote from: marty34 on July 23, 2020, 01:29:29 PM
Quote from: Taylor on July 23, 2020, 11:41:12 AM
Quote from: marty34 on July 23, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Taylor on July 23, 2020, 11:29:56 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 23, 2020, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 23, 2020, 10:58:41 AM
They were conned.
Something that nobody seems very annoyed about, no heads rolled in the DUP, there has been no reflection on the issue at all.
Mind you, the likes of Simon Hamilton left and the DUP haven't a great profile among the younger voters.
Armaghniac - no one is annoyed yet because nothing has really changed yet.
Just wait until January when they start to see changes and more importantly less money in their pockets.
The majority of people in NI care more about putting bread on the table than a political party - if you are hit in your pocket things change very quickly
It will make no difference.
Check out the stories about the pogroms in the shipyards in the 1920's - it's all about being more british than the british. The mentality is always no, no, no. Will never change.
Unionists have only the DUP now. It's back to a one party outfit for them. The UUP have been swallowed up.
It really is a head count now. All boils down to the numbers game.
I take your point but back then most people only ever knew poverty and tough times.
There is a new generation of people who have had disposable income for a long time - if that starts to change expect a major shift and God forbid an independent party who is not about the green or orange...........I thought Alliance were that party but they cant keep from getting caught up in the mire of the hatred
Alliance are ok until you ask the important question: where do they stand on the union etc.?
All well being 'neutral' but no good when the elephant is in the room. Only thing is that when their voters realise what will happen after Brexit, then they might think twice.
On a day to day basis it is not the important question. Day to day most people are more concerned about whether their bins will be lifted and roads fixed than they are about who the leisure centre or play park is named after.
True - but you cannot deny that the constitutional question is the ever present undercurrent to every issue in the North.
It permeates literally everything - the area you live in, the school you go to, what your pass times are likely to be, what pub you drink in etc, etc, depressingly etc
I'm not sure if "A Shared Home Place" (the story of Seamus Mallon RIP) has been mentioned earlier on this thread.
It's well worth a read given that he was a central figure in Nationalist politics for so long.
His views on a Border Poll are summarised here:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/seamus-mallon-warns-against-premature-border-poll-1.3894881 (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/seamus-mallon-warns-against-premature-border-poll-1.3894881)
Quote from: LeoMc on July 23, 2020, 01:54:05 PM
Quote from: marty34 on July 23, 2020, 01:29:29 PM
Quote from: Taylor on July 23, 2020, 11:41:12 AM
Quote from: marty34 on July 23, 2020, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Taylor on July 23, 2020, 11:29:56 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 23, 2020, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 23, 2020, 10:58:41 AM
They were conned.
Something that nobody seems very annoyed about, no heads rolled in the DUP, there has been no reflection on the issue at all.
Mind you, the likes of Simon Hamilton left and the DUP haven't a great profile among the younger voters.
Armaghniac - no one is annoyed yet because nothing has really changed yet.
Just wait until January when they start to see changes and more importantly less money in their pockets.
The majority of people in NI care more about putting bread on the table than a political party - if you are hit in your pocket things change very quickly
It will make no difference.
Check out the stories about the pogroms in the shipyards in the 1920's - it's all about being more british than the british. The mentality is always no, no, no. Will never change.
Unionists have only the DUP now. It's back to a one party outfit for them. The UUP have been swallowed up.
It really is a head count now. All boils down to the numbers game.
I take your point but back then most people only ever knew poverty and tough times.
There is a new generation of people who have had disposable income for a long time - if that starts to change expect a major shift and God forbid an independent party who is not about the green or orange...........I thought Alliance were that party but they cant keep from getting caught up in the mire of the hatred
Alliance are ok until you ask the important question: where do they stand on the union etc.?
All well being 'neutral' but no good when the elephant is in the room. Only thing is that when their voters realise what will happen after Brexit, then they might think twice.
On a day to day basis it is not the important question. Day to day most people are more concerned about whether their bins will be lifted and roads fixed than they are about who the leisure centre or play park is named after.
Bins will be collected regardless of who is in charge - roads will be fixed etc.
As time goes on, it's about the big question. That's clear, especially since Brexit. All about the numbers game.
Quote from: five points on July 23, 2020, 09:55:10 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 23, 2020, 09:37:01 AM
The EU stood solid in support of the GFA, in fact George Mitchell claimed recently that there would have been no GFA but for the EU.
Mitchell is talking through his behind sadly. The EU barely lifted a finger to assist the cause of peace and in its predecessor EC & EEC forms tolerated 20 years of the Troubles and did nothing in response.
All that EU peace fund money buys some amount of "community" workers..
The treat of that money being pulled softened to cough of a good few of them when there was a bit of agitation going on.
Colm is almost always angry. A wee bit of humour and charm would help him come across better.
Quote from: Sportacus on September 17, 2020, 11:17:08 PM
Colm is almost always angry. A wee bit of humour and charm would help him come across better.
I think he needs to be that way so SF can't paint him as 'soft'.
I actually think he is the most capable of all the leaders of the main parties at present.
Quote from: Chief on September 17, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on September 17, 2020, 11:17:08 PM
Colm is almost always angry. A wee bit of humour and charm would help him come across better.
I think he needs to be that way so SF can't paint him as 'soft'.
I actually think he is the most capable of all the leaders of the main parties at present.
What has he done to justify your opinion that he is the most capable leader, other than to sell out the basic principles of the SDLP and form an alliance with a right wing capitalist party in the south?
Quote from: Windmill abu on September 17, 2020, 11:37:13 PM
Quote from: Chief on September 17, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on September 17, 2020, 11:17:08 PM
Colm is almost always angry. A wee bit of humour and charm would help him come across better.
I think he needs to be that way so SF can't paint him as 'soft'.
I actually think he is the most capable of all the leaders of the main parties at present.
What has he done to justify your opinion that he is the most capable leader, other than to sell out the basic principles of the SDLP and form an alliance with a right wing capitalist party in the south?
Fianna Fáil? It's incorrect to put them as anything other than centrists - they are chameleons of the centre - they move left and right depending on what will get them elected.
Capable - because he's stopped the rot of the electoral forces of the the SDLP when they were in danger of extinction.
Capable - because he is much more articulate on Brexit than any other leader, but most importantly much more articulate than the leader of his main electoral rival SF.
Capable - because he can brush away his failures quite swiftly and quietly. Remember the "vote for Mike and you'll get Colum" bollocks...
Capable - because he can pivot from the above position to an alliance with a Republican Party of government in the 26 counties, whilst at the same time criticise the DUP for doing the same with the Tories.
Capable - because he is the most articulate opposition voice (amongst the main leaders) to dissident violence. He contains neither the hypocrisy of SF, or the back stiffening double speak of unionist parties.
Capable - because his opinion is the one that makes unionism most uncomfortable when he pipes up about a border poll - because he is credible and appealing to fence sitters.
Just my opinion, not gospel
Quote from: Chief on September 17, 2020, 11:52:00 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on September 17, 2020, 11:37:13 PM
Quote from: Chief on September 17, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on September 17, 2020, 11:17:08 PM
Colm is almost always angry. A wee bit of humour and charm would help him come across better.
I think he needs to be that way so SF can't paint him as 'soft'.
I actually think he is the most capable of all the leaders of the main parties at present.
What has he done to justify your opinion that he is the most capable leader, other than to sell out the basic principles of the SDLP and form an alliance with a right wing capitalist party in the south?
Fianna Fáil? It's incorrect to put them as anything other than centrists - they are chameleons of the centre - they move left and right depending on what will get them elected.
Capable - because he's stopped the rot of the electoral forces of the the SDLP when they were in danger of extinction.
Capable - because he is much more articulate on Brexit than any other leader, but most importantly much more articulate than the leader of his main electoral rival SF.
Capable - because he can brush away his failures quite swiftly and quietly. Remember the "vote for Mike and you'll get Colum" bollocks...
Capable - because he can pivot from the above position to an alliance with a Republican Party of government in the 26 counties, whilst at the same time criticise the DUP for doing the same with the Tories.
Capable - because he is the most articulate opposition voice (amongst the main leaders) to dissident violence. He contains neither the hypocrisy of SF, or the back stiffening double speak of unionist parties.
Capable - because his opinion is the one that makes unionism most uncomfortable when he pipes up about a border poll - because he is credible and appealing to fence sitters.
Just my opinion, not gospel
Hold on, did you refer to FF as a republican party?
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 08:27:50 AM
Quote from: Chief on September 17, 2020, 11:52:00 PM
Quote from: Windmill abu on September 17, 2020, 11:37:13 PM
Quote from: Chief on September 17, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Sportacus on September 17, 2020, 11:17:08 PM
Colm is almost always angry. A wee bit of humour and charm would help him come across better.
I think he needs to be that way so SF can't paint him as 'soft'.
I actually think he is the most capable of all the leaders of the main parties at present.
What has he done to justify your opinion that he is the most capable leader, other than to sell out the basic principles of the SDLP and form an alliance with a right wing capitalist party in the south?
Fianna Fáil? It's incorrect to put them as anything other than centrists - they are chameleons of the centre - they move left and right depending on what will get them elected.
Capable - because he's stopped the rot of the electoral forces of the the SDLP when they were in danger of extinction.
Capable - because he is much more articulate on Brexit than any other leader, but most importantly much more articulate than the leader of his main electoral rival SF.
Capable - because he can brush away his failures quite swiftly and quietly. Remember the "vote for Mike and you'll get Colum" bollocks...
Capable - because he can pivot from the above position to an alliance with a Republican Party of government in the 26 counties, whilst at the same time criticise the DUP for doing the same with the Tories.
Capable - because he is the most articulate opposition voice (amongst the main leaders) to dissident violence. He contains neither the hypocrisy of SF, or the back stiffening double speak of unionist parties.
Capable - because his opinion is the one that makes unionism most uncomfortable when he pipes up about a border poll - because he is credible and appealing to fence sitters.
Just my opinion, not gospel
Hold on, did you refer to FF as a republican party?
I guess in name if not in deed
Since when did FF want a Monarchy?
Quote from: Rossfan on September 18, 2020, 09:35:01 AM
Since when did FF want a Monarchy?
As they are a partionist party who try to undermine a United Ireland and are happy for a monarchy to rule the 6 counties.
FF are anti-republican and Michael Martin is a vile a free state establishment quisling as you could unearth.
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 18, 2020, 09:35:01 AM
Since when did FF want a Monarchy?
partionist party
undermine a United Ireland
anti-republican vile a free state establishment quisling
That sort if sh1te will certainly undermine a UI .
Who would vote to join with mindsets like that.
Quote from: Rossfan on September 18, 2020, 12:56:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 18, 2020, 09:35:01 AM
Since when did FF want a Monarchy?
partionist party
undermine a United Ireland
anti-republican vile a free state establishment quisling
That sort if sh1te will certainly undermine a UI .
Who would vote to join with mindsets like that.
No what undermines a United Ireland is the likes of FF and their rotten gravy train Free State that they have whored off to billionaires for personal gain.
Quote from: Rossfan on September 18, 2020, 12:56:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 18, 2020, 09:35:01 AM
Since when did FF want a Monarchy?
partionist party
undermine a United Ireland
anti-republican vile a free state establishment quisling
That sort if sh1te will certainly undermine a UI .
Who would vote to join with mindsets like that.
It's fairly well established on this board that you have no interest in a UI anyway.
And where was that established exactly?
I've been spelling out what I believe the new All Ireland State will be for 10 years or more here.
Hint - it won't be an extension of South Armagh run by the likes of Angelo.
Quote from: Rossfan on September 18, 2020, 01:39:05 PM
And where was that established exactly?
I've been spelling out what I believe the new All Ireland State will be for 10 years or more here.
Hint - it won't be an extension of South Armagh run by the likes of Angelo.
It's fairly well established that you are a partitionist, establishment shill who has supported Free State political parties that have shown nothing but utter contempt for that nationalist population of the O6.
A spell under the Brits might do someone like you the world of good in terms of perspective.
Great to get a laugh on a Friday evening ;D
Quote from: Rossfan on September 18, 2020, 03:44:38 PM
Great to get a laugh on a Friday evening ;D
As usual, you're lacking anything short of substance.
Quelle suprise for a blueshirt (who doesn't even have the backbone to admit it).
This is getting even funnier :D
Quote from: Rossfan on September 18, 2020, 05:45:47 PM
This is getting even funnier :D
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
I'm still laughing because you keep proving you're an extremist narrow minded clown who can't stomach the fact that there are other opinions than yours.
Now come out of your cave and tell me how continuously insulting 5 million Irish people is going to convince them to unite with you?
Quote from: Rossfan on September 18, 2020, 06:36:08 PM
I'm still laughing because you keep proving you're an extremist narrow minded clown who can't stomach the fact that there are other opinions than yours.
Now come out of your cave and tell me how continuously insulting 5 million Irish people is going to convince them to unite with you?
No.
You're actually not laughing, you're putting on a front because you're a bit of a halfwit who doesn't have the intelligence to articulate his gombeen views.
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
(https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg)
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
(https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg)
Ah look, here's the quasi-unionist to throw in his few cents.
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
(https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg)
Ah look, here's the quasi-unionist to throw in his few cents.
Jabbers, that takes the biscuit, I've been called many's the thing on this forum, quasi-unionist wasn't one of them, quite the reverse.
As I say pure comedy gold ;D
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
(https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg)
Ah look, here's the quasi-unionist to throw in his few cents.
Jabbers, that takes the biscuit, I've been called many's the thing on this forum, quasi-unionist wasn't one of them, quite the reverse.
Any person from a nationalist background in the north who defends and promotes the Free State establishment parties attitude and policies to the northern situation during the troubles is a wrong one and you are certainly guilty of that.
SDLP are now alliance lite, their one policy is "ah but SF and the DUP, sure their each as bad as each other." Tedious from Eastwood a single transferable whinge.
Eastwood is as bad a leader as the SDLP have ever had. Surely they have to have someone better in their ranks?
It's amazing how many people point to he 2019 General Election as evidence of him being a good leader for having gotten two MPs elected.
In reality, one of those was his own success in Foyle, the SDLP's (sole remaining) stronghold, which was also his home constituency, where he was running as the party leader, and was standing against probably the weakest candidate SF in the north at the time. Hardly the greatest political achievement of our time. While the other seat won was in South Belfast where Sinn Féin stood aside to give them a clear run against the DUP.
His tweet yesterday trying to justify their abstention had a severe 'when you're explaining, you're losing' vibe about it.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 13, 2020, 11:12:41 AM
It's amazing how many people point to he 2019 General Election as evidence of him being a good leader for having gotten two MPs elected.
In reality, one of those was his own success in Foyle, the SDLP's (sole remaining) stronghold, which was also his home constituency, where he was running as the party leader, and was standing against probably the weakest candidate SF in the north at the time. Hardly the greatest political achievement of our time. While the other seat won was in South Belfast where Sinn Féin stood aside to give them a clear run against the DUP.
His tweet yesterday trying to justify their abstention had a severe 'when you're explaining, you're losing' vibe about it.
The SDLP frustrate the life out of me as a voter, I am their demographic but the drive me to vote SF. Mainly because much as I dislike some of SF's antics, I've had a positive experience with their Reps as opposed to the SDLP who I've found hard work to deal with. but also because they have nothing to offer other than said single transferable whinge.
Did anybody see Nichola Mallon's video response on twitter justifying her abstaining from the vote?
I struggled to understand her reasoning.
1 - She said SDLP supported a 2 week extension to current restrictions - which the DUP vetoed
2 - She said SDLP then supported Robin Swann's counter proposal for a 1 week extension to the current restrictions - again vetoed
3 - She then said that she/SDLP couldn't support what was finally agreed - a 1 week extension to current restrictions, with a second week of partial extensions - so she abstained??
Is it just me - or was the 3rd option which is now in play not a better (closer to the 1st option) result than the 2nd option which was supporting??
Quote from: JohnDenver on November 13, 2020, 11:44:06 AM
Did anybody see Nichola Mallon's video response on twitter justifying her abstaining from the vote?
I struggled to understand her reasoning.
1 - She said SDLP supported a 2 week extension to current restrictions - which the DUP vetoed
2 - She said SDLP then supported Robin Swann's counter proposal for a 1 week extension to the current restrictions - again vetoed
3 - She then said that she/SDLP couldn't support what was finally agreed - a 1 week extension to current restrictions, with a second week of partial extensions - so she abstained??
Is it just me - or was the 3rd option which is now in play not a better (closer to the 1st option) result than the 2nd option which was supporting??
The SDLP are now defined by the whole a but SF narrative. I had to stop following Eastwood on twitter because there was nothing resembling a coherent policy or strategy.
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
At least she went on to face him, he's a hateful hoor but no way stupid and backed up in advance of every interview with tonnes of info from a full production team.
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 13, 2020, 11:40:33 AM
The SDLP frustrate the life out of me as a voter, I am their demographic but the drive me to vote SF. Mainly because much as I dislike some of SF's antics, I've had a positive experience with their Reps as opposed to the SDLP who I've found hard work to deal with. but also because they have nothing to offer other than said single transferable whinge.
I'm exactly the same. Thankfully I've never really had any issues that I needed assistance with from any councillor, MLA or MP but around 10 years ago I had a particular issue I needed help with. It was around the time of assembly elections. I had local SLDP representatives canvassing at my door and I told them they'd get my vote if they could assist me. Their local councillor took my details and she promised me they'd be in touch in a few days. Needless to say I never heard from her or anyone in the SDLP after that and they didn't get my vote. Spoke to a Sinn Fein councillor some time after that and they had taken the matter up in the space of a few weeks and it was resolved a month or so after that between their local councillor and MP for my area. It was a major issue for us at the time and we were under alot of stress. While I'm no fan of some of the SF antics especially at Stormont they get things done on the ground at a local level. My mother and father have had a similar issue with the SDLP on a different matter where they promised them the world in sorting out a particular issue which dragged on for months but someone from SF stepped in and had it sorted in a matter of weeks. All promises when standing on your doorstep. Apart from Patsy McGlone I'd have very little time for any of the rest of them.
Our family would have been traditional SDLP voters but they have seriously lost their way in the last 10 or 15 years and I don't think any of us will vote SDLP again. It's a constant bashing of other parties particularly SF instead of them carving out their own path.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:17 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
At least she went on to face him, he's a hateful hoor but no way stupid and backed up in advance of every interview with tonnes of info from a full production team.
The SDLP shouldn't be giving that bigot any time at all.
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:17 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
At least she went on to face him, he's a hateful hoor but no way stupid and backed up in advance of every interview with tonnes of info from a full production team.
The SDLP shouldn't be giving that bigot any time at all.
Unfortunately the electorate listen to the show. Why should we the nationalist people give him a free reign
Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on November 16, 2020, 11:10:02 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 13, 2020, 11:40:33 AM
The SDLP frustrate the life out of me as a voter, I am their demographic but the drive me to vote SF. Mainly because much as I dislike some of SF's antics, I've had a positive experience with their Reps as opposed to the SDLP who I've found hard work to deal with. but also because they have nothing to offer other than said single transferable whinge.
I'm exactly the same. Thankfully I've never really had any issues that I needed assistance with from any councillor, MLA or MP but around 10 years ago I had a particular issue I needed help with. It was around the time of assembly elections. I had local SLDP representatives canvassing at my door and I told them they'd get my vote if they could assist me. Their local councillor took my details and she promised me they'd be in touch in a few days. Needless to say I never heard from her or anyone in the SDLP after that and they didn't get my vote. Spoke to a Sinn Fein councillor some time after that and they had taken the matter up in the space of a few weeks and it was resolved a month or so after that between their local councillor and MP for my area. It was a major issue for us at the time and we were under alot of stress. While I'm no fan of some of the SF antics especially at Stormont they get things done on the ground at a local level. My mother and father have had a similar issue with the SDLP on a different matter where they promised them the world in sorting out a particular issue which dragged on for months but someone from SF stepped in and had it sorted in a matter of weeks. All promises when standing on your doorstep. Apart from Patsy McGlone I'd have very little time for any of the rest of them.
Our family would have been traditional SDLP voters but they have seriously lost their way in the last 10 or 15 years and I don't think any of us will vote SDLP again. It's a constant bashing of other parties particularly SF instead of them carving out their own path.
We had similar experience with both SF and SDLP. Sean Carr (Ind) best around our way for that sort of thing. Drains, fences, roads, anti social etc Gary Donnelly(Ind) in Creggan the man there. We had SF come out to our estate to set up a meeting to "help" with issues. Really they were only there because they heard locals wanted to set up commmunity association and were putting pressure on council to find out who owned disused community hall, young fathers were breaking into locked park to let local wains use park. It turns out it was a money spinner for SF who owned building and wasn't happy to negotiate with residents who werent run by SF community led group.
Once SF they found out that the residents wanted to be drivers behind the association they abandoned area and done nothing we asked for help with.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 12:46:10 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:17 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
At least she went on to face him, he's a hateful hoor but no way stupid and backed up in advance of every interview with tonnes of info from a full production team.
The SDLP shouldn't be giving that bigot any time at all.
Unfortunately the electorate listen to the show. Why should we the nationalist people give him a free reign
Do they?
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:41:32 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
(https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg)
Ah look, here's the quasi-unionist to throw in his few cents.
Jabbers, that takes the biscuit, I've been called many's the thing on this forum, quasi-unionist wasn't one of them, quite the reverse.
Any person from a nationalist background in the north who defends and promotes the Free State establishment parties attitude and policies to the northern situation during the troubles is a wrong one and you are certainly guilty of that.
Spell out what the RoI "Establishment Parties" are get wrong re NI?
Is there any reason to suggest that their policies on that issue are reflective of opinion in Ireland?
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 01:08:38 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 12:46:10 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:17 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
At least she went on to face him, he's a hateful hoor but no way stupid and backed up in advance of every interview with tonnes of info from a full production team.
The SDLP shouldn't be giving that bigot any time at all.
Unfortunately the electorate listen to the show. Why should we the nationalist people give him a free reign
Do they?
Yeah, going by the amount of people who phone in, i rarely miss, always important to hear all sides, SF all listen in secret, Gerry Kelly tweeted a few times that "on the Nolan show he said .....".
Quality of guests bar the obvious tubes like Bryson and Jim Allister can be good
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 01:08:38 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 12:46:10 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:17 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
At least she went on to face him, he's a hateful hoor but no way stupid and backed up in advance of every interview with tonnes of info from a full production team.
The SDLP shouldn't be giving that bigot any time at all.
Unfortunately the electorate listen to the show. Why should we the nationalist people give him a free reign
Do they?
Yeah, going by the amount of people who phone in, i rarely miss, always important to hear all sides, SF all listen in secret, Gerry Kelly tweeted a few times that "on the Nolan show he said .....".
Quality of guests bar the obvious tubes like Bryson and Jim Allister can be good
Nolan turns everything into a onesie anti SF rant. Not worth the airtime.
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 02:09:36 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 01:08:38 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 12:46:10 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:17 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
At least she went on to face him, he's a hateful hoor but no way stupid and backed up in advance of every interview with tonnes of info from a full production team.
The SDLP shouldn't be giving that bigot any time at all.
Unfortunately the electorate listen to the show. Why should we the nationalist people give him a free reign
Do they?
Yeah, going by the amount of people who phone in, i rarely miss, always important to hear all sides, SF all listen in secret, Gerry Kelly tweeted a few times that "on the Nolan show he said .....".
Quality of guests bar the obvious tubes like Bryson and Jim Allister can be good
Nolan turns everything into a onesie anti SF rant. Not worth the airtime.
They make it easy for him though, constant balls ups and then nobody sent in to defend the balls ups. Makes them look guilty to the middle ground.There is no doubt its all tinged with a hatred of them though
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:24:39 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 02:09:36 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 01:08:38 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 12:46:10 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:17 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
At least she went on to face him, he's a hateful hoor but no way stupid and backed up in advance of every interview with tonnes of info from a full production team.
The SDLP shouldn't be giving that bigot any time at all.
Unfortunately the electorate listen to the show. Why should we the nationalist people give him a free reign
Do they?
Yeah, going by the amount of people who phone in, i rarely miss, always important to hear all sides, SF all listen in secret, Gerry Kelly tweeted a few times that "on the Nolan show he said .....".
Quality of guests bar the obvious tubes like Bryson and Jim Allister can be good
Nolan turns everything into a onesie anti SF rant. Not worth the airtime.
They make it easy for him though, constant balls ups and then nobody sent in to defend the balls ups. Makes them look guilty to the middle ground.There is no doubt its all tinged with a hatred of them though
You're maybe a regular contributor as well as a listener 8)
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:41:32 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
(https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg)
Ah look, here's the quasi-unionist to throw in his few cents.
Jabbers, that takes the biscuit, I've been called many's the thing on this forum, quasi-unionist wasn't one of them, quite the reverse.
Any person from a nationalist background in the north who defends and promotes the Free State establishment parties attitude and policies to the northern situation during the troubles is a wrong one and you are certainly guilty of that.
Spell out what the RoI "Establishment Parties" are get wrong re NI?
Is there any reason to suggest that their policies on that issue are reflective of opinion in Ireland?
FF/FG routinely play political football with the legacy of the troubles.
Spouting about Tom Oliver and Paul Quinn while thwarting the McAnespie family in their bid for justice and making official complaints about a documentary investigating state collusion with loyalist murder squads. They also appointed a high ranking official in a disgraced, disbanded sectarian police force as head of their police service. The same high ranking official who thwarted a proper investigation into the Glenanne Gang.
They were barking and lecturing SF on the need to form a government with DUP dinosaurs up north but when government numbers became tricky down south and when SF had the highest vote in the last election both FF and FG refused to negotiate with SF to form a government.
You'd want to hang your head in shame if you want to defend either of these parties and their petty and backward attitude to the north.
Quote from: JohnDenver on November 16, 2020, 02:31:15 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:24:39 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 02:09:36 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 01:08:38 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 12:46:10 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:17 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
At least she went on to face him, he's a hateful hoor but no way stupid and backed up in advance of every interview with tonnes of info from a full production team.
The SDLP shouldn't be giving that bigot any time at all.
Unfortunately the electorate listen to the show. Why should we the nationalist people give him a free reign
Do they?
Yeah, going by the amount of people who phone in, i rarely miss, always important to hear all sides, SF all listen in secret, Gerry Kelly tweeted a few times that "on the Nolan show he said .....".
Quality of guests bar the obvious tubes like Bryson and Jim Allister can be good
Nolan turns everything into a onesie anti SF rant. Not worth the airtime.
They make it easy for him though, constant balls ups and then nobody sent in to defend the balls ups. Makes them look guilty to the middle ground.There is no doubt its all tinged with a hatred of them though
You're maybe a regular contributor as well as a listener 8)
lol, no i dont want the baseball bat men around the house again
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 02:47:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:41:32 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
(https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg)
Ah look, here's the quasi-unionist to throw in his few cents.
Jabbers, that takes the biscuit, I've been called many's the thing on this forum, quasi-unionist wasn't one of them, quite the reverse.
Any person from a nationalist background in the north who defends and promotes the Free State establishment parties attitude and policies to the northern situation during the troubles is a wrong one and you are certainly guilty of that.
Spell out what the RoI "Establishment Parties" are get wrong re NI?
Is there any reason to suggest that their policies on that issue are reflective of opinion in Ireland?
FF/FG routinely play political football with the legacy of the troubles.
Spouting about Tom Oliver and Paul Quinn while thwarting the McAnespie family in their bid for justice and making official complaints about a documentary investigating state collusion with loyalist murder squads. They also appointed a high ranking official in a disgraced, disbanded sectarian police force as head of their police service. The same high ranking official who thwarted a proper investigation into the Glenanne Gang.
They were barking and lecturing SF on the need to form a government with DUP dinosaurs up north but when government numbers became tricky down south and when SF had the highest vote in the last election both FF and FG refused to negotiate with SF to form a government.
You'd want to hang your head in shame if you want to defend either of these parties and their petty and backward attitude to the north.
Holy fcuk.
Who do you think make more of a political football out of NI/ the troubles, FG, FF or SF? I'm a supporter of none of those parties but it would be good to hear your reasoned views?
Are SF doing everything they can to help research past atrocities? If not you must really despise SF then?
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 02:47:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:41:32 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
(https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg)
Ah look, here's the quasi-unionist to throw in his few cents.
Jabbers, that takes the biscuit, I've been called many's the thing on this forum, quasi-unionist wasn't one of them, quite the reverse.
Any person from a nationalist background in the north who defends and promotes the Free State establishment parties attitude and policies to the northern situation during the troubles is a wrong one and you are certainly guilty of that.
Spell out what the RoI "Establishment Parties" are get wrong re NI?
Is there any reason to suggest that their policies on that issue are reflective of opinion in Ireland?
FF/FG routinely play political football with the legacy of the troubles.
Spouting about Tom Oliver and Paul Quinn while thwarting the McAnespie family in their bid for justice and making official complaints about a documentary investigating state collusion with loyalist murder squads. They also appointed a high ranking official in a disgraced, disbanded sectarian police force as head of their police service. The same high ranking official who thwarted a proper investigation into the Glenanne Gang.
They were barking and lecturing SF on the need to form a government with DUP dinosaurs up north but when government numbers became tricky down south and when SF had the highest vote in the last election both FF and FG refused to negotiate with SF to form a government.
You'd want to hang your head in shame if you want to defend either of these parties and their petty and backward attitude to the north.
Holy fcuk.
Who do you think make more of a political football out of NI/ the troubles, FG, FF or SF? I'm a supporter of none of those parties but it would be good to hear your reasoned views?
Are SF doing everything they can to help research past atrocities? If not you must really despise SF then?
Unquestionably FF and FG.
SF have a mandate from the nationalist community, they are by far the largest nationalist party in the O6. They have members who have been victims of British state terrorism and collusion, they are people who have lived through and being directly impacted by the troubles. So to then be moralised and pontificated by leaders from a state who sat on their hands as innocent nationalists were being burned out of their homes and shot on their streets of their home towns takes some gall.
Maybe if the Free State had made a stand there would have been no need for the Provos.
They are also the ones who have looked for a reconciliation process. Why do FF/FG actively reject this? Probably the same reason you rarely if ever hear any of them demanding justice for the biggest ever terrorist atrocity to hit their state.
FF and FG do not want to have to hold the British state to account to will look to openly suppress any quest from the victims of British state atrocities in Ireland.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 02:47:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:41:32 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
(https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg)
Ah look, here's the quasi-unionist to throw in his few cents.
Jabbers, that takes the biscuit, I've been called many's the thing on this forum, quasi-unionist wasn't one of them, quite the reverse.
Any person from a nationalist background in the north who defends and promotes the Free State establishment parties attitude and policies to the northern situation during the troubles is a wrong one and you are certainly guilty of that.
Spell out what the RoI "Establishment Parties" are get wrong re NI?
Is there any reason to suggest that their policies on that issue are reflective of opinion in Ireland?
FF/FG routinely play political football with the legacy of the troubles.
Spouting about Tom Oliver and Paul Quinn while thwarting the McAnespie family in their bid for justice and making official complaints about a documentary investigating state collusion with loyalist murder squads. They also appointed a high ranking official in a disgraced, disbanded sectarian police force as head of their police service. The same high ranking official who thwarted a proper investigation into the Glenanne Gang.
They were barking and lecturing SF on the need to form a government with DUP dinosaurs up north but when government numbers became tricky down south and when SF had the highest vote in the last election both FF and FG refused to negotiate with SF to form a government.
You'd want to hang your head in shame if you want to defend either of these parties and their petty and backward attitude to the north.
Holy fcuk.
Who do you think make more of a political football out of NI/ the troubles, FG, FF or SF? I'm a supporter of none of those parties but it would be good to hear your reasoned views?
Are SF doing everything they can to help research past atrocities? If not you must really despise SF then?
Unquestionably FF and FG.
SF have a mandate from the nationalist community, they are by far the largest nationalist party in the O6. They have members who have been victims of British state terrorism and collusion, they are people who have lived through and being directly impacted by the troubles. So to then be moralised and pontificated by leaders from a state who sat on their hands as innocent nationalists were being burned out of their homes and shot on their streets of their home towns takes some gall.
Maybe if the Free State had made a stand there would have been no need for the Provos.
They are also the ones who have looked for a reconciliation process. Why do FF/FG actively reject this? Probably the same reason you rarely if ever hear any of them demanding justice for the biggest ever terrorist atrocity to hit their state.
FF and FG do not want to have to hold the British state to account to will look to openly suppress any quest from the victims of British state atrocities in Ireland.
When COVID is over will you take this show on the road?
SF play games continually.
And as for the experiences of their members? Their members also participated in collusion. They participated in the taking of innocent life. They participated in acts demonstrating reckless abandon with innocent life. They participated in gross sectarianism. They did and do participate in organised criminality.
The provos never had majority nationalist support. Never forget that.
Will SF hold the armed republican movement to account?
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:51:43 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 02:47:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:41:32 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
(https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg)
Ah look, here's the quasi-unionist to throw in his few cents.
Jabbers, that takes the biscuit, I've been called many's the thing on this forum, quasi-unionist wasn't one of them, quite the reverse.
Any person from a nationalist background in the north who defends and promotes the Free State establishment parties attitude and policies to the northern situation during the troubles is a wrong one and you are certainly guilty of that.
Spell out what the RoI "Establishment Parties" are get wrong re NI?
Is there any reason to suggest that their policies on that issue are reflective of opinion in Ireland?
FF/FG routinely play political football with the legacy of the troubles.
Spouting about Tom Oliver and Paul Quinn while thwarting the McAnespie family in their bid for justice and making official complaints about a documentary investigating state collusion with loyalist murder squads. They also appointed a high ranking official in a disgraced, disbanded sectarian police force as head of their police service. The same high ranking official who thwarted a proper investigation into the Glenanne Gang.
They were barking and lecturing SF on the need to form a government with DUP dinosaurs up north but when government numbers became tricky down south and when SF had the highest vote in the last election both FF and FG refused to negotiate with SF to form a government.
You'd want to hang your head in shame if you want to defend either of these parties and their petty and backward attitude to the north.
Holy fcuk.
Who do you think make more of a political football out of NI/ the troubles, FG, FF or SF? I'm a supporter of none of those parties but it would be good to hear your reasoned views?
Are SF doing everything they can to help research past atrocities? If not you must really despise SF then?
Unquestionably FF and FG.
SF have a mandate from the nationalist community, they are by far the largest nationalist party in the O6. They have members who have been victims of British state terrorism and collusion, they are people who have lived through and being directly impacted by the troubles. So to then be moralised and pontificated by leaders from a state who sat on their hands as innocent nationalists were being burned out of their homes and shot on their streets of their home towns takes some gall.
Maybe if the Free State had made a stand there would have been no need for the Provos.
They are also the ones who have looked for a reconciliation process. Why do FF/FG actively reject this? Probably the same reason you rarely if ever hear any of them demanding justice for the biggest ever terrorist atrocity to hit their state.
FF and FG do not want to have to hold the British state to account to will look to openly suppress any quest from the victims of British state atrocities in Ireland.
When COVID is over will you take this show on the road?
SF play games continually.
And as for the experiences of their members? Their members also participated in collusion. They participated in the taking of innocent life. They participated in acts demonstrating reckless abandon with innocent life. They participated in gross sectarianism. They did and do participate in organised criminality.
The provos never had majority nationalist support. Never forget that.
Will SF hold the armed republican movement to account?
Maybe you can address FF/FG's approach to the north without going after SF?
What you are doing here now is disingenuous and trying to divert the matter. You took umbrage with my comments on FF/FG and their record in the north so leave SF out of it if you want to discuss that.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:13:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:51:43 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:25:54 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 02:47:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:41:32 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on September 18, 2020, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 18, 2020, 06:06:05 PM
You saw what I said about no substance.
There it is again.
(https://lindanee.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/black-kettle.jpg)
Ah look, here's the quasi-unionist to throw in his few cents.
Jabbers, that takes the biscuit, I've been called many's the thing on this forum, quasi-unionist wasn't one of them, quite the reverse.
Any person from a nationalist background in the north who defends and promotes the Free State establishment parties attitude and policies to the northern situation during the troubles is a wrong one and you are certainly guilty of that.
Spell out what the RoI "Establishment Parties" are get wrong re NI?
Is there any reason to suggest that their policies on that issue are reflective of opinion in Ireland?
FF/FG routinely play political football with the legacy of the troubles.
Spouting about Tom Oliver and Paul Quinn while thwarting the McAnespie family in their bid for justice and making official complaints about a documentary investigating state collusion with loyalist murder squads. They also appointed a high ranking official in a disgraced, disbanded sectarian police force as head of their police service. The same high ranking official who thwarted a proper investigation into the Glenanne Gang.
They were barking and lecturing SF on the need to form a government with DUP dinosaurs up north but when government numbers became tricky down south and when SF had the highest vote in the last election both FF and FG refused to negotiate with SF to form a government.
You'd want to hang your head in shame if you want to defend either of these parties and their petty and backward attitude to the north.
Holy fcuk.
Who do you think make more of a political football out of NI/ the troubles, FG, FF or SF? I'm a supporter of none of those parties but it would be good to hear your reasoned views?
Are SF doing everything they can to help research past atrocities? If not you must really despise SF then?
Unquestionably FF and FG.
SF have a mandate from the nationalist community, they are by far the largest nationalist party in the O6. They have members who have been victims of British state terrorism and collusion, they are people who have lived through and being directly impacted by the troubles. So to then be moralised and pontificated by leaders from a state who sat on their hands as innocent nationalists were being burned out of their homes and shot on their streets of their home towns takes some gall.
Maybe if the Free State had made a stand there would have been no need for the Provos.
They are also the ones who have looked for a reconciliation process. Why do FF/FG actively reject this? Probably the same reason you rarely if ever hear any of them demanding justice for the biggest ever terrorist atrocity to hit their state.
FF and FG do not want to have to hold the British state to account to will look to openly suppress any quest from the victims of British state atrocities in Ireland.
When COVID is over will you take this show on the road?
SF play games continually.
And as for the experiences of their members? Their members also participated in collusion. They participated in the taking of innocent life. They participated in acts demonstrating reckless abandon with innocent life. They participated in gross sectarianism. They did and do participate in organised criminality.
The provos never had majority nationalist support. Never forget that.
Will SF hold the armed republican movement to account?
Maybe you can address FF/FG's approach to the north without going after SF?
What you are doing here now is disingenuous and trying to divert the matter. You took umbrage with my comments on FF/FG and their record in the north so leave SF out of it if you want to discuss that.
I'm just pointing out the absence of integrity in your personal position on this.
As for FG and FF I have no problem with their general view on NI. Obviously there are exceptions to that. Political interference to prevent an inquiry or disclosure of inquiry findings would be such an exception.
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
I'm just pointing out the absence of integrity in your personal position on this.
As for FG and FF I have no problem with their general view on NI. Obviously there are exceptions to that. Political interference to prevent an inquiry or disclosure of inquiry findings would be such an exception.
So you have no problem with FF/FG using victims of the Troubles as political footballs to score points while they continue to frustrate the likes of the McAnespie family in their bid for justice?
What FF/FG serve to do is rewrite the narrative of The Troubles. They only focus on the victims of the Provos, but the vast, vast amount of nationalists were victims of the British State, their security forces and the loyalist murder squads they colluded with and what is the FF/FG stance on that?
FF/FG routinely namecheck Tom Oliver, Paul Quinn, Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill etc but they wouldn't be able to name you nationalist victim of British state forces. That is as callous as it gets. FG TDs coming out and blaming the IRA for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings when their own party sought to cover it up. Appointing a RUC stooge as head of their police force.
FF/FG are every bit as bad as the DUP.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: JohnDenver on November 16, 2020, 02:31:15 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:24:39 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 02:09:36 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 01:08:38 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 12:46:10 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:17 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
At least she went on to face him, he's a hateful hoor but no way stupid and backed up in advance of every interview with tonnes of info from a full production team.
The SDLP shouldn't be giving that bigot any time at all.
Unfortunately the electorate listen to the show. Why should we the nationalist people give him a free reign
Do they?
Yeah, going by the amount of people who phone in, i rarely miss, always important to hear all sides, SF all listen in secret, Gerry Kelly tweeted a few times that "on the Nolan show he said .....".
Quality of guests bar the obvious tubes like Bryson and Jim Allister can be good
Nolan turns everything into a onesie anti SF rant. Not worth the airtime.
They make it easy for him though, constant balls ups and then nobody sent in to defend the balls ups. Makes them look guilty to the middle ground.There is no doubt its all tinged with a hatred of them though
You're maybe a regular contributor as well as a listener 8)
lol, no i dont want the baseball bat men around the house again
One of those "phone lines are hopping" lads whose always on recently admitted that the researchers ring him all the time to go on the show. A norman from Bangor, I guess he's giving a nationalist outlook along with the regular contributors, Jamie, McAllister, Nelson and Jim Wells on speed dial..
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 04:52:32 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: JohnDenver on November 16, 2020, 02:31:15 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:24:39 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 02:09:36 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 01:08:38 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 12:46:10 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:17 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 16, 2020, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
Eastwood is awful - a really poor leader. I quite like Mallon generally and Hanna is ok though not as ok as I thought she was initially. They are definitely a party which still aren't progressing.
Mallon is good, Hanna is too rehearsed, she has been left stumped a few times by Nolan, hardly a genius himself.
At least she went on to face him, he's a hateful hoor but no way stupid and backed up in advance of every interview with tonnes of info from a full production team.
The SDLP shouldn't be giving that bigot any time at all.
Unfortunately the electorate listen to the show. Why should we the nationalist people give him a free reign
Do they?
Yeah, going by the amount of people who phone in, i rarely miss, always important to hear all sides, SF all listen in secret, Gerry Kelly tweeted a few times that "on the Nolan show he said .....".
Quality of guests bar the obvious tubes like Bryson and Jim Allister can be good
Nolan turns everything into a onesie anti SF rant. Not worth the airtime.
They make it easy for him though, constant balls ups and then nobody sent in to defend the balls ups. Makes them look guilty to the middle ground.There is no doubt its all tinged with a hatred of them though
You're maybe a regular contributor as well as a listener 8)
lol, no i dont want the baseball bat men around the house again
One of those "phone lines are hopping" lads whose always on recently admitted that the researchers ring him all the time to go on the show. A norman from Bangor, I guess he's giving a nationalist outlook along with the regular contributors, Jamie, McAllister, Nelson and Jim Wells on speed dial..
Always bit of that going on on every show. But there are a lot of nationalist s phoning in every day. Honestly. But the show always has good experts on , and when it's not us v them subject there is usually good attempt to present experts from both sides of arguement. It wouldn't be on and he wouldn't be getting paid what he does if the ratings were not there
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
I'm just pointing out the absence of integrity in your personal position on this.
As for FG and FF I have no problem with their general view on NI. Obviously there are exceptions to that. Political interference to prevent an inquiry or disclosure of inquiry findings would be such an exception.
So you have no problem with FF/FG using victims of the Troubles as political footballs to score points while they continue to frustrate the likes of the McAnespie family in their bid for justice?
What FF/FG serve to do is rewrite the narrative of The Troubles. They only focus on the victims of the Provos, but the vast, vast amount of nationalists were victims of the British State, their security forces and the loyalist murder squads they colluded with and what is the FF/FG stance on that?
FF/FG routinely namecheck Tom Oliver, Paul Quinn, Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill etc but they wouldn't be able to name you nationalist victim of British state forces. That is as callous as it gets. FG TDs coming out and blaming the IRA for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings when their own party sought to cover it up. Appointing a RUC stooge as head of their police force.
FF/FG are every bit as bad as the DUP.
Well I have no problem with people being held to account? FG and certainly FF have the skeletons. By all means go after them. I'm no fan of either Party. Shinners have some serious dirt in their past and a good deal in their present. Hold them to account.
In my earlier post I specifically mentioned inquiries. So your question re McAnespie is baffling.
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
You describe someone as being callous based upon evidence that exists in your head.
I think you are unwell.
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
I'm just pointing out the absence of integrity in your personal position on this.
As for FG and FF I have no problem with their general view on NI. Obviously there are exceptions to that. Political interference to prevent an inquiry or disclosure of inquiry findings would be such an exception.
So you have no problem with FF/FG using victims of the Troubles as political footballs to score points while they continue to frustrate the likes of the McAnespie family in their bid for justice?
What FF/FG serve to do is rewrite the narrative of The Troubles. They only focus on the victims of the Provos, but the vast, vast amount of nationalists were victims of the British State, their security forces and the loyalist murder squads they colluded with and what is the FF/FG stance on that?
FF/FG routinely namecheck Tom Oliver, Paul Quinn, Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill etc but they wouldn't be able to name you nationalist victim of British state forces. That is as callous as it gets. FG TDs coming out and blaming the IRA for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings when their own party sought to cover it up. Appointing a RUC stooge as head of their police force.
FF/FG are every bit as bad as the DUP.
Well I have no problem with people being held to account? FG and certainly FF have the skeletons. By all means go after them. I'm no fan of either Party. Shinners have some serious dirt in their past and a good deal in their present. Hold them to account.
In my earlier post I specifically mentioned inquiries. So your question re McAnespie is baffling.
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
You describe someone as being callous based upon evidence that exists in your head.
I think you are unwell.
Two points:
1. You're off on a SF tangent again. You contended my post about the FF/FG attitude to the north, if you want to focus on that then stop bringing SF into it.
2. The most notable case of rewriting history seems to be coming from you. You do realise that the Provos were a reaction to a violent and sectarian pogrom on the Catholic population aided and abetted by security forces as both the British and Free State governments watched on and did nothing. The Provos were an inevitability so to sit and listen to two parties in a partitioned state that were both founded by the gun and versed in violence is not who any northern nationalist should take moral lectures from.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 07:27:48 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
I'm just pointing out the absence of integrity in your personal position on this.
As for FG and FF I have no problem with their general view on NI. Obviously there are exceptions to that. Political interference to prevent an inquiry or disclosure of inquiry findings would be such an exception.
So you have no problem with FF/FG using victims of the Troubles as political footballs to score points while they continue to frustrate the likes of the McAnespie family in their bid for justice?
What FF/FG serve to do is rewrite the narrative of The Troubles. They only focus on the victims of the Provos, but the vast, vast amount of nationalists were victims of the British State, their security forces and the loyalist murder squads they colluded with and what is the FF/FG stance on that?
FF/FG routinely namecheck Tom Oliver, Paul Quinn, Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill etc but they wouldn't be able to name you nationalist victim of British state forces. That is as callous as it gets. FG TDs coming out and blaming the IRA for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings when their own party sought to cover it up. Appointing a RUC stooge as head of their police force.
FF/FG are every bit as bad as the DUP.
Well I have no problem with people being held to account? FG and certainly FF have the skeletons. By all means go after them. I'm no fan of either Party. Shinners have some serious dirt in their past and a good deal in their present. Hold them to account.
In my earlier post I specifically mentioned inquiries. So your question re McAnespie is baffling.
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
You describe someone as being callous based upon evidence that exists in your head.
I think you are unwell.
Two points:
1. You're off on a SF tangent again. You contended my post about the FF/FG attitude to the north, if you want to focus on that then stop bringing SF into it.
2. The most notable case of rewriting history seems to be coming from you. You do realise that the Provos were a reaction to a violent and sectarian pogrom on the Catholic population aided and abetted by security forces as both the British and Free State governments watched on and did nothing. The Provos were an inevitability so to sit and listen to two parties in a partitioned state that were both founded by the gun and versed in violence is not who any northern nationalist should take moral lectures from.
2 points
1. I am holding the 3 named political parties to the same standard. You are trying to hold 2 parties to a standard and bye-ball the third. There is no integrity in what you are at. It's shameful. You won't get away with it.
2. The provos never had a majority nationalist approval. You can't get away from that. A majority of nationalist did not see the Provo way as the only way
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 08:21:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 07:27:48 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
I'm just pointing out the absence of integrity in your personal position on this.
As for FG and FF I have no problem with their general view on NI. Obviously there are exceptions to that. Political interference to prevent an inquiry or disclosure of inquiry findings would be such an exception.
So you have no problem with FF/FG using victims of the Troubles as political footballs to score points while they continue to frustrate the likes of the McAnespie family in their bid for justice?
What FF/FG serve to do is rewrite the narrative of The Troubles. They only focus on the victims of the Provos, but the vast, vast amount of nationalists were victims of the British State, their security forces and the loyalist murder squads they colluded with and what is the FF/FG stance on that?
FF/FG routinely namecheck Tom Oliver, Paul Quinn, Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill etc but they wouldn't be able to name you nationalist victim of British state forces. That is as callous as it gets. FG TDs coming out and blaming the IRA for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings when their own party sought to cover it up. Appointing a RUC stooge as head of their police force.
FF/FG are every bit as bad as the DUP.
Well I have no problem with people being held to account? FG and certainly FF have the skeletons. By all means go after them. I'm no fan of either Party. Shinners have some serious dirt in their past and a good deal in their present. Hold them to account.
In my earlier post I specifically mentioned inquiries. So your question re McAnespie is baffling.
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
You describe someone as being callous based upon evidence that exists in your head.
I think you are unwell.
Two points:
1. You're off on a SF tangent again. You contended my post about the FF/FG attitude to the north, if you want to focus on that then stop bringing SF into it.
2. The most notable case of rewriting history seems to be coming from you. You do realise that the Provos were a reaction to a violent and sectarian pogrom on the Catholic population aided and abetted by security forces as both the British and Free State governments watched on and did nothing. The Provos were an inevitability so to sit and listen to two parties in a partitioned state that were both founded by the gun and versed in violence is not who any northern nationalist should take moral lectures from.
2 points
1. I am holding the 3 named political parties to the same standard. You are trying to hold 2 parties to a standard and bye-ball the third. There is no integrity in what you are at. It's shameful. You won't get away with it.
2. The provos never had a majority nationalist approval. You can't get away from that. A majority of nationalist did not see the Provo way as the only way
1. The post you made was directly related to you contending me on two parties and their attitude to the north. FF and FG. No other party has an interest in being discussed when you originally contended those two.
2. How do you conclude that? Did we hold a referendum in nationalist communities to support the IRA or not? For the vast majority of The Troubles SF were merely an ancillary unit to the military force. Once they focused solely on politics nationalists moved over in their masses to them without. Surely if the revulsion was as strong as you say nationalists would not vote on those legacy issues. Good to see you backing down on rewriting history though.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
I'm not condoning any of that. But the scale of denying history pales compared to SF. As we all know the IRA never commanded majority nationalist support within NI. Show me a single occasion where a SF politician has admitted that.
You know as well as I do that SF are sitting on a massive reserve of knowledge of who did what and literally where the bodies are hidden. They are in no big rush to get it out there.
Also the shenanigans that the IRA where up and in some places are still up to to fund their campaign. They need to come clean on that. Need to clean their whole act on that.
Can you imagine SF being in charge of justice in the north or south????
As for Omagh. It wasn't the IRA. It was a renegade bunch of former IRA operatives who view more like the IRA than the IRA themselves.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
I'm not condoning any of that. But the scale of denying history pales compared to SF. As we all know the IRA never commanded majority nationalist support within NI. Show me a single occasion where a SF politician has admitted that.
You know as well as I do that SF are sitting on a massive reserve of knowledge of who did what and literally where the bodies are hidden. They are in no big rush to get it out there.
Also the shenanigans that the IRA where up and in some places are still up to to fund their campaign. They need to come clean on that. Need to clean their whole act on that.
Can you imagine SF being in charge of justice in the north or south????
As for Omagh. It wasn't the IRA. It was a renegade bunch of former IRA operatives who view more like the IRA than the IRA themselves.
What a load of incredible nonsense.
While we're on the free state parties, what sort of reconciliation process took place after The War of Independence and Civil War?
They are the parties over justice down South.
Look across the water at the UK. We're 50 years on from the troubles - what justice have the families of Bloody Sunday got? Ballymurphy? Loughinsland? Dublin and Monaghan? The war on Iraq.
You really need to take your head out of the sand.
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
I'm not condoning any of that. But the scale of denying history pales compared to SF. As we all know the IRA never commanded majority nationalist support within NI. Show me a single occasion where a SF politician has admitted that.
Straw man argument. Can you direct me to a SF politician claiming the IRA did have a majority of nationalists support? The reality is there was no poll taken. The only thing we know for certain is that they could not have waged such a relentless campaign for so long, in isolation from the community from which it's members came.
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
You know as well as I do that SF are sitting on a massive reserve of knowledge of who did what and literally where the bodies are hidden. They are in no big rush to get it out there.
Only a few days ago, it was discussed on this board, that the body which was set up to find the remains of the Disappeared, is on record as stating that republicans were being highly co-operative with their work, and that (contrary to your implication) that is why most of the bodies of those disappeared by the PIRA actually have been found. While we're on the topic, has the southern state ever made any attempts to search for the remains of those disappeared by the ("Good") Old IRA? A number which dwarfs the number disappeared by the Provos?
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
Also the shenanigans that the IRA where up and in some places are still up to to fund their campaign. They need to come clean on that. Need to clean their whole act on that.
Ironic that in a debate about truthfulness, you claim the IRA are currently fundraising. Care to provide your proof?
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
Can you imagine SF being in charge of justice in the north or south????
Absolutely I can. Hopefully it won't be long either. What I don't think Ireland needs is to be served by any more FF/FG justice ministers who have consistently thwarted justice to Troubles victims, play politics with victims and who have been utterly corrupt (just now, I see the news that FFG have refused to allow time for Helen McEntee to face questions in the Dáil about how Seamus Wolfe came to be appointed - more of the same).
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
As for Omagh. It wasn't the IRA.
Exactly.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
If you're talking about constitutional politics, SF operated with an abstention policy in the O6 until after the ceasefire. The political party was merely an ancillary unit to the IRA up until the peace talks began to gain traction.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf)
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
If you're talking about constitutional politics, SF operated with an abstention policy in the O6 until after the ceasefire. The political party was merely an ancillary unit to the IRA up until the peace talks began to gain traction.
I grew up in a Heartland. Max 40% I'm very small tight knit areas. Max 20% across north . What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf)
Look at SF results until 1996.sure aye sympathy but active support naw sorry didn't happen
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:21:52 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf)
Look at SF results until 1996.sure aye sympathy but active support naw sorry didn't happen
SF barely functioned in any meaningful way for the majority of the troubles ya dope. If you are going to refute an academic study, you might want to up your game in terms of evidence.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Max 20% across north .
I already linked to a study which fairly resoundly makes nonsense of your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
They don't.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:25:01 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:21:52 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf)
Look at SF results until 1996.sure aye sympathy but active support naw sorry didn't happen
SF barely functioned in any meaningful way for the majority of the troubles ya dope. If you are going to refute an academic study, you might want to up your game in terms of evidence.
You for real. They stood in every election from 81 onwards. What are you claiming. That people supported the Ra but voted SDLP instead. And please stop with the insults, that's a few times now.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Max 20% across north .
I already linked to a study which fairly resoundly makes nonsense of your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
They don't.
Lol. God love yer innocence
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Max 20% across north .
I already linked to a study which fairly resoundly makes nonsense of your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
They don't.
Lol. God love yer innocence
They really don't. Westminster don't give it to them.
https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/ (https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/)
This was very easy to find out.
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 16, 2020, 11:33:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Max 20% across north .
I already linked to a study which fairly resoundly makes nonsense of your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
They don't.
Lol. God love yer innocence
They really don't. Westminster don't give it to them.
https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/ (https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/)
This was very easy to find out.
Ok I'll give you that. But as British ministers of parliament they do take their expenses . 170k?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:29:33 PM
You for real. They stood in every election from 81 onwards. What are you claiming. That people supported the Ra but voted SDLP instead. And please stop with the insults, that's a few times now.
And stood in a climate where their representatives were being targetted for execution by the state and where nationalists in many cases didn't engage in electoral politics. Does that sound like a level playing field by which a party's performance could be judged? Again, if you want to refute an academic study, you're going to have to put forward something a bit better than this.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:35:23 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 16, 2020, 11:33:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Max 20% across north .
I already linked to a study which fairly resoundly makes nonsense of your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
They don't.
Lol. God love yer innocence
They really don't. Westminster don't give it to them.
https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/ (https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/)
This was very easy to find out.
Ok I'll give you that. But as British ministers of parliament they do take their expenses . 170k?
lol caught out spouting again, I see?
And yes,they do take expenses. Why wouldn't they? Their MPs run a full time constituency service. Believe it or not, most of an MPs work takes place outside the commons chamber.
They'd need the expenses alright sure the Northern Bank money has probably run out at this stage!!
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:42:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:35:23 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 16, 2020, 11:33:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Max 20% across north .
I already linked to a study which fairly resoundly makes nonsense of your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
They don't.
Lol. God love yer innocence
They really don't. Westminster don't give it to them.
https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/ (https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/)
This was very easy to find out.
Ok I'll give you that. But as British ministers of parliament they do take their expenses . 170k?
lol caught out spouting again, I see?
And yes,they do take expenses. Why wouldn't they? Their MPs run a full time constituency service. Believe it or not, most of an MPs work takes place outside the commons chamber.
Ill retract the wages one, clearly wrong, but ill stand over everything else ive said. Im not sure how second home allowances in London or hotel rooms has anything to do with irish republican politics but
Anyhow im still in state of shock to find out that all them Hume supporters in Derry back in the day were really closet Ra men. Every day is a school day
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:01:27 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:42:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:35:23 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 16, 2020, 11:33:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Max 20% across north .
I already linked to a study which fairly resoundly makes nonsense of your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
They don't.
Lol. God love yer innocence
They really don't. Westminster don't give it to them.
https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/ (https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/)
This was very easy to find out.
Ok I'll give you that. But as British ministers of parliament they do take their expenses . 170k?
lol caught out spouting again, I see?
And yes,they do take expenses. Why wouldn't they? Their MPs run a full time constituency service. Believe it or not, most of an MPs work takes place outside the commons chamber.
Ill retract the wages one, clearly wrong, but ill stand over everything else ive said. Im not sure how second home allowances in London or hotel rooms has anything to do with irish republican politics but
Anyhow im still in state of shock to find out that all them Hume supporters in Derry back in the day were really closet Ra men. Every day is a school day
I rang QUB there. Apprently sarcasm isn't a sufficient method to challenge the findings of an academic study. Anything else?
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 12:04:45 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:01:27 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:42:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:35:23 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 16, 2020, 11:33:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Max 20% across north .
I already linked to a study which fairly resoundly makes nonsense of your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
They don't.
Lol. God love yer innocence
They really don't. Westminster don't give it to them.
https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/ (https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/)
This was very easy to find out.
Ok I'll give you that. But as British ministers of parliament they do take their expenses . 170k?
lol caught out spouting again, I see?
And yes,they do take expenses. Why wouldn't they? Their MPs run a full time constituency service. Believe it or not, most of an MPs work takes place outside the commons chamber.
Ill retract the wages one, clearly wrong, but ill stand over everything else ive said. Im not sure how second home allowances in London or hotel rooms has anything to do with irish republican politics but
Anyhow im still in state of shock to find out that all them Hume supporters in Derry back in the day were really closet Ra men. Every day is a school day
I rang QUB there. Apprently sarcasm isn't a sufficient method to challenge the findings of an academic study. Anything else?
Have you read the report in full, because at a glance it concludes that a significant minority supported violence , which I think is what I have said. And its not sarcasm, its voting fact. What about them London gaffs anyhow?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:14:05 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 12:04:45 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:01:27 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:42:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:35:23 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 16, 2020, 11:33:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Max 20% across north .
I already linked to a study which fairly resoundly makes nonsense of your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
They don't.
Lol. God love yer innocence
They really don't. Westminster don't give it to them.
https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/ (https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/)
This was very easy to find out.
Ok I'll give you that. But as British ministers of parliament they do take their expenses . 170k?
lol caught out spouting again, I see?
And yes,they do take expenses. Why wouldn't they? Their MPs run a full time constituency service. Believe it or not, most of an MPs work takes place outside the commons chamber.
Ill retract the wages one, clearly wrong, but ill stand over everything else ive said. Im not sure how second home allowances in London or hotel rooms has anything to do with irish republican politics but
Anyhow im still in state of shock to find out that all them Hume supporters in Derry back in the day were really closet Ra men. Every day is a school day
I rang QUB there. Apprently sarcasm isn't a sufficient method to challenge the findings of an academic study. Anything else?
Have you read the report in full, because at a glance it concludes that a significant minority supported violence , which I think is what I have said. And its not sarcasm, its voting fact. What about them London gaffs anyhow?
You said 20% "max". How on earth can you look at a report that suggests it was more than double that level of support and attempt to present it as evidence that you were right ::)
And what "gaffs"? As far as I can see the "gaffs" you refer to are two rented flats used by their MPs and staff. Just because the expenses are termed "second home allowances" doesn't actually mean their MPs own second homes in London.
Anyway, isn't it ironic that the SDLP thread has been jumped on by those only interested in attacking SF, given that attacking SF has been seemingly the SDLPs only apparent policy/reason for existence in recent years.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
If you're talking about constitutional politics, SF operated with an abstention policy in the O6 until after the ceasefire. The political party was merely an ancillary unit to the IRA up until the peace talks began to gain traction.
I grew up in a Heartland. Max 40% I'm very small tight knit areas. Max 20% across north . What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
What I'm saying is that for pretty much the entirety of the troubles it was direct rule that took place in the O6. SF were an abstentionist party throughout that time and still are at Westminister. The power O6 MPs had in that period was extremely limited as it the state was controlled under the British government. When devolved powers moved back it did not take very long for SF to swat aside the SDLP and represent nationalists views in the north.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 06:46:50 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:14:05 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 12:04:45 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:01:27 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:42:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:35:23 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 16, 2020, 11:33:04 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Max 20% across north .
I already linked to a study which fairly resoundly makes nonsense of your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
They don't.
Lol. God love yer innocence
They really don't. Westminster don't give it to them.
https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/ (https://fullfact.org/news/sinn-fein-salaries/)
This was very easy to find out.
Ok I'll give you that. But as British ministers of parliament they do take their expenses . 170k?
lol caught out spouting again, I see?
And yes,they do take expenses. Why wouldn't they? Their MPs run a full time constituency service. Believe it or not, most of an MPs work takes place outside the commons chamber.
Ill retract the wages one, clearly wrong, but ill stand over everything else ive said. Im not sure how second home allowances in London or hotel rooms has anything to do with irish republican politics but
Anyhow im still in state of shock to find out that all them Hume supporters in Derry back in the day were really closet Ra men. Every day is a school day
I rang QUB there. Apprently sarcasm isn't a sufficient method to challenge the findings of an academic study. Anything else?
Have you read the report in full, because at a glance it concludes that a significant minority supported violence , which I think is what I have said. And its not sarcasm, its voting fact. What about them London gaffs anyhow?
You said 20% "max". How on earth can you look at a report that suggests it was more than double that level of support and attempt to present it as evidence that you were right ::)
And what "gaffs"? As far as I can see the "gaffs" you refer to are two rented flats used by their MPs and staff. Just because the expenses are termed "second home allowances" doesn't actually mean their MPs own second homes in London.
Anyway, isn't it ironic that the SDLP thread has been jumped on by those only interested in attacking SF, given that attacking SF has been seemingly the SDLPs only apparent policy/reason for existence in recent years.
im right, as I said having sympathy for ( which is what the report says)and actually doing something is completely different. I have sympathy for Hamas ffs.
There is a book of remembrance in Rath Mór Creggan. Every single person's who actively helped the movement family is approached upon their death to see if the family want them in there.
That help can have been a safe house, comms smuggled into the Kesh, membership, anything- well have a look at the numbers, what I said is that it was a significant minority and would never have passed 20% at any one time. In the 1982 election when you thought sympathy should have been at its highest SF only got 10% of vote, ah thats right they were all voting SDLP sure.
As for attacking SF, that is their modus operendi on Twitter and about every other medium they are on, they dont like people, especially insiders putting it up to them.
The Derry SF Twitterati have gone very quiet recently , must have been a memo from Mary Lou. i suppose it will give Monga time to concentrate of his fulltime job as "bonfire officer" in the council! Wtf having a laugh, council jobs with pensions givien out, that got some laugh here I tell you that. Nepotism again.
No and they dont need flats or houses in London which us the tax payer pays for, what constituency work is done in London? You cant run with fox and the hounds
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AM
im right, as I said having sympathy for ( which is what the report says)and actually doing something is completely different. I have sympathy for Hamas ffs.
The debate wasn't about who was "doing something". It was about the level of support the IRA has from the nationalist community. You suggested that the level was "max 20%". The QUB study says 42%. Over twice your guess. You were, yet again, wrong.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AM
There is a book of remembrance in Rath Mór Creggan. Every single person's who actively helped the movement family is approached upon their death to see if the family want them in there.
That help can have been a safe house, comms smuggled into the Kesh, membership, anything- well have a look at the numbers, what I said is that it was a significant minority and would never have passed 20% at any one time. In the 1982 election when you thought sympathy should have been at its highest SF only got 10% of vote, ah thats right they were all voting SDLP sure.
Again, this isn't evidence. If you want to refute the findding of an academic study, you need to produce research contradicting it. I'm still waiting.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AM
The Derry SF Twitterati have gone very quiet recently , must have been a memo from Mary Lou. i suppose it will give Monga time to concentrate of his fulltime job as "bonfire officer" in the council! Wtf having a laugh, council jobs with pensions givien out, that got some laugh here I tell you that. Nepotism again.
I don't follow any "Derry SF twitterati" so I've no idea what you're on about.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AMNo and they dont need flats or houses in London which us the tax payer pays for, what constituency work is done in London? You cant run with fox and the hounds
They don't need accomodation? You think that the only thing MPs do in Westminster attend sessions in the chamber? You really need to get a grip on what MPs actually do. To quote Professor Jon Tonge,
"They are in London with ever-greater frequency these days, They regularly have meetings in Portcullis House. They are quite a big presence there these days. But they won't enter the chamber. In every other capacity you could argue that Sinn Fein are good constituency MPs." In fact, last year, the "People Power Index" which assesses the individual activity of every MP, found that Paul Maskey came into the top 10% of all 650 MPs. Results also showed that out of the 18 MPs in the north, all of the SF MPS except one, came in with the highest score. The only non-SF MP to be in the top 7 was the DUPs Jim Shannon. Bearing in mind that the index takes voting record into consideration, then the fact that SF rate so highly on the scale, and the fact that Paul Maskey, despite not having any voting record still comes in in the top 10%, shows how much they work on behalf of constituents.
Burn.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 10:13:36 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AM
im right, as I said having sympathy for ( which is what the report says)and actually doing something is completely different. I have sympathy for Hamas ffs.
The debate wasn't about who was "doing something". It was about the level of support the IRA has from the nationalist community. You suggested that the level was "max 20%". The QUB study says 42%. Over twice your guess. You were, yet again, wrong.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AM
There is a book of remembrance in Rath Mór Creggan. Every single person's who actively helped the movement family is approached upon their death to see if the family want them in there.
That help can have been a safe house, comms smuggled into the Kesh, membership, anything- well have a look at the numbers, what I said is that it was a significant minority and would never have passed 20% at any one time. In the 1982 election when you thought sympathy should have been at its highest SF only got 10% of vote, ah thats right they were all voting SDLP sure.
Again, this isn't evidence. If you want to refute the findding of an academic study, you need to produce research contradicting it. I'm still waiting.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AM
The Derry SF Twitterati have gone very quiet recently , must have been a memo from Mary Lou. i suppose it will give Monga time to concentrate of his fulltime job as "bonfire officer" in the council! Wtf having a laugh, council jobs with pensions givien out, that got some laugh here I tell you that. Nepotism again.
I don't follow any "Derry SF twitterati" so I've no idea what you're on about.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AMNo and they dont need flats or houses in London which us the tax payer pays for, what constituency work is done in London? You cant run with fox and the hounds
They don't need accomodation? You think that the only think MPs do in Westminster attend sessions in the chamber? You really need to get a grip on what MPs actually do. To quote Professor Jon Tonge, "They are in London with ever-greater frequency these days, They regularly have meetings in Portcullis House. They are quite a big presence there these days. But they won't enter the chamber. In every other capacity you could argue that Sinn Fein are good constituency MPs." In fact, last year, the "People Power Index" which assesses the individual activity of every MP, found that Paul Makey came into the top 10% of all 650 MPs. Results also showed that out of the 18 MPs in the north, all of the SF MPS except one, came in with the highest score. The only non-SF MP to be in the top 7 was the DUPs Jim Shannon. Bearing in mind that the index takes voting record into consideration, then the fact that SF rate so highly on the scale, and the fact that Paul Maskey, despite not having any voting record still comes in in the top 10%, shows how much they work on behalf of constituents.
Again you are really over estimating the definition of the word sympathy, you are actually arguing here to prove that a significant minority of nationalists supported IRA violence versus a minority. A minority is a minority. Cloud cuckoo land.
Of course the book is evidence, I have family members in it. So the election results are not evidence, the well documented membership numbers aren't evidence(600 members by 1996 from a nationalist population of 800K ), the book of volunteers isn't evidence, pointless really gathering all this data for snapchat to say its all balls.
That report has to be seriously flawed, Elisha McCallion scoreed well, lol lol. She had a lovely shiny office you know with a great "contact details" and a fantastic "twitter account" . Wise up, we knew the craic and she got dumped, that report must be seriously flawed by Change.org. based on that
Paul Who?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 10:55:57 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 10:13:36 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AM
im right, as I said having sympathy for ( which is what the report says)and actually doing something is completely different. I have sympathy for Hamas ffs.
The debate wasn't about who was "doing something". It was about the level of support the IRA has from the nationalist community. You suggested that the level was "max 20%". The QUB study says 42%. Over twice your guess. You were, yet again, wrong.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AM
There is a book of remembrance in Rath Mór Creggan. Every single person's who actively helped the movement family is approached upon their death to see if the family want them in there.
That help can have been a safe house, comms smuggled into the Kesh, membership, anything- well have a look at the numbers, what I said is that it was a significant minority and would never have passed 20% at any one time. In the 1982 election when you thought sympathy should have been at its highest SF only got 10% of vote, ah thats right they were all voting SDLP sure.
Again, this isn't evidence. If you want to refute the findding of an academic study, you need to produce research contradicting it. I'm still waiting.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AM
The Derry SF Twitterati have gone very quiet recently , must have been a memo from Mary Lou. i suppose it will give Monga time to concentrate of his fulltime job as "bonfire officer" in the council! Wtf having a laugh, council jobs with pensions givien out, that got some laugh here I tell you that. Nepotism again.
I don't follow any "Derry SF twitterati" so I've no idea what you're on about.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 09:28:23 AMNo and they dont need flats or houses in London which us the tax payer pays for, what constituency work is done in London? You cant run with fox and the hounds
They don't need accomodation? You think that the only think MPs do in Westminster attend sessions in the chamber? You really need to get a grip on what MPs actually do. To quote Professor Jon Tonge, "They are in London with ever-greater frequency these days, They regularly have meetings in Portcullis House. They are quite a big presence there these days. But they won't enter the chamber. In every other capacity you could argue that Sinn Fein are good constituency MPs." In fact, last year, the "People Power Index" which assesses the individual activity of every MP, found that Paul Makey came into the top 10% of all 650 MPs. Results also showed that out of the 18 MPs in the north, all of the SF MPS except one, came in with the highest score. The only non-SF MP to be in the top 7 was the DUPs Jim Shannon. Bearing in mind that the index takes voting record into consideration, then the fact that SF rate so highly on the scale, and the fact that Paul Maskey, despite not having any voting record still comes in in the top 10%, shows how much they work on behalf of constituents.
Again you are really over estimating the definition of the word sympathy, you are actually arguing here to prove that a significant minority of nationalists supported IRA violence versus a minority. A minority is a minority. Cloud cuckoo land.
Of course the book is evidence, I have family members in it. So the election results are not evidence, the well documented membership numbers aren't evidence(600 members by 1996 from a nationalist population of 800K ), the book of volunteers isn't evidence, pointless really gathering all this data for snapchat to say its all balls.
That report has to be seriously flawed, Elisha McCallion scoreed well, lol lol. She had a lovely shiny office you know with a great "contact details" and a fantastic "twitter account" . Wise up, we knew the craic and she got dumped, that report must be seriously flawed by Change.org. based on that
Paul Who?
You've changed your tack now.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 10:55:57 AM
Again you are really over estimating the definition of the word sympathy, you are actually arguing here to prove that a significant minority of nationalists supported IRA violence versus a minority. A minority is a minority. Cloud cuckoo land.
I didn't argue that a majority of nationalists
did support the IRA. I'm arguing that a significant number did. I substantiated that claim with academic research. You claimed they only had "max 20%" support among nationalists. You were demonstrably wrong according to, you know, the actual scientific research.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 10:55:57 AM
Of course the book is evidence, I have family members in it. So the election results are not evidence, the well documented membership numbers aren't evidence(600 members by 1996 from a nationalist population of 800K ), the book of volunteers isn't evidence, pointless really gathering all this data for snapchat to say its all balls.
A fu****g book in Derry is not a referendum on how the nationalist people viewed the IRA, ya ejit. Have you considered the possibility that maybe some people don't give a s**t about putting their name in a book? Or that some people might have sympathised with/supported the IRA but don't want to have that written in a book for the world to see? As the QUB research I directed you to says, "Using public opinion surveys to gauge public support for political violence is problematic; most respondents are loath to admit their support for physical force in a personal interview". They explained that that's why they didn't do their research via interview. So it's probably also why they didn't ask respondents to write their name in a f**king publicly displayed book if they ever symapathised with the IRA. ::)
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 10:55:57 AM
That report has to be seriously flawed, Elisha McCallion scoreed well, lol lol. She had a lovely shiny office you know with a great "contact details" and a fantastic "twitter account" . Wise up, we knew the craic and she got dumped, that report must be seriously flawed by Change.org.
Flawed? It's based on data, not opinions. Just because you don't like what the data shows doesn't mean you get to decide it is wrong. That's not how statistical analysis works.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 10:55:57 AM
Paul Who?
Paul Maskey (https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2019/12/04/news/paul-maskey-ranks-best-mp-from-ni-on-the-people-power-list-1781580/)
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 11:11:04 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 10:55:57 AM
Again you are really over estimating the definition of the word sympathy, you are actually arguing here to prove that a significant minority of nationalists supported IRA violence versus a minority. A minority is a minority. Cloud cuckoo land.
I didn't argue that a majority of nationalists did support the IRA. I'm arguing that a significant number did. I substantiated that claim with academic research. You claimed they only had approximately 20% support among nationalists. You were demonstrably wrong according to, you know, the actual scientific research.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 10:55:57 AM
Of course the book is evidence, I have family members in it. So the election results are not evidence, the well documented membership numbers aren't evidence(600 members by 1996 from a nationalist population of 800K ), the book of volunteers isn't evidence, pointless really gathering all this data for snapchat to say its all balls.
A fu****g book in Derry is not a referendum on how the nationalist people views the IRA, ya ejit. Have you considered the possibility that maybe some people don't give a s**t about putting their name in a book? Or that some people might have sympathised with/supported the IRA but don't want to have that written in a book for the world to see? As the QUB research I directed you to says, "Using public opinion surveys to gauge public support for political violence is problematic; most respondents are loath to admit their support for physical force in a personal interview". They explained that that's why they didn't do their research via interview. So it's probably also why they didn't ask respondents to write their name in a f**king publicly displayed book if they ever symapathised with the IRA. ::)
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 10:55:57 AM
That report has to be seriously flawed, Elisha McCallion scoreed well, lol lol. She had a lovely shiny office you know with a great "contact details" and a fantastic "twitter account" . Wise up, we knew the craic and she got dumped, that report must be seriously flawed by Change.org.
Flawed? It's based on data, not opinions. Just because you don't like what the data shows doesn't mean you get to decide it is wrong. That's not how statistical data works.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 10:55:57 AM
Paul Who?
Paul Maskey
The book isn't publically displayed, its in SF offices.
The report from change.org very obviously uses criteria that doesn't reflect MP effectiveness based on election results.
The Queens report has never been independently critiqued as far as I can see, although id say the broad findings were accurate- ie significant minority was the conclusion, max 20% would be my personal experience through late 70s and into 80s
Yes you are right some people did refuse to write their name in the book, but mostly because their families were betrayed by a rotten set up riddled with touts, and gangsters.
,
And you have called me a number of names now. Bad form.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 11:36:09 AM
The book isn't publicly displayed, its in SF offices.
LOL it gets better! So what about nationalists that don't like SF, but did support/sympathise with the IRA campaign? Do you think they would bother going into a SF office to sign a SF book? Would you wise the head. And if anyone can write in it, then it's a public book! A book in a SF office in Derry is not a scientific measurement of nationalist support for the armed struggle. Most people don't need that spelled out to them. If it was, then QUB would probably not have bothered with their research. Sure why would they carry out a research project when there's a book in Creggan, eh?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 11:36:09 AM
The report from change.org very obviously uses criteria that doesn't reflect MP effectiveness based on election results.
The criteria it uses is in the link provided. It measures their effectiveness based on their level of activity as an MP. Once again, just because you don't like the data, doesn't mean you get to argue with it.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 11:36:09 AM
The Queens report has never been independently critiqued as far as I can see, although id say the broad findings were accurate- ie significant minority was the conclusion, max 20% would be my personal experience through late 70s and into 80s
Never been independently critiqued? What do you want? Another research project on the same topic? Because that report referenced previous research projects, which it noted achieved similar findings. These previous projects are listed in the appendix. So multiple scientific research projects, each coming to similar findings, or a book in a SF office in Creggan....which to use as a reliable reliable evidence into the subject matter...hmmmmm that's a tough one :-\
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 11:36:09 AM
Yes you are right some people did refuse to write their name in the book, but mostly because their families were betrayed by a rotten set up riddled with touts, and gangsters.
"Mostly"? Did you survey every nationalist who didn't write their name in this book? Or are you talking through your hoop again?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 11:36:09 AM
And you have called me a number of names now. Bad form.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 11:52:51 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 11:36:09 AM
The book isn't publicly displayed, its in SF offices.
LOL it gets better! So what about nationalists that don't like SF, but did support/sympathise with the IRA campaign? Do you think they would bother going into a SF office to sign a SF book? Would you wise the head. And if anyone can write in it, then it's a public book! A book in a SF office in Derry is not a scientific measurement of nationalist support for the armed struggle. Most people don't need that spelled out to them. If it was, then QUB would probably not have bothered with their research. Sure why would they carry out a research project when there's a book in Creggan, eh?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 11:36:09 AM
The report from change.org very obviously uses criteria that doesn't reflect MP effectiveness based on election results.
The criteria it uses is in the link provided. It measures their effectiveness based on their level of activity as an MP. Once again, just because you don't like the data, doesn't mean you get to argue with it.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 11:36:09 AM
The Queens report has never been independently critiqued as far as I can see, although id say the broad findings were accurate- ie significant minority was the conclusion, max 20% would be my personal experience through late 70s and into 80s
Never been independently critiqued? What do you want? Another research project on the same topic? Because that report referenced previous research projects, which it noted achieved similar findings. These previous projects are listed in the appendix. So multiple scientific research projects, each coming to similar findings, or a book in a SF office in Creggan....which to use as a reliable reliable evidence into the subject matter...hmmmmm that's a tough one :-\
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 11:36:09 AM
Yes you are right some people did refuse to write their name in the book, but mostly because their families were betrayed by a rotten set up riddled with touts, and gangsters.
"Mostly"? Did you survey every nationalist who didn't write their name in this book? Or are you talking through your hoop again?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 11:36:09 AM
And you have called me a number of names now. Bad form.
You don't write in the book , you are approached and asked(as I was) can we enter your relatives name in the book. Some people have refused which admittedly skews the statistics, but by and large people have signed it. The numbers would be pretty reflective of who supported the movement.
Yes and normally academic papers get challenged by counter studies, that is pretty normal in the world of academia and I am sure that another study with questions structured differently could give entirely different results. Again that is normal. That's why we have elections to see what people really think and support, and back then they didn't vote SF in numbers.
Anyhow we all agree it was a significant minority. 600 volunteers at the end, probably would have been more if it wasnt for likes of Stakenife and Dennis Donaldson- I mean did many high ranking Brits defect to us?
SF only grew significantly once they gave up the gun. It was a failed war in many ways and a deflating experience for a lot of us
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:26:01 PM
You don't write in the book , you are approached and asked(as I was) can we enter your relatives name in the book. Some people have refused which admittedly skews the statistics, but by and large people have signed it. The numbers would be pretty reflective of who supported the movement.
Skews the statistics? The book isn't statistical!! It's a book that only those invited can write in. And you yourself said that it is only for those who "actively helped the movement". So by your own admission, it has nothing to do with measuring those who supported/sympathised with the armed campaign. Only those who actively aided it.
Furthermore, if it's only for those people who actively aided the armed campaign, and you say that many of those invited didn't sign it, then you're basically claiming that those who helped the armed campaign didn't actually support said campaign unless they have signed this book. Utter codswallop. So can we drop this nonsense about the book once and for all, please?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:26:01 PM
Yes and normally academic papers get challenged by counter studies, that is pretty normal in the world of academia and I am sure that another study with questions structured differently could give entirely different results. Again that is normal. That's why we have elections to see what people really think and support, and back then they didn't vote SF in numbers.
And, as I already pointed out to you, there have been no fewer than three previous studies. These previous ones were referenced in the study I linked. Each one of them came to similar conclusions. So now not only are you telling the authors of one academic study that that are wrong, but you are telling the authors of THREE MORE reports that their conclusions are also wrong.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:26:01 PM
Anyhow we all agree it was a significant minority. 600 volunteers at the end, probably would have been more if it wasn't for likes of Stakenife and Dennis Donaldson- I mean did many high ranking Brits defect to us?
We all agree now that it was at least a significant minority. Which is a change in tone from your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:26:01 PM
SF only grew significantly once they gave up the gun. It was a failed war in many ways and a deflating experience for a lot of us
They also grew significantly when they began to properly organise themselves and devote themselves wholly to competing electorally, and when a state assassination campaign against it's reps and party workers came to an end.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:08:12 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
I'm not condoning any of that. But the scale of denying history pales compared to SF. As we all know the IRA never commanded majority nationalist support within NI. Show me a single occasion where a SF politician has admitted that.
You know as well as I do that SF are sitting on a massive reserve of knowledge of who did what and literally where the bodies are hidden. They are in no big rush to get it out there.
Also the shenanigans that the IRA where up and in some places are still up to to fund their campaign. They need to come clean on that. Need to clean their whole act on that.
Can you imagine SF being in charge of justice in the north or south????
As for Omagh. It wasn't the IRA. It was a renegade bunch of former IRA operatives who view more like the IRA than the IRA themselves.
What a load of incredible nonsense.
While we're on the free state parties, what sort of reconciliation process took place after The War of Independence and Civil War?
They are the parties over justice down South.
Look across the water at the UK. We're 50 years on from the troubles - what justice have the families of Bloody Sunday got? Ballymurphy? Loughinsland? Dublin and Monaghan? The war on Iraq.
You really need to take your head out of the sand.
It's not nonsense. If it's nonsense to say SF don't accept that IRA did not have the support of a majority nationalists then you show me an example where they have admitted it?
It's not nonsense to suggest that SF have considerable knowledge of the IRA atrocities. It's not nonsense to say they are sitting on this
It's not nonsense to finger dissidents for the Omagh bomb.
Incredible that you labelled my post as nonsense.
I have no idea why you are asking me about the post civil war period. I have no skin in that game.
SF inability to touch a justice brief is their link in many locations to serious organised crime. There is no chance that SF will be allowed that brief in either jurisdiction.
As for the inquiries you mentioned I am all for inquiries. Let's get at all these cases. Prospects of conviction will be low but let's prepare files on all them and run the ones that stand a chance in front of a court.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
And on and on you go. I am not arguing with you about the need to investigate those. Investigate them all. Hold everyone to account including republicanism. I am not favouring one side over another. Get at them all.
SF did participate in elections. And were roundly seen off. The support was never there .
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 01:21:36 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:26:01 PM
You don't write in the book , you are approached and asked(as I was) can we enter your relatives name in the book. Some people have refused which admittedly skews the statistics, but by and large people have signed it. The numbers would be pretty reflective of who supported the movement.
Skews the statistics? The book isn't statistical!! It's a book that only those invited can write in. And you yourself said that it is only for those who "actively helped the movement". So by your own admission, it has nothing to do with measuring those who supported/sympathised with the armed campaign. Only those who actively aided it.
Furthermore, if it's only for those people who actively aided the armed campaign, and you say that many of those invited didn't sign it, then you're basically claiming that those who helped the armed campaign didn't actually support said campaign unless they have signed this book. Utter codswallop. So can we drop this nonsense about the book once and for all, please?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:26:01 PM
Yes and normally academic papers get challenged by counter studies, that is pretty normal in the world of academia and I am sure that another study with questions structured differently could give entirely different results. Again that is normal. That's why we have elections to see what people really think and support, and back then they didn't vote SF in numbers.
And, as I already pointed out to you, there have been no fewer than three previous studies. These previous ones were referenced in the study I linked. Each one of them came to similar conclusions. So now not only are you telling the authors of one academic study that that are wrong, but you are telling the authors of THREE MORE reports that their conclusions are also wrong.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:26:01 PM
Anyhow we all agree it was a significant minority. 600 volunteers at the end, probably would have been more if it wasn't for likes of Stakenife and Dennis Donaldson- I mean did many high ranking Brits defect to us?
We all agree now that it was at least a significant minority. Which is a change in tone from your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 12:26:01 PM
SF only grew significantly once they gave up the gun. It was a failed war in many ways and a deflating experience for a lot of us
They also grew significantly when they began to properly organise themselves and devote themselves wholly to competing electorally, and when a state assassination campaign against it's reps and party workers came to an end.
20% is a significant minority and all data collection wheter qualitative or quantitative is statistical you tube
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:39:42 PM
It's not nonsense. If it's nonsense to say SF don't accept that IRA did not have the support of a majority nationalists then you show me an example where they have admitted it?
It's not nonsense to suggest that SF have considerable knowledge of the IRA atrocities. It's not nonsense to say they are sitting on this
It's not nonsense to finger dissidents for the Omagh bomb.
Incredible that you labelled my post as nonsense.
I have no idea why you are asking me about the post civil war period. I have no skin in that game.
SF inability to touch a justice brief is their link in many locations to serious organised crime. There is no chance that SF will be allowed that brief in either jurisdiction.
As for the inquiries you mentioned I am all for inquiries. Let's get at all these cases. Prospects of conviction will be low but let's prepare files on all them and run the ones that stand a chance in front of a court.
How do you know whether the IRA did or did not have support of the nationalist community? There's no basis for proving or disproving this argument. It's the type of complete nonsense I've spoken about you engaging in.
You are once again going off on a SF tangent. You contested a claim I made about the policies of FF and FG to the north and when I addressed this, rather than keep discussing this because you didn't like how it showed the up, you have now gone on a tangent on SF based on complete and utter unqualifiable conjecture.
FF/FG have actively thwarted a reconciliation process across the board. They have actively sought to deny the McAnespie family in their quest for justice early.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43144010
What do dissidents relate to SF? It's like blaming FF for any Provo action.
You came in here bald-headed trying to defend FF/FG and their attitude and policy to northern matters and their quest to politicise the troubles and use victims as political football. That was your entry in those debate and all you have offered since then is a tirade on SF based on absolute nonsense you have failed to qualify, post after post after post.
Address the issue and if you're going to try and smear SF then at least have something substantive to support it.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:06:06 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
I'm not condoning any of that. But the scale of denying history pales compared to SF. As we all know the IRA never commanded majority nationalist support within NI. Show me a single occasion where a SF politician has admitted that.
Straw man argument. Can you direct me to a SF politician claiming the IRA did have a majority of nationalists support? The reality is there was no poll taken. The only thing we know for certain is that they could not have waged such a relentless campaign for so long, in isolation from the community from which it's members came.
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
You know as well as I do that SF are sitting on a massive reserve of knowledge of who did what and literally where the bodies are hidden. They are in no big rush to get it out there.
Only a few days ago, it was discussed on this board, that the body which was set up to find the remains of the Disappeared, is on record as stating that republicans were being highly co-operative with their work, and that (contrary to your implication) that is why most of the bodies of those disappeared by the PIRA actually have been found. While we're on the topic, has the southern state ever made any attempts to search for the remains of those disappeared by the ("Good") Old IRA? A number which dwarfs the number disappeared by the Provos?
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
Also the shenanigans that the IRA where up and in some places are still up to to fund their campaign. They need to come clean on that. Need to clean their whole act on that.
Ironic that in a debate about truthfulness, you claim the IRA are currently fundraising. Care to provide your proof?
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
Can you imagine SF being in charge of justice in the north or south????
Absolutely I can. Hopefully it won't be long either. What I don't think Ireland needs is to be served by any more FF/FG justice ministers who have consistently thwarted justice to Troubles victims, play politics with victims and who have been utterly corrupt (just now, I see the news that FFG have refused to allow time for Helen McEntee to face questions in the Dáil about how Seamus Wolfe came to be appointed - more of the same).
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
As for Omagh. It wasn't the IRA.
Exactly.
Right I'll do my best.
Omagh is a red herring here. Some asshole linked it to the ira and all parties here think they are an asshole. End of that debate
I have never defended FF or FG on their quality of administration.
On fundraising. If by fundraising you mean for an armed campaign I have not alleged that. What I am alleging is that republicanism is still involved in serious crime for financial gain. Loyalists like wise. I am not posting evidence of either. My reasons for that are twofold. Firstly the proof is not in a postable form. And secondly even if it was I would not do it. Do you really need to explain why.
Given the connection to serious and organised crime there is zero chance of any political party going into coalition with SF wherein SF have control over justice. If SF won an outright majority a different issue would arise. I have heard that such a scenario would lead to consternation amongst senior police, judicial and security officials. Significant resignations to ensue.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:43:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
And on and on you go. I am not arguing with you about the need to investigate those. Investigate them all. Hold everyone to account including republicanism. I am not favouring one side over another. Get at them all.
SF did participate in elections. And were roundly seen off. The support was never there .
What a ridiculous contention.
You are making ridiculous claims that have absolutely zero basis to support them. We never had a consensus on whether nationalist community support the Provos or not. What is evident though is that the Provos would not have existed and been so effective during the troubles without sizable support in their communities.
SF up until the ceasefire was an ancillary branch to its militant arm. The political part of the republican movement took 2nd place. SF had an abstentionist policy and many nationalists rejected electoral politics in the O6.
The whole premise of your argument is not based on anything other than your own subjectiveness.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
If you're talking about constitutional politics, SF operated with an abstention policy in the O6 until after the ceasefire. The political party was merely an ancillary unit to the IRA up until the peace talks began to gain traction.
Not true. They ran in elections at all levels
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
Given the connection to serious and organised crime there is zero chance of any political party going into coalition with SF wherein SF have control over justice. If SF won an outright majority a different issue would arise. I have heard that such a scenario would lead to consternation amongst senior police, judicial and security officials. Significant resignations to ensue.
What qualifies as serious and organised crime?
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:39:42 PM
It's not nonsense. If it's nonsense to say SF don't accept that IRA did not have the support of a majority nationalists then you show me an example where they have admitted it?
I asked you to point us towards a SF rep claiming that a majority of nationalists
did support the IRA campaign. Did you have any luck with that?
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf)
As you admit yourself that document does not suggest a majority but also critically it does not show any sympathy for the actions of the IRA. None
The academic survey quoted seems to have asked the following question:
thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?''
7.4% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 34.6% said a little sympathy.
The same cohort of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents were also asked:
Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?
1.9% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 28.9% said a little sympathy.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:25:01 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:21:52 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf)
Look at SF results until 1996.sure aye sympathy but active support naw sorry didn't happen
SF barely functioned in any meaningful way for the majority of the troubles ya dope. If you are going to refute an academic study, you might want to up your game in terms of evidence.
They stood in elections in my area. All elections
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:27:40 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
Max 20% across north .
I already linked to a study which fairly resoundly makes nonsense of your "max 20%" claim.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:19:43 PM
What are you saying about abstentionism. I'm lost. They always and still do have abstentionism policy at Westminster, even though they take full wage and London office
They don't.
You haven't posted any link to support for IRA actions
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:39:23 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 11:29:33 PM
You for real. They stood in every election from 81 onwards. What are you claiming. That people supported the Ra but voted SDLP instead. And please stop with the insults, that's a few times now.
And stood in a climate where their representatives were being targetted for execution by the state and where nationalists in many cases didn't engage in electoral politics. Does that sound like a level playing field by which a party's performance could be judged? Again, if you want to refute an academic study, you're going to have to put forward something a bit better than this.
I remember the republicans outside the polling station intimidating SDLP voters. I am against all those forms of intimidation
Anyway nobody is refuting an academic paper. Your interpretation of the paper is however being refuted
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
Omagh is a red herring here. Some asshole linked it to the ira and all parties here think they are an asshole. End of that debate
Indeed. And you yourself in your initial reply, attempted to tacitly link the perpetrators to the IRA.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
I have never defended FF or FG on their quality of administration.
Not to vacal in your criticisms of them though, are you?
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
On fundraising. If by fundraising you mean for an armed campaign I have not alleged that.
Really? Cos...
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
Also the shenanigans that the IRA where up and in some places are still up to to fund their campaign. They need to come clean on that.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
What I am alleging is that republicanism is still involved in serious crime for financial gain. Loyalists like wise. I am not posting evidence of either. My reasons for that are twofold. Firstly the proof is not in a postable form. And secondly even if it was I would not do it. Do you really need to explain why.
So you're going to make an accusation, but you refuse to post your evidence. Forgive me for not taking you seriously on this one.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
Given the connection to serious and organised crime there is zero chance of any political party going into coalition with SF wherein SF have control over justice. If SF won an outright majority a different issue would arise. I have heard that such a scenario would lead to consternation amongst senior police, judicial and security officials. Significant resignations to ensue.
Only for not running enough candidates at the start of the year, SF would hold the justice ministry today. I know you're claiming to have "heard" things (presumably from the same inside lines that told you all about the IRA fundraising you can't tell us about), but again, what you "heard" won't change the outcome of any election where SF win a majority.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf)
As you admit yourself that document does not suggest a majority but also critically it does not show any sympathy for the actions of the IRA. None
So a study which found that 42% of nationalists had some degree of sympathy for the armed republican campaign during the troubles doesn't actually contain evidence of any nationalist sympathy for the armed campaign? Hmmm.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 01:58:01 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:39:42 PM
It's not nonsense. If it's nonsense to say SF don't accept that IRA did not have the support of a majority nationalists then you show me an example where they have admitted it?
It's not nonsense to suggest that SF have considerable knowledge of the IRA atrocities. It's not nonsense to say they are sitting on this
It's not nonsense to finger dissidents for the Omagh bomb.
Incredible that you labelled my post as nonsense.
I have no idea why you are asking me about the post civil war period. I have no skin in that game.
SF inability to touch a justice brief is their link in many locations to serious organised crime. There is no chance that SF will be allowed that brief in either jurisdiction.
As for the inquiries you mentioned I am all for inquiries. Let's get at all these cases. Prospects of conviction will be low but let's prepare files on all them and run the ones that stand a chance in front of a court.
How do you know whether the IRA did or did not have support of the nationalist community? There's no basis for proving or disproving this argument. It's the type of complete nonsense I've spoken about you engaging in.
You are once again going off on a SF tangent. You contested a claim I made about the policies of FF and FG to the north and when I addressed this, rather than keep discussing this because you didn't like how it showed the up, you have now gone on a tangent on SF based on complete and utter unqualifiable conjecture.
FF/FG have actively thwarted a reconciliation process across the board. They have actively sought to deny the McAnespie family in their quest for justice early.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43144010
What do dissidents relate to SF? It's like blaming FF for any Provo action.
You came in here bald-headed trying to defend FF/FG and their attitude and policy to northern matters and their quest to politicise the troubles and use victims as political football. That was your entry in those debate and all you have offered since then is a tirade on SF based on absolute nonsense you have failed to qualify, post after post after post.
Address the issue and if you're going to try and smear SF then at least have something substantive to support it.
I'm not going off on tangents. I am being consistent. I criticise all parties for their actions in thwarting inquiries. All parties. Can you say the same?
I have never blamed the IRA for Omagh. Where do you get the impression that I have?
I am critical of FG and FF action/inaction on inquires. I do however recognise their broader stance on the principle of consent and not agitating.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:11:58 PM
I remember the republicans outside the polling station intimidating SDLP voters. I am against all those forms of intimidation
Anyway nobody is refuting an academic paper. Your interpretation of the paper is however being refuted
You're against all forms of intimidation, but only single out an instance where SF are the supposed guilty party? I can confirm for your benefit that I recall an election in my own area where the SDLP staffers around the polling station attempted to intimidate voters en masse by objecting to as many people as possible, purey to slow down the numbers voting in what is a republican stronghold. I hope that puts your mind at ease about intimidation, and that the next time the topic arises, you'll single out the SDLP for criticism too.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:04:59 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:43:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
And on and on you go. I am not arguing with you about the need to investigate those. Investigate them all. Hold everyone to account including republicanism. I am not favouring one side over another. Get at them all.
SF did participate in elections. And were roundly seen off. The support was never there .
What a ridiculous contention.
You are making ridiculous claims that have absolutely zero basis to support them. We never had a consensus on whether nationalist community support the Provos or not. What is evident though is that the Provos would not have existed and been so effective during the troubles without sizable support in their communities.
SF up until the ceasefire was an ancillary branch to its militant arm. The political part of the republican movement took 2nd place. SF had an abstentionist policy and many nationalists rejected electoral politics in the O6.
The whole premise of your argument is not based on anything other than your own subjectiveness.
Well can we both agree that all parties should support all inquiries and be roundly condemned if they fail to do so? That should be uncontentious
SF stood in elections. They campaigned in elections. Whilst the IRA were active SF had very little support
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
Given the connection to serious and organised crime there is zero chance of any political party going into coalition with SF wherein SF have control over justice. If SF won an outright majority a different issue would arise. I have heard that such a scenario would lead to consternation amongst senior police, judicial and security officials. Significant resignations to ensue.
What qualifies as serious and organised crime?
In my area racketeering and until recently fuel laundering. In others drug dealing, livestock and machinery theft with onward networks for processing
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:06:51 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:39:42 PM
It's not nonsense. If it's nonsense to say SF don't accept that IRA did not have the support of a majority nationalists then you show me an example where they have admitted it?
I asked you to point us towards a SF rep claiming that a majority of nationalists did support the IRA campaign. Did you have any luck with that?
I'll look out for one. What do you want a clip of them saying "we had majority support" or a claim that they were necessary because the people needed them to take action and it was for the people that they acted?
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:20:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 01:58:01 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:39:42 PM
It's not nonsense. If it's nonsense to say SF don't accept that IRA did not have the support of a majority nationalists then you show me an example where they have admitted it?
It's not nonsense to suggest that SF have considerable knowledge of the IRA atrocities. It's not nonsense to say they are sitting on this
It's not nonsense to finger dissidents for the Omagh bomb.
Incredible that you labelled my post as nonsense.
I have no idea why you are asking me about the post civil war period. I have no skin in that game.
SF inability to touch a justice brief is their link in many locations to serious organised crime. There is no chance that SF will be allowed that brief in either jurisdiction.
As for the inquiries you mentioned I am all for inquiries. Let's get at all these cases. Prospects of conviction will be low but let's prepare files on all them and run the ones that stand a chance in front of a court.
How do you know whether the IRA did or did not have support of the nationalist community? There's no basis for proving or disproving this argument. It's the type of complete nonsense I've spoken about you engaging in.
You are once again going off on a SF tangent. You contested a claim I made about the policies of FF and FG to the north and when I addressed this, rather than keep discussing this because you didn't like how it showed the up, you have now gone on a tangent on SF based on complete and utter unqualifiable conjecture.
FF/FG have actively thwarted a reconciliation process across the board. They have actively sought to deny the McAnespie family in their quest for justice early.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43144010
What do dissidents relate to SF? It's like blaming FF for any Provo action.
You came in here bald-headed trying to defend FF/FG and their attitude and policy to northern matters and their quest to politicise the troubles and use victims as political football. That was your entry in those debate and all you have offered since then is a tirade on SF based on absolute nonsense you have failed to qualify, post after post after post.
Address the issue and if you're going to try and smear SF then at least have something substantive to support it.
I'm not going off on tangents. I am being consistent. I criticise all parties for their actions in thwarting inquiries. All parties. Can you say the same?
I have never blamed the IRA for Omagh. Where do you get the impression that I have?
I am critical of FG and FF action/inaction on inquires. I do however recognise their broader stance on the principle of consent and not agitating.
Your entry into this thread was to contend what I said about FF/FG and trying to politicise the troubles and use victims of it as political footballs.
You're saying one thing about being critical of all parties but that's simply not true, it's a blatant lie in fact and the audit trail in this thread will show your offerings on this thread was to instantly defend FF/FG and go on the attack at SF.
FF/FG's sole interest in the legacy issues of the north is to use it as a political football, they have shown complete and utter contempt and disinterest in victims of British State Terrorism. The only look to politicise the troubles. Your entry in to this thread was to contest that and then you have the sheer brass neck to say you criticise all parties literally, it's absolutely risibile what you're claiming, risible.
Any northern nationalist should be utterly appalled at the FF/FG stance on the troubles and the callous way they use it for political purposes.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:06:51 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:39:42 PM
It's not nonsense. If it's nonsense to say SF don't accept that IRA did not have the support of a majority nationalists then you show me an example where they have admitted it?
I asked you to point us towards a SF rep claiming that a majority of nationalists did support the IRA campaign. Did you have any luck with that?
I'll look out for one. What do you want a clip of them saying "we had majority support" or a claim that they were necessary because the people needed them to take action and it was for the people that they acted?
I think what people want is for you to stand over your claims with something other than your own subjective bias.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:16:05 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
Omagh is a red herring here. Some asshole linked it to the ira and all parties here think they are an asshole. End of that debate
Indeed. And you yourself in your initial reply, attempted to tacitly link the perpetrators to the IRA.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
I have never defended FF or FG on their quality of administration.
Not to vacal in your criticisms of them though, are you?
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
On fundraising. If by fundraising you mean for an armed campaign I have not alleged that.
Really? Cos...
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:59:24 PM
Also the shenanigans that the IRA where up and in some places are still up to to fund their campaign. They need to come clean on that.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
What I am alleging is that republicanism is still involved in serious crime for financial gain. Loyalists like wise. I am not posting evidence of either. My reasons for that are twofold. Firstly the proof is not in a postable form. And secondly even if it was I would not do it. Do you really need to explain why.
So you're going to make an accusation, but you refuse to post your evidence. Forgive me for not taking you seriously on this one.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
Given the connection to serious and organised crime there is zero chance of any political party going into coalition with SF wherein SF have control over justice. If SF won an outright majority a different issue would arise. I have heard that such a scenario would lead to consternation amongst senior police, judicial and security officials. Significant resignations to ensue.
Only for not running enough candidates at the start of the year, SF would hold the justice ministry today. I know you're claiming to have "heard" things (presumably from the same inside lines that told you all about the IRA fundraising you can't tell us about), but again, what you "heard" won't change the outcome of any election where SF win a majority.
Whoever raised omagh as an issue want me. I have clearly said from the outset that it was dissidents and not the ira.
I am equal in my criticism. That is my point. Block an inquiry and I'll condemn you.
Read the shenanigans line again. They shenanigans they were up to to fund their campaign they are still up to in some locations (including mine).
You know full well why someone would not post evidence of racketeering. Full well.
I am not claiming to be able to influence future elections not indeed that if SF win a majority they will hold all the government roles. I guess you knew that
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:06:51 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:39:42 PM
It's not nonsense. If it's nonsense to say SF don't accept that IRA did not have the support of a majority nationalists then you show me an example where they have admitted it?
I asked you to point us towards a SF rep claiming that a majority of nationalists did support the IRA campaign. Did you have any luck with that?
I'll look out for one. What do you want a clip of them saying "we had majority support" or a claim that they were necessary because the people needed them to take action and it was for the people that they acted?
You're the one insinuating that SF's default position is that the IRA did have the majority of nationalism's support. Since the implication is your own, then I'm merely asking you to substantiate it.
You made your implication by asking for a quote where a SF rep admits the IRA didn't have the support of a majority of nationalism. I'm asking you to post a quote where they ever claimed it did. But yeah, keep a look out and get back to us.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:25:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
Given the connection to serious and organised crime there is zero chance of any political party going into coalition with SF wherein SF have control over justice. If SF won an outright majority a different issue would arise. I have heard that such a scenario would lead to consternation amongst senior police, judicial and security officials. Significant resignations to ensue.
What qualifies as serious and organised crime?
In my area racketeering and until recently fuel laundering. In others drug dealing, livestock and machinery theft with onward networks for processing
More baseless conjecture.
Who is to say it's not the SDLP involved in it?
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf)
As you admit yourself that document does not suggest a majority but also critically it does not show any sympathy for the actions of the IRA. None
So a study which found that 42% of nationalists had some degree of sympathy for the armed republican campaign during the troubles doesn't actually contain evidence of any nationalist sympathy for the armed campaign? Hmmm.
Because that is not what the research says. The question was so you have sympathy for the causes and expressly does not ask for sympathy for the actions. It calls that out. Hence a figure of 10% of Protestants having sympathy. It doesn't say how many of the respondents said yes to both loyalist and republican side of the question which would be an interesting further piece of analysis
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:22:38 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:11:58 PM
I remember the republicans outside the polling station intimidating SDLP voters. I am against all those forms of intimidation
Anyway nobody is refuting an academic paper. Your interpretation of the paper is however being refuted
You're against all forms of intimidation, but only single out an instance where SF are the supposed guilty party? I can confirm for your benefit that I recall an election in my own area where the SDLP staffers around the polling station attempted to intimidate voters en masse by objecting to as many people as possible, purey to slow down the numbers voting in what is a republican stronghold. I hope that puts your mind at ease about intimidation, and that the next time the topic arises, you'll single out the SDLP for criticism too.
I am not singling out that incident. I am adding it to a list. I condemn them all
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:34:56 PM
Whoever raised omagh as an issue want me. I have clearly said from the outset that it was dissidents and not the ira.
You didn't mention dissidents. You said those who carried out Omagh were "more like the IRA than the IRA". If that's not a cynical attempt to vague link it in people's minds to the IRA, then I just don't know what is.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:34:56 PM
Read the shenanigans line again. They shenanigans they were up to to fund their campaign they are still up to in some locations (including mine).
You know full well why someone would not post evidence of racketeering. Full well.
You're hiding behind anonymity ffs. Sure we can all make stupid accusation about anyone and point blank refuse to provide evidence. If that's the level you want to bring the debate to, then go ahead. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:34:56 PM
I am not claiming to be able to influence future elections not indeed that if SF win a majority they will hold all the government roles. I guess you knew that
And I guess you understand that the party with the majority has the strongest negotiating hand to go for whatever departments it wants. regardless of what you "heard".
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:36:16 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:06:51 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:39:42 PM
It's not nonsense. If it's nonsense to say SF don't accept that IRA did not have the support of a majority nationalists then you show me an example where they have admitted it?
I asked you to point us towards a SF rep claiming that a majority of nationalists did support the IRA campaign. Did you have any luck with that?
I'll look out for one. What do you want a clip of them saying "we had majority support" or a claim that they were necessary because the people needed them to take action and it was for the people that they acted?
You're the one insinuating that SF's default position is that the IRA did have the majority of nationalism's support. Since the implication is your own, then I'm merely asking you to substantiate it.
You made your implication by asking for a quote where a SF rep admits the IRA didn't have the support of a majority of nationalism. I'm asking you to post a quote where they ever claimed it did. But yeah, keep a look out and get back to us.
I have certainly heard SF Calum popular support for their actions. I will keep an eye out for their precise wording and post anything I have
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:37:15 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:25:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
Given the connection to serious and organised crime there is zero chance of any political party going into coalition with SF wherein SF have control over justice. If SF won an outright majority a different issue would arise. I have heard that such a scenario would lead to consternation amongst senior police, judicial and security officials. Significant resignations to ensue.
What qualifies as serious and organised crime?
In my area racketeering and until recently fuel laundering. In others drug dealing, livestock and machinery theft with onward networks for processing
More baseless conjecture.
Who is to say it's not the SDLP involved in it?
I know the people. Some call to my door. They are not SDLP supporters. Nor am I
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf)
As you admit yourself that document does not suggest a majority but also critically it does not show any sympathy for the actions of the IRA. None
So a study which found that 42% of nationalists had some degree of sympathy for the armed republican campaign during the troubles doesn't actually contain evidence of any nationalist sympathy for the armed campaign? Hmmm.
Because that is not what the research says. The questions was so you have sympathy for the causes and expressly does not ask for sympathy for the actions. It calls that out. Hence a figure of 10% of Protestants having sympathy. It doesn't say how many of the respondents said yes to both loyalist and republican side of the question which would be an interesting further piece of analysis
To quote the report itself:
Quote
42 percent of Catholics as compared to just 10 percent of Protestants in Northern Ireland expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups
and....
Quote
"As in previous research, the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends. There is perhaps no other advanced industrial society where such large numbers of people effectively condone terrorism"
You may contact QUB and tell these academics that they don't understand their own research.
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on November 17, 2020, 02:07:30 PM
The academic survey quoted seems to have asked the following question:
thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?''
7.4% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 34.6% said a little sympathy.
The same cohort of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents were also asked:
Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?
1.9% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 28.9% said a little sympathy.
Thanks, I couldn't be bothered to read whole thing but I suspected it was along those lines.
So the 42%that shitchat is talking about can be matched to 30 odd % nationslists showing some sympathy to loyalist violence
As I said support and sympathy aren't the same thing and the way questions and answers are framed can be misleading
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on November 17, 2020, 02:07:30 PM
The academic survey quoted seems to have asked the following question:
thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?''
7.4% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 34.6% said a little sympathy.
The same cohort of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents were also asked:
Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?
1.9% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 28.9% said a little sympathy.
Thanks, I couldn't be bothered to read whole thing but I suspected it was along those lines.
So the 42%that shitchat is talking about can be matched to 30 odd % nationslists showing some sympathy to loyalist violence
As I said support and sympathy aren't the same thing and the way questions and answers are framed can be misleading
I refer to honorable gentleman to my post above, quoting the report.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:53:13 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 17, 2020, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on November 17, 2020, 02:07:30 PM
The academic survey quoted seems to have asked the following question:
thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?''
7.4% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 34.6% said a little sympathy.
The same cohort of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents were also asked:
Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?
1.9% of Nationalist (Catholic) respondents said a lot of sympathy and 28.9% said a little sympathy.
Thanks, I couldn't be bothered to read whole thing but I suspected it was along those lines.
So the 42%that shitchat is talking about can be matched to 30 odd % nationslists showing some sympathy to loyalist violence
As I said support and sympathy aren't the same thing and the way questions and answers are framed can be misleading
I refer to honorable gentleman to my post above, quoting the report.
Lol
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:47:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:37:15 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:25:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
Given the connection to serious and organised crime there is zero chance of any political party going into coalition with SF wherein SF have control over justice. If SF won an outright majority a different issue would arise. I have heard that such a scenario would lead to consternation amongst senior police, judicial and security officials. Significant resignations to ensue.
What qualifies as serious and organised crime?
In my area racketeering and until recently fuel laundering. In others drug dealing, livestock and machinery theft with onward networks for processing
More baseless conjecture.
Who is to say it's not the SDLP involved in it?
I know the people. Some call to my door. They are not SDLP supporters. Nor am I
Subjective conjecture again.
Word on the street is of drug gangs with big links to the SDLP.
The old "I'm not an SDLP supporter" from the Stoops on here is laughable.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 03:29:36 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:47:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:37:15 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:25:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
Given the connection to serious and organised crime there is zero chance of any political party going into coalition with SF wherein SF have control over justice. If SF won an outright majority a different issue would arise. I have heard that such a scenario would lead to consternation amongst senior police, judicial and security officials. Significant resignations to ensue.
What qualifies as serious and organised crime?
In my area racketeering and until recently fuel laundering. In others drug dealing, livestock and machinery theft with onward networks for processing
More baseless conjecture.
Who is to say it's not the SDLP involved in it?
I know the people. Some call to my door. They are not SDLP supporters. Nor am I
Subjective conjecture again.
Word on the street is of drug gangs with big links to the SDLP.
The old "I'm not an SDLP supporter" from the Stoops on here is laughable.
sure you arent getting eastwoods mixed up wit eastenders
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:50:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf)
As you admit yourself that document does not suggest a majority but also critically it does not show any sympathy for the actions of the IRA. None
So a study which found that 42% of nationalists had some degree of sympathy for the armed republican campaign during the troubles doesn't actually contain evidence of any nationalist sympathy for the armed campaign? Hmmm.
Because that is not what the research says. The questions was so you have sympathy for the causes and expressly does not ask for sympathy for the actions. It calls that out. Hence a figure of 10% of Protestants having sympathy. It doesn't say how many of the respondents said yes to both loyalist and republican side of the question which would be an interesting further piece of analysis
To quote the report itself:
Quote
42 percent of Catholics as compared to just 10 percent of Protestants in Northern Ireland expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups
and....
Quote
"As in previous research, the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends. There is perhaps no other advanced industrial society where such large numbers of people effectively condone terrorism"
You may contact QUB and tell these academics that they don't understand their own research.
At least I read their research
The 42% figure you use comes from an earlier bit of research that is quoted in the QUB paper. It comes from this table
Republicans...............Prods..............Taigs
A lot of sympathy.......0%.................
7.4%A Little sympathy.......10.2%............
.34.6%No Sympathy.............89.9%............58%
Loyalist
A lot of sympathy........4.6%.............1.9%
A Little sympathy........19.5%............28.9%
No Sympathy..............75.9%...........69.2%
Your 42% is the aggregate of the 2 numbers in bold.
You conveniently ignore that these are the responses to the following specific question:
''Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself? And, thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?''
That is why you get some protestants sympathising with the conditions giving rise to republican violence and a whopping 30.8% of catholic respondents sympathising with the conditions giving rise to loyalist. They are expressly not condoning the violent actions. Your unique interpretation of this research would lead you to conclude that level of catholic support for loyalist violence ran at 73% of the level of catholic support for republican violence. That should serve to illustrate how far off the mark you are in your interpretation.
I know you thought upou had hit upon a gem of a source but lets face it you cocked up
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 08:59:52 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:50:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 16, 2020, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 08:56:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 16, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
Staggering ignorance.
Just yesterday we had a FF councillor on twitter claiming that the Provos carried out the Omagh bombing, and made the claim purely in an attempt to have a cheap pop at Sinn Féin. How's that for re-writing history? But sure, it was only the biggest atrocity of the conflict and sure it was all to take a pop at the shinners, so who cares eh?
But you're probably right. The state that went as far as introducing a law aimed at censoring what was reported about the conflict to the people of the south was probably not trying to subvert the truth of what was happening at all at all ::)
A FG TD claimed that the IRA committed the Dublin/Monaghan bombings (it was the UVF aided by arms of the British State) - an atrocity his party helped coverup and deny justice to the victims.
Another FG TD blamed Gerry Adams for loyalists coming into his constituency office and opening fire on unarmed civilians killing 3.
The narrative from FF/FG is that Northern nationalists deserved all they got and how dare them for fighting back.
The formation of the Provos was an inevitable reality during the troubles and it is the British and Free State Governments that have blood on their hands from their inaction.
Some outlandish claims there. The individuals making the claims are idiots.
The claim that FF/FG attitude to Northern nationalists was that deserved all they got is similarly idiotic. Where do get this shit.
You have never explained why, during the troubles, a majority of nationalists living in the prevailing condition NI never thought that the provos' actions were justified?
Outlandish claims are commonplace and happen on a daily basis down south from FF and FG.
We never had any sort of consensus whether the vast majority of nationalists supported the Provos or not. It's impossible to say because there is nothing to back up your assertion. The Provos could not operate as successfully as they did without the cooperation of local communities and certainly in the likes of South Armagh, East Tyrone and South Derry they would have had significant support in local areas as well as urban cities like Belfast and Derry.
Well that seems to be attitude of FF/FG. They consistently try to politicise the troubles, you and I both know about the role the British State played in many atrocities on innocent nationalist civilians and their dirty campaign north of the border and in the Dublin Monaghan bombings too. Yet where is the political pressure there from FF/FG? Why do they consistently ignore the vast majority of nationalist victims of the Troubles?
They have no problem trying to play political football with victims of the trouble but when they had the opportunity to assist the McAnespie family to get justice they actively thwarted the quest and refused to release what could be an invaluable report in doing so.
They operated with about 10% support of nationalist population until ceasefire
Care to substantiate this claim with any evidence? While you attempt to, I'll direct you this QUB study carried out in 2005, which found that "42 percent of Catholics expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups" and goes to to say "The opinion poll evidence in both societies about support for physical force tells a remarkably consistent—and shocking—story. As in previous research, (25) the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends" https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf)
As you admit yourself that document does not suggest a majority but also critically it does not show any sympathy for the actions of the IRA. None
So a study which found that 42% of nationalists had some degree of sympathy for the armed republican campaign during the troubles doesn't actually contain evidence of any nationalist sympathy for the armed campaign? Hmmm.
Because that is not what the research says. The questions was so you have sympathy for the causes and expressly does not ask for sympathy for the actions. It calls that out. Hence a figure of 10% of Protestants having sympathy. It doesn't say how many of the respondents said yes to both loyalist and republican side of the question which would be an interesting further piece of analysis
To quote the report itself:
Quote
42 percent of Catholics as compared to just 10 percent of Protestants in Northern Ireland expressed sympathy for republican paramilitary groups
and....
Quote
"As in previous research, the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends. There is perhaps no other advanced industrial society where such large numbers of people effectively condone terrorism"
You may contact QUB and tell these academics that they don't understand their own research.
At least I read their research
The 42% figure you use comes from an earlier bit of research that is quoted in the QUB paper. It comes from this table
Republicans...............Prods..............Taigs
A lot of sympathy.......0%.................7.4%
A Little sympathy.......10.2%.............34.6%
No Sympathy.............89.9%............58%
Loyalist
A lot of sympathy........4.6%.............1.9%
A Little sympathy........19.5%............28.9%
No Sympathy..............75.9%...........69.2%
Your 42% is the aggregate of the 2 numbers in bold.
You conveniently ignore that these are the responses to the following specific question:
''Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself? And, thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don't condone the violence yourself?''
That is why you get some protestants sympathising with the conditions giving rise to republican violence and a whopping 30.8% of catholic respondents sympathising with the conditions giving rise to loyalist. They are expressly not condoning the violent actions. Your unique interpretation of this research would lead you to conclude that level of catholic support for loyalist violence ran at 73% of the level of catholic support for republican violence. That should serve to illustrate how far off the mark you are in your interpretation.
I know you thought upou had hit upon a gem of a source but lets face it you cocked up
Lol. Boom . Excuse the pun
Yeah yours are probably right. The authors of the study obviously didn't understand their own research.
Quote
"As in previous research, the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends. There is perhaps no other advanced industrial society where such large numbers of people effectively condone terrorism"
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
I'm just pointing out the absence of integrity in your personal position on this.
As for FG and FF I have no problem with their general view on NI. Obviously there are exceptions to that. Political interference to prevent an inquiry or disclosure of inquiry findings would be such an exception.
So you have no problem with FF/FG using victims of the Troubles as political footballs to score points while they continue to frustrate the likes of the McAnespie family in their bid for justice?
What FF/FG serve to do is rewrite the narrative of The Troubles. They only focus on the victims of the Provos, but the vast, vast amount of nationalists were victims of the British State, their security forces and the loyalist murder squads they colluded with and what is the FF/FG stance on that?
FF/FG routinely namecheck Tom Oliver, Paul Quinn, Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill etc but they wouldn't be able to name you nationalist victim of British state forces. That is as callous as it gets. FG TDs coming out and blaming the IRA for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings when their own party sought to cover it up. Appointing a RUC stooge as head of their police force.
FF/FG are every bit as bad as the DUP.
Well I have no problem with people being held to account? FG and certainly FF have the skeletons. By all means go after them. I'm no fan of either Party. Shinners have some serious dirt in their past and a good deal in their present. Hold them to account.
In my earlier post I specifically mentioned inquiries. So your question re McAnespie is baffling.
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
You describe someone as being callous based upon evidence that exists in your head.
I think you are unwell.
The ceasefire was over 20 odd years ago. If you are digging up dirt then none of the main political parties on this island have clean hands. Murder in 1920 is no different to murder in 1970 or 1990 if you take that view, yet for many in the South and some in the North one was a fight for freedom the other a terrorist campaign. They are both the same thing. it is hypocritical to view them differently.
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 18, 2020, 01:00:38 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
I'm just pointing out the absence of integrity in your personal position on this.
As for FG and FF I have no problem with their general view on NI. Obviously there are exceptions to that. Political interference to prevent an inquiry or disclosure of inquiry findings would be such an exception.
So you have no problem with FF/FG using victims of the Troubles as political footballs to score points while they continue to frustrate the likes of the McAnespie family in their bid for justice?
What FF/FG serve to do is rewrite the narrative of The Troubles. They only focus on the victims of the Provos, but the vast, vast amount of nationalists were victims of the British State, their security forces and the loyalist murder squads they colluded with and what is the FF/FG stance on that?
FF/FG routinely namecheck Tom Oliver, Paul Quinn, Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill etc but they wouldn't be able to name you nationalist victim of British state forces. That is as callous as it gets. FG TDs coming out and blaming the IRA for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings when their own party sought to cover it up. Appointing a RUC stooge as head of their police force.
FF/FG are every bit as bad as the DUP.
Well I have no problem with people being held to account? FG and certainly FF have the skeletons. By all means go after them. I'm no fan of either Party. Shinners have some serious dirt in their past and a good deal in their present. Hold them to account.
In my earlier post I specifically mentioned inquiries. So your question re McAnespie is baffling.
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
You describe someone as being callous based upon evidence that exists in your head.
I think you are unwell.
The ceasefire was over 20 odd years ago. If you are digging up dirt then none of the main political parties on this island have clean hands. Murder in 1920 is no different to murder in 1970 or 1990 if you take that view, yet for many in the South and some in the North one was a fight for freedom the other a terrorist campaign. They are both the same thing. it is hypocritical to view them differently.
And you will be first to admit that I haven't condoned any violence from any quarter in any time period.
You will also note that I am not a supporter of any of the parties mentioned (FG, FF, SF or SDLP).
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 10:37:08 PM
Yeah yours are probably right. The authors of the study obviously didn't understand their own research.
Quote
"As in previous research, the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends. There is perhaps no other advanced industrial society where such large numbers of people effectively condone terrorism"
When Covid restrictions are relaxed I'll pop along to QUB and show them how there is an issue with the understanding of their research. If you could be come along with me I would ask that you don't get uppity if I refer to you as "Exhibit A"?
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:15:30 PM
And you will be first to admit that I haven't condoned any violence from any quarter in any time period.
You will also note that I am not a supporter of any of the parties mentioned (FG, FF, SF or SDLP).
You entered this thread to defend FF/FG blindly and have proceeded to make a litany of unsubstantiated claims.
Your "I'm not a stoop" act is about as credible as any of your arguments
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:18:20 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 10:37:08 PM
Yeah yours are probably right. The authors of the study obviously didn't understand their own research.
Quote
"As in previous research, the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends. There is perhaps no other advanced industrial society where such large numbers of people effectively condone terrorism"
When Covid restrictions are relaxed I'll pop along to QUB and show them how there is an issue with the understanding of their research. If you could be come along with me I would ask that you don't get uppity if I refer to you as "Exhibit A"?
No you can go on ahead. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to go to a University and tell the authors of a research project that you understand it better than they do.
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:15:30 PM
And you will be first to admit that I haven't condoned any violence from any quarter in any time period.
You will also note that I am not a supporter of any of the parties mentioned (FG, FF, SF or SDLP).
You entered this thread to defend FF/FG blindly and have proceeded to make a litany of unsubstantiated claims.
Your "I'm not a stoop" act is about as credible as any of your arguments
I did not blindly defend anybody. You know that. Anybody who read the posts knows that.
I am not an SDLP supporter. Apart from throwing them a vote well down the card I have voted for them twice in my life. Once early on and once tactically. The latter was quite recent I will admit. But they are not my party of choice. So stop your silly little games
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 02:21:47 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:18:20 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 10:37:08 PM
Yeah yours are probably right. The authors of the study obviously didn't understand their own research.
Quote
"As in previous research, the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends. There is perhaps no other advanced industrial society where such large numbers of people effectively condone terrorism"
When Covid restrictions are relaxed I'll pop along to QUB and show them how there is an issue with the understanding of their research. If you could be come along with me I would ask that you don't get uppity if I refer to you as "Exhibit A"?
No you can go on ahead. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to go to a University and tell the authors of a research project that you understand it better than they do.
While you are on can you at least confirm that my analysis of the 42% stat is 100% correct
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 02:23:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:15:30 PM
And you will be first to admit that I haven't condoned any violence from any quarter in any time period.
You will also note that I am not a supporter of any of the parties mentioned (FG, FF, SF or SDLP).
You entered this thread to defend FF/FG blindly and have proceeded to make a litany of unsubstantiated claims.
Your "I'm not a stoop" act is about as credible as any of your arguments
I did not blindly defend anybody. You know that. Anybody who read the posts knows that.
I am not an SDLP supporter. Apart from throwing them a vote well down the card I have voted for them twice in my life. Once early on and once tactically. The latter was quite recent I will admit. But they are not my party of choice. So stop your silly little games
I'm not playing games and the only one being silly is you.
You came on here with willful ignorance to defend FF/FG. You then proceeded to drag in SF out on nowhere when doing so, went on to make a number of allegations and claims with absolutely no substance towards them.
And you top it all off with the "I'm not a Stoop" line. Belter. ;D
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:15:30 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 18, 2020, 01:00:38 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
I'm just pointing out the absence of integrity in your personal position on this.
As for FG and FF I have no problem with their general view on NI. Obviously there are exceptions to that. Political interference to prevent an inquiry or disclosure of inquiry findings would be such an exception.
So you have no problem with FF/FG using victims of the Troubles as political footballs to score points while they continue to frustrate the likes of the McAnespie family in their bid for justice?
What FF/FG serve to do is rewrite the narrative of The Troubles. They only focus on the victims of the Provos, but the vast, vast amount of nationalists were victims of the British State, their security forces and the loyalist murder squads they colluded with and what is the FF/FG stance on that?
FF/FG routinely namecheck Tom Oliver, Paul Quinn, Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill etc but they wouldn't be able to name you nationalist victim of British state forces. That is as callous as it gets. FG TDs coming out and blaming the IRA for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings when their own party sought to cover it up. Appointing a RUC stooge as head of their police force.
FF/FG are every bit as bad as the DUP.
Well I have no problem with people being held to account? FG and certainly FF have the skeletons. By all means go after them. I'm no fan of either Party. Shinners have some serious dirt in their past and a good deal in their present. Hold them to account.
In my earlier post I specifically mentioned inquiries. So your question re McAnespie is baffling.
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
You describe someone as being callous based upon evidence that exists in your head.
I think you are unwell.
The ceasefire was over 20 odd years ago. If you are digging up dirt then none of the main political parties on this island have clean hands. Murder in 1920 is no different to murder in 1970 or 1990 if you take that view, yet for many in the South and some in the North one was a fight for freedom the other a terrorist campaign. They are both the same thing. it is hypocritical to view them differently.
And you will be first to admit that I haven't condoned any violence from any quarter in any time period.
You will also note that I am not a supporter of any of the parties mentioned (FG, FF, SF or SDLP).
So where do you stand on FF and FG and the '20's then?
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 02:25:08 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 02:21:47 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:18:20 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 17, 2020, 10:37:08 PM
Yeah yours are probably right. The authors of the study obviously didn't understand their own research.
Quote
"As in previous research, the results show that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (as well as within each of their respective religious communities) support the use of violence for political ends. There is perhaps no other advanced industrial society where such large numbers of people effectively condone terrorism"
When Covid restrictions are relaxed I'll pop along to QUB and show them how there is an issue with the understanding of their research. If you could be come along with me I would ask that you don't get uppity if I refer to you as "Exhibit A"?
No you can go on ahead. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to go to a University and tell the authors of a research project that you understand it better than they do.
While you are on can you at least confirm that my analysis of the 42% stat is 100% correct
Of course your analysis is true and as Redhand said "Burn"
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 18, 2020, 01:00:38 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
I'm just pointing out the absence of integrity in your personal position on this.
As for FG and FF I have no problem with their general view on NI. Obviously there are exceptions to that. Political interference to prevent an inquiry or disclosure of inquiry findings would be such an exception.
So you have no problem with FF/FG using victims of the Troubles as political footballs to score points while they continue to frustrate the likes of the McAnespie family in their bid for justice?
What FF/FG serve to do is rewrite the narrative of The Troubles. They only focus on the victims of the Provos, but the vast, vast amount of nationalists were victims of the British State, their security forces and the loyalist murder squads they colluded with and what is the FF/FG stance on that?
FF/FG routinely namecheck Tom Oliver, Paul Quinn, Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill etc but they wouldn't be able to name you nationalist victim of British state forces. That is as callous as it gets. FG TDs coming out and blaming the IRA for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings when their own party sought to cover it up. Appointing a RUC stooge as head of their police force.
FF/FG are every bit as bad as the DUP.
Well I have no problem with people being held to account? FG and certainly FF have the skeletons. By all means go after them. I'm no fan of either Party. Shinners have some serious dirt in their past and a good deal in their present. Hold them to account.
In my earlier post I specifically mentioned inquiries. So your question re McAnespie is baffling.
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
You describe someone as being callous based upon evidence that exists in your head.
I think you are unwell.
The ceasefire was over 20 odd years ago. If you are digging up dirt then none of the main political parties on this island have clean hands. Murder in 1920 is no different to murder in 1970 or 1990 if you take that view, yet for many in the South and some in the North one was a fight for freedom the other a terrorist campaign. They are both the same thing. it is hypocritical to view them differently.
I totally agree on your point on 20sv70s. But on the other hand we still have Murphy in govt TODAY refusing to retract what he said to back up the murder of Paul Quinn. To say that no parties have their hands clean is absolutely untrue
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Truest thing said on here
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Those who are attracted to politics in NI and competence aren't really good bed fellows.
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
Somewhat agree with this on the national question but we do all fall into a habit of voting for parties rather than policies on many things. This week is a god example, load of nationalists agreeing with DUP on lockdown stance, but almost afraid to say
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 18, 2020, 04:49:14 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
Somewhat agree with this on the national question but we do all fall into a habit of voting for parties rather than policies on many things. This week is a god example, load of nationalists agreeing with DUP on lockdown stance, but almost afraid to say
I would say the vast majority of people that are agreeing with the DUP going against medical advice, are self-employed or business owners.
More or less because they are not getting accommodated for between the Tories and then Diane Dodds not rolling out the new schemes.
Quote from: JohnDenver on November 18, 2020, 05:15:51 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 18, 2020, 04:49:14 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
Somewhat agree with this on the national question but we do all fall into a habit of voting for parties rather than policies on many things. This week is a god example, load of nationalists agreeing with DUP on lockdown stance, but almost afraid to say
I would say the vast majority of people that are agreeing with the DUP going against medical advice, are self-employed or business owners.
More or less because they are not getting accommodated for between the Tories and then Diane Dodds not rolling out the new schemes.
No, not entirely. Vast majority of parents want their children at school. The feeling is that the DUP have same outlook there. I work in manufacturing, almost nobody I talk to wants expanded lockdown s. We are working class men and women. I'll give you an example of feeling, office staff were given option to work from home 2 weeks ago. Only 20 percent took up the offer. It's obviously not cut and dry but definitely seeing people affiliate with party policies rather than green v orange outlook
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
Yes, the constitutional issue is of huge importance to the majority. I'm a nationalist and believe in a united Ireland but I won't vote for a party purely on the constitutional issue if I believe they are incompetent and incapable of governing due to poor judgement and decision making, work ethic or incapable of building decent working relations with the other side for the betterment of all here. I believe neither SF or the DUP tick any of those boxes. I wish they did, but time and time again they've shown themselves to have fallen way short of what's needed.
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 09:26:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
Yes, the constitutional issue is of huge importance to the majority. I'm a nationalist and believe in a united Ireland but I won't vote for a party purely on the constitutional issue if I believe they are incompetent and incapable of governing due to poor judgement and decision making, work ethic or incapable of building decent working relations with the other side for the betterment of all here. I believe neither SF or the DUP tick any of those boxes. I wish they did, but time and time again they've shown themselves to have fallen way short of what's needed.
You will not get many responses to this. Far too sensible for here
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 09:26:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
Yes, the constitutional issue is of huge importance to the majority. I'm a nationalist and believe in a united Ireland but I won't vote for a party purely on the constitutional issue if I believe they are incompetent and incapable of governing due to poor judgement and decision making, work ethic or incapable of building decent working relations with the other side for the betterment of all here. I believe neither SF or the DUP tick any of those boxes. I wish they did, but time and time again they've shown themselves to have fallen way short of what's needed.
If you don't vote for a party because you don't think it is sufficiently competent, makes poor decisions, has a poor work ethic or can't work well with "the other side", then thats well and good (out of interest, who do you vote for then?) but my issue wasn't with that viewpoint. It was with your suggestion that it is "a very sad state of affairs" that the majority here vote along orange and green lines. As I say, there's nothing wrong with people voting for whatever party best represents their views on what is unquestionably the single biggest political question of our time.
Agreee snapchap. Also very curious to know who you have identified as fitting your bill for a vote Armamike. Often we will all justify our own choices whatever way we can, rather than admit they are as flawed as anyone elses.
Quote from: haranguerer on November 19, 2020, 08:12:15 AM
Agreee snapchap. Also very curious to know who you have identified as fitting your bill for a vote Armamike. Often we will all justify our own choices whatever way we can, rather than admit they are as flawed as anyone elses.
Agree, would love to see us grow up & show some political maturity.
And I don't mean the clichéd "SF and DUP are as bad as each other nonsense". I would describe myself as Irish with no particular political affiliation but what really angers me are the dinosaur views , and political selfishness of the DUP. SF happen to be their greatest rivals and though they have their own considerable baggage, like Most other parties , their opposition to DUP is diluted because other parties are so vehemently opposed to SF that they either promote the "one is as bad as the other view" or opportunistically bring up selective issues from the past.. Meantime we've a pandemic, brexit and a nut-job economy in the North , and health and homeless crisis in the South.
Post Covid and post Brexit, this Island has massive challenges and opportunities. This is going to require political maturity and a unity of purpose. We need to demand that off our politicians rather than the current scenario which is like a group of bald men fighting over a comb, as the house is burning down.
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 02:28:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 02:23:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:15:30 PM
And you will be first to admit that I haven't condoned any violence from any quarter in any time period.
You will also note that I am not a supporter of any of the parties mentioned (FG, FF, SF or SDLP).
You entered this thread to defend FF/FG blindly and have proceeded to make a litany of unsubstantiated claims.
Your "I'm not a stoop" act is about as credible as any of your arguments
I did not blindly defend anybody. You know that. Anybody who read the posts knows that.
I am not an SDLP supporter. Apart from throwing them a vote well down the card I have voted for them twice in my life. Once early on and once tactically. The latter was quite recent I will admit. But they are not my party of choice. So stop your silly little games
I'm not playing games and the only one being silly is you.
You came on here with willful ignorance to defend FF/FG. You then proceeded to drag in SF out on nowhere when doing so, went on to make a number of allegations and claims with absolutely no substance towards them.
And you top it all off with the "I'm not a Stoop" line. Belter. ;D
Wilful ignorance? What is it I have said about FG/FF that isn't true?
SF are not being dragged out of nowhere. My point is that they should not be excluded from critique. If you are going to assess FG, FF and SDLP then it's only fair to assess SF (and everybody else). I am sure you will be the first to agree that is only fair?
I have explain the SDLP position time and time again. Not sure why it is important to you but that is a matter for yourself
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 18, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:15:30 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 18, 2020, 01:00:38 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:09:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:21:53 PM
I'm just pointing out the absence of integrity in your personal position on this.
As for FG and FF I have no problem with their general view on NI. Obviously there are exceptions to that. Political interference to prevent an inquiry or disclosure of inquiry findings would be such an exception.
So you have no problem with FF/FG using victims of the Troubles as political footballs to score points while they continue to frustrate the likes of the McAnespie family in their bid for justice?
What FF/FG serve to do is rewrite the narrative of The Troubles. They only focus on the victims of the Provos, but the vast, vast amount of nationalists were victims of the British State, their security forces and the loyalist murder squads they colluded with and what is the FF/FG stance on that?
FF/FG routinely namecheck Tom Oliver, Paul Quinn, Jean McConville, Mairia Cahill etc but they wouldn't be able to name you nationalist victim of British state forces. That is as callous as it gets. FG TDs coming out and blaming the IRA for the Dublin/Monaghan bombings when their own party sought to cover it up. Appointing a RUC stooge as head of their police force.
FF/FG are every bit as bad as the DUP.
Well I have no problem with people being held to account? FG and certainly FF have the skeletons. By all means go after them. I'm no fan of either Party. Shinners have some serious dirt in their past and a good deal in their present. Hold them to account.
In my earlier post I specifically mentioned inquiries. So your question re McAnespie is baffling.
There is nobody in Irish politics trying to rewrite the troubles as much as SF. So if rewriting history irks you as you say you must be genuinely disgusted with SF.
You describe someone as being callous based upon evidence that exists in your head.
I think you are unwell.
The ceasefire was over 20 odd years ago. If you are digging up dirt then none of the main political parties on this island have clean hands. Murder in 1920 is no different to murder in 1970 or 1990 if you take that view, yet for many in the South and some in the North one was a fight for freedom the other a terrorist campaign. They are both the same thing. it is hypocritical to view them differently.
And you will be first to admit that I haven't condoned any violence from any quarter in any time period.
You will also note that I am not a supporter of any of the parties mentioned (FG, FF, SF or SDLP).
So where do you stand on FF and FG and the '20's then?
Be more specific. Give me a position they took and I will give my view on it if I have one
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
There should certainly be things in NI politics that grate you more than that.
When you vote for a local councillor is the reunification of Ireland up for debate? Do you think that the unglued that councillor will be greater on roads, bin collections, lollipop men, libraries, street lighting of the constitutional position of NI?
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:31:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 02:28:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 02:23:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:15:30 PM
And you will be first to admit that I haven't condoned any violence from any quarter in any time period.
You will also note that I am not a supporter of any of the parties mentioned (FG, FF, SF or SDLP).
You entered this thread to defend FF/FG blindly and have proceeded to make a litany of unsubstantiated claims.
Your "I'm not a stoop" act is about as credible as any of your arguments
I did not blindly defend anybody. You know that. Anybody who read the posts knows that.
I am not an SDLP supporter. Apart from throwing them a vote well down the card I have voted for them twice in my life. Once early on and once tactically. The latter was quite recent I will admit. But they are not my party of choice. So stop your silly little games
I'm not playing games and the only one being silly is you.
You came on here with willful ignorance to defend FF/FG. You then proceeded to drag in SF out on nowhere when doing so, went on to make a number of allegations and claims with absolutely no substance towards them.
And you top it all off with the "I'm not a Stoop" line. Belter. ;D
Wilful ignorance? What is it I have said about FG/FF that isn't true?
SF are not being dragged out of nowhere. My point is that they should not be excluded from critique. If you are going to assess FG, FF and SDLP then it's only fair to assess SF (and everybody else). I am sure you will be the first to agree that is only fair?
I have explain the SDLP position time and time again. Not sure why it is important to you but that is a matter for yourself
As I said wilful ignorance.
1) You entered this debate to defend FF/FG on their attitude to northern nationalists and how they consistently play political football with victims of the troubles for the sole purpose of political capital. So that was your opening into this thread, so you now seemed to have gained amnesia.
2) When the focus was on FF/FG and their attitude to northern nationalists, you responded by dragging in SF and going off on a tangent about them. Bizarre behaviour.
3) There's no need to deny you're a stoop, it just further undermines anything you say. It's clear as day you are. You seem to be saying one thing and then doing another.
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 09:26:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
Yes, the constitutional issue is of huge importance to the majority. I'm a nationalist and believe in a united Ireland but I won't vote for a party purely on the constitutional issue if I believe they are incompetent and incapable of governing due to poor judgement and decision making, work ethic or incapable of building decent working relations with the other side for the betterment of all here. I believe neither SF or the DUP tick any of those boxes. I wish they did, but time and time again they've shown themselves to have fallen way short of what's needed.
Fair play.
I think SF and DUP drive up each other's vote. And that is a sad state of affairs. SF are happiest with that as it minimises the chance of this place being in anyway functional.
In my view better to vote for parties that are trying to make the here and now better
Quote from: Snapchap on November 19, 2020, 06:38:28 AM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 09:26:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
Yes, the constitutional issue is of huge importance to the majority. I'm a nationalist and believe in a united Ireland but I won't vote for a party purely on the constitutional issue if I believe they are incompetent and incapable of governing due to poor judgement and decision making, work ethic or incapable of building decent working relations with the other side for the betterment of all here. I believe neither SF or the DUP tick any of those boxes. I wish they did, but time and time again they've shown themselves to have fallen way short of what's needed.
If you don't vote for a party because you don't think it is sufficiently competent, makes poor decisions, has a poor work ethic or can't work well with "the other side", then thats well and good (out of interest, who do you vote for then?) but my issue wasn't with that viewpoint. It was with your suggestion that it is "a very sad state of affairs" that the majority here vote along orange and green lines. As I say, there's nothing wrong with people voting for whatever party best represents their views on what is unquestionably the single biggest political question of our time.
As a matter of interest how much worse would the life of you and the people around you have to be to make a United Ireland not worth it?
Quote from: Angelo on November 19, 2020, 03:40:34 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:31:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 02:28:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 02:23:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:15:30 PM
And you will be first to admit that I haven't condoned any violence from any quarter in any time period.
You will also note that I am not a supporter of any of the parties mentioned (FG, FF, SF or SDLP).
You entered this thread to defend FF/FG blindly and have proceeded to make a litany of unsubstantiated claims.
Your "I'm not a stoop" act is about as credible as any of your arguments
I did not blindly defend anybody. You know that. Anybody who read the posts knows that.
I am not an SDLP supporter. Apart from throwing them a vote well down the card I have voted for them twice in my life. Once early on and once tactically. The latter was quite recent I will admit. But they are not my party of choice. So stop your silly little games
I'm not playing games and the only one being silly is you.
You came on here with willful ignorance to defend FF/FG. You then proceeded to drag in SF out on nowhere when doing so, went on to make a number of allegations and claims with absolutely no substance towards them.
And you top it all off with the "I'm not a Stoop" line. Belter. ;D
Wilful ignorance? What is it I have said about FG/FF that isn't true?
SF are not being dragged out of nowhere. My point is that they should not be excluded from critique. If you are going to assess FG, FF and SDLP then it's only fair to assess SF (and everybody else). I am sure you will be the first to agree that is only fair?
I have explain the SDLP position time and time again. Not sure why it is important to you but that is a matter for yourself
As I said wilful ignorance.
1) You entered this debate to defend FF/FG on their attitude to northern nationalists and how they consistently play political football with victims of the troubles for the sole purpose of political capital. So that was your opening into this thread, so you now seemed to have gained amnesia.
2) When the focus was on FF/FG and their attitude to northern nationalists, you responded by dragging in SF and going off on a tangent about them. Bizarre behaviour.
3) There's no need to deny you're a stoop, it just further undermines anything you say. It's clear as day you are. You seem to be saying one thing and then doing another.
Well I am going to keep denying I'm a SDLP voter because it's the truth. If you cared to point to any evidence that I am not telling the truth then do so and I will debunk it.
And I will keep coming back to you that I am doing what is fair. I am judging all political parties. Nobody is getting off. Some want to have a debate where SF can't be touched. Sure that makes no sense, especially with so many contributors who can eruditely set out SF's positions.
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:51:43 PM
Well I am going to keep denying I'm a SDLP voter because it's the truth. If you cared to point to any evidence that I am not telling the truth then do so and I will debunk it.
And I will keep coming back to you that I am doing what is fair. I am judging all political parties. Nobody is getting off. Some want to have a debate where SF can't be touched. Sure that makes no sense, especially with so many contributors who can eruditely set out SF's positions.
It simply lacks credibility though.
I have laid it for you multiples times before. You came onto the SDLP thread to blindly defend FF/FG and in your next post you drag SF in out of nowhere to go off a ranty tangent. You say do one thing an do the other.
The "I'm not a stoop" act does not wash.
Quote from: Angelo on November 19, 2020, 04:46:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:51:43 PM
Well I am going to keep denying I'm a SDLP voter because it's the truth. If you cared to point to any evidence that I am not telling the truth then do so and I will debunk it.
And I will keep coming back to you that I am doing what is fair. I am judging all political parties. Nobody is getting off. Some want to have a debate where SF can't be touched. Sure that makes no sense, especially with so many contributors who can eruditely set out SF's positions.
It simply lacks credibility though.
I have laid it for you multiples times before. You came onto the SDLP thread to blindly defend FF/FG and in your next post you drag SF in out of nowhere to go off a ranty tangent. You say do one thing an do the other.
The "I'm not a stoop" act does not wash.
Why did you come into the thread
Guessed when I came in here for a nosey that Angelo would figure prominently in whatever was going on...
A one man thread ruining wrecking ball.
Quote from: Boycey on November 19, 2020, 05:31:35 PM
Guessed when I came in here for a nosey that Angelo would figure prominently in whatever was going on...
A one man thread ruining wrecking ball.
I think he sets out the SF objection to scrutiny quite well. I think he operates in the top echelons of the party
Quote from: Angelo on November 19, 2020, 04:46:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:51:43 PM
Well I am going to keep denying I'm a SDLP voter because it's the truth. If you cared to point to any evidence that I am not telling the truth then do so and I will debunk it.
And I will keep coming back to you that I am doing what is fair. I am judging all political parties. Nobody is getting off. Some want to have a debate where SF can't be touched. Sure that makes no sense, especially with so many contributors who can eruditely set out SF's positions.
It simply lacks credibility though.
I have laid it for you multiples times before. You came onto the SDLP thread to blindly defend FF/FG and in your next post you drag SF in out of nowhere to go off a ranty tangent. You say do one thing an do the other.
The "I'm not a stoop" act does not wash.
Explain how it lacks credibility. List the positive things I have said about SDLP.
I will give you a head start:
Like me they reject violence
I voted for them twice
From a tactical perspective I might vote for them again but have no current plans to do so
What can you add to that?
Anyway, on this as in other threads you don't explain anything and when challenged to do so you say you have done so previously. You seem unaware that a cursory glance at your previous posts will prove that you have not in fact provided the earlier explanations. I am the last to denigrate that tactic, after all it's not that long ago someone got elected Leader of The Free Wall with exactly that attitude to honesty, fact, science, logic and integrity. Frauds get found out though.
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:46:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 19, 2020, 06:38:28 AM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 09:26:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
Yes, the constitutional issue is of huge importance to the majority. I'm a nationalist and believe in a united Ireland but I won't vote for a party purely on the constitutional issue if I believe they are incompetent and incapable of governing due to poor judgement and decision making, work ethic or incapable of building decent working relations with the other side for the betterment of all here. I believe neither SF or the DUP tick any of those boxes. I wish they did, but time and time again they've shown themselves to have fallen way short of what's needed.
If you don't vote for a party because you don't think it is sufficiently competent, makes poor decisions, has a poor work ethic or can't work well with "the other side", then thats well and good (out of interest, who do you vote for then?) but my issue wasn't with that viewpoint. It was with your suggestion that it is "a very sad state of affairs" that the majority here vote along orange and green lines. As I say, there's nothing wrong with people voting for whatever party best represents their views on what is unquestionably the single biggest political question of our time.
As a matter of interest how much worse would the life of you and the people around you have to be to make a United Ireland not worth it?
That's the way you look at it. I'd sooner ask how worse do things have to get before you will start to realise partition isn't worth it, or more to the point, before you realise that a normally functioning six county state is just the stuff of fantasy? This state was artificially sculpted in order to create a supremacist majority, so it will never be a properly functioning entity. You ask how much worse it has to get - the implication being that voting orange/green keeps making things worse and that we if we all just stopped doing so, sure we'd be laughing and the north could flourish. That's just an airy fairy denial of the reality. This place is always going to be divided between people with two contrasting political aspirations. No matter how hard you wish, they aren't going to put those political aspirations aside when they are asked to use their greatest political power - casting a vote in an election. The way I see it, the only way to make it better, is reunification. I make no apologies for voting accordingly. The alternative is a road to no town. A continuation of the disfunction we have now. Unionists might feel that we are better off being in the UK and that there is a better future in that. More power to them. They should vote accordingly too. I'd have far more respect for a person or party that takes a position on the biggest political decision coming down the tracks -one which has the potential to have the biggest economic and societal impact on us and future generations - than for those people or parties who wither take a tokenistic approach to the problem, pretend it doesn't exist, or (pretend to) sit on the fence.
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble. I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble. I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
There will be no UNITED Ireland anytime soon. What I mean is even if we see it physically we will not have a happy or peaceful society. Unionists are not ready for it, SF are the wrong party to convince them. We need a different party to bridge the gap. I don't know how we get around that
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble. I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
I would say a fair portion of unionists would be more loyal to the crown in their pocket, if the incentive was there.
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.
I'd propose it be sold to unionists by political persuasion. To my mind, it's a no brainer: a small island, with duplicated services, part in the EU and part out of it (with a border that hinders business between north and south and a border down the sea to hinder business between east and west?) With the north totally subject to and at the mercy of the electoral whims of the worst vestiges of English nationalism, with unionists having allegiance to a landmass across the sea who's people have made it clear have no heed on the north whatsoever and want nothing to do with it? How does any of that serve us? Wouldn't unionism be better served being a big fish in the Dáíl than be a minnow in Westminster for the rest of their days? The only freak result where they held a supposed balance of power in westminster and their electoral reps were still lied to then flung under a bus at the earliest opportunity?
The thing is, I too want reunification sold to the people and as it stands, we have two parties which at least say they want reunification. So it's up to them to articulate the benefits. As far as I can see, only one of them at least tries. The greatest way to persuade unionism will be by convincing them of the economic benefits. SF are actually
TODAY publishing a document outlining those economic benefits of reunification. When have the SDLP been pro-active enough to do so? Literally never, as far as I can see. So as I say, I'll continue to vote the party that I feel does most to advance my preferred outcome on the single biggest political issue of our time. That's not to say SF get a ringing endorsement. There are many things they could do better but at least they are not tokensitic in their advocating or ashamed to talk about it.
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
You mightn't want SF to take the lead, but in reality, if it's left to civic nationalism to do the persuasion, and political nationalism is seen to disengage from the core political aspiration of Irish nationalism, then it's just a non runner. It has to be an all in effort from the civic and the political. Speaking out in favour of reunification needs to be mainstreamed among across all shades of nationalism. If the SDLP are seen as more palatable to unionism, then maybe people like you ought to lobby that party to get off their ass and take a bit of initiative, and let unionism hear the arguments come from them for once. As it stands, they are leaving it to SF to do the work. If you want a United Ireland, then maybe stop taking such issue with the nationalist party that's working for it, and start taking issue with the one that isn't. FFS public support for a United Ireland is at it's highest point since partition, and Brexit has the potential to grow that support significantly, and what are the SDLP doing to take advantage of this opportunity to advocate their stated aspiration for Irish unity? Nothing. Same as always. And you are 100% right in saying there has to be unionist buy in. SF have held umpten confrences on the subject and these seem to always include unionist panelists/speakers. When did the SDLP last try to produce a document or an event, aimed purely at enhancing the unity project and invite anyone whatsoever?
Quote from: Snapchap on November 20, 2020, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:46:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 19, 2020, 06:38:28 AM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 09:26:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 18, 2020, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 18, 2020, 03:29:58 PM
It's a very sad state of affairs that the majority here still vote in the 2 main parties along green and orange lines. It's not on the basis of their competence anyway!
Ugh, that's one line that grates with me. I like many others vote on the 'green' side of that equation, but that's not because it's a 'versus orange' choice. I vote for the green shade because I firmly believe that people will be better served in a reunited Ireland and I'll vote for whatever party I feel best represents those views/is most pro-active on it. It's very tiresome hearing people who no doubt view themselves as some sort of "progressives" implying that voting on constitutional lines is somehow backward/sectarian/"a very sad state of affairs". People have strong, sincerely held and legitimate views on both sides of the constitutional question (after all, it's the one issue that has the potential to most impact not just people's very identity, but the entire social and economic future of the country) and voting in a what that best represents those views is entirely natural, legitimate, understandable and to be expected.
Yes, the constitutional issue is of huge importance to the majority. I'm a nationalist and believe in a united Ireland but I won't vote for a party purely on the constitutional issue if I believe they are incompetent and incapable of governing due to poor judgement and decision making, work ethic or incapable of building decent working relations with the other side for the betterment of all here. I believe neither SF or the DUP tick any of those boxes. I wish they did, but time and time again they've shown themselves to have fallen way short of what's needed.
If you don't vote for a party because you don't think it is sufficiently competent, makes poor decisions, has a poor work ethic or can't work well with "the other side", then thats well and good (out of interest, who do you vote for then?) but my issue wasn't with that viewpoint. It was with your suggestion that it is "a very sad state of affairs" that the majority here vote along orange and green lines. As I say, there's nothing wrong with people voting for whatever party best represents their views on what is unquestionably the single biggest political question of our time.
As a matter of interest how much worse would the life of you and the people around you have to be to make a United Ireland not worth it?
That's the way you look at it. I'd sooner ask how worse do things have to get before you will start to realise partition isn't worth it, or more to the point, before you realise that a normally functioning six county state is just the stuff of fantasy? This state was artificially sculpted in order to create a supremacist majority, so it will never be a properly functioning entity. You ask how much worse it has to get - the implication being that voting orange/green keeps making things worse and that we if we all just stopped doing so, sure we'd be laughing and the north could flourish. That's just an airy fairy denial of the reality. This place is always going to be divided between people with two contrasting political aspirations. No matter how hard you wish, they aren't going to put those political aspirations aside when they are asked to use their greatest political power - casting a vote in an election. The way I see it, the only way to make it better, is reunification. I make no apologies for voting accordingly. The alternative is a road to no town. A continuation of the disfunction we have now. Unionists might feel that we are better off being in the UK and that there is a better future in that. More power to them. They should vote accordingly too. I'd have far more respect for a person or party that takes a position on the biggest political decision coming down the tracks -one which has the potential to have the biggest economic and societal impact on us and future generations - than for those people or parties who wither take a tokenistic approach to the problem, pretend it doesn't exist, or (pretend to) sit on the fence.
I have thrown you off on the wrong tangent. My fault as phrased the question badly.
I am taking your premise that people wi be better off long term in a UI and therefore delivering that is people's best interest. That seems to be the logic you are putting forward for voting for say a SF councillor.
My point is that councillor will not be able to use their tenure to achieve or meaningfully advance that UI. Meanwhile they will be able to impact on the everyday lives of people. If they are incompetent they can negatively impact people's everyday life. So how much incompetence would you tolerate?
SF and SF candidates are far from the only incompetent actors in NI politics
Quote from: Snapchap on November 20, 2020, 12:50:44 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.
I'd propose it be sold to unionists by political persuasion. To my mind, it's a no brainer: a small island, with duplicated services, part in the EU and part out of it (with a border that hinders business between north and south and a border down the sea to hinder business between east and west?) With the north totally subject to and at the mercy of the electoral whims of the worst vestiges of English nationalism, with unionists having allegiance to a landmass across the sea who's people have made it clear have no heed on the north whatsoever and want nothing to do with it? How does any of that serve us? Wouldn't unionism be better served being a big fish in the Dáíl than be a minnow in Westminster for the rest of their days? The only freak result where they held a supposed balance of power in westminster and their electoral reps were still lied to then flung under a bus at the earliest opportunity?
The thing is, I too want reunification sold to the people and as it stands, we have two parties which at least say they want reunification. So it's up to them to articulate the benefits. As far as I can see, only one of them at least tries. The greatest way to persuade unionism will be by convincing them of the economic benefits. SF are actually TODAY publishing a document outlining those economic benefits of reunification. When have the SDLP been pro-active enough to do so? Literally never, as far as I can see. So as I say, I'll continue to vote the party that I feel does most to advance my preferred outcome on the single biggest political issue of our time. That's not to say SF get a ringing endorsement. There are many things they could do better but at least they are not tokensitic in their advocating or ashamed to talk about it.
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
You mightn't want SF to take the lead, but in reality, if it's left to civic nationalism to do the persuasion, and political nationalism is seen to disengage from the core political aspiration of Irish nationalism, then it's just a non runner. It has to be an all in effort from the civic and the political. Speaking out in favour of reunification needs to be mainstreamed among across all shades of nationalism. If the SDLP are seen as more palatable to unionism, then maybe people like you ought to lobby that party to get off their ass and take a bit of initiative, and let unionism hear the arguments come from them for once. As it stands, they are leaving it to SF to do the work. If you want a United Ireland, then maybe stop taking such issue with the nationalist party that's working for it, and start taking issue with the one that isn't. FFS public support for a United Ireland is at it's highest point since partition, and Brexit has the potential to grow that support significantly, and what are the SDLP doing to take advantage of this opportunity to advocate their stated aspiration for Irish unity? Nothing. Same as always. And you are 100% right in saying there has to be unionist buy in. SF have held umpten confrences on the subject and these seem to always include unionist panelists/speakers. When did the SDLP last try to produce a document or an event, aimed purely at enhancing the unity project and invite anyone whatsoever?
Has the document being published yet?
Please tell me the lies of the past are not repeated? If the document claims that "non-identifiable public expenditures" can just be ignored and that NI pensions will be funded from London in a UI scenario then you dismiss the whole thing as a fraud.
It's not just a matter of printing a document. Paper doesn't refuse ink. The contents have to accurate. Every previous effort by SF has dealt in lies
Quote from: LCohen on November 20, 2020, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 20, 2020, 12:50:44 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.
I'd propose it be sold to unionists by political persuasion. To my mind, it's a no brainer: a small island, with duplicated services, part in the EU and part out of it (with a border that hinders business between north and south and a border down the sea to hinder business between east and west?) With the north totally subject to and at the mercy of the electoral whims of the worst vestiges of English nationalism, with unionists having allegiance to a landmass across the sea who's people have made it clear have no heed on the north whatsoever and want nothing to do with it? How does any of that serve us? Wouldn't unionism be better served being a big fish in the Dáíl than be a minnow in Westminster for the rest of their days? The only freak result where they held a supposed balance of power in westminster and their electoral reps were still lied to then flung under a bus at the earliest opportunity?
The thing is, I too want reunification sold to the people and as it stands, we have two parties which at least say they want reunification. So it's up to them to articulate the benefits. As far as I can see, only one of them at least tries. The greatest way to persuade unionism will be by convincing them of the economic benefits. SF are actually TODAY publishing a document outlining those economic benefits of reunification. When have the SDLP been pro-active enough to do so? Literally never, as far as I can see. So as I say, I'll continue to vote the party that I feel does most to advance my preferred outcome on the single biggest political issue of our time. That's not to say SF get a ringing endorsement. There are many things they could do better but at least they are not tokensitic in their advocating or ashamed to talk about it.
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
You mightn't want SF to take the lead, but in reality, if it's left to civic nationalism to do the persuasion, and political nationalism is seen to disengage from the core political aspiration of Irish nationalism, then it's just a non runner. It has to be an all in effort from the civic and the political. Speaking out in favour of reunification needs to be mainstreamed among across all shades of nationalism. If the SDLP are seen as more palatable to unionism, then maybe people like you ought to lobby that party to get off their ass and take a bit of initiative, and let unionism hear the arguments come from them for once. As it stands, they are leaving it to SF to do the work. If you want a United Ireland, then maybe stop taking such issue with the nationalist party that's working for it, and start taking issue with the one that isn't. FFS public support for a United Ireland is at it's highest point since partition, and Brexit has the potential to grow that support significantly, and what are the SDLP doing to take advantage of this opportunity to advocate their stated aspiration for Irish unity? Nothing. Same as always. And you are 100% right in saying there has to be unionist buy in. SF have held umpten confrences on the subject and these seem to always include unionist panelists/speakers. When did the SDLP last try to produce a document or an event, aimed purely at enhancing the unity project and invite anyone whatsoever?
Has the document being published yet?
Please tell me the lies of the past are not repeated? If the document claims that "non-identifiable public expenditures" can just be ignored and that NI pensions will be funded from London in a UI scenario then you dismiss the whole thing as a fraud.
It's not just a matter of printing a document. Paper doesn't refuse ink. The contents have to accurate. Every previous effort by SF has dealt in lies
Know nothing of this document and have no interest in getting bogged down in this whole debate but this one is interesting.
Given that people will have paid their way into the British Exchequer for their whole working lives up until the point of separation, how can it be argued that the British Government would not bear liability for this?
Quote from: Snapchap on November 20, 2020, 12:50:44 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.
I'd propose it be sold to unionists by political persuasion. To my mind, it's a no brainer: a small island, with duplicated services, part in the EU and part out of it (with a border that hinders business between north and south and a border down the sea to hinder business between east and west?) With the north totally subject to and at the mercy of the electoral whims of the worst vestiges of English nationalism, with unionists having allegiance to a landmass across the sea who's people have made it clear have no heed on the north whatsoever and want nothing to do with it? How does any of that serve us? Wouldn't unionism be better served being a big fish in the Dáíl than be a minnow in Westminster for the rest of their days? The only freak result where they held a supposed balance of power in westminster and their electoral reps were still lied to then flung under a bus at the earliest opportunity?
The thing is, I too want reunification sold to the people and as it stands, we have two parties which at least say they want reunification. So it's up to them to articulate the benefits. As far as I can see, only one of them at least tries. The greatest way to persuade unionism will be by convincing them of the economic benefits. SF are actually TODAY publishing a document outlining those economic benefits of reunification. When have the SDLP been pro-active enough to do so? Literally never, as far as I can see. So as I say, I'll continue to vote the party that I feel does most to advance my preferred outcome on the single biggest political issue of our time. That's not to say SF get a ringing endorsement. There are many things they could do better but at least they are not tokensitic in their advocating or ashamed to talk about it.
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
You mightn't want SF to take the lead, but in reality, if it's left to civic nationalism to do the persuasion, and political nationalism is seen to disengage from the core political aspiration of Irish nationalism, then it's just a non runner. It has to be an all in effort from the civic and the political. Speaking out in favour of reunification needs to be mainstreamed among across all shades of nationalism. If the SDLP are seen as more palatable to unionism, then maybe people like you ought to lobby that party to get off their ass and take a bit of initiative, and let unionism hear the arguments come from them for once. As it stands, they are leaving it to SF to do the work. If you want a United Ireland, then maybe stop taking such issue with the nationalist party that's working for it, and start taking issue with the one that isn't. FFS public support for a United Ireland is at it's highest point since partition, and Brexit has the potential to grow that support significantly, and what are the SDLP doing to take advantage of this opportunity to advocate their stated aspiration for Irish unity? Nothing. Same as always. And you are 100% right in saying there has to be unionist buy in. SF have held umpten confrences on the subject and these seem to always include unionist panelists/speakers. When did the SDLP last try to produce a document or an event, aimed purely at enhancing the unity project and invite anyone whatsoever?
Some strong arguments there for a UI. Unionists would need to know that they have a voice. I want to see those arguing for a UI to show a vision for how it would actually work and how it could look. Will it be a cold house for unionists? If we refer to the Dail with images of direct rule from Dublin, that's not a great starting point imo. We're a very small country in geographical and population terms but a federal type of arrangement with some kind of devolvement to provinces would need to be considered. This is the kind of conversation we need to be having now. The more gaps there are and the more unanswered questions as to how it would actually look and work in practice, the more anxiety and lack of buy in, not just from moderate unionists but the undecided. This was a big factor in the SNP losing the referendum vote - they just didn't have the answers to questions on the basic issues affecting peoples' lives. I agree with you, the SDLP could be more proactive on this. To be honest, I don't know much about the SDLP's efforts behind the scenes on this. They do have a key role to play.
Quote from: LCohen on November 20, 2020, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 20, 2020, 12:50:44 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.
I'd propose it be sold to unionists by political persuasion. To my mind, it's a no brainer: a small island, with duplicated services, part in the EU and part out of it (with a border that hinders business between north and south and a border down the sea to hinder business between east and west?) With the north totally subject to and at the mercy of the electoral whims of the worst vestiges of English nationalism, with unionists having allegiance to a landmass across the sea who's people have made it clear have no heed on the north whatsoever and want nothing to do with it? How does any of that serve us? Wouldn't unionism be better served being a big fish in the Dáíl than be a minnow in Westminster for the rest of their days? The only freak result where they held a supposed balance of power in westminster and their electoral reps were still lied to then flung under a bus at the earliest opportunity?
The thing is, I too want reunification sold to the people and as it stands, we have two parties which at least say they want reunification. So it's up to them to articulate the benefits. As far as I can see, only one of them at least tries. The greatest way to persuade unionism will be by convincing them of the economic benefits. SF are actually TODAY publishing a document outlining those economic benefits of reunification. When have the SDLP been pro-active enough to do so? Literally never, as far as I can see. So as I say, I'll continue to vote the party that I feel does most to advance my preferred outcome on the single biggest political issue of our time. That's not to say SF get a ringing endorsement. There are many things they could do better but at least they are not tokensitic in their advocating or ashamed to talk about it.
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
You mightn't want SF to take the lead, but in reality, if it's left to civic nationalism to do the persuasion, and political nationalism is seen to disengage from the core political aspiration of Irish nationalism, then it's just a non runner. It has to be an all in effort from the civic and the political. Speaking out in favour of reunification needs to be mainstreamed among across all shades of nationalism. If the SDLP are seen as more palatable to unionism, then maybe people like you ought to lobby that party to get off their ass and take a bit of initiative, and let unionism hear the arguments come from them for once. As it stands, they are leaving it to SF to do the work. If you want a United Ireland, then maybe stop taking such issue with the nationalist party that's working for it, and start taking issue with the one that isn't. FFS public support for a United Ireland is at it's highest point since partition, and Brexit has the potential to grow that support significantly, and what are the SDLP doing to take advantage of this opportunity to advocate their stated aspiration for Irish unity? Nothing. Same as always. And you are 100% right in saying there has to be unionist buy in. SF have held umpten confrences on the subject and these seem to always include unionist panelists/speakers. When did the SDLP last try to produce a document or an event, aimed purely at enhancing the unity project and invite anyone whatsoever?
Has the document being published yet?
Please tell me the lies of the past are not repeated? If the document claims that "non-identifiable public expenditures" can just be ignored and that NI pensions will be funded from London in a UI scenario then you dismiss the whole thing as a fraud.
It's not just a matter of printing a document. Paper doesn't refuse ink. The contents have to accurate. Every previous effort by SF has dealt in lies
You make an assumption that pensions being funded from London is a lie. The document does raise this topic:
Quote
"And [the subvention figure) would be reduced further because £3.5 billion is spent on pensions. The people of the North have already accrued pension rights by way of their national insurance contributions. This fact was recognised by the then British Pensions Minister Steve Webb (7 May 2014) who during the debate on Scottish Independence referenced the rights of pensioners in Scotland. He stated:"Yes, they have accumulated rights into the UK system, under the UK system's rules."He said: "Take a Scottish person who works all their life and then retires to France... they still have an accumulated pension right in respect of the National Insurance they have paid in when they were part of the United Kingdom.""
I've only just glanced at the document which is available online. I haven't read it yet, nor done any form of critical analysis. You, however, have seconded guessed it's contents and pronounced them as lies, before having seen the thing at all.
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2020, 04:06:47 PM
Given that people will have paid their way into the British Exchequer for their whole working lives up until the point of separation, how can it be argued that the British Government would not bear liability for this?
You are assessing one side of the issue. And assessing it correctly
The beneficiary of the pensions have accrued their rights and that will to be met.
The question is who has the responsibility to meet it.
To state the obvious NI is currently a constituent part of the UK of GB & NI. In a UI scenario it would cease to be. In leaving it would take the ongoing position with it. The UK of GB & NI would cease to be and would cease to be responsible for NI. There would have to be a divorce settlement to establish where the lines would be drawn but there are precedents. When ROI was set up it took on these liabilities in RoI. As UK leaves the EU it takes the pensions liability with it. In the Scottish independence referendum it was established that Scots would retain their UK pension rights but at the expense of the would-be Scottish exchequer.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 20, 2020, 04:39:06 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 20, 2020, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 20, 2020, 12:50:44 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.
I'd propose it be sold to unionists by political persuasion. To my mind, it's a no brainer: a small island, with duplicated services, part in the EU and part out of it (with a border that hinders business between north and south and a border down the sea to hinder business between east and west?) With the north totally subject to and at the mercy of the electoral whims of the worst vestiges of English nationalism, with unionists having allegiance to a landmass across the sea who's people have made it clear have no heed on the north whatsoever and want nothing to do with it? How does any of that serve us? Wouldn't unionism be better served being a big fish in the Dáíl than be a minnow in Westminster for the rest of their days? The only freak result where they held a supposed balance of power in westminster and their electoral reps were still lied to then flung under a bus at the earliest opportunity?
The thing is, I too want reunification sold to the people and as it stands, we have two parties which at least say they want reunification. So it's up to them to articulate the benefits. As far as I can see, only one of them at least tries. The greatest way to persuade unionism will be by convincing them of the economic benefits. SF are actually TODAY publishing a document outlining those economic benefits of reunification. When have the SDLP been pro-active enough to do so? Literally never, as far as I can see. So as I say, I'll continue to vote the party that I feel does most to advance my preferred outcome on the single biggest political issue of our time. That's not to say SF get a ringing endorsement. There are many things they could do better but at least they are not tokensitic in their advocating or ashamed to talk about it.
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
You mightn't want SF to take the lead, but in reality, if it's left to civic nationalism to do the persuasion, and political nationalism is seen to disengage from the core political aspiration of Irish nationalism, then it's just a non runner. It has to be an all in effort from the civic and the political. Speaking out in favour of reunification needs to be mainstreamed among across all shades of nationalism. If the SDLP are seen as more palatable to unionism, then maybe people like you ought to lobby that party to get off their ass and take a bit of initiative, and let unionism hear the arguments come from them for once. As it stands, they are leaving it to SF to do the work. If you want a United Ireland, then maybe stop taking such issue with the nationalist party that's working for it, and start taking issue with the one that isn't. FFS public support for a United Ireland is at it's highest point since partition, and Brexit has the potential to grow that support significantly, and what are the SDLP doing to take advantage of this opportunity to advocate their stated aspiration for Irish unity? Nothing. Same as always. And you are 100% right in saying there has to be unionist buy in. SF have held umpten confrences on the subject and these seem to always include unionist panelists/speakers. When did the SDLP last try to produce a document or an event, aimed purely at enhancing the unity project and invite anyone whatsoever?
Has the document being published yet?
Please tell me the lies of the past are not repeated? If the document claims that "non-identifiable public expenditures" can just be ignored and that NI pensions will be funded from London in a UI scenario then you dismiss the whole thing as a fraud.
It's not just a matter of printing a document. Paper doesn't refuse ink. The contents have to accurate. Every previous effort by SF has dealt in lies
You make an assumption that pensions being funded from London is a lie. The document does raise this topic:
Quote
"And [the subvention figure) would be reduced further because £3.5 billion is spent on pensions. The people of the North have already accrued pension rights by way of their national insurance contributions. This fact was recognised by the then British Pensions Minister Steve Webb (7 May 2014) who during the debate on Scottish Independence referenced the rights of pensioners in Scotland. He stated:"Yes, they have accumulated rights into the UK system, under the UK system's rules."He said: "Take a Scottish person who works all their life and then retires to France... they still have an accumulated pension right in respect of the National Insurance they have paid in when they were part of the United Kingdom.""
I've only just glanced at the document which is available online. I haven't read it yet, nor done any form of critical analysis. You, however, have seconded guessed it's contents and pronounced them as lies, before having seen the thing at all.
What an utterly silly response.
I have not read the document yet.
I said that I hoped it did not repeat the lies of previous efforts. Your contribution seems to indicate that it has. If it contains lies we should definitely call them out.
If you read the reply above re pensions you will see what I mean
Quote from: Boycey on November 19, 2020, 05:31:35 PM
Guessed when I came in here for a nosey that Angelo would figure prominently in whatever was going on...
A one man thread ruining wrecking ball.
What is it you have an issue with?
The SDLP really aren't a nationalist party and that's about the nub of it.
Would I be right to presume that the new All Ireland entity will not inherit the 6 Cos share of the "UK" National debt?
I suppose getting reparations from 1169 is out of the question :-\
Quote from: Rossfan on November 20, 2020, 06:34:01 PM
Would I be right to presume that the new All Ireland entity will not inherit the 6 Cos share of the "UK" National debt?
I suppose getting reparations from 1169 is out of the question :-\
To early to say. It would have to negotiated at the time. A benevolent interpretation would be that NI is so small relative to GB and its so costly that GB would cut their losses. An alternative interpretation is that the hardliners would say no feckin way or even no way will we sell our unionist brethren down the river. It's very unpredictable. Depends on which party/parties are in power in Westminster, how large is their majority, what factions exist within the ruling party and how strong the economy and economic outlook is. Very unpredictable.
IRA always said they only had to get lucky once. This would be the once for nationalism
Quote from: Angelo on November 20, 2020, 06:13:51 PM
The SDLP really aren't a nationalist party and that's about the nub of it.
If they published an economic document based on lies would that make them more or less nationalist?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 20, 2020, 12:14:07 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble. I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
There will be no UNITED Ireland anytime soon. What I mean is even if we see it physically we will not have a happy or peaceful society. Unionists are not ready for it, SF are the wrong party to convince them. We need a different party to bridge the gap. I don't know how we get around that
And when will unionists be ready for it then?
Unionists will never be ready for it?
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 20, 2020, 12:50:44 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble.
I'd propose it be sold to unionists by political persuasion. To my mind, it's a no brainer: a small island, with duplicated services, part in the EU and part out of it (with a border that hinders business between north and south and a border down the sea to hinder business between east and west?) With the north totally subject to and at the mercy of the electoral whims of the worst vestiges of English nationalism, with unionists having allegiance to a landmass across the sea who's people have made it clear have no heed on the north whatsoever and want nothing to do with it? How does any of that serve us? Wouldn't unionism be better served being a big fish in the Dáíl than be a minnow in Westminster for the rest of their days? The only freak result where they held a supposed balance of power in westminster and their electoral reps were still lied to then flung under a bus at the earliest opportunity?
The thing is, I too want reunification sold to the people and as it stands, we have two parties which at least say they want reunification. So it's up to them to articulate the benefits. As far as I can see, only one of them at least tries. The greatest way to persuade unionism will be by convincing them of the economic benefits. SF are actually TODAY publishing a document outlining those economic benefits of reunification. When have the SDLP been pro-active enough to do so? Literally never, as far as I can see. So as I say, I'll continue to vote the party that I feel does most to advance my preferred outcome on the single biggest political issue of our time. That's not to say SF get a ringing endorsement. There are many things they could do better but at least they are not tokensitic in their advocating or ashamed to talk about it.
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
You mightn't want SF to take the lead, but in reality, if it's left to civic nationalism to do the persuasion, and political nationalism is seen to disengage from the core political aspiration of Irish nationalism, then it's just a non runner. It has to be an all in effort from the civic and the political. Speaking out in favour of reunification needs to be mainstreamed among across all shades of nationalism. If the SDLP are seen as more palatable to unionism, then maybe people like you ought to lobby that party to get off their ass and take a bit of initiative, and let unionism hear the arguments come from them for once. As it stands, they are leaving it to SF to do the work. If you want a United Ireland, then maybe stop taking such issue with the nationalist party that's working for it, and start taking issue with the one that isn't. FFS public support for a United Ireland is at it's highest point since partition, and Brexit has the potential to grow that support significantly, and what are the SDLP doing to take advantage of this opportunity to advocate their stated aspiration for Irish unity? Nothing. Same as always. And you are 100% right in saying there has to be unionist buy in. SF have held umpten confrences on the subject and these seem to always include unionist panelists/speakers. When did the SDLP last try to produce a document or an event, aimed purely at enhancing the unity project and invite anyone whatsoever?
Some strong arguments there for a UI. Unionists would need to know that they have a voice. I want to see those arguing for a UI to show a vision for how it would actually work and how it could look. Will it be a cold house for unionists? If we refer to the Dail with images of direct rule from Dublin, that's not a great starting point imo. We're a very small country in geographical and population terms but a federal type of arrangement with some kind of devolvement to provinces would need to be considered. This is the kind of conversation we need to be having now. The more gaps there are and the more unanswered questions as to how it would actually look and work in practice, the more anxiety and lack of buy in, not just from moderate unionists but the undecided. This was a big factor in the SNP losing the referendum vote - they just didn't have the answers to questions on the basic issues affecting peoples' lives. I agree with you, the SDLP could be more proactive on this. To be honest, I don't know much about the SDLP's efforts behind the scenes on this. They do have a key role to play.
The SDLP are, as we saw from the recent election, big buds with FF/FG - candidates canvassing for both FF and FG. Wtf?
M. Martin has a big new shiny unit on the shared island waffle but won't even endorse a border poll....with the classic 'it's not the right time'.
Quote from: marty34 on November 20, 2020, 08:43:43 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 20, 2020, 12:14:07 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble. I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
There will be no UNITED Ireland anytime soon. What I mean is even if we see it physically we will not have a happy or peaceful society. Unionists are not ready for it, SF are the wrong party to convince them. We need a different party to bridge the gap. I don't know how we get around that
And when will unionists be ready for it then?
Unionists will never be ready for it?
How you reckon we deal with that
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 20, 2020, 11:26:13 PM
Quote from: marty34 on November 20, 2020, 08:43:43 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 20, 2020, 12:14:07 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble. I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
There will be no UNITED Ireland anytime soon. What I mean is even if we see it physically we will not have a happy or peaceful society. Unionists are not ready for it, SF are the wrong party to convince them. We need a different party to bridge the gap. I don't know how we get around that
And when will unionists be ready for it then?
Unionists will never be ready for it?
How you reckon we deal with that
Ceist mhaith -but you say SF are not the ones to move it forward.
It's your go - who, in your opinion, are?
Quote from: marty34 on November 20, 2020, 08:43:43 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 20, 2020, 12:14:07 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble. I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
There will be no UNITED Ireland anytime soon. What I mean is even if we see it physically we will not have a happy or peaceful society. Unionists are not ready for it, SF are the wrong party to convince them. We need a different party to bridge the gap. I don't know how we get around that
And when will unionists be ready for it then?
Unionists will never be ready for it?
I state there will be no time when unionists will be ready for it.
Anybody who thinks that unionists will suddenly change overnight are very naive and completely out of touch with the political situation in the six counties.
Quote from: marty34 on November 20, 2020, 11:43:39 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 20, 2020, 11:26:13 PM
Quote from: marty34 on November 20, 2020, 08:43:43 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 20, 2020, 12:14:07 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble. I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
There will be no UNITED Ireland anytime soon. What I mean is even if we see it physically we will not have a happy or peaceful society. Unionists are not ready for it, SF are the wrong party to convince them. We need a different party to bridge the gap. I don't know how we get around that
And when will unionists be ready for it then?
Unionists will never be ready for it?
How you reckon we deal with that
Ceist mhaith -but you say SF are not the ones to move it forward.
It's your go - who, in your opinion, are?
I think a nationalist party with less baggage in Unionists eyes. In the end couid it be one of the parties in the Republic with a change of approach?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 20, 2020, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: marty34 on November 20, 2020, 11:43:39 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 20, 2020, 11:26:13 PM
Quote from: marty34 on November 20, 2020, 08:43:43 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 20, 2020, 12:14:07 PM
Quote from: Armamike on November 20, 2020, 12:02:23 PM
How would you propose that a united Ireland will be sold to unionists? Because if there's no buy in to a degree from one side we know from history what is likely to happen. I aspire to a united Ireland but I want to see a vision clearly articulated and sold to the people. I don't see that from SF or the SDLP at the minute. In fact, if you ask a politician to give a case for it, they tend to stumble. I don't want to see SF lead or take control of a future looking united Ireland agenda. The case needs to be built by and involve a much broader pool of stakeholders, opinion formers etc (call it civic nationalism or whatever). There has to be some buy in from people from a unionist background or leaning. SF are toxic to that electorate and on their own won't deliver anything peaceful or lasting.
There will be no UNITED Ireland anytime soon. What I mean is even if we see it physically we will not have a happy or peaceful society. Unionists are not ready for it, SF are the wrong party to convince them. We need a different party to bridge the gap. I don't know how we get around that
And when will unionists be ready for it then?
Unionists will never be ready for it?
How you reckon we deal with that
Ceist mhaith -but you say SF are not the ones to move it forward.
It's your go - who, in your opinion, are?
I think a nationalist party with less baggage in Unionists eyes. In the end couid it be one of the parties in the Republic with a change of approach?
Unionists will never change - if you think that, you've very naive.
Look at what was happening in the shipyards 100 years ago and look at things nowadays....then ask yourself will they change overnight? I think they are getting worse.
Unionists treat the Alliance party with distain but you think that some new nationalist party will suddenly change their mind re: the unification of Ireland?
As I say - completely out of touch.
I haven't been following this discussion but as regards the last couple of comments the Alliance Party's support is growing and also there's a considerable number of people from a unionist persuasion who don't vote at all which would suggest they're disillusioned by the antics of their political leaders and could possibly be persuaded of the merits of a UI.
Read that SF "economic" document.
I was accused of second guessing it's content. Wouldn't have been difficult. He a re-presentation of a greatest hits of earlier documents. An environmental twist thrown in.
I was correct about the pensions. This runs to the heart of the fraud in this document. It's is based upon selective quoting from earlier research. It's is concluded that Scottish citizens keep their accrued UK pension rights and Edinburgh foot the bill. The first bit of that suits the SF narrative but the second doesn't. So the first but finds it's way into the document but the second doesn't.
But there are other issues. No doubt the reduced economic activity in border areas but can we jump to the conclusion that that is because of the border. Were these areas poorer that other areas before the border? Are there historic issues in many of these areas due to land quality, distance from major/historic conurbations, road and infrastructure?
They reference benefits of local decision making. Doesn't specify how these play out but surely this is about the form of devolution rather than where power is devolved from?
Where is the analysis of how much of NI's historic economic woes are related to The Troubles and the inhibition it places on investment?
The troubles and impact on investment
The references to Hubner and Fitzgerald are again selective.
There are references to the impact of the various forms of Brexit on East-west trade between GB and NI but where is the analysis of the east-west trade between RoI and GB?
On the green agenda it's is completely unclear what the advantage of UI is on delivering a green agenda. What element of the competition for private sector investment is hampered by the border? There already is a single electricity market and NI gets additional financial support to that sector that are not included in the subvention stats.
It's not an honest document
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Read that SF "economic" document.
I was accused of second guessing it's content. Wouldn't have been difficult. He a re-presentation of a greatest hits of earlier documents. An environmental twist thrown in.
I was correct about the pensions. This runs to the heart of the fraud in this document. It's is based upon selective quoting from earlier research. It's is concluded that Scottish citizens keep their accrued UK pension rights and Edinburgh foot the bill. The first bit of that suits the SF narrative but the second doesn't. So the first but finds it's way into the document but the second doesn't.
But there are other issues. No doubt the reduced economic activity in border areas but can we jump to the conclusion that that is because of the border. Were these areas poorer that other areas before the border? Are there historic issues in many of these areas due to land quality, distance from major/historic conurbations, road and infrastructure?
They reference benefits of local decision making. Doesn't specify how these play out but surely this is about the form of devolution rather than where power is devolved from?
Where is the analysis of how much of NI's historic economic woes are related to The Troubles and the inhibition it places on investment?
The troubles and impact on investment
The references to Hubner and Fitzgerald are again selective.
There are references to the impact of the various forms of Brexit on East-west trade between GB and NI but where is the analysis of the east-west trade between RoI and GB?
On the green agenda it's is completely unclear what the advantage of UI is on delivering a green agenda. What element of the competition for private sector investment is hampered by the border? There already is a single electricity market and NI gets additional financial support to that sector that are not included in the subvention stats.
It's not an honest document
You're not an honest poster.
Are you still persisting with your "I'm not a stoop" facade?
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 21, 2020, 08:40:33 AM
I haven't been following this discussion but as regards the last couple of comments the Alliance Party's support is growing and also there's a considerable number of people from a unionist persuasion who don't vote at all which would suggest they're disillusioned by the antics of their political leaders and could possibly be persuaded of the merits of a UI.
All well and good Dougal but how do we find out?
Test the water by having a border poll!
Unfortunately the main 'nationalist' parties i.e. SDLP, FF/FG are all stating that now is not the right time, 2021 will not be the right time and 2025 will be not the right time.
Once again, I ask these parties, when is the right time?
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Read that SF "economic" document.
I was accused of second guessing it's content. Wouldn't have been difficult. He a re-presentation of a greatest hits of earlier documents. An environmental twist thrown in.
I was correct about the pensions. This runs to the heart of the fraud in this document. It's is based upon selective quoting from earlier research. It's is concluded that Scottish citizens keep their accrued UK pension rights and Edinburgh foot the bill. The first bit of that suits the SF narrative but the second doesn't. So the first but finds it's way into the document but the second doesn't.
But there are other issues. No doubt the reduced economic activity in border areas but can we jump to the conclusion that that is because of the border. Were these areas poorer that other areas before the border? Are there historic issues in many of these areas due to land quality, distance from major/historic conurbations, road and infrastructure?
They reference benefits of local decision making. Doesn't specify how these play out but surely this is about the form of devolution rather than where power is devolved from?
Where is the analysis of how much of NI's historic economic woes are related to The Troubles and the inhibition it places on investment?
The troubles and impact on investment
The references to Hubner and Fitzgerald are again selective.
There are references to the impact of the various forms of Brexit on East-west trade between GB and NI but where is the analysis of the east-west trade between RoI and GB?
On the green agenda it's is completely unclear what the advantage of UI is on delivering a green agenda. What element of the competition for private sector investment is hampered by the border? There already is a single electricity market and NI gets additional financial support to that sector that are not included in the subvention stats.
It's not an honest document
You're not an honest poster.
Are you still persisting with your "I'm not a stoop" facade?
I have shown you the lie on pensions. What are your thoughts? Do you think it was good of SF to spin that lie or bad to spin that lie?
Quote from: marty34 on November 21, 2020, 10:32:07 AM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 21, 2020, 08:40:33 AM
I haven't been following this discussion but as regards the last couple of comments the Alliance Party's support is growing and also there's a considerable number of people from a unionist persuasion who don't vote at all which would suggest they're disillusioned by the antics of their political leaders and could possibly be persuaded of the merits of a UI.
All well and good Dougal but how do we find out?
Test the water by having a border poll!
Unfortunately the main 'nationalist' parties i.e. SDLP, FF/FG are all stating that now is not the right time, 2021 will not be the right time and 2025 will be not the right time.
Once again, I ask these parties, when is the right time?
As you should know it's up to the Brit Secretary of State to call a "border poll" per the GFA.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2020, 11:34:48 AM
Quote from: marty34 on November 21, 2020, 10:32:07 AM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 21, 2020, 08:40:33 AM
I haven't been following this discussion but as regards the last couple of comments the Alliance Party's support is growing and also there's a considerable number of people from a unionist persuasion who don't vote at all which would suggest they're disillusioned by the antics of their political leaders and could possibly be persuaded of the merits of a UI.
All well and good Dougal but how do we find out?
Test the water by having a border poll!
Unfortunately the main 'nationalist' parties i.e. SDLP, FF/FG are all stating that now is not the right time, 2021 will not be the right time and 2025 will be not the right time.
Once again, I ask these parties, when is the right time?
As you should know it's up to the Brit Secretary of State to call a "border poll" per the GFA.
OMG...and parties can't agitate for it?
So we just wait and let the Sos decide when it's going to be.
I think you should look at Scotland and see how they are agitating for Indy2.
Not sure what your parties, Fine Fail, are doing about it - ohh wait the dept. in the 26 that deals with the 6 counties is the Dept. of Foreign Affairs...ffs.
Should you and Flanagan and the west brits today not be looking to built a statue to the people who murdered the people in Croke Park?
Good man. Plenty of insults.
Lads like you will ensure the 26 Co electorate won't vote for a UI.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
Good man. Plenty of insults.
Lads like you will ensure the 26 Co electorate won't vote for a UI.
A big question as to whether Sinn Fein have the discipline to run a referendum campaign.
Once you get to see "West Brit" or "quisling" in the southern debate you are kissing goodbye to any chance of convincing moderates north or south.
Also there will have to be a serious economic debate. The details of which will be poured over. Sinn Fein have already shown the that they will use flimsy data. That is going to get ripped apart in a proper debate. They would have to up their game massively
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Read that SF "economic" document.
I was accused of second guessing it's content. Wouldn't have been difficult. He a re-presentation of a greatest hits of earlier documents. An environmental twist thrown in.
I was correct about the pensions. This runs to the heart of the fraud in this document. It's is based upon selective quoting from earlier research. It's is concluded that Scottish citizens keep their accrued UK pension rights and Edinburgh foot the bill. The first bit of that suits the SF narrative but the second doesn't. So the first but finds it's way into the document but the second doesn't.
But there are other issues. No doubt the reduced economic activity in border areas but can we jump to the conclusion that that is because of the border. Were these areas poorer that other areas before the border? Are there historic issues in many of these areas due to land quality, distance from major/historic conurbations, road and infrastructure?
They reference benefits of local decision making. Doesn't specify how these play out but surely this is about the form of devolution rather than where power is devolved from?
Where is the analysis of how much of NI's historic economic woes are related to The Troubles and the inhibition it places on investment?
The troubles and impact on investment
The references to Hubner and Fitzgerald are again selective.
There are references to the impact of the various forms of Brexit on East-west trade between GB and NI but where is the analysis of the east-west trade between RoI and GB?
On the green agenda it's is completely unclear what the advantage of UI is on delivering a green agenda. What element of the competition for private sector investment is hampered by the border? There already is a single electricity market and NI gets additional financial support to that sector that are not included in the subvention stats.
It's not an honest document
You're not an honest poster.
Are you still persisting with your "I'm not a stoop" facade?
I have shown you the lie on pensions. What are your thoughts? Do you think it was good of SF to spin that lie or bad to spin that lie?
I'm afraid you've done no such thing. The one lie you have showed us is your "I'm not a stoop" facade.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
Good man. Plenty of insults.
Lads like you will ensure the 26 Co electorate won't vote for a UI.
It's actually lads like you will do your utmost to keep your rotten corrupt state in the same hands that have ravaged state services and resources to the private sector over the past 50 years.
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 04:17:54 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Read that SF "economic" document.
I was accused of second guessing it's content. Wouldn't have been difficult. He a re-presentation of a greatest hits of earlier documents. An environmental twist thrown in.
I was correct about the pensions. This runs to the heart of the fraud in this document. It's is based upon selective quoting from earlier research. It's is concluded that Scottish citizens keep their accrued UK pension rights and Edinburgh foot the bill. The first bit of that suits the SF narrative but the second doesn't. So the first but finds it's way into the document but the second doesn't.
But there are other issues. No doubt the reduced economic activity in border areas but can we jump to the conclusion that that is because of the border. Were these areas poorer that other areas before the border? Are there historic issues in many of these areas due to land quality, distance from major/historic conurbations, road and infrastructure?
They reference benefits of local decision making. Doesn't specify how these play out but surely this is about the form of devolution rather than where power is devolved from?
Where is the analysis of how much of NI's historic economic woes are related to The Troubles and the inhibition it places on investment?
The troubles and impact on investment
The references to Hubner and Fitzgerald are again selective.
There are references to the impact of the various forms of Brexit on East-west trade between GB and NI but where is the analysis of the east-west trade between RoI and GB?
On the green agenda it's is completely unclear what the advantage of UI is on delivering a green agenda. What element of the competition for private sector investment is hampered by the border? There already is a single electricity market and NI gets additional financial support to that sector that are not included in the subvention stats.
It's not an honest document
You're not an honest poster.
Are you still persisting with your "I'm not a stoop" facade?
I have shown you the lie on pensions. What are your thoughts? Do you think it was good of SF to spin that lie or bad to spin that lie?
I'm afraid you've done no such thing. The one lie you have showed us is your "I'm not a stoop" facade.
Out of interest. Where you from. What age are you
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 21, 2020, 05:15:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 04:17:54 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Read that SF "economic" document.
I was accused of second guessing it's content. Wouldn't have been difficult. He a re-presentation of a greatest hits of earlier documents. An environmental twist thrown in.
I was correct about the pensions. This runs to the heart of the fraud in this document. It's is based upon selective quoting from earlier research. It's is concluded that Scottish citizens keep their accrued UK pension rights and Edinburgh foot the bill. The first bit of that suits the SF narrative but the second doesn't. So the first but finds it's way into the document but the second doesn't.
But there are other issues. No doubt the reduced economic activity in border areas but can we jump to the conclusion that that is because of the border. Were these areas poorer that other areas before the border? Are there historic issues in many of these areas due to land quality, distance from major/historic conurbations, road and infrastructure?
They reference benefits of local decision making. Doesn't specify how these play out but surely this is about the form of devolution rather than where power is devolved from?
Where is the analysis of how much of NI's historic economic woes are related to The Troubles and the inhibition it places on investment?
The troubles and impact on investment
The references to Hubner and Fitzgerald are again selective.
There are references to the impact of the various forms of Brexit on East-west trade between GB and NI but where is the analysis of the east-west trade between RoI and GB?
On the green agenda it's is completely unclear what the advantage of UI is on delivering a green agenda. What element of the competition for private sector investment is hampered by the border? There already is a single electricity market and NI gets additional financial support to that sector that are not included in the subvention stats.
It's not an honest document
You're not an honest poster.
Are you still persisting with your "I'm not a stoop" facade?
I have shown you the lie on pensions. What are your thoughts? Do you think it was good of SF to spin that lie or bad to spin that lie?
I'm afraid you've done no such thing. The one lie you have showed us is your "I'm not a stoop" facade.
Out of interest. Where you from. What age are you
Not really any of your business is it?
Anybody share Angela's concern as to whether or not a supporter is the SDLP?
Or indeed does anybody share is absolute conviction that I am in fact an SDLP supporter?
Anybody think it is grown up thing to keep coming back to?
Again for absolute clarity I have voted first/only choice for SDLP in the past. A grand total of twice
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 04:17:54 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Read that SF "economic" document.
I was accused of second guessing it's content. Wouldn't have been difficult. He a re-presentation of a greatest hits of earlier documents. An environmental twist thrown in.
I was correct about the pensions. This runs to the heart of the fraud in this document. It's is based upon selective quoting from earlier research. It's is concluded that Scottish citizens keep their accrued UK pension rights and Edinburgh foot the bill. The first bit of that suits the SF narrative but the second doesn't. So the first but finds it's way into the document but the second doesn't.
But there are other issues. No doubt the reduced economic activity in border areas but can we jump to the conclusion that that is because of the border. Were these areas poorer that other areas before the border? Are there historic issues in many of these areas due to land quality, distance from major/historic conurbations, road and infrastructure?
They reference benefits of local decision making. Doesn't specify how these play out but surely this is about the form of devolution rather than where power is devolved from?
Where is the analysis of how much of NI's historic economic woes are related to The Troubles and the inhibition it places on investment?
The troubles and impact on investment
The references to Hubner and Fitzgerald are again selective.
There are references to the impact of the various forms of Brexit on East-west trade between GB and NI but where is the analysis of the east-west trade between RoI and GB?
On the green agenda it's is completely unclear what the advantage of UI is on delivering a green agenda. What element of the competition for private sector investment is hampered by the border? There already is a single electricity market and NI gets additional financial support to that sector that are not included in the subvention stats.
It's not an honest document
You're not an honest poster.
Are you still persisting with your "I'm not a stoop" facade?
I have shown you the lie on pensions. What are your thoughts? Do you think it was good of SF to spin that lie or bad to spin that lie?
I'm afraid you've done no such thing. The one lie you have showed us is your "I'm not a stoop" facade.
So when SF left out the bit about Scotland footing the pensions bill how was that not a lie?
I don't mind who you vote for but in Angeloworld being a "Stoop" is up there with "Freestater" "West Brit" "Quisling" as a term of abuse.
PS you probably vote Alliance and might even be on of "them" :o
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 05:38:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 21, 2020, 05:15:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 04:17:54 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 21, 2020, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Read that SF "economic" document.
I was accused of second guessing it's content. Wouldn't have been difficult. He a re-presentation of a greatest hits of earlier documents. An environmental twist thrown in.
I was correct about the pensions. This runs to the heart of the fraud in this document. It's is based upon selective quoting from earlier research. It's is concluded that Scottish citizens keep their accrued UK pension rights and Edinburgh foot the bill. The first bit of that suits the SF narrative but the second doesn't. So the first but finds it's way into the document but the second doesn't.
But there are other issues. No doubt the reduced economic activity in border areas but can we jump to the conclusion that that is because of the border. Were these areas poorer that other areas before the border? Are there historic issues in many of these areas due to land quality, distance from major/historic conurbations, road and infrastructure?
They reference benefits of local decision making. Doesn't specify how these play out but surely this is about the form of devolution rather than where power is devolved from?
Where is the analysis of how much of NI's historic economic woes are related to The Troubles and the inhibition it places on investment?
The troubles and impact on investment
The references to Hubner and Fitzgerald are again selective.
There are references to the impact of the various forms of Brexit on East-west trade between GB and NI but where is the analysis of the east-west trade between RoI and GB?
On the green agenda it's is completely unclear what the advantage of UI is on delivering a green agenda. What element of the competition for private sector investment is hampered by the border? There already is a single electricity market and NI gets additional financial support to that sector that are not included in the subvention stats.
It's not an honest document
You're not an honest poster.
Are you still persisting with your "I'm not a stoop" facade?
I have shown you the lie on pensions. What are your thoughts? Do you think it was good of SF to spin that lie or bad to spin that lie?
I'm afraid you've done no such thing. The one lie you have showed us is your "I'm not a stoop" facade.
Out of interest. Where you from. What age are you
Not really any of your business is it?
Naw but the stoop thingy is embarrassing for you. You must be a 17 year old stuck in the 1970s
Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
I don't mind who you vote for but in Angeloworld being a "Stoop" is up there with "Freestater" "West Brit" "Quisling" as a term of abuse.
PS you probably vote Alliance and might even be on of "them" :o
I thought the Alliance thing was fairly obvious to all apart from the hard of thinking. Poor old Angelo. He is hard to define. Plain thick? Misfiring comedian? Troll trying to generate site traffic? Who knows
Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
I don't mind who you vote for but in Angeloworld being a "Stoop" is up there with "Freestater" "West Brit" "Quisling" as a term of abuse.
PS you probably vote Alliance and might even be on of "them" :o
When the name calling starts it usually means the argument's lost!
Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
I don't mind who you vote for but in Angeloworld being a "Stoop" is up there with "Freestater" "West Brit" "Quisling" as a term of abuse.
PS you probably vote Alliance and might even be on of "them" :o
And you tick the box beside three of those.
It's not a term of abuse, it just encapsulates your complete and utter cowardice.
Quote from: Angelo on November 22, 2020, 11:49:33 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
I don't mind who you vote for but in Angeloworld being a "Stoop" is up there with "Freestater" "West Brit" "Quisling" as a term of abuse.
PS you probably vote Alliance and might even be on of "them" :o
And you tick the box beside three of those.
It's not a term of abuse, it just encapsulates your complete and utter cowardice.
When are you going to overcome your own cowardice and answer the questions putto you across a number of threads?
(PS good work on maintaining the official SF/DUP position on scrutiny)
Quote from: LCohen on November 20, 2020, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2020, 04:06:47 PM
Given that people will have paid their way into the British Exchequer for their whole working lives up until the point of separation, how can it be argued that the British Government would not bear liability for this?
You are assessing one side of the issue. And assessing it correctly
The beneficiary of the pensions have accrued their rights and that will to be met.
The question is who has the responsibility to meet it.
To state the obvious NI is currently a constituent part of the UK of GB & NI. In a UI scenario it would cease to be. In leaving it would take the ongoing position with it. The UK of GB & NI would cease to be and would cease to be responsible for NI. There would have to be a divorce settlement to establish where the lines would be drawn but there are precedents. When ROI was set up it took on these liabilities in RoI. As UK leaves the EU it takes the pensions liability with it. In the Scottish independence referendum it was established that Scots would retain their UK pension rights but at the expense of the would-be Scottish exchequer.
Not sure about this. Lets deal with your precendents.
1. There were no decisions on who would fund the Scottish pensions post-referendum. Liability for this was still to be decided during a 'divorce settlement'
2. ROI did indeed inherit the war pensions liability in 1921, through an acceptance of a portion of British Gov't war debt. This debt was assumed to be 'unpayable' and was written off but the British in 1925, in part to recompense the Irish for the failures of the boundary commission and the failures of the NI state to offer equal status to Catholics. (In essence, the British bought the right from the post-partition govt of the free state to behave whatever way they wanted towards NI Catholics)
3. The pensions liability in GB's withdrawal from the EU is miniscule in comparison the scale of the deal, so much so that it is almost moot.
Your precedents are shaky at best. And you are using this to dismiss the entire argument as 'fraud'. Your response to this definitely asks more questions than it answers with regards to how 'honest' an actor you are here.
Quote from: Franko on November 23, 2020, 07:55:45 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 20, 2020, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2020, 04:06:47 PM
Given that people will have paid their way into the British Exchequer for their whole working lives up until the point of separation, how can it be argued that the British Government would not bear liability for this?
You are assessing one side of the issue. And assessing it correctly
The beneficiary of the pensions have accrued their rights and that will to be met.
The question is who has the responsibility to meet it.
To state the obvious NI is currently a constituent part of the UK of GB & NI. In a UI scenario it would cease to be. In leaving it would take the ongoing position with it. The UK of GB & NI would cease to be and would cease to be responsible for NI. There would have to be a divorce settlement to establish where the lines would be drawn but there are precedents. When ROI was set up it took on these liabilities in RoI. As UK leaves the EU it takes the pensions liability with it. In the Scottish independence referendum it was established that Scots would retain their UK pension rights but at the expense of the would-be Scottish exchequer.
Not sure about this. Lets deal with your precendents.
1. There were no decisions on who would fund the Scottish pensions post-referendum. Liability for this was still to be decided during a 'divorce settlement'
2. ROI did indeed inherit the war pensions liability in 1921, through an acceptance of a portion of British Gov't war debt. This debt was assumed to be 'unpayable' and was written off but the British in 1925, in part to recompense the Irish for the failures of the boundary commission and the failures of the NI state to offer equal status to Catholics. (In essence, the British bought the right from the post-partition govt of the free state to behave whatever way they wanted towards NI Catholics)
3. The pensions liability in GB's withdrawal from the EU is miniscule in comparison the scale of the deal, so much so that it is almost moot.
Your precedents are shaky at best. And you are using this to dismiss the entire argument as 'fraud'. Your response to this definitely asks more questions than it answers with regards to how 'honest' an actor you are here.
I am going to ignore the "dishonest actor" bit other than to say I am very happy to retract anything that is proven to incorrect or indeed no longer correct.
I think they key example is Scotland but to deal with the other 2 first.
Ireland 1922 - its still a pensions precedent. Admittedly pensions were significantly less comprehensive then. My point is that even when it is acknowledged that the new Ireland could not afford the pensions the liability still fell to Ireland. The unaffordability resulted in a later, much wider write off.
Brexit- it's smaller as it only relates to civil servants but it's still a whopping €11.6bn.
Scotland is more relevant as it represents a country leaving UK and the UK regulatory framework and it applies to a broad base of civil servants and the general accrual of state pension rights. In Scotland the SNP agreed that they would take on the liability. They issued a paper, launched it, did a press conference and took questions. Absolutely clear that they would take the liability. They only thing they said was that pensions were slightly different in Scotland and some people would have to map across to the Scottish system. But that Scotland would make and fund the payments. I remember in the press conference Sturgeon taking a question on the affordability and her pointing that it would be more affordable in Scotland than the UK model assumptions because people don't live as long as Scotland. Which happens to be true and did answer the question but it was probably the first time I saw a politician make a virtue out of shorter life expectancy. That's why it stuck with me.
https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1367214978474901505?s=19
Mother of God.
That's the man who was going to stop Brexit.
Every time SF piss me off and I hear Nicola Mallon, I think might switch back to the SDLP. Then Eastwood or Dolores Kelly come on the air waves. They have nothing to say regarding policy other than but SF. Kelly asked on GMU about the Chief Constable...this is about SF. GMU though allowed Storey and Kelly unchallenged to do a party political broadcast, not for the first time. Can they not ask difficult questions?
IMO if the SDLP want to go anywhere they need a new leader. I just don't think Eastwood is up to it.
The problem for the SDLP is they never had anything beyond John Hume and after he left politics they have offered nothing. Mallon was a really regressive politician himself and was an obstacle to the peace process.
I would not consider the SDLP a nationalist party - it's about time they merged with Alliance.
Alliance are actually a much less anti-republican party than the SDLP are whose default voice just seems to be shouting about whatever it is SF have done now.
The SDLP don't stand for anything these days - just anti-SF rhetoric (perfectly exemplified as it happens by the resident stoop(s) on here). That in itself is fair enough if you've no serious ambition as a party but if you actually want to attract voters then it's time for a slight change in direction.
Quote from: general_lee on April 01, 2021, 11:29:59 AM
The SDLP don't stand for anything these days - just anti-SF rhetoric (perfectly exemplified as it happens by the resident stoop(s) on here). That in itself is fair enough if you've no serious ambition as a party but if you actually want to attract voters then it's time for a slight change in direction.
I think you're forgetting that Eastwood is stopping Brexit as well!
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 01, 2021, 10:20:38 AM
IMO if the SDLP want to go anywhere they need a new leader. I just don't think Eastwood is up to it.
Is there any decent political leader in NI at the minute ?
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2021, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 01, 2021, 10:20:38 AM
IMO if the SDLP want to go anywhere they need a new leader. I just don't think Eastwood is up to it.
Is there any decent political leader in NI at the minute ?
Is there any on the island of Ireland?
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2021, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 01, 2021, 10:20:38 AM
IMO if the SDLP want to go anywhere they need a new leader. I just don't think Eastwood is up to it.
Is there any decent political leader in NI at the minute ?
Jim Allister!
Quote from: Angelo on April 01, 2021, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2021, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 01, 2021, 10:20:38 AM
IMO if the SDLP want to go anywhere they need a new leader. I just don't think Eastwood is up to it.
Is there any decent political leader in NI at the minute ?
Is there any on the island of Ireland?
Peadar Toibín
Quote from: Angelo on April 01, 2021, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2021, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 01, 2021, 10:20:38 AM
IMO if the SDLP want to go anywhere they need a new leader. I just don't think Eastwood is up to it.
Is there any decent political leader in NI at the minute ?
Is there any on the island of Ireland?
Is Michelle O'Neill a good leader ?
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2021, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 01, 2021, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2021, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 01, 2021, 10:20:38 AM
IMO if the SDLP want to go anywhere they need a new leader. I just don't think Eastwood is up to it.
Is there any decent political leader in NI at the minute ?
Is there any on the island of Ireland?
Is Michelle O'Neill a good leader ?
Not particularly. Would say O'Dowd or Murphy are far more capable.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 01, 2021, 04:02:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 01, 2021, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2021, 03:09:30 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 01, 2021, 10:20:38 AM
IMO if the SDLP want to go anywhere they need a new leader. I just don't think Eastwood is up to it.
Is there any decent political leader in NI at the minute ?
Is there any on the island of Ireland?
Peadar Toibín
Him, Mary Lou and Healy Rae. The rest are woeful.
O'Neill got the job because she's a female, a box ticking exercise so SF could be seen to be progressive..John O'Dowd was the best candidate and had already deputised for McGuinness.
Quote from: Rich Ricci on April 01, 2021, 06:42:55 PM
O'Neill got the job because she's a female, a box ticking exercise so SF could be seen to be progressive..John O'Dowd was the best candidate and had already deputised for McGuinness.
Yeah I wouldnt be too impressed with her now.
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 01, 2021, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: Rich Ricci on April 01, 2021, 06:42:55 PM
O'Neill got the job because she's a female, a box ticking exercise so SF could be seen to be progressive..John O'Dowd was the best candidate and had already deputised for McGuinness.
Yeah I wouldnt be too impressed with her now.
She's poor enough alright.
Pierce Doherty is a decent talker and clued in.
It's the likes of him will bring the shinners to the next level in the south in particular, O'Dowd is probably the best in the North although he can be inclined to lose the cool once in a while.
Quote from: johnnycool on April 02, 2021, 10:24:24 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 01, 2021, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: Rich Ricci on April 01, 2021, 06:42:55 PM
O'Neill got the job because she's a female, a box ticking exercise so SF could be seen to be progressive..John O'Dowd was the best candidate and had already deputised for McGuinness.
Yeah I wouldnt be too impressed with her now.
She's poor enough alright.
Pierce Doherty is a decent talker and clued in.
It's the likes of him will bring the shinners to the next level in the south in particular, O'Dowd is probably the best in the North although he can be inclined to lose the cool once in a while.
Pearse is top class as is Mary Lou. Murphy is decent in the North.
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 02, 2021, 10:56:22 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 02, 2021, 10:24:24 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 01, 2021, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: Rich Ricci on April 01, 2021, 06:42:55 PM
O'Neill got the job because she's a female, a box ticking exercise so SF could be seen to be progressive..John O'Dowd was the best candidate and had already deputised for McGuinness.
Yeah I wouldnt be too impressed with her now.
She's poor enough alright.
Pierce Doherty is a decent talker and clued in.
It's the likes of him will bring the shinners to the next level in the south in particular, O'Dowd is probably the best in the North although he can be inclined to lose the cool once in a while.
Pearse is top class as is Mary Lou. Murphy is decent in the North.
Doherty, O'Broin and Matt Carthy are definitely SF's top guys down south.
Mary Lou is good on the light stuff but gets tripped up on detail.
Colum of Stopping Brexit fame saying Unionists leader must do better in light of the recent violence.
Maybe Colum would be better looking at his own little political stunt and the role it had in kicking things off.
The SDLP have been badly exposed in the past week.
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 09:07:04 AM
Colum of Stopping Brexit fame saying Unionists leader much do better in light of the recent violence.
Maybe Colum would be better looking at his own little political stunt and the role it has in kicking things off.
The SDLP have been badly exposed in the past week.
Totally agree. SDLP have contributed a lot over the years, but current strategy from leadership seems focussed on rivalry with SF above all else, thereby often letting unionism
Off the hook. "Nationalist/republican" political parties here haven't done well in recent years. Demographics indicate that there should be an increasing "N/R" vote but in fact SF seem to have lost voters to SDLP and SDLP lost voters to a resurgent alliance , and as a result the "N/R" vote hasn't effectively increased. I think SF will only increase their vote by attracting voters back from SDLP. Most republicans will remain loyal to SF, so there's not many more votes there, but SF will have to perform better in terms of formulating and selling a strategy for a UI, and continue to soften to attract SDLP voters , and/or be "more acceptable " for coalition, north and south. IMHO regardless of their rationale behind the IRA campaign , there has to be more contrition and remorse for the hurt caused, if SF are serious about securing their status as main party north/south.
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 09:27:53 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 09:07:04 AM
Colum of Stopping Brexit fame saying Unionists leader much do better in light of the recent violence.
Maybe Colum would be better looking at his own little political stunt and the role it has in kicking things off.
The SDLP have been badly exposed in the past week.
Totally agree. SDLP have contributed a lot over the years, but current strategy from leadership seems focussed on rivalry with SF above all else, thereby often letting unionism
Off the hook. "Nationalist/republican" political parties here haven't done well in recent years. Demographics indicate that there should be an increasing "N/R" vote but in fact SF seem to have lost voters to SDLP and SDLP lost voters to a resurgent alliance , and as a result the "N/R" vote hasn't effectively increased. I think SF will only increase their vote by attracting voters back from SDLP. Most republicans will remain loyal to SF, so there's not many more votes there, but SF will have to perform better in terms of formulating and selling a strategy for a UI, and continue to soften to attract SDLP voters , and/or be "more acceptable " for coalition, north and south. IMHO regardless of their rationale behind the IRA campaign , there has to be more contrition and remorse for the hurt caused, if SF are serious about securing their status as main party north/south.
I think SF will build on the last assembly elections. I see the SDLP becoming more and more an irrelevance as their little games this week show they have nothing of value to offer the nationalist/republican communities other than point scoring and optics.
The Westminster elections were a bit of an outlier. SF don't take their seats, Colum was voted in by a landslide by a pledge to stop Brexit. He's an absolutely worthless politician and we know there were big ructions within the party when he hitched their boat to s centre right partitionist party down south.
Eastwood has been the final nail in the coffin for them. I think he kind of typifies the perception of SDLP representatives. From what I know of local SDLP councillors they almost feel as if it is an affront to them when asked to relay their constituents concerns or needs. They are completely detached from those they expect to vote for them.
We didn't get the hard border and we have unionist upheaval, better than stopping brexit
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 09:52:47 AM
We didn't get the hard border and we have unionist upheaval, better than stopping brexit
Did Colum negotiate that for us aye?
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 09:56:24 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 09:52:47 AM
We didn't get the hard border and we have unionist upheaval, better than stopping brexit
Did Colum negotiate that for us aye?
I'm just saying it happened, surely things will move quicker. You should be happy
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
Think out current leaders he's the best of a bad bunch.
I would say Naomi Long is the best leader in northern politics at the minute, not that it really takes a great deal of doing.
Eastwood just goes with whatever way the wind is.
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
Not like me to agree with Angelo, but SDLP didn't cover themselves in glory this week, and Eastwood , unlike his outstanding previous leader John Hume, puts party political interests above the national interest.
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
It's a good thing you don't political party bash, otherwise you'd be a complete hypocrite
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
I think this might be your main issue with him. If you see the bigger picture though, it is important for nationalism that there is a strong SDLP with a different roadmap to SF. If he thinks SF needs calling out on certain issues then that is what he ought to do. I think that there is a sense that he is more in control of his own party than any other leader bar Naomi Long.
Look at unionism and how weak a leader Steve Aiken has become by almost apeing the DUP policy.
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
Remind me now what happened in the voting for the DUP abortion amendment the other week? That was pretty bad from SF in terms of misleading their voters.
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
Yep, agree with all of that. John Hume was the SDLP.
The idea that by legitimising Sinn Fein and giving it political credibility, Hume contributed to the downfall of his own party, the SDLP is always trotted out. In fact i think John Hume's continued presence at the head of the SDLP was the main reason they remained as popular as they did for so long.
Their main function now seems to be as Party that Nationalists who don't like Sinn Féin can vote for.
They and the "middle ground" will be be vital in drawing up the "new Ireland".
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
I think this might be your main issue with him. If you see the bigger picture though, it is important for nationalism that there is a strong SDLP with a different roadmap to SF. If he thinks SF needs calling out on certain issues then that is what he ought to do. I think that there is a sense that he is more in control of his own party than any other leader bar Naomi Long.
Look at unionism and how weak a leader Steve Aiken has become by almost apeing the DUP policy.
I'm still waiting for you to actually elaborate on what makes him a good leader or in anyway a good politician.
It seems to just be a completely empty statement without any substance - much like Colum and the DUP.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 11:55:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
It's a good thing you don't political party bash, otherwise you'd be a complete hypocrite
What's he done?
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 11:55:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
It's a good thing you don't political party bash, otherwise you'd be a complete hypocrite
What's he done?
What any of them done
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 05, 2021, 12:31:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 11:55:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
It's a good thing you don't political party bash, otherwise you'd be a complete hypocrite
What's he done?
What any of them done
A few posters have made the contention on Eastwood being a good leader and has done well with the SDLP.
It seems to be completely empty rhetoric though.
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
I think this might be your main issue with him. If you see the bigger picture though, it is important for nationalism that there is a strong SDLP with a different roadmap to SF. If he thinks SF needs calling out on certain issues then that is what he ought to do. I think that there is a sense that he is more in control of his own party than any other leader bar Naomi Long.
Look at unionism and how weak a leader Steve Aiken has become by almost apeing the DUP policy.
I'm still waiting for you to actually elaborate on what makes him a good leader or in anyway a good politician.
It seems to just be a completely empty statement without any substance - much like Colum and the DUP.
I thought I'd already commented on the fact that I thought he was in control of the party, had taken the Westminster seat back from SF, been strong in the media and had called out Unionist bigotry in a consistent manner.
What exactly do you expect or want him to achieve, his role is fairly limited as an MP for a marginal party, he's not going to free Ireland.
In my opinion there are much weaker party leaders than Eastwood, maybe it's due to the fact that he isn't afraid to take a view that he sometimes rattles a few cages.
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
I think this might be your main issue with him. If you see the bigger picture though, it is important for nationalism that there is a strong SDLP with a different roadmap to SF. If he thinks SF needs calling out on certain issues then that is what he ought to do. I think that there is a sense that he is more in control of his own party than any other leader bar Naomi Long.
Look at unionism and how weak a leader Steve Aiken has become by almost apeing the DUP policy.
I'm still waiting for you to actually elaborate on what makes him a good leader or in anyway a good politician.
It seems to just be a completely empty statement without any substance - much like Colum and the DUP.
I thought I'd already commented on the fact that I thought he was in control of the party, had taken the Westminster seat back from SF, been strong in the media and had called out Unionist bigotry in a consistent manner.
What exactly do you expect or want him to achieve, his role is fairly limited as an MP for a marginal party, he's not going to free Ireland.
In my opinion there are much weaker party leaders than Eastwood, maybe it's due to the fact that he isn't afraid to take a view that he sometimes rattles a few cages.
In control of the party?
Do you not remember the huge discontent he created with his FF stunt? The one that led to Hanne resigning her whip?
You're the one making the charges that he is a decent leader and has done a good job with the SDLP which when we get down to it, you can't even reference anything to do with it. The past week has shown that Eastwood and the SDLP offer nothing more than noise and their actions last week were shameful. Political point scoring that fanned the flames for the scenes we have seen over the weekend.
This is the same guy who campaigned on a platform of Colum in Westminister would stop Brexit. The guy is a self-absorbed arsehole who is utterly incompetent and I find it amusing you have adamantly told us he has done a good job yet can't specify to anything positive he has contributed during his time as leader of the Stoops.
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.
Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 01:52:25 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
I think this might be your main issue with him. If you see the bigger picture though, it is important for nationalism that there is a strong SDLP with a different roadmap to SF. If he thinks SF needs calling out on certain issues then that is what he ought to do. I think that there is a sense that he is more in control of his own party than any other leader bar Naomi Long.
Look at unionism and how weak a leader Steve Aiken has become by almost apeing the DUP policy.
I'm still waiting for you to actually elaborate on what makes him a good leader or in anyway a good politician.
It seems to just be a completely empty statement without any substance - much like Colum and the DUP.
I thought I'd already commented on the fact that I thought he was in control of the party, had taken the Westminster seat back from SF, been strong in the media and had called out Unionist bigotry in a consistent manner.
What exactly do you expect or want him to achieve, his role is fairly limited as an MP for a marginal party, he's not going to free Ireland.
In my opinion there are much weaker party leaders than Eastwood, maybe it's due to the fact that he isn't afraid to take a view that he sometimes rattles a few cages.
In control of the party?
Do you not remember the huge discontent he created with his FF stunt? The one that led to Hanne resigning her whip?
You're the one making the charges that he is a decent leader and has done a good job with the SDLP which when we get down to it, you can't even reference anything to do with it. The past week has shown that Eastwood and the SDLP offer nothing more than noise and their actions last week were shameful. Political point scoring that fanned the flames for the scenes we have seen over the weekend.
This is the same guy who campaigned on a platform of Colum in Westminister would stop Brexit. The guy is a self-absorbed arsehole who is utterly incompetent and I find it amusing you have adamantly told us he has done a good job yet can't specify to anything positive he has contributed during his time as leader of the Stoops.
Ultimately it is the electorate who will decide this. You clearly don't like him or rate him, that's fine but I think you are just being blinded by party prejudice.
Yes, he hasn't covered himself in glory in the last week but his leadership has lasted much longer than one week. And yes, the alignment with FF also caused some consternation with Hanna but it seems to have been smoothed over. Every single party will have defections and falling outs at some point though, I don't think you can just throw this at Eastwoods door simply because you have a personal disliking of the man.
Of course he has made some mistakes and aligning himself with the most partitionist FF leader in history was probably one of them but on the whole I will stand by my opinion that he has done a good job overall given where they were coming from.
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 01:52:25 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
I think this might be your main issue with him. If you see the bigger picture though, it is important for nationalism that there is a strong SDLP with a different roadmap to SF. If he thinks SF needs calling out on certain issues then that is what he ought to do. I think that there is a sense that he is more in control of his own party than any other leader bar Naomi Long.
Look at unionism and how weak a leader Steve Aiken has become by almost apeing the DUP policy.
I'm still waiting for you to actually elaborate on what makes him a good leader or in anyway a good politician.
It seems to just be a completely empty statement without any substance - much like Colum and the DUP.
I thought I'd already commented on the fact that I thought he was in control of the party, had taken the Westminster seat back from SF, been strong in the media and had called out Unionist bigotry in a consistent manner.
What exactly do you expect or want him to achieve, his role is fairly limited as an MP for a marginal party, he's not going to free Ireland.
In my opinion there are much weaker party leaders than Eastwood, maybe it's due to the fact that he isn't afraid to take a view that he sometimes rattles a few cages.
In control of the party?
Do you not remember the huge discontent he created with his FF stunt? The one that led to Hanne resigning her whip?
You're the one making the charges that he is a decent leader and has done a good job with the SDLP which when we get down to it, you can't even reference anything to do with it. The past week has shown that Eastwood and the SDLP offer nothing more than noise and their actions last week were shameful. Political point scoring that fanned the flames for the scenes we have seen over the weekend.
This is the same guy who campaigned on a platform of Colum in Westminister would stop Brexit. The guy is a self-absorbed arsehole who is utterly incompetent and I find it amusing you have adamantly told us he has done a good job yet can't specify to anything positive he has contributed during his time as leader of the Stoops.
What's wrong with campaigning to stop Brexit?
I'd add some of his electoral decisions (not running in north Belfast, north Down) and attracting new talent like Matthew O'Toole, Sinead McLaughlin in Derry etc have strengthened the party.
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.
Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?
I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!
You don't see that as being stupid?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.
Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?
I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!
You don't see that as being stupid?
That's all Angelina does. Carp at anyone who doesn't toe the line.
Zero content.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 05, 2021, 03:03:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 01:52:25 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 11:00:15 AM
I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.
They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.
You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?
Seriously?
Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.
He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.
I'd love to hear it is that he's done.
All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.
I think this might be your main issue with him. If you see the bigger picture though, it is important for nationalism that there is a strong SDLP with a different roadmap to SF. If he thinks SF needs calling out on certain issues then that is what he ought to do. I think that there is a sense that he is more in control of his own party than any other leader bar Naomi Long.
Look at unionism and how weak a leader Steve Aiken has become by almost apeing the DUP policy.
I'm still waiting for you to actually elaborate on what makes him a good leader or in anyway a good politician.
It seems to just be a completely empty statement without any substance - much like Colum and the DUP.
I thought I'd already commented on the fact that I thought he was in control of the party, had taken the Westminster seat back from SF, been strong in the media and had called out Unionist bigotry in a consistent manner.
What exactly do you expect or want him to achieve, his role is fairly limited as an MP for a marginal party, he's not going to free Ireland.
In my opinion there are much weaker party leaders than Eastwood, maybe it's due to the fact that he isn't afraid to take a view that he sometimes rattles a few cages.
In control of the party?
Do you not remember the huge discontent he created with his FF stunt? The one that led to Hanne resigning her whip?
You're the one making the charges that he is a decent leader and has done a good job with the SDLP which when we get down to it, you can't even reference anything to do with it. The past week has shown that Eastwood and the SDLP offer nothing more than noise and their actions last week were shameful. Political point scoring that fanned the flames for the scenes we have seen over the weekend.
This is the same guy who campaigned on a platform of Colum in Westminister would stop Brexit. The guy is a self-absorbed arsehole who is utterly incompetent and I find it amusing you have adamantly told us he has done a good job yet can't specify to anything positive he has contributed during his time as leader of the Stoops.
What's wrong with campaigning to stop Brexit?
He failed on his promises.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.
Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?
I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!
You don't see that as being stupid?
I would see it as legitimate criticism and as you can't provide anything to the contrary, it's a bizarre position for you to take. Eastwood and the SDLP have a lot to answer for with their stunts in the past week.
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.
Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?
I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!
You don't see that as being stupid?
I would see it as legitimate criticism and as you can't provide anything to the contrary, it's a bizarre position for you to take. Eastwood and the SDLP have a lot to answer for with their stunts in the past week.
Eastwood would say his is a legitimate criticism. But you say is bashing, just exactly what you are doing. If you don't see that then you are blind.
I'm not here to provide anything contrary as I'm only pointing out your hypocrisy
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
Yeah, and it obviously galls you that people vote for them. The SDLP have proved time and time again how influential they are in London. How did the wee Croppie Boy's promise to stop Brexit work out? He's now just marking time till his British masters put an ermine cloak on him, just like Fitt and that balloon Richie.
The SDLP stood aside for Bobby Sands in 1981. That was the making of SF.
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
The SDLP stood aside for Bobby Sands in 1981. That was the making of SF.
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Abstentionism is just playing to the gallery at this stage. SF should take their seats and pollute the HOC continually about a Unity Referendum.
Quote from: red hander on April 05, 2021, 04:19:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
Yeah, and it obviously galls you that people vote for them. The SDLP have proved time and time again how influential they are in London. How did the wee Croppie Boy's promise to stop Brexit work out? He's now just marking time till his British masters put an ermine cloak on him, just like Fitt and that balloon Richie.
SF provide no representation in Westminster
That's a fact
You didn't like this fact so you decided to rant
Typical SFer
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.
Which SF MP sits in Westminster?
I specifically addressed your "point", which was factually wrong
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 05:28:21 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.
Which SF MP sits in Westminster?
0, and rightly so.
You didn't address any point, and what I said isn't factually wrong. You started going off on an irrelevant tangent about Westminster for some reason, when a claim was made that voting for SF is apparently "sectarian". I pointed out that this is wrong. Hope that's clear enough.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:29:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 05:28:21 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.
Which SF MP sits in Westminster?
0, and rightly so.
Thanks for answering
So, if you have an SF MP, you have no representation in Westminster
As is SF policy
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:58:22 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.
Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?
I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!
You don't see that as being stupid?
I would see it as legitimate criticism and as you can't provide anything to the contrary, it's a bizarre position for you to take. Eastwood and the SDLP have a lot to answer for with their stunts in the past week.
Eastwood would say his is a legitimate criticism. But you say is bashing, just exactly what you are doing. If you don't see that then you are blind.
I'm not here to provide anything contrary as I'm only pointing out your hypocrisy
It clear as day that Eastwood was engaging in petty political mudslinging that has fanned the flames on an already tense situation.
We had a similar incident a number of weeks back with the Sean Graham commemoration. It could have very easily turned nasty but you really have to credit the SF leadership on managing the situation with the local community and PSNI when it could have quickly turned very nasty.
Last week the Eastwood and the SDLP made a holy show of themselves by jumping into bed with unionist headbangers, their faux outrage and hypocrisy. For what end? Some political mud slinging. You look at the end result of what we had over the weekend, rioting and enflamed tensions.
The brass neck of Eastwood to then come out and question unionist leaders when he was party to stoking the tension the past week.
There's been plenty of chances for people to put forward a case for Eastwood, there is none. He's an abysmal politician who hasn't done a single thing of note for his people or community, he would eat himself if he was chocolate. I couldn't think of a greater bedfellow for him than that cretin Micheal Martin.
If someone can come with anything positive Eastwood has done in his political career I am all ears.
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 05:33:10 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:29:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 05:28:21 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.
Which SF MP sits in Westminster?
0, and rightly so.
Thanks for answering
So, if you have an SF MP, you have no representation in Westminster
As is SF policy
I'm well aware of what their policy is.
I have no need or interest to be "represented" in Westminster, like thousands of others that vote for them.
Im happy enough being represented by them here in Ireland thanks.
Unless you haven't noticed SF are in bed with the unionists for a good few years now, policing board and all.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 05:36:30 PM
Unless you haven't noticed SF are in bed with the unionists for a good few years now, policing board and all.
Still can't come up with anything Colum has achieved yet so?
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 05:40:38 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 05:36:30 PM
Unless you haven't noticed SF are in bed with the unionists for a good few years now, policing board and all.
Still can't come up with anything Colum has achieved yet so?
I've already told you I'm not interested in Eastwood or the SDLP, but when you come up with crap like SDLP getting into bed with the DUP then you're leaving yourself wide open.
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 05:33:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:58:22 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.
Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?
I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!
You don't see that as being stupid?
I would see it as legitimate criticism and as you can't provide anything to the contrary, it's a bizarre position for you to take. Eastwood and the SDLP have a lot to answer for with their stunts in the past week.
Eastwood would say his is a legitimate criticism. But you say is bashing, just exactly what you are doing. If you don't see that then you are blind.
I'm not here to provide anything contrary as I'm only pointing out your hypocrisy
It clear as day that Eastwood was engaging in petty political mudslinging that has fanned the flames on an already tense situation.
We had a similar incident a number of weeks back with the Sean Graham commemoration. It could have very easily turned nasty but you really have to credit the SF leadership on managing the situation with the local community and PSNI when it could have quickly turned very nasty.
Last week the Eastwood and the SDLP made a holy show of themselves by jumping into bed with unionist headbangers, their faux outrage and hypocrisy. For what end? Some political mud slinging. You look at the end result of what we had over the weekend, rioting and enflamed tensions.
The brass neck of Eastwood to then come out and question unionist leaders when he was party to stoking the tension the past week.
There's been plenty of chances for people to put forward a case for Eastwood, there is none. He's an abysmal politician who hasn't done a single thing of note for his people or community, he would eat himself if he was chocolate. I couldn't think of a greater bedfellow for him than that cretin Micheal Martin.
If someone can come with anything positive Eastwood has done in his political career I am all ears.
It's a bit of a jump to blame Eastwood on the Loyalist rioting. You could see that the unionist politicians had been stoking this up for several weeks now, it was becoming inevitable at some point. If he then hadn't criticised the Unionist politicians for not condemning the riots you'd criticise that as well.
It's clear to see that you already have an inbuilt personal prejudice against him and nothing that he does will change your mind.
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 05, 2021, 04:19:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
Yeah, and it obviously galls you that people vote for them. The SDLP have proved time and time again how influential they are in London. How did the wee Croppie Boy's promise to stop Brexit work out? He's now just marking time till his British masters put an ermine cloak on him, just like Fitt and that balloon Richie.
SF provide no representation in Westminster
That's a fact
You didn't like this fact so you decided to rant
Typical SFer
On the contrary, I love this fact as I support abstentionism 100%. I'd have thought that was obvious you complete idiot. I've noticed that anybody who disagrees with you is accused of going on a rant. Such insecurity. You really are a pathetic arsehole. ::)
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 05:33:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:58:22 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.
Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?
I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!
You don't see that as being stupid?
I would see it as legitimate criticism and as you can't provide anything to the contrary, it's a bizarre position for you to take. Eastwood and the SDLP have a lot to answer for with their stunts in the past week.
Eastwood would say his is a legitimate criticism. But you say is bashing, just exactly what you are doing. If you don't see that then you are blind.
I'm not here to provide anything contrary as I'm only pointing out your hypocrisy
It clear as day that Eastwood was engaging in petty political mudslinging that has fanned the flames on an already tense situation.
We had a similar incident a number of weeks back with the Sean Graham commemoration. It could have very easily turned nasty but you really have to credit the SF leadership on managing the situation with the local community and PSNI when it could have quickly turned very nasty.
Last week the Eastwood and the SDLP made a holy show of themselves by jumping into bed with unionist headbangers, their faux outrage and hypocrisy. For what end? Some political mud slinging. You look at the end result of what we had over the weekend, rioting and enflamed tensions.
The brass neck of Eastwood to then come out and question unionist leaders when he was party to stoking the tension the past week.
There's been plenty of chances for people to put forward a case for Eastwood, there is none. He's an abysmal politician who hasn't done a single thing of note for his people or community, he would eat himself if he was chocolate. I couldn't think of a greater bedfellow for him than that cretin Micheal Martin.
If someone can come with anything positive Eastwood has done in his political career I am all ears.
It's a bit of a jump to blame Eastwood on the Loyalist rioting. You could see that the unionist politicians had been stoking this up for several weeks now, it was becoming inevitable at some point. If he then hadn't criticised the Unionist politicians for not condemning the riots you'd criticise that as well.
It's clear to see that you already have an inbuilt personal prejudice against him and nothing that he does will change your mind.
Eastwood jumped in to bed the the unionists to fan the flames last week. For what end? A brazen, hypocritical bit of political point scoring from him.
I don't have anything inbuilt of him. I'm quite clearly objective on this, the guy is a grade A balloon. You're the one who said he was a decent politician and reckoned he had done a good job of leading the SDLP and you don't even seem to know why. You've been asked numerous times but were unable to substantiate and now you're claiming it's me who has something inbuilt when I'm the only one looking at the facts. What has Colum Eastwood achieved?
2 MP's and a rise in their votes?
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 06:00:54 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 05:33:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:58:22 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.
Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?
I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!
You don't see that as being stupid?
I would see it as legitimate criticism and as you can't provide anything to the contrary, it's a bizarre position for you to take. Eastwood and the SDLP have a lot to answer for with their stunts in the past week.
Eastwood would say his is a legitimate criticism. But you say is bashing, just exactly what you are doing. If you don't see that then you are blind.
I'm not here to provide anything contrary as I'm only pointing out your hypocrisy
It clear as day that Eastwood was engaging in petty political mudslinging that has fanned the flames on an already tense situation.
We had a similar incident a number of weeks back with the Sean Graham commemoration. It could have very easily turned nasty but you really have to credit the SF leadership on managing the situation with the local community and PSNI when it could have quickly turned very nasty.
Last week the Eastwood and the SDLP made a holy show of themselves by jumping into bed with unionist headbangers, their faux outrage and hypocrisy. For what end? Some political mud slinging. You look at the end result of what we had over the weekend, rioting and enflamed tensions.
The brass neck of Eastwood to then come out and question unionist leaders when he was party to stoking the tension the past week.
There's been plenty of chances for people to put forward a case for Eastwood, there is none. He's an abysmal politician who hasn't done a single thing of note for his people or community, he would eat himself if he was chocolate. I couldn't think of a greater bedfellow for him than that cretin Micheal Martin.
If someone can come with anything positive Eastwood has done in his political career I am all ears.
It's a bit of a jump to blame Eastwood on the Loyalist rioting. You could see that the unionist politicians had been stoking this up for several weeks now, it was becoming inevitable at some point. If he then hadn't criticised the Unionist politicians for not condemning the riots you'd criticise that as well.
It's clear to see that you already have an inbuilt personal prejudice against him and nothing that he does will change your mind.
Eastwood jumped in to bed the the unionists to fan the flames last week. For what end? A brazen, hypocritical bit of political point scoring from him.
I don't have anything inbuilt of him. I'm quite clearly objective on this, the guy is a grade A balloon. You're the one who said he was a decent politician and reckoned he had done a good job of leading the SDLP and you don't even seem to know why. You've been asked numerous times but were unable to substantiate and now you're claiming it's me who has something inbuilt when I'm the only one looking at the facts. What has Colum Eastwood achieved?
I've already stated what I thought if you'll read back my posts so I'm not going any further down this rabbit hole.
I also said he made a mistake by leaping on the never ending Storey story last week which unionists were clearly using as a political football.
Rather than make it all about Eastwood, of the 5 main political parties in the north are you prepared to state which has the strongest leader then?
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 06:12:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 06:00:54 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 05:33:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:58:22 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.
Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?
I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!
You don't see that as being stupid?
I would see it as legitimate criticism and as you can't provide anything to the contrary, it's a bizarre position for you to take. Eastwood and the SDLP have a lot to answer for with their stunts in the past week.
Eastwood would say his is a legitimate criticism. But you say is bashing, just exactly what you are doing. If you don't see that then you are blind.
I'm not here to provide anything contrary as I'm only pointing out your hypocrisy
It clear as day that Eastwood was engaging in petty political mudslinging that has fanned the flames on an already tense situation.
We had a similar incident a number of weeks back with the Sean Graham commemoration. It could have very easily turned nasty but you really have to credit the SF leadership on managing the situation with the local community and PSNI when it could have quickly turned very nasty.
Last week the Eastwood and the SDLP made a holy show of themselves by jumping into bed with unionist headbangers, their faux outrage and hypocrisy. For what end? Some political mud slinging. You look at the end result of what we had over the weekend, rioting and enflamed tensions.
The brass neck of Eastwood to then come out and question unionist leaders when he was party to stoking the tension the past week.
There's been plenty of chances for people to put forward a case for Eastwood, there is none. He's an abysmal politician who hasn't done a single thing of note for his people or community, he would eat himself if he was chocolate. I couldn't think of a greater bedfellow for him than that cretin Micheal Martin.
If someone can come with anything positive Eastwood has done in his political career I am all ears.
It's a bit of a jump to blame Eastwood on the Loyalist rioting. You could see that the unionist politicians had been stoking this up for several weeks now, it was becoming inevitable at some point. If he then hadn't criticised the Unionist politicians for not condemning the riots you'd criticise that as well.
It's clear to see that you already have an inbuilt personal prejudice against him and nothing that he does will change your mind.
Eastwood jumped in to bed the the unionists to fan the flames last week. For what end? A brazen, hypocritical bit of political point scoring from him.
I don't have anything inbuilt of him. I'm quite clearly objective on this, the guy is a grade A balloon. You're the one who said he was a decent politician and reckoned he had done a good job of leading the SDLP and you don't even seem to know why. You've been asked numerous times but were unable to substantiate and now you're claiming it's me who has something inbuilt when I'm the only one looking at the facts. What has Colum Eastwood achieved?
I've already stated what I thought if you'll read back my posts so I'm not going any further down this rabbit hole.
I also said he made a mistake by leaping on the never ending Storey story last week which unionists were clearly using as a political football.
Rather than make it all about Eastwood, of the 5 main political parties in the north are you prepared to state which has the strongest leader then?
You stated what you thought but you could not substantiate it.
I'd say Long is prob the best of a bad lot at the minute. I think Eastwood is by far the worst.
Did you hear the UUP leader on Nolan the other day ? By some distance the worst leader in north by some distance which is saying something.
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: red hander on April 05, 2021, 04:19:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
Yeah, and it obviously galls you that people vote for them. The SDLP have proved time and time again how influential they are in London. How did the wee Croppie Boy's promise to stop Brexit work out? He's now just marking time till his British masters put an ermine cloak on him, just like Fitt and that balloon Richie.
SF provide no representation in Westminster
That's a fact
You didn't like this fact so you decided to rant
Typical SFer
Which is what the people who vote for them want!! What is your point?
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 06:15:18 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 06:12:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 06:00:54 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 05, 2021, 05:50:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 05:33:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:58:22 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 03:53:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent
Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?
I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.
Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?
I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!
You don't see that as being stupid?
I would see it as legitimate criticism and as you can't provide anything to the contrary, it's a bizarre position for you to take. Eastwood and the SDLP have a lot to answer for with their stunts in the past week.
Eastwood would say his is a legitimate criticism. But you say is bashing, just exactly what you are doing. If you don't see that then you are blind.
I'm not here to provide anything contrary as I'm only pointing out your hypocrisy
It clear as day that Eastwood was engaging in petty political mudslinging that has fanned the flames on an already tense situation.
We had a similar incident a number of weeks back with the Sean Graham commemoration. It could have very easily turned nasty but you really have to credit the SF leadership on managing the situation with the local community and PSNI when it could have quickly turned very nasty.
Last week the Eastwood and the SDLP made a holy show of themselves by jumping into bed with unionist headbangers, their faux outrage and hypocrisy. For what end? Some political mud slinging. You look at the end result of what we had over the weekend, rioting and enflamed tensions.
The brass neck of Eastwood to then come out and question unionist leaders when he was party to stoking the tension the past week.
There's been plenty of chances for people to put forward a case for Eastwood, there is none. He's an abysmal politician who hasn't done a single thing of note for his people or community, he would eat himself if he was chocolate. I couldn't think of a greater bedfellow for him than that cretin Micheal Martin.
If someone can come with anything positive Eastwood has done in his political career I am all ears.
It's a bit of a jump to blame Eastwood on the Loyalist rioting. You could see that the unionist politicians had been stoking this up for several weeks now, it was becoming inevitable at some point. If he then hadn't criticised the Unionist politicians for not condemning the riots you'd criticise that as well.
It's clear to see that you already have an inbuilt personal prejudice against him and nothing that he does will change your mind.
Eastwood jumped in to bed the the unionists to fan the flames last week. For what end? A brazen, hypocritical bit of political point scoring from him.
I don't have anything inbuilt of him. I'm quite clearly objective on this, the guy is a grade A balloon. You're the one who said he was a decent politician and reckoned he had done a good job of leading the SDLP and you don't even seem to know why. You've been asked numerous times but were unable to substantiate and now you're claiming it's me who has something inbuilt when I'm the only one looking at the facts. What has Colum Eastwood achieved?
I've already stated what I thought if you'll read back my posts so I'm not going any further down this rabbit hole.
I also said he made a mistake by leaping on the never ending Storey story last week which unionists were clearly using as a political football.
Rather than make it all about Eastwood, of the 5 main political parties in the north are you prepared to state which has the strongest leader then?
You stated what you thought but you could not substantiate it.
I'd say Long is prob the best of a bad lot at the minute. I think Eastwood is by far the worst.
I can agree with you on one thing at least.
I would see a strong correlation between the UUP and the SDLP in terms of how both parties appeared to be in terminable decline. Eastwood would appear to have arrested the slide whereas I don't think the same could be said for Aiken who is a very poor media operator.
So whilst you might think Eastwood is far worse than Aiken I don't think that would be the common consensus. Aikens leadership is already under scrutiny but the same cant be said for Eastwood.
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
And Markievicz did not - but none of that is really relevant, is it? We're talking about what is, or is not, past it's sell by date in the here and now.
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there. The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?
When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there. The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?
When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out
Another idiotic comment.
The Tories have worked wonders for the DUP alright, sold them down the river as soon as they had got what they wanted from them.
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?
When the assembly was shut down, the place was being run by the Civil Service. Direct rule was not in place. How did you not know that much?
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out
And do you think that any MPs wavering on key Brexit votes would have risked the wrath of the Red Tops by allowing themselves be seen to take the same side as SF to swing the result? Cop yourself on. Besides, SF were mandated to abstain. I understand that the very notion of a party keeping an election promise might be a novel concept when you've lived your life under FFG governments, but there you are.
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:35:42 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 05:33:10 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:29:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 05:28:21 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.
Which SF MP sits in Westminster?
0, and rightly so.
Thanks for answering
So, if you have an SF MP, you have no representation in Westminster
As is SF policy
I'm well aware of what their policy is.
I have no need or interest to be "represented" in Westminster, like thousands of others that vote for them.
Im happy enough being represented by them here in Ireland thanks.
You said they represent you
Now you're saying they don't
Then you again say they do
Make up your mind
You're like Homer Simpson and a light switch
You found it difficult to make your mind up Syd.
You could well change your mind
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:50:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?
When the assembly was shut down, the place was being run by the Civil Service. Direct rule was not in place. How did you not know that much?
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out
And do you think that any MPs wavering on key Brexit votes would have risked the wrath of the Red Tops by allowing themselves be seen to take the same side as SF to swing the result? Cop yourself on. Besides, SF were mandated to abstain. I understand that the very notion of a party keeping an election promise might be a novel concept when you've lived your life under FFG governments, but there you are.
Perhaps have a word with your colleagues in north and ask them why they suddenly changed their position on abortion?
Surely they didn't suddenly take up a new position just because they think that's what would be the most popular decision with their voters up there instead of what they said in the south?
Seems SF electioneering can be just as cynical as FF/FG
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 11:00:05 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:50:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?
When the assembly was shut down, the place was being run by the Civil Service. Direct rule was not in place. How did you not know that much?
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out
And do you think that any MPs wavering on key Brexit votes would have risked the wrath of the Red Tops by allowing themselves be seen to take the same side as SF to swing the result? Cop yourself on. Besides, SF were mandated to abstain. I understand that the very notion of a party keeping an election promise might be a novel concept when you've lived your life under FFG governments, but there you are.
Perhaps have a word with your colleagues in north and ask them why they suddenly changed their position on abortion?
Surely they didn't suddenly take up a new position just because they think that's what would be the most popular decision with their voters up there instead of what they said in the south?
Seems SF electioneering can be just as cynical as FF/FG
But whatabout...but whatabout...
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 11:09:43 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 11:00:05 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:50:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?
When the assembly was shut down, the place was being run by the Civil Service. Direct rule was not in place. How did you not know that much?
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out
And do you think that any MPs wavering on key Brexit votes would have risked the wrath of the Red Tops by allowing themselves be seen to take the same side as SF to swing the result? Cop yourself on. Besides, SF were mandated to abstain. I understand that the very notion of a party keeping an election promise might be a novel concept when you've lived your life under FFG governments, but there you are.
Perhaps have a word with your colleagues in north and ask them why they suddenly changed their position on abortion?
Surely they didn't suddenly take up a new position just because they think that's what would be the most popular decision with their voters up there instead of what they said in the south?
Seems SF electioneering can be just as cynical as FF/FG
But whatabout...but whatabout...
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?
No thanks. Enogu bootlickers in the North thank you.
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 10:13:39 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:35:42 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 05:33:10 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:29:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 05:28:21 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 05, 2021, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 05, 2021, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 10:06:04 AM
The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.
It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.
SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody
SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation
They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.
Which SF MP sits in Westminster?
0, and rightly so.
Thanks for answering
So, if you have an SF MP, you have no representation in Westminster
As is SF policy
I'm well aware of what their policy is.
I have no need or interest to be "represented" in Westminster, like thousands of others that vote for them.
Im happy enough being represented by them here in Ireland thanks.
You said they represent you
Now you're saying they don't
Then you again say they do
Make up your mind
You're like Homer Simpson and a light switch
My mind is made up.
It's not difficult to understand, maybe for you though.
Just to clarify what I meant , highlighted above . Of the 5 main parties only Alliance are probably drawn equally from "both communities " however their policies don't suit many of us. Sf/SDLP/DUP/UUP on the other hand draw almost exclusively from one community ie a "sectarian" base, as the two main communities here are defined as being split along "sectarian" lines. That does not meant that those of us who vote for those parties above are sectarian. I am anti-sectarian , but Alliance would never have been my voting choice. In much the same way as many "decent unionists" vote DUP as they feel it is currently the best way of maintaining the union, many of the rest of us vote on anti-DUP lines. If the anti-DUP vote gets stronger , and we can present a different alternative to "decent unionists " ( Alliance currently doing this very well), we can consign DUP to history, and focus on real political issues, as opposed to being dictated to by "anti-Irish" dinosaurs.
I often thought that orangeism and others labelling this conflict as a principled stand against Catholicism, was a convenient red herring . In reality it has little to do with religion, it's often anti-Irish racism. The British planted loyal subjects into a position of superiority here, they then gave them their own state, where they reinforced anti-Irish superiority. It was convenient to soften this racism by labelling it a religious conflict.
Quote from: 6th sam on April 06, 2021, 09:50:50 AM
Just to clarify what I meant , highlighted above . Of the 5 main parties only Alliance are probably drawn equally from "both communities " however their policies don't suit many of us. Sf/SDLP/DUP/UUP on the other hand draw almost exclusively from one community ie a "sectarian" base, as the two main communities here are defined as being split along "sectarian" lines. That does not meant that those of us who vote for those parties above are sectarian. I am anti-sectarian , but Alliance would never have been my voting choice. In much the same way as many "decent unionists" vote DUP as they feel it is currently the best way of maintaining the union, many of the rest of us vote on anti-DUP lines. If the anti-DUP vote gets stronger , and we can present a different alternative to "decent unionists " ( Alliance currently doing this very well), we can consign DUP to history, and focus on real political issues, as opposed to being dictated to by "anti-Irish" dinosaurs.
I often thought that orangeism and others labelling this conflict as a principled stand against Catholicism, was a convenient red herring . In reality it has little to do with religion, it's often anti-Irish racism. The British planted loyal subjects into a position of superiority here, they then gave them their own state, where they reinforced anti-Irish superiority. It was convenient to soften this racism by labelling it a religious conflict.
Alliance represent a liberal middle class representative who don't really have a very strong or set position on the Unionist/Republican issue. They run on issues that are real to affluent types on the Malone Road etc and liberal university type warriors. They do have quite a mixed backing - I'd say 70% Protestant/30% Catholic.
PBP would be the alternative to the Alliance but they draw almost solely from a nationalist background.
For me I think the issue is that people overestimate how much "decent" or "moderate" unionism there actually is. It's a niche grouping and while it could be influential in a border poll I don't think these people need much engagement from the nationalist community. I think the DUP/UUP/TUV will do enough to sell the idea of a United Ireland to moderate unionists than any nationalist political movement could.
The Alliance Party I think have certainly become more moderate in the past 20/30 years but they have the same amount of MLAs they had in 1973, only 2 more than they had after the GFA in 1998. It's hardly that they are going to become a strong voice for unionism and the Alliance represent the only political voice for moderate unionism and I think that you could argue a lot of that small change they have had in their support has potentially been from moderate or very liberal Catholics.
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 10:17:32 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 06, 2021, 09:50:50 AM
Just to clarify what I meant , highlighted above . Of the 5 main parties only Alliance are probably drawn equally from "both communities " however their policies don't suit many of us. Sf/SDLP/DUP/UUP on the other hand draw almost exclusively from one community ie a "sectarian" base, as the two main communities here are defined as being split along "sectarian" lines. That does not meant that those of us who vote for those parties above are sectarian. I am anti-sectarian , but Alliance would never have been my voting choice. In much the same way as many "decent unionists" vote DUP as they feel it is currently the best way of maintaining the union, many of the rest of us vote on anti-DUP lines. If the anti-DUP vote gets stronger , and we can present a different alternative to "decent unionists " ( Alliance currently doing this very well), we can consign DUP to history, and focus on real political issues, as opposed to being dictated to by "anti-Irish" dinosaurs.
I often thought that orangeism and others labelling this conflict as a principled stand against Catholicism, was a convenient red herring . In reality it has little to do with religion, it's often anti-Irish racism. The British planted loyal subjects into a position of superiority here, they then gave them their own state, where they reinforced anti-Irish superiority. It was convenient to soften this racism by labelling it a religious conflict.
Alliance represent a liberal middle class representative who don't really have a very strong or set position on the Unionist/Republican issue. They run on issues that are real to affluent types on the Malone Road etc and liberal university type warriors. They do have quite a mixed backing - I'd say 70% Protestant/30% Catholic.
PBP would be the alternative to the Alliance but they draw almost solely from a nationalist background.
For me I think the issue is that people overestimate how much "decent" or "moderate" unionism there actually is. It's a niche grouping and while it could be influential in a border poll I don't think these people need much engagement from the nationalist community. I think the DUP/UUP/TUV will do enough to sell the idea of a United Ireland to moderate unionists than any nationalist political movement could.
The Alliance Party I think have certainly become more moderate in the past 20/30 years but they have the same amount of MLAs they had in 1973, only 2 more than they had after the GFA in 1998. It's hardly that they are going to become a strong voice for unionism and the Alliance represent the only political voice for moderate unionism and I think that you could argue a lot of that small change they have had in their support has potentially been from moderate or very liberal Catholics.
In majority unionist areas, Catholics/Nationalists that live in that area will vote Alliance, SF won't have a voice in there as well as SDLP for any nationalist, so the only outlet for a voter will be Alliance.
That vote in those areas will get bigger, any Nationalists living in East Belfast and East Antrim will 'lend' their votes or be converted to voting them, I know plenty prods that will vote Alliance that as you say live in more affluent areas, but not Malone as that was won by the SDLP
The alliance vote generally for about the last 20 yrs contrary to popular belief has actually been more from the catholic community, as mentioned above a number of areas in the East where SDLP and SF have no hope, the Alliance get the vote. The last couple of yrs though has seen the Alliance vote increase big time and I would say the majority of these new votes are from protestants who are fed up with the UUP and its ridiculous direction.
Difficult to put a figure on the current voting making up but it would be a lot more even than the 70/30 mentioned earlier
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:02:47 AM
Difficult to put a figure on the current voting making up but it would be a lot more even than the 70/30 mentioned earlier
A lot more which way though? More than 70/30 Protestant:Catholic or the or the other way around.
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 11:07:46 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:02:47 AM
Difficult to put a figure on the current voting making up but it would be a lot more even than the 70/30 mentioned earlier
A lot more which way though? More than 70/30 Protestant:Catholic or the or the other way around.
It will be closer to 50/50
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:09:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 11:07:46 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:02:47 AM
Difficult to put a figure on the current voting making up but it would be a lot more even than the 70/30 mentioned earlier
A lot more which way though? More than 70/30 Protestant:Catholic or the or the other way around.
It will be closer to 50/50
Interesting.
These are the folks "we" have to convince to vote for a UI.
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:09:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 11:07:46 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:02:47 AM
Difficult to put a figure on the current voting making up but it would be a lot more even than the 70/30 mentioned earlier
A lot more which way though? More than 70/30 Protestant:Catholic or the or the other way around.
It will be closer to 50/50
Possibly, I don't know enough about their voter base.
I think if that is accurate it really shows how much a niche market "moderate" unionism actually is.
When the latest census figures are released Unionism is in for a shock. Demographic change IN NI maybe happening at a snails pace but it is happening quickly in Belfast. South Belfast is unrecognisable politically from 30 yrs ago. North Belfast change has been stifled by Dodds and McCausland blocking housing but its still happening. The big shock will be East Belfast. Plenty of Catholics moving over as they cant afford neighbouring South Belfast.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 06, 2021, 11:11:34 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:09:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 11:07:46 AM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:02:47 AM
Difficult to put a figure on the current voting making up but it would be a lot more even than the 70/30 mentioned earlier
A lot more which way though? More than 70/30 Protestant:Catholic or the or the other way around.
It will be closer to 50/50
Interesting.
These are the folks "we" have to convince to vote for a UI.
The previous lucid talk poll already shows this. That is why Unionists are so keen to discredit the poll. These are the preferences in a referendum of the voters of each party
DUP - UK 95% UI 1% Dont know 4%
UUP - UK 86% UI 3% Dont know 11%
SF - UK 1% UI 96% Dont know 3%
SDLP - UK 9% UI 75% Dont know 16%
Alliance - UK 24% UI 40% Dont know 36%
Green - UK 13% UI 63% Dont know 24%
Non voters - UK 46% UI 44% Dont know 10%
That poll had overall UK at 46.8 UI 42.3 an actual decrease in support for UI since their previous poll.
Is it any wonder political unionism is spooked
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:14:09 AM
When the latest census figures are released Unionism is in for a shock. Demographic change IN NI maybe happening at a snails pace but it is happening quickly in Belfast. South Belfast is unrecognisable politically from 30 yrs ago. North Belfast change has been stifled by Dodds and McCausland blocking housing but its still happening. The big shock will be East Belfast. Plenty of Catholics moving over as they cant afford neighbouring South Belfast.
4/5 years will be a big change but how those demographic changes translate into votes is anyone's guess.
The constituencies seem to be very predictable along green/orange lines - they've always been divided to keep the unionist numbers up.
You probably have a better idea on East Belfast but it would need an absolutely seismic shift to see SF/SDLP get a candidate in there in the next election. Just looking at the result there and the SDLP candidate picked up 250 1st pref votes and the SF candidate picked up a little under 1,200 1st pref votes. The quota was nearly 7k.
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:14:09 AM
When the latest census figures are released Unionism is in for a shock. Demographic change IN NI maybe happening at a snails pace but it is happening quickly in Belfast. South Belfast is unrecognisable politically from 30 yrs ago. North Belfast change has been stifled by Dodds and McCausland blocking housing but its still happening. The big shock will be East Belfast. Plenty of Catholics moving over as they cant afford neighbouring South Belfast.
4/5 years will be a big change but how those demographic changes translate into votes is anyone's guess.
The constituencies seem to be very predictable along green/orange lines - they've always been divided to keep the unionist numbers up.
You probably have a better idea on East Belfast but it would need an absolutely seismic shift to see SF/SDLP get a candidate in there in the next election. Just looking at the result there and the SDLP candidate picked up 250 1st pref votes and the SF candidate picked up a little under 1,200 1st pref votes. The quota was nearly 7k.
SF and SDLP wont be doing a lot because SF dont seem to look beyond the markets area too much and SDLP have pretty much given up in EB and North Down but as we were mentioning earlier a lot of those votes will be going to Long in a Westminster election
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:14:09 AM
When the latest census figures are released Unionism is in for a shock. Demographic change IN NI maybe happening at a snails pace but it is happening quickly in Belfast. South Belfast is unrecognisable politically from 30 yrs ago. North Belfast change has been stifled by Dodds and McCausland blocking housing but its still happening. The big shock will be East Belfast. Plenty of Catholics moving over as they cant afford neighbouring South Belfast.
4/5 years will be a big change but how those demographic changes translate into votes is anyone's guess.
The constituencies seem to be very predictable along green/orange lines - they've always been divided to keep the unionist numbers up.
You probably have a better idea on East Belfast but it would need an absolutely seismic shift to see SF/SDLP get a candidate in there in the next election. Just looking at the result there and the SDLP candidate picked up 250 1st pref votes and the SF candidate picked up a little under 1,200 1st pref votes. The quota was nearly 7k.
But as noted before "Catholic " turnout tends to be historically low in areas where Sf/SDLP have no chance of winning. Any that do vote will vote anti-DUP eg Alliance or Sylvia Hermon
Quote from: 6th sam on April 06, 2021, 09:50:50 AM
Just to clarify what I meant , highlighted above . Of the 5 main parties only Alliance are probably drawn equally from "both communities " however their policies don't suit many of us. Sf/SDLP/DUP/UUP on the other hand draw almost exclusively from one community ie a "sectarian" base, as the two main communities here are defined as being split along "sectarian" lines. That does not meant that those of us who vote for those parties above are sectarian. I am anti-sectarian , but Alliance would never have been my voting choice. In much the same way as many "decent unionists" vote DUP as they feel it is currently the best way of maintaining the union, many of the rest of us vote on anti-DUP lines. If the anti-DUP vote gets stronger , and we can present a different alternative to "decent unionists " ( Alliance currently doing this very well), we can consign DUP to history, and focus on real political issues, as opposed to being dictated to by "anti-Irish" dinosaurs.
I often thought that orangeism and others labelling this conflict as a principled stand against Catholicism, was a convenient red herring . In reality it has little to do with religion, it's often anti-Irish racism. The British planted loyal subjects into a position of superiority here, they then gave them their own state, where they reinforced anti-Irish superiority. It was convenient to soften this racism by labelling it a religious conflict.
Again, voting for SF and not for the DUP is not "sectarian", nor is one community a "sectarian base".
Is there a considerable chance that Alliance will surpass both the UUP and SDLP in the next election? I'd say it could probably do so on 1st pref but less likely in seat numbers.
The real test for the Alliance will be how they get on in the nationalist areas. There is no Alliance MLA in Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry or Armagh and their two in Down are from the perimeters in Antrim. That's their limitation really.
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on April 06, 2021, 11:14:09 AM
When the latest census figures are released Unionism is in for a shock. Demographic change IN NI maybe happening at a snails pace but it is happening quickly in Belfast. South Belfast is unrecognisable politically from 30 yrs ago. North Belfast change has been stifled by Dodds and McCausland blocking housing but its still happening. The big shock will be East Belfast. Plenty of Catholics moving over as they cant afford neighbouring South Belfast.
From what I can gather the census results aren't out until the summer of 2022, that seems like an awful long time to release the information. It will certainly be interesting and will provide the clearest indication of the results of a possible border poll since it is information on the entirety of the population.
It will provide a decent guideline on the potential timing of a border poll in future.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 06, 2021, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 06, 2021, 09:50:50 AM
Just to clarify what I meant , highlighted above . Of the 5 main parties only Alliance are probably drawn equally from "both communities " however their policies don't suit many of us. Sf/SDLP/DUP/UUP on the other hand draw almost exclusively from one community ie a "sectarian" base, as the two main communities here are defined as being split along "sectarian" lines. That does not meant that those of us who vote for those parties above are sectarian. I am anti-sectarian , but Alliance would never have been my voting choice. In much the same way as many "decent unionists" vote DUP as they feel it is currently the best way of maintaining the union, many of the rest of us vote on anti-DUP lines. If the anti-DUP vote gets stronger , and we can present a different alternative to "decent unionists " ( Alliance currently doing this very well), we can consign DUP to history, and focus on real political issues, as opposed to being dictated to by "anti-Irish" dinosaurs.
I often thought that orangeism and others labelling this conflict as a principled stand against Catholicism, was a convenient red herring . In reality it has little to do with religion, it's often anti-Irish racism. The British planted loyal subjects into a position of superiority here, they then gave them their own state, where they reinforced anti-Irish superiority. It was convenient to soften this racism by labelling it a religious conflict.
Again, voting for SF and not for the DUP is not "sectarian", nor is one community a "sectarian base".
Oxford dictionary: "adjective
denoting or concerning a sect or sects."
If we consider communities here as polarised along perceived religious affiliation, which unfortunately many of them are, then they are divided along sectarian lines. That does not mean that those that vote for parties within those communities are sectarian. I don't vote against DUP because they are Protestant , I vote against them because they are right wing, anti-Irish dinosaurs
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 11:47:30 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 11:09:43 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 11:00:05 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:50:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?
When the assembly was shut down, the place was being run by the Civil Service. Direct rule was not in place. How did you not know that much?
Quote from: dublin7 on April 05, 2021, 08:33:09 PM
When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out
And do you think that any MPs wavering on key Brexit votes would have risked the wrath of the Red Tops by allowing themselves be seen to take the same side as SF to swing the result? Cop yourself on. Besides, SF were mandated to abstain. I understand that the very notion of a party keeping an election promise might be a novel concept when you've lived your life under FFG governments, but there you are.
Perhaps have a word with your colleagues in north and ask them why they suddenly changed their position on abortion?
Surely they didn't suddenly take up a new position just because they think that's what would be the most popular decision with their voters up there instead of what they said in the south?
Seems SF electioneering can be just as cynical as FF/FG
But whatabout...but whatabout...
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?
No thanks. Enogu bootlickers in the North thank you.
Was Parnell a "bootlicker?" Was O'Connell a "bootlicker?"
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
No one could take an oath to the British Crown and call themselves a Republican or even Irish. No one who votes for anyone that could can either imo.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
And how did the DUP "influence" at Westminster work out for them?
When your arguments include references to the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, and loony notions that not even some, not most, but "everyone" in SF actually disagrees with abstentionism, then you're clutching at straws.
How have the stoops been getting on with making waves in westminster? What have they achieved? They swung many big votes lately?
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 06, 2021, 07:57:55 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
No one could take an oath to the British Crown and call themselves a Republican or even Irish. No one who votes for anyone that could can either imo.
Same attitude that says ppl from ethnic backgrounds can't be Irish. That's the inclusive SF for ye.
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 06, 2021, 07:57:55 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
No one could take an oath to the British Crown and call themselves a Republican or even Irish.
Including Parnell and O'Connell?
QuoteNo one who votes for anyone that could can either imo.
So SF voters are the only people in the north allowed to call themselves Irish? That's not what the Good Friday Agreement says, mate.
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 08:16:21 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
And how did the DUP "influence" at Westminster work out for them?
When your arguments include references to the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, and loony notions that not even some, not most, but "everyone" in SF actually disagrees with abstentionism, then you're clutching at straws.
How have the stoops been getting on with making waves in westminster? What have they achieved? They swung many big votes lately?
The SDLP would have had more influence in Westminster if SF would get out of the way and let them have a clear run at some Westminster seats, instead of the usual thing of pulling symbolic stunts like standing in an election for the craic and then not taking their seats.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 09:30:43 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 08:16:21 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
And how did the DUP "influence" at Westminster work out for them?
When your arguments include references to the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, and loony notions that not even some, not most, but "everyone" in SF actually disagrees with abstentionism, then you're clutching at straws.
How have the stoops been getting on with making waves in westminster? What have they achieved? They swung many big votes lately?
The SDLP would have had more influence in Westminster if SF would get out of the way and let them have a clear run at some Westminster seats, instead of the usual thing of pulling symbolic stunts like standing in an election for the craic and then not taking their seats.
Lol! For years he SDLP had MPs when SF had none. So what did they achieve in any of those years? What major votes did they sway the results of?
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 10:09:04 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 09:30:43 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 08:16:21 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
And how did the DUP "influence" at Westminster work out for them?
When your arguments include references to the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, and loony notions that not even some, not most, but "everyone" in SF actually disagrees with abstentionism, then you're clutching at straws.
How have the stoops been getting on with making waves in westminster? What have they achieved? They swung many big votes lately?
The SDLP would have had more influence in Westminster if SF would get out of the way and let them have a clear run at some Westminster seats, instead of the usual thing of pulling symbolic stunts like standing in an election for the craic and then not taking their seats.
Lol! For years he SDLP had MPs when SF had none. So what did they achieve in any of those years? What major votes did they sway the results of?
Lol! What have the SDLP ever done for me?
I presume SF supporters would be fine with somebody gaining election to the Dail or the European Parliament and just not bothering to turn up
Like, say, Brian Crowley of FF
Brian Crowley also would not disclose the expenses he was picking up from being an MEP - I bet anything SF supporters are fine with that
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/two-irish-meps-have-worst-voting-record-in-parliament-1.2037668
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 06, 2021, 07:57:55 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
No one could take an oath to the British Crown and call themselves a Republican or even Irish.
Including Parnell and O'Connell?
QuoteNo one who votes for anyone that could can either imo.
So SF voters are the only people in the north allowed to call themselves Irish? That's not what the Good Friday Agreement says, mate.
The Sinn Fein kulturkampf gathers ever more pace
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 10:31:04 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 06, 2021, 10:18:07 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 10:09:04 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 09:30:43 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 08:16:21 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
And how did the DUP "influence" at Westminster work out for them?
When your arguments include references to the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, and loony notions that not even some, not most, but "everyone" in SF actually disagrees with abstentionism, then you're clutching at straws.
How have the stoops been getting on with making waves in westminster? What have they achieved? They swung many big votes lately?
The SDLP would have had more influence in Westminster if SF would get out of the way and let them have a clear run at some Westminster seats, instead of the usual thing of pulling symbolic stunts like standing in an election for the craic and then not taking their seats.
Lol! For years he SDLP had MPs when SF had none. So what did they achieve in any of those years? What major votes did they sway the results of?
Lol! What have the SDLP ever done for me?
I'll assume you are an adult and understand the debate that was going on (the idea that it is possible for an Irish nationalist party to wield influence in the House of Commons) and being an adult, that you'll no doubt understand that one way to examine the theory is to look at the westminster track record of the party about which this thread is the focus of.
But mayve you're just thick as sh*t.
I'm sure the Unionists will feel the same if they had to enter the Dall, no wonder they are worried
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 10:50:47 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 10:31:04 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 06, 2021, 10:18:07 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 10:09:04 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 09:30:43 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 08:16:21 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
And how did the DUP "influence" at Westminster work out for them?
When your arguments include references to the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, and loony notions that not even some, not most, but "everyone" in SF actually disagrees with abstentionism, then you're clutching at straws.
How have the stoops been getting on with making waves in westminster? What have they achieved? They swung many big votes lately?
The SDLP would have had more influence in Westminster if SF would get out of the way and let them have a clear run at some Westminster seats, instead of the usual thing of pulling symbolic stunts like standing in an election for the craic and then not taking their seats.
Lol! For years he SDLP had MPs when SF had none. So what did they achieve in any of those years? What major votes did they sway the results of?
Lol! What have the SDLP ever done for me?
I'll assume you are an adult and understand the debate that was going on (the idea that it is possible for an Irish nationalist party to wield influence in the House of Commons) and being an adult, that you'll no doubt understand that one way to examine the theory is to look at the westminster track record of the party about which this thread is the focus of.
But mayve you're just thick as sh*t.
I'm sure the Unionists will feel the same if they had to enter the Dall, no wonder they are worried
The difference being that unionists in the Dáil will routinely hold much more proportionally significant and influential numbers than they or the SDLP ever will at Westminster.
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 10:55:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 10:50:47 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 10:31:04 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 06, 2021, 10:18:07 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 10:09:04 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 09:30:43 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 08:16:21 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
And how did the DUP "influence" at Westminster work out for them?
When your arguments include references to the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, and loony notions that not even some, not most, but "everyone" in SF actually disagrees with abstentionism, then you're clutching at straws.
How have the stoops been getting on with making waves in westminster? What have they achieved? They swung many big votes lately?
The SDLP would have had more influence in Westminster if SF would get out of the way and let them have a clear run at some Westminster seats, instead of the usual thing of pulling symbolic stunts like standing in an election for the craic and then not taking their seats.
Lol! For years he SDLP had MPs when SF had none. So what did they achieve in any of those years? What major votes did they sway the results of?
Lol! What have the SDLP ever done for me?
I'll assume you are an adult and understand the debate that was going on (the idea that it is possible for an Irish nationalist party to wield influence in the House of Commons) and being an adult, that you'll no doubt understand that one way to examine the theory is to look at the westminster track record of the party about which this thread is the focus of.
But mayve you're just thick as sh*t.
I'm sure the Unionists will feel the same if they had to enter the Dall, no wonder they are worried
The difference being that unionists in the Dáil will routinely hold much more proportionally significant and influential numbers than they or the SDLP ever will at Westminster.
They'll have no leverage, just like the SDLP have, even when they had more MPs
List of SDLP Westminster political accomplishments:
End of list
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 10:58:51 PM
List of SDLP Westminster political accomplishments:
End of list
Hang on I'm sure Colum stopped Brexit there a year or two a go??
It'd be hilarious to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth from SF supporters if unionists refused to take their seats in a united Ireland parliament and refused to engage with the institutions of a united Ireland state they didn't want to engage with, such as, say, the Gardai
Or if they were to, say, plant bombs
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 10:58:17 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 10:55:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 10:50:47 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 10:31:04 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 06, 2021, 10:18:07 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 10:09:04 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 09:30:43 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 06, 2021, 08:16:21 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 06, 2021, 07:55:32 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 05, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 05, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 05, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 05, 2021, 04:49:12 PM
Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.
Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?
You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.
Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?
Different times....
SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?
When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.
Abstentionism is based on pretending that the British parliament has no jurisdiction in Ireland and can just be ignored, a position that SF adopted in 1908 and rejected in 1998 when they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Declan Kearney was out here a few years back making that point, that as far as SF is concerned "Westminster is irrelevant." A few minutes later he was moaning about how the DUP had so much influence on Theresa May's government because of the electoral math at Westminster.
Abstentionism makes no sense in this day and age. You know it, I know it, and everybody in SF knows it.
And how did the DUP "influence" at Westminster work out for them?
When your arguments include references to the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, and loony notions that not even some, not most, but "everyone" in SF actually disagrees with abstentionism, then you're clutching at straws.
How have the stoops been getting on with making waves in westminster? What have they achieved? They swung many big votes lately?
The SDLP would have had more influence in Westminster if SF would get out of the way and let them have a clear run at some Westminster seats, instead of the usual thing of pulling symbolic stunts like standing in an election for the craic and then not taking their seats.
Lol! For years he SDLP had MPs when SF had none. So what did they achieve in any of those years? What major votes did they sway the results of?
Lol! What have the SDLP ever done for me?
I'll assume you are an adult and understand the debate that was going on (the idea that it is possible for an Irish nationalist party to wield influence in the House of Commons) and being an adult, that you'll no doubt understand that one way to examine the theory is to look at the westminster track record of the party about which this thread is the focus of.
But mayve you're just thick as sh*t.
I'm sure the Unionists will feel the same if they had to enter the Dall, no wonder they are worried
The difference being that unionists in the Dáil will routinely hold much more proportionally significant and influential numbers than they or the SDLP ever will at Westminster.
They'll have no leverage, just like the SDLP have, even when they had more MPs
The parliament where unionism would have most influence would be the one where they would routinely hold the greatest proportion of seats - the Dáil.
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:02:17 PM
It'd be hilarious to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth from SF supporters if unionists refused to take their seats in a united Ireland parliament and refused to engage with the institutions of a united Ireland state they didn't want to engage with, such as, say, the Gardai
Or if they were to, say, plant bombs
Absolutely hilarious!
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
Presumably you think the SNP shouldn't take their seats so
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:02:17 PM
It'd be hilarious to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth from SF supporters if unionists refused to take their seats in a united Ireland parliament and refused to engage with the institutions of a united Ireland state they didn't want to engage with, such as, say, the Gardai
Or if they were to, say, plant bombs
Absolutely hilarious!
Hilarious, planting bombs?
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:02:17 PM
It'd be hilarious to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth from SF supporters if unionists refused to take their seats in a united Ireland parliament and refused to engage with the institutions of a united Ireland state they didn't want to engage with, such as, say, the Gardai
Or if they were to, say, plant bombs
It would be equally interesting to see how the UK would treat the Unionists left in a UI. I would like to think they would keep an interest in their well-being and if there was mistreatment they would feel obligated to be involved. I'll be honest, as bad as they are, I couldn't see them turning a blind eye.
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:08:56 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
Presumably you think the SNP shouldn't take their seats so
That's a matter for them, I'm not bothered what they do in Scotland. I'm realistic about what Irish MPs can achieve in Westminster. SF would have absolutely no impact on British government policy, the right wing English media would go to town on them anyway
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 11:10:28 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:02:17 PM
It'd be hilarious to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth from SF supporters if unionists refused to take their seats in a united Ireland parliament and refused to engage with the institutions of a united Ireland state they didn't want to engage with, such as, say, the Gardai
Or if they were to, say, plant bombs
Absolutely hilarious!
Hilarious, planting bombs?
That was blatant sarcasm at a ridiculous post.
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:13:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:08:56 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
Presumably you think the SNP shouldn't take their seats so
That's a matter for them, I'm not bothered what they do in Scotland. I'm realistic about what Irish MPs can achieve in Westminster. SF would have absolutely no impact on British government policy, the right wing English media would go to town on them anyway
The rationale was put out about why SF shouldn't take their seats
That rationale can't be put forward to justify SF not sitting and then arbitrarily withdrawn for another separatist party
The rationale either applies to both or it applies to neither
Plaid Cymru have four seats I think
Presumably they shouldn't bother sitting in Westminster
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:23:55 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:13:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:08:56 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
Presumably you think the SNP shouldn't take their seats so
That's a matter for them, I'm not bothered what they do in Scotland. I'm realistic about what Irish MPs can achieve in Westminster. SF would have absolutely no impact on British government policy, the right wing English media would go to town on them anyway
The rationale was put out about why SF shouldn't take their seats
That rationale can't be put forward to justify SF not sitting and then arbitrarily withdrawn for another separatist party
The rationale either applies to both or it applies to neither
Plaid Cymru have four seats I think
Presumably they shouldn't bother sitting in Westminster
I'd be fairly ambivalent about whether they (SF) should take their seats on historical grounds although I understand why they wouldn't. I'd consider a more pragmatic approach and question whether they could derive any benefits from doing so. I severely doubt it.
In my opinion it is just a stick for SF detractors to beat them with. Logically I don't see what they can achieve through Westminster.
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:31:49 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:23:55 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:13:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:08:56 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
Presumably you think the SNP shouldn't take their seats so
That's a matter for them, I'm not bothered what they do in Scotland. I'm realistic about what Irish MPs can achieve in Westminster. SF would have absolutely no impact on British government policy, the right wing English media would go to town on them anyway
The rationale was put out about why SF shouldn't take their seats
That rationale can't be put forward to justify SF not sitting and then arbitrarily withdrawn for another separatist party
The rationale either applies to both or it applies to neither
Plaid Cymru have four seats I think
Presumably they shouldn't bother sitting in Westminster
I'd be fairly ambivalent about whether they (SF) should take their seats on historical grounds although I understand why they wouldn't. I'd consider a more pragmatic approach and question whether they could derive any benefits from doing so. I severely doubt it.
In my opinion it is just a stick for SF detractors to beat them with. Logically I don't see what they can achieve through Westminster.
If there's a Tory majority, what can anybody else achieve?
What can Labour achieve?
Should Labour take their seats?
Because the same rationale that says SF shouldn't take their seats is the same rationale for anybody not in government not sitting
The Green Party has one MP, Caroline Lucas
And she is very effective at spreading her message
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
The DUP squeezed £1 billion out of Theresa May, did they not?
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:38:34 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:31:49 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:23:55 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:13:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:08:56 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
Presumably you think the SNP shouldn't take their seats so
That's a matter for them, I'm not bothered what they do in Scotland. I'm realistic about what Irish MPs can achieve in Westminster. SF would have absolutely no impact on British government policy, the right wing English media would go to town on them anyway
The rationale was put out about why SF shouldn't take their seats
That rationale can't be put forward to justify SF not sitting and then arbitrarily withdrawn for another separatist party
The rationale either applies to both or it applies to neither
Plaid Cymru have four seats I think
Presumably they shouldn't bother sitting in Westminster
I'd be fairly ambivalent about whether they (SF) should take their seats on historical grounds although I understand why they wouldn't. I'd consider a more pragmatic approach and question whether they could derive any benefits from doing so. I severely doubt it.
In my opinion it is just a stick for SF detractors to beat them with. Logically I don't see what they can achieve through Westminster.
If there's a Tory majority, what can anybody else achieve?
What can Labour achieve?
Should Labour take their seats?
Because the same rationale that says SF shouldn't take their seats is the same rationale for anybody not in government not sitting
The Green Party has one MP, Caroline Lucas
And she is very effective at spreading her message
For their next trick the SF fanboys will lambast the SNP as being "bootlickers" and "not real Scots" because they take their Westminster seats.
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:13:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:08:56 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
Presumably you think the SNP shouldn't take their seats so
That's a matter for them, I'm not bothered what they do in Scotland. I'm realistic about what Irish MPs can achieve in Westminster. SF would have absolutely no impact on British government policy,
SF have only 37 of the 160 seats in the Dáil. What's the point of them taking those seats if they have no chance of swaying government policy?
Quotethe right wing English media would go to town on them anyway
True. SF and their supporters have some of the thinnest skin in all creation. God forbid if the Daily Express were to say something mean about them, I don't think they'd be able to cope!
List of SF's accomplishments in Dáil Eireann:
...
End of list.
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:02:17 PM
It'd be hilarious to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth from SF supporters if unionists refused to take their seats in a united Ireland parliament and refused to engage with the institutions of a united Ireland state they didn't want to engage with, such as, say, the Gardai
Or if they were to, say, plant bombs
If that's what they want to do let them at it...
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
I'd say SF would lose at least half their votes in the North if they ever dreamt about swearing allegiance to the crown.
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 07, 2021, 12:10:00 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:02:17 PM
It'd be hilarious to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth from SF supporters if unionists refused to take their seats in a united Ireland parliament and refused to engage with the institutions of a united Ireland state they didn't want to engage with, such as, say, the Gardai
Or if they were to, say, plant bombs
If that's what they want to do let them at it...
I don't think we should "let them at it" and plant bombs
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 07, 2021, 12:05:40 AM
List of SF's accomplishments in Dáil Eireann:
...
End of list.
Invented four fictional brothers from Cavan who survived the collapse of the World Trade Centre
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 07, 2021, 12:11:08 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
I'd say SF would lose at least half their votes in the North if they ever dreamt about swearing allegiance to the crown.
Yeah, they'd defect to...em...em...em...
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 07, 2021, 12:11:08 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
I'd say SF would lose at least half their votes in the North if they ever dreamt about swearing allegiance to the crown.
So the other half of SF voters are "bootlickers" who'd be okay with it? Gawd. There's a lot of "bootlickers" about, isn't there?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 07, 2021, 12:05:40 AM
List of SF's accomplishments in Dáil Eireann:
...
End of list.
OK so lets get this straight, you argued that it is important to take Westminster seats. So when I asked you to give examples of what the SDLP have done/influenced/achieved in the House of Commons, your answer is just "but whatabout"? ::)
Even aside from the desperation of the "but whatabout", its not grounded in facts. SF TDs have often had legistaltion that has made it through the Dáil (eg https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/55611 (https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/55611))
So have another wee crack at the SDLP in the Commons question.
EDIT:
The SDLP's abstentionist policy from the Dáil is what's long past is sell-by date, if you ask me. As is FFFG's abstentist policy from the north. (Saying as they are the ones that like to shout loudest about SF and abstentionism).
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:38:34 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:31:49 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:23:55 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:13:34 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:08:56 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
Presumably you think the SNP shouldn't take their seats so
That's a matter for them, I'm not bothered what they do in Scotland. I'm realistic about what Irish MPs can achieve in Westminster. SF would have absolutely no impact on British government policy, the right wing English media would go to town on them anyway
The rationale was put out about why SF shouldn't take their seats
That rationale can't be put forward to justify SF not sitting and then arbitrarily withdrawn for another separatist party
The rationale either applies to both or it applies to neither
Plaid Cymru have four seats I think
Presumably they shouldn't bother sitting in Westminster
I'd be fairly ambivalent about whether they (SF) should take their seats on historical grounds although I understand why they wouldn't. I'd consider a more pragmatic approach and question whether they could derive any benefits from doing so. I severely doubt it.
In my opinion it is just a stick for SF detractors to beat them with. Logically I don't see what they can achieve through Westminster.
If there's a Tory majority, what can anybody else achieve?
What can Labour achieve?
Should Labour take their seats?
Because the same rationale that says SF shouldn't take their seats is the same rationale for anybody not in government not sitting
The Green Party has one MP, Caroline Lucas
And she is very effective at spreading her message
You're failing to factor in the fact that this is SF we are dealing with here and all the connotations that this would induce in English political circles were they to be seen to have any influence on British government policy. I think you know perfectly well that there is a huge difference, you are just looking for an argument for the sake of it.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 07, 2021, 12:00:03 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on April 06, 2021, 11:04:04 PM
I don't know which is worse. The SF supporters who slavishly follow the party or the anti SF brigade who slate them for absolutely everything. I'd be fairly certain that most nationalists never mind republicans in the north are none too bothered about taking seats in Westminster.
Anybody thinking that a few Irish MPs will exert any influence on British government policy needs to keep taking the Kool Aid. In fact it could be counter productive in the case of SF.
The DUP squeezed £1 billion out of Theresa May, did they not?
That was due to a rare case of the numbers falling in the DUP's favour. Even if that happened and lets say SF held the balance of power, then if you seriously think any British party, let alone the Tory party, would enter into a government arrangement with them then you are deluded. Even the DUP garnered front page negative English tabloid headlines for some of their racist, bigoted homophobic views when their suitability for government was being scrutinised. Could you imagine the outcry where such a situation existed with SF. I shouldn't even need to explain this.
I'm no expert but have read there was a good bit of smoke and mirrors surrounding that 1 billion. For example can anyone tell us where the 1 billion went? By all accounts a good sum of it was money they'd already promised us here anyway so really we didn't see 1 billion or even next to near it.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 07, 2021, 12:05:40 AM
List of SF's accomplishments in Dáil Eireann:
...
End of list.
https://www.thejournal.ie/dail-passes-rent-freeze-bill-4930625-Dec2019/
https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/52273
A few from recent years and they will be able to do a lot more going forward.
You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about SF.
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 07, 2021, 09:18:42 AM
I'm no expert but have read there was a good bit of smoke and mirrors surrounding that 1 billion. For example can anyone tell us where the 1 billion went? By all accounts a good sum of it was money they'd already promised us here anyway so really we didn't see 1 billion or even next to near it.
Yip,
It was "repackaged" by the Tory's mostly money we were already going to get and a little bit extra for Arlene and Co to sell it as a good news story which they've dined out on for the last few years alright.
Yeah exactly - plus it was pretty much blackmail on a very very rare occasion where the tories needed somewhere from here.
Quote from: 6th sam on April 05, 2021, 09:27:53 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 05, 2021, 09:07:04 AM
Colum of Stopping Brexit fame saying Unionists leader much do better in light of the recent violence.
Maybe Colum would be better looking at his own little political stunt and the role it has in kicking things off.
The SDLP have been badly exposed in the past week.
Totally agree. SDLP have contributed a lot over the years, but current strategy from leadership seems focussed on rivalry with SF above all else, thereby often letting unionism
Off the hook. "Nationalist/republican" political parties here haven't done well in recent years. Demographics indicate that there should be an increasing "N/R" vote but in fact SF seem to have lost voters to SDLP and SDLP lost voters to a resurgent alliance , and as a result the "N/R" vote hasn't effectively increased. I think SF will only increase their vote by attracting voters back from SDLP. Most republicans will remain loyal to SF, so there's not many more votes there, but SF will have to perform better in terms of formulating and selling a strategy for a UI, and continue to soften to attract SDLP voters , and/or be "more acceptable " for coalition, north and south. IMHO regardless of their rationale behind the IRA campaign , there has to be more contrition and remorse for the hurt caused, if SF are serious about securing their status as main party north/south.
Thats a fair assessment.
I wouldn't agree that SF have lost voters to the SDLP at all.
They grew their vote in the last assembly election. They went down in the Westminister elections but SF run on an abstentionist ticket so their vote drive is never as strong as it is on an Assembly election. It was also notable the context in Brexit and bombastic claims made by Eastwood and how he would stop Brexit.
I expect SF will probably stay steady in the next Assembly election whereas the SDLP could be in for a rude awakening.
The big issue is how will unionism hold up, will the TUV run more candidates and can they tap into the discontent with the UUP/SDLP now.
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 11:11:53 AM
I wouldn't agree that SF have lost voters to the SDLP at all.
They grew their vote in the last assembly election. They went down in the Westminister elections but SF run on an abstentionist ticket so their vote drive is never as strong as it is on an Assembly election. It was also notable the context in Brexit and bombastic claims made by Eastwood and how he would stop Brexit.
I expect SF will probably stay steady in the next Assembly election whereas the SDLP could be in for a rude awakening.
The big issue is how will unionism hold up, will the TUV run more candidates and can they tap into the discontent with the UUP/SDLP now.
The only thing preventing me from voting SDLP again is current leadership of Eastwood and our local SDLP representative, they express no policy other than a but SF. If they can change that and become a progressive nationalist party I would vote for them. There is a lot of what SF do that I don't like, such as the storey funeral, but they have a lend of my vote for now. To keep it they need new leadership and a bit of sense.
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 11:11:53 AM
I wouldn't agree that SF have lost voters to the SDLP at all.
They grew their vote in the last assembly election. They went down in the Westminister elections but SF run on an abstentionist ticket so their vote drive is never as strong as it is on an Assembly election. It was also notable the context in Brexit and bombastic claims made by Eastwood and how he would stop Brexit.
I expect SF will probably stay steady in the next Assembly election whereas the SDLP could be in for a rude awakening.
The big issue is how will unionism hold up, will the TUV run more candidates and can they tap into the discontent with the UUP/SDLP now.
Do you think that stupid SF voters sided with SDLP on these claims of stopping brexit? Id have thought the voters on SF to be very smart
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 07, 2021, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 11:11:53 AM
I wouldn't agree that SF have lost voters to the SDLP at all.
They grew their vote in the last assembly election. They went down in the Westminister elections but SF run on an abstentionist ticket so their vote drive is never as strong as it is on an Assembly election. It was also notable the context in Brexit and bombastic claims made by Eastwood and how he would stop Brexit.
I expect SF will probably stay steady in the next Assembly election whereas the SDLP could be in for a rude awakening.
The big issue is how will unionism hold up, will the TUV run more candidates and can they tap into the discontent with the UUP/SDLP now.
Do you think that stupid SF voters sided with SDLP on these claims of stopping brexit? Id have thought the voters on SF to be very smart
I think there are a number of people who are not party attached and voted for Colum on his pledge to stop Brexit the last time out.
I think those people won't be voting for Colum again.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 07, 2021, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 11:11:53 AM
I wouldn't agree that SF have lost voters to the SDLP at all.
They grew their vote in the last assembly election. They went down in the Westminister elections but SF run on an abstentionist ticket so their vote drive is never as strong as it is on an Assembly election. It was also notable the context in Brexit and bombastic claims made by Eastwood and how he would stop Brexit.
I expect SF will probably stay steady in the next Assembly election whereas the SDLP could be in for a rude awakening.
The big issue is how will unionism hold up, will the TUV run more candidates and can they tap into the discontent with the UUP/SDLP now.
Do you think that stupid SF voters sided with SDLP on these claims of stopping brexit? Id have thought the voters on SF to be very smart
All politics are local and you get the impression that some of the SF candidates in the North West weren't exactly picked on merit if you know what I mean..
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 07, 2021, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 11:11:53 AM
I wouldn't agree that SF have lost voters to the SDLP at all.
They grew their vote in the last assembly election. They went down in the Westminister elections but SF run on an abstentionist ticket so their vote drive is never as strong as it is on an Assembly election. It was also notable the context in Brexit and bombastic claims made by Eastwood and how he would stop Brexit.
I expect SF will probably stay steady in the next Assembly election whereas the SDLP could be in for a rude awakening.
The big issue is how will unionism hold up, will the TUV run more candidates and can they tap into the discontent with the UUP/SDLP now.
Do you think that stupid SF voters sided with SDLP on these claims of stopping brexit? Id have thought the voters on SF to be very smart
I think there are a number of people who are not party attached and voted for Colum on his pledge to stop Brexit the last time out.
I think those people won't be voting for Colum again.
So are they floaters? So just vote whatever the wind blows in their favour
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 07, 2021, 12:07:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 07, 2021, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 11:11:53 AM
I wouldn't agree that SF have lost voters to the SDLP at all.
They grew their vote in the last assembly election. They went down in the Westminister elections but SF run on an abstentionist ticket so their vote drive is never as strong as it is on an Assembly election. It was also notable the context in Brexit and bombastic claims made by Eastwood and how he would stop Brexit.
I expect SF will probably stay steady in the next Assembly election whereas the SDLP could be in for a rude awakening.
The big issue is how will unionism hold up, will the TUV run more candidates and can they tap into the discontent with the UUP/SDLP now.
Do you think that stupid SF voters sided with SDLP on these claims of stopping brexit? Id have thought the voters on SF to be very smart
I think there are a number of people who are not party attached and voted for Colum on his pledge to stop Brexit the last time out.
I think those people won't be voting for Colum again.
So are they floaters? So just vote whatever the wind blows in their favour
A certain element absoluteley. When the GFA was signed the SDLP voting base began to make the move to SF in significant numbers.
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 12:08:24 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 07, 2021, 12:07:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 07, 2021, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 11:11:53 AM
I wouldn't agree that SF have lost voters to the SDLP at all.
They grew their vote in the last assembly election. They went down in the Westminister elections but SF run on an abstentionist ticket so their vote drive is never as strong as it is on an Assembly election. It was also notable the context in Brexit and bombastic claims made by Eastwood and how he would stop Brexit.
I expect SF will probably stay steady in the next Assembly election whereas the SDLP could be in for a rude awakening.
The big issue is how will unionism hold up, will the TUV run more candidates and can they tap into the discontent with the UUP/SDLP now.
Do you think that stupid SF voters sided with SDLP on these claims of stopping brexit? Id have thought the voters on SF to be very smart
I think there are a number of people who are not party attached and voted for Colum on his pledge to stop Brexit the last time out.
I think those people won't be voting for Colum again.
So are they floaters? So just vote whatever the wind blows in their favour
A certain element absoluteley. When the GFA was signed the SDLP voting base began to make the move to SF in significant numbers.
That's fair but in realty SF vote has increased mainly on that basis. The overall UI vote hasn't really increased in the way expected from the demographics. I'd like to see the anti-DUP vote harnessed more. Unionists are never going to vote SF but may vote alliance . If "Green🇨🇮" vote can increase in keeping with demographics and soft unionists are attracted by Alliance and greens, then we could see a different dynamic .
Quote from: 6th sam on April 07, 2021, 01:02:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 12:08:24 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 07, 2021, 12:07:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 12:03:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 07, 2021, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on April 07, 2021, 11:11:53 AM
I wouldn't agree that SF have lost voters to the SDLP at all.
They grew their vote in the last assembly election. They went down in the Westminister elections but SF run on an abstentionist ticket so their vote drive is never as strong as it is on an Assembly election. It was also notable the context in Brexit and bombastic claims made by Eastwood and how he would stop Brexit.
I expect SF will probably stay steady in the next Assembly election whereas the SDLP could be in for a rude awakening.
The big issue is how will unionism hold up, will the TUV run more candidates and can they tap into the discontent with the UUP/SDLP now.
Do you think that stupid SF voters sided with SDLP on these claims of stopping brexit? Id have thought the voters on SF to be very smart
I think there are a number of people who are not party attached and voted for Colum on his pledge to stop Brexit the last time out.
I think those people won't be voting for Colum again.
So are they floaters? So just vote whatever the wind blows in their favour
A certain element absoluteley. When the GFA was signed the SDLP voting base began to make the move to SF in significant numbers.
That's fair but in realty SF vote has increased mainly on that basis. The overall UI vote hasn't really increased in the way expected from the demographics. I'd like to see the anti-DUP vote harnessed more. Unionists are never going to vote SF but may vote alliance . If "Green🇨🇮" vote can increase in keeping with demographics and soft unionists are attracted by Alliance and greens, we'll make progress .
Absolutely. SF just need to worry about solidifying their base. The rest needs to be more of a case of the demographics shifting towards a more central point away from staunch unionism.
Parties like the Alliance and Greens won't be a barrier to a UI. The voting base of the likes of PBP probably overwhelmingly support it.
It's all about diluting the stranglehold of intransigent 1950s Unionism.
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
SF going well on all fronts at the minute, largest party on the island, something the quislings on this site also refuse to accept
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
The SDLP did step out of line regarding a funeral.
They did this purely for political point scoring.
SF could easily have whipped up the frenzy over the Sean Graham bookies incident. They did not, they calmed a tense situation down.
What the SDLP did was despicable, it was chance opportunism, they jumped into bed with the DUP and should take responsibility for some of the consequences this week.
News flash, SF have been in bed with unionist/policing board since the gfa
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:53:56 PM
News flash, SF have been in bed with unionist/policing board since the gfa
I'm talking about the SDLP's role in the past week. If you want to discuss specific incidents.
The Bobby Storey funeral happened 9 months ago. We've had 9 months of coverage on it. It was investigated and no charges were brought forward.
The SDLP engaged in chance opportunism last week on a funeral that happened 9 months. They knew it would stoke up tensions and they jumped on the bandwagon to do so. The end results are what we have had the past week or so. They should be called out on it.
Really impressed with how the SDLP have gone about their business lately. O'Toole, Mallon et all have been clear and very effective in their messaging. Easily the best performing political party when it comes to current issues in the North.
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 04:57:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:53:56 PM
News flash, SF have been in bed with unionist/policing board since the gfa
I'm talking about the SDLP's role in the past week. If you want to discuss specific incidents.
The Bobby Storey funeral happened 9 months ago. We've had 9 months of coverage on it. It was investigated and no charges were brought forward.
The SDLP engaged in chance opportunism last week on a funeral that happened 9 months. They knew it would stoke up tensions and they jumped on the bandwagon to do so. The end results are what we have had the past week or so. They should be called out on it.
9 months ago, the report only happened last week. Of course you're going to say what they did was wrong and you'd expect to get off with a charge of breaking Covid rules and use the Storey funeral as an example.
There should be no outside gatherings for any reason, no clear rules on this, but we'd neighbours two doors up were fined £500 for having 3 friends in their garden recently. Seems unfair don't you think?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 05:06:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 04:57:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:53:56 PM
News flash, SF have been in bed with unionist/policing board since the gfa
I'm talking about the SDLP's role in the past week. If you want to discuss specific incidents.
The Bobby Storey funeral happened 9 months ago. We've had 9 months of coverage on it. It was investigated and no charges were brought forward.
The SDLP engaged in chance opportunism last week on a funeral that happened 9 months. They knew it would stoke up tensions and they jumped on the bandwagon to do so. The end results are what we have had the past week or so. They should be called out on it.
9 months ago, the report only happened last week. Of course you're going to say what they did was wrong and you'd expect to get off with a charge of breaking Covid rules and use the Storey funeral as an example.
There should be no outside gatherings for any reason, no clear rules on this, but we'd neighbours two doors up were fined £500 for having 3 friends in their garden recently. Seems unfair don't you think?
We've had 9 months of Bobby Storey.
Of course there are unfair applications of the law. But this was investigated and no charges are brought. Will the SDLP be pulling political stunts like this when tensions are so high everytime they disagree with a decision to prosecute.
Or was this just chance opportunism, without a shred of sincerity. There were breaches at John Hume's funeral where SDLP members attended, were they crying for an investigation into that.
First of all it was rank hypocrisy from the SDLP, secondly it was cynical, opportunistic point scoring from them, thirdly they show zero regard to the impacts of doing this and the tensions it was likely to enflame.
They need to take responsibility for their actions but the SDLP are a sinking ship who only serve to have pops at SF these days and I think a lot of nationalists who might have considered give the SDLP a vote next time round or even a transfer will not bother now. It will cost them electorally - as it should.
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
I can understand SF not wanting scrutiny and accountability but why are you so keen for them not to scrutinised and held to account?
Quote from: tiempo on April 08, 2021, 02:37:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
SF going well on all fronts at the minute, largest party on the island, something the quislings on this site also refuse to accept
Keep going with the quisling malarkey. If you want to guarantee that there won't be a United ireland keep using the quisling and West Brit terminology. It guarantees that you won't convince anyone who isn't already committed to a United Ireland
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 04:37:24 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
The SDLP did step out of line regarding a funeral.
They did this purely for political point scoring.
SF could easily have whipped up the frenzy over the Sean Graham bookies incident. They did not, they calmed a tense situation down.
What the SDLP did was despicable, it was chance opportunism, they jumped into bed with the DUP and should take responsibility for some of the consequences this week.
How do you establish which parties are indulging in political point scoring and which are holding others to account?
The idea that sdlp are to blame for this week's violence is monumental stupidity on your part.
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 05:13:33 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 05:06:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 04:57:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:53:56 PM
News flash, SF have been in bed with unionist/policing board since the gfa
I'm talking about the SDLP's role in the past week. If you want to discuss specific incidents.
The Bobby Storey funeral happened 9 months ago. We've had 9 months of coverage on it. It was investigated and no charges were brought forward.
The SDLP engaged in chance opportunism last week on a funeral that happened 9 months. They knew it would stoke up tensions and they jumped on the bandwagon to do so. The end results are what we have had the past week or so. They should be called out on it.
9 months ago, the report only happened last week. Of course you're going to say what they did was wrong and you'd expect to get off with a charge of breaking Covid rules and use the Storey funeral as an example.
There should be no outside gatherings for any reason, no clear rules on this, but we'd neighbours two doors up were fined £500 for having 3 friends in their garden recently. Seems unfair don't you think?
We've had 9 months of Bobby Storey.
Of course there are unfair applications of the law. But this was investigated and no charges are brought. Will the SDLP be pulling political stunts like this when tensions are so high everytime they disagree with a decision to prosecute.
Or was this just chance opportunism, without a shred of sincerity. There were breaches at John Hume's funeral where SDLP members attended, were they crying for an investigation into that.
First of all it was rank hypocrisy from the SDLP, secondly it was cynical, opportunistic point scoring from them, thirdly they show zero regard to the impacts of doing this and the tensions it was likely to enflame.
They need to take responsibility for their actions but the SDLP are a sinking ship who only serve to have pops at SF these days and I think a lot of nationalists who might have considered give the SDLP a vote next time round or even a transfer will not bother now. It will cost them electorally - as it should.
Talk me through the Covid breaches at Hume's funeral and how they compare to the Storey funeral?
Might be waiting a while on a reply, smelmoth.
Quote from: GAABoardMod5 on April 08, 2021, 06:29:25 PM
Labane1917 Banned permanently under Rule 8
Sid Waddell and Angelo banned for 15 Days each under Rule 9 - Feuds
Quote from: trailer on April 08, 2021, 05:03:25 PM
Really impressed with how the SDLP have gone about their business lately. O'Toole, Mallon et all have been clear and very effective in their messaging. Easily the best performing political party when it comes to current issues in the North.
Future leadership material in Mallon, maybe? She's playing a blinder as infrastructure minister, although in fairness it's one of the easier jobs where you get to cut ribbons on big projects. But she still has a good progressive vision in terms of rebalancing east/west of the Bann, and prioritising green projects like rail restoration.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
100% SF were wrong at the Storey funeral, but the SDLP calling this out whilst ignoring the breaches at Humes funeral and that of the Garda funeral illustrates their only current policy which is to attack SF at every opportunity. This is every bit as hypocritical as SF and the Storey Funeral.
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 12:33:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
100% SF were wrong at the Storey funeral, but the SDLP calling this out whilst ignoring the breaches at Humes funeral and that of the Garda funeral illustrates their only current policy which is to attack SF at every opportunity. This is every bit as hypocritical as SF and the Storey Funeral.
And this is why I dislike politics, its a dirty business of running people down as much as they can
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 12:33:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
100% SF were wrong at the Storey funeral, but the SDLP calling this out whilst ignoring the breaches at Humes funeral and that of the Garda funeral illustrates their only current policy which is to attack SF at every opportunity. This is every bit as hypocritical as SF and the Storey Funeral.
Wile big difference between the Hume and Storey funerals, night and day, what were the breaches at the Hume one, genuine question.
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 09:24:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
I can understand SF not wanting scrutiny and accountability but why are you so keen for them not to scrutinised and held to account?
Did the PSNI not investigate and subsequently the PPS review this?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 09, 2021, 12:48:02 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 12:33:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
100% SF were wrong at the Storey funeral, but the SDLP calling this out whilst ignoring the breaches at Humes funeral and that of the Garda funeral illustrates their only current policy which is to attack SF at every opportunity. This is every bit as hypocritical as SF and the Storey Funeral.
And this is why I dislike politics, its a dirty business of running people down as much as they can
On that we can definitely agree!!
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 12:48:19 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 12:33:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
100% SF were wrong at the Storey funeral, but the SDLP calling this out whilst ignoring the breaches at Humes funeral and that of the Garda funeral illustrates their only current policy which is to attack SF at every opportunity. This is every bit as hypocritical as SF and the Storey Funeral.
Wile big difference between the Hume and Storey funerals, night and day, what were the breaches at the Hume one, genuine question.
Maintaining social distance of 2m for a start. Martin and Eastwood pictures talking in to each others ears. I'm not having a go. I would have the same view as apples. The Storey funeral was completely wrong but other parties jumping on North and South was complete hypocrisy.
If anyone thinks there was breaches at the Hume funeral then they are welcome to make a compliant to the PSNI. The fact that nobody has indicates that they don't believe there has been any breaches.
Furthermore, being within two meters of someone is not breaking the law. If it is please show me this in the Coronavirus regulations.
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2021, 01:04:52 PM
If anyone thinks there was breaches at the Hume funeral then they are welcome to make a compliant to the PSNI. The fact that nobody has indicates that they don't believe there has been any breaches.
Furthermore, being within two meters of someone is not breaking the law. If it is please show me this in the Coronavirus regulations.
In that case, can you then point out what laws SF broke at the Bobby storey funeral?
Quote from: HiMucker on April 09, 2021, 01:01:15 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 12:48:19 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 12:33:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
100% SF were wrong at the Storey funeral, but the SDLP calling this out whilst ignoring the breaches at Humes funeral and that of the Garda funeral illustrates their only current policy which is to attack SF at every opportunity. This is every bit as hypocritical as SF and the Storey Funeral.
Wile big difference between the Hume and Storey funerals, night and day, what were the breaches at the Hume one, genuine question.
Maintaining social distance of 2m for a start. Martin and Eastwood pictures talking in to each others ears. I'm not having a go. I would have the same view as apples. The Storey funeral was completely wrong but other parties jumping on North and South was complete hypocrisy.
I did see a photo on here of that or somewhere(think wearing masks), agreed against the rules but on a massively different scale, they would have been best to say nowt because the public already know that both parties took completely different approaches.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:07:10 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2021, 01:04:52 PM
If anyone thinks there was breaches at the Hume funeral then they are welcome to make a compliant to the PSNI. The fact that nobody has indicates that they don't believe there has been any breaches.
Furthermore, being within two meters of someone is not breaking the law. If it is please show me this in the Coronavirus regulations.
In that case, can you then point out what laws SF broke at the Bobby storey funeral?
The party orchestrated a well oiled mass gathering with leadership and entourage in tow, pissed over everyone, its past debate. Every member here in Derry got asked to attend, wee Andy(where do you begin, i really have to houl my tongue with him) co-ordinated it in Derry. By whattsapp, text and email
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 01:24:14 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:07:10 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2021, 01:04:52 PM
If anyone thinks there was breaches at the Hume funeral then they are welcome to make a compliant to the PSNI. The fact that nobody has indicates that they don't believe there has been any breaches.
Furthermore, being within two meters of someone is not breaking the law. If it is please show me this in the Coronavirus regulations.
In that case, can you then point out what laws SF broke at the Bobby storey funeral?
The party orchestrated a well oiled mass gathering with leadership and entourage in tow, pissed over everyone, its past debate. Every member here in Derry got asked to attend, wee Andy(where do you begin, i really have to houl my tongue with him) co-ordinated it in Derry. By whattsapp, text and email
Which laws were broken though?
As trailer claims, being within two metres of someone isn't breaking the law. So this "mass gathering" wouldn't stand up in court for that reason, and as we know no one was charged.
So it would be great if he could point out and give evidence as to which laws were broken by SF.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 01:24:14 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:07:10 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2021, 01:04:52 PM
If anyone thinks there was breaches at the Hume funeral then they are welcome to make a compliant to the PSNI. The fact that nobody has indicates that they don't believe there has been any breaches.
Furthermore, being within two meters of someone is not breaking the law. If it is please show me this in the Coronavirus regulations.
In that case, can you then point out what laws SF broke at the Bobby storey funeral?
The party orchestrated a well oiled mass gathering with leadership and entourage in tow, pissed over everyone, its past debate. Every member here in Derry got asked to attend, wee Andy(where do you begin, i really have to houl my tongue with him) co-ordinated it in Derry. By whattsapp, text and email
Which laws were broken though?
As trailer claims, being within two metres of someone isn't breaking the law. So this "mass gathering" wouldn't stand up in court for that reason, and as we know no one was charged.
So it would be great if he could point out and give evidence as to which laws were broken by SF.
The people know. We all know. Morally corrupt party
I'm not doing this.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 01:31:44 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 01:24:14 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:07:10 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2021, 01:04:52 PM
If anyone thinks there was breaches at the Hume funeral then they are welcome to make a compliant to the PSNI. The fact that nobody has indicates that they don't believe there has been any breaches.
Furthermore, being within two meters of someone is not breaking the law. If it is please show me this in the Coronavirus regulations.
In that case, can you then point out what laws SF broke at the Bobby storey funeral?
The party orchestrated a well oiled mass gathering with leadership and entourage in tow, pissed over everyone, its past debate. Every member here in Derry got asked to attend, wee Andy(where do you begin, i really have to houl my tongue with him) co-ordinated it in Derry. By whattsapp, text and email
Which laws were broken though?
As trailer claims, being within two metres of someone isn't breaking the law. So this "mass gathering" wouldn't stand up in court for that reason, and as we know no one was charged.
So it would be great if he could point out and give evidence as to which laws were broken by SF.
The people know. We all know. Morally corrupt party
Tell me then.
Same story with the stoops, exist only for the purpose of SF mudslinging but when challenged to give evidence they run for the hills.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:33:52 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 01:31:44 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 01:24:14 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:07:10 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2021, 01:04:52 PM
If anyone thinks there was breaches at the Hume funeral then they are welcome to make a compliant to the PSNI. The fact that nobody has indicates that they don't believe there has been any breaches.
Furthermore, being within two meters of someone is not breaking the law. If it is please show me this in the Coronavirus regulations.
In that case, can you then point out what laws SF broke at the Bobby storey funeral?
The party orchestrated a well oiled mass gathering with leadership and entourage in tow, pissed over everyone, its past debate. Every member here in Derry got asked to attend, wee Andy(where do you begin, i really have to houl my tongue with him) co-ordinated it in Derry. By whattsapp, text and email
Which laws were broken though?
As trailer claims, being within two metres of someone isn't breaking the law. So this "mass gathering" wouldn't stand up in court for that reason, and as we know no one was charged.
So it would be great if he could point out and give evidence as to which laws were broken by SF.
The people know. We all know. Morally corrupt party
Tell me then.
Same story with the stoops, exist only for the purpose of SF mudslinging but when challenged to give evidence they run for the hills.
sigh big massive sigh, gone into the rules at the time yourself, i'm pretty sure 2 metre rule was broken(or 1 metre outside home or whatever it was), there was well over 30 in chapel, no masks, group photos, speeches at Milltown, shaking hands, cortege blah blah blah. SF organised the whole shebang, wile odd how all these SF members from all over Ireland just managed to show up in the exact same gear and position themselves like soldiers in organised fashion along the route . I'm not an SDLP voter, but they weren't calling the shots here at that time and aren't now, they should have kept quiet on the funeral as I said already the electorate know the craic and are not stupid to the rights and wrongs of all of this.
Dont be coming back with some shite technicality either-it don't count in this case, and im not biting on it
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 01:55:32 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:33:52 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 01:31:44 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 01:24:14 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on April 09, 2021, 01:07:10 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2021, 01:04:52 PM
If anyone thinks there was breaches at the Hume funeral then they are welcome to make a compliant to the PSNI. The fact that nobody has indicates that they don't believe there has been any breaches.
Furthermore, being within two meters of someone is not breaking the law. If it is please show me this in the Coronavirus regulations.
In that case, can you then point out what laws SF broke at the Bobby storey funeral?
The party orchestrated a well oiled mass gathering with leadership and entourage in tow, pissed over everyone, its past debate. Every member here in Derry got asked to attend, wee Andy(where do you begin, i really have to houl my tongue with him) co-ordinated it in Derry. By whattsapp, text and email
Which laws were broken though?
As trailer claims, being within two metres of someone isn't breaking the law. So this "mass gathering" wouldn't stand up in court for that reason, and as we know no one was charged.
So it would be great if he could point out and give evidence as to which laws were broken by SF.
The people know. We all know. Morally corrupt party
Tell me then.
Same story with the stoops, exist only for the purpose of SF mudslinging but when challenged to give evidence they run for the hills.
sigh big massive sigh, gone into the rules at the time yourself, i'm pretty sure 2 metre rule was broken(or 1 metre outside home or whatever it was), there was well over 30 in chapel, no masks, group photos, speeches at Milltown, shaking hands, cortege blah blah blah. SF organised the whole shebang, wile odd how all these SF members from all over Ireland just managed to show up in the exact same gear and position themselves like soldiers in organised fashion along the route . I'm not an SDLP voter, but they weren't calling the shots here at that time and aren't now, they should have kept quiet on the funeral as I said already the electorate know the craic and are not stupid to the rights and wrongs of all of this.
Dont be coming back with some shite technicality either-it don't count in this case, and im not biting on it
So you can't point out which laws were broken?
Grand so.
Quote from: trailer on April 08, 2021, 05:03:25 PM
Really impressed with how the SDLP have gone about their business lately. O'Toole, Mallon et all have been clear and very effective in their messaging. Easily the best performing political party when it comes to current issues in the North.
They actually do have some good speakers. The party went badly wrong after John hume left the stage and in particular the period with Ritchie and mcDonnell and the infighting that took place at that time was very damaging .
Eastwood has definitely improved the fortunes of the party.
I suppose the problem it has is its poor appeal to young nationalist voters who fail to understand what the party represents anymore. This isnt helped by some ill judged (in my opinion) actions by both the party and members/former members.
I don't understand why they hitched themselves to Fianna Fail. Surely if any party was to be partnered with them it should have been the Irish labour party.
Mark Durkan running for Fine Gael, Alisdair mcDonnell and Michael mcDowell.
They have allowed their grassroots workers to almost dissappear in traditional heartlands such as my own in South Down.
All very confusing and disheartening.
Quote from: johnnycool on April 09, 2021, 12:48:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 09:24:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
I can understand SF not wanting scrutiny and accountability but why are you so keen for them not to scrutinised and held to account?
Did the PSNI not investigate and subsequently the PPS review this?
PSNI reviewed it to the criminal standard and thought it was criminal. PPS reviewed it to the same standard and identified 2 problems in securing a conviction.
Neither body said what SF did was ok.
Quote from: HiMucker on April 09, 2021, 01:01:15 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 12:48:19 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 12:33:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
100% SF were wrong at the Storey funeral, but the SDLP calling this out whilst ignoring the breaches at Humes funeral and that of the Garda funeral illustrates their only current policy which is to attack SF at every opportunity. This is every bit as hypocritical as SF and the Storey Funeral.
Wile big difference between the Hume and Storey funerals, night and day, what were the breaches at the Hume one, genuine question.
Maintaining social distance of 2m for a start. Martin and Eastwood pictures talking in to each others ears. I'm not having a go. I would have the same view as apples. The Storey funeral was completely wrong but other parties jumping on North and South was complete hypocrisy.
2 people breaking their own discipline and not maintaining the 2m separation is not good enough. I roundly condemn them. Is that on the same scale as the mass and orchestrated breach of the Storey funeral? Absolutely not. I would be embarrassed for any poor fool who thought the 2 were equivalent or meant that SF should not be accountable for the Storey funeral
Quote from: smelmoth on April 09, 2021, 05:00:00 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on April 09, 2021, 01:01:15 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 12:48:19 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 12:33:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
100% SF were wrong at the Storey funeral, but the SDLP calling this out whilst ignoring the breaches at Humes funeral and that of the Garda funeral illustrates their only current policy which is to attack SF at every opportunity. This is every bit as hypocritical as SF and the Storey Funeral.
Wile big difference between the Hume and Storey funerals, night and day, what were the breaches at the Hume one, genuine question.
Maintaining social distance of 2m for a start. Martin and Eastwood pictures talking in to each others ears. I'm not having a go. I would have the same view as apples. The Storey funeral was completely wrong but other parties jumping on North and South was complete hypocrisy.
2 people breaking their own discipline and not maintaining the 2m separation is not good enough. I roundly condemn them. Is that on the same scale as the mass and orchestrated breach of the Storey funeral? Absolutely not. I would be embarrassed for any poor fool who thought the 2 were equivalent or meant that SF should not be accountable for the Storey funeral
Look that was just one instance. There was plenty. But I didn't mention it in order to drag up a debate. Just referencing it for hypocrisy. Do I think the Storey funeral was a bigger f**k up and OG by SF? Absolutely. Do I think there was more organising that went in to it in encouraging grass roots republicans to attend? Absolutely. No doubt. But I think political point scoring over a funeral is completely crass, and all parties would have been aware that the likely hood is they will be in the same boat sooner or later regarding a funeral or something else but still got stuck in. Still going on about it 9 months later. I also say a big difference between the two was what the family wanted. The Hume family actively tried to encourage people to stay away. Fair play to them. That is not a dig at the Storey family, as we all know funerals are extremely emotive, I do not blame them in the slightest, and I have no problem whatsoever what any families wishes are. Grief is extremely difficult. I attended an uncles during covid when I probably shouldn't have, cousins aunty hugging you. What are you going to say? Back off? It's far too emotive, and like I said I think point scoring on it is crass. It was rightly called out at the time but it should have been left at that. I think the major thing SF got wrong with it was Mary Lou and MON attending. I think optics wise them missing it would have maintained a better public health message, but SF would have still took some flack. Like I said I think a lot of the criticism aimed at SF is hypocritical, and more to do with who was in the casket than anything else, and a few people on here and politicians from other parties have let the mask slip on that one.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 12:48:19 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 12:33:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 08, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on April 08, 2021, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 08, 2021, 02:00:00 PM
Embarrassing stuff from Mallon in Stormont today. Not a hint of awareness of their own little contribution to the events that are happening now.
Which was?
Calling the Assembly together over the refusal to accept the Bobby Storey verdict. They jumped into the bed with the DUP and unionists to ratchet up tensions because they could score some political points over a funeral that happened 9 months ago.
Hold on, the events at Storeys funeral should have and where looked at, they were wrong on so many levels. The results came back from that report and the DUP were outraged, which is fair enough considering the rule breaking that went on. Storey having that send off while we had limited numbers at my dads sticks in my throat.
The issues of the protocol and sea border are just other issues that have been stoked up to send these halions out onto the streets.
If the SDLP stepped out of line regarding a funeral, SF would have reacted with same comments.
You're no different to sticking the boot into political parties than Sid.
100% SF were wrong at the Storey funeral, but the SDLP calling this out whilst ignoring the breaches at Humes funeral and that of the Garda funeral illustrates their only current policy which is to attack SF at every opportunity. This is every bit as hypocritical as SF and the Storey Funeral.
Wile big difference between the Hume and Storey funerals, night and day, what were the breaches at the Hume one, genuine question.
Watch it again, no social distancing and crowds gathered on the route. but this was not controllable, neither were the crowds at the Storey or garda funeral. and you know whilst i wouldn't have done it I can understand why people wanted to attend these but no hypocrisy please.
Quote from: trailer on April 09, 2021, 01:04:52 PM
If anyone thinks there was breaches at the Hume funeral then they are welcome to make a compliant to the PSNI. The fact that nobody has indicates that they don't believe there has been any breaches.
Furthermore, being within two meters of someone is not breaking the law. If it is please show me this in the Coronavirus regulations.
Christ look at the evidence, difference is that SF put marshals in place and there was a degree of organisation. Personally I would not have attended any of these but I don't blame those that did, just don't be hypocritical.
A point to note here, throwing a missile at police is criminal. Breaking Covid regs is like getting a speeding ticket. Perspective please.
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 08:31:52 PM
A point to note here, throwing a missile at police is criminal. Breaking Covid regs is like getting a speeding ticket. Perspective please.
A point to note here, Covid is a highly contagious and potentially fatal virus. Large gatherings should not be organized to for health reasons.
Large gatherings are a breeding ground for Covid and have led to major outbreaks. Put that into perspective
9 months of nolan pointing out breaches at the Greeks funeral coming up. 5 live every weekend. Can't wait.
Quote from: charlieTully on April 09, 2021, 09:05:21 PM
9 months of nolan pointing out breaches at the Greeks funeral coming up. 5 live every weekend. Can't wait.
Phil the Greek didn't live here and doesn't make our laws ,
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 09:31:03 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on April 09, 2021, 09:05:21 PM
9 months of nolan pointing out breaches at the Greeks funeral coming up. 5 live every weekend. Can't wait.
Phil the Greek didn't live here and doesn't make our laws ,
Ah ok. This not part of the United Kingdom then. Wtf have we been fighting for all these years. I don't agree with Sf actions at the Storey funeral but the level of hypocrisy is staggering.
Quote from: charlieTully on April 09, 2021, 09:38:05 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 09:31:03 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on April 09, 2021, 09:05:21 PM
9 months of nolan pointing out breaches at the Greeks funeral coming up. 5 live every weekend. Can't wait.
Phil the Greek didn't live here and doesn't make our laws ,
Ah ok. This not part of the United Kingdom then. Wtf have we been fighting for all these years. I don't agree with Sf actions at the Storey funeral but the level of hypocrisy is staggering.
I don't think a funeral in England should be of any interest to a people ruled by devolved govt, they are on a different pathway to recovery from us in England and it should be of little interest to us here what they do at their funerals .
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 09:43:37 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on April 09, 2021, 09:38:05 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 09:31:03 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on April 09, 2021, 09:05:21 PM
9 months of nolan pointing out breaches at the Greeks funeral coming up. 5 live every weekend. Can't wait.
Phil the Greek didn't live here and doesn't make our laws ,
Ah ok. This not part of the United Kingdom then. Wtf have we been fighting for all these years. I don't agree with Sf actions at the Storey funeral but the level of hypocrisy is staggering.
I don't think a funeral in England should be of any interest to a people ruled by devolved govt, they are on a different pathway to recovery from us in England and it should be of little interest to us here what they do at their funerals .
Very true. But nolan the champion of outrage at the Storey funeral has a show on 5 live as you know. I'm interested to see will he have the same level of outrage should there be covid regulations breaches at phillys funeral.
Quote from: charlieTully on April 09, 2021, 09:51:06 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 09:43:37 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on April 09, 2021, 09:38:05 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 09, 2021, 09:31:03 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on April 09, 2021, 09:05:21 PM
9 months of nolan pointing out breaches at the Greeks funeral coming up. 5 live every weekend. Can't wait.
Phil the Greek didn't live here and doesn't make our laws ,
Ah ok. This not part of the United Kingdom then. Wtf have we been fighting for all these years. I don't agree with Sf actions at the Storey funeral but the level of hypocrisy is staggering.
I don't think a funeral in England should be of any interest to a people ruled by devolved govt, they are on a different pathway to recovery from us in England and it should be of little interest to us here what they do at their funerals .
Very true. But nolan the champion of outrage at the Storey funeral has a show on 5 live as you know. I'm interested to see will he have the same level of outrage should there be covid regulations breaches at phillys funeral.
Canny see it for many reasons
Quote from: dublin7 on April 09, 2021, 08:37:26 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 08:31:52 PM
A point to note here, throwing a missile at police is criminal. Breaking Covid regs is like getting a speeding ticket. Perspective please.
A point to note here, Covid is a highly contagious and potentially fatal virus. Large gatherings should not be organized to for health reasons.
Large gatherings are a breeding ground for Covid and have led to major outbreaks. Put that into perspective
Agreed. Equally as true for the funeral for the funeral of a Republican as for a Garda.
In a week where there has been the worst loyalist riots for almost a decade, the resident stoops of the board are jumping up and down to keep people taking about SF and Bobby Storey. Yis are a microsm of what 's wrong with the SDLP: nothing constructive to offer what-so-ever, bar attacking SF. Typically, the only ones who seem to have been impressed by the SDLP assembly recall last week for instance, have been the likes of Trailer and Eamon. Most people can look at it and see how it (predictably) achieved nothing but a ratheting up of tensions. Even the DUP (albeit for selfish reasons of fearing an election) were attempting to focus their criticisms on the police rather than SF in order to avoid a political crisis for the institutions...that was until the SDLP stepped up and recalled the assembly in order to grandstand about SF and egg the DUP on to get stuck in too. They can deny it all they like but they have to take a not insignificant share of the responsibility for the violence that followed.
I've repeatedly criticised the SF actions at the funeral. The height of irresponsible and downright stupid behaviour. The thing is though, that I as a SF supporter can say that. The SDLP chaps here who jump up and down about that funeral though are not so much avoiding talking about, but activley defending/denying covid breaches at John Hume's funeral by their party leader amongst others. Clearly not as many breaches at the Storey funeral but when you want to pretend your motivations are not party political, then defending the covid breaches by your own party leader at another funeral, well it just makes you look like the sort of ghoul that is taking pleasure in using a funeral for pure political point scoring. Not a good look when you're trying to appear like you're on a moral high ground.
Tit for tat politics. That'll certainly bring us into a UI, pathetic stuff from all sides involved in this. When there are times that taking the morally right position we shoot ourselves in the foot, and so it rages on.
This place is depressing, Whats even more depressing is reading social media comments. Forget about a UI with our current parties in government. Never going to happen
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 10, 2021, 09:42:48 AM
Tit for tat politics. That'll certainly bring us into a UI, pathetic stuff from all sides involved in this. When there are times that taking the morally right position we shoot ourselves in the foot, and so it rages on.
This place is depressing, Whats even more depressing is reading social media comments. Forget about a UI with our current parties in government. Never going to happen
Nail on the head, whattsapp would make you ill. Scrape the surface stuff. Grown men making up and sending memes, the loyalist riots sending boys into frenzied teenage sectarian banter
Yeah tbh neither nationalist party, in my view, is anywhere near capable of delivering it. Still a pipe dream. It is less of a pipe dream because of brexit and the dup - not the actions of sf or the sdlp.
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 10, 2021, 11:17:00 AM
Yeah tbh neither nationalist party, in my view, is anywhere near capable of delivering it. Still a pipe dream. It is less of a pipe dream because of brexit and the dup - not the actions of sf or the sdlp.
100%
Quote from: Snapchap on April 10, 2021, 08:18:32 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on April 09, 2021, 08:37:26 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 08:31:52 PM
A point to note here, throwing a missile at police is criminal. Breaking Covid regs is like getting a speeding ticket. Perspective please.
A point to note here, Covid is a highly contagious and potentially fatal virus. Large gatherings should not be organized to for health reasons.
Large gatherings are a breeding ground for Covid and have led to major outbreaks. Put that into perspective
Agreed. Equally as true for the funeral for the funeral of a Republican as for a Garda.
Indeed. It's disappointing and a little sad that SF supporters use the funeral of a garda as a comparison for a politicaly organised funeral for a convicted criminal. While both funerals broke Covid regulations to any normal person the circumstances are much different
Clearly SF supporters see nothing wrong with what they did and the Unionists/loyalists are using this as an excuse for what's gone on the last few days.
I don't think this week has done anything to bring a united Ireland closer. I wouldn't be surprised if it led to another collapse of the Assembly. SF and the DUP dislike each other and disagree on most things. This only going to cause further division and conflict between the parties
Quote from: dublin7 on April 10, 2021, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 10, 2021, 08:18:32 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on April 09, 2021, 08:37:26 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 08:31:52 PM
A point to note here, throwing a missile at police is criminal. Breaking Covid regs is like getting a speeding ticket. Perspective please.
A point to note here, Covid is a highly contagious and potentially fatal virus. Large gatherings should not be organized to for health reasons.
Large gatherings are a breeding ground for Covid and have led to major outbreaks. Put that into perspective
Agreed. Equally as true for the funeral for the funeral of a Republican as for a Garda.
Indeed. It's disappointing and a little sad that SF supporters use the funeral of a garda as a comparison for a politicaly organised funeral for a convicted criminal. While both funerals broke Covid regulations to any normal person the circumstances are much different
Clearly SF supporters see nothing wrong with what they did and the Unionists/loyalists are using this as an excuse for what's gone on the last few days.
I don't think this week has done anything to bring a united Ireland closer. I wouldn't be surprised if it led to another collapse of the Assembly. SF and the DUP dislike each other and disagree on most things. This only going to cause further division and conflict between the parties
Tbf I don't know of any SF supporter who "sees nothing wrong with what they did".
I know many "moderates" who think that the Storey funeral is being used by DUP and others as a distraction from the fact that they have seriously "dropped the ball" over Brexit and Covid. History has shown that when unionism is under pressure , the default position is to unite under "anti-Irishness". I only hope that the pattern over Drumcree and Flegs is repeated, and that the campaign fizzles out. Regardless of constitutional issues people have to realise that there are much bigger challenges ahead in terms of recovery from Covid and brexit.
Quote from: dublin7 on April 10, 2021, 03:28:00 PM
It's disappointing and a little sad that SF supporters use the funeral of a garda as a comparison for a politicaly organised funeral for a convicted criminal. While both funerals broke Covid regulations to any normal person the circumstances are much different
Yes because covid famously didn't allow itself to spread among mourners at garda funerals.
Such absolute and utter nonsense. "The circumstances are very different"?? What does that actually mean? That covid only spreads at some funerals but not others, purely depending on "the circumstances" of who is in the coffin? That some politicians cant be criticised for covid breaches? What is it? Take the rank hypocrisy out of your "different circumstances" line and there remains no reasonable, understandable rationale behind it whatsoever.
Quote from: dublin7 on April 10, 2021, 03:28:00 PM
Clearly SF supporters see nothing wrong with what they did
I'm on record as having repeatedly criticised SF over the funeral. I did so as recently as the last post I placed on this thread. Just because that is an inconvenient fact for you, doesn't mean you get to ignore it.
Quote from: dublin7 on April 10, 2021, 03:28:00 PM
I don't think this week has done anything to bring a united Ireland closer. I wouldn't be surprised if it led to another collapse of the Assembly. SF and the DUP dislike each other and disagree on most things. This only going to cause further division and conflict between the parties
Demographics, brexit and likely scottish independence will bring a United Ireland closer. This week will make no difference whatsoever. And if you actually think this week will lead to an assembly collapse, then you really don't understand whats going on in the north at all. Who would collapse it now? SF, who have nothing to gain from doing so (and a lot to lose), or the DUP who fear an election more than anything else on earth right now, to the extent that they tried to focus their attacks primarily on the police and chief constable last week rather than on SF?
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
I'd say a high percentage are angry over the Protocol, but a a very low percentage could actually articulate the reasons why.
The percentage out rioting, attacking police etc are minuscule and while they may try and turn up the heat so to speak, this will be futile.
Quote from: general_lee on April 10, 2021, 09:30:19 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
I'd say a high percentage are angry over the Protocol, but a a very low percentage could actually articulate the reasons why.
The percentage out rioting, attacking police etc are minuscule and while they may try and turn up the heat so to speak, this will be futile.
are they not protesting because the police wouldn't arrest Bobby Storey or something?
Oh yeah I forgot that one ;D
Some of those statements by lcc or uprg or whichever one it was more or less said it was the protocol.
If I were a unionist I would be very pissed off about the ni protocol and more how it came about due to the dup.
It's a very very low percentage rioting. It is mainly youths.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism. The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings. As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
The status quo is breaking down. The UK may be too.
Any UI will have to be imagined in a citizens assembly and planned over a long time.
Unionism hasn't always been the default political choice of northern protestants.
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism. The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings. As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.
Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully their Irish neighbours in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the deluded bully , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community, off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism. The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings. As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.
Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully their Irish neighbours in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the deluded bully , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community, off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.
Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:02:16 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism. The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings. As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.
Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully their Irish neighbours in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the deluded bully , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community, off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.
Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.
Criticising the perceived "tone" of my comment rather than the content, and coupling it with a comment to which I am clearly diametrically opposed , is selling yourself short Michaelg, and unfortunately that's a recurrent trait amongst many unionists. If you are not prepared to engage with people like me who clearly likes unionists and wants to improve a woeful status quo , then maybe you're closer to the dinosaurs that are holding your community back , than you would admit .?
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 09:18:40 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:02:16 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism. The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings. As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.
Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully their Irish neighbours in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the deluded bully , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community, off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.
Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.
Criticising the perceived "tone" of my comment rather than the content, and coupling it with a comment to which I am clearly diametrically opposed , is selling yourself short Michaelg, and unfortunately that's a recurrent trait amongst many unionists. If you are not prepared to engage with people like me who clearly likes unionists and wants to improve a woeful status quo , then maybe you're closer to the dinosaurs that are holding your community back , than you would admit .?
Just because my desire would be for NI to stay within the UK, that does not make me 'closer to the dinosaurs'. You mentioned GDP etc, but these things can change over time. Although bouyant at the moment, the economy in the ROI was in poor health for much of the last 100 years, and indeed, had to be bailed out in recent times. You are going to have a different view, but my preference is to continue as part of the UK going forward. As I also mentioned, it is not soley a question about economic arguments. Other than the odd trip to watch the rugby in Dublin, or a holiday in Donegal, many unionists have little or no affinity with the ROI, be that watching gaelic games, watching RTE etc. That might not sound like much of a big deal to someone like you who embraces those aspects of Irish cultural life, but it may be part of the wider reasons why a lot of unionists aren't so keen on a UI.
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
I wish the highlighted part was true. Most Unionists favour the Union on cultural and identity grounds. You could make them all £10k richer in a UI and they still wouldn't vote for it. Being part of a right-wing country with 4.5 million (including themselves, ironically) living in abject poverty doesn't even come in to the equation.
The pragmatic "small u" Unionists, many of which are from Catholic/Nationalist backgrounds are the demographic that needs convinced first. In reality it's just going to be a crude numbers game
If you are historically against it culturally against it then why would any Protestant vote to be in a UI?
Money is not a driver here, being shafted by the tories is easier than being shafted by SF, SF are (to all unionists) IRA murders in government, because they are voted in means nothing in fact it's worse that 'ordinary' people voted in murderers.
Regardless of whether anyone on here believes that, that is the mindset of a unionist, take SF out of the picture when talking about a UI then you might have a chance.
It's like turkeys voting for Xmas, or Jews leaving Israel
People can throw up all the excuses or benefits, it's morally wrong for any one from a unionist background to vote for a UI, the UI crowd will have to concentrate on getting every vote from the nationalists, that will be the biggest test!
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 09:18:40 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:02:16 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism. The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings. As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.
Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully their Irish neighbours in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the deluded bully , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community, off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.
Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.
Criticising the perceived "tone" of my comment rather than the content, and coupling it with a comment to which I am clearly diametrically opposed , is selling yourself short Michaelg, and unfortunately that's a recurrent trait amongst many unionists. If you are not prepared to engage with people like me who clearly likes unionists and wants to improve a woeful status quo , then maybe you're closer to the dinosaurs that are holding your community back , than you would admit .?
Just because my desire would be for NI to stay within the UK, that does not make me 'closer to the dinosaurs'. You mentioned GDP etc, but these things can change over time. Although bouyant at the moment, the economy in the ROI was in poor health for much of the last 100 years, and indeed, had to be bailed out in recent times. You are going to have a different view, but my preference is to continue as part of the UK going forward. As I also mentioned, it is not soley a question about economic arguments. Other than the odd trip to watch the rugby in Dublin, or a holiday in Donegal, many unionists have little or no affinity with the ROI, be that watching gaelic games, watching RTE etc. That might not sound like much of a big deal to someone like you who embraces those aspects of Irish cultural life, but it may be part of the wider reasons why a lot of unionists aren't so keen on a UI.
Great to get that perspective and honesty. So many unionists are not keen to expose themselves to Irishness to which they have no affinity, but you want the Irish in the North who have been bullied by unionism for years to join with unionists in embracing Britishness? 🤦🏻♂️Are you serious .
The way to defeat bullying is to call it out , and show a better way. This will involve creativity in finding the best way of doing things . The key has to be moving away from an exclusive nationalistic view of things from both sides and being led by the true majority who realise that equality, respect, opportunity , health , education , quality of life are far more important than national affiliation. Unionists have had the chance to provide that in the North and have failed, so the status quo won't work. Perhaps MR's assessment is correct , SF ironically are now a massive barrier to a UI , as victory for republicans is too difficult for unionists to countenance . Could SF do a John Hume and put the country first (as in the whole island ) . The historical desire of republicans for a 32 county socialist republic is as far away as ever. An All-Island solution however is achievable . Do SF hold out for the former, or pragmatically help to achieve the latter ?
I honestly believe mr's assessment is right here. I'm not anti sf but there is a set of voters, nationalist and obviously unionist, they will never be able to tap into because of their past. Maybe time will change that but if it is time they need it is probably decades.
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 10:40:28 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 09:18:40 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:02:16 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism. The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings. As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.
Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully their Irish neighbours in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the deluded bully , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community, off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.
Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.
Criticising the perceived "tone" of my comment rather than the content, and coupling it with a comment to which I am clearly diametrically opposed , is selling yourself short Michaelg, and unfortunately that's a recurrent trait amongst many unionists. If you are not prepared to engage with people like me who clearly likes unionists and wants to improve a woeful status quo , then maybe you're closer to the dinosaurs that are holding your community back , than you would admit .?
Just because my desire would be for NI to stay within the UK, that does not make me 'closer to the dinosaurs'. You mentioned GDP etc, but these things can change over time. Although bouyant at the moment, the economy in the ROI was in poor health for much of the last 100 years, and indeed, had to be bailed out in recent times. You are going to have a different view, but my preference is to continue as part of the UK going forward. As I also mentioned, it is not soley a question about economic arguments. Other than the odd trip to watch the rugby in Dublin, or a holiday in Donegal, many unionists have little or no affinity with the ROI, be that watching gaelic games, watching RTE etc. That might not sound like much of a big deal to someone like you who embraces those aspects of Irish cultural life, but it may be part of the wider reasons why a lot of unionists aren't so keen on a UI.
Great to get that perspective and honesty. So many unionists are not keen to expose themselves to Irishness to which they have no affinity, but you want the Irish in the North who have been bullied by unionism for years to join with unionists in embracing Britishness? 🤦🏻♂️Are you serious .
The way to defeat bullying is to call it out , and show a better way. This will involve creativity in finding the best way of doing things . The key has to be moving away from an exclusive nationalistic view of things from both sides and being led by the true majority who realise that equality, respect, opportunity , health , education , quality of life are far more important than national affiliation. Unionists have had the chance to provide that in the North and have failed, so the status quo won't work. Perhaps MR's assessment is correct , SF ironically are now a massive barrier to a UI , as victory for republicans is too difficult for unionists to countenance . Could SF do a John Hume and put the country first (as in the whole island ) . The historical desire of republicans for a 32 county socialist republic is as far away as ever. An All-Island solution however is achievable . Do SF hold out for the former, or pragmatically help to achieve the latter ?
Not sure where I said that.
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 11, 2021, 11:01:53 AM
I honestly believe mr's assessment is right here. I'm not anti sf but there is a set of voters, nationalist and obviously unionist, they will never be able to tap into because of their past. Maybe time will change that but if it is time they need it is probably decades.
100% right. Unionists are Unionists so there won't be a single one of them will switch and vote for a UI. Nevertheless they are running out of road bit by bit. Sometimes it's just a slow burn and sometimes there's another brick knocked out of their wall, the latest being Brexit. The best Unionist leaders can achieve is buying time. SF are despised by them, SDLP less so but at the end of the day SDLP won't win a single vote off them either in a border poll. The real challenge is to move towards a UI on a path which is as peaceful as possible, and that's where wise words and fair analysis of the benefits of a UI in terms of the economy and political representation will help enormously. SF haven't been capable of that, A. because their economics is for the birds, and B. because they have to celebrate their Republican past and every time they do, Unionists could boke.
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 11:37:31 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 10:40:28 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 09:18:40 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:02:16 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism. The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings. As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.
Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully their Irish neighbours in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the deluded bully , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community, off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.
Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.
Criticising the perceived "tone" of my comment rather than the content, and coupling it with a comment to which I am clearly diametrically opposed , is selling yourself short Michaelg, and unfortunately that's a recurrent trait amongst many unionists. If you are not prepared to engage with people like me who clearly likes unionists and wants to improve a woeful status quo , then maybe you're closer to the dinosaurs that are holding your community back , than you would admit .?
Just because my desire would be for NI to stay within the UK, that does not make me 'closer to the dinosaurs'. You mentioned GDP etc, but these things can change over time. Although bouyant at the moment, the economy in the ROI was in poor health for much of the last 100 years, and indeed, had to be bailed out in recent times. You are going to have a different view, but my preference is to continue as part of the UK going forward. As I also mentioned, it is not soley a question about economic arguments. Other than the odd trip to watch the rugby in Dublin, or a holiday in Donegal, many unionists have little or no affinity with the ROI, be that watching gaelic games, watching RTE etc. That might not sound like much of a big deal to someone like you who embraces those aspects of Irish cultural life, but it may be part of the wider reasons why a lot of unionists aren't so keen on a UI.
Great to get that perspective and honesty. So many unionists are not keen to expose themselves to Irishness to which they have no affinity, but you want the Irish in the North who have been bullied by unionism for years to join with unionists in embracing Britishness? 🤦🏻♂️Are you serious .
The way to defeat bullying is to call it out , and show a better way. This will involve creativity in finding the best way of doing things . The key has to be moving away from an exclusive nationalistic view of things from both sides and being led by the true majority who realise that equality, respect, opportunity , health , education , quality of life are far more important than national affiliation. Unionists have had the chance to provide that in the North and have failed, so the status quo won't work. Perhaps MR's assessment is correct , SF ironically are now a massive barrier to a UI , as victory for republicans is too difficult for unionists to countenance . Could SF do a John Hume and put the country first (as in the whole island ) . The historical desire of republicans for a 32 county socialist republic is as far away as ever. An All-Island solution however is achievable . Do SF hold out for the former, or pragmatically help to achieve the latter ?
Not sure where I said that.
Presumably By wanting us remain part of the UK as it stands , that involves embracing Britishness . Can you understand how one of the reasons NI has failed is because it has given preference to Britishness . Even after the GFA which promoted equal status of identities , the DUP have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into what they ridiculously term "concessions ".
For the "new" post GFA Northern IRELAND to have worked and be a success the Irishness of a large proportion of the population had to be officially recognised and respected.
It certainly isn't the latter especially by the largest Unionist Party, nor the other 2 either.
They want to be the same as Great Britain but yet want different laws for abortion/same sex marriage e.g.
And of course the sky will fall if there were bi lingual road signs like there are in Scotland and Wales.
Peter Robinson tried to make his party realise that they needed to get the Catholic/Nationalist people onside to make "NI as part of the UK" to work.
Instead we got poison Arlene and "curry my yoghurt" from that ignorant bigoted fkr Campbell.
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:09:26 PM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 11:37:31 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 10:40:28 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 09:18:40 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:02:16 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism. The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings. As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.
Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully their Irish neighbours in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the deluded bully , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community, off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.
Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.
Criticising the perceived "tone" of my comment rather than the content, and coupling it with a comment to which I am clearly diametrically opposed , is selling yourself short Michaelg, and unfortunately that's a recurrent trait amongst many unionists. If you are not prepared to engage with people like me who clearly likes unionists and wants to improve a woeful status quo , then maybe you're closer to the dinosaurs that are holding your community back , than you would admit .?
Just because my desire would be for NI to stay within the UK, that does not make me 'closer to the dinosaurs'. You mentioned GDP etc, but these things can change over time. Although bouyant at the moment, the economy in the ROI was in poor health for much of the last 100 years, and indeed, had to be bailed out in recent times. You are going to have a different view, but my preference is to continue as part of the UK going forward. As I also mentioned, it is not soley a question about economic arguments. Other than the odd trip to watch the rugby in Dublin, or a holiday in Donegal, many unionists have little or no affinity with the ROI, be that watching gaelic games, watching RTE etc. That might not sound like much of a big deal to someone like you who embraces those aspects of Irish cultural life, but it may be part of the wider reasons why a lot of unionists aren't so keen on a UI.
Great to get that perspective and honesty. So many unionists are not keen to expose themselves to Irishness to which they have no affinity, but you want the Irish in the North who have been bullied by unionism for years to join with unionists in embracing Britishness? 🤦🏻♂️Are you serious .
The way to defeat bullying is to call it out , and show a better way. This will involve creativity in finding the best way of doing things . The key has to be moving away from an exclusive nationalistic view of things from both sides and being led by the true majority who realise that equality, respect, opportunity , health , education , quality of life are far more important than national affiliation. Unionists have had the chance to provide that in the North and have failed, so the status quo won't work. Perhaps MR's assessment is correct , SF ironically are now a massive barrier to a UI , as victory for republicans is too difficult for unionists to countenance . Could SF do a John Hume and put the country first (as in the whole island ) . The historical desire of republicans for a 32 county socialist republic is as far away as ever. An All-Island solution however is achievable . Do SF hold out for the former, or pragmatically help to achieve the latter ?
Not sure where I said that.
Presumably By wanting us remain part of the UK as it stands , that involves embracing Britishness . Can you understand how one of the reasons NI has failed is because it has given preference to Britishness . Even after the GFA which promoted equal status of identities , the DUP have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into what they ridiculously term "concessions ".
Why would you say that if you have not had to do that to date?
What is the appetite for a UI in the south at the moment?
Not sure if it has been tested in any way. Would be interesting to see the level of support and the issues that are seen as important.
It seems obvious that a UI in the near future would require significant financial, security and sovereignty compromises for RoI. Maybe some of those will lessen in the future but some sort of pulse check on the current appetite would be interesting.
I get the impression that the average citizen in the south gives little or no thought to a UI
I think its fair to say it wouldn't be first thing on many people's minds when they wake in the morning.
It's kind of a case of "that will be nice when it comes" but meanwhile let's get on with the normal things in life.
Two things the NO folk would express concern about are cost and violence.
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 03:48:14 PM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:09:26 PM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 11:37:31 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 10:40:28 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 09:18:40 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 09:02:16 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism. The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings. As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.
Michaelg , you're an intelligent man and I always try to understand and respect your viewpoint, but how can you possibly say unionism has been a success🤦🏻♂️. When NI was founded 100 years ago the uk held onto, I think over 90% of the GDP of the island.
To make a simple analogy, Unionism has behaved liked a spoilt privileged child and let those UK advantages slip away. The unionist leadership again like a spoilt child basically have tried to bully their Irish neighbours in the north, and have been antagonistic and demeaning to their neighbours in the South, whilst demanding more from mummy and daddy. NI remains in the UK family but like most spoilt bullies, your current leadership still appears immature , contributing little to their family and has few friends, but unfortunately remains deluded . Surely it's Time to grow up and get real?
Much of unionism however remains the deluded bully , even as their best argument for the union , " at least we are better off than that backwater down south " has now also gone. All sides need to start looking to the future and stop hanging on to a woeful status quo for fear of something worse. Don't forget that any new arrangements on the island will continue to be heftily financed by the UK who will be keen to offload NI and would welcome even closer links with ROI, especially post Brexit. Unionism is in real trouble if their best hope is to persuade those they have bullied for years to join them in hanging on by their fingernails to a UK that they've sponged off for years, giving little back . How could intelligent people in the UK possibly want them, I mean even their best allies the Tories have shafted them . I've never shied away from admitting Irish nationalists contribution to this mess, but unionism needs to quickly develop the insight that the status quo sells their community woefully short. If intelligent unionists like yourself don't get this, and move the dinosaurs that are destroying your community, off the stage, then you'll lose the opportunity to optimise your influence in new arrangements.
Given the general tone of your post above, coupled with other posters advice for unionists to 'move back to Britain' or to bring out the machine guns as another poster suggested, I fear you will be a long time persuading more moderate unionists to throw their hat in the riing for a UI.
Criticising the perceived "tone" of my comment rather than the content, and coupling it with a comment to which I am clearly diametrically opposed , is selling yourself short Michaelg, and unfortunately that's a recurrent trait amongst many unionists. If you are not prepared to engage with people like me who clearly likes unionists and wants to improve a woeful status quo , then maybe you're closer to the dinosaurs that are holding your community back , than you would admit .?
Just because my desire would be for NI to stay within the UK, that does not make me 'closer to the dinosaurs'. You mentioned GDP etc, but these things can change over time. Although bouyant at the moment, the economy in the ROI was in poor health for much of the last 100 years, and indeed, had to be bailed out in recent times. You are going to have a different view, but my preference is to continue as part of the UK going forward. As I also mentioned, it is not soley a question about economic arguments. Other than the odd trip to watch the rugby in Dublin, or a holiday in Donegal, many unionists have little or no affinity with the ROI, be that watching gaelic games, watching RTE etc. That might not sound like much of a big deal to someone like you who embraces those aspects of Irish cultural life, but it may be part of the wider reasons why a lot of unionists aren't so keen on a UI.
Great to get that perspective and honesty. So many unionists are not keen to expose themselves to Irishness to which they have no affinity, but you want the Irish in the North who have been bullied by unionism for years to join with unionists in embracing Britishness? 🤦🏻♂️Are you serious .
The way to defeat bullying is to call it out , and show a better way. This will involve creativity in finding the best way of doing things . The key has to be moving away from an exclusive nationalistic view of things from both sides and being led by the true majority who realise that equality, respect, opportunity , health , education , quality of life are far more important than national affiliation. Unionists have had the chance to provide that in the North and have failed, so the status quo won't work. Perhaps MR's assessment is correct , SF ironically are now a massive barrier to a UI , as victory for republicans is too difficult for unionists to countenance . Could SF do a John Hume and put the country first (as in the whole island ) . The historical desire of republicans for a 32 county socialist republic is as far away as ever. An All-Island solution however is achievable . Do SF hold out for the former, or pragmatically help to achieve the latter ?
Not sure where I said that.
Presumably By wanting us remain part of the UK as it stands , that involves embracing Britishness . Can you understand how one of the reasons NI has failed is because it has given preference to Britishness . Even after the GFA which promoted equal status of identities , the DUP have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into what they ridiculously term "concessions ".
Why would you say that if you have not had to do that to date?
Are you serious?: State schools having British ethos, union flag on public buildings , royal naming of public institutions/buildings , 1000s of Marches celebrating defeat over neighbours , paying taxes to her majesty's government, celebration of NI100. Carson statue at Stormont , to name but a few.
We have put up with this for years, and will continue to do so , it doesn't keep most of us awake at night. I respect non-antagonistic British culture, but it's hypocrisy to expect me to put up with predominance of British culture on the one hand, yet you think that unionists having no affinity with Irishness is a reasonable impediment to progress to an All-Island(s) solution.
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
Considering many Unionists consider themselves to be Irish to some extent, why wouldn't they? Irishness relates to the island, not the state.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 11, 2021, 05:20:26 PM
I think its fair to say it wouldn't be first thing on many people's minds when they wake in the morning.
It's kind of a case of "that will be nice when it comes" but meanwhile let's get on with the normal things in life.
Two things the NO folk would express concern about are cost and violence.
Given events in the north and the brewing decision on BEPS it would be fair to say that the likelihood of a UI anytime soon took a serious backward step this week
Quote from: general_lee on April 11, 2021, 07:06:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
Considering many Unionists consider themselves to be Irish to some extent, why wouldn't they? Irishness relates to the island, not the state.
Considering what you say is true then it's a done deal, and this is a pointless conversation
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
A woman I used to work viewed the south as a completely foreign country. To be fair to her it was what she was brought up with to her you might as well be talking about somewhere in South America or the like. It is a school of thought.
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on April 11, 2021, 09:50:14 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 11, 2021, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
A woman I used to work viewed the south as a completely foreign country. To be fair to her it was what she was brought up with to her you might as well be talking about somewhere in South America or the like. It is a school of thought.
Worked with a woman like that too. She went to Rosses Point for a weekend break once and told me about it as if she was offering a hand across the barricades but also that it was a once in a lifetime excursion.
A lot of people here don't call England foreign . Always rags me. Going "foreign" and going to England are completely different things. If it's not Ireland it's foreign and you are a foreigner imo
Most people just say they are going to France or Spain or England.. who uses the term foreign?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 09:58:20 PM
Most people just say they are going to France or Spain or England.. who uses the term foreign?
Sure "abroad" can mean the next field over. "He's abroad in the fort field" :)
I would use the term abroad but not for England Scotland Wales and certainly not for "down south".
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 09:58:20 PM
Most people just say they are going to France or Spain or England.. who uses the term foreign?
Honestly MR2 it's nearly all that is used in Derry when taking about going to the continent for summer hols. Maybe just a Derry thing . " You going foreign this year" "naw Donegal again the year"
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 11, 2021, 10:54:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 09:58:20 PM
Most people just say they are going to France or Spain or England.. who uses the term foreign?
Honestly MR2 it's nearly all that is used in Derry when taking about going to the continent for summer hols. Maybe just a Derry thing . " You going foreign this year" "naw Donegal again the year"
Can't remember the last time I heard it in fairness
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 11:14:13 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 11, 2021, 10:54:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 09:58:20 PM
Most people just say they are going to France or Spain or England.. who uses the term foreign?
Honestly MR2 it's nearly all that is used in Derry when taking about going to the continent for summer hols. Maybe just a Derry thing . " You going foreign this year" "naw Donegal again the year"
Can't remember the last time I heard it in fairness
Out of interest, why would someone from Derry go to Donegal on holidays? You wouldn't find many from Mayo going to Galway on their holidays for example!
Quote from: Tubberman on April 11, 2021, 11:16:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 11:14:13 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 11, 2021, 10:54:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 09:58:20 PM
Most people just say they are going to France or Spain or England.. who uses the term foreign?
Honestly MR2 it's nearly all that is used in Derry when taking about going to the continent for summer hols. Maybe just a Derry thing . " You going foreign this year" "naw Donegal again the year"
Can't remember the last time I heard it in fairness
Out of interest, why would someone from Derry go to Donegal on holidays? You wouldn't find many from Mayo going to Galway on their holidays for example!
The beaches,the language and the relaxation , people very rarely go eastways. Where did mayo people go before foreign hols became the norm. I wasn't outside Ireland until 1999. I've never been in England or Scotland in my life other than a one hour work visit to Macclesfield.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 11:14:13 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 11, 2021, 10:54:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 09:58:20 PM
Most people just say they are going to France or Spain or England.. who uses the term foreign?
Honestly MR2 it's nearly all that is used in Derry when taking about going to the continent for summer hols. Maybe just a Derry thing . " You going foreign this year" "naw Donegal again the year"
Can't remember the last time I heard it in fairness
I mind going into the chippy on the ormeau road in my student days and asking for a red fish supper, nobody had a clue. We have our own wee ways up here to be fair. Not getting foreign holiday this year either by looks of it. Bd the free state chocolate again
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
I know I'm long winded but did you actually read my post😂
First of all , I'm talking about unionists not Protestants.
Secondly I don't expect anybody to have an affinity to anything , but I don't think my lack of affinity to Britishness , or michaelg's lack of affinity to many aspects of Irishness should be an impediment to finding a solution for these islands going forward . I think mutual respect and challenging each other's opinions and cultures ( as long as it's not aggressive , antagonistic culture from either side) is healthier than trying to mould everybody into a neutral culture. Calling out dysfunctional behaviour of my neighbours doesn't mean I don't understand or respect them.
Quote from: 6th sam on April 12, 2021, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
I know I'm long winded but did you actually read my post😂
First of all , I'm talking about unionists not Protestants.
Secondly I don't expect anybody to have an affinity to anything , but I don't think my lack of affinity to Britishness , or michaelg's lack of affinity to many aspects of Irishness should be an impediment to finding a solution for these islands going forward . I think mutual respect and challenging each other's opinions and cultures ( as long as it's not aggressive , antagonistic culture from either side) is healthier than trying to mould everybody into a neutral culture. Calling out dysfunctional behaviour of my neighbours doesn't mean I don't understand or respect them.
By your argument then, some sort of accomodation could be reached within the current constitutional arrangement too.
Quote from: Tubberman on April 11, 2021, 10:05:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 09:58:20 PM
Most people just say they are going to France or Spain or England.. who uses the term foreign?
Sure "abroad" can mean the next field over. "He's abroad in the fort field" :)
That's from thall, in Irish
You can can be thall sa phairc or thall i Boston.
An accommodation could have been reached, and in the noughties it looked like it would be. However, unionism through its political representatives have demonstrated that it's not just the union they want to maintain. It has to be the union and the north has to be a place where any hint of Irishness is fought against and described as a 'concession'.
The flag protests and the politicising of the Irish language act has shown a whole new generation of post GFA nationalists that the constitutional status quo just won't work.
Quote from: michaelg on April 12, 2021, 07:52:37 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 12, 2021, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
I know I'm long winded but did you actually read my post😂
First of all , I'm talking about unionists not Protestants.
Secondly I don't expect anybody to have an affinity to anything , but I don't think my lack of affinity to Britishness , or michaelg's lack of affinity to many aspects of Irishness should be an impediment to finding a solution for these islands going forward . I think mutual respect and challenging each other's opinions and cultures ( as long as it's not aggressive , antagonistic culture from either side) is healthier than trying to mould everybody into a neutral culture. Calling out dysfunctional behaviour of my neighbours doesn't mean I don't understand or respect them.
By your argument then, some sort of accomodation could be reached within the current constitutional arrangement too.
Absolutely, Everything's on the table for future constitutional arrangements . But I can't see , (and you're welcome to convince me otherwise) , how the status quo is an option, as it's been a disaster. In my opinion , The mistake that we are all making is viewing this in a binary way. Ie an extension of current 26 ROI to 32 , versus the status quo. Either options involve 1 million people having to suck it up in a constitutional arrangement they don't like. If NI has shown us anything 100s of 1000s with no affinity is a recipe for disaster, particularly if they are discriminated against. Unfortunately for many traditional unionists , the GFA gave unionists an opportunity to make this place work, but the DUP blew it, by being ungenerous, unneighbourly , immature and anti-Irish. Why should unionist leaders continue to be given chances to make this work ?
The GFA stands as an international agreement of some renown, as it has been successful in reducing violence, but it's positive effects have stagnated, and we now need to be mature enough on both these islands to get our heads together in focussing on the generic things that matter most , ie economy, health, rights etc. We can not continue to be dragged back by unreasonable positions of the DUP. They are selling you short , michaelg, and reasonable unionists like you have to sideline them once for all. The British affiliation here is respected by most people I know , and I would have no interest in any new arrangement that doesn't respect that. What astounds me however that many from a unionist position resist any all-island context , which they feel won't value their Britishness , but they're happy enough for their neighbours to continue to live in an NI arrangement that doesn't value their Irishness. It needs to dawn on all of us very quickly that a continuation of NI as we know it , is as unrealistic a solution as the binary opposite a 32 county Socialist republic. Tbf , the biggest barrier to mature progress in exploring new options is DUP unionism, as a deluded DUP think that a continuation of a failed NI is a realistic long term solution, when it clearly isn't.
Quote from: east down gael on April 12, 2021, 08:55:42 AM
An accommodation could have been reached, and in the noughties it looked like it would be. However, unionism through its political representatives have demonstrated that it's not just the union they want to maintain. It has to be the union and the north has to be a place where any hint of Irishness is fought against and described as a 'concession'.
The flag protests and the politicising of the Irish language act has shown a whole new generation of post GFA nationalists that the constitutional status quo just won't work.
1. The DUP never really bought into the GFA.
2. Then their identity is based on material things like flags and not being Irish. This is a huge problem
3. Plus their biggest fear was being abandoned by London and it happened.
4. And Unionist leadership is very poor.
5. The GFA recognised the fragiling of NI and Brexit walked all over it.
Quote from: 6th sam on April 12, 2021, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 12, 2021, 07:52:37 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 12, 2021, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
I know I'm long winded but did you actually read my post😂
First of all , I'm talking about unionists not Protestants.
Secondly I don't expect anybody to have an affinity to anything , but I don't think my lack of affinity to Britishness , or michaelg's lack of affinity to many aspects of Irishness should be an impediment to finding a solution for these islands going forward . I think mutual respect and challenging each other's opinions and cultures ( as long as it's not aggressive , antagonistic culture from either side) is healthier than trying to mould everybody into a neutral culture. Calling out dysfunctional behaviour of my neighbours doesn't mean I don't understand or respect them.
By your argument then, some sort of accomodation could be reached within the current constitutional arrangement too.
Absolutely, Everything's on the table for future constitutional arrangements . But I can't see , (and you're welcome to convince me otherwise) , how the status quo is an option, as it's been a disaster. In my opinion , The mistake that we are all making is viewing this in a binary way. Ie an extension of current 26 ROI to 32 , versus the status quo. Either options involve 1 million people having to suck it up in a constitutional arrangement they don't like. If NI has shown us anything 100s of 1000s with no affinity is a recipe for disaster, particularly if they are discriminated against. Unfortunately for many traditional unionists , the GFA gave unionists an opportunity to make this place work, but the DUP blew it, by being ungenerous, unneighbourly , immature and anti-Irish. Why should unionist leaders continue to be given chances to make this work ?
The GFA stands as an international agreement of some renown, as it has been successful in reducing violence, but it's positive effects have stagnated, and we now need to be mature enough on both these islands to get our heads together in focussing on the generic things that matter most , ie economy, health, rights etc. We can not continue to be dragged back by unreasonable positions of the DUP. They are selling you short , michaelg, and reasonable unionists like you have to sideline them once for all. The British affiliation here is respected by most people I know , and I would have no interest in any new arrangement that doesn't respect that. What astounds me however that many from a unionist position resist any all-island context , which they feel won't value their Britishness , but they're happy enough for their neighbours to continue to live in an NI arrangement that doesn't value their Irishness. It needs to dawn on all of us very quickly that a continuation of NI as we know it , is as unrealistic a solution as the binary opposite a 32 county Socialist republic. Tbf , the biggest barrier to mature progress in exploring new options is DUP unionism, as a deluded DUP think that a continuation of a failed NI is a realistic long term solution, when it clearly isn't.
So if a border poll was one and it had remain to be part of the uk you'd be happy with the vote?
Quote from: dublin7 on April 09, 2021, 08:37:26 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 09, 2021, 08:31:52 PM
A point to note here, throwing a missile at police is criminal. Breaking Covid regs is like getting a speeding ticket. Perspective please.
A point to note here, Covid is a highly contagious and potentially fatal virus. Large gatherings should not be organized to for health reasons.
Large gatherings are a breeding ground for Covid and have led to major outbreaks. Put that into perspective
I am not condoning it, but perspective is required and the sheer and utter whataboutery regarding multiple breaches on all sides is depressing.
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 11, 2021, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 11, 2021, 12:21:43 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 10, 2021, 11:36:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 10, 2021, 09:25:23 PM
Serious question...
What percentage of the Unionist/Protestant population are "angry" over the Protocol?
What percentage are out rioting, attacking Police, trying to attack Nationalists etc?
Very very low percentage Ross, most unionists are reasonable . The problem for us is that they value the union and therefore many ( understandably ) back the main unionist party as the best way of maintaining the union. The real hardliners tend to be older fundamentalist types , and an easily led section of the "Protestant" working class. Most unionists favour the union for socio-economic reasons, and if there are sound socioeconomic reasons for a UI they could be persuaded. It would suit the British and Irish governments to create favourable socioeconomic for a UI. Let's be honest no Englishman with a brain wouldn't be delighted to offload Ni, to the extent that they'd be happy for GB to part finance it. A trouble free north with an economic link to England would make sense even to partitionists in ROI. For me the biggest step along the path is to sideline the DUP by giving unionists a middle ground alternative in the Alliance ( some unionists already copping on to this) . SF need to realise ( and I think they are already starting this) that if they genuinely want to become the largest party in the North they are going to have to soften further, show more remorse . Finucane epitomised this best in North belfast
A very reasonable post. Whilst socio-economic reasons are undoutedly a major reason why unionists favour the union, it's not the be all and end all. A sense of comfort with the status quo and fear of the unkown are the main reasons why unionsists would be reluctant to ever vote for a UI. Coupled with the oft mentioned 'siege mentality' and a sense of giving in to SF/IRA after their 30 year terrorist campaign, it's unlikely that small 'u' unionists who vote Alliance will ever vote for a UI, as many on this board seem to think that they will.
Agree that the " comfort of the status quo " is a factor, unbelievably, as the status quo has been a disaster by most parameters: large percentage of the population having no affinity to the state, economic regression, large public sector, segregation , sectarianism, racism . The status quo is not a viable option and those unionists who are hanging onto the status quo are doing themselves no favours. If NI didn't work with a large unionist majority , it ain't go to work with a unionist minority. An all island solution with Britishness enshrined in the constitution is the most likely scenario. NI possibly might have worked if respect was shown to the minority but unfortunately for unionists that opportunity has been lost .
Again, you don't seem to get the fundamental point / essence of unionism. The main parameter by which it has been a success, is that NI has remained as part of the United Kingdom, with the benefits that that brings. As for your final sentence, as things stand there is likely still a significant number from the nationalist community who would vote to remain in the UK, so there is no guarantee of a UI happening in the immediate future.
You are right there is no guarantee and the biggest obstacle at the moment is from within nationalism both in the north and also in the south. There is plenty of commentary but little in the way of a strategy or plan. However for nationalists who currently would edge towards not voting yes they can be persuaded. I am in that group, the more unionism denies any equality for those of us that are Irish, the more the union flag and the Ulster Banner are waved at us and calls for a hard land border made, and language rights are denied the easier it is to persuade.
Quote from: michaelg on April 12, 2021, 07:52:37 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 12, 2021, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
I know I'm long winded but did you actually read my post😂
First of all , I'm talking about unionists not Protestants.
Secondly I don't expect anybody to have an affinity to anything , but I don't think my lack of affinity to Britishness , or michaelg's lack of affinity to many aspects of Irishness should be an impediment to finding a solution for these islands going forward . I think mutual respect and challenging each other's opinions and cultures ( as long as it's not aggressive , antagonistic culture from either side) is healthier than trying to mould everybody into a neutral culture. Calling out dysfunctional behaviour of my neighbours doesn't mean I don't understand or respect them.
By your argument then, some sort of accomodation could be reached within the current constitutional arrangement too.
Unionism had that opportunity for 100 years and squandered it. I grew up in a state to which I had no love, no allegiance and was very aware of my minority status, I was reminded of it everyday. What makes you think they'd change now?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2021, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 12, 2021, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 12, 2021, 07:52:37 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 12, 2021, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
I know I'm long winded but did you actually read my post😂
First of all , I'm talking about unionists not Protestants.
Secondly I don't expect anybody to have an affinity to anything , but I don't think my lack of affinity to Britishness , or michaelg's lack of affinity to many aspects of Irishness should be an impediment to finding a solution for these islands going forward . I think mutual respect and challenging each other's opinions and cultures ( as long as it's not aggressive , antagonistic culture from either side) is healthier than trying to mould everybody into a neutral culture. Calling out dysfunctional behaviour of my neighbours doesn't mean I don't understand or respect them.
By your argument then, some sort of accomodation could be reached within the current constitutional arrangement too.
Absolutely, Everything's on the table for future constitutional arrangements . But I can't see , (and you're welcome to convince me otherwise) , how the status quo is an option, as it's been a disaster. In my opinion , The mistake that we are all making is viewing this in a binary way. Ie an extension of current 26 ROI to 32 , versus the status quo. Either options involve 1 million people having to suck it up in a constitutional arrangement they don't like. If NI has shown us anything 100s of 1000s with no affinity is a recipe for disaster, particularly if they are discriminated against. Unfortunately for many traditional unionists , the GFA gave unionists an opportunity to make this place work, but the DUP blew it, by being ungenerous, unneighbourly , immature and anti-Irish. Why should unionist leaders continue to be given chances to make this work ?
The GFA stands as an international agreement of some renown, as it has been successful in reducing violence, but it's positive effects have stagnated, and we now need to be mature enough on both these islands to get our heads together in focussing on the generic things that matter most , ie economy, health, rights etc. We can not continue to be dragged back by unreasonable positions of the DUP. They are selling you short , michaelg, and reasonable unionists like you have to sideline them once for all. The British affiliation here is respected by most people I know , and I would have no interest in any new arrangement that doesn't respect that. What astounds me however that many from a unionist position resist any all-island context , which they feel won't value their Britishness , but they're happy enough for their neighbours to continue to live in an NI arrangement that doesn't value their Irishness. It needs to dawn on all of us very quickly that a continuation of NI as we know it , is as unrealistic a solution as the binary opposite a 32 county Socialist republic. Tbf , the biggest barrier to mature progress in exploring new options is DUP unionism, as a deluded DUP think that a continuation of a failed NI is a realistic long term solution, when it clearly isn't.
So if a border poll was one and it had remain to be part of the uk you'd be happy with the vote?
I have never been happy with the formation of the 6 counties which was contrived on a sectarian headcount .
However the GFA which was agreed on a strong majority across the island, established the principle of consent within those 6 counties. This was a generous compromise by republicans on the island , as it removed the claim on the 6 counties which was democratically based on the last all-ireland election in 1919, but for the sake of peace, most republicans were prepared to swallow that.
This electorally mandated international agreement , allows for a referendum on a border poll, and All things being fair and equal, I would accept the result of that poll.
For what it's worth I'd be against a border poll on binary options , at this stage. The focus must be NI , UK and ROI , with international support, maturely discussing future options. This could include the binary NI v 32 county republic options but also other creative, less nuclear options , which as the GFA showed could actually secure "cross community " and international support .
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 12, 2021, 09:57:06 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 12, 2021, 07:52:37 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 12, 2021, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
I know I'm long winded but did you actually read my post😂
First of all , I'm talking about unionists not Protestants.
Secondly I don't expect anybody to have an affinity to anything , but I don't think my lack of affinity to Britishness , or michaelg's lack of affinity to many aspects of Irishness should be an impediment to finding a solution for these islands going forward . I think mutual respect and challenging each other's opinions and cultures ( as long as it's not aggressive , antagonistic culture from either side) is healthier than trying to mould everybody into a neutral culture. Calling out dysfunctional behaviour of my neighbours doesn't mean I don't understand or respect them.
By your argument then, some sort of accomodation could be reached within the current constitutional arrangement too.
Unionism had that opportunity for 100 years and squandered it. I grew up in a state to which I had no love, no allegiance and was very aware of my minority status, I was reminded of it everyday. What makes you think they'd change now?
I absolutely agree with you. Hopefully the intorudction of an Irish Language Act, and the replacement of the lovely Arlene with someone with a bit more nous, might have some impact. Sadly, at present there are no obvious candidates to replace her who appear to see the benefits of what a more pragmatic approach might bring
Quote from: michaelg on April 12, 2021, 10:41:42 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 12, 2021, 09:57:06 AM
Quote from: michaelg on April 12, 2021, 07:52:37 AM
Quote from: 6th sam on April 12, 2021, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
I know I'm long winded but did you actually read my post😂
First of all , I'm talking about unionists not Protestants.
Secondly I don't expect anybody to have an affinity to anything , but I don't think my lack of affinity to Britishness , or michaelg's lack of affinity to many aspects of Irishness should be an impediment to finding a solution for these islands going forward . I think mutual respect and challenging each other's opinions and cultures ( as long as it's not aggressive , antagonistic culture from either side) is healthier than trying to mould everybody into a neutral culture. Calling out dysfunctional behaviour of my neighbours doesn't mean I don't understand or respect them.
By your argument then, some sort of accomodation could be reached within the current constitutional arrangement too.
Unionism had that opportunity for 100 years and squandered it. I grew up in a state to which I had no love, no allegiance and was very aware of my minority status, I was reminded of it everyday. What makes you think they'd change now?
I absolutely agree with you. Hopefully the intorudction of an Irish Language Act, and the replacement of the lovely Arlene with someone with a bit more nous, might have some impact. Sadly, at present there are no obvious candidates to replace her who appear to see the benefits of what a more pragmatic approach might bring
ILA, that old chestnut that SF took a wee interest in for their own political gain. Paddy O Tiarnaigh and CNG still not clicked on they were used and abused?
Sam have you any suggestions for other options than Status Quo or 32 County Republic?
Why not just have unionists living in the North who are looked after by the British government and the Nationalist looked after by the Dall?
Perfect set up, PSNI in the unionist areas and Garda in the Nationalist areas.. Unionist getting the DLA and all the free NHS (can split the hospitals ;) ) and the nationalists can pay for the prescriptions and doctor and hospital appointments.
Nationalists can earn more money and pay more tax, the unionists can get less money and pay less tax, so it evens itself out, everyone is a winner here.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2021, 11:43:50 AM
Nationalists can earn more money and pay more tax, the unionists can get less money and pay less tax, so it evens itself out, everyone is a winner here.
You do know that on the median salary in the 6 counties that deductions (most social insurance) are almost £1000 more than the person on the equivalent salary in the ROI, although this is of course below the median.
And we don't have to pay for public hospital appointments ....
Although like the North you might have a long wait...
46% of us get free GP services.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 12, 2021, 12:15:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2021, 11:43:50 AM
Nationalists can earn more money and pay more tax, the unionists can get less money and pay less tax, so it evens itself out, everyone is a winner here.
You do know that on the median salary in the 6 counties that deductions (most social insurance) are almost £1000 more than the person on the equivalent salary in the ROI, although this is of course below the median.
What's the % difference between the median salaries?
Quote from: Rossfan on April 12, 2021, 12:47:06 PM
And we don't have to pay for public hospital appointments ....
Although like the North you might have a long wait...
46% of us get free GP services.
Work colleague says she pays 50 quid for doctors appointment and if she has to go to hospital its 100 quid.. Maybe she's full of shit
Are prescriptions free in the south?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 11, 2021, 09:55:58 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on April 11, 2021, 09:50:14 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 11, 2021, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 11, 2021, 05:31:37 PM
Why should a Protestant have any affinity to another country? To them the south is just another county on the same land mass.
I think it's you that has a problem with understanding your neighbours.
A woman I used to work viewed the south as a completely foreign country. To be fair to her it was what she was brought up with to her you might as well be talking about somewhere in South America or the like. It is a school of thought.
Worked with a woman like that too. She went to Rosses Point for a weekend break once and told me about it as if she was offering a hand across the barricades but also that it was a once in a lifetime excursion.
A lot of people here don't call England foreign . Always rags me. Going "foreign" and going to England are completely different things. If it's not Ireland it's foreign and you are a foreigner imo
Is that really worth getting "ragged" about? There are better things you could be doing with your time
Whatever happens next will be governed by the GFA. I think if SF and DUP were to take another look at the agreement they will see a lot of things they don't like. If they try to wriggle out of GFA they will see that the other signatories (Dublin, London, Washington and Brussels) won't let them.
The referendum in the north will be on the same day as the referendum in the south. The referendum will be binary. Voters on the north will have a Yes/No decision to make on a specific question. The detail of the proposal will have to be spelled out before the vote. If voters are concerned about a UI acting as trigger for trouble in the North they will get to see the detail of the accommodation for unionists up front. If they are concerned about the cost of taking on NI they will see this before they vote. It's clear that citizens in the south will have to give up some sovereignty. That too will be spelled out.
There is a huge amount of work to be done in advance.
I thought O'Neill struck the correct tone last week on the Prince Philip death. SF will have to work out that unionist baiting will get them nowhere. Least of all in any RoI referendum
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2021, 01:19:59 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 12, 2021, 12:47:06 PM
And we don't have to pay for public hospital appointments ....
Although like the North you might have a long wait...
46% of us get free GP services.
Work colleague says she pays 50 quid for doctors appointment and if she has to go to hospital its 100 quid.. Maybe she's full of shit
Are prescriptions free in the south?
I'd gladly pay £50 to see GP. I'd also pay to get an operation done. At this minute in time our NHS is fucked. Getting an appointment for anything is impossible.
You only have to look at that dashboard. The numbers in hospital with covid has reduced massively and yet the occupancy is sitting in the very high 90s. It is creaking and only seems to ever get worse with less and less funding.
The consolidation of GPs practises mean that appointments just become more and more of a nightmare to get too.
Quote from: seafoid on April 12, 2021, 01:12:34 PM
]What's the % difference between the median salaries?
2019 full time employees (2020 is all over the place)
NI £28000 https://www.nisra.gov.uk/statistics/labour-market-and-social-welfare/annual-survey-hours-and-earnings
ROI €48,946 https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2019/
so about 50% higher in the 26 counties on these numbers.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 12, 2021, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 12, 2021, 01:12:34 PM
]What's the % difference between the median salaries?
2019 full time employees (2020 is all over the place)
NI £28000 https://www.nisra.gov.uk/statistics/labour-market-and-social-welfare/annual-survey-hours-and-earnings
ROI €48,946 https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2019/
so about 50% higher in the 26 counties on these numbers.
That is incredible.
In the 50s even in Crossmaglen Nationalists would concede that NI was better than the South because of social supports.
Now the South is far wealthier.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 12, 2021, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 12, 2021, 01:12:34 PM
]What's the % difference between the median salaries?
2019 full time employees (2020 is all over the place)
NI £28000 https://www.nisra.gov.uk/statistics/labour-market-and-social-welfare/annual-survey-hours-and-earnings
ROI €48,946 https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2019/
so about 50% higher in the 26 counties on these numbers.
So this is the median pay scales? What's the National averages
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 12, 2021, 02:42:51 PM
You only have to look at that dashboard. The numbers in hospital with covid has reduced massively and yet the occupancy is sitting in the very high 90s. It is creaking and only seems to ever get worse with less and less funding.
The consolidation of GPs practises mean that appointments just become more and more of a nightmare to get too.
Even before the pandemic you wouldn't get to see your GP without a weeks wait
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2021, 01:19:59 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 12, 2021, 12:47:06 PM
And we don't have to pay for public hospital appointments ....
Although like the North you might have a long wait...
46% of us get free GP services.
Work colleague says she pays 50 quid for doctors appointment and if she has to go to hospital its 100 quid.. Maybe she's full of shit
Are prescriptions free in the south?
54% of us have to pay to see a GP.
A&E is €100 unless you have a doctor's letter (or brought in by ambulance?). No charge with a doc's letter.
39% of us get almost free prescriptions (50c per item I think)
The rest of us only get them free above €114 per month.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 12, 2021, 03:11:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2021, 01:19:59 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 12, 2021, 12:47:06 PM
And we don't have to pay for public hospital appointments ....
Although like the North you might have a long wait...
46% of us get free GP services.
Work colleague says she pays 50 quid for doctors appointment and if she has to go to hospital its 100 quid.. Maybe she's full of shit
Are prescriptions free in the south?
54% of us have to pay to see a GP.
A&E is €100 unless you have a doctor's letter (or brought in by ambulance?). No charge with a doc's letter.
39% of us get almost free prescriptions (50c per item I think)
The rest of us only get them free above €114 per month.
So people pay for them? Ok.. Thanks for that
Quote from: seafoid on April 12, 2021, 02:57:59 PM
That is incredible.
In the 50s even in Crossmaglen Nationalists would concede that NI was better than the South because of social supports.
Now the South is far wealthier.
I think wages were always at least as high in the south, but there few no jobs and fewer socials support (since the taxation on the few jobs couldn't support them).
Now even I would not remember the 1950s, but in 1970 (say) you had social supports in NI that have gone backwards in the meantime. For instance, when I was a child we looked after an aged relative who lived nearby. She had a rota of home helps coming in and out, district nurse to call by etc. Nowadays it is hard to get those services in NI and you probably have as good a chance in the 26 counties.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 12, 2021, 03:39:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 12, 2021, 02:57:59 PM
That is incredible.
In the 50s even in Crossmaglen Nationalists would concede that NI was better than the South because of social supports.
Now the South is far wealthier.
I think wages were always at least as high in the south, but there few no jobs and fewer socials support (since the taxation on the few jobs couldn't support them).
Now even I would not remember the 1950s, but in 1970 (say) you had social supports in NI that have gone backwards in the meantime. For instance, when I was a child we looked after an aged relative who lived nearby. She had a rota of home helps coming in and out, district nurse to call by etc. Nowadays it is hard to get those services in NI and you probably have as good a chance in the 26 counties.
Care workers in the homes have diminished in the north?
I regularly see them in my area with the elderly ones, by the same token I know ones that refuse them. I think if you want home help and fit the criteria then its available.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 12, 2021, 03:39:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 12, 2021, 02:57:59 PM
That is incredible.
In the 50s even in Crossmaglen Nationalists would concede that NI was better than the South because of social supports.
Now the South is far wealthier.
I think wages were always at least as high in the south, but there few no jobs and fewer socials support (since the taxation on the few jobs couldn't support them).
Now even I would not remember the 1950s, but in 1970 (say) you had social supports in NI that have gone backwards in the meantime. For instance, when I was a child we looked after an aged relative who lived nearby. She had a rota of home helps coming in and out, district nurse to call by etc. Nowadays it is hard to get those services in NI and you probably have as good a chance in the 26 counties.
Care packages exist in the north ok.
Care workers do home visits 3 to 4 times a day, 365 days in the year.
Getting a home GP visit is a thing of the past though.
Quote from: johnnycool on April 13, 2021, 08:50:22 AM
Care packages exist in the north ok.
Care workers do home visits 3 to 4 times a day, 365 days in the year.
Getting a home GP visit is a thing of the past though.
These things do exist, of course. But as friend of mine who was a social worker suggested that they were harder to get than years ago, perhaps because there are more old people. The basic point is that years ago these services were clearly superior in the 6 counties whereas nowadays there mightn't be much difference.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 13, 2021, 11:00:03 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on April 13, 2021, 08:50:22 AM
Care packages exist in the north ok.
Care workers do home visits 3 to 4 times a day, 365 days in the year.
Getting a home GP visit is a thing of the past though.
These things do exist, of course. But as friend of mine who was a social worker suggested that they were harder to get than years ago, perhaps because there are more old people. The basic point is that years ago these services were clearly superior in the 6 counties whereas nowadays there mightn't be much difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IobNcpiwpSc
Why is any of this on the SDLP thread?
I see Eastwood calling for vaccine certs for hospitality......
Quote from: Armagh18 on September 23, 2021, 04:51:29 PM
I see Eastwood calling for vaccine certs for hospitality......
Yes, much like in the South, pressure needs put on anti-vaxers to do their bit for society . They can get all hysterical on social media, but this needs to be done. Anyone with freedom and civil liberty issues can holiday in Solamia / Syria for a month to see what freedom / civil liberties, or lack of actually is.
Quote from: Armagh18 on September 23, 2021, 04:51:29 PM
I see Eastwood calling for vaccine certs for hospitality......
I'd agree with him on that.
Yes, you can chose not to get the vaccine as is your right but then don't gurn when you're required not to enter a private establishment due to the very decision you've made.
It's unfair on staff and other patrons.
Why is it unfair, is it true that both vaccinated and unvaccinated can pass it on and carry it?
Genuinely asking
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 25, 2021, 01:44:23 PM
Why is it unfair, is it true that both vaccinated and unvaccinated can pass it on and carry it?
Genuinely asking
People driving sober and with a skinful of pints can both still crash into you, but the probability of the second doing it is higher than the first.
Another key point is that if the unvaccinated person gets covid they're much more likely to require hospital treatment. And given the pressures on health service it makes sense to try to reduce the spread of covid in these people.
Quote from: Redhand Santa on September 25, 2021, 02:31:48 PM
Another key point is that if the unvaccinated person gets covid they're much more likely to require hospital treatment. And given the pressures on health service it makes sense to try to reduce the spread of covid in these people.
I understand that, no problem, but it's the pressure on care home workers, teachers etc, I don't get
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 25, 2021, 03:04:42 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on September 25, 2021, 02:31:48 PM
Another key point is that if the unvaccinated person gets covid they're much more likely to require hospital treatment. And given the pressures on health service it makes sense to try to reduce the spread of covid in these people.
I understand that, no problem, but it's the pressure on care home workers, teachers etc, I don't get
What about the pressure on the health service? Anti-vaxers were absolute idiots before Covid struck, they continue to be idiots now, there's just more of them. Its all about 'me' with them, selfish in the extreme.
The run down of the NHS is a separate issue, but I'm simply asking why are people being pressured into getting the vaccine if everyone can still pass/carry it???
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 25, 2021, 03:38:23 PM
The run down of the NHS is a separate issue, but I'm simply asking why are people being pressured into getting the vaccine if everyone can still pass/carry it???
Surely this a wind up?
Vaccine passports won't happen, the Colin Neill and Hospitality Ulster have the DUP by the nuts.
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 25, 2021, 03:38:23 PM
The run down of the NHS is a separate issue, but I'm simply asking why are people being pressured into getting the vaccine if everyone can still pass/carry it???
The run down of the nhs is not a seperate issue. Hospitals are running over capacity because of Covid patients. The vast majority of those patients are unvaccinated . Vaccinations are a massive factor in protecting people from Covid symptoms and keeping them out of hospitals. If you don't take a vaccine and get Covid and end up in hospital , you are overburdening an already stretched NHS. Because many people are still not getting vaccinated it is prolonging the direct and indirect effects of this virus. If you don't take the vaccine , and/or worst still promote antivacc propaganda,(against very strongly evidenced based medical advice, you are ill-informed selfish and reckless, imho
Vaccination may be a factor, "massive" is a big statement. There's also other things like obesity, insulin resistance, general metabolic health, Vit D, K2, zinc status and probably many more. But not much specific education in these areas. If ever there was a time to go at the obesity crisis it's now!
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 25, 2021, 03:38:23 PM
The run down of the NHS is a separate issue, but I'm simply asking why are people being pressured into getting the vaccine if everyone can still pass/carry it???
It's hard to believe that a small section of society still need to ask this question!
Because you are far far less likely to catch it and pass it on if you are vaccinated.
What's so difficult to understand??
Quote from: Last Man on September 27, 2021, 12:27:27 PM
Vaccination may be a factor, "massive" is a big statement. There's also other things like obesity, insulin resistance, general metabolic health, Vit D, K2, zinc status and probably many more. But not much specific education in these areas. If ever there was a time to go at the obesity crisis it's now!
Two people I know who've been hit hard with Covid, one does triathlons and wasn't vaccinated, ended up in hospital and still isn't right and that's 6 weeks plus later, the other was fully vaccinated, in training for the London Marathon and was up to 20 mile runs, she also ended up in hospital and got pneumonia out of it. Her consultant told her that if she hadn't been vaccinated he felt she would have been a goner.
Being fit and well is obviously better than being obese and the likes but it's no guarantee either.
FFS people give yourself a fighting chance and get vaccinated.
Quote from: johnnycool on September 27, 2021, 03:04:04 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 27, 2021, 12:27:27 PM
Vaccination may be a factor, "massive" is a big statement. There's also other things like obesity, insulin resistance, general metabolic health, Vit D, K2, zinc status and probably many more. But not much specific education in these areas. If ever there was a time to go at the obesity crisis it's now!
Two people I know who've been hit hard with Covid, one does triathlons and wasn't vaccinated, ended up in hospital and still isn't right and that's 6 weeks plus later, the other was fully vaccinated, in training for the London Marathon and was up to 20 mile runs, she also ended up in hospital and got pneumonia out of it. Her consultant told her that if she hadn't been vaccinated he felt she would have been a goner.
Being fit and well is obviously better than being obese and the likes but it's no guarantee either.
FFS people give yourself a fighting chance and get vaccinated.
Endurance athletes are known to be more susceptible to respiratory infections.
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 12:39:00 PM
Once I know the long term risks are minimal on a new vaccine created differently from every other vaccine I have taken, I will happily take it. The period is about 4/5 yrs of evidence that there is no long term implications and thats being generous. As yet there is no evidence established to reassure me. I know I am at risk, with my age profile and fitness but my risk is really minimal, but its still there and I am aware of that. I practise social distancing every day and hand washing etc very regularly. I am under the age of 50, fit, not over weight and have no under lying health conditions so my risk is minimal.
Fine, so long as you stay out of society in the meantime. Do you?
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 12:39:00 PM
Once I know the long term risks are minimal on a new vaccine created differently from every other vaccine I have taken, I will happily take it. The period is about 4/5 yrs of evidence that there is no long term implications and thats being generous. As yet there is no evidence established to reassure me. I know I am at risk, with my age profile and fitness but my risk is really minimal, but its still there and I am aware of that. I practise social distancing every day and hand washing etc very regularly. I am under the age of 50, fit, not over weight and have no under lying health conditions so my risk is minimal.
I'm sure lots of the people that won't take the vaccine drink alcohol, smoke, take drugs and eat too much sugar. They will blithely put all kinds of crap into their body over a long period of time that have long term implications for their health, but seemingly that is nothing to worry about. Ask them to take a vaccine and suddenly they become extremely conscientious about their health and will do all of their own research, finding "
alternative experts" to inform their decision-making.
Most of this thinking is selfish, egotistical and narcissistic nonsense. This is a public health issue and public health is not just about individual risk. It is about collective risk. While the vaccine might not make much difference to some individuals (and I doubt anyone can say with confidence if they are a person for whom the vaccine isn't necessary), when you have high levels of uptake its benefit for the collective is much greater.
Vaccine passports can't come quick enough. You'll soon see this principled nonsense go out the window when these "vaccine hesitators" are refused entry to pubs and restaurants. All of a sudden, their "need to be reassured" will be dropped.
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 12:39:00 PM
Once I know the long term risks are minimal on a new vaccine created differently from every other vaccine I have taken, I will happily take it. The period is about 4/5 yrs of evidence that there is no long term implications and thats being generous. As yet there is no evidence established to reassure me. I know I am at risk, with my age profile and fitness but my risk is really minimal, but its still there and I am aware of that. I practise social distancing every day and hand washing etc very regularly. I am under the age of 50, fit, not over weight and have no under lying health conditions so my risk is minimal.
Where does the "4/5 years of evidence" come from. Did you make that up? Utter nonsense.
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 12:39:00 PM
Once I know the long term risks are minimal on a new vaccine created differently from every other vaccine I have taken, I will happily take it. The period is about 4/5 yrs of evidence that there is no long term implications and thats being generous. As yet there is no evidence established to reassure me. I know I am at risk, with my age profile and fitness but my risk is really minimal, but its still there and I am aware of that. I practise social distancing every day and hand washing etc very regularly. I am under the age of 50, fit, not over weight and have no under lying health conditions so my risk is minimal.
Can I ask why you need a period of 4/5 years? There is more real world evidence on the Covid vaccines than virtually any other vaccines in history already given the volume of roll out. This has provided more information on these vaccines than any other . The volume of data iis. is overwhelming, with more data on these vaccines within 6 months than most will have in decades.
If you can't find the evidence to reassure you, I'd suggest your not looking hard enough.
The 3/4/5/6 years thing is a nonsense.
Where people do have a negative reaction to a vaccine, it happens within a week in the vast majority of cases. Something happening after a few months is very rare, never mind a number of years.
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 12:39:00 PM
Once I know the long term risks are minimal on a new vaccine created differently from every other vaccine I have taken, I will happily take it. The period is about 4/5 yrs of evidence that there is no long term implications and thats being generous. As yet there is no evidence established to reassure me. I know I am at risk, with my age profile and fitness but my risk is really minimal, but its still there and I am aware of that. I practise social distancing every day and hand washing etc very regularly. I am under the age of 50, fit, not over weight and have no under lying health conditions so my risk is minimal.
Sure as long as you are ok.
Meanwhile the reason people are facing potentially lethal delays for vital cancer treatments, surgeries etc is because hospitals are being overburdened with unvaccinated covid patients.
At the start of the vaccine roll out, I was of the opinion that I'd never tell anyone what they should do regarding the vaccine, but I've changed my mind on that. You are not smarter than the overwhelming majority of the scientific and medical community around the world regarding the safety of vaccines. Too many people seem to think they are, and the rest of us have to pay the price.
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 04:05:15 PM
I am thanks, and as long as you keep a metre from me I will be ok as well. I don't see us being in a bar or cinema etc as I avoid those places out of respect for the likes of you and others who are more respectful. However I like you am pissed off at people not applying social distancing in a safe manner.
Social distancing? FFS! Social distancing is a mitigation and nothing more. A damage limitation exercise when we had no vaccine available to us. If social distancing was enough to quell a pandemic, we wouldn't be debating the vaccine because there wouldn't be a need for one.
The hospitals are telling us that they are stretched to the limit, not by people who didn't social distance, but by people who didn't get vaccinated. And the DIRECT result of not getting vaccinated is that there are people who cannot get potentially life saving appointments in time. People will suffer and die from this inability to access critical care, and the tragedy is that it's so utterly avoidable - all it takes is for those people who genuinely think they know better than the advice being offered by the overwhelming consensus of medical experts around the world, to just cop the f**k on to themselves.
Look at that man in Letterkenny yesterday. Swallowed the nonsense that the vaccines are dangerous, checked himself out of hospital, and was readmitted to following week to die in a hospital bed. Meanwhile, his wreckless and arrogant attitude cause him to waste public resources, waste the time of ambulance staff, waste the time of doctors and nurses and crucially, put who knows how many people that wanted to help him in direct danger. That is what vaccine scaremongering does - be it scaremongering to his extreme, or posting nonsense on gaaboard about how the vacinnes aren't proven to be safe - you just don't know what poor gullible unfortunate will read it and fall for it, and suffer the consequences.
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 04:05:15 PM
I am thanks, and as long as you keep a metre from me I will be ok as well. I don't see us being in a bar or cinema etc as I avoid those places out of respect for the likes of you and others who are more respectful. However I like you am pissed off at people not applying social distancing in a safe manner.
I agree with you on all your points,but there's no point discussing some things with some people
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 28, 2021, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 04:05:15 PM
I am thanks, and as long as you keep a metre from me I will be ok as well. I don't see us being in a bar or cinema etc as I avoid those places out of respect for the likes of you and others who are more respectful. However I like you am pissed off at people not applying social distancing in a safe manner.
I agree with you on all your points,but there's no point discussing some things with some people
Ironically, that's probably how the world's scientific and medical community regards anti-vax conspiracy theorists. So I suppose it all boils down to which of those two groups would be the most reputable and qualified one to talk about science and medicine.
Quote from: Snapchap on September 28, 2021, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 28, 2021, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 04:05:15 PM
I am thanks, and as long as you keep a metre from me I will be ok as well. I don't see us being in a bar or cinema etc as I avoid those places out of respect for the likes of you and others who are more respectful. However I like you am pissed off at people not applying social distancing in a safe manner.
I agree with you on all your points,but there's no point discussing some things with some people
Ironically, that's probably how the world's scientific and medical community regards anti-vax conspiracy theorists. So I suppose it all boils down to which of those two groups would be the most reputable and qualified one to talk about science and medicine.
You can't argue with stupid unfortunately
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 07:06:07 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 28, 2021, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 28, 2021, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 04:05:15 PM
I am thanks, and as long as you keep a metre from me I will be ok as well. I don't see us being in a bar or cinema etc as I avoid those places out of respect for the likes of you and others who are more respectful. However I like you am pissed off at people not applying social distancing in a safe manner.
I agree with you on all your points,but there's no point discussing some things with some people
Ironically, that's probably how the world's scientific and medical community regards anti-vax conspiracy theorists. So I suppose it all boils down to which of those two groups would be the most reputable and qualified one to talk about science and medicine.
Whose anti vax. Not me. I have all vaccinations available except this one. I'm anti putting a vaccine into my body not knowing the long term risks. We're both the same, we agree on vaccines, except I want definite proof that only time and research can provide that there are no long term risks. You on the other hand are happy to take that risk and thats your personal choice. You are now sounding on the polar opposite side of anti vaxers. An extreme vaxer!
An extreme vaxer? No, just someone modest enough to know that I don't know better than people who have made science & medicine their life work - especially when I can see that the vast majority agree on the safety of the vaccine. I'm also someone who believes its important to do everything I can to make sure I won't be part of the reason why cancer sufferers or people waiting for critical surgery, are often having to face totally avoidable delays in getting treatment.
You're keen to distinguish yourself from an anti-vaxer because you've had other jabs but you are doing the same thing as antivaxers: spreading dangerous mistruths based on either a belief in misinformation spread by idiots or on blissful ignorance. Sorry to labour the point here and all, but the world's scientists, doctors, microbiologists almost unanimously agree that there are no long term side effects to the covid jabs. They've spelled out that such side effects - from vaccines of any kind - tend to show themselves within a matter of weeks. If you are going to persist in trying to refute this, then at least come out and admit that it's because you think you know better than the combined knowledge of the global scientific community.
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 02:09:01 PM
I don't drink nor smoke either. I am also conscious that I or others could transmit it to anyone so I am a cautious as I should protect myself and others. Not all people take that approach and living in the country side gives me lots of protections. The fact that you are all taking it without consideration of factual data on long term outcomes for me is baffling. However maybe in 4/5 years time or 10 yrs time research will say we should have been more measured in the trial period, and maybe it won't, but none of you know and thats a cert. In a few yrs time hopefully I can take it for definite knowing its 100% safe. In the meantime I continue to be safe for myself and others.
Armaghniac, I can live in society and stay a metre away from people in an open space very comfortably. Don't plan in being in a confined space with anyone outside my circle for more than 10 minutes and confined for me a large room. One of my favourite hobbies of going to the cinema is now a no no for the reasons outlined earlier. Going to matches is easy as its outdoors and transmission outdoors is negligible.
Itchy, show me the long term evidence its safe, go on, pull it out of a magic hat. But it will in 3/4/5/6 years
You've no idea the levels of clinical trials done to get something like a vaccine on the market. But check in with Karen on Facebook, she knows more than the scientists and medical professionals from Googling Wikipedia on her lunch break. Vaccine begins to wear off with time so it's utterly ridiculous to suggest it's effects somehow get worse with time.
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 07:06:07 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 28, 2021, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 28, 2021, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 04:05:15 PM
I am thanks, and as long as you keep a metre from me I will be ok as well. I don't see us being in a bar or cinema etc as I avoid those places out of respect for the likes of you and others who are more respectful. However I like you am pissed off at people not applying social distancing in a safe manner.
I agree with you on all your points,but there's no point discussing some things with some people
Ironically, that's probably how the world's scientific and medical community regards anti-vax conspiracy theorists. So I suppose it all boils down to which of those two groups would be the most reputable and qualified one to talk about science and medicine.
Whose anti vax. Not me. I have all vaccinations available except this one. I'm anti putting a vaccine into my body not knowing the long term risks. We're both the same, we agree on vaccines, except I want definite proof that only time and research can provide that there are no long term risks. You on the other hand are happy to take that risk and thats your personal choice. You are now sounding on the polar opposite side of anti vaxers. An extreme vaxer!
So you deem your own personal opinion better than the worldwide health organisations. That's either an extreme level of ego or extreme levels of stupidity.
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 07:06:07 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 28, 2021, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 28, 2021, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 04:05:15 PM
I am thanks, and as long as you keep a metre from me I will be ok as well. I don't see us being in a bar or cinema etc as I avoid those places out of respect for the likes of you and others who are more respectful. However I like you am pissed off at people not applying social distancing in a safe manner.
I agree with you on all your points,but there's no point discussing some things with some people
Ironically, that's probably how the world's scientific and medical community regards anti-vax conspiracy theorists. So I suppose it all boils down to which of those two groups would be the most reputable and qualified one to talk about science and medicine.
Whose anti vax. Not me. I have all vaccinations available except this one. I'm anti putting a vaccine into my body not knowing the long term risks. We're both the same, we agree on vaccines, except I want definite proof that only time and research can provide that there are no long term risks. You on the other hand are happy to take that risk and thats your personal choice. You are now sounding on the polar opposite side of anti vaxers. An extreme vaxer!
And long term risks from vaccines being infinitesimally small is irrelevant I suppose!
Quote from: Dire Ear on September 28, 2021, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: Thastheball on September 28, 2021, 04:05:15 PM
I am thanks, and as long as you keep a metre from me I will be ok as well. I don't see us being in a bar or cinema etc as I avoid those places out of respect for the likes of you and others who are more respectful. However I like you am pissed off at people not applying social distancing in a safe manner.
I agree with you on all your points,but there's no point discussing some things with some people
Have you figured out the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated yet, or do you still think it's the same?
This vaccine is as safe as any other or any medication. Every medicine or vaccine carries risk. What you have to weigh up is the risk of not being vaccinated against vaccination. And in the view of every medical authority of note in most cases the risk of not being vaccinated far outweighs the small risk of vaccination. One year almost since the first dose there is a world of evidence supporting the efficacy of these vaccines. Our hospitals are full of the unvaccinated so unless you have an expert medical opinion suggesting you are at a greater risk from vaccination not to take one is selfish and shows a total disregard for society and our health workers. Dress it up any way you like it remains a purely selfish act.
The way out of this mess is through vaccination.
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
There ye go..........
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
SF oversee the health service? Here was me thinking it was a UUP minster, and that SF have only held the health ministry for a grand total of ten months in the last 19 years.
A poor effort, Fear, even my your standards. 0/10.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
Unvaccinated people taking up limited ICU beds is exacerbating the problem and putting unnecessary pressure on frontline health staff, if you don't believe me there are plenty of interviews with nursing and medical staff doing the rounds.
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 01:49:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
SF oversee the health service? Here was me thinking it was a UUP minster, and that SF have only held the health ministry for a grand total of ten months in the last 19 years.
A poor effort, Fear, even my your standards. 0/10.
As with many major policy decisions in NI all parties would need to buy into reform, but it can be a vote loser for all in Newry, Downpatrick, Antrim and Omagh to even suggest the moving of services to centres of excellence. Politicians of all hue need to start selling the changes required rather than jump on the bandwagon for votes.
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 29, 2021, 01:50:32 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
Unvaccinated people taking up limited ICU beds is exacerbating the problem and putting unnecessary pressure on frontline health staff, if you don't believe me there are plenty of interviews with nursing and medical staff doing the rounds.
I believe you, its well documented, but we have to start living with it, giving people free choice and having the structure within our health service to cope with it.
The cost of the mass vaccination by far and I mean by far overweighs the cost of investing in our health system . Thats my point.
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 01:49:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
SF oversee the health service? Here was me thinking it was a UUP minster, and that SF have only held the health ministry for a grand total of ten months in the last 19 years.
A poor effort, Fear, even my your standards. 0/10.
Gone study how Stormont works when you get a wee minute
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 01:49:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
SF oversee the health service? Here was me thinking it was a UUP minster, and that SF have only held the health ministry for a grand total of ten months in the last 19 years.
A poor effort, Fear, even my your standards. 0/10.
Gone study how Stormont works when you get a wee minute
lol... Robin Swann, SF.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 02:00:54 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 29, 2021, 01:50:32 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
Unvaccinated people taking up limited ICU beds is exacerbating the problem and putting unnecessary pressure on frontline health staff, if you don't believe me there are plenty of interviews with nursing and medical staff doing the rounds.
I believe you, its well documented, but we have to start living with it, giving people free choice and having the structure within our health service to cope with it.
The cost of the mass vaccination by far and I mean by far overweighs the cost of investing in our health system . Thats my point.
Are you seriously suggesting there shouldn't have been a mass vaccination process? That more money in healthcare would have solved the problem?
Maybe I'm reading that wrong.
Speaking as a vaccinated person in my 50s, any government that believes it can coerce citizens to receive a pharmaceutical product by denying rights is morally bankrupt. If they manage to push this through we really have rolled over as a society. In the midst of all this self induced anxiety we have to get back to the absolute truth that the NHS is a shit show and the politicians are happy to let us cut each others throats with this "moral dilemma" rather than be accountable for their stewardship of our not fit for purpose health system. If you are prepared to hand over agency for your personal health you can only look forward to a long, well medicated decrepit life.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 02:00:54 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 29, 2021, 01:50:32 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
Unvaccinated people taking up limited ICU beds is exacerbating the problem and putting unnecessary pressure on frontline health staff, if you don't believe me there are plenty of interviews with nursing and medical staff doing the rounds.
I believe you, its well documented, but we have to start living with it, giving people free choice and having the structure within our health service to cope with it.
The cost of the mass vaccination by far and I mean by far overweighs the cost of investing in our health system . Thats my point.
Are you seriously suggesting there shouldn't have been a mass vaccination process? That more money in healthcare would have solved the problem?
Maybe I'm reading that wrong.
Vaccination is keeping people alive, non vaccination is putting stress on the health service now. Change and investment will take time and money.
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 02:11:19 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 01:49:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
SF oversee the health service? Here was me thinking it was a UUP minster, and that SF have only held the health ministry for a grand total of ten months in the last 19 years.
A poor effort, Fear, even my your standards. 0/10.
Gone study how Stormont works when you get a wee minute
lol... Robin Swann, SF.
Since 1999
This position has been suspended for 7.5 years because they couldn't work together
SF held position for 4 years
DUP for 5 years
UUP 4 years
DUP/SF have shared OFDFM for 9.5 years
7.5 years were they couldnt look at each other
3.5 years UUP/SDLP
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 02:40:53 PM
Speaking as a vaccinated person in my 50s, any government that believes it can coerce citizens to receive a pharmaceutical product by denying rights is morally bankrupt. If they manage to push this through we really have rolled over as a society. In the midst of all this self induced anxiety we have to get back to the absolute truth that the NHS is a shit show and the politicians are happy to let us cut each others throats with this "moral dilemma" rather than be accountable for their stewardship of our not fit for purpose health system. If you are prepared to hand over agency for your personal health you can only look forward to a long, well medicated decrepit life.
The NHS being a shit show is an irrelevance to this discussion. I don't think you would get anyone to disagree with that. However it is what it is. So we could just cut of our nose to spite our face and complain about how bad it is and do nothing to help it. Or we can accept that it is a shitshow, but still take whatever actions we can to help it. And the reality is, anyone rowing against the vaccination process is doing so against worldwide medical recommendations. And these people are putting an added strain on the NHS for no good reason. Should people be forced to take the vaccine, no. Should they be impacted because of that decision, yes. Because that decision has an impact on the rest of us as it continues to impact an already overburdened NHS.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 02:00:54 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on September 29, 2021, 01:50:32 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
Unvaccinated people taking up limited ICU beds is exacerbating the problem and putting unnecessary pressure on frontline health staff, if you don't believe me there are plenty of interviews with nursing and medical staff doing the rounds.
I believe you, its well documented, but we have to start living with it, giving people free choice and having the structure within our health service to cope with it.
The cost of the mass vaccination by far and I mean by far overweighs the cost of investing in our health system . Thats my point.
Are you seriously suggesting there shouldn't have been a mass vaccination process? That more money in healthcare would have solved the problem?
Maybe I'm reading that wrong.
No I am saying we should encourage it and target the vulnerable whilst upgrade our services to cope with what should be relatively small numbers, forcing everyone to get it will come under focus soon I think(financially). There will be a strategic change on that soon I think.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 02:40:53 PM
Speaking as a vaccinated person in my 50s, any government that believes it can coerce citizens to receive a pharmaceutical product by denying rights is morally bankrupt. If they manage to push this through we really have rolled over as a society. In the midst of all this self induced anxiety we have to get back to the absolute truth that the NHS is a shit show and the politicians are happy to let us cut each others throats with this "moral dilemma" rather than be accountable for their stewardship of our not fit for purpose health system. If you are prepared to hand over agency for your personal health you can only look forward to a long, well medicated decrepit life.
The NHS being a shit show is an irrelevance to this discussion. I don't think you would get anyone to disagree with that. However it is what it is. So we could just cut of our nose to spite our face and complain about how bad it is and do nothing to help it. Or we can accept that it is a shitshow, but still take whatever actions we can to help it. And the reality is, anyone rowing against the vaccination process is doing so against worldwide medical recommendations. And these people are putting an added strain on the NHS for no good reason. Should people be forced to take the vaccine, no. Should they be impacted because of that decision, yes. Because that decision has an impact on the rest of us as it continues to impact an already overburdened NHS.
Yes overburdened with largely aged, chronically ill, obese etc patients, it's been this way for years but stick a "with COVID label on and lines become blurred. See it for what it is. This pharmaceutical intervention is a sideshow and nothing to get worked up about.
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 02:40:53 PM
Speaking as a vaccinated person in my 50s, any government that believes it can coerce citizens to receive a pharmaceutical product by denying rights is morally bankrupt. If they manage to push this through we really have rolled over as a society. In the midst of all this self induced anxiety we have to get back to the absolute truth that the NHS is a shit show and the politicians are happy to let us cut each others throats with this "moral dilemma" rather than be accountable for their stewardship of our not fit for purpose health system. If you are prepared to hand over agency for your personal health you can only look forward to a long, well medicated decrepit life.
The NHS being a shit show is an irrelevance to this discussion. I don't think you would get anyone to disagree with that. However it is what it is. So we could just cut of our nose to spite our face and complain about how bad it is and do nothing to help it. Or we can accept that it is a shitshow, but still take whatever actions we can to help it. And the reality is, anyone rowing against the vaccination process is doing so against worldwide medical recommendations. And these people are putting an added strain on the NHS for no good reason. Should people be forced to take the vaccine, no. Should they be impacted because of that decision, yes. Because that decision has an impact on the rest of us as it continues to impact an already overburdened NHS.
Yes overburdened with largely aged, chronically ill, obese etc patients, it's been this way for years but stick a "with COVID label on and lines become blurred. See it for what it is. This pharmaceutical intervention is a sideshow and nothing to get worked up about.
I think if there was a vaccine people could take for obesity, old age, chronic illness then all those people would jump at the opportunity to try and firstly help themselves and secondly help the NHS. The issue is that people have that easy option for COVID, and are choosing to go against worldwide medical opinion based on very little.
Calling the vaccine and by extension the pandemic itself a sideshow is pretty pathetic.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 02:11:19 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 01:49:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
SF oversee the health service? Here was me thinking it was a UUP minster, and that SF have only held the health ministry for a grand total of ten months in the last 19 years.
A poor effort, Fear, even my your standards. 0/10.
Gone study how Stormont works when you get a wee minute
lol... Robin Swann, SF.
Since 1999
This position has been suspended for 7.5 years because they couldn't work together
SF held position for 4 years
DUP for 5 years
UUP 4 years
DUP/SF have shared OFDFM for 9.5 years
7.5 years were they couldnt look at each other
3.5 years UUP/SDLP
Nothing like skewing facts to suit a narrative. Claiming SF run the health service is patently a big mound of steaming bullsh!t, when SF have only held the health ministry for ten months in the past 19 years.
You're so desperate to turn any and every thread into a SF bashing exercise, and in your efforts, that this is precisely the sort of utter tripe you try to get away with.
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 02:11:19 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 01:49:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
SF oversee the health service? Here was me thinking it was a UUP minster, and that SF have only held the health ministry for a grand total of ten months in the last 19 years.
A poor effort, Fear, even my your standards. 0/10.
Gone study how Stormont works when you get a wee minute
lol... Robin Swann, SF.
Since 1999
This position has been suspended for 7.5 years because they couldn't work together
SF held position for 4 years
DUP for 5 years
UUP 4 years
DUP/SF have shared OFDFM for 9.5 years
7.5 years were they couldnt look at each other
3.5 years UUP/SDLP
Nothing like skewing facts to suit a narrative. Claiming SF run the health service is patently a big mound of steaming bullsh!t, when SF have only held the health ministry for ten months in the past 19 years.
You're so desperate to turn any and every thread into a SF bashing exercise, and in your efforts, that this is precisely the sort of utter tripe you try to get away with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Health_(Northern_Ireland)
I havent mentioned SF once on here until now, dry yer fecking eyes ye big wain
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 04:11:58 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 02:11:19 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on September 29, 2021, 01:49:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hospital-beds-shortage-causing-unprecedented-risks-to-patients-in-northern-ireland-37325722.html
SF oversee the health service? Here was me thinking it was a UUP minster, and that SF have only held the health ministry for a grand total of ten months in the last 19 years.
A poor effort, Fear, even my your standards. 0/10.
Gone study how Stormont works when you get a wee minute
lol... Robin Swann, SF.
Since 1999
This position has been suspended for 7.5 years because they couldn't work together
SF held position for 4 years
DUP for 5 years
UUP 4 years
DUP/SF have shared OFDFM for 9.5 years
7.5 years were they couldnt look at each other
3.5 years UUP/SDLP
Nothing like skewing facts to suit a narrative. Claiming SF run the health service is patently a big mound of steaming bullsh!t, when SF have only held the health ministry for ten months in the past 19 years.
You're so desperate to turn any and every thread into a SF bashing exercise, and in your efforts, that this is precisely the sort of utter tripe you try to get away with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Health_(Northern_Ireland)
I havent mentioned SF once on here until now, dry yer fecking eyes ye big wain
lol you didn't mention SF?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
2018 pre pandemic article below
Not getting the vaccine if you are healthy is not the main problem, a crumbling health service overseen by DUP/SF is.
Until now I said, shit chat
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 08:13:24 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 06:00:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 04:56:50 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 04:38:39 PM
Until now I said, shit chat
"I didn't do it, until I did. "
Lol
Don't be silly. Read back for context
Sometimes it's ok to just say you made a mistake.
I clearly didn't though. You just can't read obviously
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 10:22:10 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 08:13:24 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 06:00:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 04:56:50 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 04:38:39 PM
Until now I said, shit chat
"I didn't do it, until I did. "
Lol
Don't be silly. Read back for context
Sometimes it's ok to just say you made a mistake.
I clearly didn't though. You just can't read obviously
FFS it's all there ya bollix. You posted a article and tried to link it to SF. Then it was mentioned you always do this. You then claim you didn't mention SF until you did. ( By the way, not your first time mentioning SF on this thread either). Stop digging.
Back on subject. The Croppy Boy over at Labour conference, sucking Keir Starmers balls. Someone who is almost a bigger bullshitter than Johnson, someone who has said he'll promote the Union and has criticised the protocol, and wee Colum, who's sworn an oath to Queen, over there rimming him. How can anyone vote for Stoops when this complete tool is their leader is beyond me. He doesn't support reunification, he just wants his ermine, like Fitt and Ritchie. When will people wise up, Labour has shafted nationalist people of north more than Tory scum ever have.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 10:48:21 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 10:22:10 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 08:13:24 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 06:00:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 04:56:50 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 29, 2021, 04:38:39 PM
Until now I said, shit chat
"I didn't do it, until I did. "
Lol
Don't be silly. Read back for context
Sometimes it's ok to just say you made a mistake.
I clearly didn't though. You just can't read obviously
FFS it's all there ya bollix. You posted a article and tried to link it to SF. Then it was mentioned you always do this. You then claim you didn't mention SF until you did. ( By the way, not your first time mentioning SF on this thread either). Stop digging.
Very successfully linked it you mean.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 03:26:04 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 02:40:53 PM
Speaking as a vaccinated person in my 50s, any government that believes it can coerce citizens to receive a pharmaceutical product by denying rights is morally bankrupt. If they manage to push this through we really have rolled over as a society. In the midst of all this self induced anxiety we have to get back to the absolute truth that the NHS is a shit show and the politicians are happy to let us cut each others throats with this "moral dilemma" rather than be accountable for their stewardship of our not fit for purpose health system. If you are prepared to hand over agency for your personal health you can only look forward to a long, well medicated decrepit life.
The NHS being a shit show is an irrelevance to this discussion. I don't think you would get anyone to disagree with that. However it is what it is. So we could just cut of our nose to spite our face and complain about how bad it is and do nothing to help it. Or we can accept that it is a shitshow, but still take whatever actions we can to help it. And the reality is, anyone rowing against the vaccination process is doing so against worldwide medical recommendations. And these people are putting an added strain on the NHS for no good reason. Should people be forced to take the vaccine, no. Should they be impacted because of that decision, yes. Because that decision has an impact on the rest of us as it continues to impact an already overburdened NHS.
Yes overburdened with largely aged, chronically ill, obese etc patients, it's been this way for years but stick a "with COVID label on and lines become blurred. See it for what it is. This pharmaceutical intervention is a sideshow and nothing to get worked up about.
I think if there was a vaccine people could take for obesity, old age, chronic illness then all those people would jump at the opportunity to try and firstly help themselves and secondly help the NHS. The issue is that people have that easy option for COVID, and are choosing to go against worldwide medical opinion based on very little.
Calling the vaccine and by extension the pandemic itself a sideshow is pretty pathetic.
Cardiac disease and the complications of diabetes is the no.1 global killer, shouldn't our focus be on this?? The NHS have certainly made a balls of it over the last 40 years considering the curve continues to rise. The best they can do is 'eat less, move more' and medicate. Fewer people than ever in the last 100 years now smoke yet we are worse off health wise. What are our advocates on the hill doing about it? Low hanging fruit which eclipses COVID massively. Do your self a favour and start focusing what's important for you and your loved ones.
Quote from: Last Man on September 30, 2021, 08:33:10 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 03:26:04 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 02:40:53 PM
Speaking as a vaccinated person in my 50s, any government that believes it can coerce citizens to receive a pharmaceutical product by denying rights is morally bankrupt. If they manage to push this through we really have rolled over as a society. In the midst of all this self induced anxiety we have to get back to the absolute truth that the NHS is a shit show and the politicians are happy to let us cut each others throats with this "moral dilemma" rather than be accountable for their stewardship of our not fit for purpose health system. If you are prepared to hand over agency for your personal health you can only look forward to a long, well medicated decrepit life.
The NHS being a shit show is an irrelevance to this discussion. I don't think you would get anyone to disagree with that. However it is what it is. So we could just cut of our nose to spite our face and complain about how bad it is and do nothing to help it. Or we can accept that it is a shitshow, but still take whatever actions we can to help it. And the reality is, anyone rowing against the vaccination process is doing so against worldwide medical recommendations. And these people are putting an added strain on the NHS for no good reason. Should people be forced to take the vaccine, no. Should they be impacted because of that decision, yes. Because that decision has an impact on the rest of us as it continues to impact an already overburdened NHS.
Yes overburdened with largely aged, chronically ill, obese etc patients, it's been this way for years but stick a "with COVID label on and lines become blurred. See it for what it is. This pharmaceutical intervention is a sideshow and nothing to get worked up about.
I think if there was a vaccine people could take for obesity, old age, chronic illness then all those people would jump at the opportunity to try and firstly help themselves and secondly help the NHS. The issue is that people have that easy option for COVID, and are choosing to go against worldwide medical opinion based on very little.
Calling the vaccine and by extension the pandemic itself a sideshow is pretty pathetic.
Cardiac disease and the complications of diabetes is the no.1 global killer, shouldn't our focus be on this?? The NHS have certainly made a balls of it over the last 40 years considering the curve continues to rise. The best they can do is 'eat less, move more' and medicate. Fewer people than ever in the last 100 years now smoke yet we are worse off health wise. What are our advocates on the hill doing about it? Low hanging fruit which eclipses COVID massively. Do your self a favour and start focusing what's important for you and your loved ones.
No issue with doing more on obesity, none whatsoever. But it doesn't replace the need for the vaccine program. The vaccine program was an essential medical intervention.
Quote from: Last Man on September 30, 2021, 08:33:10 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 03:26:04 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 02:40:53 PM
Speaking as a vaccinated person in my 50s, any government that believes it can coerce citizens to receive a pharmaceutical product by denying rights is morally bankrupt. If they manage to push this through we really have rolled over as a society. In the midst of all this self induced anxiety we have to get back to the absolute truth that the NHS is a shit show and the politicians are happy to let us cut each others throats with this "moral dilemma" rather than be accountable for their stewardship of our not fit for purpose health system. If you are prepared to hand over agency for your personal health you can only look forward to a long, well medicated decrepit life.
The NHS being a shit show is an irrelevance to this discussion. I don't think you would get anyone to disagree with that. However it is what it is. So we could just cut of our nose to spite our face and complain about how bad it is and do nothing to help it. Or we can accept that it is a shitshow, but still take whatever actions we can to help it. And the reality is, anyone rowing against the vaccination process is doing so against worldwide medical recommendations. And these people are putting an added strain on the NHS for no good reason. Should people be forced to take the vaccine, no. Should they be impacted because of that decision, yes. Because that decision has an impact on the rest of us as it continues to impact an already overburdened NHS.
Yes overburdened with largely aged, chronically ill, obese etc patients, it's been this way for years but stick a "with COVID label on and lines become blurred. See it for what it is. This pharmaceutical intervention is a sideshow and nothing to get worked up about.
I think if there was a vaccine people could take for obesity, old age, chronic illness then all those people would jump at the opportunity to try and firstly help themselves and secondly help the NHS. The issue is that people have that easy option for COVID, and are choosing to go against worldwide medical opinion based on very little.
Calling the vaccine and by extension the pandemic itself a sideshow is pretty pathetic.
Cardiac disease and the complications of diabetes is the no.1 global killer, shouldn't our focus be on this?? The NHS have certainly made a balls of it over the last 40 years considering the curve continues to rise. The best they can do is 'eat less, move more' and medicate. Fewer people than ever in the last 100 years now smoke yet we are worse off health wise. What are our advocates on the hill doing about it? Low hanging fruit which eclipses COVID massively. Do your self a favour and start focusing what's important for you and your loved ones.
Have you seen the shape of some of them?? Hardly advocates for healthy living.
Quote from: RedHand88 on September 30, 2021, 10:41:19 AM
Quote from: Last Man on September 30, 2021, 08:33:10 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 03:26:04 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 02:40:53 PM
Speaking as a vaccinated person in my 50s, any government that believes it can coerce citizens to receive a pharmaceutical product by denying rights is morally bankrupt. If they manage to push this through we really have rolled over as a society. In the midst of all this self induced anxiety we have to get back to the absolute truth that the NHS is a shit show and the politicians are happy to let us cut each others throats with this "moral dilemma" rather than be accountable for their stewardship of our not fit for purpose health system. If you are prepared to hand over agency for your personal health you can only look forward to a long, well medicated decrepit life.
The NHS being a shit show is an irrelevance to this discussion. I don't think you would get anyone to disagree with that. However it is what it is. So we could just cut of our nose to spite our face and complain about how bad it is and do nothing to help it. Or we can accept that it is a shitshow, but still take whatever actions we can to help it. And the reality is, anyone rowing against the vaccination process is doing so against worldwide medical recommendations. And these people are putting an added strain on the NHS for no good reason. Should people be forced to take the vaccine, no. Should they be impacted because of that decision, yes. Because that decision has an impact on the rest of us as it continues to impact an already overburdened NHS.
Yes overburdened with largely aged, chronically ill, obese etc patients, it's been this way for years but stick a "with COVID label on and lines become blurred. See it for what it is. This pharmaceutical intervention is a sideshow and nothing to get worked up about.
I think if there was a vaccine people could take for obesity, old age, chronic illness then all those people would jump at the opportunity to try and firstly help themselves and secondly help the NHS. The issue is that people have that easy option for COVID, and are choosing to go against worldwide medical opinion based on very little.
Calling the vaccine and by extension the pandemic itself a sideshow is pretty pathetic.
Cardiac disease and the complications of diabetes is the no.1 global killer, shouldn't our focus be on this?? The NHS have certainly made a balls of it over the last 40 years considering the curve continues to rise. The best they can do is 'eat less, move more' and medicate. Fewer people than ever in the last 100 years now smoke yet we are worse off health wise. What are our advocates on the hill doing about it? Low hanging fruit which eclipses COVID massively. Do your self a favour and start focusing what's important for you and your loved ones.
Have you seen the shape of some of them?? Hardly advocates for healthy living.
A gout support group
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 30, 2021, 08:58:18 AM
No issue with doing more on obesity, none whatsoever. But it doesn't replace the need for the vaccine program. The vaccine program was an essential medical intervention.
You could argue that vaccines reduce obesity, since they ended the closure of things and people are out and about. Many of us put on few kilos in lockdown.
It does not matter who holds the health portfolio, root and branch change needs buy in from the entire executive.
Quote from: RedHand88 on September 30, 2021, 10:41:19 AM
Quote from: Last Man on September 30, 2021, 08:33:10 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 03:26:04 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on September 29, 2021, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Last Man on September 29, 2021, 02:40:53 PM
Speaking as a vaccinated person in my 50s, any government that believes it can coerce citizens to receive a pharmaceutical product by denying rights is morally bankrupt. If they manage to push this through we really have rolled over as a society. In the midst of all this self induced anxiety we have to get back to the absolute truth that the NHS is a shit show and the politicians are happy to let us cut each others throats with this "moral dilemma" rather than be accountable for their stewardship of our not fit for purpose health system. If you are prepared to hand over agency for your personal health you can only look forward to a long, well medicated decrepit life.
The NHS being a shit show is an irrelevance to this discussion. I don't think you would get anyone to disagree with that. However it is what it is. So we could just cut of our nose to spite our face and complain about how bad it is and do nothing to help it. Or we can accept that it is a shitshow, but still take whatever actions we can to help it. And the reality is, anyone rowing against the vaccination process is doing so against worldwide medical recommendations. And these people are putting an added strain on the NHS for no good reason. Should people be forced to take the vaccine, no. Should they be impacted because of that decision, yes. Because that decision has an impact on the rest of us as it continues to impact an already overburdened NHS.
Yes overburdened with largely aged, chronically ill, obese etc patients, it's been this way for years but stick a "with COVID label on and lines become blurred. See it for what it is. This pharmaceutical intervention is a sideshow and nothing to get worked up about.
I think if there was a vaccine people could take for obesity, old age, chronic illness then all those people would jump at the opportunity to try and firstly help themselves and secondly help the NHS. The issue is that people have that easy option for COVID, and are choosing to go against worldwide medical opinion based on very little.
Calling the vaccine and by extension the pandemic itself a sideshow is pretty pathetic.
Cardiac disease and the complications of diabetes is the no.1 global killer, shouldn't our focus be on this?? The NHS have certainly made a balls of it over the last 40 years considering the curve continues to rise. The best they can do is 'eat less, move more' and medicate. Fewer people than ever in the last 100 years now smoke yet we are worse off health wise. What are our advocates on the hill doing about it? Low hanging fruit which eclipses COVID massively. Do your self a favour and start focusing what's important for you and your loved ones.
Have you seen the shape of some of them?? Hardly advocates for healthy living.
Former NI secretary of state, Julian Smith noted that he'd miss the tray bakes which he enjoyed in his time over here. Should they be hit on the head for the good of the people of NI.
Them and deep fat fryers.
We are addicted to rubbish food here no doubt, but what sticks in my craw is the high carb, "healthy" whole grains, low fat crap pedalled by NHS dietitians for the last 50 years which helps drive this sugar addiction. The deep fat fryer is not the problem apart from the sunflower oil and the chips. If it was lard and meat then there's no issue.
That's the thing, we've become completely accepting and blinkered in what is good for health long term.
Quote from: Last Man on October 01, 2021, 11:02:00 AM
We are addicted to rubbish food here no doubt, but what sticks in my craw is the high carb, "healthy" whole grains, low fat crap pedalled by NHS dietitians for the last 50 years which helps drive this sugar addiction. The deep fat fryer is not the problem apart from the sunflower oil and the chips. If it was lard and meat then there's no issue.
That's the thing, we've become completely accepting and blinkered in what is good for health long term.
Diets here are poor, and the level of sugar consumed is crazy. But the problem I have with nutritionists and dieticians is that there is so much conflicting information. It's such a lucrative market in itself. I just finished reading 2 books, The sweet poison and Keto diet, Dr Josh Axe. Which were good. But I could read another one tomorrow that would push a different approach. All claim to be backed by medical researches. It's a complete minefield.
Is it not clear at this point that processed foods, laden as they are with salt and sugar and all kinds of other shit, are the issue?
Eat plenty of whole foods, fruits, veg, real meat etc, like people did for millennia. And if you're lucky, marry a woman who likes to cook from scratch. 8)
Quote from: J70 on October 01, 2021, 01:03:47 PM
Eat plenty of whole foods, fruits, veg, real meat etc, like people did for millennia. And if you're lucky, marry a woman who likes to cook from scratch. 8)
They should prescribe good women on the NHS.
Quote from: J70 on October 01, 2021, 01:03:47 PM
Is it not clear at this point that processed foods, laden as they are with salt and sugar and all kinds of other shit, are the issue?
Eat plenty of whole foods, fruits, veg, real meat etc, like people did for millennia. And if you're lucky, marry a woman who likes to cook from scratch. 8)
But some of these diets suggest binning of potatoes, some fruit and veg, Milk, etc things I wouldn't have had an issue with previously.
I agree reduce processed foods, eat more whole fruits and veg and curtail processed sugar (this is my downfall) and you'll be alright.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 01, 2021, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 01, 2021, 01:03:47 PM
Is it not clear at this point that processed foods, laden as they are with salt and sugar and all kinds of other shit, are the issue?
Eat plenty of whole foods, fruits, veg, real meat etc, like people did for millennia. And if you're lucky, marry a woman who likes to cook from scratch. 8)
But some of these diets suggest binning of potatoes, some fruit and veg, Milk, etc things I wouldn't have had an issue with previously.
I agree reduce processed foods, eat more whole fruits and veg and curtail processed sugar (this is my downfall) and you'll be alright.
You'd mentioned reading the Keto book and I know Last Man well and he's been a big advocate (if that's the best word) doing the Keto, having done it completely for a month its fairly shifted any/all fat from body, my only concern is long term, what would eating such a diet that is high on meat and full cream diary cheese and other stuff that 'we' were told not to eat, have on you?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 01, 2021, 01:48:23 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 01, 2021, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 01, 2021, 01:03:47 PM
Is it not clear at this point that processed foods, laden as they are with salt and sugar and all kinds of other shit, are the issue?
Eat plenty of whole foods, fruits, veg, real meat etc, like people did for millennia. And if you're lucky, marry a woman who likes to cook from scratch. 8)
But some of these diets suggest binning of potatoes, some fruit and veg, Milk, etc things I wouldn't have had an issue with previously.
I agree reduce processed foods, eat more whole fruits and veg and curtail processed sugar (this is my downfall) and you'll be alright.
You'd mentioned reading the Keto book and I know Last Man well and he's been a big advocate (if that's the best word) doing the Keto, having done it completely for a month its fairly shifted any/all fat from body, my only concern is long term, what would eating such a diet that is high on meat and full cream diary cheese and other stuff that 'we' were told not to eat, have on you?
I think if you can do it, it'd be great. But for me, just not a long term option. I'm a lazy eater. I don't mean processed foods, but just like going back to the same easy meals again and again. I am trying to ⬆️ veg on my plate and reduce the spuds/ rice/ carbs. But my downfall is a sweet tooth. And to be honest, I don't even want to give that up completely. The sweet poison makes the point that sugar is a drug, and that you think you are enjoying the chocolate/ sweets but it's actually just that it satisfies the habit and your just enjoying how you should feel normally if you had no sugar addiction before it builds up again. And that if you can kick the habit for a few weeks the cravings disappear. Might try it sometime but if I could cut it down to once/twice a week I'd be happy. At the minute it's once/ twice a day!!
Colum Eastwoods greatest shame - food and diet being discussed on Gaaboards SDLP thread 😃😉
Are all the SDLPers overweight?
https://youtu.be/RhgvmJt_T54
It might suit them to do some research in case they get the health ministry sometime.
Quote from: Last Man on October 01, 2021, 03:21:10 PM
https://youtu.be/RhgvmJt_T54
It might suit them to do some research in case they get the health ministry sometime.
;D
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCNewsNI/status/1443523156065587204
The Northern Ireland economy recovered to its pre-pandemic levels of output in the second quarter of this year, official figures suggesthttps://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/09/28/business/brexit-fuel-food-shortages/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
Britain's economy remains 2.1% smaller than before the pandemic and economists at Berenberg recently pushed back their forecast for a full recovery to the second quarter of 2022
The wee Protocol.is working
Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 01, 2021, 02:40:08 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 01, 2021, 01:48:23 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 01, 2021, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 01, 2021, 01:03:47 PM
Is it not clear at this point that processed foods, laden as they are with salt and sugar and all kinds of other shit, are the issue?
Eat plenty of whole foods, fruits, veg, real meat etc, like people did for millennia. And if you're lucky, marry a woman who likes to cook from scratch. 8)
But some of these diets suggest binning of potatoes, some fruit and veg, Milk, etc things I wouldn't have had an issue with previously.
I agree reduce processed foods, eat more whole fruits and veg and curtail processed sugar (this is my downfall) and you'll be alright.
You'd mentioned reading the Keto book and I know Last Man well and he's been a big advocate (if that's the best word) doing the Keto, having done it completely for a month its fairly shifted any/all fat from body, my only concern is long term, what would eating such a diet that is high on meat and full cream diary cheese and other stuff that 'we' were told not to eat, have on you?
I think if you can do it, it'd be great. But for me, just not a long term option. I'm a lazy eater. I don't mean processed foods, but just like going back to the same easy meals again and again. I am trying to ⬆️ veg on my plate and reduce the spuds/ rice/ carbs. But my downfall is a sweet tooth. And to be honest, I don't even want to give that up completely. The sweet poison makes the point that sugar is a drug, and that you think you are enjoying the chocolate/ sweets but it's actually just that it satisfies the habit and your just enjoying how you should feel normally if you had no sugar addiction before it builds up again. And that if you can kick the habit for a few weeks the cravings disappear. Might try it sometime but if I could cut it down to once/twice a week I'd be happy. At the minute it's once/ twice a day!!
One of the issues We have is most days we don't feel hungry enough to have spuds/rice/pasta as the main staple of dinner. And if you leave either of those three out of your main meal, it's tricky putting a meal together.
So a lot of evenings We end up having scrambled eggs or beans on toast ., an omelette with a few veg thrown in, or a toastie and a bit of side salad.
We tend to cook when hungry. No planning. So it gets frustrating at dinner time because you just want food with little hassle and no waiting
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on October 01, 2021, 02:44:48 PM
Colum Eastwoods greatest shame - food and diet being discussed on Gaaboards SDLP thread 😃😉
Nordies love a good natter about food, it only takes the mere mention of tray bakes (whatever the fck they are) to have a full blown diversion.
Quote from: Main Street on October 01, 2021, 09:05:36 PM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on October 01, 2021, 02:44:48 PM
Colum Eastwoods greatest shame - food and diet being discussed on Gaaboards SDLP thread 😃😉
Nordies love a good natter about food, it only takes the mere mention of tray bakes (whatever the fck they are) to have a full blown diversion.
It's a Protestant thing, you wouldn't understand ;)
Quote from: BennyCake on October 01, 2021, 10:10:31 PM
Quote from: Main Street on October 01, 2021, 09:05:36 PM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on October 01, 2021, 02:44:48 PM
Colum Eastwoods greatest shame - food and diet being discussed on Gaaboards SDLP thread 😃😉
Nordies love a good natter about food, it only takes the mere mention of tray bakes (whatever the fck they are) to have a full blown diversion.
It's a Protestant thing, you wouldn't understand ;)
There's nothing as nice with a cuppa as a rocky road , a 15 or a mars bar krispie!
Whats this OR madness?! Its AND surely 😉
BBC reporting that SDLP will be celebrating the centenary. What goes through their heads
Quote from: general_lee on October 07, 2021, 01:28:01 PM
BBC reporting that SDLP will be celebrating the centenary. What goes through their heads
Anytime I feel disillusioned with SF, stuff like this drives me right back into their camp.
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 07, 2021, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 07, 2021, 01:28:01 PM
BBC reporting that SDLP will be celebrating the centenary. What goes through their heads
Anytime I feel disillusioned with SF, stuff like this drives me right back into their camp.
I genuinely don't know what they seek to achieve with this, or maybe it's because Coveney is going..
Quote from: general_lee on October 07, 2021, 01:34:44 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 07, 2021, 01:30:43 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 07, 2021, 01:28:01 PM
BBC reporting that SDLP will be celebrating the centenary. What goes through their heads
Anytime I feel disillusioned with SF, stuff like this drives me right back into their camp.
I genuinely don't know what they seek to achieve with this, or maybe it's because Coveney is going..
Colm giving into unionist pressure to be "tolerant" until it's conveniently forgotten about the next time there's an issue like BCC and the bonfires.
Two steps forward, one step back with the SDLP.
Quote from: general_lee on October 07, 2021, 01:28:01 PM
BBC reporting that SDLP will be celebrating the centenary. What goes through their heads
strange by SDLP, this event seems to have very little support from nationalism. Cannot understand were they are coming from.
Soup is on the menu, no wonder they are attending.
Hardly a surprise is it, it's the Stoopers after all.
Amazed at this from the SDLP given all the support they gave Michael D. Eastwood couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. Suspect though that this is the old Kelly/Rogers/Hendron Alliance wing pushing this. Out of touch.
It feels like it's playing to the audience and Michael D wasn't received well so they used that as a test of the water. Kind of feels opportunist tbh.
"Given the choice between remaining in the trenches of the last 100 years or reaching out to build a new future, I know which side I want to be on." Eastwood
It's neither here nor there in my opinion. The biggest non-event centenary ever. The odd Unionist seems to be forcing themselves to participate and there's zero interest from the average nationalist. It's not a hill to die on either way. Far bigger issues to put energy into.
Backing Michael D for declining his invitation before accepting their own invite. You couldn't make it up. Then again, it's the SDLP we're talking about so....
For me there is just something really slippery about Eastwood. I just can't warm to him. There are various ones in the party I like but just him I can't warm to and feels like something he would do for pr.
Quote from: imtommygunn on October 07, 2021, 09:32:02 PM
For me there is just something really slippery about Eastwood. I just can't warm to him. There are various ones in the party I like but just him I can't warm to and feels like something he would do for or.
SF will want him to stay. If he goes they could reclaim more lost ground
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 07, 2021, 09:43:33 PM
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
I think they remind me of Nadal, one trick ponies
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 07, 2021, 09:43:33 PM
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
Mmm. That's a big statement there
Quote from: naka on October 07, 2021, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 07, 2021, 01:28:01 PM
BBC reporting that SDLP will be celebrating the centenary. What goes through their heads
strange by SDLP, this event seems to have very little support from nationalism. Cannot understand were they are coming from.
Since when could the SDLP be accused of being Nationalist?
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 07, 2021, 09:43:33 PM
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
SF have already sent a representative to an NI 100 commemorative event.
So according to you, SF are the lowest of the low.
Ha.
Quote from: sid waddell on October 07, 2021, 10:58:34 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 07, 2021, 09:43:33 PM
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
SF have already sent a representative to an NI 100 commemorative event.
So according to you, SF are the lowest of the low.
Ha.
Why do Shinner MPs put MP in their Twitter bios. Very odd for a nationalist
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 07, 2021, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 07, 2021, 10:58:34 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 07, 2021, 09:43:33 PM
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
SF have already sent a representative to an NI 100 commemorative event.
So according to you, SF are the lowest of the low.
Ha.
Why do Shinner MPs put MP in their Twitter bios. Very odd for a nationalist
Why is it odd?
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 08, 2021, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 07, 2021, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 07, 2021, 10:58:34 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 07, 2021, 09:43:33 PM
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
SF have already sent a representative to an NI 100 commemorative event.
So according to you, SF are the lowest of the low.
Ha.
Why do Shinner MPs put MP in their Twitter bios. Very odd for a nationalist
Why is it odd?
It's a major stamp of Britishness . No way any republican should be putting that to their name. Puppets
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 06:22:25 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 08, 2021, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 07, 2021, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 07, 2021, 10:58:34 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 07, 2021, 09:43:33 PM
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
SF have already sent a representative to an NI 100 commemorative event.
So according to you, SF are the lowest of the low.
Ha.
Why do Shinner MPs put MP in their Twitter bios. Very odd for a nationalist
Why is it odd?
It's a major stamp of Britishness . No way any republican should be putting that to their name. Puppets
Fine bit of deflection there Fear but tell us how you feel about Colm attending this celebration of the partition of this island?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 06:22:25 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 08, 2021, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 07, 2021, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 07, 2021, 10:58:34 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 07, 2021, 09:43:33 PM
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
SF have already sent a representative to an NI 100 commemorative event.
So according to you, SF are the lowest of the low.
Ha.
Why do Shinner MPs put MP in their Twitter bios. Very odd for a nationalist
Why is it odd?
It's a major stamp of Britishness . No way any republican should be putting that to their name. Puppets
https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/ (https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/)
Swing and a miss.
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 08, 2021, 09:29:29 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 06:22:25 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 08, 2021, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 07, 2021, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 07, 2021, 10:58:34 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 07, 2021, 09:43:33 PM
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
SF have already sent a representative to an NI 100 commemorative event.
So according to you, SF are the lowest of the low.
Ha.
Why do Shinner MPs put MP in their Twitter bios. Very odd for a nationalist
Why is it odd?
It's a major stamp of Britishness . No way any republican should be putting that to their name. Puppets
https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/ (https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/)
Swing and a miss.
Means nothing, im not sure what you are saying there
Quote from: johnnycool on October 08, 2021, 08:24:07 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 06:22:25 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 08, 2021, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 07, 2021, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 07, 2021, 10:58:34 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 07, 2021, 09:43:33 PM
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
SF have already sent a representative to an NI 100 commemorative event.
So according to you, SF are the lowest of the low.
Ha.
Why do Shinner MPs put MP in their Twitter bios. Very odd for a nationalist
Why is it odd?
It's a major stamp of Britishness . No way any republican should be putting that to their name. Puppets
Fine bit of deflection there Fear but tell us how you feel about Colm attending this celebration of the partition of this island?
I am saying as a republican there is no way I would attend.
But this nonsense from Shinners about them being the ultimate Irish men.
No way would I have MP behind my name as a republican-tip the fecking hat sure, well and truely in back pocket. You cant say you wont take an oath to Queen but then take the office , expenses and british title and then when things go wrong locally say "ah sure thats controlled at Westminster"
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:47:36 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 08, 2021, 08:24:07 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 06:22:25 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 08, 2021, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 07, 2021, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 07, 2021, 10:58:34 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 07, 2021, 09:43:33 PM
The Stoops are the lowest of the low and that's all that really needs to be said about the matter.
SF have already sent a representative to an NI 100 commemorative event.
So according to you, SF are the lowest of the low.
Ha.
Why do Shinner MPs put MP in their Twitter bios. Very odd for a nationalist
Why is it odd?
It's a major stamp of Britishness . No way any republican should be putting that to their name. Puppets
Fine bit of deflection there Fear but tell us how you feel about Colm attending this celebration of the partition of this island?
I am saying as a republican there is no way I would attend.
But this nonsense from Shinners about them being the ultimate Irish men.
No way would I have MP behind my name as a republican-tip the fecking hat sure, well and truely in back pocket. You cant say you wont take an oath to Queen but then take the office , expenses and british title and then when things go wrong locally say "ah sure thats controlled at Westminster"
How about I start a thread about SF MPs using the title 'MP' after their names on twitter (I know, amazing nobody has taken done so by now, given how big a story that is) - will you use that thread to talk about the SDLP attending a partition commemoration, since you are seemingly desperate to avoid people taking about it on this thread?
Odd for lads to be fixated on SF in a thread about Stoops after the Stoops once again lick the boots of unionism.
The SDLP, an occasional disgrace, a permanent embarrassment.
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 08, 2021, 10:13:40 AM
Odd for lads to be fixated on SF in a thread about Stoops after the Stoops once again lick the boots of unionism.
The SDLP, an occasional disgrace, a permanent embarrassment.
The SDLP are often accused of being something of a political irrelevance and focusing too much time and effort on attacks on SF. Funnily, this thread mirrors the party perfectly.
For the last how many pages, on a thread specifically about the SDLP, there has been barely a mention about the SDLP. Irrelevant even in a thread dedicated to them. Then when a story comes up about their latest poor decision, attempts are immediately made to turn it into an "attack SF" thread.
of course nobody answers any of the point put to them
And yous do realise we used this thread to talk about diets for about 2 weeks ;D
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 11:26:10 AM
of course nobody answers any of the point put to them
And yous do realise we used this thread to talk about diets for about 2 weeks ;D
Of course we did. The stoops are an irrelevance. Now that they find themselves in a story, do you think it would be asking too much that we discuss it on this thread dedicated to discussing the party? Without you trying to turn yet another thread into a SF bashing forum?
Modern Day Sir Cahir O'Dochartaighs or Niall Garbhs(Both SF/SDLP). Ministers Of Parliament-nuf said
Aaaaaanyway...
I hear Claire Hanna is on the radio trying to defend the indefensible decision to attend this commemoration. Only about two weeks ago, she was all over the airwaves trying to defend Michael D Higgins for his refusal to attend. Laughable stuff.
Mind you, if there's one thing Claire Hanna is consistent in, it's being inconsistent. She's a member of the SDLP, which is a sister party of FF - a party she says she doesn't like, while she has appeared at numerous Labour Party conferences but canvased at the last election for two FG candidates.
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 12:32:09 PM
Aaaaaanyway...
I hear Claire Hanna is on the radio trying to defend the indefensible decision to attend this commemoration. Only about two weeks ago, she was all over the airwaves trying to defend Michael D Higgins for his refusal to attend. Laughable stuff.
Mind you, if there's one thing Claire Hanna is consistent in, it's being inconsistent. She's a member of the SDLP, which is a sister party of FF - a party she says she doesn't like, while she has appeared at numerous Labour Party conferences but canvased at the last election for two FG candidates.
They cant be a sister party, sure boys were saying SDLP are not nationalist and FF by definition are republican. Show some consistency yourself ffs
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 12:32:09 PM
Aaaaaanyway...
I hear Claire Hanna is on the radio trying to defend the indefensible decision to attend this commemoration. Only about two weeks ago, she was all over the airwaves trying to defend Michael D Higgins for his refusal to attend. Laughable stuff.
Mind you, if there's one thing Claire Hanna is consistent in, it's being inconsistent. She's a member of the SDLP, which is a sister party of FF - a party she says she doesn't like, while she has appeared at numerous Labour Party conferences but canvased at the last election for two FG candidates.
Verbose isn't the word for that one. Never even comes up for air. She and the Croppy Boy obviously have their eye on some ermine, just like Richie. Huge own goal for Stoops.
Would the people who vote for them think it's an own goal?
Quote from: red hander on October 08, 2021, 01:00:01 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 12:32:09 PM
Aaaaaanyway...
I hear Claire Hanna is on the radio trying to defend the indefensible decision to attend this commemoration. Only about two weeks ago, she was all over the airwaves trying to defend Michael D Higgins for his refusal to attend. Laughable stuff.
Mind you, if there's one thing Claire Hanna is consistent in, it's being inconsistent. She's a member of the SDLP, which is a sister party of FF - a party she says she doesn't like, while she has appeared at numerous Labour Party conferences but canvased at the last election for two FG candidates.
Verbose isn't the word for that one. Never even comes up for air. She and the Croppy Boy obviously have their eye on some ermine, just like Richie. Huge own goal for Stoops.
Talked herself into knots on Talkback today. Was repeatedly pressed to explain the logic behind how she maintained (and still maintains) that Higgins was right not to attend and yet argue that the SDLP is right to attend.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 01:02:30 PM
Would the people who vote for them think it's an own goal?
Some will, some won't. I suspect they will take some level of a hit. Going to a commemoration of partition is just so out of step with the sentiment of northern nationalism that you'd wonder how on earth anyone in their party decided this was a good idea - especially on the back of spending the best part of a fortnight telling any media outlet that would listen how Michael D was so right to decline his invite. You'd definitely wonder - but then again, they didn't earn their "stoop" nickname for nothing.
people will like and dislike this stuff.
But people vote on jobs not this stuff
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 01:29:58 PM
people will like and dislike this stuff.
But people vote on jobs not this stuff
Bottom line is the Stoops will cowtow to unionism at every given step and that's why they have been emphatically rejected by the nationalist electorate.
Voting for the stoops won't bring jobs, prosperity, better public services or facilities - it will bring a enablement of dinosaur unionist politics.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 01:29:58 PM
people will like and dislike this stuff.
But people vote on jobs not this stuff
Fear,
On a personal level, do you think the sdlp are right to attend?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 01:29:58 PM
people will like and dislike this stuff.
But people vote on jobs not this stuff
Yeah cos people in the six counties are so famously relaxed about the constitutional issue when it comes to politics.
Need I remind you that FG lost 15 seats at the last general election, and while that wasn't solely down to their proposal to commemorate the Black & Tans/RIC, it certainly played a part. And that's not me saying so, take it from the horses mouth:
Noel Rock (FG TD) asked if the proposed commemoration effected their performance in the subsequent general election replied ""No question. It was a big issue early in the campaign when it was fresh in the memory". Also this response to the same question from Neale Richmond: ""I have no doubt it unfortunately did have an impact on some people's campaigns".
As I say, if a proposal around a commemoration of something a century ago can cause a party to take an electoral hit in the south, you can bet your bottom dollar that it can do so in the north, and much more readily.
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 08, 2021, 01:35:56 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 01:29:58 PM
people will like and dislike this stuff.
But people vote on jobs not this stuff
Bottom line is the Stoops will cowtow to unionism at every given step and that's why they have been emphatically rejected by the nationalist electorate.
I don't think that's the bottom line at all - I think they are cowtowing to FF, not unionism. And I'd imagine that there's a lot of disarray internally about the decision.
I am really disappointed and don't think it's the right thing to do. But I won't change my vote until there's a better option for me, and SF is not it.
Quote from: Rois on October 08, 2021, 01:43:41 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 08, 2021, 01:35:56 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 01:29:58 PM
people will like and dislike this stuff.
But people vote on jobs not this stuff
Bottom line is the Stoops will cowtow to unionism at every given step and that's why they have been emphatically rejected by the nationalist electorate.
I don't think that's the bottom line at all - I think they are cowtowing to FF, not unionism. And I'd imagine that there's a lot of disarray internally about the decision.
I am really disappointed and don't think it's the right thing to do. But I won't change my vote until there's a better option for me, and SF is not it.
Whoever it's to, cowtowing is what the SDLP do. Hume was a obviously a very courageous and important political figure on this island but bar him what have they ever produced? Nothing but a bunch of self-serving Uncle Toms who will allow unionist bigotry walk all over the nationalist community without any struggle.
Eastwood is just a rotten character, the gaslighting comments he makes against the nationalist constituency at every turn is beyond sickening at this point, there's an arrogance within the SDLP to fail to accept they have been rejected by the community they claim to represent and are actively loathed by a large section of that community.
A brief summation of Clare Hanna's Radio Ulster interview this afternoon:
At the start of the interview, defended her partys decision to go by stating that a Church commemoration is very different to, for instance, an academic event discussing the past. Then later attacks SF for having attended an panel discussion about partition, claiming that it's "no different" to going to a Church commemoration.
Said Michael D was right to refuse to attend, but that the SDLP are right to attend.
Said Michael D rightly decided that his political neutrality meant he could't go, then repeatedly argued that the SDLP are right to go because it's definitely not a political event - (even at uttering the line "Of course it's not a political event. Everything is political")
Quote from: Silver hill on October 08, 2021, 01:41:09 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 01:29:58 PM
people will like and dislike this stuff.
But people vote on jobs not this stuff
Fear,
On a personal level, do you think the sdlp are right to attend?
no i said that above-ive been a republican all my life.
But we are getting a UI anyhow by default and not because of any party, so people based on this are voting based other stuff
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 01:58:14 PM
A brief summation of Clare Hanna's Radio Ulster interview this afternoon:
At the start of the interview, defended her partys decision to go by stating that a Church commemoration is very different to, for instance, an academic event discussing the past. Then later attacks SF for having attended an panel discussion about partition, claiming that it's "no different" to going to a Church commemoration.
Said Michael D was right to refuse to attend, but that the SDLP are right to attend.
Said Michael D rightly decided that his political neutrality meant he could't go, then repeatedly argued that the SDLP are right to go because it's definitely not a political event - (even at uttering the line "Of course it's not a political event. Everything is political")
She'll disappear up her own hole one day. Absolute Stoop spoofer.
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 01:58:14 PM
A brief summation of Clare Hanna's Radio Ulster interview this afternoon:
At the start of the interview, defended her partys decision to go by stating that a Church commemoration is very different to, for instance, an academic event discussing the past. Then later attacks SF for having attended an panel discussion about partition, claiming that it's "no different" to going to a Church commemoration.
Said Michael D was right to refuse to attend, but that the SDLP are right to attend.
Said Michael D rightly decided that his political neutrality meant he could't go, then repeatedly argued that the SDLP are right to go because it's definitely not a political event - (even at uttering the line "Of course it's not a political event. Everything is political")
Shocking.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 12:49:37 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 12:32:09 PM
Aaaaaanyway...
I hear Claire Hanna is on the radio trying to defend the indefensible decision to attend this commemoration. Only about two weeks ago, she was all over the airwaves trying to defend Michael D Higgins for his refusal to attend. Laughable stuff.
Mind you, if there's one thing Claire Hanna is consistent in, it's being inconsistent. She's a member of the SDLP, which is a sister party of FF - a party she says she doesn't like, while she has appeared at numerous Labour Party conferences but canvased at the last election for two FG candidates.
They cant be a sister party, sure boys were saying SDLP are not nationalist and FF by definition are republican. Show some consistency yourself ffs
Not with Monty Burns from the simpsons in charge they certainly aren't.
Quote from: Armagh18 on October 08, 2021, 02:51:57 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 12:49:37 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 12:32:09 PM
Aaaaaanyway...
I hear Claire Hanna is on the radio trying to defend the indefensible decision to attend this commemoration. Only about two weeks ago, she was all over the airwaves trying to defend Michael D Higgins for his refusal to attend. Laughable stuff.
Mind you, if there's one thing Claire Hanna is consistent in, it's being inconsistent. She's a member of the SDLP, which is a sister party of FF - a party she says she doesn't like, while she has appeared at numerous Labour Party conferences but canvased at the last election for two FG candidates.
They cant be a sister party, sure boys were saying SDLP are not nationalist and FF by definition are republican. Show some consistency yourself ffs
Not with Monty Burns from the simpsons in charge they certainly aren't.
FF republican? More like Publican.
https://www.fiannafail.ie/
Yous boys are some experts, doctorates all round.
SDLP are not nationalist, and FF need to change their party title. What are these parties and what makes them sister parties?
Bar stool academics
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:08:38 PM
https://www.fiannafail.ie/
Yous boys are some experts, doctorates all round.
SDLP are not nationalist, and FF need to change their party title.
Bar stool academics
So if you say you are something that makes it true?
Solid logic there, you're a bit of a parody at this point.
I remember Micheal Martin being interviewed by Tommy Gorman and was pressed for about 5-6 minutes on whether or not he actually supported a united Ireland and he wouldn't give an answer. Yeah, big republicans.
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 08, 2021, 03:09:42 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:08:38 PM
https://www.fiannafail.ie/
Yous boys are some experts, doctorates all round.
SDLP are not nationalist, and FF need to change their party title.
Bar stool academics
So if you say you are something that makes it true?
Solid logic there, you're a bit of a parody at this point.
calm down Mr 22 Posts
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:13:36 PM
I remember Micheal Martin being interviewed by Tommy Gorman and was pressed for about 5-6 minutes on whether or not he actually supported a united Ireland and he wouldn't give an answer. Yeah, big republicans.
Very conclusive there. Massive in terms of evidence. You won the debate
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:13:36 PM
I remember Micheal Martin being interviewed by Tommy Gorman and was pressed for about 5-6 minutes on whether or not he actually supported a united Ireland and he wouldn't give an answer. Yeah, big republicans.
Very conclusive there. Massive in terms of evidence. You won the debate
FF are indeed meant to be a republican party but with arse splintered Martin at the helm they hide it well.
I'd agree with you on one thing you did post that there's a UI on the way and it won't be driven by one party, especially SF (I just believe they're too toxic for the middle ground in NI to swing that vote), it needs driven by the will of the people in NI through various different civic bodies and a government conducive to it in Dublin.
The seeds are sown and ironically being fertilised by the stupidity of the DUP and their ilk.
Quote from: johnnycool on October 08, 2021, 03:33:15 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:13:36 PM
I remember Micheal Martin being interviewed by Tommy Gorman and was pressed for about 5-6 minutes on whether or not he actually supported a united Ireland and he wouldn't give an answer. Yeah, big republicans.
Very conclusive there. Massive in terms of evidence. You won the debate
FF are indeed meant to be a republican party but with arse splintered Martin at the helm they hide it well.
I'd agree with you on one thing you did post that there's a UI on the way and it won't be driven by one party, especially SF (I just believe they're too toxic for the middle ground in NI to swing that vote), it needs driven by the will of the people in NI through various different civic bodies and a government conducive to it in Dublin.
The seeds are sown and ironically being fertilised by the stupidity of the DUP and their ilk.
What is the middle ground?
SF are nowhere near as toxic as some of the dinosaur age bitory we get from DUP/UUP/TUV. So if it's a case of one side poisoning the well then the mainstream unionist poison outpowers the nationalist one all ends up.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:13:36 PM
I remember Micheal Martin being interviewed by Tommy Gorman and was pressed for about 5-6 minutes on whether or not he actually supported a united Ireland and he wouldn't give an answer. Yeah, big republicans.
Very conclusive there. Massive in terms of evidence. You won the debate
Well you certainly haven't won it LOL! If you want to argue that FF are republican, you'll need to provide a bit of a stronger argument than "well their slogan says they are" lol!!
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:13:36 PM
I remember Micheal Martin being interviewed by Tommy Gorman and was pressed for about 5-6 minutes on whether or not he actually supported a united Ireland and he wouldn't give an answer. Yeah, big republicans.
Very conclusive there. Massive in terms of evidence. You won the debate
Well you certainly haven't won it LOL! If you want to argue that FF are republican, you'll need to provide a bit of a stronger argument than "well their slogan says they are" lol!!
Admittedly they are much more than that in their eyes, a broader thinking European party rather than the anti-EU SF version(despite the recent laughable u-turn on europe). Republican is after all a narrow, insular ethos
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 08, 2021, 03:37:16 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 08, 2021, 03:33:15 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:13:36 PM
I remember Micheal Martin being interviewed by Tommy Gorman and was pressed for about 5-6 minutes on whether or not he actually supported a united Ireland and he wouldn't give an answer. Yeah, big republicans.
Very conclusive there. Massive in terms of evidence. You won the debate
FF are indeed meant to be a republican party but with arse splintered Martin at the helm they hide it well.
I'd agree with you on one thing you did post that there's a UI on the way and it won't be driven by one party, especially SF (I just believe they're too toxic for the middle ground in NI to swing that vote), it needs driven by the will of the people in NI through various different civic bodies and a government conducive to it in Dublin.
The seeds are sown and ironically being fertilised by the stupidity of the DUP and their ilk.
What is the middle ground?
SF are nowhere near as toxic as some of the dinosaur age bitory we get from DUP/UUP/TUV. So if it's a case of one side poisoning the well then the mainstream unionist poison outpowers the nationalist one all ends up.
Those people from a unionist and indeed nationalist background that will vote for the economic reality of their bank balances rather than a misty eyed Irish Socialist Republic.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:53:15 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:13:36 PM
I remember Micheal Martin being interviewed by Tommy Gorman and was pressed for about 5-6 minutes on whether or not he actually supported a united Ireland and he wouldn't give an answer. Yeah, big republicans.
Very conclusive there. Massive in terms of evidence. You won the debate
Well you certainly haven't won it LOL! If you want to argue that FF are republican, you'll need to provide a bit of a stronger argument than "well their slogan says they are" lol!!
Admittedly they are much more than that in their eyes, a broader thinking European party rather than the anti-EU SF version(despite the recent laughable u-turn on europe). Republican is after all a narrow, insular ethos
I didn't ask for a critical analysis of Irish Republicanism as an ideology. I'm asking where the evidence is that they are Irish Republican in ethos - especially when they steadfastly refuse to organise on an All-Ireland basis (and their leader in fact has numerous times attacked SF politicians for "coming down here")
Quote from: johnnycool on October 08, 2021, 03:53:45 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 08, 2021, 03:37:16 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on October 08, 2021, 03:33:15 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:13:36 PM
I remember Micheal Martin being interviewed by Tommy Gorman and was pressed for about 5-6 minutes on whether or not he actually supported a united Ireland and he wouldn't give an answer. Yeah, big republicans.
Very conclusive there. Massive in terms of evidence. You won the debate
FF are indeed meant to be a republican party but with arse splintered Martin at the helm they hide it well.
I'd agree with you on one thing you did post that there's a UI on the way and it won't be driven by one party, especially SF (I just believe they're too toxic for the middle ground in NI to swing that vote), it needs driven by the will of the people in NI through various different civic bodies and a government conducive to it in Dublin.
The seeds are sown and ironically being fertilised by the stupidity of the DUP and their ilk.
What is the middle ground?
SF are nowhere near as toxic as some of the dinosaur age bitory we get from DUP/UUP/TUV. So if it's a case of one side poisoning the well then the mainstream unionist poison outpowers the nationalist one all ends up.
Those people from a unionist and indeed nationalist background that will vote for the economic reality of their bank balances rather than a misty eyed Irish Socialist Republic.
And what do you think DUP/TUV/UUP's protocol stance will do for their bank balances?
That's my point, SF could hardly be any more toxic than the DUP/UUP/TUV even if they tried to be.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:13:36 PM
I remember Micheal Martin being interviewed by Tommy Gorman and was pressed for about 5-6 minutes on whether or not he actually supported a united Ireland and he wouldn't give an answer. Yeah, big republicans.
Very conclusive there. Massive in terms of evidence. You won the debate
Well you certainly didnt win any debate if you think arguing that FF are republican in anything other than name.
Are they "Monarchists" then?
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
They are "initforourselvesists"
A bit like yourself that votes for a td based on a small local issue like cutting turf. Poverty, homelessness, employment, infrastructure, health care - who gives a shit as long as u can cut my bloody turf. That's the baseline by which Rossfan judges politicians.
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:58:07 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:53:15 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 03:13:36 PM
I remember Micheal Martin being interviewed by Tommy Gorman and was pressed for about 5-6 minutes on whether or not he actually supported a united Ireland and he wouldn't give an answer. Yeah, big republicans.
Very conclusive there. Massive in terms of evidence. You won the debate
Well you certainly haven't won it LOL! If you want to argue that FF are republican, you'll need to provide a bit of a stronger argument than "well their slogan says they are" lol!!
Admittedly they are much more than that in their eyes, a broader thinking European party rather than the anti-EU SF version(despite the recent laughable u-turn on europe). Republican is after all a narrow, insular ethos
I didn't ask for a critical analysis of Irish Republicanism as an ideology. I'm asking where the evidence is that they are Irish Republican in ethos - especially when they steadfastly refuse to organise on an All-Ireland basis (and their leader in fact has numerous times attacked SF politicians for "coming down here")
Sure they have a sister partyup North do they not. Lol .this is fun
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
They are "initforourselvesists"
A bit like yourself that votes for a td based on a small local issue like cutting turf. Poverty, homelessness, employment, infrastructure, health care - who gives a shit as long as u can cut my bloody turf. That's the baseline by which Rossfan judges politicians.
Lol.
Sinn Féin
Us Alone
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 05:48:36 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
They are "initforourselvesists"
A bit like yourself that votes for a td based on a small local issue like cutting turf. Poverty, homelessness, employment, infrastructure, health care - who gives a shit as long as u can cut my bloody turf. That's the baseline by which Rossfan judges politicians.
Lol.
Sinn Féin
Us Alone
A sad effort to spin the party name which you know full well what it means. Sad little man.
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 06:20:29 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 05:48:36 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
They are "initforourselvesists"
A bit like yourself that votes for a td based on a small local issue like cutting turf. Poverty, homelessness, employment, infrastructure, health care - who gives a shit as long as u can cut my bloody turf. That's the baseline by which Rossfan judges politicians.
Lol.
Sinn Féin
Us Alone
A sad effort to spin the party name which you know full well what it means. Sad little man.
If course I know . I'm an actual real life Gaeilgeoir lol. My Fridays going well.
More flip flopping than a pancake 41 days before Easter
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 06:23:46 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 06:20:29 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 05:48:36 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
They are "initforourselvesists"
A bit like yourself that votes for a td based on a small local issue like cutting turf. Poverty, homelessness, employment, infrastructure, health care - who gives a shit as long as u can cut my bloody turf. That's the baseline by which Rossfan judges politicians.
Lol.
Sinn Féin
Us Alone
A sad effort to spin the party name which you know full well what it means. Sad little man.
If course I know . I'm an actual real life Gaeilgeoir lol. My Fridays going well.
More flip flopping than a pancake 41 days before Easter
I'm aware you can translate, do you know the meaning behind it or are you just intentionally misrepresenting it like a good little tory.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
So you think the ideology of Irish Republicanism is about opposition to monarchy and that itself? Nothing else? ::)
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 06:42:57 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 06:23:46 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 06:20:29 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 05:48:36 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
They are "initforourselvesists"
A bit like yourself that votes for a td based on a small local issue like cutting turf. Poverty, homelessness, employment, infrastructure, health care - who gives a shit as long as u can cut my bloody turf. That's the baseline by which Rossfan judges politicians.
Lol.
Sinn Féin
Us Alone
A sad effort to spin the party name which you know full well what it means. Sad little man.
If course I know . I'm an actual real life Gaeilgeoir lol. My Fridays going well.
More flip flopping than a pancake 41 days before Easter
I'm aware you can translate, do you know the meaning behind it or are you just intentionally misrepresenting it like a good little tory.
I really haven't a clue what thars supposed to mean..I can only assume go bhfuil tú taobh thiar den liathróid dubh
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
So you think the ideology of Irish Republicanism is about opposition to monarchy and that itself? Nothing else? ::)
What is it coz you seem to be some sort of resident expert.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 06:42:57 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 06:23:46 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 06:20:29 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 05:48:36 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
They are "initforourselvesists"
A bit like yourself that votes for a td based on a small local issue like cutting turf. Poverty, homelessness, employment, infrastructure, health care - who gives a shit as long as u can cut my bloody turf. That's the baseline by which Rossfan judges politicians.
Lol.
Sinn Féin
Us Alone
A sad effort to spin the party name which you know full well what it means. Sad little man.
If course I know . I'm an actual real life Gaeilgeoir lol. My Fridays going well.
More flip flopping than a pancake 41 days before Easter
I'm aware you can translate, do you know the meaning behind it or are you just intentionally misrepresenting it like a good little tory.
I really haven't a clue what thars supposed to mean..I can only assume go bhfuil tú taobh thiar den liathróid dubh
I dont suppose you do alright, don't teach you your own history up there do they. But you could always look it up yourself.
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 08:28:51 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 06:42:57 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 06:23:46 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 06:20:29 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 05:48:36 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
They are "initforourselvesists"
A bit like yourself that votes for a td based on a small local issue like cutting turf. Poverty, homelessness, employment, infrastructure, health care - who gives a shit as long as u can cut my bloody turf. That's the baseline by which Rossfan judges politicians.
Lol.
Sinn Féin
Us Alone
A sad effort to spin the party name which you know full well what it means. Sad little man.
If course I know . I'm an actual real life Gaeilgeoir lol. My Fridays going well.
More flip flopping than a pancake 41 days before Easter
I'm aware you can translate, do you know the meaning behind it or are you just intentionally misrepresenting it like a good little tory.
I really haven't a clue what thars supposed to mean..I can only assume go bhfuil tú taobh thiar den liathróid dubh
I dont suppose you do alright, don't teach you your own history up there do they. But you could always look it up yourself.
Grasping
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:01:57 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:01:10 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 08:52:14 PM
Which part of Sinn Féin means "alone"?
The Alone bit lol
Is that Sinn or Féin?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in_(slogan)
In Ulster we would day muidne amháin
But we can't be held responsible for shite southern Irish
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 08:09:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
So you think the ideology of Irish Republicanism is about opposition to monarchy and that itself? Nothing else? ::)
What is it coz you seem to be some sort of resident expert.
I thought the following would go without saying but apparently not, so here goes:
You don't have to be an expert on Irish Republicanism to know it is about more than being opposed to a monarchy.
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 09:07:55 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 08:09:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
So you think the ideology of Irish Republicanism is about opposition to monarchy and that itself? Nothing else? ::)
What is it coz you seem to be some sort of resident expert.
I thought the following would go without saying but apparently not, so here goes:
You don't have to be an expert on Irish Republicanism to know it is about more than being opposed to a monarchy.
You said that already , but I'm still awaiting a definition
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:08:35 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:01:57 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:01:10 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 08:52:14 PM
Which part of Sinn Féin means "alone"?
The Alone bit lol
Is that Sinn or Féin?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in_(slogan)
In Ulster we would day muidne amháin
But we can't be held responsible for shite southern Irish
So, that would be none of it then?
If you add amháin on the end the "alone" comes into play.
It's sinn fein claiming it not me. I know it's shite , you know it's shite , but they seem to accept it. But then again Gaeilge was never their strong point
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 08:42:39 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 08:28:51 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 06:42:57 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 06:23:46 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 06:20:29 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 05:48:36 PM
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 04:20:36 PM
Are they "Monarchists" then?
They are "initforourselvesists"
A bit like yourself that votes for a td based on a small local issue like cutting turf. Poverty, homelessness, employment, infrastructure, health care - who gives a shit as long as u can cut my bloody turf. That's the baseline by which Rossfan judges politicians.
Lol.
Sinn Féin
Us Alone
A sad effort to spin the party name which you know full well what it means. Sad little man.
If course I know . I'm an actual real life Gaeilgeoir lol. My Fridays going well.
More flip flopping than a pancake 41 days before Easter
I'm aware you can translate, do you know the meaning behind it or are you just intentionally misrepresenting it like a good little tory.
I really haven't a clue what thars supposed to mean..I can only assume go bhfuil tú taobh thiar den liathróid dubh
I dont suppose you do alright, don't teach you your own history up there do they. But you could always look it up yourself.
Grasping
Aye. Well here is what happened. I alluded to the fact the FF have been about rewarding themselves since time memorial. In response you implied so were SF and used the translation of the party name as your evidence. Us Alone or ourselves alone.
Of course this is bullshit and something not even a FF or FG supporter would claim as they all claim decendency from the old SF.
The name as anyone with half a brain knows came from irish men seeking to rule their own country by ourselves alone, not by British ownership or by a home rule deal. That SF won a crushing victory in our election to the first Dail.
To imply the name meant some form of "we are in it for ourselves" is the stuff of a judas.
Interestingly it was, prior to Arthur griffith using it for his new party, a motto or rally call of the Gaelic League. A group with the goal of preserving the Irish language Mr Gaeilgeoir.
Could you translate Aontu for me, I heard it translate as pointless one topic party?
I have to say I'm loving this. I must be hitting nerves all over the show or tye gimp brigade wouldn't be biting . And I haven't even started drinking yet.
Btw I defs have half a brain , it's all you need on here most of the time.
Tiocfaidh ár lá - brutal Irish btw
Tiocfaidh lá s'againne ye free state lackeys!
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:23:02 PM
I have to say I'm loving this. I must be hitting nerves all over the show or tye gimp brigade wouldn't be biting . And I haven't even started drinking yet.
Btw I defs have half a brain , it's all you need on here most of the time.
Tiocfaidh ár lá - brutal Irish btw
Tiocfaidh lá s'againne ye free state lackeys!
So your not debating you are just trying to wind people up by posting nonsense and you are actually really clever because of that. Sure fire away, that carry on says more about you than anyone else.
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:29:18 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:23:02 PM
I have to say I'm loving this. I must be hitting nerves all over the show or tye gimp brigade wouldn't be biting . And I haven't even started drinking yet.
Btw I defs have half a brain , it's all you need on here most of the time.
Tiocfaidh ár lá - brutal Irish btw
Tiocfaidh lá s'againne ye free state lackeys!
That's interesting. Talk me through that.
We do use "ár" in Ulster Irish. And "Sinn" dála an scéil.
Really ? You would say tiocfaidh ár bus
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:42:24 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:41:01 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:29:18 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:23:02 PM
I have to say I'm loving this. I must be hitting nerves all over the show or tye gimp brigade wouldn't be biting . And I haven't even started drinking yet.
Btw I defs have half a brain , it's all you need on here most of the time.
Tiocfaidh ár lá - brutal Irish btw
Tiocfaidh lá s'againne ye free state lackeys!
That's interesting. Talk me through that.
We do use "ár" in Ulster Irish. And "Sinn" dála an scéil.
Really ? You would say tiocfaidh ár bus
No....I'd say ár mbus obviously.....
Yeah of course . But you wouldn't really . It's bad Irish and you know it.
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:45:08 PM
It really isn't.
Go hionraice níor chuala mé duine ar bith i gcúige uladh ar scor ar bith á úsáid sa dóigh sin . Tá sé iontach ciotach, sin mo thuairimse féin ach is fearr Gaeilge ar bith na Béarla lá ar bith
Quote from: Itchy on October 08, 2021, 09:31:00 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:23:02 PM
I have to say I'm loving this. I must be hitting nerves all over the show or tye gimp brigade wouldn't be biting . And I haven't even started drinking yet.
Btw I defs have half a brain , it's all you need on here most of the time.
Tiocfaidh ár lá - brutal Irish btw
Tiocfaidh lá s'againne ye free state lackeys!
So your not debating you are just trying to wind people up by posting nonsense and you are actually really clever because of that. Sure fire away, that carry on says more about you than anyone else.
Done with you ..I'm using my half a brain to talk to this other chap.. your too easy
Don't let FBnaS distract you all from the fact that the SDLP have decided to commemorate partition.
Stoops gunna stoop.
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 09:54:57 PM
Don't let FBnaS distract you all from the fact that the SDLP have decided to commemorate partition.
Stoops gunna stoop.
Where was that rare boy Kearney today ..wan weirdo
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:57:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:45:08 PM
It really isn't.
Go hionraice níor chuala mé duine ar bith i gcúige uladh ar scor ar bith á úsáid sa dóigh sin . Tá sé iontach ciotach, sin mo thuairimse féin ach is fearr Gaeilge ar bith na Béarla lá ar bith
Níor chuala mise duine ar bith i gCúige Uladh ag rá "Athair s'againne atá ar neamh...." ar eagla go raibh droch-Ghaeilge in úsáid acu.
Ach is paidir í sin , ní caint na ndaoine
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 10:09:26 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 10:01:43 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:57:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:45:08 PM
It really isn't.
Go hionraice níor chuala mé duine ar bith i gcúige uladh ar scor ar bith á úsáid sa dóigh sin . Tá sé iontach ciotach, sin mo thuairimse féin ach is fearr Gaeilge ar bith na Béarla lá ar bith
Níor chuala mise duine ar bith i gCúige Uladh ag rá "Athair s'againne atá ar neamh...." ar eagla go raibh droch-Ghaeilge in úsáid acu.
Ach is paidir í sin , ní caint na ndaoine
Is ionann an dá rud. Ní bheadh sé sa phaidir acu dá mbeadh sé mínadúrtha acu.
Rud caighdeánach is dócha chun na trí chanúint a tharraingt le chéile
Below is the full quote from Claire Hanna on Talkback today re. whether or not it was a political event.
Now before reading it, bear in mind that the entire basis of her defence for going to the commemoration, throughout the interview, was that the event was NOT political (even though she praised Higgins for not attending as he felt the event was political).
"I spoke at the start about how there is an enormous amount of politics around this event, there's no about that. I don't believe it's a political event. I mean, everything is political. And yes there is politics around this."
So to sum up the SDLP position:
- Michael D was right to not go because he said it was a political event and we agree fully with him. That said, its OK for the SDLP to go because we actually don't believe it's a political event, even though we believe it is an event that has "an enormous amount of politics around it".
Clear as mud.
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 10:35:13 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 10:25:02 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 10:09:26 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 10:01:43 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:57:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:45:08 PM
It really isn't.
Go hionraice níor chuala mé duine ar bith i gcúige uladh ar scor ar bith á úsáid sa dóigh sin . Tá sé iontach ciotach, sin mo thuairimse féin ach is fearr Gaeilge ar bith na Béarla lá ar bith
Níor chuala mise duine ar bith i gCúige Uladh ag rá "Athair s'againne atá ar neamh...." ar eagla go raibh droch-Ghaeilge in úsáid acu.
Ach is paidir í sin , ní caint na ndaoine
Is ionann an dá rud. Ní bheadh sé sa phaidir acu dá mbeadh sé mínadúrtha acu.
Rud caighdeánach is dócha chun na trí chanúint a tharraingt le chéile
Ní thuigim do phointe ar chor ar bith. Ar ndóigh, baintear úsáid as "s'agamsa" "s'agatsa" "s'aigesean" srl go minic i gCúige Uladh ach níl a dháth contráilte le "mo" "do" "a" nó cuid ar bith den aidiacht shealbhach.
Tá sé i gceart go caighdeánach ach ní hionann sin agus an dóigh a labhraítear an teanga sa chúige seo.
Quote from: Snapchap on October 08, 2021, 10:28:24 PM
Below is the full quote from Claire Hanna on Talkback today re. whether or not it was a political event.
Now before reading it, bear in mind that the entire basis of her defence for going to the commemoration, throughout the interview, was that the event was NOT political (even though she praised Higgins for not attending as he felt the event was political).
"I spoke at the start about how there is an enormous amount of politics around this event, there's no about that. I don't believe it's a political event. I mean, everything is political. And yes there is politics around this."
So to sum up the SDLP position:
- Michael D was right to not go because he said it was a political event and we agree fully with him. That said, its OK for the SDLP to go because we actually don't believe it's a political event, even though we believe it is an event that has "an enormous amount of politics around it".
Clear as mud.
What's Declan Kearneys take on it
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 10:50:28 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 10:35:13 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 10:25:02 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 10:09:26 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 10:01:43 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:57:08 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 09:45:08 PM
It really isn't.
Go hionraice níor chuala mé duine ar bith i gcúige uladh ar scor ar bith á úsáid sa dóigh sin . Tá sé iontach ciotach, sin mo thuairimse féin ach is fearr Gaeilge ar bith na Béarla lá ar bith
Níor chuala mise duine ar bith i gCúige Uladh ag rá "Athair s'againne atá ar neamh...." ar eagla go raibh droch-Ghaeilge in úsáid acu.
Ach is paidir í sin , ní caint na ndaoine
Is ionann an dá rud. Ní bheadh sé sa phaidir acu dá mbeadh sé mínadúrtha acu.
Rud caighdeánach is dócha chun na trí chanúint a tharraingt le chéile
Ní thuigim do phointe ar chor ar bith. Ar ndóigh, baintear úsáid as "s'agamsa" "s'agatsa" "s'aigesean" srl go minic i gCúige Uladh ach níl a dháth contráilte le "mo" "do" "a" nó cuid ar bith den aidiacht shealbhach.
Tá sé i gceart go caighdeánach ach ní hionann sin agus an dóigh a labhraítear an teanga sa chúige seo.
Is ionann! Deir daoine "mo hata" agus "hata s'agamsa". Deir siad "a mháthair" agus "máthair s'aige". Deir siad "ár muintir" agus "muintir s'againne".
Ní deir síad ár muintir sa chúige seo . Ar scor ar bith deas a bheith ag díospóireacht i mó theanga dúchais
craic éigin anseo anocht
Quote from: Duine Inteacht Eile on October 08, 2021, 11:05:07 PM
Deir.
Cad é faoi rudaí cosúil le "inár" nó "lenár"? Droch-Ghaeilge amach?
Seo ceann maith a d'fhoghlaim mé
Tiocfaidh an lá inár dtógfaidh an bó a ruball
One sure way to kill off conversation on here
Speak about Gaelic stuff
Speak about it in your native language.
Where are all the chucks now
Dún theas agus Londain Doire
A Dhia, coimeád ár dteanga ársa álainn slán ó na Tuaisceartaigh.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 08, 2021, 11:41:41 PM
A Dhia, coimeád ár dteanga ársa álainn slán ó na Tuaisceartaigh.
Lol. Bíodh ciall agat
COLUM EASTWOOD THIS WEEK (ON ACCEPTING THE INVITATION TO THE COMMEMORATION):
"Given the choice between remaining in the trenches of the last 100 years or reaching out to build a new future, I know which side I want to be on"
COLUM EASTWOOD TWO WEEKS AGO (ON MICHAEL D DECLINING THE INVITATION TO THE COMMEMORATION):
"I would respectfully ask that those for whom this is disappointing reflect on the honest remarks made by President Higgins last night and understand the views of those for whom partition is not a cause for celebration or commemoration."
So Michael D was both right not to go, but is also
wrong for not going and is just stuck in his sectarian trench. Thanks for clearing that up, Colum.
Let's be honest, there's not one political party who doesn't talk shite.
It's probably because of that, that we are 100 years stuck in this place. Had there been a cohesive strategy by a political party (from the start) to bring partition down we might not be in this position of 'celebrating' .
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 09, 2021, 08:27:27 AM
Let's be honest, there's not one political party who doesn't talk shite.
It's probably because of that, that we are 100 years stuck in this place. Had there been a cohesive strategy by a political party (from the start) to bring partition down we might not be in this position of 'celebrating' .
FAir point
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 09, 2021, 08:27:27 AM
Let's be honest, there's not one political party who doesn't talk shite.
It's probably because of that, that we are 100 years stuck in this place. Had there been a cohesive strategy by a political party (from the start) to bring partition down we might not be in this position of 'celebrating' .
So we don't have a united Ireland because of a failure of nationalism? That's almost like victim blaming and ignores the reality of how this place was governed. It was created and sculpted precisely to insure itself against any possibility of nationalist politics having an impact, let alone have the capacity to bring the state to an end.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 11:20:43 PM
One sure way to kill off conversation on here
Speak about Gaelic stuff
Speak about it in your native language.
Where are all the chucks now
We can add Irish Language snob now to your list of achievements. To be honest I'm a bigger idiot for even engaging with you, I've a lot more important things to do than this so fire away, I'm sticking you on ignore.
Pretty mad stuff that a few cohort of posters (well mainly one poster) seems to want to drive this thread down totally different agenda when the Stoops have another crisis.
Can we please just stick to the thread title here.
Quote from: Snapchap on October 09, 2021, 10:09:06 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 09, 2021, 08:27:27 AM
Let's be honest, there's not one political party who doesn't talk shite.
It's probably because of that, that we are 100 years stuck in this place. Had there been a cohesive strategy by a political party (from the start) to bring partition down we might not be in this position of 'celebrating' .
So we don't have a united Ireland because of a failure of nationalism? That's almost like victim blaming and ignores the reality of how this place was governed. It was created and sculpted precisely to insure itself against any possibility of nationalist politics having an impact, let alone have the capacity to bring the state to an end.
Irish "Nationalism" is failing North and South of the border , in that we still don't have a peaceful solution on this island. Those with Irish affinity , ethos, aspiration have yet to unify themselves, never mind trying to unify the whole island. The SDLP have played an important role in providing a voting option for those "Irish" in the North who feel they can't support SF due to recent history of violence. I would say this cohort of voters contain alot of older "practicing Catholics", which is a dwindling population . Despite decline in recent years the SDLP had a mini resurgence in the last election eg in Derry ( which seems to have had other agendas at play) . The SDLP can't water down their greenness any further , as it would cost them green votes, but won't attract middle ground , who already have alliance to vote for . As a result, SDLPs only chance of survival is becoming a rival to SF, and in Eastwood's case this anti-SF agenda has become his main focus (eg link with FF) . I think this approach will further delay an all-island solution .
Quote from: Itchy on October 09, 2021, 10:23:08 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 08, 2021, 11:20:43 PM
One sure way to kill off conversation on here
Speak about Gaelic stuff
Speak about it in your native language.
Where are all the chucks now
We can add Irish Language snob now to your list of achievements. To be honest I'm a bigger idiot for even engaging with you, I've a lot more important things to do than this so fire away, Im sticking you on ignore.
Leath Amadán for sure,
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 10:26:43 AM
Pretty mad stuff that a few cohort of posters (well mainly one poster) seems to want to drive this thread down totally different agenda when the Stoops have another crisis.
Can we please just stick to the thread title here.
What about Declan Kearney
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 10:26:43 AM
Pretty mad stuff that a few cohort of posters (well mainly one poster) seems to want to drive this thread down totally different agenda when the Stoops have another crisis.
Can we please just stick to the thread title here.
What about Declan Kearney
The first two words.
If you wish to talk about Declan Kearney, go spam up the relevant thread. This one is about the SDLP.
Looks like we have a shameless hypocrite on our hands. ;D
Quote from: Snapchap on October 09, 2021, 10:09:06 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 09, 2021, 08:27:27 AM
Let's be honest, there's not one political party who doesn't talk shite.
It's probably because of that, that we are 100 years stuck in this place. Had there been a cohesive strategy by a political party (from the start) to bring partition down we might not be in this position of 'celebrating' .
So we don't have a united Ireland because of a failure of nationalism? That's almost like victim blaming and ignores the reality of how this place was governed. It was created and sculpted precisely to insure itself against any possibility of nationalist politics having an impact, let alone have the capacity to bring the state to an end.
There was a failure in Ireland politics as a whole that allowed this place to be as it is for 100 years. And quite possibly for another 100 years
https://mobile.twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1446795957794971651
Quote from: seafoid on October 09, 2021, 05:59:39 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1446795957794971651
Also Colum Eastwood:
"I would respectfully ask that those for whom this is disappointing reflect on the honest remarks made by President Higgins last night and understand the views of those for whom partition is not a cause for celebration or commemoration."
Talking himself into a tizzy.
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 10:26:43 AM
Pretty mad stuff that a few cohort of posters (well mainly one poster) seems to want to drive this thread down totally different agenda when the Stoops have another crisis.
Can we please just stick to the thread title here.
What about Declan Kearney
The first two words.
If you wish to talk about Declan Kearney, go spam up the relevant thread. This one is about the SDLP.
but you are a shinner complaining about sdlp attending an almost identical event thay kearney attended. surely relevant
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 07:25:18 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 10:26:43 AM
Pretty mad stuff that a few cohort of posters (well mainly one poster) seems to want to drive this thread down totally different agenda when the Stoops have another crisis.
Can we please just stick to the thread title here.
What about Declan Kearney
The first two words.
If you wish to talk about Declan Kearney, go spam up the relevant thread. This one is about the SDLP.
but you are a shinner complaining about sdlp attending an almost identical event thay kearney attended. surely relevant
Identical event? Kearney attended a panel discussion where he was able to put forward his own view. This is a church service. Even Claire Hanna admitted that the two were very different. Another poor effort from you, Fear.
Quote from: Snapchap on October 09, 2021, 08:15:53 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 07:25:18 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 10:26:43 AM
Pretty mad stuff that a few cohort of posters (well mainly one poster) seems to want to drive this thread down totally different agenda when the Stoops have another crisis.
Can we please just stick to the thread title here.
What about Declan Kearney
The first two words.
If you wish to talk about Declan Kearney, go spam up the relevant thread. This one is about the SDLP.
but you are a shinner complaining about sdlp attending an almost identical event thay kearney attended. surely relevant
Identical event? Kearney attended a panel discussion where he was able to put forward his own view. This is a church service. Even Claire Hanna admitted that the two were very different. Another poor effort from you, Fear.
Oh it's a church service , horrendous.
This looks very similar in intent.
https://www.presbyterianireland.org/News/September-2021/Church-marks-historic-moment-in-time.aspx
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 09, 2021, 08:15:53 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 07:25:18 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 10:26:43 AM
Pretty mad stuff that a few cohort of posters (well mainly one poster) seems to want to drive this thread down totally different agenda when the Stoops have another crisis.
Can we please just stick to the thread title here.
What about Declan Kearney
The first two words.
If you wish to talk about Declan Kearney, go spam up the relevant thread. This one is about the SDLP.
but you are a shinner complaining about sdlp attending an almost identical event thay kearney attended. surely relevant
Identical event? Kearney attended a panel discussion where he was able to put forward his own view. This is a church service. Even Claire Hanna admitted that the two were very different. Another poor effort from you, Fear.
Oh it's a church service , horrendous.
This looks very similar in intent.
https://www.presbyterianireland.org/News/September-2021/Church-marks-historic-moment-in-time.aspx
You said they were identical events when they were demonstrably poles apart. Only one allowed guests to take the mic and speak about why partition was wrong.
Again, a poor effort, Fear.
Quote from: Snapchap on October 09, 2021, 08:38:51 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on October 09, 2021, 08:15:53 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 07:25:18 PM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 09, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Tres Bien on October 09, 2021, 10:26:43 AM
Pretty mad stuff that a few cohort of posters (well mainly one poster) seems to want to drive this thread down totally different agenda when the Stoops have another crisis.
Can we please just stick to the thread title here.
What about Declan Kearney
The first two words.
If you wish to talk about Declan Kearney, go spam up the relevant thread. This one is about the SDLP.
but you are a shinner complaining about sdlp attending an almost identical event thay kearney attended. surely relevant
Identical event? Kearney attended a panel discussion where he was able to put forward his own view. This is a church service. Even Claire Hanna admitted that the two were very different. Another poor effort from you, Fear.
Oh it's a church service , horrendous.
This looks very similar in intent.
https://www.presbyterianireland.org/News/September-2021/Church-marks-historic-moment-in-time.aspx
You said they were identical events when they were demonstrably poles apart. Only one allowed guests to take the mic and speak about why partition was wrong.
Again, a poor effort, Fear.
But sure didn't tye SDLP not use the publicity from this event to say partition hasn't worked?
The SDLP are not the lowest of the low. There are good people in the party and there are some promoted beyond their ability, Claire Hanna has been a major disappointment in her inability to string together a coherent argument. Eastwood is weak as a leader, Mallon would be a better choice. I have a deep and fundamental issue with any nationalist attending this event. But it seems the Alliance wing of the SDLP still holds sway to a point. Difference between this event and the one all nationalist parties attended previously is it was a panel discussion. This is pleat with party, fireworks and celebrations.
This is interesting, student guy defects from UUP to SDLP. Hopefully the first of many!
https://medium.com/@matthewtaylorr/civic-politics-why-im-leaving-the-union-of-people-9d7118657198
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKA2i2DWYAI1VOg?format=jpg&name=medium)
Brian hits nail on head again. The centenary celebrating wee Croppy Boy who was going to stop Brexit all on us own, and his party, are an irrelevance now.
Quote from: red hander on January 26, 2022, 04:04:04 PM
Brian hits nail on head again. The centenary celebrating wee Croppy Boy who was going to stop Brexit all on us own, and his party, are an irrelevance now.
I wouldn't agree with "irrelevance". They have plenty of voters and are certainly relevant in Derry & South Belfast for example. But they are generally trumped by SF who are a bigger machine and have a clear project to be in government on both sides of the border and a clearer message on United Ireland. Plus many nationalists vote to keep DUP in check so SF get that vote without much thought. So just like UUP they are stuck on 10%.
But at the end of the day they are all a bunch of amateurs with next to no powers, for example they'll talk shite about the cost of living crisis but wont have a scooby what to do - and SF had no impact on Brexit either.
Can you explain the Croppy Boy quip? I don't get it.
Quote from: Snapchap on January 26, 2022, 12:41:30 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKA2i2DWYAI1VOg?format=jpg&name=medium)
Such horseshit. What's the shinners "clear and unequivocal" steps to a UI?
Quote from: trileacman on January 26, 2022, 11:20:30 PM
Such horseshit. What's the shinners "clear and unequivocal" steps to a UI?
;D ;D ;D
Denounces the article as "horseshit" and, instead of defending the SDLP, immediatedly attacks SF instead. Irony overload!
Quote from: Snapchap on January 27, 2022, 07:43:41 AM
Quote from: trileacman on January 26, 2022, 11:20:30 PM
Such horseshit. What's the shinners "clear and unequivocal" steps to a UI?
;D ;D ;D
Denounces the article as "horseshit" and, instead of defending the SDLP, immediatedly attacks SF instead. Irony overload!
Interesting that asking for clarification on what a Sinn Fein policy is, is deemed an attack on Sinn Fein.
That puts the article in perspective in fairness.
What is the SF "pathway" to a UI?
Maybe some of their spokesmen here could outline them?
Quote from: Hound on January 27, 2022, 09:54:42 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on January 27, 2022, 07:43:41 AM
Quote from: trileacman on January 26, 2022, 11:20:30 PM
Such horseshit. What's the shinners "clear and unequivocal" steps to a UI?
;D ;D ;D
Denounces the article as "horseshit" and, instead of defending the SDLP, immediatedly attacks SF instead. Irony overload!
Interesting that asking for clarification on what a Sinn Fein policy is, is deemed an attack on Sinn Fein.
That puts the article in perspective in fairness.
Surely the insinuation being made by the poster is that SF don't have a plan for achieving a United Ireland? Is that not an attack on the party?
The irony that the only rebuttal Trileacman can muster against what he calls a "horseshit" article which argues that the SDLP have no clear policies beyond attacking SF, is to just have a pop at Sinn Féin, is just perfect.
Quote from: Rossfan on January 27, 2022, 10:31:03 AM
What is the SF "pathway" to a UI?
Maybe some of their spokesmen here could outline them?
Haven't SF's tactics and utterances and various campaigns for the achievement of a UI been discussed on this board ad nauseum?
Isn't the whole point of the Brian Feeney article that the SDLP has no clearly defined policies or plans beyond attacking Sinn Féín?
Isn't it ironic that in response to an article which argues that the SDLP has no policies beyond attacking SF, that the most recent responses to the article have been to...you know...
There is no difference between SF and SDLP overarching policy on UI since SF stole Humes clothing. Yes abstentionism and the all ireland dimension are comparative differences on structure and specific policy much like their approach to abortion differs in some ways.
But ffs SDLP are constantly called stoops, croppy boys etc etc, so a bit rich from anyone accusing SDLP calling out SF.
When we were young pups SF local councillors(neighbours) directed us to stone the SDLP canvassing car the same way we stoned the brits. So ye know come on..... I cant remember Hume asking lads to go down and PB McGuinness house in the brandywell, but guess what it happened the other way around
The brexit jibe is so puerile it is ridiculous.
For what's it worth SDLP members targeted SF posters in my area growing up. So it works both ways. Both were wrong.
It's like a compulsive, reflex reaction!! Are any of you capable of discussing the SDLP and it's policies without it immediately turning into an attack on SF?
A few lads seem keen to disagree with Brian Feeney's argument but, in the effort, just can't help but immediately prove him absolutely right.
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 27, 2022, 12:49:16 PM
For what's it worth SDLP members targeted SF posters in my area growing up. So it works both ways. Both were wrong.
pelted them with fliers lol
Brian Feeney's article has hit the spot exactly when it comes to the SDLP. Unfortunately after the GFA they did not redefine policies to suit the changed environment. They were also hobbled by internal divisions with different agendas. as an ordinary nationalist voter I am not supportive of everything SF do but they are better than the SDLP. Eastwood has been a disappointment his only strategy is a but SF. I am not clear on how SF are going to achieve unity if at all, but they at least call out the cartoonist position of FG and latterly FF. I would have more faith in the civic nationalist approach.
I like some of the SDLP politicians but honestly I think Eastwood is a terrible leader. There is just something about him. If they want to really progress I think they need someone much better than him. They have at the very least three that are too.
Genuine question, can someone explain the Croppy Boy jibe?
I think he means the old croppy lie down and feels Eastwood lay down with things like oath of allegiance to the queen and attending the 100 years of partition (or whatever it was called) celebration / commemoration.
(Not my view but what some people think...)
Quote from: Snapchap on January 27, 2022, 10:55:28 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 27, 2022, 10:31:03 AM
What is the SF "pathway" to a UI?
Maybe some of their spokesmen here could outline them?
Haven't SF's tactics and utterances and various campaigns for the achievement of a UI been discussed on this board ad nauseum?
Remind me as th'oul memory is getting a bit lax...
Just a little summary please.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 27, 2022, 03:21:12 PM
I think he means the old croppy lie down and feels Eastwood lay down with things like oath of allegiance to the queen and attending the 100 years of partition (or whatever it was called) celebration / commemoration.
(Not my view but what some people think...)
Thanks. Croppy's stood up to the British Empire. The poster was taking a jibe at Colum Eastwood, by calling him a Croppy Boy. It's not making sense to me.
The NI centenary thing doesn't sit well with some people. I can't speak for if that is the poster's reasoning but I know a few who think like that.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 27, 2022, 03:53:03 PM
The NI centenary thing doesn't sit well with some people. I can't speak for if that is the poster's reasoning but I know a few who think like that.
Nor me, but sure Adams couldn't get up the Queens arse quick enough
Shots fired ;D
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 27, 2022, 01:04:27 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 27, 2022, 12:49:16 PM
For what's it worth SDLP members targeted SF posters in my area growing up. So it works both ways. Both were wrong.
pelted them with fliers lol
There was an infamous incident on the affluent Culmore Rd area in Derry Fear, were Sf were canvassing and the local youths pelted them with Ferrero Rochers
Quote from: Applesisapples on January 27, 2022, 01:37:41 PM
Brian Feeney's article has hit the spot exactly when it comes to the SDLP. Unfortunately after the GFA they did not redefine policies to suit the changed environment. They were also hobbled by internal divisions with different agendas. as an ordinary nationalist voter I am not supportive of everything SF do but they are better than the SDLP. Eastwood has been a disappointment his only strategy is a but SF. I am not clear on how SF are going to achieve unity if at all, but they at least call out the cartoonist position of FG and latterly FF. I would have more faith in the civic nationalist approach.
Is anyone clear on how a united ireland is to be achieved? Bit strange to start your criticism of the SDLP as Feeney did by criticising their lack of a pathway to a UI.
Quote from: HiMucker on January 27, 2022, 04:25:20 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on January 27, 2022, 01:04:27 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 27, 2022, 12:49:16 PM
For what's it worth SDLP members targeted SF posters in my area growing up. So it works both ways. Both were wrong.
pelted them with fliers lol
There was an infamous incident on the affluent Culmore Rd area in Derry Fear, were Sf were canvassing and the local youths pelted them with Ferrero Rochers
Scoundrels, hopefully they were sent to bed with the electric blanket switched off
I see the SDLP has formally ended it's partnership/relationship/connection/whatever the fcuk it was supposed to have been with Fianna Fáil.
How they couldn't see how toxic Micheal Martin is to northern nationalists when they decided to hop in bed with him says an awful lot about Colum Eastwood's judgement as a political leader.
Incidentally, it's just over a year since the SDLP, to much fanfare, announced it's shiny new initiative "The New Ireland Commission". Since it's launch it has been essentially wound down having done seemingly absolutely nothing whatsoever ::)
Good to see they are at least getting the balls the call out that relationship between Alliance and SF(it will be denied I know by the sheep) -SF encouraging supporters to transfer to a unionist party was unforgivable.
I said a while back SF will start to turn on Alliance once sdlp are removed
SDLP vote for a six county stone at Stormont celebrating partition. WTF
Sure didn't SF and the SDLP take their seats in the partitionist Stormont, and took up Executive positions in the partitionist Statelet, and negitiated and signed up to the Good Friday Agreement which continued/copper fastened Partition?
Quote from: Rossfan on February 16, 2023, 03:27:38 PM
Sure didn't SF and the SDLP take their seats in the partitionist Stormont, and took up Executive positions in the partitionist Statelet, and negitiated and signed up to the Good Friday Agreement which continued/copper fastened Partition?
Should have kept shooting (West)Brits instead, I know!
Quote from: Applesisapples on February 16, 2023, 02:48:20 PM
SDLP vote for a six county stone at Stormont celebrating partition. WTF
Martin McGuinness spent years trying to remove the Brits from Ireland. Ended up as DFM administering British law.
Quote from: Applesisapples on February 16, 2023, 02:48:20 PM
SDLP vote for a six county stone at Stormont celebrating partition. WTF
Celebrate? I suspect that's your interpretation.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 16, 2023, 03:27:38 PM
Sure didn't SF and the SDLP take their seats in the partitionist Stormont, and took up Executive positions in the partitionist Statelet, and negitiated and signed up to the Good Friday Agreement which continued/copper fastened Partition?
Sounds like someone hasn't read the GFA.
The SDLP vote has dropped so badly they are now no longer eligible to be part of the government in Stormont ( if it ever gets going again ). In the most recent Lucid talk poll they are on the same level of vote as the TUV ( around 8% ). They are facing into a council election in May which could be very painful although individual councillors may well have a higher personal vote than the party itself.
The SDLP has to come up with a reason to exist, saying we are not Sinn Fein is not a reason. They need some big ideas and policies to differentiate themselves. They are slowly but surely circling the plughole of electoral oblivion, too many big egos with little talent. If they were wise they would push the socialist agenda more as they are never going to out nationalist Sinn Fein.
If they don't do something radical very soon they will be the equivalent of the workers party in 5 to 10 years with 3% of the vote all from pensioners who remember the troubles.
They need a new leader - Eastwood isn't good.
The SDLP are like Meath.
SF are like Dublin
It won't last forever
Quote from: seafoid on February 17, 2023, 10:44:47 AM
The SDLP are like Meath.
SF are like Dublin
It won't last forever
When you say "it won't last forever", is that a prediction that the SDLP will be top dog again some day?
Quote from: Snapchap on February 17, 2023, 10:49:15 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 17, 2023, 10:44:47 AM
The SDLP are like Meath.
SF are like Dublin
It won't last forever
When you say "it won't last forever", is that a prediction that the SDLP will be top dog again some day?
absolutely.
FF were top dog from 1930 to 2009 . That's longer than SF
And then the wolf arrived. It happens to every party.
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 17, 2023, 10:40:59 AM
They need a new leader - Eastwood isn't good.
Where's he been the last while?
You'd see Claire Hanna and Matthew O'Toole about on the news but not Colin.
Who's Colin lol.
Just get Hanna or O'Toole as leaders and be done with it.
Their radical views on covid might be one of the reasons they lost lots of support.
Quote from: seafoid on February 17, 2023, 11:03:44 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on February 17, 2023, 10:49:15 AM
Quote from: seafoid on February 17, 2023, 10:44:47 AM
The SDLP are like Meath.
SF are like Dublin
It won't last forever
When you say "it won't last forever", is that a prediction that the SDLP will be top dog again some day?
absolutely.
FF were top dog from 1930 to 2009 . That's longer than SF
And then the wolf arrived. It happens to every party.
And not every party in the SDLPs position returns to a position of strength. Think the PDs. Think the Women's Coalition. Sometimes a party just has no raison d'être and dies a slow death.
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 17, 2023, 11:39:24 AM
Who's Colin lol.
Just get Hanna or O'Toole as leaders and be done with it.
Hanna. The woman who was in a party with an 'electoral relationship' with Fianna Fáil, but who regularly attended Irish Labour party conferences, and was out canvassing for Fine Gael at one of the last elections. I don't think she's the answer to the SDLPs problems, somehow. O'Toole is probably their most effective communicator but to my mind the SDLP is beyond the point of rescue. Changing leader is just re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
She's a better answer than the current one.
You could be right about being beyond the point of rescue. I hope not.
Quote from: Snapchap on February 17, 2023, 11:55:01 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 17, 2023, 11:39:24 AM
Who's Colin lol.
Just get Hanna or O'Toole as leaders and be done with it.
Hanna. The woman who was in a party with an 'electoral relationship' with Fianna Fáil, but who regularly attended Irish Labour party conferences, and was out canvassing for Fine Gael at one of the last elections. I don't think she's the answer to the SDLPs problems, somehow. O'Toole is probably their most effective communicator but to my mind the SDLP is beyond the point of rescue. Changing leader is just re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
The Shinners mop up votes but the North's economy is a mess and living standards are falling.
Something doesn't add up.
It's about the tribe stupid!
Quote from: seafoid on February 17, 2023, 01:24:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on February 17, 2023, 11:55:01 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 17, 2023, 11:39:24 AM
Who's Colin lol.
Just get Hanna or O'Toole as leaders and be done with it.
Hanna. The woman who was in a party with an 'electoral relationship' with Fianna Fáil, but who regularly attended Irish Labour party conferences, and was out canvassing for Fine Gael at one of the last elections. I don't think she's the answer to the SDLPs problems, somehow. O'Toole is probably their most effective communicator but to my mind the SDLP is beyond the point of rescue. Changing leader is just re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
The Shinners mop up votes but the North's economy is a mess and living standards are falling.
Something doesn't add up.
The north's economy? To quote Brian Feeney "This isn't a country. It isn't the size of Yorkshire. It doesn't have an economy".
Quote from: Snapchap on February 17, 2023, 04:14:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 17, 2023, 01:24:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on February 17, 2023, 11:55:01 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 17, 2023, 11:39:24 AM
Who's Colin lol.
Just get Hanna or O'Toole as leaders and be done with it.
Hanna. The woman who was in a party with an 'electoral relationship' with Fianna Fáil, but who regularly attended Irish Labour party conferences, and was out canvassing for Fine Gael at one of the last elections. I don't think she's the answer to the SDLPs problems, somehow. O'Toole is probably their most effective communicator but to my mind the SDLP is beyond the point of rescue. Changing leader is just re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
The Shinners mop up votes but the North's economy is a mess and living standards are falling.
Something doesn't add up.
The north's economy? To quote Brian Feeney "This isn't a country. It isn't the size of Yorkshire. It doesn't have an economy".
Hanna or O'Toole would just be rearranging deck chairs. Eastwood debated very well at the last election but it makes little difference, nationalists are voting SF to keep DUP out, not because SF have some amazing track record.
Quote from: Snapchap on February 17, 2023, 04:14:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 17, 2023, 01:24:50 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on February 17, 2023, 11:55:01 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 17, 2023, 11:39:24 AM
Who's Colin lol.
Just get Hanna or O'Toole as leaders and be done with it.
Hanna. The woman who was in a party with an 'electoral relationship' with Fianna Fáil, but who regularly attended Irish Labour party conferences, and was out canvassing for Fine Gael at one of the last elections. I don't think she's the answer to the SDLPs problems, somehow. O'Toole is probably their most effective communicator but to my mind the SDLP is beyond the point of rescue. Changing leader is just re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
The Shinners mop up votes but the North's economy is a mess and living standards are falling.
Something doesn't add up.
The north's economy? To quote Brian Feeney "This isn't a country. It isn't the size of Yorkshire. It doesn't have an economy".
To quote John Hume, voters can't eat flags
https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475 (https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475)
This is mad stuff from Colm. It's on a par with Danny Kennedys anti-democratic ramblings a few weeks ago. Unionists won't have a mayor in Derry for the next 4 years because they did not get enough seats to warrant one under the D'Hondt system, not because those pesky Shinners are up to their tricks.
I honestly almost put this in the WTF thread.
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 12, 2023, 07:35:13 AM
https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475 (https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475)
This is mad stuff from Colm. It's on a par with Danny Kennedys anti-democratic ramblings a few weeks ago. Unionists won't have a mayor in Derry for the next 4 years because they did not get enough seats to warrant one under the D'Hondt system, not because those pesky Shinners are up to their tricks.
I honestly almost put this in the WTF thread.
It's not about Derry.
This Unionist is more honest about it than Eastwood.
UUP councillor Ryan McCready, whose party increased both its vote share and its number of seats, is sanguine - if disappointed - about the outcome.
"It's what I expected," he told Belfast Live. "The system we used is proportional representation and the D'Hondt system.
"Sinn Fein had a fantastic election and they are entitled to three Mayoral terms - I don't have a problem with that because I respect democracy.
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 12, 2023, 07:35:13 AM
https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475 (https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475)
This is mad stuff from Colm. It's on a par with Danny Kennedys anti-democratic ramblings a few weeks ago. Unionists won't have a mayor in Derry for the next 4 years because they did not get enough seats to warrant one under the D'Hondt system, not because those pesky Shinners are up to their tricks.
I honestly almost put this in the WTF thread.
I find it amazing how this is such an issue for the local media when unionists are lacking representation in Derry or Fermanagh but is never an issue when nationalists are lacking representation in Ards and North Down or in Mid and East Antrim. Usual double standards from the usual suspects.
Quote from: keep her low this half on June 12, 2023, 09:54:52 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 12, 2023, 07:35:13 AM
https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475 (https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475)
This is mad stuff from Colm. It's on a par with Danny Kennedys anti-democratic ramblings a few weeks ago. Unionists won't have a mayor in Derry for the next 4 years because they did not get enough seats to warrant one under the D'Hondt system, not because those pesky Shinners are up to their tricks.
I honestly almost put this in the WTF thread.
I find it amazing how this is such an issue for the local media when unionists are lacking representation in Derry or Fermanagh but is never an issue when nationalists are lacking representation in Ards and North Down or in Mid and East Antrim. Usual double standards from the usual suspects.
Can you not just aspire to be better? Do you have to match the lower standards?
I like Colum but this is daft as already pointed out the Unionist controlled councils in the east would never consider giving nationalists the mayor's position if they hadn't earned it at the ballet box. If he is that concerned then rather than asking SF to give up the one of their rota slots why doesn't he give up the SDLP slot!!
Quote from: Rois on June 12, 2023, 10:00:42 AM
Quote from: keep her low this half on June 12, 2023, 09:54:52 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 12, 2023, 07:35:13 AM
https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475 (https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475)
This is mad stuff from Colm. It's on a par with Danny Kennedys anti-democratic ramblings a few weeks ago. Unionists won't have a mayor in Derry for the next 4 years because they did not get enough seats to warrant one under the D'Hondt system, not because those pesky Shinners are up to their tricks.
I honestly almost put this in the WTF thread.
I find it amazing how this is such an issue for the local media when unionists are lacking representation in Derry or Fermanagh but is never an issue when nationalists are lacking representation in Ards and North Down or in Mid and East Antrim. Usual double standards from the usual suspects.
Can you not just aspire to be better? Do you have to match the lower standards?
Normally I would agree but being good mannered and courteous hasn't exactly got nationalism anywhere. Sure they can't even accept a nationalist FM!
Quote from: Rois on June 12, 2023, 10:00:42 AM
Quote from: keep her low this half on June 12, 2023, 09:54:52 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 12, 2023, 07:35:13 AM
https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475 (https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475)
This is mad stuff from Colm. It's on a par with Danny Kennedys anti-democratic ramblings a few weeks ago. Unionists won't have a mayor in Derry for the next 4 years because they did not get enough seats to warrant one under the D'Hondt system, not because those pesky Shinners are up to their tricks.
I honestly almost put this in the WTF thread.
I find it amazing how this is such an issue for the local media when unionists are lacking representation in Derry or Fermanagh but is never an issue when nationalists are lacking representation in Ards and North Down or in Mid and East Antrim. Usual double standards from the usual suspects.
Can you not just aspire to be better? Do you have to match the lower standards?
Not sure I get your point Rois. SF controlled councils operate D'Hondt in order ensure the fair allocation of positions based on proportional electoral strength, something unionist councils don't do. How is that matching unionist low standards when it comes to sharing power?
Colm Eastwood's tweet is just textbook Colm. He knows full well that SF operate D'Hondt by their own choice in order to share power as fairly and democratically as possible in councils they control. But he still had to find a way to turn it into an attack on them. The usual tiresome, dishonest B.S. from the SDLP leader.
I guess what I'm saying is could you not just make a gesture that would be a huge PR win for SF for something as inconsequential as this.
SF have done a lot right recently, but probably do have to work twice as hard at it, given where they have come from. John Finucane's speech (whatever about the content) has not gone down well.
Quote from: Rois on June 12, 2023, 11:19:49 AM
I guess what I'm saying is could you not just make a gesture that would be a huge PR win for SF for something as inconsequential as this.
SF have done a lot right recently, but probably do have to work twice as hard at it, given where they have come from. John Finucane's speech (whatever about the content) has not gone down well.
No harm to you Rois but that is absolute nonsense that just feeds into the unionist sense of entitlement. Doesn't it say so much about the SDLP and their supporters that, in a scenario where SF (by their own choice) have re-committed to operateing D'Hondt in order to share power fairly and democratically in councils they control, while unionists do not; that their gut instinct is to complain that it's SF who aren't being fair? You are just 100% echoing the bizarre remarks of Danny Kennedy when he complained that SF were being unfair by winning so many votes and having so many of their candidates elected.
Quote from: Rois on June 12, 2023, 11:19:49 AM
John Finucane's speech (whatever about the content) has not gone down well.
Hasn't gone down well? Among who? Among people who either attend or else just say absolutely nothing about commemorations for deceased RUC/British soldiers multiple times a year? It sounds like you, just like trailer, have just been sucked in by the political game playing of unionism/elements of the media in the past week. Maybe you can tell me why there was no such controversy when Finucane spoke at an IRA commemoration at Easter? Why was it all of a sudden only an issue this week? Did you criticise him at Easter? If not, why not?
You say his speech didn't go down well. Did you hear it? Did any of those complaining about it all week hear it? Or, if you're being honest, did it just not "go down well" because, regardless of what he said or didn't say, he just had the temerity to refuse to allow anyone tell him republicans shouldn't be allowed to remember our dead?
Snapchap, you are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut at times, win the PR battle, no one will care in 30 years if a UI is created, the ground work is to make the unionist/loyalist gang have the bad PR while the Nationalist/Republican can get the good PR..
Own goals or whatever will be jumped on at every opportunity, and yes the cry will be so what they remember theirs and so on. But this will be the reason that SF can't be the face of the border poll, a totally independent grouping needs to be at the forefront of that campaign otherwise it will never happen in your lifetime
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on June 12, 2023, 10:04:02 AM
Quote from: Rois on June 12, 2023, 10:00:42 AM
Quote from: keep her low this half on June 12, 2023, 09:54:52 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 12, 2023, 07:35:13 AM
https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475 (https://twitter.com/columeastwood/status/1667984392071913475)
This is mad stuff from Colm. It's on a par with Danny Kennedys anti-democratic ramblings a few weeks ago. Unionists won't have a mayor in Derry for the next 4 years because they did not get enough seats to warrant one under the D'Hondt system, not because those pesky Shinners are up to their tricks.
I honestly almost put this in the WTF thread.
I find it amazing how this is such an issue for the local media when unionists are lacking representation in Derry or Fermanagh but is never an issue when nationalists are lacking representation in Ards and North Down or in Mid and East Antrim. Usual double standards from the usual suspects.
Can you not just aspire to be better? Do you have to match the lower standards?
Normally I would agree but being good mannered and courteous hasn't exactly got nationalism anywhere. Sure they can't even accept a nationalist FM!
Yeah, I agree. They had their day.
Quote from: Snapchap on June 12, 2023, 11:47:43 AM
No harm to you Rois but that is absolute nonsense that just feeds into the unionist sense of entitlement.
Jeez snapchat, calm down.
I specifically said nothing about the content of John Finucane's speech - I heard bits of it on the radio this morning, but I don't care what he said, quite frankly - that wasn't my point. SF have to be whiter than white to win people over.
I am a member of forum that is mainly GB people who know very little about what's happening here, but who are connected parties in the Unity debate. When someone described that an MP was attending an event arranged to "commemorate the IRA", well you can imagine some comments. And you, or more specifically John Finucane, may very well hold the power in a moral argument, but who cares?
Look at the goodwill SF have created recently with the tone of the local election campaign, the attendance at the coronation of Charlie etc. All good, magnanimous stuff, helping show that a future with SF at the helm can be accommodating for all.
If it is more important to you to feel that you're right, and keep arguing why you are (d'Hondt etc), then you may forget about convincing the non-nationalist middle ground in a border poll. The low hanging fruit is there, but if you're unwilling to take it, then how can we convince the undecided?
Quote from: Rois on June 12, 2023, 12:37:18 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on June 12, 2023, 11:47:43 AM
No harm to you Rois but that is absolute nonsense that just feeds into the unionist sense of entitlement.
Jeez snapchat, calm down.
I specifically said nothing about the content of John Finucane's speech - I heard bits of it on the radio this morning, but I don't care what he said, quite frankly - that wasn't my point. SF have to be whiter than white to win people over.
I am a member of forum that is mainly GB people who know very little about what's happening here, but who are connected parties in the Unity debate. When someone described that an MP was attending an event arranged to "commemorate the IRA", well you can imagine some comments. And you, or more specifically John Finucane, may very well hold the power in a moral argument, but who cares?
Look at the goodwill SF have created recently with the tone of the local election campaign, the attendance at the coronation of Charlie etc. All good, magnanimous stuff, helping show that a future with SF at the helm can be accommodating for all.
If it is more important to you to feel that you're right, and keep arguing why you are (d'Hondt etc), then you may forget about convincing the non-nationalist middle ground in a border poll. The low hanging fruit is there, but if you're unwilling to take it, then how can we convince the undecided?
Rois, you've criticised SF for "not showing goodwill" despite the fact that they operate d'hondt voluntarily, and are now trying to suggest that even that isn't good enough to win over the middle ground, and that they should be showing "goodwill" by handing democratically elected gains over to unionism. No harm to you, but that's just Danny Kennedy levels of nonsense.
And as far as commemorations go, the "non-nationalist middle ground" had precisely no issue/comment/complaint about John Finucane commemorating the IRA as recently as Easter. A stink has only been kicked up now. So maybe you ought to ask yourself why that is the case, and why you've found yourself falling for this week's DUP/BBC led outrage campaign but had nothing to say at Easter.
SF made significant gains from the middle ground just a matter of weeks after John Finucane spoke at an Easter Commemoration, and people rightly just let him/republicans get on with it in peace. Nobody ran screaming offence to the radio and newspapers. The commemorations went ahead and there wasn't a word about it. People got on with their lives. Don't you think there's a lesson in that? So perhaps instead of bashing SF/Finucane for having a dignified commemoration for their dead, would it not be more useful to call on unionism to drop the cynical/hypocritical outrage campaign, to stop flaming tensions, and to state it loudly that everyone ought to be entitled to remember their dead in peace? Isn't that more beneficial than selectively condemning
some commemorations?
BREAKING: Sinn Féin elected representative attends IRA commemoration....
I don't think middle grounders care that Finucane went to an IRA commemoration. The outrage is reserved for the usual suspects.
Quote from: Snapchap on June 12, 2023, 01:03:16 PM
Rois, you've criticised SF for "not showing goodwill" despite the fact that they operate d'hondt voluntarily, and are now trying to suggest that even that isn't good enough to win over the middle ground, and that they should be showing "goodwill" by handing democratically elected gains over to unionism. No harm to you, but that's just Danny Kennedy levels of nonsense.
Are you attributing that quote to me? Don't think I said that - stand to be corrected. If you're turning what I said about them recently creating goodwill with gestures around to make it suit your rant, then jeez, you're going out of your way to pick an argument.
Quote from: Rois on June 12, 2023, 01:52:52 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on June 12, 2023, 01:03:16 PM
Rois, you've criticised SF for "not showing goodwill" despite the fact that they operate d'hondt voluntarily, and are now trying to suggest that even that isn't good enough to win over the middle ground, and that they should be showing "goodwill" by handing democratically elected gains over to unionism. No harm to you, but that's just Danny Kennedy levels of nonsense.
Are you attributing that quote to me? Don't think I said that - stand to be corrected. If you're turning what I said about them recently creating goodwill with gestures around to make it suit your rant, then jeez, you're going out of your way to pick an argument.
Rant? I'm trying to engage in a debate. You don't seem too happy to engage in one though.
You referred to Colm Eastwood's suggestion that SF just gift democratically won gains to unionism as a "gesture" that SF should consider. So I was paraphrasing you, since I assumed you mean "showing goodwill" but the word "gesture". But let's not be pedantic.
How about engage in the discussion. I've asked this a few times (and I asked Trailer too, and he also is avoiding answering), but I'll try again:
1. Why did nobody, yourself included, get upset when Finucane commemorated IRA Volunteers at Easter? What's different this time?
and
2. Since it's human nature to remember the dead, wouldn't it be more mature to take the approach that you and others took at Easter, and just let people have their space to commemorate their dead in peace, that do engage in/facilitate/fall for the selective outrage for
certain commemorations?
You keep trying to compare me to Danny Kennedy. I'm really busy with work and wish I hadn't opened my internet mouth
.
1. I didn't know (or care - still don't) that John Finucane was at an IRA commemoration event previously. When I voted for John Finucane in north Belfast when he became an MP (by the way, I voted for him), I didn't care either. Nor do I know if it was reported on as widely in the media. I'll assume that it wasn't. Seems to me that there is no difference. Has the media influenced it? Sounds like it, and you should def pursue that. My comment was that it hasn't gone down well with certain sections of people. And like it or not, it is very easy for those who won't consider that SF is evolving beyond the IRA to quickly go back there. Would you deny that? Sinn Fein have to work twice as hard on their image as any other party IF they want to be at the forefront of the united ireland initiative. You can't just take extreme offence when people challenge you, whether that's on a selective basis or not.
2. Oh it absolutely would be better to let people do what they want to do in peace. How is that achieved?
And ok - hands up - all of your posts, both directly and indirectly, have accused me of naivety, bordering on stupidity around the media's influence. Yep, guilty. The problem for SF is, there's an awful lot of me out there. What will you do about it?
Claire Hanna tied in knots on The View by Brian Feeney. Very close to Alliance with her views on unity.
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 15, 2024, 01:12:19 PMClaire Hanna tied in knots on The View by Brian Feeney. Very close to Alliance with her views on unity.
Of course, the question exists as to whether these are her real views or the views that will get her re-elected in South Belfast.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 15, 2024, 01:14:10 PMQuote from: Applesisapples on March 15, 2024, 01:12:19 PMClaire Hanna tied in knots on The View by Brian Feeney. Very close to Alliance with her views on unity.
Of course, the question exists as to whether these are her real views or the views that will get her re-elected in South Belfast.
Exactly & Alliance are obviously the threat in South Belfast, they all want that (soon to be increased) MP salary & expenses
Quote from: Deerstalker on March 15, 2024, 01:25:32 PMQuote from: armaghniac on March 15, 2024, 01:14:10 PMQuote from: Applesisapples on March 15, 2024, 01:12:19 PMClaire Hanna tied in knots on The View by Brian Feeney. Very close to Alliance with her views on unity.
Of course, the question exists as to whether these are her real views or the views that will get her re-elected in South Belfast.
Exactly & Alliance are obviously the threat in South Belfast, they all want that (soon to be increased) MP salary & expenses
A politician wants the job, the salary may well have nothing to do with it.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 15, 2024, 01:31:09 PMQuote from: Deerstalker on March 15, 2024, 01:25:32 PMQuote from: armaghniac on March 15, 2024, 01:14:10 PMQuote from: Applesisapples on March 15, 2024, 01:12:19 PMClaire Hanna tied in knots on The View by Brian Feeney. Very close to Alliance with her views on unity.
Of course, the question exists as to whether these are her real views or the views that will get her re-elected in South Belfast.
Exactly & Alliance are obviously the threat in South Belfast, they all want that (soon to be increased) MP salary & expenses
A politician wants the job, the salary may well have nothing to do with it.
Why do you think Swann wants to go to be an MP, and Kate Nichols from Alliance is set to stand in South Belfast too.
It's a significant difference now between an MLA & MP salary
Quote from: Applesisapples on March 15, 2024, 01:12:19 PMClaire Hanna tied in knots on The View by Brian Feeney. Very close to Alliance with her views on unity.
Was never fussed on Feeney.. His comments many years ago could (would need to dig out a link to it) have been linked to a murder of a neighbour and friend of my dads, when he mention something about Conway Mill being run by the PIRA and this man was murdered days later, he had a coal firm that worked outta there many years ago
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2024, 01:47:46 PMQuote from: Applesisapples on March 15, 2024, 01:12:19 PMClaire Hanna tied in knots on The View by Brian Feeney. Very close to Alliance with her views on unity.
Was never fussed on Feeney.. His comments many years ago could (would need to dig out a link to it) have been linked to a murder of a neighbour and friend of my dads, when he mention something about Conway Mill being run by the PIRA and this man was murdered days later, he had a coal firm that worked outta there many years ago
He does the same column in the Irish News over and over
I had to listen very carefully to make any sense of what Feeney was trying to say. He was trying to make points but always seemed to stop short and leave it hanging with a big 'you know what I mean', look on his face. Wasn't really clear at all what he was on about.
Quote from: Sportacus on March 15, 2024, 02:07:19 PMI had to listen very carefully to make any sense of what Feeney was trying to say. He was trying to make points but always seemed to stop short and leave it hanging with a big 'you know what I mean', look on his face. Wasn't really clear at all what he was on about.
He was quite clear, in that the structures for unity should be put in place, they are not reliant on reconciliation, nor do they exclude it. He stated that to make reconciliation a prerequisite as Hanna argued would give unionists another means to frustrate by claiming reconciliation has. not taken place. He also quite rightly asked how you could measure reconciliation, and rightly pointed out this is not required by the GFA.
Quote from: Sportacus on March 15, 2024, 02:07:19 PMI had to listen very carefully to make any sense of what Feeney was trying to say. He was trying to make points but always seemed to stop short and leave it hanging with a big 'you know what I mean', look on his face. Wasn't really clear at all what he was on about.
what he was right about is that reconciliation isn't directly linked to a border poll and a UI.
The unionist narrative which is the default setting of the BBC and UTV is that discussing and planning for a UI is "divisive" yet no mention of the recent "strengthening the Union" paper being "divisive" towards Nationalists....
Reconciliation is ideal as is a 70%+ pro UI vote but in reality both are not needed nor are they realistic
Reconcilation? Where was this ballix for 100 years? It's laughable. Another attempt to turn back tide of history. Where was the reconciliation when the powers that be treated my grandparents and parents as third class citizens? Lick the back of my f**king balls. Demographics will correct a disgraceful historic wrong. Get used to reunification of our country, it's happening.
All about getting a few votes in south Belfast for Hanna. Saying a lot but saying nothing at the same time.
A time is coming, soon, when Alliance will have to get off the fence.
Reconcilation - is this the new buzzword for unionism and their cronnies?
Laughable.
Claire Hanna is the most articulate and effective politician in the six counties. Far from being tied in knors I thought she was clear on The View. She put manners on Jim Alister a few weeks ago and has been principled and consistent over Gaza. Of course she is seeking to maximise her vote in South Belfast- what would you expect?
SF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
Quote from: Caitlin on March 16, 2024, 09:00:25 AMClaire Hanna is the most articulate and effective politician in the six counties. Far from being tied in knors I thought she was clear on The View. She put manners on Jim Alister a few weeks ago and has been principled and consistent over Gaza. Of course she is seeking to maximise her vote in South Belfast- what would you expect?
I don't know if she is the best politician but she is definitely one of the most articulate and is a very effective communicator. Mind you there isn't much competition as you could count on 2 hands the number of decent public representatives sitting in the assembly who are capable of articulating an argument without reading off a pre rehearsed script. A lot of them seem to put more store in their social media profiles and glossy PR campaigns.
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
In fairness, SF seem to be the only party pushing this conversation.
The stooge parties of the establishment in the south are not interested in pushing this.
Disappointing but unsurprising.
Keep spouting sh1te like that....
Quote from: Rossfan on March 16, 2024, 03:33:27 PMKeep spouting sh1te like that....
What's wrong in what I said?
Explain instead of throwing insults.
Who are you looking to unite with?
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
Quote from: Rossfan on March 16, 2024, 04:08:57 PMWho are you looking to unite with?
You tell me what I said was wrong?
I see the boul Alasdair McDonnell has made it to Washington despite his party leader saying they weren't going. Oul Allie is always likely to be around if there's a bit of freeloading to be done. The ultimate gonbeen man
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
Quote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
Quote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
Kevin Bridges does a good sketch about the deficit that the Brits have. It then goes on to take about Greece and them on a group call with Merkel.
Very funny.
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:18:16 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Ireland went through a very bad period and came out of it. The UK left the EU and has gone backwards.
The assessment is not based on one thing. Sterling is trading like the currency of a poor country. The UK is low growth economy. There is way too much debt.
People in Ireland were Unionist until something really shocking happened. That was 1916.
Unionists in the North will be loyal to the UK until something really shocking happens.
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:25:53 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:18:16 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Ireland went through a very bad period and came out of it. The UK left the EU and has gone backwards.
The assessment is not based on one thing. Sterling is trading like the currency of a poor country. The UK is low growth economy. There is way too much debt.
People in Ireland were Unionist until something really shocking happened. That was 1916.
Unionists in the North will be loyal to the UK until something really shocking happens.
Did you get the figures? I can help you if you'd like.
Public dept in ROI was 100% of GDP in 2010.
Don't get me wrong things aren't rosey in the forecast for the UK. But they're still a strong market and talk of a collapse is bollix.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:31:57 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:25:53 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:18:16 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Ireland went through a very bad period and came out of it. The UK left the EU and has gone backwards.
The assessment is not based on one thing. Sterling is trading like the currency of a poor country. The UK is low growth economy. There is way too much debt.
People in Ireland were Unionist until something really shocking happened. That was 1916.
Unionists in the North will be loyal to the UK until something really shocking happens.
Did you get the figures? I can help you if you'd like.
Public dept in ROI was 100% of GDP in 2010.
Don't get me wrong things aren't rosey in the forecast for the UK. But they're still a strong market and talk of a collapse is bollix.
You don't have to agree with me but if you want to me to believe that it's bollocks you have to prove it. What data are basing your assessment on ?
The thing about the people who are calling the shots in the UK is that they don't care about anyone, not English people, not middle class people and not anyone living in the North. Unionists don't understand that yet but they will. Brexit was not about freedom. It was about giving a small group of people the right to pump sewage into rivers.
The second verse of the UK national anthem is a warning
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/national-anthem-full-lyrics-including-25051609
O Lord our God arise,
scatter our* enemies, and make them fall!
Confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks,
on Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all.
Quote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:41:52 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:31:57 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:25:53 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:18:16 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Ireland went through a very bad period and came out of it. The UK left the EU and has gone backwards.
The assessment is not based on one thing. Sterling is trading like the currency of a poor country. The UK is low growth economy. There is way too much debt.
People in Ireland were Unionist until something really shocking happened. That was 1916.
Unionists in the North will be loyal to the UK until something really shocking happens.
Did you get the figures? I can help you if you'd like.
Public dept in ROI was 100% of GDP in 2010.
Don't get me wrong things aren't rosey in the forecast for the UK. But they're still a strong market and talk of a collapse is bollix.
You don't have to agree with me but if you want to me to believe that it's bollocks you have to prove it. What data are basing your assessment on ?
The thing about the people who are calling the shots in the UK is that they don't care about anyone, not English people, not middle class people and not anyone living in the North. Unionists don't understand that yet but they will. Brexit was not about freedom. It was about giving a small group of people the right to pump sewage into rivers.
The second verse of the UK national anthem is a warning
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/national-anthem-full-lyrics-including-25051609
O Lord our God arise,
scatter our* enemies, and make them fall!
Confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks,
on Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all.
lol you make a hyperbole claim. I disagreed and it's down to me to prove it?? Really?
By the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:51:59 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:41:52 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:31:57 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:25:53 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:18:16 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Ireland went through a very bad period and came out of it. The UK left the EU and has gone backwards.
The assessment is not based on one thing. Sterling is trading like the currency of a poor country. The UK is low growth economy. There is way too much debt.
People in Ireland were Unionist until something really shocking happened. That was 1916.
Unionists in the North will be loyal to the UK until something really shocking happens.
Did you get the figures? I can help you if you'd like.
Public dept in ROI was 100% of GDP in 2010.
Don't get me wrong things aren't rosey in the forecast for the UK. But they're still a strong market and talk of a collapse is bollix.
You don't have to agree with me but if you want to me to believe that it's bollocks you have to prove it. What data are basing your assessment on ?
The thing about the people who are calling the shots in the UK is that they don't care about anyone, not English people, not middle class people and not anyone living in the North. Unionists don't understand that yet but they will. Brexit was not about freedom. It was about giving a small group of people the right to pump sewage into rivers.
The second verse of the UK national anthem is a warning
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/national-anthem-full-lyrics-including-25051609
O Lord our God arise,
scatter our* enemies, and make them fall!
Confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks,
on Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all.
lol you make a hyperbole claim. I disagreed and it's down to me to prove it?? Really?
By the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
The UK is a 2.2 trillion pounds economy. It would be some banger of a collapse.
Seafoid has an awful blind spot where the UK is concerned.
Brexit has completely fucked the Brits. They are still in the denial stage of this because they can't believe how stupid they were to fall for the lies of right wing racist cnuts. It's glorious to watch.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:51:59 PMBy the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
2010 was a once in a generation or once in a lifetime crisis. 2023 and 2024 are merely periods of reduced growth. It is a bit like an individual, you can have a crisis and borrow, but if you are borrowing too much in ordinary years then you can run into problems,
Quote from: armaghniac on March 17, 2024, 12:17:32 AMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:51:59 PMBy the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
2010 was a once in a generation or once in a lifetime crisis. 2023 and 2024 are merely periods of reduced growth. It is a bit like an individual, you can have a crisis and borrow, but if you are borrowing too much in ordinary years then you can run into problems,
You another one that thinks the uk is going bust then?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 17, 2024, 03:57:22 PMQuote from: armaghniac on March 17, 2024, 12:17:32 AMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:51:59 PMBy the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
2010 was a once in a generation or once in a lifetime crisis. 2023 and 2024 are merely periods of reduced growth. It is a bit like an individual, you can have a crisis and borrow, but if you are borrowing too much in ordinary years then you can run into problems,
You another one that thinks the uk is going bust then?
I didn't say that they were going to go bust, but they have less room for manoeuvre.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 17, 2024, 04:04:42 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 17, 2024, 03:57:22 PMQuote from: armaghniac on March 17, 2024, 12:17:32 AMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:51:59 PMBy the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
2010 was a once in a generation or once in a lifetime crisis. 2023 and 2024 are merely periods of reduced growth. It is a bit like an individual, you can have a crisis and borrow, but if you are borrowing too much in ordinary years then you can run into problems,
You another one that thinks the uk is going bust then?
I didn't say that they were going to go bust, but they have less room for manoeuvre.
But I was discussing Seafoid hyperbole claims that the uk market would collapse. I don't think anyone was claiming they are in a fantastic position at the minute.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:51:59 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:41:52 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:31:57 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:25:53 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:18:16 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Ireland went through a very bad period and came out of it. The UK left the EU and has gone backwards.
The assessment is not based on one thing. Sterling is trading like the currency of a poor country. The UK is low growth economy. There is way too much debt.
People in Ireland were Unionist until something really shocking happened. That was 1916.
Unionists in the North will be loyal to the UK until something really shocking happens.
Did you get the figures? I can help you if you'd like.
Public dept in ROI was 100% of GDP in 2010.
Don't get me wrong things aren't rosey in the forecast for the UK. But they're still a strong market and talk of a collapse is bollix.
You don't have to agree with me but if you want to me to believe that it's bollocks you have to prove it. What data are basing your assessment on ?
The thing about the people who are calling the shots in the UK is that they don't care about anyone, not English people, not middle class people and not anyone living in the North. Unionists don't understand that yet but they will. Brexit was not about freedom. It was about giving a small group of people the right to pump sewage into rivers.
The second verse of the UK national anthem is a warning
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/national-anthem-full-lyrics-including-25051609
O Lord our God arise,
scatter our* enemies, and make them fall!
Confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks,
on Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all.
lol you make a hyperbole claim. I disagreed and it's down to me to prove it?? Really?
By the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
You say it won't collapse. Based on what ?
Give three reasons why it won't.
and "because" is not a valid answer
Quote from: seafoid on March 17, 2024, 04:29:09 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:51:59 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:41:52 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:31:57 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:25:53 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:18:16 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Ireland went through a very bad period and came out of it. The UK left the EU and has gone backwards.
The assessment is not based on one thing. Sterling is trading like the currency of a poor country. The UK is low growth economy. There is way too much debt.
People in Ireland were Unionist until something really shocking happened. That was 1916.
Unionists in the North will be loyal to the UK until something really shocking happens.
Did you get the figures? I can help you if you'd like.
Public dept in ROI was 100% of GDP in 2010.
Don't get me wrong things aren't rosey in the forecast for the UK. But they're still a strong market and talk of a collapse is bollix.
You don't have to agree with me but if you want to me to believe that it's bollocks you have to prove it. What data are basing your assessment on ?
The thing about the people who are calling the shots in the UK is that they don't care about anyone, not English people, not middle class people and not anyone living in the North. Unionists don't understand that yet but they will. Brexit was not about freedom. It was about giving a small group of people the right to pump sewage into rivers.
The second verse of the UK national anthem is a warning
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/national-anthem-full-lyrics-including-25051609
O Lord our God arise,
scatter our* enemies, and make them fall!
Confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks,
on Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all.
lol you make a hyperbole claim. I disagreed and it's down to me to prove it?? Really?
By the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
You say it won't collapse. Based on what ?
Give three reasons why it won't.
and "because" is not a valid answer
You made the claim ffs. You provide the 3 reasons. And fyi the wording of the national anthem will not be classed as a valid reason.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 17, 2024, 05:03:55 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 17, 2024, 04:29:09 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:51:59 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:41:52 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:31:57 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:25:53 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:18:16 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Ireland went through a very bad period and came out of it. The UK left the EU and has gone backwards.
The assessment is not based on one thing. Sterling is trading like the currency of a poor country. The UK is low growth economy. There is way too much debt.
People in Ireland were Unionist until something really shocking happened. That was 1916.
Unionists in the North will be loyal to the UK until something really shocking happens.
Did you get the figures? I can help you if you'd like.
Public dept in ROI was 100% of GDP in 2010.
Don't get me wrong things aren't rosey in the forecast for the UK. But they're still a strong market and talk of a collapse is bollix.
You don't have to agree with me but if you want to me to believe that it's bollocks you have to prove it. What data are basing your assessment on ?
The thing about the people who are calling the shots in the UK is that they don't care about anyone, not English people, not middle class people and not anyone living in the North. Unionists don't understand that yet but they will. Brexit was not about freedom. It was about giving a small group of people the right to pump sewage into rivers.
The second verse of the UK national anthem is a warning
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/national-anthem-full-lyrics-including-25051609
O Lord our God arise,
scatter our* enemies, and make them fall!
Confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks,
on Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all.
lol you make a hyperbole claim. I disagreed and it's down to me to prove it?? Really?
By the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
You say it won't collapse. Based on what ?
Give three reasons why it won't.
and "because" is not a valid answer
You made the claim ffs. You provide the 3 reasons. And fyi the wording of the national anthem will not be classed as a valid reason.
3 reasons are
1. Living beyond its means- current accouht deficit
2. Economic growth is slower thn the growth of debt
3. Extreme inequality - a few wealthy people who are very adept at avoiding tax can never ever make up for 10s of millions of people earning decent wages and spending that on goods and services.
What are your 3 ?
Quote from: seafoid on March 17, 2024, 05:41:29 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 17, 2024, 05:03:55 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 17, 2024, 04:29:09 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:51:59 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:41:52 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:31:57 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:25:53 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:18:16 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Ireland went through a very bad period and came out of it. The UK left the EU and has gone backwards.
The assessment is not based on one thing. Sterling is trading like the currency of a poor country. The UK is low growth economy. There is way too much debt.
People in Ireland were Unionist until something really shocking happened. That was 1916.
Unionists in the North will be loyal to the UK until something really shocking happens.
Did you get the figures? I can help you if you'd like.
Public dept in ROI was 100% of GDP in 2010.
Don't get me wrong things aren't rosey in the forecast for the UK. But they're still a strong market and talk of a collapse is bollix.
You don't have to agree with me but if you want to me to believe that it's bollocks you have to prove it. What data are basing your assessment on ?
The thing about the people who are calling the shots in the UK is that they don't care about anyone, not English people, not middle class people and not anyone living in the North. Unionists don't understand that yet but they will. Brexit was not about freedom. It was about giving a small group of people the right to pump sewage into rivers.
The second verse of the UK national anthem is a warning
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/national-anthem-full-lyrics-including-25051609
O Lord our God arise,
scatter our* enemies, and make them fall!
Confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks,
on Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all.
lol you make a hyperbole claim. I disagreed and it's down to me to prove it?? Really?
By the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
You say it won't collapse. Based on what ?
Give three reasons why it won't.
and "because" is not a valid answer
You made the claim ffs. You provide the 3 reasons. And fyi the wording of the national anthem will not be classed as a valid reason.
3 reasons are
1. Living beyond its means- current accouht deficit
2. Economic growth is slower thn the growth of debt
3. Extreme inequality - a few wealthy people who are very adept at avoiding tax can never ever make up for 10s of millions of people earning decent wages and spending that on goods and services.
What are your 3 ?
All 3 have been present in most economies at some point or another.
1- It's a trillion £ economy. It would take a hell of a crash.
2- deficit reduced at end of 2023 to 2.5% which is far from a large issue.
3- GDP is at higher rate in 2024 than 2023 showing signs of growth and reduced inflation.
All pointing in right direction albeit slowly.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 17, 2024, 05:53:00 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 17, 2024, 05:41:29 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 17, 2024, 05:03:55 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 17, 2024, 04:29:09 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:51:59 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:41:52 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:31:57 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:25:53 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:18:16 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Ireland went through a very bad period and came out of it. The UK left the EU and has gone backwards.
The assessment is not based on one thing. Sterling is trading like the currency of a poor country. The UK is low growth economy. There is way too much debt.
People in Ireland were Unionist until something really shocking happened. That was 1916.
Unionists in the North will be loyal to the UK until something really shocking happens.
Did you get the figures? I can help you if you'd like.
Public dept in ROI was 100% of GDP in 2010.
Don't get me wrong things aren't rosey in the forecast for the UK. But they're still a strong market and talk of a collapse is bollix.
You don't have to agree with me but if you want to me to believe that it's bollocks you have to prove it. What data are basing your assessment on ?
The thing about the people who are calling the shots in the UK is that they don't care about anyone, not English people, not middle class people and not anyone living in the North. Unionists don't understand that yet but they will. Brexit was not about freedom. It was about giving a small group of people the right to pump sewage into rivers.
The second verse of the UK national anthem is a warning
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/national-anthem-full-lyrics-including-25051609
O Lord our God arise,
scatter our* enemies, and make them fall!
Confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks,
on Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all.
lol you make a hyperbole claim. I disagreed and it's down to me to prove it?? Really?
By the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
You say it won't collapse. Based on what ?
Give three reasons why it won't.
and "because" is not a valid answer
You made the claim ffs. You provide the 3 reasons. And fyi the wording of the national anthem will not be classed as a valid reason.
3 reasons are
1. Living beyond its means- current accouht deficit
2. Economic growth is slower thn the growth of debt
3. Extreme inequality - a few wealthy people who are very adept at avoiding tax can never ever make up for 10s of millions of people earning decent wages and spending that on goods and services.
What are your 3 ?
All 3 have been present in most economies at some point or another.
1- It's a trillion £ economy. It would take a hell of a crash.
2- deficit reduced at end of 2023 to 2.5% which is far from a large issue.
3- GDP is at higher rate in 2024 than 2023 showing signs of growth and reduced inflation.
All pointing in right direction albeit slowly.
Which deficit ?
Why is inflation higher in the UK than in France ?
Why should the size of the economy mean it is safe?
Quote from: seafoid on March 17, 2024, 05:56:15 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 17, 2024, 05:53:00 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 17, 2024, 05:41:29 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 17, 2024, 05:03:55 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 17, 2024, 04:29:09 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:51:59 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:41:52 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:31:57 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 08:25:53 PMQuote from: trueblue1234 on March 16, 2024, 08:18:16 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:12:56 PMQuote from: marty34 on March 16, 2024, 07:07:38 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 07:01:35 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 06:39:52 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 04:37:13 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 03:04:51 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 02:09:28 PMQuote from: Sportacus on March 16, 2024, 01:45:28 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 16, 2024, 11:00:59 AMSF got a review in the Financial times :
A referendum in 10 years but only the Brits can call one and they will only do so if there is big shift in public opinion
SF is gaslighting voters on unity. It will happen but not when SF want it to happen.
It's not completely outlandish for SF to aspire to unity in a decade. Less than a decade ago it would have seemed unlikely that Brexit would happen or Trump would get to the White House, but circumstances conspired and they did happen.
It is not under SF's control . That is the point.
They can promise all they want but they cannot deliver
That's right, it's not directly under their control, obviously, but somebody has to talk about it as a serious proposition, because it is plausible.
It will happen when the UK economy collapses, unionist pensions vaporise and house prices in Ballymena go tits up. Not before
None of those things will happen. It will happen when the majority of people are in favour of what's on offer on the island, rather than having things done to them from London. Every year that the pendulum swings a little more.
The UK economy is going to collapse. The UK is borrowing money to pay the bills.
I've been hearing this for a long time...and no word of it yet.
There is a thing called the current account deficit
It happens when a country cannot pay all of its bills.
The UK has had a current account deficit for the last decade.
Truss wanted to issue debt that wasn't backed by taxes and the markets refused to lend it to her.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/current-account-to-gdp
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/04/uk-governments-u-turn-on-tax-cut-wont-placate-markets-says-analyst.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/06/the-reality-is-the-uk-is-a-low-growth-ecobonmy-fund-manager.html
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/10/20/uks-political-instability-related-to-brexit-luxembourg-pm-says.html
What was ROI's current account deficit in 2010 Seafoid? And what is the UK's current deficit? Just to give a little perspective to things?
Ireland went through a very bad period and came out of it. The UK left the EU and has gone backwards.
The assessment is not based on one thing. Sterling is trading like the currency of a poor country. The UK is low growth economy. There is way too much debt.
People in Ireland were Unionist until something really shocking happened. That was 1916.
Unionists in the North will be loyal to the UK until something really shocking happens.
Did you get the figures? I can help you if you'd like.
Public dept in ROI was 100% of GDP in 2010.
Don't get me wrong things aren't rosey in the forecast for the UK. But they're still a strong market and talk of a collapse is bollix.
You don't have to agree with me but if you want to me to believe that it's bollocks you have to prove it. What data are basing your assessment on ?
The thing about the people who are calling the shots in the UK is that they don't care about anyone, not English people, not middle class people and not anyone living in the North. Unionists don't understand that yet but they will. Brexit was not about freedom. It was about giving a small group of people the right to pump sewage into rivers.
The second verse of the UK national anthem is a warning
https://www.mylondon.news/news/uk-world-news/national-anthem-full-lyrics-including-25051609
O Lord our God arise,
scatter our* enemies, and make them fall!
Confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks,
on Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all.
lol you make a hyperbole claim. I disagreed and it's down to me to prove it?? Really?
By the way the figures you wouldn't quote earlier, ROI deficit was over 13% in 2010. Current deficit in Uk is around 3%. And reduced towards the end of 2023.
You say it won't collapse. Based on what ?
Give three reasons why it won't.
and "because" is not a valid answer
You made the claim ffs. You provide the 3 reasons. And fyi the wording of the national anthem will not be classed as a valid reason.
3 reasons are
1. Living beyond its means- current accouht deficit
2. Economic growth is slower thn the growth of debt
3. Extreme inequality - a few wealthy people who are very adept at avoiding tax can never ever make up for 10s of millions of people earning decent wages and spending that on goods and services.
What are your 3 ?
All 3 have been present in most economies at some point or another.
1- It's a trillion £ economy. It would take a hell of a crash.
2- deficit reduced at end of 2023 to 2.5% which is far from a large issue.
3- GDP is at higher rate in 2024 than 2023 showing signs of growth and reduced inflation.
All pointing in right direction albeit slowly.
Which deficit ?
Why is inflation higher in the UK than in France ?
Why should the size of the economy mean it is safe?
Current account deficit.
All economies have different inflations at different times? Do you think a higher level of inflation means that the economy is going to go bust? A larger economy tends to be more stable and will take a significant incidence to cause it to collapse.
So give me one genuine reason that you can point to that would suggest the UK economy will go bust?
Stop with the mega quoting ffs
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2024, 10:10:40 PMStop with the mega quoting ffs
Jesus that would give you a seizure scrolling down the page.
I think the original point was that the SDLP's position on unity is better.
Rüdiger Dornbusch, a US-based German economist, said : "The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.
Quote from: Caitlin on March 16, 2024, 09:00:25 AMClaire Hanna is the most articulate and effective politician in the six counties. Far from being tied in knors I thought she was clear on The View. She put manners on Jim Alister a few weeks ago and has been principled and consistent over Gaza. Of course she is seeking to maximise her vote in South Belfast- what would you expect?
She made no sense and could not refute Feeney's argument, even Mark Caruthers said as much when pressing her. No doubt she is the best the SDLP have to offer.