Brexit.

Started by T Fearon, November 01, 2015, 06:04:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

haranguerer

Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 03:01:57 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on August 02, 2019, 02:52:56 PM
You're just spouting rubbish there. Read up on the likelihood of a no deal, and the ways it can come about. None of which SF attendance would have any impact on.

If you don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here then I really wonder what planet you're on.

I'd also like a direct quote where I said this, else Ill be happy with an apology, ta.

Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 02:45:34 PM
Shinners are as you rightly pointing out thinking of their partys future rather than the future of the citizens who voted for them.
[/b]

See quote thats in response to above: I've represented your comments very fairly. In response to my point re attendance being a shot in the arm for violent republicanism, you suggest that their non attendance is a product of not thinking about the future of citizens here.

I'm drawing attention to the fact that you ignored the flip side of that coin.


t_mac

Quote from: haranguerer on August 02, 2019, 03:29:54 PM
Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 03:01:57 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on August 02, 2019, 02:52:56 PM
You're just spouting rubbish there. Read up on the likelihood of a no deal, and the ways it can come about. None of which SF attendance would have any impact on.

If you don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here then I really wonder what planet you're on.

I'd also like a direct quote where I said this, else Ill be happy with an apology, ta.

Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 02:45:34 PM
Shinners are as you rightly pointing out thinking of their partys future rather than the future of the citizens who voted for them.
[/b]

See quote thats in response to above: I've represented your comments very fairly. In response to my point re attendance being a shot in the arm for violent republicanism, you suggest that their non attendance is a product of not thinking about the future of citizens here.

I'm drawing attention to the fact that you ignored the flip side of that coin.

You are digging a bigger hole for yourself I am afraid - You are attributing - Shinners are as you rightly pointing out thinking of their partys future rather than the future of the citizens who voted for them. - to me stipulating that i don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here, again please quote where I said that.  You continue to ignore the legal position that as it stands there is no deal on 31st October and that this would be a dream for dissidents.

haranguerer

Quote from: screenexile on August 02, 2019, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on August 02, 2019, 02:40:59 PM
Their attendance wouldn't have any impact on the likelihood of a no deal brexit. It would be a serious shot in the arm for dissident republicanism however.

Not having a go just interested as to why you think this is the case??

For what it's worth in my opinion a No deal Brexit does much more for the dissident cause than the Shinners taking their seats in Westminster!!

I really do.

But firstly, the narrative that this is a case of a no-deal brexit vs SF taking their seats is complete nonsense. But even in that scenario, where the choice was as clear and stark as that, should SF take their seats? I don't think they should, and I don't see how they could.

Firstly, they were elected on that mandate. They couldn't take their seats until they'd changed their policy and came through an election on that basis. 

I'm not at all opposed to SF taking seats in principle - if I thought it could be well managed then I'd be for it, but i think many ignore the risks in the rush to use it as a stick for SF. And there definitely would be risks. The biggest achievement of SF has been coming through the peace process, decommissioning etc, with the republican movement largely intact. There were so many opportunities for major schisms, its a miracle that it didn't happen (helped by the timing of some really tragic events it has to be said). We may all have gotten fairly complacent over the last 20 years but the troubles re-erupting here is still the biggest concern I have. Its true that economic hardship is a major contributor to civil unrest, and a no deal brexit would certainly contribute to economic hardship, but british irish relations aren't going through the easiest of times, and we can see in Derry etc that there are people ready to use events for their own benefit. SF losing the mantle it currently holds quite responsibly would be a very bad thing.

haranguerer

Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 03:40:20 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on August 02, 2019, 03:29:54 PM
Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 03:01:57 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on August 02, 2019, 02:52:56 PM
You're just spouting rubbish there. Read up on the likelihood of a no deal, and the ways it can come about. None of which SF attendance would have any impact on.

If you don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here then I really wonder what planet you're on.

I'd also like a direct quote where I said this, else Ill be happy with an apology, ta.

Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 02:45:34 PM
Shinners are as you rightly pointing out thinking of their partys future rather than the future of the citizens who voted for them.
[/b]

See quote thats in response to above: I've represented your comments very fairly. In response to my point re attendance being a shot in the arm for violent republicanism, you suggest that their non attendance is a product of not thinking about the future of citizens here.

I'm drawing attention to the fact that you ignored the flip side of that coin.

You are digging a bigger hole for yourself I am afraid - You are attributing - Shinners are as you rightly pointing out thinking of their partys future rather than the future of the citizens who voted for them. - to me stipulating that i don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here, again please quote where I said that.  You continue to ignore the legal position that as it stands there is no deal on 31st October and that this would be a dream for dissidents.

Sorry, I shouldn't have gotten involved with you, I realise now it was completely pointless, and not fair on either of us.

t_mac

Quote from: haranguerer on August 02, 2019, 03:44:50 PM
Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 03:40:20 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on August 02, 2019, 03:29:54 PM
Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 03:01:57 PM
Quote from: haranguerer on August 02, 2019, 02:52:56 PM
You're just spouting rubbish there. Read up on the likelihood of a no deal, and the ways it can come about. None of which SF attendance would have any impact on.

If you don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here then I really wonder what planet you're on.

I'd also like a direct quote where I said this, else Ill be happy with an apology, ta.

Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 02:45:34 PM
Shinners are as you rightly pointing out thinking of their partys future rather than the future of the citizens who voted for them.
[/b]

See quote thats in response to above: I've represented your comments very fairly. In response to my point re attendance being a shot in the arm for violent republicanism, you suggest that their non attendance is a product of not thinking about the future of citizens here.

I'm drawing attention to the fact that you ignored the flip side of that coin.

You are digging a bigger hole for yourself I am afraid - You are attributing - Shinners are as you rightly pointing out thinking of their partys future rather than the future of the citizens who voted for them. - to me stipulating that i don't think increased violent republicanism would have a major impact on the future of citizens here, again please quote where I said that.  You continue to ignore the legal position that as it stands there is no deal on 31st October and that this would be a dream for dissidents.

Sorry, I shouldn't have gotten involved with you, I realise now it was completely pointless, and not fair on either of us.

That's the good boy, typical shinner don't let facts get in the way of anything, you just go about your day making stuff up to suit your wee agenda.

haranguerer

Have a good weekend  :)

t_mac

I always do thank you very much, you take care now and keep fighting the good fight, Mary Lou and the other one, who seems to have gone into hiding except to give some commemoration speech now and again, would be proud. ;) :)

screenexile

Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 04:16:28 PM
I always do thank you very much, you take care now and keep fighting the good fight, Mary Lou and the other one, who seems to have gone into hiding except to give some commemoration speech now and again, would be proud. ;) :)

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-can-stop-a-no-deal-brexit-here-s-how-1.3972121?mode=amp#.XURE8WC2YKQ.twitter

Now we're f**king talking... Sinn Fein get out of the road to f**k and let the others form an anti Brexit pact in the by-elections!!! That would sort the wheat from the chaff and let Sinn Fein keep their honour intact. Would also show some genuine leadership for a change something that has been sorely lacking since McGuinness left the frame!!

naka

Quote from: screenexile on August 02, 2019, 08:34:42 PM
Quote from: t_mac on August 02, 2019, 04:16:28 PM
I always do thank you very much, you take care now and keep fighting the good fight, Mary Lou and the other one, who seems to have gone into hiding except to give some commemoration speech now and again, would be proud. ;) :)

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-can-stop-a-no-deal-brexit-here-s-how-1.3972121?mode=amp#.XURE8WC2YKQ.twitter

Now we're f**king talking... Sinn Fein get out of the road to f**k and let the others form an anti Brexit pact in the by-elections!!! That would sort the wheat from the chaff and let Sinn Fein keep their honour intact. Would also show some genuine leadership for a change something that has been sorely lacking since McGuinness left the frame!!
Definitely a positive thought
But do you really think the shinners  are going to waive 100k a year in expenses.

t_mac

Stop they are a party for the people ask hangerrrnade :P

haranguerer

Well given how popular the article is then it's fair to assume you agree with this bit, so good to see the abstentionist issue put to bed:

'Sinn Féin holds seven seats at Westminster but leaves them vacant. Calling on the party to take those seats is rhetorically satisfying but pointless. In the first place, it has an impregnable argument for not doing so. It won these seats on an abstentionist platform. And it did so in 2017, when Theresa May was pushing for a very hard Brexit. Its voters knew the dangers and supported abstention anyway. That fact cannot be set aside.

And secondly, even if Sinn Féin was somehow able to make an immediate decision to occupy its seats when the Commons returns in September, the effect would probably be counterproductive. The Brexiteers and their media wing would generate hysteria about the Provos thwarting the will of the British people. Johnson would relish it. Wavering Tories would step back into line.'

Fintan has correctly identified the mandate those MPs were elected on. He goes on to suggest something which is stamps all over that mandate as much as abstentionism does though - stand down to let another party take the seats? Ludicrous.



JPGJOHNNYG

#7691
The idea that any party would stand aside and give up the financial windfall associated is just crazy. The UUP and SDLP have been hit very badly financially since losing their westminster seats. The lost revenue has had a serious impact on these parties. A better solution is for the remain parties to identify possible gains with a single candidate and do a deal ie North Belfast, South Belfast, East Belfast even Upper Bann and East Londonderry might be worth a try. The problem is SDLP and Alliance wont entertain a pact with anyone. The Greens were uo for it last time but only if their candidate was chosen for SB.

LCohen

Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on August 03, 2019, 08:24:15 AM
The idea that any party would stand aside and give up the financial windfall associated is just crazy. The UUP and SDLP have been hit very badly financially since losing their westminster seats. The lost revenue has had a serious impact on these parties. A better solution is for the remain parties to identify possible gains with a single candidate and do a deal ie North Belfast, South Belfast, East Belfast even Upper Bann and East Londonderry might be worth a try. The problem is SDLP and Alliance wont entertain a pact with anyone. The Greens were uo for it last time but only if their candidate was chosen for SB.

Fintan's idea is that the proposed candidates would not be members of any party. Parties would not be standing aside in favour of other parties.

On finance then expenses forgone would be forgone to someone else doing the work, for a very short period of time and pale into insignificance relative to the cost to NI of not blocking a no deal Brexit.

There is something that needs done and can be achieved. Do it or let someone else do it. Stand in the way and quibble about money and you might find that the public lose patience after it's too late

LCohen

Quote from: haranguerer on August 02, 2019, 11:47:11 PM
Well given how popular the article is then it's fair to assume you agree with this bit, so good to see the abstentionist issue put to bed:

'Sinn Féin holds seven seats at Westminster but leaves them vacant. Calling on the party to take those seats is rhetorically satisfying but pointless. In the first place, it has an impregnable argument for not doing so. It won these seats on an abstentionist platform. And it did so in 2017, when Theresa May was pushing for a very hard Brexit. Its voters knew the dangers and supported abstention anyway. That fact cannot be set aside.

And secondly, even if Sinn Féin was somehow able to make an immediate decision to occupy its seats when the Commons returns in September, the effect would probably be counterproductive. The Brexiteers and their media wing would generate hysteria about the Provos thwarting the will of the British people. Johnson would relish it. Wavering Tories would step back into line.'

Fintan has correctly identified the mandate those MPs were elected on. He goes on to suggest something which is stamps all over that mandate as much as abstentionism does though - stand down to let another party take the seats? Ludicrous.

It does not stamp all over the SF mandate. Someone with no party affiliation, established in their own field and not seeking a political base to challenge SF, voting exclusively on a narrow and agreed range of issues and with a pre agreed exit process which SF could trigger at any time. Every effort is made to dance around SF's diva requirements

haranguerer

Cop yourself on ''SF's diva requirements'
The idea is ludicrous on many levels. But as I said, good to see you all have now moved past the abstentionist issue