Messages

I was neutral on the game, but agree completely re Deegan. He brought Kerry back into it, and without doubt changed the result of the game.

Oh ffs. Those articles are nonsensical.

It's abit like Trump rabble rousing his so called base, same here, and and we know our opinion on trumps base of supporters.

But what does it say about people who vote SF after their antics?

That there unfortunately is no credible alternative if you want a UI. The SDLP have no one of note or intellect. SF do have saner voices such as O'Dowd, Murphy and Brady. Unfortunately this anti British clown grabs the headlines. Mary Lou is a disappointment as President and Michelle O'Neill is useless.

SF will never deliver a UI and never is a long time. They haven't the ability or skill to persuade those who need persuaded.

They've got us close anyway

It's abit like Trump rabble rousing his so called base, same here, and and we know our opinion on trumps base of supporters.

But what does it say about people who vote SF after their antics?

That there unfortunately is no credible alternative if you want a UI. The SDLP have no one of note or intellect. SF do have saner voices such as O'Dowd, Murphy and Brady. Unfortunately this anti British clown grabs the headlines. Mary Lou is a disappointment as President and Michelle O'Neill is useless.

I think Mary Lou has tried to be progressive, but has perhaps been reined in a bit. Certainly would appear to be at the opposite end of the SF spectrum from Martina.

What it says about SF voters is that they are across a very broad spectrum, and chiefly for the reason apples says. They deserve credit for running on an all island basis, and I'd really like to see the other parties do the same

Sounded like it surely

Would you now?

Would be very interested to hear the basis you have estimated that on.

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

Explain why it wouldn’t work if each participant played their role?

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

Explain why it wouldn’t work if each participant played their role?

It’s very vague as to what actual difference the SF seats would make. There is a majority in the house of commons as it is who oppose no deal don’t forget. In trying to establish that, he outlines a series of very specific events, each of which is as unlikely as the next - for eg over the fact that key to his ‘plan’ there is Jeremy Corbyn stepping aside. Why on earth would that happen?

He is also being much too blasé about the seats being won. It’s a massive risk, you could easily end up strengthening the NI brexiteers hand. The election would come down to unionism v nationalism except potentially with significant numbers of disaffected SF voters. Adding up all the anti brexit numbers to support your assertion that there would be a clear majority is stupid.

It also tramps all over those who voted Sinn Fein and don’t want their MP to stand down for some talking head no matter how cunning the scheme. All well and good to pontificate about the greater good etc, but that was their vote, not yours, and has the right to be respected as much as yours. It’s extremely dubious to be using it in a manner that was never contemplated.

So in summary, massive risk which even if worked, has a minuscule chance of having any tangible effect.

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

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.

Have a good weekend 

[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.]

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.

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.

[It would be a serious shot in the arm for dissident republicanism however.]

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.

[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.]

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.

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'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.

No deal is the default position on 31st at this stage, and no deal could lead to civil unrest and be a breeding ground to dissents, you seem to be a bit angry when the truth is mentioned about the Shinners.

I'm not at all angry. I'm trying (no doubt in futility) to point out that focusing on SFs abstentionsist policy as the root of all the issues in Westminster is seriously tired, and not very useful, especially when it is very unlikely there would be any positive impact, and actually there are very valid concerns about the detrimental impact attendance could have.

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.