# Why Sinn Fein will never make it into power



## Sunny (5 Aug 2009)

They repulse me.

Imagine a sitting TD meeting two convicted Guard killers and driving them off. Suppose they are off having a party somewhere. Don't get me wrong, I don't really have a problem with the guys getting out as such (they served their sentance. Ideally it would have been life) but for a sitting TD to think it is appropriate to associate themselves with these guys like they are heroes is a disgrace.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0805/mccabej.html


----------



## demoivre (5 Aug 2009)

I'm surprised  that you are surprised tbh. I would expect such behaviour from the Shinners. I would have more of a problem with the fact that two people can shoot 14 rounds from an AK47 at two other people at point blank range and  subsequently get convicted of manslaughter !


----------



## Green (5 Aug 2009)

Sunny said:


> They repulse me.
> 
> Imagine a sitting TD meeting two convicted Guard killers and driving them off. Suppose they are off having a party somewhere. Don't get me wrong, I don't really have a problem with the guys getting out as such (they served their sentance. Ideally it would have been life) but for a sitting TD to think it is appropriate to associate themselves with these guys like they are heroes is a disgrace.
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0805/mccabej.html


 
I agree completely. However what is more ironic and a good indication as to why SF are going nowhere is we had Toireasa Ferris saying a few weeks ago (link below) that SF need to reassess as “too many voters unfortunately see us as a Northern-based party”. 

Then daddy comes out to welcome two cold blooded killers who shot Gardai. Perhaps they would be better served if he stayed 
in his office and read the NAMA legislation.... 
[broken link removed]


----------



## Shawady (5 Aug 2009)

Aggree with OP. You just couldn't imagine a british MP picking up two guys from prison that shot dead a policeman.

Also, Gerry Adams seems to be suggesting that they were hard done by because they should have got out under the Good Friday Agreement.


----------



## Bill Struth (5 Aug 2009)

Shawady said:


> Aggree with OP. *You just couldn't imagine a british MP picking up two guys from prison that shot dead a policeman.*
> 
> Also, Gerry Adams seems to be suggesting that they were hard done by because they should have got out under the Good Friday Agreement.


 
Can you not? I certainly can. What about British MP's campaigning for the release of British Army murderers?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/58985.stm


----------



## terrontress (5 Aug 2009)

Bill Struth said:


> Can you not? I certainly can. What about British MP's campaigning for the release of British Army murderers?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/58985.stm


 
For heaven's sake, that article is from 1998! It is hardly comparable.


----------



## Bill Struth (5 Aug 2009)

terrontress said:


> For heaven's sake, that article is from 1998! It is hardly comparable.


 My point is a valid one. Feel free to comment on it.


----------



## Round Tuit (6 Aug 2009)

I’m not sure why I’m wading into this . . . but here goes. 

I agree with demoivre really: “I’m surprised that you are surprised tbh. I would expect such behaviour from the Shinners. I would have more of a problem with the fact that two people can shoot 14 rounds from an AK47 at two other people at point blank range and subsequently get convicted of manslaughter !”

As far as Shawady’s  & terrontress’s comment goes: 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

As for Bill’s original point - yes, you can imagine the scenario in the UK and can cite evidence. That answers Shawady’s comment but it’s not really a comment in itself and doesn’t give us your opinion, just shows your ability to do research and perhaps play devil’s advocate ;0). Does that make yesterday’s scenario ok? Will this help the Shinners progress to become a “legitimate” party? I don’t think so. In my opinion it’s not surprising and all it does is re-inforce the majority of the electorate’s opinion of them. Those that support them won’t change their minds easily either & don’t recognise the UK parliament (well not to sit in, just to claim expenses) so surely wouldn’t be interested in anything a British MP did anyway.


----------



## Betsy Og (6 Aug 2009)

their views on cop killers is pretty much taken as given at this stage - so again surprised you're surprised.

They now suffer more from their increasing irrelevance in the South as they dont seem to have cornered the working class very left wing vote they had hoped for. Their policies could never appeal to any other portion of the electorate.


Other problems:

Mary Lou - cant abide her, just my opinion, wince when I hear her, appears to be a career politician who backed the wrong horse (she was originally FF or FG)
Cant seem to generate a credible spokesperson on most topics (Gerry on the economy, Europe etc etc). Their Marxist stuff is a mill stone around their necks.
Traditional skulduggery still going on - "election officials" in Dublin shooting people, criminal links, allegations of intimidation of opponents such as breaking windscreens, links to Shell to Sea extremists etc etc. Basically they include a lot of gougers wrapped in a tri-colour (patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel).


----------



## Sunny (6 Aug 2009)

sorry


----------



## Caveat (6 Aug 2009)

Well said Betsy, agree pretty much completely.


----------



## demoivre (6 Aug 2009)

caveat said:


> well said betsy, agree pretty much completely.



+1.


----------



## starlite68 (6 Aug 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> Other problems:
> 
> Mary Lou - cant abide her, just my opinion, wince when I hear her, appears to be a career politician


 
are there any other kind! ??


----------



## carpedeum (6 Aug 2009)

Sinn Fein will never get elected just on their economic policies and stretegies alone. Assassinating Gardai as they SIT in a car while robbing a bank for personal gain and then trying to get released on the coat tails of the peace process was disgraceful, but, also laughable.     The majority did not let it happen. Notice how our justice system punished the bank robbers and murderers, but, released them when it was deemed that enough prison time had been served. This did not happen to the many innocents despatched by a bullet or bomb. Ireland has moved on. A small ignorant, uneducated and simple minority will always support and be duped by an articulate and charasmatic group of extremists. I like to believe that some people such as McGuinness, O'Caolain and McDonald are making genuine efforts to join our democratic processes. If this proves correct, that is to be welcomed.


----------



## bond-007 (7 Aug 2009)

Caveat said:


> Well said Betsy, agree pretty much completely.


Agree 100%.


----------



## room305 (9 Aug 2009)

starlite68 said:


> are there any other kind! ??



I guess the point is that there are few so grasping and desperate as Mary Lou.


----------



## starlite68 (9 Aug 2009)

i think grasping and desperate would describe most of them at this stage....none more so than those in power at the moment!


----------



## RMCF (9 Aug 2009)

My 2p worth.

The reason SF will never get power in RoI is because the voting public are not concerned primarily with bigoted politics like in NI. Real things like education, jobs, the economy matter to them.

In NI people are so entrenched with getting one up on 'the other side' that they can forgive their politicians for doing nothing as long as they keep fighting with the supposed enemy.


----------



## BeanPole (10 Aug 2009)

Why do we in the Republic feel it is OK for SF/IRA to be in power in the North, but not in Dublin? 

Classic double standards, backed by all the main political parties in ROI and the UK


----------



## room305 (11 Aug 2009)

BeanPole said:


> Why do we in the Republic feel it is OK for SF/IRA to be in power in the North, but not in Dublin?



Not a question of "feeling it is okay" more a question of recognising that other countries are free to vote in whatever group of ex-terrorist scum they wish.


----------



## Purple (11 Aug 2009)

Whenever I hear a Shinner politician speak I could swear I can just hear the faint echo of jack-boots in the background.


----------



## starlite68 (11 Aug 2009)

Purple said:


> Whenever I hear a Shinner politician speak I could swear I can just hear the faint echo of jack-boots in the background.


 you want to get that looked at!


----------



## Purple (11 Aug 2009)

starlite68 said:


> you want to get that looked at!



Metaphors aren’t your strong point then


----------



## BeanPole (11 Aug 2009)

room305 said:


> Not a question of "feeling it is okay" more a question of recognising that other countries are free to vote in whatever group of ex-terrorist scum they wish.


 
But the weren't. We, in GB and in Ireland, imposed a system of government upon the people of Northern Ireland that meant that terrorists and the murderers behind Enniskillen were guaranteed a position in government. Why is that acceptable for us to impose it on them, while not accepting it here?


----------



## csirl (11 Aug 2009)

On RTE news last night Thoireasa Ferris disregarded the suggestion that Sinn Fein has too many N.I. people in it's senior ranks for it to be successful in the rest of Ireland. She said that the senior ranks were split 50:50.

Her answer suggests that the penny hasnt dropped with them on this issue. If the senior ranks were pro rata to the populations, the split would be closer to 75:25. So she essentially admitted that the party's N.I. wing has more influence that the rest of Ireland.


----------



## bond-007 (11 Aug 2009)

Indeed.
They simply keep their heads in the sand.


----------



## Purple (11 Aug 2009)

bond-007 said:


> Indeed.
> They simply keep their heads in the sand.



And the bodies.


----------



## Kine (11 Aug 2009)

Purple said:


> And the bodies.


 
I nearly choked on my scone at that one!


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Aug 2009)

BeanPole said:


> Why is that acceptable for us to impose it on them, while not accepting it here?


 
Because NI was/is a dysfunctional jurisdiction whereby one party rule could not be trusted, therefore you needed the "forced coalition" that was the formula included in the Belfast Agreement (Good Friday Agreement if you like). And a darn fine agreement it was/is IMHO (Sunningdale for slow learners).

While unpalatable to unionists (to varying degrees) it was justifyable as a means to remove the causes of conflict (someone inserted a SF cassette into me). The other basic point is that people vote for SF and why should those people be disenfranchised (sp?), we might not agree with them but that doesnt mean their vote shouldnt count as much as our own. 

Finally, for now, all 3 jurisdictions voted by majority to accept it so in what sense was it imposed on anyone?


----------



## csirl (11 Aug 2009)

> Finally, for now, all 3 jurisdictions voted by majority to accept it so in what sense was it imposed on anyone?


 
This isnt true - only Ireland and Northern Ireland voted to accept the Good Friday Agreement. The British werent given a vote. Guess why? Because if they were allowed to vote on Northern Ireland, they'd want to get rid of it ASAP. 

Going off point, but I've always wondered if it was a mistake not having a referendum on Northern Ireland in the UK at some point. It would have been very constructive having the British send a message to the unionists that they dont consider them as British and dont want them.


----------



## bond-007 (11 Aug 2009)

> Going off point, but I've always wondered if it was a mistake not having a referendum on Northern Ireland in the UK at some point. It would have been very constructive having the British send a message to the unionists that they dont consider them as British and dont want them


The fallout would have been horrific. God only knows what the Unionists would do.


----------



## Purple (11 Aug 2009)

csirl said:


> This isnt true - only Ireland and Northern Ireland voted to accept the Good Friday Agreement. The British werent given a vote. Guess why? Because if they were allowed to vote on Northern Ireland, they'd want to get rid of it ASAP.



I agree that the Brits would probably want Northern Ireland out of the union if they got the chance but there is no legal reason to have a referendum in the UK as the people are not sovereign (the Queen in Parliament is) .


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Aug 2009)

mea culpa - I'm sure the queen and the House of Commons/Lords nodded in its direction and wasnt that sufficient guidance for the queen's loyal subjects !!  Anyway, 2 out of 3 aint bad.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Aug 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> The other basic point is that people vote for SF and why should those people be disenfranchised (sp?), we might not agree with them but that doesnt mean their vote shouldnt count as much as our own.


Thankfully, if the constitutional parties stick to their guns (pardon the metaphor), SF will never share power in the Free State until "themselves alone" achieve the mandate to seize that power. And to answer OP, they will never achieve that by such unpopular shows of defiance as was referred to in OP.

The real hypocrites here are the SDLP, who align themselves with the likes of FF and regard themselves as constitutional. Without the SDLP, SF would never be in power in the six counties. It appears SDLP prefer to side with terrorists than fellow constitutional Unionists.

In their defence, I suppose, if there had been a "consensus of the constitutional" to keep SF out of power there would never have been a peace process. The only difference between Sunningdale and Good Friday is that in the former the IRA had no political platform whereas 25 years later they effectively held sway over the nationalist franchise.


----------



## Green (12 Aug 2009)

BeanPole said:


> But the weren't. We, in GB and in Ireland, imposed a system of government upon the people of Northern Ireland that meant that terrorists and the murderers behind Enniskillen were guaranteed a position in government. Why is that acceptable for us to impose it on them, while not accepting it here?


 
In NI something had to be done to finally turn all parties to an exclusive peacefull means. To achieve this and given the background in NI, the Du Hondt method gave everyone some share in the political process. The fact that this system was used in the North does not mean we have to accept SF in Government here, apart from the fact that they must elected first.


----------



## Betsy Og (12 Aug 2009)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The real hypocrites here are the SDLP, who align themselves with the likes of FF and regard themselves as constitutional. Without the SDLP, SF would never be in power in the six counties. It appears SDLP prefer to side with terrorists than fellow constitutional Unionists.


 
Thats a very harsh, bordering on bovine or equine excrement, view. SDLP were the one consistent voice of sanity from 1969 (or whenever they technically formed) to date. Hume was pilloried for the Hume Adams talks, without the SDLP there defo would have been no peace process in our time, sure the Belfast Agreement is practically an SDLP manifesto.

Siding with terrorists?? I dont follow the voting patterns of the assembly, but they both represent broadly the same community so on many day to day matters you'd expect their views to be broadly at one. Should they cosy up to Unionists just to make everyone clappy happy??, hasnt the electoral wipe out (probably an overstatement) been enough of a price to pay?? Basically they brought SF in from the cold for the good of the people of the 6 counties but paradoxically have effectively been punished for it by losing ground to SF.

Do we have to wait for Hume & Mallon to pass on before we put them on the Padre Pio fasttrack to sainthood !!


----------



## csirl (12 Aug 2009)

> Thankfully, if the constitutional parties stick to their guns (pardon the metaphor), SF will never share power in the Free State until "themselves alone"


 
"themselves alone" is poor translation of Sinn Fein - it's the literal translation of the 2 words. The proper translation is "Independence". Though, it should be asked, who are the "Independence" Party in the Dail looking for independence from? Surely the name is inappropriate?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Aug 2009)

Okay, _Betsy_, sorry for the manure I still think if we do get a SDLP/FF link up they are going to find it vary hard to justify different attitudes to sharing power with SF on either side of the border.


----------



## csirl (12 Aug 2009)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Okay, _Betsy_, sorry for the manure I still think if we do get a SDLP/FF link up they are going to find it vary hard to justify different attitudes to sharing power with SF on either side of the border.


 
Always though that a SDLP/FF link up was strange. Arent the SDLP allied to the Labour Party in the UK and part of the same European Party as he Labour Party in Ireland? Surely a link-up between the SDLP and the Labour Party in Ireland would be more logical?


----------



## Mpsox (12 Aug 2009)

Glad to see that the Shinners are giving up the appartments in London that they were renting off an Irish landlord and claiming the expenses back even though they have never set foot in the House of Commons. That exposed them as a bunch of bare faced hypocrits


----------



## Betsy Og (12 Aug 2009)

Mpsox said:


> Glad to see that the Shinners are giving up the appartments in London that they were renting off an Irish landlord and claiming the expenses back even though they have never set foot in the House of Commons. That exposed them as a bunch of bare faced hypocrits


 
Well they would argue that they could be on business in London for their constituency/constituents back home, but I see where you're coming from.

On the same theme there were allegations that Mary Lou just about knew where Brussels was (v. low attendance), now even if she tore the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language out the expenses there I gather she'd be in excellent company (Sinnott lady from Cork was nabbed clocking in to clock off and get a full days expenses before catching the morning flight home).


----------



## Mpsox (13 Aug 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> Well they would argue that they could be on business in London for their constituency/constituents back home, but I see where you're coming from.
> 
> .


 
Doing coinstutuency business in the capital of a country they want to leave and in a parliament that they won't set foot in. If that is not a reason never to vote Sinn Fein then I don't know what is


----------



## Purple (13 Aug 2009)

Mpsox said:


> Doing coinstutuency business in the capital of a country they want to leave and in a parliament that they won't set foot in. If that is not a reason never to vote Sinn Fein then I don't know what is



Reasons not to vote for them:
1)	Doing fund raising wearing a balaclava and carrying a shotgun.
2)	Having economic policies that are closed to Kim Yong-Il than common sense.
3)	Engaging in low-level intimidation of their opponents at grass roots level.
4)	Having “close links” to murderers and terrorists. (“Close Links” is a euphemism for “being”).
5)	Having a support base constituted of bigots and xenophobes while paying lip-service to equality and social justice.


----------



## Bill Struth (13 Aug 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> (Sinnott lady from Cork was nabbed clocking in to clock off and get a full days expenses before catching the morning flight home).


 We're Shinner bashing here, don't stray off topic!


----------



## Green (13 Aug 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> now even if she tore the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language out the expenses there I gather she'd be in excellent company (Sinnott lady from Cork was nabbed clocking in to clock off and get a full days expenses before catching the morning flight home).


 
Have you ever seen a situation in any Parliament where politicians didn't abuse expenses? Even are own arrangments are now worse than those in the UK, at least their politicians had vouched ones!


----------



## Green (13 Aug 2009)

Purple said:


> Reasons not to vote for them:
> 1)    Doing fund raising wearing a balaclava and carrying a shotgun.
> 2)    Having economic policies that are closed to Kim Yong-Il than common sense.
> 3)    Engaging in low-level intimidation of their opponents at grass roots level.
> ...


 
+1. Would agree with all of the above with added bit in bold


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Aug 2009)

Bill Struth said:


> We're Shinner bashing here, don't stray off topic!


 
Twas just to show equality like, that we werent blind to others failing as well as that might be  discriminatory   Shinners would love that !!


----------



## Bill Struth (13 Aug 2009)

Betsy Og said:


> Twas just to show equality like, that we werent blind to others failing as well as that might be discriminatory  Shinners would love that !!


 Indeed!


----------

