"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement

WolfeTone said:
I'm not sure what you are talking about, I was assaulted in a pub by a drunken scumbag member of the Irish Labour Party.
Click to expand...
I said that I thought that the IRA puppet masters running SF were criminals, not terrorists.
You said;
WolfeTone said:
Whatever evidence of criminality you have you should forward it onto the Gardai, they appear to have little these days.
Click to expand...
I responded to that.
 
Leo thinks that Irish Unification can happen in his lifetime.
He rejected what he called the “crude vision espoused by Sinn Féin”, which he described as “a cold form of republicanism, socialist, narrow nationalism, protectionist, anti-British, euro-critical, ourselves alone, 50 per cent plus one and nobody else is needed”.
He said that “unification must not be the annexation of Northern Ireland. It means something more, a new state designed together, a new constitution and one that reflects the diversity of a bi-national or multi-national state in which almost a million people are British. Like the New South Africa, a rainbow nation, not just orange and green.”.

I take it that @WolfeTone is in total agreement with him, considering his posts on this thread.
 
Purple said:
I take it that @WolfeTone is in total agreement with him, considering his posts on this thread.
Click to expand...

I agree in general with his vision of what a united Ireland should be, or will have to be.
I don't agree with his assertion of what he considers SF version of a UI to be. Vradakar was on a panel discussion in West Belfast with MLMcD a couple of years back where he espoused similar views, the response from MLMcD was to invite him to start talking about it.
He seems to be coming around to the idea.
His SF descript is typical political trite on his part. There is no scope for 'annexation' and he knows this. Its 25yrs since SF signed up to GFA, 'cold republicanism' as he describes it, has no future. SF are clearly geared to a rights based society built on equality and respect and tolerance for all traditions and culture. The crude element of SF policy is to break the bigoted mindset within unionism that will not tolerate cultural diversification. They have my full support in that regard.

He would do well for a start, for FG to contest elections in the North, like SF, like PBP, like Green Party. His party needs to put their money where their mouth is, otherwise it just looks like it is populist pandering to recent poll data that show the overwhelming sentiment on this island is for a UI. FG, FF need to play their hurling on a 32 county pitch. Promoting a vision of UI while only 26 counties voters can have a say is next to meaningless.

As for 50% plus one. If not that, what then? I don't think the terms of GFA are for FG to alter unilaterally.
 
So you're still drinking the Shinner Koolaid.
I see the SF position as being just as triumphalist as the Unionists. They certainly aren't courting the moderate Unionist vote.
 
Purple said:
They certainly aren't courting the moderate Unionist vote.
Click to expand...

And FG are? By actively not engaging in grassroots politics in NI?
Give me a break. Vradakar is realising, in his own words, that the 'tetonic plates are shifting', he is starting to react. This is welcome, but he is a follower not a leader in these matters.
As for his translation of SF to "ourselves alone", this is in correct. Sinn Fein is "we ourselves", a party set up by Arthur Griffith who has many admirers in FG. "We ourselves" comes from concept of the Irish people ourselves forging our own way in the world.

If Vradakar is genuine about a UI that is to be welcome. But his almost automatic reflex to deride on his political opponents tells me it is little more than populist rhetoric.
When FG put some meat on the bones of this stuff I will gladly consider the prospect of voting for them.
 
WolfeTone said:
Sinn Fein is "we ourselves", a party set up by Arthur Griffith who has many admirers in FG. "We ourselves" comes from concept of the Irish people ourselves forging our own way in the world.
Click to expand...
Modern Sinn Fein dates from 1971.
The Sinn Fein party founded by Arthur Griffith became Fianna Fail in the 1930's. In 1932 and 1933 the IRA supported De Valera's Fianna Fail which had won 77 seats. Most of those seats were occupied by TD's who were former SF.
Modern SF was founded as the political wing of the Provisional IRA when they split from the old IRA. Claiming a name doesn't mean they get to claim a history.
So no, it is not a Party founded by Arthur Griffith. It is a party founded by Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and the rest of the Army Council of the PIRA during Internment in 1971.
 
Purple said:
Claiming a name doesn't mean they get to claim a history.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the translation of Sinn Féin (we ourselves) being used incorrectly and for nothing more than political spin as (ourselves alone).

It just adds to my view that what Vradakar is saying is nothing more than a reaction to populist sentiment rather than any sort of real conviction if he needs to spin porkies about 'annexation' etc.
 
WolfeTone said:
I'm talking about the translation of Sinn Féin (we ourselves) being used incorrectly and for nothing more than political spin as (ourselves alone).
Click to expand...
I though Sinn Fein just meant "Ourselves".
WolfeTone said:
It just adds to my view that what Vradakar is saying is nothing more than a reaction to populist sentiment rather than any sort of real conviction if he needs to spin porkies about 'annexation' etc.
Click to expand...
Is it a case that your ideology forces you to play the man and not the ball, attack the messenger when you can't attack the message?
Hardly helpful if your lot want to create a new Ireland with a bunch of Sash-wearing, drum-beating, God-bothering Unionists with whom the only thing you have in common is a hatred of the other side. You'll have to learn to listen to the substance of what's being said rather than only seeing the person who is saying it.
I know that your side is on the side of the pure and the virtuous but try to see through the clouds between the moral high ground and the rest of us down here and realise that we are flawed creatures who lack the clarity of thought and purpose, not to mention the pure bred Celtic intellect possessed by you guys. We'll never live up to your standards so, please, make allowances for us.

Leo and Michael haven't been purified in the fires of, well, whatever fires you are purified in by blowing up children for 40 years. They'll stumble and fall along the way but eventually we'll all be one big Shinner family*.

(*I'll have spent a few years in one of those Uighur type re-education camps, probably in a compound in Donegal which used to be the holiday home/ safe house of a good republican but I'll be alright in the end).
 
Purple said:
Doug Beattie said thaat his comments were unhelpful in the current context.
Click to expand...

Well he has certainly changed his tune since eh...since, erm... since the last time a leading Unionist politician announced it was helpful to talk about a United Ireland.

Purple said:
Is it a case that your ideology forces you to play the man and not the ball, attack the messenger when you can't attack the message?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you are talking about. Clearly I welcomed Vradakar comments and FG approach

WolfeTone said:
If Vradakar is genuine about a UI that is to be welcome.
Click to expand...

WolfeTone said:
When FG put some meat on the bones of this stuff I will gladly consider the prospect of voting for them.
Click to expand...

I have yet to be convinced that FG are sincere. I would gladly accept being proven wrong, in which case,

WolfeTone said:
I will gladly consider the prospect of voting for them.
Click to expand...

I think that is a reasonable 'ideology' to have.
Purple said:
if your lot
Click to expand...

I don't have 'a lot' , I'm open to persuasion by one and all. If DUP want to stand a candidate in my constituency I will consider voting for them also.
 
Last edited:
SF hits record high, FG drops among voters

With a by-election coming up before October, a FG leader announces its time to talk about a UI!

Forgive me for being somewhat sceptical of the real intentions here. As Doug Beattie shows in his comments, it's hardly for 'courting the moderate Unionist vote' ?

I am open to persuasion.
 
If I'm not mistaken, "tectonic plates" shifting tonight.

Sinn Féin asking British government to legislate for Irish affairs (specifically Irish language Act) and British government responding positively, with agreement of Unionists!
It somewhat dispels Leo's "cold Republicanism, anti-British, protectionist, annexation " jargon about SF.
Instead it more reflective of a new state being designed together.

Well done Leo, great call!

Curry my yoghurt! is the new Tiocfaidh ár lá.
 
Last edited:
... and they aren't you lot?
and you'd consider voting for a DUP candidate?

Yea, right.
 

it is interesting that Sinn Fein went to a Government who lead a parliament they refuse to sit in to try and get something sorted when they could not get an agreement done with the DUP themselves. Some people might call it pragmitism but maybe it is cynicism?? After all, Sinn Fein are quite capable of using the UK Govt to get something when it suits them and get the begging bowl out for more money. Maybe I'd believe a little more in SF if they dropped their absenteeism and sat in Westminster.

As for the "agreement of unionists"? DUP can quite legitimately say now that this is being enforced on them and that they couldn't stop it. it also reduces the influence of the assembly which is probably something the DUP favour as well since it brings then closer to the "mainland".
 
Peanuts20 said:
when they could not get an agreement done with the DUP themselves
Click to expand...

The agreement with the DUP for an Irish language act was already done, Poots himself a negotiator for DUP. It was the implementation of the deal that was agreed to that they couldn't stomach. Nothing unusual there from DUP.

Peanuts20 said:
it also reduces the influence of the assembly which is probably something the DUP favour as well since it brings then closer to the "mainland".
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. The DUP are willing participants in the Stormont Assembly. How could say something is being "forced upon" them on the one hand by Westminister, but have a preference for Westminster governing their affairs?
 
Peanuts20 said:
it also reduces the influence of the assembly which is probably something the DUP favour as well since it brings then closer to the "mainland".
Click to expand...
I think that is the objective of the DUP. They see that Nationalism has demographics on its side so devolved government isn't Unionisms friend. It's telling that Poots has chosen not to be First Minister, despite being an MLA.
 
The DUP policy for the 2019 general election clearly stated the following
So if it makes no sense, why is it a stated policy of the DUP to have "National UK Departments to carry out administrative operations in Northern Ireland." .? Why do their policies call out for a fundamental reform of the NI Civil Service with closer ties to the Home Civil service?

In effect, the DUP just want the Assembly to be a talking shop with no real powers as such. Those powers to sit in London where SF won't play
 
Peanuts20 said:
In effect, the DUP just want the Assembly to be a talking shop with no real powers as such. Those powers to sit in London where SF won't play
Click to expand...

Yes, so it is a bit rich to be claiming that the Irish language Act is being "forced upon them". That is my point, they are trying to have it both ways. If they want to ruled by London then there is no "forcing upon". If they want the Assembly to govern then get on with what they have already agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register