• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Fine Gael and Sinn Fein


Movealong

Member
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
8
Speaking as a Labour supporter, Labour and Fine Gael are loopy not to even accept out of government support from Sinn Fein. FF have already laid the groundwork in saying that they can't stop people voting for them. This is an opportunity to get FF out of government and they're throwing it all away (in PD speak ;) ).

They could have got general agreement in policy directions without anything specific.
 

drbob1972

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
257
do you really want a government that is dependant on SF support?
 

Movealong

Member
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
8
drbob1972 said:
do you really want a government that is dependant on SF support?
SF "hands off" support for a Rainbow Government OR a Bertie Bung corrupt government ?


hmmm.....I'll have to get back to you on that. :roll:
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,276
drbob1972 said:
do you really want a government that is dependant on SF support?

I could cope with a government requiring the support of Ferris, Morgan, O'Snodaigh and O'Caolain - but it'd have to be those four effectively operating as an autonomous group. For all that Adams is party president, and McGuinness is whatever he is, the fact is that neither is elected to public office in the Republic, and the four TDs couldn't be going to him seeking approval on everything every other week. Plus, if the SF parliamentary party was actually formed as such, it might be possible to thus draw a distinction between it and the broader SF movement that effectively contains the IRA as well. And that would make it a lot easier for FG members to support it.
 

Seánod

Active member
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
208
While I don't think Sinn Féin should for one second contemplate a coalition or unwritten deal at this juncture, I have to say it is a disgrace the way the other parties have dealt with them, almost treating Sinn Féin as the untouchables.
 

Phaedrus

New member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
2
The SF option of supporting a government but not in it is tempting but probably too dangerous for the alternative coalition parties. The electorate has a way of punishing smaller parties for decisions it does not like. If would be difficult for these parties to go back to the people in an election that was caused by SF withdrawing support. SF will eventually be in government but probably with FF.
 

Movealong

Member
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
8
Seánod said:
While I don't think Sinn Féin should for one second contemplate a coalition or unwritten deal at this juncture, I have to say it is a disgrace the way the other parties have dealt with them, almost treating Sinn Féin as the untouchables.
I actually agree with you on that score. At least show them how the system works and do them the courtesy of having a chat. I guarantee that in 5 years time, they will all be talking to each other. At the very least if paisley can go into govt with Adams, we can at least talk to them.
 

Movealong

Member
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
8
Phaedrus said:
The SF option of supporting a government but not in it is tempting but probably too dangerous for the alternative coalition parties. The electorate has a way of punishing smaller parties for decisions it does not like. If would be difficult for these parties to go back to the people in an election that was caused by SF withdrawing support. SF will eventually be in government but probably with FF.
But adopting that attitude, it means Ahern is going into government (unless Mahon saves the day). And worse, Harney will complete the co-location/public contracts.
 

drbob1972

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
257
hiding behind a poster said:
drbob1972 said:
do you really want a government that is dependant on SF support?

I could cope with a government requiring the support of Ferris, Morgan, O'Snodaigh and O'Caolain - but it'd have to be those four effectively operating as an autonomous group. For all that Adams is party president, and McGuinness is whatever he is, the fact is that neither is elected to public office in the Republic, and the four TDs couldn't be going to him seeking approval on everything every other week. Plus, if the SF parliamentary party was actually formed as such, it might be possible to thus draw a distinction between it and the broader SF movement that effectively contains the IRA as well. And that would make it a lot easier for FG members to support it.
now what do you think the odds of that being the 4 mentioned above are SF members and proud of same, they would not function as independants but as SF representatives in the Dail, as to whether they'd make decisions on their own or differ to SF HQ what do you think ? it would in effect be Adam's and McGuiness using them as proxies
 

Nedz Newt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
3,451
Movealong said:
Speaking as a Labour supporter, Labour and Fine Gael are loopy not to even accept out of government support from Sinn Fein. FF have already laid the groundwork in saying that they can't stop people voting for them. This is an opportunity to get FF out of government and they're throwing it all away (in PD speak ;) ).

They could have got general agreement in policy directions without anything specific.
I note your signature is "A vote for FF is a vote for FF/SF govt".
Did you actually mean "A vote for the Alliance of Losers is a vote for SF govt"?
 

Movealong

Member
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
8
At the very least it would allow FG to form a government and it would set the Bertie goodbye party in motion.
 

Movealong

Member
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
8
Nedz Newt said:
Movealong said:
Speaking as a Labour supporter, Labour and Fine Gael are loopy not to even accept out of government support from Sinn Fein. FF have already laid the groundwork in saying that they can't stop people voting for them. This is an opportunity to get FF out of government and they're throwing it all away (in PD speak ;) ).

They could have got general agreement in policy directions without anything specific.
I note your signature is "A vote for FF is a vote for FF/SF govt".
Did you actually mean "A vote for the Alliance of Losers is a vote for SF govt"?
no because FF would have entered government if it came to it, with the Shinners....and that's not over yet.
 

drbob1972

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
257
Seánod said:
While I don't think Sinn Féin should for one second contemplate a coalition or unwritten deal at this juncture, I have to say it is a disgrace the way the other parties have dealt with them, almost treating Sinn Féin as the untouchables.
its not a disgrace, the parties whom stated (and I'm thinking of FG here specifically) they would not deal with SF stated valid reasons and stuck to them, just because they don't want to deal with SF does not make them wrong, it makes them principled and consistent, something SF should take heed of
 

Scribbler

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
379
drbob1972 said:
just because they don't want to deal with SF does not make them wrong, it makes them principled and consistent, something SF should take heed of
Bollox to that. They negotiate, talk, look for votes and mayor support in councils all over. Total hypocrisy. 'Principled and consistent' my arse.
 

Seánod

Active member
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
208
drbob1972 said:
Seánod said:
While I don't think Sinn Féin should for one second contemplate a coalition or unwritten deal at this juncture, I have to say it is a disgrace the way the other parties have dealt with them, almost treating Sinn Féin as the untouchables.
its not a disgrace, the parties whom stated (and I'm thinking of FG here specifically) they would not deal with SF stated valid reasons and stuck to them, just because they don't want to deal with SF does not make them wrong, it makes them principled and consistent, something SF should take heed of
But in my view there is something more at play here than mere "valid reasons". I mean, it seems that everyone can call everyone else, but no-one can be seen to say they'll give Sinn Féin a call. Now that's fair enough, and they are entitled to do that if they wish, but I do think a big part of it is a leftover of the Section 31 mentality, and it has as much to do with continuing to isolate Sinn Féin as it has to do with any normal political differences. I mean Ahern said a deal with Labour was "less likely". What would be the harm in saying a deal with Sinn Féin would seem "even less likely than that"... but still treat them as if they are part of the equation. There is something not balanced about this in my view.
 

drbob1972

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
257
Scribbler said:
drbob1972 said:
just because they don't want to deal with SF does not make them wrong, it makes them principled and consistent, something SF should take heed of
Bollox to that. They negotiate, talk, look for votes and mayor support in councils all over. Total hypocrisy. 'Principled and consistent' my arse.
whilst i cannot comment on the issue of councils as i am not familiar with same i do not think its bollix they stated from the outside of the GE that they would not negioiate with SF and they are not doing so that sir is principled and consistent whether you like it or not.
 

Scribbler

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
379
Principled and consistent means adopting a position that doesn't change depending on the political level. Just like the DUP previously, FG & FF have adopted a position totally at variance to the position adopted by those parties at council level. Therefore it is not a principled and is certainly not a consistent position. That, sir, is a fact - whether you like it or not.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,276
drbob1972 said:
hiding behind a poster said:
drbob1972 said:
do you really want a government that is dependant on SF support?

I could cope with a government requiring the support of Ferris, Morgan, O'Snodaigh and O'Caolain - but it'd have to be those four effectively operating as an autonomous group. For all that Adams is party president, and McGuinness is whatever he is, the fact is that neither is elected to public office in the Republic, and the four TDs couldn't be going to him seeking approval on everything every other week. Plus, if the SF parliamentary party was actually formed as such, it might be possible to thus draw a distinction between it and the broader SF movement that effectively contains the IRA as well. And that would make it a lot easier for FG members to support it.
now what do you think the odds of that being the 4 mentioned above are SF members and proud of same, they would not function as independants but as SF representatives in the Dail, as to whether they'd make decisions on their own or differ to SF HQ what do you think ? it would in effect be Adam's and McGuiness using them as proxies

I'm not saying they should deny their membership of SF, or anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that the SF Parliamentary Party can't be subservient to unelected party grandees like Adams and McGuinness. And that's the case regardless of whether its FF or FG they coalesce with. (After all, its hard to see McGuinness deferring to Adams on much, now that he's First Minister and Gerry is nothing but an MP.
 

Nedz Newt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
3,451
Do ye (FG) seriously believe SF will give ye anything but two fingers if ye don't aproach on a most respectful manner.
Ye forget that ye're need is acute, and theirs is zilch.
Ye are in no position to make demands of any description, it is the other way around.
If SF walk away from ye what have ye got?
I'd assumethe position if I were ye.
 

padraig

Active member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
208
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
hiding behind a poster said:
drbob1972 said:
[quote="hiding behind a poster":h4cjenv4]
drbob1972 said:
do you really want a government that is dependant on SF support?

I could cope with a government requiring the support of Ferris, Morgan, O'Snodaigh and O'Caolain - but it'd have to be those four effectively operating as an autonomous group. For all that Adams is party president, and McGuinness is whatever he is, the fact is that neither is elected to public office in the Republic, and the four TDs couldn't be going to him seeking approval on everything every other week. Plus, if the SF parliamentary party was actually formed as such, it might be possible to thus draw a distinction between it and the broader SF movement that effectively contains the IRA as well. And that would make it a lot easier for FG members to support it.
now what do you think the odds of that being the 4 mentioned above are SF members and proud of same, they would not function as independants but as SF representatives in the Dail, as to whether they'd make decisions on their own or differ to SF HQ what do you think ? it would in effect be Adam's and McGuiness using them as proxies

I'm not saying they should deny their membership of SF, or anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that the SF Parliamentary Party can't be subservient to unelected party grandees like Adams and McGuinness. And that's the case regardless of whether its FF or FG they coalesce with. (After all, its hard to see McGuinness deferring to Adams on much, now that he's First Minister and Gerry is nothing but an MP.[/quote:h4cjenv4]

The Sinn Féin TD's are there to represent the people who elected them, and the party, therefore any decision on who to or not to support, if anyone in forming a government will be taking by the party leadership, if the other parties have a problem with that then tough shit.
 
Top