[Closed] Conservative coalition with DUP.....

Also what most people are also worried about is a bunch of climate change denying creationist bigots having anything to do with education, human rights, environmental policy or dismantling of the protections provided by the EU.

sv - Member
Calm down ladies it was only a question!

He had to be pushed hard to condemn IRA violence, is it so difficult to do?

Not at all: he condemned violence from both sides very readily. It is usually interviewers with particular agendas who try and focus on the IRA and Corbyn just refused to single out one side.

again its strange times when the losers are happier than the "winners"

Obv not a Welsh rugby fan.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/calls-for-dup-to-reveal-source-of-500-000-brexit-donation-1.3115919

I wonder who's bankrolling them?

"The DUP has said that the £435,000 came the Constitutional Research Council, a group whose only publicly declared member is its chairman, Richard Cook, a former Conservative general-election candidate who lives near Glasgow and has business links with Saudi Arabian intelligence services. The council does not publish accounts and has refused to name its funders. [b]
Northern Irish election law allows political donations to be kept secret.[/b]"

More money pouring in from Aaron Banks via a different channel?

sv - Member

He had to be pushed hard to condemn IRA violence

Nope, no he did not, he condemned all violence and then people played silly word games, as if "all violence" somehow didn't include the IRA.

Nope, no he did not, he condemned all violence and then people played silly word games, as if "all violence" somehow didn't include the IRA.

Then it should have pretty easy for him to say of course I condemn IRA violence rather than keep going over the 'all violence' statement.

Also just to point out the DUP are an awful party! Scandal after scandal over here but who cares sure isn't there that wonderful Good Friday agreement that makes everything so brilliant. Lumbered with a useless assembly that doesn't work except for those that get paid from it. Prisoners let out on early release, letters of comfort/Royal pardons (its ok to recognise the monarchy for those instead of murdering them! Still no list of names that got them though.).
I released a long. long time ago that anything other than moving on was futile, still doesn't change what evil people did back then and as I said we shouldn't rewrite history (both Loyalist/Republican).
Glad that the spotlight is on the DUP as it highlights how pathetic politics is in Northern Ireland. Voting is indeed pointless 🙁

Calm down ladies it was only a question!

I released a long. long time ago that anything other than moving on was futile,

sv - Member - Block User - Quote

Then it should have pretty easy for him to say of course I condemn IRA violence rather than keep going over the 'all violence' statement.

[img] [/img]

Then it should have pretty easy for him to say of course I condemn IRA violence rather than keep going over the 'all violence' statement.

good to see that many of you have come round to realise that corbyn is what he's always been , a person of highest integrity and great humility , he works in a snake pit full of opportunists , careerists, liars, thieves and worse , there are some honourable members as they are fond of calling each other but they are a minority .

the sight of the tory regime , who only seven weeks ago were smug about a landslide victory, now scheming with some terrorist apologists in order to cling to power , not in the interest of the country , just self serving , is like maybot mantras , digging a bigger hole , a week is a long time indeed in politics

Then it should have pretty easy for him to say of course I condemn IRA violence rather than keep going over the 'all violence' statement.

Your implication is that he quietly supports/supported IRA violence, isn't it? Thats what you're insinuating?

If Corbyn singled out the IRA, it could be argued as a breach of the GFA, he would be seen to be taking sides.

The only sensible approaches are to condemn all sides, or none.

[quote=sv ]Then it should have pretty easy for him to say of course I condemn IRA violence rather than keep going over the 'all violence' statement.

The irony is that if he had played the game of the interviewer and singled one side out, that would be far more of a threat to the peace process! In the same way that having an agreement with just one side is...

Sv, i kept seeing this ridiculous argument that Corbyn backs the IRA or similar, he held open talks with Sinn Fein, not the IRA, there is an actual difference.

What the mainstream UK media seems to have forgotten in the run up to the GE is their own reporting of the Conservatives numerous dealings and negotiations with the IRA/Sinn Fein including a Tory peer laundering money for them:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2601875.stm

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/the-secret-ira-meetings-revelation-body-blow-to-major-premiers-authority-damaged-by-his-risky-1507416.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/mar/18/northernireland.past

And a Tory peer that laundered money for the IRA

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lords-stunned-by-tory-peers-ira-funding-claim-2126723.html

Why is OK for one and not the other?

Your implication is that he quietly supports/supported IRA violence, isn't it? Thats what you're insinuating?

Not insinuating anything, it would appear in the eighties he chose to support the Nationalist/Republican agenda, certainly didn't support the pro unionists (you know the ones that are fellow British citizens with the English/Scottish/Welsh).

He certainly would be a compromised PM on any NI affairs in the future.

sv

He certainly would be a compromised PM on any NI affairs in the future.

Yeah? He wouldn't be alone....
[img] [/img]

So it's fine to have Corbyn but not May borrowing 10 votes from Foster?

Democracy eh

sv
it would appear in the eighties he chose to support the Nationalist/Republican agenda, certainly didn't support the pro unionists (you know the ones that are fellow British citizens with the English/Scottish/Welsh).

I would just point out that Nationalists/Republicans are also British Citizens.

See if you can find a single person on here who thinks it's ok for any mainstream party to be propped up by either the DUP or SF.

I'd be very surprised if you can.

If so, please crack on.
If not, I can see no point in raking up the past.

[quote=sv ]So it's fine to have Corbyn but not May borrowing 10 votes from Foster?

Yes, congratulations on finally working out the difference.

Well, that's me told.
🙂

I would just point out that Nationalists/Republicans are also [s]British Citizens[/s] Satan Worshipers.

fify

Klunk - Member

I would just point out that Nationalists/Republicans are also British Citizens Satan Worshipers.

fify

Ah yes, I had completely forgotten that they do literally worship the anti-christ. Which means they have no souls, so it's no sin to kill them. If only they could be rounded up into camps and somehow disposed of like DUP MP Sammy Wilson would advocate.

Not insinuating anything, it would appear in the eighties he chose to support the Nationalist/Republican agenda, certainly didn't support the pro unionists (you know the ones that are fellow British citizens with the English/Scottish/Welsh)

I think you need some perspective..

Corbyn spoke to the them yes....but what about the ex-terrorist in the Tory ranks?

I don't see you getting your knickers in a twist over that?

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Gatland ]Maria Gatland[/url]

Now, you tell me......which one broke the fing law??

Any criticism of Corbyn HAS TO BE SEEN bearing her past in mind.

[img] ?oh=023ce9a96e285cdf27d602dda8f9b3db&oe=59D8A262[/img]

[Tinfoil hat]

Is May more cunning than we think? Perhaps she can see the potential for a bit of terrorist activity by stirring up the Irish situation.

If you can't have a war to boost the govt's position, a terrorist threat that you can monitor must be the next best thing...

[/Tinfoil hat]

For some reason I'm getting ads for paramilitary apparel and night vision goggles 😯

Ads you say? Hang on, let me check my phone. Yes, I'm getting intruder alarms.

Voting is indeed pointless

Sure, that's why so many seats were decided by a few hundred votes or less. 🙄

As others have said: do crack on. It's funny to watch ch, but don't be under the illusion that you're being taken seriously.

epicyclo - Member
[Tinfoil hat]

Is May more cunning than we think? Perhaps she can see the potential for a bit of terrorist activity by stirring up the Irish situation.

If you can't have a war to boost the govt's position, a terrorist threat that you can monitor must be the next best thing...

[/Tinfoil hat]

You're accrediting them with a plan. 😆

See if you can find a single person on here who thinks it's ok for any mainstream party to be propped up by either the DUP or SF.

Yes, absolutely, I do

You lot still don't seem to get that there's a difference between [b]before[/b] the ceasefire and after.

Once Can't believe it's Not IRA and the Red hand Gang, and the rest of them, renounced and permanently abandoned violence as a means to an end they became legitimate politicians*, because that's the only way a peace process is ever going to work, see South Africa as another example

The DUP, as elected politicians have as much right to participate in the UK government as they do in NI government, the same as SF have a perfect right to be in government in NI, or here if they chose to take their seats in Westminster.

some of they may well have been odious bastards that I wouldn't shed a tear for their passing, as I said about McGuinness when he died [i]"I have to give him credit for changing his ways, and being instrumental in the success of the peace process, the common ground, and indeed friendship, he seems to have found in his work with Ian Paisley is nothing short of remarkable. Despite this I don't think a thousand lifetimes in hell will make up for the misery he caused in the past."[/i] - my objection to Corbyn is that he, and Abbott, didn't just speak to (on a partisan basis) but publically supported and repeatedly gave a public stage to PIRA-SF [u]whilst[/u] they were engaged in armed struggle against the Democratically elected government, Abbott even saying it herself, [i]"is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”[/i] - Corbyn entirely rejected the will of the people of NI, claimin that a United ireland was the only means to a peaceful outcome, incidentally, something that the UK & Irish governments, the armed groups and the people of NI have ultimately proved him wrong in.

We knew we could rely on you, ninfan

ninfan - Member
See if you can find a single person on here who thinks it's ok for any mainstream party to be propped up by either the DUP or SF.

The latter is impossible. But aye, why not, politics needs some hilarity! 😆

Shame I could rely on you to whinge about me rather than actually come forward with a coherent argument against any of the points I made though, eh aracer?

The latter is impossible.

Oh dear, Joseph failed to read on as far as the bit where I point out that SF could easily choose to take up their westminster seats if they wished

ninfan - Member
Yes, absolutely, I do

You lot still don't seem to get that there's a difference between before the ceasefire and after.

Once Can't believe it's Not IRA and the Red hand Gang, and the rest of them, renounced and permanently abandoned violence as a means to an end they became legitimate politicians*, because that's the only way a peace process is ever going to work, see South Africa as another example

The DUP, as elected politicians have as much right to participate in the UK government as they do in NI government, the same as SF have a perfect right to be in government in NI, or here if they chose to take their seats in Westminster.

some of they may well have been odious bastards that I wouldn't shed a tear for their passing, as I said about McGuinness when he died "I have to give him credit for changing his ways, and being instrumental in the success of the peace process, the common ground, and indeed friendship, he seems to have found in his work with Ian Paisley is nothing short of remarkable. Despite this I don't think a thousand lifetimes in hell will make up for the misery he caused in the past." - my objection to Corbyn is that he, and Abbott, didn't just speak to (on a partisan basis) but publically supported and repeatedly gave a public stage to PIRA-SF whilst they were engaged in armed struggle against the Democratically elected government, Abbott even saying it herself, "is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.” - Corbyn entirely rejected the will of the people of NI, claimin that a United ireland was the only means to a peaceful outcome, incidentally, something that the UK & Irish governments, the armed groups and the people of NI have ultimately proved him wrong in.

It's extremely funny watching ninfan twist himself in knots. 😆

ninfan - Member

Oh dear, Joseph failed to read on as far as the bit where I point out that SF could easily choose to take up their westminster seats if they wished

They could but they won't, ever. Ergo, impossible.

They could but

Thanks for agreeing with me, and destroying your own argument that it's impossible 😆

Describe to me the circumstances where Sinn Fein would take up seats in the UK parliament?

These knots should be funny, go on! 😆

You appear to misunderstand ninfan's argument - clearly it's no more impossible for SF to take their seats at Westminster than for ninfan to vote Labour.

Well, one situation might be where the alternative was letting the DUP get their own way, but by taking up their seats they could team together with a certain old ally to defeat them

clearly it's no more impossible for SF to take their seats at Westminster than for ninfan to vote Labour.

You mean like I did in '97 ?

(aracer runs up to the ball... he shoots, and he misses 😆 )

If you can't have a war to boost the govt's position, a terrorist threat that you can monitor must be the next best thing...

We already have one of those, just not enough people to do the monitoring. (So clearly, what we need is a load more suspected terrorists to keep an eye on.)

You mean like I did in '97 ?

Weren't we just holding Corbyn to account today for his politics in the 80s not half a breath ago?

I'm going to agree with Ninfan here, that the past is the past and while there may be issues with siding with one part of the NI 'divide' leading to problems over impartiality when it comes to the GFA and resolving the Stormont impasse currently, working with people who now renounce violence despite their past is technically OK. Even if I'd be watching like a hawk that the say-do ratio remains appropriately balanced.

Still doesn't satisfactorily answer why it's OK to work with a party that has their views on other matters such as sexuality, religion, etc.