still wouldn't happen. next scenario?ninfan - Member
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
twist and shout, twist and shout! 😆 Could have taken that stance, pre-election, no? 😆theotherjonv - Member
I'm going to agree with Ninfan here, that the past is the past
btw the past ain't in the past, you've still got the small matter of the DUP's utterly odious [b]current[/b] world view, but as I say crack on. Going to great watching the tories infect themselves with it.
queens speech delayed! negotiations not going well ?
theotherjonv - Member
I'm going to agree with Ninfan here, that the past is the past
Which is exactly why he spent hours trying to post pics of jc meeting people and bringing it up at every opportunity as a reason not to vote for him.
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.
Still waiting for their core voter to arrive
Could have taken that stance, pre-election, no?
The stance that I, and I am sure many other people, took both before and after the election, is that you can't trust the judgement of someone who allied himself with numerous terrorist groups (not just spoke to, allied himself with, categorically and publically aligning himself with their stated aims) [u]whilst they were still engaged in a campaign of violence[/u] - Rather than anything to do with his relationship with those people [u]after[/u] they had renounced violence, which is where, as part of the peace process, you have to accept that the past is the past.
You'll be hammering the tories for talking to sinn fein pre decommissioning/pre ceasefires? Do you even have a scooby as to the timeline of decommissioning/ceasefires?
If everyone took your, quite ridiculous, stance. We'd still be stuck in the 1980s.
Dialog is the only way forward.
allied himself with numerous terrorist groups (not just spoke to, allied himself with, categorically and publically aligning himself with their stated aims) whilst they were still engaged in a campaign of violence
You're talking about Corbyn? He supported Irish unification through violence?
....which is where, as part of the peace process, you have to accept that the past is the past.
If members of all parties waited for a ceasefire on all sides before talking to all the groups involved, we'd still be waiting now.
How many more murders would have occurred in the past 30 years if we'd not tried?
i) Talking to and negotiating with all sides, privately, in an official capacity as elected government, in order to achieve peace
Ii) publically aligning yourself, in an unofficial capacity, and openly supporting the stated aims of one single side of the conflict, repeatedly giving a public stage and publicity to their aims and onjectives, including opposing steps towards achieving a bipartisan agreement to achieve a peaceable outcome by the respective governments.
You don't see the difference?
If Corbyn had been talking to and working, impartially, as a go between or facilitator between both republicans and unionists, it might be different - He wasn't, and both his own, and his bedfellow's (arf!) statements from the time prove this
Ninfan.
I've posted it before, but i'll post it again, why is it better to have held numerous talks in secret rather than in the open, these articles go back to 1981:
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
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/mar/18/northernireland.past
And a Tory peer that laundered money for the IRA
no wonder the Weak & Wobbly Tory/DUP coalition is in trouble
Davis admitted earlier that Brexit talks might be delayed
I wasn't there and neither were you.
I find some of the remarks made by JC, JM and DA at the time extremely distateful and difficult to reconcile.
But it would appear these talks helped to save lives.
I'm glad they (and all the other parties involved in the dialogue) were involved.
As a wise man once said, jaw jaw is better than war war.
You don't see the difference?
Yes, I can see the difference there. So he was in favour of unification. Isn't he allowed to have an opinion, as a backbencher?
I would like to know if you can see a difference between supporting an aim held by many, some of whom are terrorists; and condoning terrorism?
But it would appear they helped to save lives.
Spherical objects - if they had been impartial facilitators they might have stood a chance of doing so, all they succeeded in being was useful idiots lending credence to terrorism as part of a propaganda war
You think we'd have a ceasefire now if we'd not negotiated with all sides whilst they were still murdering people?
We certainly wouldn't have it without the Anglo-Irish agreement
Can you remember who opposed that?
Can you remember who opposed that?
The DUP?
Can you remember who opposed that?
The DUP?
Yes, both sides.
For god's sake man, it's a matter of public record.
If you had a shred of decency you'd stop trolling about this.
It's seriously unpleasant and unhelpful.
SF will not sit in Westminster for one very very simple reason, it would be accepting Westminster rule, the whole raison d'etre of SF is rule from Dublin.
openly supporting the stated aims of one single side of the conflict,
show me where corbyn supported the IRA, he may well have sympathy towards the goal of a united Ireland, struggling to see why that's a bad thing?
Also are you still incapable of separating the IRA from Sinn Fein?
Why don't you refer to the DUP as DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
From what I can gather the deadline for forming a power sharing government in NI is 29th June. After that, if no deal is made, NI come under home rule again. I stand to be corrected but if it is as I understand it, the current cluster**** is going to have serious consequences.
The DUP/Tory "understanding" will cause serious problems to this.
Yes, both sides.For god's sake man, it's a matter of public record.
So, you've successfully demonstrated that unlike the British and Irish governments, who were seeking peace
Jezza was successfully mired in continuing the fight along with the rest of the terrorists and their supporters from both sides
Well done 😀
Also are you still incapable of separating the IRA from Sinn Fein
Of course not
IRA:
[img] 
[/img]
Sinn Fein:
[img] [/img]
The difference is obvious
Ii) publically aligning yourself, in an unofficial capacity, and openly supporting the stated aims of one single side of the conflict, repeatedly giving a public stage and publicity to their aims and onjectives, including opposing steps towards achieving a bipartisan agreement to achieve a peaceable outcome by the respective governments.
Big whoop compared to breaking the law & actually being a MEMBER OF THE IRA.....AKA Maria Gatland AKA Tory councillor.
Go get upset about that.
But you won't will you?
You'll conveniently ignore the uncomfortable truth because it doesn't suit your RW narrative.
How pathetic.
Why no continual reference to DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
At least admit you're biased ffs.
NI come under home rule again
With the DUP in power via Westminster, why would they negotiate with SF? At which point those republican factions who do not support the peace process can legitimately state the GFA has failed, SF have failed talking does not work, London has seized control with the assistance of the DUP. The DUP has blocked various parts of the GFA already.
And very very quickly we are back to soldiers on the streets, bombings etc etc.
[quote=ninfan ]You mean like I did in '97 ?
Stop banging on about the past. You'll note I wrote "to vote Labour" rather than "to have voted Labour", and I know how important precise wording is to you.
Back of the net.
Ninfan, i've twice posted up a set of links to numerous news articles going back to the 1980's and the Conservative involvement with the IRA, the Tory government had closed, secretive talks going back to '81?
Have a read of these and see why you feel it is ok for one and not the other?
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
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/mar/18/northernireland.past
And a Tory peer that laundered money for the IRA
Why no continual reference to DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
Can you prove Arlene or her deputy leader also lead the UDA/UVF?
Can you tell me the last time Gerry Adams chaired an army council meeting? 😆sv - Member
Why no continual reference to DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
Can you prove Arlene or her deputy leader also lead the UDA/UVF?
There's links all over the shop between both, to deny that is ridiculous, but to continually associate one with their armed wing and to completely omit the other's, is utterly disingenuous.
For the purposes of peace and talks, both should be referred to as separate entities from their armed counterparts. You just show your bias if you refer to one as a whole and not the other.
Scud - and I've already answered you, they were the elected government, and they were talking to [b]both[/b] sides.
Why no continual reference to DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
Because DUP weren't tied to UDA or UVF, they were tied to Ulster Resistance
Can you tell me the last time Gerry Adams chaired an army council meeting?
Depends if you believe the former Irish Justice minister
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/feb/21/northernireland.northernireland
Because DUP weren't tied to UDA or UVF
Utter nonsense, absolute bollocks.
And that's a matter of public record too.
Fwiw, I'll just let you keep posting your nasty, twisted opinions without engaging from here on in.
It would seem you're prepared to say anything for attention.
Go and speak to someone and get some help.
sure! 😆ninfan - Member
Why no continual reference to DUP/UDA, DUP/UVF?
Because DUP weren't tied to UDA or UVF, they were tied to Ulster Resistance
ninfan - Member
Scud - and I've already answered you, they were the elected government, and they were talking to both sides.
And OK to launder money for the IRA?
ninfan......
[img] 
[/img]
it didnt work b4 the election, it wont work now
Next ninfan will be telling us the UDA are alright since they weren't proscribed until 1992! 😆
way to take the focus off the topic. 🙄
edit: sorry, I'll expand. the troubles - we all hope ( i presume ) = history.
con/dup - GFA and ongoing corruption allegations =/= history.
Ninfan - see Kimbers' post
Anyone else wondering, if the DUP are such objectionable ****s, why do they have more MPs than anyone else in NI?
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/11/labour-tried-to-do-deals-with-the-dup-last-time-there-was-a-hung-parliament-6701733/amp/
It wasn't right then and it's not right now.
