The Irish Times’s Kathy Sheridan is not one bit happy with Sinn Féin this morning (someone get smelling salts for Virginia, please). Sinn Féin, she says, is collating information about voters in the South. Worse still, they’re allowing that information to be placed in a US-hosted domain. Some of its Facebook accounts are managed from Serbia and Germany. “Why would any all-Ireland political party register a hugely sensitive database beyond this island? Why are its accounts being managed from other countries ?”
Kathy doesn’t mention if she’s asked this particular all-Ireland political party why it has allocated online information “beyond this island”. It might make more sense to do so, rather than implying there must be dirty work going on at the international cross-roads.
Kathy also notes that, as Fine Gael TD Jennifer Carroll Mac Neill has announced, Friends of Sinn Féin spent more than $90,000 calling on the British government to set a date for a referendum on a united Ireland. This too upsets Katy: “You don’t have to be a die-hard political opponent [of Sinn Féin] to question the wisdom of outside funds being harnessed to influence the affairs of a bloodied island where good people fight hard, daily battles to tame tribalism and promote reconciliation.”
Kathy, Kathy, Kathy. Haven’t you heard about Irish-America? And how it played a major part in delivering the Good Friday Agreement? If you have, what makes you imply that Irish-America is fostering tribalism and delaying reconciliation? And no, Kathy, your linking of the Friends of Sinn Féin ad in the New York Times with the hundreds of thousands of pounds “splashed” by the DUP in London to promote Brexit just doesn’t work. For one, we know exactly where the FoSF money came from – it’s all meticulously accounted; whereas the DUP splash money comes from some dark and confusing well.
Wouldn’t it have been better if you’d saved IT space and just said “I don’t want a border poll”?
Also in this morning’s Irish Times, Michael McDowell is writing about his favourite bete noir – yep, Sinn Féin. (More smelling salts for Virginia, please.) Michael is today worried about the failure of those advocating a border poll to deal with the word ‘legitimacy’ in the GFA. Michael says legitimacy of someone’s point of view means it must be respected, which is fair enough. Michael then hurries to couple those who are nationalists on this island with Boris Johnson and his English nationalism. Mmm. I’m sure there’s a fairly significant difference between Irish nationalism, which seeks to unite Ireland, and English nationalism, which claims jurisdiction over part of Ireland. A keen legal mind like yours, Michael, probably could make the distinction. If you chose to.
But we get to the nub of Michael’s piece with one sentence: “Talk about a ‘Border poll’ in the absence of any clarity on what form of Irish unity is envisaged is putting the cart before the horse”. Michael believes even talk about a confederate Ireland is unrealistic and fails to respect the ‘legitimacy’ of the view of some unionists who aren’t interested in any kind of united Ireland, including a confederate one.
I have one question for you, Michael (No, Virginia, not ‘Do you feel lucky, punk?’): do you believe that unionists should have a veto on not only a poll on Irish unity, but even talking about such a poll? Well, do you, Michael?
Comments are closed.