Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Sinn Fein could lose expenses

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Armin_Tamzarian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,833 ✭✭✭✭Armin_Tamzarian


    Winty wrote: »
    IMO An SDLP voter if given the choice of never to see another bomb in towns like Omagh or Enniskillen would be happy to live as we do today in a shared land.

    I cant comment on a Sinn Fein voter maybe you can

    Should be safe enough.
    Bombers are 'traitors to Ireland' now as far as SF are concerned.
    You've got to feel sorry for the poor old Bombers though.
    They went from being heroes to traitors quicker than you can say "political u-turn".


  • #103
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Winty wrote: »
    What is the difference between a Sinn Fein and an SDLP supporter?

    IMO An SDLP voter if given the choice of never to see another bomb in towns like Omagh or Enniskillen would be happy to live as we do today in a shared land.

    I cant comment on a Sinn Fein voter maybe you can

    Thats only what I think, I dont speak for the party

    Doesn't quite explain why they have consistently increased their share of the vote since Sinn Fein/IRA called a ceasefire, decommissioned and became plain old Sinn Fein.

    I would say the difference now comes down to social class(South Belfast) and how likeable the local representative is(Mark Durkan)

    South Down's an odd case because Unionists vote for SDLP to keep Sinn Fein out


  • #104
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    dlofnep wrote: »
    So why would you be in favour of Irish Unity, if your interests are apparently already served?.
    Let's short-circuit this sub-discussion.

    Some people currently resident in Northern Ireland want to be part of Ireland (the state) regardless of how well they're currently served by being part of the United Kingdom (the state) and regardless of how well they'd be served by being part of Ireland (the state).

    Some people currently resident in Northern Ireland want to be part of the United Kingdom (the state) regardless of how well they're currently served by being part of the United Kingdom (the state) and regardless of how well they'd be served by being part of Ireland (the state).

    Some people are probably tippable either way and for them services and particulars are important. But whether someone would be in favour of a unified all-island state or a split-island state with a bit of the island as part of the UK has sweet damn-all to do with services for lots of people. Those lots of people want to see a particular flag, anthem and elect people to go to a particular capital.

    And you know that. Everyone knows that, right?

    And it's got nothing to do with the thread. Expenses and whether SF should get them given their current policy and practice is the topic of the thread, people; who bombs whom and whether it should be a shared land of pixies or a land owned representatively ruled governed by a particular group of elected narcissists is nowt to do with the price of tomatoes.


  • #105
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Winty wrote: »
    What is the difference between a Sinn Fein and an SDLP supporter?

    IMO An SDLP voter if given the choice of never to see another bomb in towns like Omagh or Enniskillen would be happy to live as we do today in a shared land.

    I cant comment on a Sinn Fein voter maybe you can

    Thats only what I think, I dont speak for the party

    I don't feel that we differ on this issue, and I don't feel that decades more of war can bring unification. On that note - I don't want to go off-topic any further. You're more than welcome to drop me a message and we can discuss it further if you want.


  • #106
    Winty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭Winty


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I don't feel that we differ on this issue

    We all may have gone off topic but It must be said that we did it with manners and in the nature of debate.

    I am the OP and the debate has helped me see a little different. Sinn Fein are a small party and they do need money to carry out the work they do. The question of how that should money should arrive is important.

    IMO Sinn Fein needs to address the issue of the Oath from the inside, a number of British MP's dont like the Oath and feel it should be removed. I am sure that if Sinn Fein sat in Westminster they would be able to have the Oath removed.

    It will be very interesting to see what the new British Prime Minster does!


  • #107
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Winty wrote: »
    We all may have gone off topic but It must be said that we did it with manners and in the nature of debate.

    I am the OP and the debate has helped me see a little different. Sinn Fein are a small party and they do need money to carry out the work they do. The question of how that should money should arrive is important.

    IMO Sinn Fein needs to address the issue of the Oath from the inside, a number of British MP's dont like the Oath and feel it should be removed. I am sure that if Sinn Fein sat in Westminster they would be able to have the Oath removed.

    It will be very interesting to see what the new British Prime Minster does!

    How can you seriously expect a Republican to take an oath to a Monarch? Ideologically they are polar opposites. I'm fairly sure the SF voter base are aware of this and quite happy with how SF are doing it, why should you as an SDLP voter have any say into how they operate?


  • #108
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    How can you seriously expect a Republican to take an oath to a Monarch?
    Because they are taking a seat in the parliment of a country headed by a Monarch.
    karma_ wrote: »
    Ideologically they are polar opposites. I'm fairly sure the SF voter base are aware of this and quite happy with how SF are doing it, why should you as an SDLP voter have any say into how they operate?
    Voters are not set. Especially voters between parties with similar ideology. Maybe that poster would vote SF if they sat in parliment and as such he has a right to call them to do so.


  • #109
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »

    Voters are not set. Especially voters between parties with similar ideology. Maybe that poster would vote SF if they sat in parliment and as such he has a right to call them to do so.

    Possibly so, but when you take their recent polling results into account their voter base seems happy enough.


  • #110
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    Possibly so, but when you take their recent polling results into account their voter base seems happy enough.
    That's all well and good but the happiness of Sinn Fein's voter base is not really what we are talking about here. The case remains that Sinn Fein should not claim expenses for seats that they do not occupy.


  • #111
    bigbadbear
    Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭bigbadbear


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That's all well and good but the happiness of Sinn Fein's voter base is not really what we are talking about here. The case remains that Sinn Fein should not claim expenses for seats that they do not occupy.

    They don't.

    I've been reading this thread with great interest but just want to make the point that as far as I know the issue is not that they are being paid to sit and then not sitting. They are actually declining £50,000 a year in order to not sit. However, they are taking the expenses that incur from the part of the job that they actually do.

    About SF being hypocrites for taking "the queen's pound" or "hating all things British except the coins with the queen's head on it" These statements only serve to annoy people as what do you expect the SF politicians to pay for their groceries with? Maybe pay them in chickens instead and they can barter??

    I may seem very one sided but I just hate people bending the facts in a debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    bigbadbear wrote: »
    They don't.

    I've been reading this thread with great interest but just want to make the point that as far as I know the issue is not that they are being paid to sit and then not sitting. They are actually declining £50,000 a year in order to not sit. However, they are taking the expenses that incur from the part of the job that they actually do.

    About SF being hypocrites for taking "the queen's pound" or "hating all things British except the coins with the queen's head on it" These statements only serve to annoy people as what do you expect the SF politicians to pay for their groceries with? Maybe pay them in chickens instead and they can barter??

    I may seem very one sided but I just hate people bending the facts in a debate.

    I don't have a problem with them not taking their seats, that is their democratic right. What i find hypocritical is that they make a big deal about not taking their seats to show their rejection of the Westminster parliament, but are then happy to claim tens of thousands in expenses to make up for it.

    Telegraph article here

    It does beg the question, if they are not taking up their seats, why do they need offices in Westminster and houses in London?

    As far as I can see, this is all part of the deal Tony Blair did with them to buy them off and bring them to the negotiating table.


  • #113
    bigbadbear
    Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭bigbadbear


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with them not taking their seats, that is their democratic right. What i find hypocritical is that they make a big deal about not taking their seats to show their rejection of the Westminster parliament, but are then happy to claim tens of thousands in expenses to make up for it.

    Telegraph article here

    It does beg the question, if they are not taking up their seats, why do they need offices in Westminster and houses in London?

    As far as I can see, this is all part of the deal Tony Blair did with them to buy them off and bring them to the negotiating table.

    just wondering, do SDLP get similar expenses or is this just some special treatment?


  • #114
    Armin_Tamzarian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,833 ✭✭✭✭Armin_Tamzarian


    bigbadbear wrote: »
    They are actually declining £50,000 a year in order to not sit. However, they are taking the expenses that incur from the part of the job that they actually do.

    If this is true then that's fair enough and they shouldn't lose their expense money.


  • #115
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It does beg the question, if they are not taking up their seats, why do they need offices in Westminster and houses in London?

    They visit London to further the peace process, and engage in direct discussions on devolution. They travel as much as any other politician from the north.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    As far as I can see, this is all part of the deal Tony Blair did with them to buy them off and bring them to the negotiating table.

    Oh yeah, I'm sure the only reason the engaged in negotiations was to fill their pockets. It wouldn't have anything to do with the Good Friday Agreement at all. :)


  • #116
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    bigbadbear wrote: »
    just wondering, do SDLP get similar expenses or is this just some special treatment?

    They're all at it tbh.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5425293/MPs-expenses-Eddie-McGrady-opted-for-abundant-luxury-of-315-a-night.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8078820.stm

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5324580/Peter-and-Iris-Robinson-married-DUP-MPs-tried-to-claim-twice-for-same-bill-MPs-expenses.html


  • #117
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    They visit London to further the peace process, and engage in direct discussions on devolution. They travel as much as any other politician from the north.

    And yet none of their neighbours have seen them and, conveniently, they are paying three times the going rate on property owned by an Irishman?

    So how often are they in London? three days a week as most MPs would be? that's an awful lot of meeting on the peace process and devolution.

    Surely all these discussions take place in Stormont, that is what it is there for, no?


Advertisement