SF get their Westminister pay packets back, but why do they accept them?

flogen

I don't mean to bring up an issue that has probably been done to death in the past but I can't quite get my head around the situation in Westminister in relation to Sinn Fein.
As you may have spotted, Tony Blair has decided to restore Westminister funding for Sinn Fein, worth £500,000/€732,500 per year. Sinn Fein, of course, refuse to sit in Westminister as there is a compulsory pledge to the Queen and because they refuse to recognise the right of any British parliament to rule over any part of Ireland (as you can see at the bottom of the linked article).
So, this is how I see it; SF refuse to take their Westminister seats because, in their eyes The British Government has no right to group Northern Ireland representatives amongst its British MP's because British rule is not valid in Northern Ireland, to them it would be like America having members of the Australian government representing their people in the US Senate.
So, if SF refuses to recognise the current state of affairs in NI, why are they happy to accept a British pay packet for the position they hold in the British Parliament (even though they don't actually sit in it)?
And if they refuse to accept any conections between the Queen of Britain and their political jobs why are they happy to accept her money?

Has there been an official explanation of the SF stance on this matter?
Regardless of any official statement, what do SF supporters here think about the situation; should Sinn Fein accept the money even though it is given for their job as British politicians?
Bear in mind that any responce of "they're happy to take the queen's money because it costs the Brits" would lead me to believe that Sinn Fein put money before their morals. A nice comparison with this would be the situation in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bay is under a perpetual lease to the US government since pre-communist times and can only be ended under mutual agreement. However, Castro refuses to accept the legitimacy of the lease and so has refused to cash any rent cheques sent to him by the US (except one, that is). According to the wikipedia that means he has nearly $200,000 worth of US money that he is unwilling to spend, despite it being of great use to him (I'm not sure if the figure of 4,085 is the rent in 1935 or if it is a modern equivalent of it; the moral point remains regardless).

ronbyrne2005

gerry has to get his money from his handlers the securocrats for his work on the inside of the republican movement

Diorraing

Its hypocritic. If you abstain from parliament, you abstain from the paypacket if you hold to your principle.

ateam

Diorraing wrote:

Its hypocritic. If you abstain from parliament, you abstain from the paypacket if you hold to your principle.

I agree. Maybe if they donated the money they get to charity or some good cause. Tbh i'm not sure what they do with it.

Sinn Fein are probably one of the richest political parties in Ireland.

flogen

Interesting response from SF supporters (or lack of)

I'm not a big fan of SF, but in this case I'm not looking for something to hang them on; I honestly want to know if SF have given an explanation for this or if SF supporters feel it is justified/wrong/whatever.
I know that when SF are in the firing line there are always plenty of people here who are willing (and often able) to defend the party, is this one untouchable issue?

ivan087

flogen wrote:

I'm not a big fan of SF, but in this case I'm not looking for something to hang them on; I honestly want to know if SF have given an explanation for this or if SF supporters feel it is justified/wrong/whatever.

i think the general feeling amongst SF supporters is that they're 'robbin from the brits'. it really is shameful for SF. if they believe so much that the brits should leave ireland, then they shouldnt except any money from the 'enemy'. double standards. no backbone. i'd be pissed off if i was a british tax payer. and i'd be pissed off if i was living in their constituncey and getting no representation in the parliament. no matter what country im part of, i'd want a politican working for me in a democratic parliament.

Zebra3

At a guess I would say they see it as another expense to the Brits. They probably feel they are taking back something for their country after all the land that was stolen years ago or something like that. Or compensation for occupation (and torture) that they suffered...

Why not mail them and ask them?

Sam Vimes

is the money not for sitting in the northern irish parliament and not westminster?

flogen

Commander Vimes wrote:

is the money not for sitting in the northern irish parliament and not westminster?

No, it's Parliament; SF have 5 Westminister seats; 24 NIA seats.
Of course in both cases they're getting paid for not taking their seats, but at least they are willing to take their NIA seats should a compromise be made.

Cork

Diorraing wrote:

Its hypocritic. If you abstain from parliament, you abstain from the paypacket if you hold to your principle.

Not these guys - gladly taking the Queens shilling.

A Dub in Glasgo

I would imagine the money pays for the whole SF organistion that is required to fight Westminster elections. Consitutency offices cost money to run and this money helps pay for it. They are entitled to the money therefore I see no obvious reason (other than principle) not to accept the money. I do not see any correlation to their decision not to take their seats

flogen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I would imagine the money pays for the whole SF organistion that is required to fight Westminster elections. Consitutency offices cost money to run and this money helps pay for it...

If they didn't run in British elections then they wouldn't need funding for a Westminister election campaign or constitutency offices; I mean what solid use are they to constituants if they can't take any cases to the attention of Parliament, all they can do is point people in the right direction; anyone with Political knowledge can do that, elected or otherwise.
Why would they run in British elections in Northern Ireland for a British Parliament if they reject Britain's claim to Northern Ireland? Running in NIA elections is different because it's a Northern Ireland Parliament, of sorts.

I do not see any correlation to their decision not to take their seats

It's not so much their decision not to take the seat but rather their reasons for such a choice.

They are entitled to the money therefore I see no obvious reason (other than principle) not to accept the money.

So SF put money before principles? Would you personally agree with such a decision?

Cork

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I would imagine the money pays for the whole SF organistion that is required to fight Westminster elections.

They don't want a British presence of the island but accept the Queens shilling.

SF are already pretty well financed and don't need the money from elected represenatatives to the British parliament.

SF has plenty other sources of funding.

Sand

SFIRA dont have principles so obviously theyll take the money. Even their supposed principles like not taking seats in partitionist parliments have fallen by the way side when a TDs salary is waved under their nose. Principles like not recognising the border have been discarded for their own gain - they certainly recognise the border when it comes to smuggling.

The only question is why Westminster pays British MPs who fail to represent their constituents. I understand that the justification for paying a public representitive is to allow them the financial freedom to represent his/her constituents in the parliment?

Its a waste of British taxpayers money that could be better spent practically anywhere else from health to education, rather than subsidising SFIRA. I think the Republic (and indeed the UK) would be well served by banning parties spending funds raised in a foreign juristiction, to ensure the internal politics of both is not distorted by external fund raising.

I agree. Maybe if they donated the money they get to charity or some good cause. Tbh i'm not sure what they do with it.

Oh they do donate it to a cause, maybe not a good cause but certainly a cause. Somebody has to pay for Costa del Provo afterall.

Johnny_the_fox

No, it's Parliament; SF have 5 Westminister seats; 24 NIA seats.
Of course in both cases they're getting paid for not taking their seat

108 MLA's getting 30,000+* (stg) a year to 'sit' in a northern ireland assembly which doesnt exist... as voted by the House of Lords. :eek:




* please note: this was only a reduced salary.

flogen

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

108 MLA's getting 30,000+* (stg) a year to 'sit' in a northern ireland assembly which doesnt exist... as voted by the House of Lords. :eek:




* please note: this was only a reduced salary.

In relation to this I was interested to hear McGuinness say that NIA pay should be suspended if an agreement is not met soon; in other words MLA's should not be paid for work they're not doing... I wonder if he would support a similar stance in Westminister.

Freddie59

Cork wrote:

Not these guys - gladly taking the Queens shilling.

Soup slurpers.......;)

A Dub in Glasgo

flogen wrote:

If they didn't run in British elections then they wouldn't need funding for a Westminister election campaign or constitutency offices; I mean what solid use are they to constituants if they can't take any cases to the attention of Parliament, all they can do is point people in the right direction; anyone with Political knowledge can do that, elected or otherwise.
Why would they run in British elections in Northern Ireland for a British Parliament if they reject Britain's claim to Northern Ireland? Running in NIA elections is different because it's a Northern Ireland Parliament, of sorts.

Why should they leave the SDLP to hoover up the seats in NI? If the electorate know that the SF will not take their seat and they get elected, there can be no complaints. That is democracy in action.

It's not so much their decision not to take the seat but rather their reasons for such a choice.

You do not like their reason for not taking up their seat?

So SF put money before principles? Would you personally agree with such a decision?

SF are a political party. Name one political party that stands by principles?

A Dub in Glasgo

Cork wrote:

but accept the Queens shilling.

Another tired cliche that gets spouted out here a lot

SF are already pretty well financed and don't need the money from elected represenatatives to the British parliament.

How do you know that they do not need their Westminster paypackets?

SF has plenty other sources of funding.

All political parties have other sources of funding

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

SFIRA dont have principles so obviously theyll take the money.

And how this is different to other political parties exactly?

Even their supposed principles like not taking seats in partitionist parliments have fallen by the way side when a TDs salary is waved under their nose.

There was not a chance in hell of a SF TD in 1986.

Its a waste of British taxpayers money that could be better spent practically anywhere else from health to education, rather than subsidising SFIRA. I think the Republic (and indeed the UK) would be well served by banning parties spending funds raised in a foreign juristiction, to ensure the internal politics of both is not distorted by external fund raising.

The payments to SF MPs is noise compared to the other taxpayer wastes. The biggest waste of British taxpayers money is Trident, propping up NI and paying all the assembly members in NI over the last while when the Assembly has been blocked from sitting.

Oh they do donate it to a cause, maybe not a good cause but certainly a cause. Somebody has to pay for Costa del Provo afterall.

SF westminster payments go to Provo villas in the Costas? How do you know this and what evidence do you have?

Freelancer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

And how this is different to other political parties exactly?

Nice telling statement, I swear if another SF sympathiser starts listing off a litany of reasons why SF are a better party, and then when confronted with an example of SF corruption or immorality dismisses it as "sure they're (all poltical parties) at it" I'd be a rich man.

C'mere the reason you vote for a party is because you feel they're better or more honest or more trust worthy, essentially you're suggesting SF just do whatever everyone else is doing, not a ringing endorsement of the party now is it?

The payments to SF MPs is noise compared to the other taxpayer wastes. The biggest waste of British taxpayers money is Trident, propping up NI and paying all the assembly members in NI over the last while when the Assembly has been blocked from sitting.

More whataboutery, you're admiting its money for nothing though?

A Dub in Glasgo

Freelancer wrote:

Nice telling statement, I swear if another SF sympathiser starts listing off a litany of reasons why SF are a better party, and then when confronted with an example of SF corruption or immorality dismisses it as "sure they're (all poltical parties) at it" I'd be a rich man.

You disagree with it then? Why? This thread is 'dear god, a political party has no principles. how dare they'. I am pointing out that SF are like the rest of the political parties in that regard. You disagree?

C'mere the reason you vote for a party is because you feel they're better or more honest or more trust worthy, essentially you're suggesting SF just do whatever everyone else is doing, not a ringing endorsement of the party now is it?

What has endorsement got to do with it?

More whataboutery, you're admiting its money for nothing though?

Reminds me of The Princess Bride

'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means'

flogen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why should they leave the SDLP to hoover up the seats in NI? If the electorate know that the SF will not take their seat and they get elected, there can be no complaints. That is democracy in action.

So they feel political one-upmanship is more important than standing by principals?
If the electorate are happy to vote for people who do not represent them, so be it. I agree with you there. However, Sinn Fein can still refuse the money they are offered by Westminister but they don't. I'm asking why.

You do not like their reason for not taking up their seat?

I didn't say that; I was questioning the reason. They do not take up the seats because they refuse to recognise British rule on the island or Ireland, and yet they are happy to run in British elections held on the Island of Ireland and accept British money for their work in relation to the British Parliament.

SF are a political party. Name one political party that stands by principles?

That's a disgraceful argument to be fair. I don't think there is a party that stands by its principles 100%, but I don't use one partys lack of morals to justify the same of another. It's also the reason why I don't support any party, I support (or at least vote for) individual politicians regardless of their affiliations.
Think about it, just because one party does a U-Turn on policy (of course this isn't a u-turn, they haven't changed policy, they just say one thing and do the other), is it ok for everyone else to as well? In that case we're looking at a certain race to the bottom.
Would you say you are critical of SF's position in terms of Westminister, or in support? Or is it something that just doesn't concern you at all?

The payments to SF MPs is noise compared to the other taxpayer wastes. The biggest waste of British taxpayers money is Trident, propping up NI and paying all the assembly members in NI over the last while when the Assembly has been blocked from sitting.

This doesn't justify anything; the British waste taxpayers money so we should help them? This isn't about the cost of the money to Britian, it's about the cost taking the money has to the morals of SF.

There was not a chance in hell of a SF TD in 1986.

And what made them change their minds? What's different about the Dail today than 1986? The only one I can see (in relation to being a partitionist government) is that the government of 1986 worked under the constitutional claim that it represented the Island of Ireland, the government of 1998 on has realised the facts of the case are different and has accepted partition completely.

Freelancer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You disagree with it then? Why? This thread is 'dear god, a political party has no principles. how dare they'. I am pointing out that SF are like the rest of the political parties in that regard. You disagree?

Fine but don't try and suggest SF are any different then. They're just as bad as the PDs FF FG et all. Don't try and imply that voting for SF will change anything real.

What has endorsement got to do with it?

Again don't try and imply SF are any different to any other mainstream party then.

Reminds me of The Princess Bride

'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means'

Yeah, I do. Suggesting that SFs taking money for nothing pales into insignifigancy when you look at other squandering for cash is a defense which

A) Doesn't actually defend SF's actions

Tries to downplay your sides misdeeds corruption or immorality by attempting to misdirect attention to the oppositions misdeeds.

A more apt definition I could not find.

And oh look you're claiming I don't understand what the word means, instead of answering the claim so hey you don't actually have to defend SF's behaviour. More Whataboutrery.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If the electorate know that the SF will not take their seat and they get elected, there can be no complaints. That is democracy in action.

Rubbish-that's not democracy. An elected MP (or TD) is duty bound to represent equally his or her constituents in parliament, regardless of whether they voted for them or not. SF MPs have protestant unionist and catholic nationalist moderate constituents and these constituents are totally disenfranchised by SF's failure to sit in parliament. No paycheques should come the way of any MP who refuses to go to parliament.

flogen

murphaph wrote:

Rubbish-that's not democracy. An elected MP (or TD) is duty bound to represent equally his or her constituents in parliament, regardless of whether they voted for them or not. SF MPs have protestant unionist and catholic nationalist moderate constituents and these constituents are totally disenfranchised by SF's failure to sit in parliament. No paycheques should come the way of any MP who refuses to go to parliament.

Excellent point;
Going by Wiki figures 120,445 people voted against SF in the last British general election in the seats they currently hold; that means that 54% of the voters (by my calculations) in the 5 seats are completely unrepresented; If Sinn Fein meant what they say then surely they wouldn't even recognise the validity of the Westminister elections, let alone run in them and get paid for the pleasure.
I still agree that the voters who do vote for SF know what they're getting themselves into and so have no reason to complain when their issues fall on deaf ears.

Amazotheamazing

Why are you surprised, sure several high ranking SF/IRA members had no problem taking money from MI5 to betray their cause.

billy the squid

Accepting english money is easier than robbing irish banks and post offices.

A Dub in Glasgo

Freelancer wrote:

Fine but don't try and suggest SF are any different then. They're just as bad as the PDs FF FG et all. Don't try and imply that voting for SF will change anything real.

You must have been reading someone elses post, please point out where I stated the above.

Again don't try and imply SF are any different to any other mainstream party then.

You must have been reading someone elses post, please point out where I stated the above.

Yeah, I do. Suggesting that SFs taking money for nothing pales into insignifigancy when you look at other squandering for cash is a defense which

A) Doesn't actually defend SF's actions

Tries to downplay your sides misdeeds corruption or immorality by attempting to misdirect attention to the oppositions misdeeds.

A more apt definition I could not find.

I was pointing out the fact that SF pay does pale into insignificance when looked at other taxpayer waste. Are you suggesting it does not? Read Sands post again, you will then see the hype which he is attaching to the waste with respect to other spending commitments.

And oh look you're claiming I don't understand what the word means, instead of answering the claim so hey you don't actually have to defend SF's behaviour. More Whataboutrery.

I do not need to defend SF decision to take their entitled pay. Does whataboutery cover your first 2 points in your post?

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

Rubbish-that's not democracy. An elected MP (or TD) is duty bound to represent equally his or her constituents in parliament, regardless of whether they voted for them or not. SF MPs have protestant unionist and catholic nationalist moderate constituents and these constituents are totally disenfranchised by SF's failure to sit in parliament. No paycheques should come the way of any MP who refuses to go to parliament.

What is rubbish about it? SF put canditates forward on the stated fact that they will not take their seats in Westminster. They get elected, which means that the other candidates have not convinced the people in the constituency that they should not vote for SF because of this reason. If anything is not democratic it is the FPTP system of election in the UK. You are assuming that Mps from NI are actually listened to in the UK parliament.

SF are entitled to get their pay and they take it.... I fail to see the indignation portrayed in this thread.

A Dub in Glasgo

flogen wrote:

So they feel political one-upmanship is more important than standing by principals?
If the electorate are happy to vote for people who do not represent them, so be it. I agree with you there. However, Sinn Fein can still refuse the money they are offered by Westminister but they don't. I'm asking why.

That game of one-upmanship has huge implication for all elections in NI including EU, NIA and local elections (and the RoI) Why would a political party let their rivals take the seats without a fight? Isn't that what democracy is all about?

That's a disgraceful argument to be fair. I don't think there is a party that stands by its principles 100%, but I don't use one partys lack of morals to justify the same of another. It's also the reason why I don't support any party, I support (or at least vote for) individual politicians regardless of their affiliations.
Think about it, just because one party does a U-Turn on policy (of course this isn't a u-turn, they haven't changed policy, they just say one thing and do the other), is it ok for everyone else to as well? In that case we're looking at a certain race to the bottom.

Why is it disgraceful to point out that SF are just like other political parties with respect to principles? I almost get the impression that people in this thread are surprised a political party would bend their principles. Is it because it is a given for FF, FG, PDs and they expected more from SF?

Would you say you are critical of SF's position in terms of Westminister, or in support? Or is it something that just doesn't concern you at all?

If there was a real drive to eradicate taxpayer waste, i would fully expect the non-noise level ones to be tackled, not all eggs in this basket. They are entitled to take the cash.

This doesn't justify anything; the British waste taxpayers money so we should help them? This isn't about the cost of the money to Britian, it's about the cost taking the money has to the morals of SF.

It is not meant to justify anything. It was a reply to Sand who is hyping up the loss to the British taxpayer, that could be spent on things like health and education. I pointed out the fact that this waste pales into total insignificance. If British taxpayer waste was the concern, this money is at the planckton level and there are blue whales worth of waste to look at.

And what made them change their minds? What's different about the Dail today than 1986? The only one I can see (in relation to being a partitionist government) is that the government of 1986 worked under the constitutional claim that it represented the Island of Ireland, the government of 1998 on has realised the facts of the case are different and has accepted partition completely.

I believe SF decided to contest the Dail elections on a non abstentionist ticket because they believed that they would get further getting their message across. Totally different to Westminster elections but SF may decide, in the future, to seat in Westminster.

Freelancer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You must have been reading someone elses post, please point out where I stated the above.

I'm talking about in general. You are a SF supporter? Are you not?

You must have been reading someone elses post, please point out where I stated the above.

Again you are a SF supporter are you not. I doubt Angry Banana would claim as a defense that sure "FG are just as bad as the rest of them, go on now vote for us" Thats essentially your argument.

I was pointing out the fact that SF pay does pale into insignificance when looked at other taxpayer waste. Are you suggesting it does not? Read Sands post again, you will then see the hype which he is attaching to the waste with respect to other spending commitments.

Again the implication of such a point is that since there are worse crimes going on, wheres the harm in this?

I do not need to defend SF decision to take their entitled pay. Does whataboutery cover your first 2 points in your post?

Pretty much, justifying SF decisions to keep their pay package because (and this is essentially your argument) sure all political parties are at some kind of graft and well theres worse ways money is being wasted isn't a ringing endorsement of SF as a politcal entity.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What is rubbish about it? SF put canditates forward on the stated fact that they will not take their seats in Westminster. They get elected, which means that the other candidates have not convinced the people in the constituency that they should not vote for SF because of this reason. If anything is not democratic it is the FPTP system of election in the UK. You are assuming that Mps from NI are actually listened to in the UK parliament.

SF are entitled to get their pay and they take it.... I fail to see the indignation portrayed in this thread.

That's because you support SF, which is your right. It is not right however that a paid MP doesn't bother his or her arse representing all their constituents who do want representation. and who voted for the other guy to get it.

It should be mandatory for MPs to sit in Westminstern and in cases where an MP refuses to sit in parliament he should not be paid and an additional non-abstentionist MP (perhaps the runner up) should also represent the constituency and get paid for it.

Under the current system there are hundreds of thousands of people in NI with no representation in their parliament.

Freelancer

murphaph wrote:

That's because you support SF, which is your right. It is not right however that a paid MP doesn't bother his or her arse representing all their constituents who do want representation. and who voted for the other guy to get it.

It should be mandatory for MPs to sit in Westminstern and in cases where an MP refuses to sit in parliament he should not be paid and an additional non-abstentionist MP (perhaps the runner up) should also represent the constituency and get paid for it.

Under the current system there are hundreds of thousands of people in NI with no representation in their parliament.

Spot on, its not acceptable for SF to represent only those who voted them in, they must represent those in their constituences who did not vote for them, but none the less are left with democratic representives who won't represent them.

flogen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

That game of one-upmanship has huge implication for all elections in NI including EU, NIA and local elections (and the RoI) Why would a political party let their rivals take the seats without a fight? Isn't that what democracy is all about?

I would have thought genuine political work would have had more implications for NI.
Basically beating the SDLP is more important than standing by their principles, the ones they've been riding on the back of for many years.

Why is it disgraceful to point out that SF are just like other political parties with respect to principles? I almost get the impression that people in this thread are surprised a political party would bend their principles. Is it because it is a given for FF, FG, PDs and they expected more from SF?

I'm not surprised, and it's a disgrace that you would use an argument like that; SF may be doing something against their principles, but they're not the only ones so it's ok.
There is on bending of the principles about this; they are breaking them completely. They don't recognise British rule on the Island or Ireland and so won't take their seats but they recognise it enough to run in their elections and take their money.

If there was a real drive to eradicate taxpayer waste, i would fully expect the non-noise level ones to be tackled, not all eggs in this basket. They are entitled to take the cash.

Irrelevant; I'm not asking you if you're critical of SF wasting taxpayer money, I'm asking if you're critical of them going back on one of their most important principles (the one that the they have been fighting for for years, the one that they were created to solve, the one they still aim to fix)

It is not meant to justify anything. It was a reply to Sand who is hyping up the loss to the British taxpayer, that could be spent on things like health and education. I pointed out the fact that this waste pales into total insignificance. If British taxpayer waste was the concern, this money is at the planckton level and there are blue whales worth of waste to look at.

Fair enough; I won't get into the waste of tax argument because it's not my reason for posting.

I believe SF decided to contest the Dail elections on a non abstentionist ticket because they believed that they would get further getting their message across. Totally different to Westminster elections but SF may decide, in the future, to seat in Westminster.

Not according to McGuinness and that was after someone suggested the Pledge to the Queen be made optional (bringing in a pledge of duty or something instead).

So would you say you are critical of SF for going against their principles? It's irrelevant who else does it, it doesn't matter if there are bigger wastes of money going on, because that's not what I'm asking you about.
Would you consider yourself a Sinn Fein supporter? If so do you have any justification for their ignorance of their own principles? If not are you critical of their stance? Do you wish they didn't take British money?

Freddie59

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Another tired cliche that gets spouted out here a lot



How do you know that they do not need their Westminster paypackets?



All political parties have other sources of funding

Yes - but not from their sworn enemies.;)

Zebra3

murphaph wrote:

It is not right however that a paid MP doesn't bother his or her arse representing all their constituents who do want representation. and who voted for the other guy to get it.

It's not that they don't bother, they refuse to recognise the parliament's right to rule over the constituency in question. Totally different thing.

Why not put your solution to test on all MPs and TDs who don't turn up every time their respective parliament is in session? Sure wasn't Bertie off opening a kitchen showroom not too long ago while there was a vote being taken on Gardai corruption? No how was he represting his voters that night? Do you think he should have his pay docked?

flogen

Zebra3 wrote:

Why not put your solution to test on all MPs and TDs who don't turn up every time their respective parliament is in session? Sure wasn't Bertie off opening a kitchen showroom not too long ago while there was a vote being taken on Gardai corruption? No how was he represting his voters that night? Do you think he should have his pay docked?

There's a big difference between not being in your seat one day and refusing to take it at any point.

Freelancer

Zebra3 wrote:

It's not that they don't bother, they refuse to recognise the parliament's right to rule over the constituency in question. Totally different thing.

Why not put your solution to test on all MPs and TDs who don't turn up every time their respective parliament is in session? Sure wasn't Bertie off opening a kitchen showroom not too long ago while there was a vote being taken on Gardai corruption? No how was he represting his voters that night? Do you think he should have his pay docked?

Theres a world of difference between not turning up at all, and missing the occasional vote.

Its a pretty weak defense, to try and absolve them from not turning up at all, you try and point a finger at TDs and MPs who don't turn up occasionaly.

murphaph

Zebra3 wrote:

It's not that they don't bother, they refuse to recognise the parliament's right to rule over the constituency in question. Totally different thing.

Then don't stand for election to that parliament.

Zebra3

murphaph wrote:

Then don't stand for election to that parliament.

Well, what's the point in standing for election, being made Taoiseach and then missing votes in Dail Eireann to open a poxy kitchen showroom?

At least SF are honest in saying they won't sit in Westminster. Does Bertie tell people when he wants their votes that he finds kitchen showrooms more important than what our taxes are actually paying him to do? I wish I could pick and choose my days that I decide to turn up in work. If I done what he done, I'd be sacked.

So what about all those parties that claim their roots from the SF party that got elected to Westminster in 1918, but set up their own parliament instead of representing all their voters (inc. Unionists remember!!!) in London? Was that wrong too?

Freelancer

Zebra3 wrote:

Well, what's the point in standing for election, being made Taoiseach and then missing votes in Dail Eireann to open a poxy kitchen showroom?

At least SF are honest in saying they won't sit in Westminster.

But is that fair to the members of their constituencies who didn't vote for them?

Does Bertie tell people when he wants their votes that he finds kitchen showrooms more important than what our taxes are actually paying him to do? I wish I could pick and choose my days that I decide to turn up in work. If I done what he done, I'd be sacked.

You mean unlikely SF who never turn up for "work" but still expect a salary?

Lots of politicians miss plenty of votes for a variety of reasons, fixating on this one is a little tedious.

Freelancer

Freelancer wrote:

But is that fair to the members of their constituencies who didn't vote for them?

I'll have to side with the greener posters in this thread on that one.
This point has been discussed often on this board,though admittedly not for a while.
It's democracy, they stand and stand on an abstentionist platform.

They are also pretty clear why: It's because of the oath they'd have to take to the Queen.
They still represent their constituents and afaik are on record as maybe being in favour of taking their seats if that oath had not to be taken.

It was negotiated out of stormonts rules and ergo they sat there.

flogen

Earthman wrote:

They are also pretty clear why: It's because of the oath they'd have to take to the Queen.
They still represent their constituents and afaik are on record as maybe being in favour of taking their seats if that oath had not to be taken.

It was negotiated out of stormonts rules and ergo they sat there.

While it's not to be taken as Gospel by any means, I think SF have stated they see no situation that would have them sitting in Westminister

from the article I linked in the first post:

Earlier on Wednesday, David Liddington, Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland, said the oath of loyalty to the Queen should be re-examined, if it would mean Sinn Fein MPs taking their seats in the House of Commons.

Mr Lidington said a general commitment to uphold the law and democratic politics could be considered as an alternative to the compulsory oath.

However, Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness said he did not envisage any circumstances ever in the future in which any Sinn Fein MP would take their seat.

Even if the oath was dropped and they did take their seats, they'd have to accept British rule in order to do so; why would they be elected to it from Northern Ireland otherwise? (not directed at you Earthman, just at SF policy )

murphaph

I saw McGuinness state categorically on Hearts and Minds that the oath has nothing to do with it. They just won't sit in Westminster.

Mucco

Regarding politicians not being present for votes; a lot of them will be paired with a member of an opposing party. This is a deal where neither turn up for minor votes, as they would just cancel each other out anyway.
Many people wonder whether politicians earn their salaries. Do Sinn Fein earn theirs?

Zebra3

Freelancer wrote:

You mean unlikely SF who never turn up for "work" but still expect a salary?

I don't think SF expect it, it's just that the British would seem to think it's in their best interests to offer it.

Freelancer wrote:

Lots of politicians miss plenty of votes for a variety of reasons, fixating on this one is a little tedious.

Why? Bertie Ahern is supposed to be running this country, but instead is opening showrooms while DE is sitting? Why not fixate on this? Shouldn't the leader of the country be, well, leading by example? I have no problem if he misses a vote because he's in Brussles attending EU business etc, but would it be acceptable if he missed DE sittings to go watch Man United at Old Trafford or sitting in Fagan's knocking back Bass?

Freelancer

Zebra3 wrote:

I don't think SF expect it, it's just that the British would seem to think it's in their best interests to offer it.

What on earth does the above mean? That the British government stuffed envelopes of money into protesting SF hands, or that the British felt y'know that what? best not piss off the RA and give the lads their salaries?

Why? Bertie Ahern is supposed to be running this country, but instead is opening showrooms while DE is sitting? Why not fixate on this? Shouldn't the leader of the country be, well, leading by example? I have no problem if he misses a vote because he's in Brussles attending EU business etc, but would it be acceptable if he missed DE sittings to go watch Man United at Old Trafford or sitting in Fagan's knocking back Bass?

If the only thing thats got your goat about Ahern's leadership is the above you're a petty man. Theres plenty worse things he's done. If your just trying to give relief to SF never attending a vote or doing their jobs by highlighting this you're onto a loser.

Zebra3

Freelancer wrote:

What on earth does the above mean? That the British government stuffed envelopes of money into protesting SF hands, or that the British felt y'know that what? best not piss off the RA and give the lads their salaries?

What it means that I don't believe for one minute that the British are handing this money over to SF unless they (the British) think it benefits themselves somewhere along the line. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Freelancer wrote:

If the only thing thats got your goat about Ahern's leadership is the above you're a petty man. Theres plenty worse things he's done. If your just trying to give relief to SF never attending a vote or doing their jobs by highlighting this you're onto a loser.

It's not the only thing that has got my goat about Ahern's leadership, but once again you seem to have some difficulty in understanding me or else you have chosen to totally ignore what I'm saying.

In this thread people have complained about SF getting paid for not going to Westminster (or rather about them accepting the money that the British offer them for not attending). That is the platform upon which they got elected (this is called democracy). People have critisised this, but I have pointed out that other politicans who claim to represent the people in parliament are themselves basically semi-abstentionists. This is not about 'giving relief' to anyone, but merely a case of me pointing out the facts.

Freelancer

Zebra3 wrote:

What it means that I don't believe for one minute that the British are handing this money over to SF unless they (the British) think it benefits themselves somewhere along the line. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

What evidence do you offer to support your assertion?

It's not the only thing that has got my goat about Ahern's leadership, but once again you seem to have some difficulty in understanding me or else you have chosen to totally ignore what I'm saying.

In this thread people have complained about SF getting paid for not going to Westminster (or rather about them accepting the money that the British offer them for not attending). That is the platform upon which they got elected (this is called democracy). People have critisised this, but I have pointed out that other politicans who claim to represent the people in parliament are themselves basically semi-abstentionists. This is not about 'giving relief' to anyone, but merely a case of me pointing out the facts.

Or more whataboutery. Look it doesn't wash. You can't laud SF's absenteeism, while condemning the occasional missed vote by another politician. It's rank hypocrisy

Freelancer

Freelancer wrote:

You can't laud SF's absenteeism, while condemning the occasional missed vote by another politician. It's rank hypocrisy

It isnt at all.
I dont know of any currently sitting TD that got elected saying he wont attend the Dáil.

In fact I can remember two hungerstrikers got elected to the Dáil,one in cavan Monaghan and another in Louth in 1981 and they were in prison so were definitely on a platform of being elected but not sitting.
People in the Republic democratically elected them not to take their seats.

The people gets what the people in the majority want.
Thats the way of a democracy.
The minority wont like that sometimes but.