Sinn Fein, abstensionist policy, what's their logic?

CokaColumbo

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

To people who asked about Sinn Fein furthering the nationalist cause by having MPsy

The good friday agreement leading to a UI requires the UK to agree to a referendum on it. For them to do this it may help that Sinn Fein members had more influence in Westminister. It may lead to Britain paying more attention to the amount of people who want a UI in the six counties. It may lead to British people taking Sinn Fein more seriously.

If there were no benefits why do the seven SNP MPs bother showing up at Westminister?

Now, I don't believe the good friday agreement will bring about a UI, but Sinn Fein claim to.

Your reasons for favouring Sinn Fein's involvement in Westminster lack any real substance. The fact of the matter is that there is no solid benefit for SF MPs to travel to England.
By remaining in Ireland, SF MPs can make much more of an impact in terms of working for their local constituents, and making a clear, tangible contribution to the political landscape of the six counties, and those who live within its borders.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ei.sdraob wrote: »

good points

in that case whats stopping a vote on unification being called in both countries?

Its also in the gfa that only northern ireland can decide to leave, not the entire uk. Northern Ireland majority would vote no for a variety of reasons.


- Catholic background people who feel healthcare is more important
-Catholic background people who may lose their businesses(this side of the border region businesses aren't shutting down)
-Catholic background people who may lose their jobs- no more British government paying massive civil service
-Pretty much all people from a protestant background for heritage and all of the above reasons
-People from both sides fearing a return to conflict

ei.sdraob

lugha wrote: »

There would have to be separate referendums in NI and the republic and it wouldn't yet pass in NI.

i understand

but we have a poster earlier claiming that SF are now )or will be) a majority there

a better question

what if 2 referendums/votes occur and the whole thing fails, what then?

Bottle_of_Smoke

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Your reasons for favouring Sinn Fein's involvement in Westminster lack any real substance. The fact of the matter is that there is no solid benefit for SF MPs to travel to England.
By remaining in Ireland, SF MPs can make much more of an impact in terms of working for their local constituents, and making a clear, tangible contribution to the political landscape of the six counties, and those who live within its borders.

Why do MPs from other parties and all the other countries in the UK do it then?

Don't Sinn Fein have MLAs/Councillors for that kind of thing?

lugha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i understand

but we have a poster earlier claiming that SF are now )or will be) a majority there

a better question

what if 2 referendums/votes occur and the whole thing fails, what then?

Sinn Fein are likely soon to be the biggest party but they still won't have anything close to an over all majority. Even with the SDLP the won't. And it's widely accepted that many people in the Nationalist camp, when push comes to shove, will opt for the status quo.
What happens if it fails? It will be held again automatically after 7 years and again after another 7 and so on. Still cannot believe the Unionist agreed to that, It all but guarantees a UI.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i understand

but we have a poster earlier claiming that SF are now )or will be) a majority there

That's solely down to there being more major unionist parties splitting the vote.

a better question

what if 2 referendums/votes occur and the whole thing fails, what then?

current system continues

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

good points

in that case whats stopping a vote on unification being called in both countries?

I would imagine waiting for the peace process to ferment for some time to stabilise the process. SF are also obviously waiting to become the largest party in the north and for nationalists to become the majority - which is progressing at a rapid pace. Once that is set in stone, a referendum will be called and it will pass.

It should be noted that in 1982, SF only had 10% of the vote in the north - they now command over 26% (which is expected to rise yet again). Infact, the combined nationalist votes from SF and the SDLP in 1982 was just shy of 29% - the total today is around 41.5%. It is growing, and the latest European elections demonstrate that even further when SF scored the highest first preference votes out of any party with a total nationalist vote of 42.2%.

ei.sdraob

lugha wrote: »

Sinn Fein are likely soon to be the biggest party but they still won't have anything close to an over all majority. Even with the SDLP the won't. And it's widely accepted that many people in the Nationalist camp, when push comes to shove, will opt for the status quo.
What happens if it fails? It will be held again automatically after 7 years and again after another 7 and so on. Still cannot believe the Unionist agreed to that, It all but guarantees a UI.

thanks for clarification

my main worry is SF (and their buddies of old) throwing a tantrum in case of a NO and returning to their "roots"

dlofnep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's solely down to there being more major unionist parties splitting the vote.

Not entirely. SF's total vote % has increased in every election since 1982. They are increasing nationalist weight, while unionist weight is decreasing. The splitting of votes hurt the DUP in the European elections, but the unionist vote is still declining.

1982: 10.1%
1996: 15.47%
1998: 16.7%
2003: 23.5%
2007: 26.2%

Bottle_of_Smoke

dlofnep wrote: »

Why should they swear an oath to the Queen? Stormont is a temporary compromise.

Doesn't matter really. Its still recognising the six counties status as part of the UK as legitimate. Therefore if it was an oath to the state rather than the monarch do you think they should abandon abstentionism to further the cause and give their electorate a voice in parlaiment?

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thanks for clarification

my main worry is SF (and their buddies of old) throwing a tantrum in case of a NO and returning to their "roots"

Look - SF are committed to the peace process. Anyone who wasn't committed to it, left the party a long time ago. SF will continue to press for Irish Unity, but at the same time - try to ensure that peace is kept.

dlofnep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Doesn't matter really. Its still recognising the six counties status as part of the UK as legitimate.

They have accepted the current status quo as part of the Good Friday Agreement but not that British rule in Ireland is legitimate.

It doesn't recognise anything other than that it's a temporary process with which is intended to eventually bring about Irish unification in a peaceful manner.

lugha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Doesn't matter really. Its still recognising the six counties status as part of the UK as legitimate. Therefore if it was an oath to the state rather than the monarch do you think they should abandon abstentionism to further the cause and give their electorate a voice in parlaiment?

The line that SF talking their seats in Westminister would imply that they accept Britain as legitimate rulers of NI doesn't really stack up. By backing the Good Friday agreement, which SF did, they acknowledge that they (currently) are.

Bottle_of_Smoke

dlofnep wrote: »

Not entirely. SF's total vote % has increased in every election since 1982. They are increasing nationalist weight, while unionist weight is decreasing. The splitting of votes hurt the DUP in the European elections, but the unionist vote is still declining.

1982: 10.1%
1996: 15.47%
1998: 16.7%
2003: 23.5%
2007: 26.2%

From 1996 onward would those increases in figures be somewhat numerically similar to the decrease in SDLP's share of the vote?

I do however wonder about what effect the foreign immigration of the boom years might have. I'd love to know the figures for how many of them are still here and having families. Given many of these countries are Catholic and racism is more associated with loyalists I'd imagine most would have settled in predominately Catholic places. May mean their kids more likely to be nationalist voters in the future.

dlofnep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

From 1996 onward would those increases in figures be somewhat numerically similar to the decrease in SDLP's share of the vote?

I do however wonder about what effect the foreign immigration of the boom years might have. I'd love to know the figures for how many of them are still here and having families. Given many of these countries are Catholic and racism is more associated with loyalists I'd imagine most would have settled in predominately Catholic places. May mean their kids more likely to be nationalist voters in the future.

I spoke to a few polish lads in Belfast and they voted for SF, so I think you might be right.

RE: SDLP vote's reducing versus SF's votes rising - Yes this is true, but the overall weight of nationalist voting is increasing also.

Total Nationalist Weight per year.

1996: 36.83%
1998: 39.64%
2003: 40.50%
2007: 41.80%
2009: 42.20%

When you compare that to the 29% that nationalists held in 1982 - you can see that the voting weight is clearly increasing with every election.

imme

dlofnep wrote: »

It is growing, and the latest European elections demonstrate that even further when SF scored the highest first preference votes out of any party with a total nationalist vote of 42.2%.

the unionist vote was split 3 ways, DUP, UUP, TUV as someone else has said, might explain how SF was the largest vote getter in NI in terms of 1st prefs. Their 2009 EU result as actually down on the 2004 results. 26.31% in '04, 25.8% in '09.

imme

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes this is true, but the overall weight of nationalist voting is increasing also.


When you compare that to the 29% that nationalists held in 1982 - you can see that the voting weight is clearly increasing with every election.

I never heard the term 'weight of votes'/'voting weight', are you simply trying to say that more people are voting for nationalist parties or that more nationalists are voting.

dlofnep

imme wrote: »

I never heard the term 'weight of votes'/'voting weight', are you simply trying to say that more people are voting for nationalist parties or that more nationalists are voting.

Weight indicating the power that the said group represents.

Both more people are voting for nationalist parties, and more nationalists are voting. In either case since 1982, nationalist votes have gone up by 13.2% and continue to rise.

dlofnep

imme wrote: »

the unionist vote was split 3 ways, DUP, UUP, TUV as someone else has said, might explain how SF was the largest vote getter in NI in terms of 1st prefs. Their 2009 EU result as actually down on the 2004 results. 26.31% in '04, 25.8% in '09.

I've already state that that was the case - but that over the course of the last few general elections, SF's % has increased.

Regarding the drop in the EU elections, it was actually by only 0.3% of a percent - but the turnout was much less in 2009 so it's hard to really judge it. I would say it stayed pretty much on par.

We'll see what happens in the generals whether the vote % increases or not, but everything points to it.

imme

dlofnep wrote: »

I've already state that that was the case - but that over the course of the last few general elections, SF's % has increased.

Regarding the drop in the EU elections, it was actually by only 0.3% of a percent - but the turnout was much less in 2009 so it's hard to really judge it. I would say it stayed pretty much on par.

We'll see what happens in the generals whether the vote % increases or not, but everything points to it.

in '04 SF got 26.31% 1st prefs = 144,541 votes; in '09 SF got 25.8% 1st prefs = 126,184 votes. Turnout in '04 was 52%, in '09 it was 42.8%.
Yeah I can't wait for the next general election and the one in the UK.

dlofnep

Sorry, I had a figure of 26.0% instead of 25.8% - I was off by 0.2% - apologies.

Yes, the generals will certainly say alot. There are also Republicans not accounted for who do not vote for parties - such as Éirígí and the 32CSM. I believe there is a huge black hole there that people do not account for when it comes down to it. How much these people account for is up in the air, but I'm willing to suspect it's quite a few from what I've seen at parades and such.

So in truth, all we really get to see are Republicans who vote for parties who engage with the establishment. I guess we'll only know when the time comes.

gormdubhgorm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

considering that Ireland and UK are both members of European Union with free travel of goods, trade and people and full democratic rights for all

i find this nationalistic quest for reunification rather amusing

Is a nationalist quest more of a serious question now?

And should sinn fein enter westminster to sabotage May's government numerically?

A Little Pony

Is no logic to it. But more fool them. The DUP will be helping to run the place now from Westminster.

blanch152

lugha wrote: »

Sinn Fein are likely soon to be the biggest party but they still won't have anything close to an over all majority. Even with the SDLP the won't. And it's widely accepted that many people in the Nationalist camp, when push comes to shove, will opt for the status quo.
What happens if it fails? It will be held again automatically after 7 years and again after another 7 and so on. Still cannot believe the Unionist agreed to that, It all but guarantees a UI.

It won't be held automatically every 7 years - it is a minimum of 7 years. The same test needs to be applied by the Secretary of State. It really depends on the outcome. Say 52/48 to stay with the UK, then you will likely get another referendum after around 7 years. Say 90/10 to stay with the UK, then you won't see another referendum for 50 years.

oppenheimer1

Lads, this thread - while topical - is 7 years old.

Looking back there are some great contributors in this thread who sadly no longer post (at least under those handles).

Nekarsulm

Never say Never!

So it seems Sinn Fein are heading to Westminister to counter the DUP advantage!

Interesting times !

Edit. Unless I was looking at a fake site. Cannot see the newspaper article now.

NIMAN

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Never say Never!

So it seems Sinn Fein are heading to Westminister to counter the DUP advantage!

Interesting times !

Edit. Unless I was looking at a fake site. Cannot see the newspaper article now.

I think you must have been reading Waterford Whispers.;)

riffmongous

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

And should sinn fein enter westminster to sabotage May's government numerically?

No, I am not convinced yet that having the DUP in power will be a bad thing, the increased spotlight on the party might actually be a positive. I wonder if I am alone in being asked by English colleagues if the DUP really are the terrorist sympathising, anti- homosexual, anti- abortion party they read about on facebook.

Jayop

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's solely down to there being more major unionist parties splitting the vote.

Incorrect. The Unionist total vote has now dropped below 50 percent with the nationalist, greens, pbp, Alliance making up slightly over 50 percent.

Jayop

Whoops, hadn't realized that post I quoted was so old. Wasn't there a very similar thread with the same title in the last few days?