Sinn Fein could lose expenses

Winty

About time that Sinn Fein stoped milking the system and started to do some work. Sinn Fein MPs could lose their right to claim hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in expenses unless they take up their seats at Westminster, David Cameron hinted yesterday. The Prime Minister pledged to 're-examine' the position

They will take the British Pound no problem but when the Queen wants to visit they opposes it because she is the so called commander-in-chief of the British armed forces.

So are Sinn Fein just a bunch of hypocrites?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/northern_ireland_politics/10394338.stm

Cavehill Red

Yes, but that's not really the point.
They refuse to sit in Westminster due to the oath of allegiance. Plenty of SDLP MPs have done so with their fingers crossed in the past, but this tactic is apparently beyond the Shinners.
The real issue is the lack of representation in Westminster for the constituencies in question.
It would seem to be that would be best resolved by removing the oath, since MPs are elected to serve their constituencies and not some German in-bred.

BluePlanet

Winty wrote: »

So are Sinn Fein just a bunch of hypocrites?

Don't see anything particularly hypocritical about it.
They run on the platform that they will refuse to take their seats.
People elect them.

They never said they wouldn't take their wages. :rolleyes:

Winty

Cavehill Red wrote: »

MPs are elected to serve their constituencies and not some German in-bred.

Agreed - good point

rockmongrel

BluePlanet wrote: »

Don't see anything particularly hypocritical about it.
They run on the platform that they will refuse to take their seats.
People elect them.

They never said they wouldn't take their wages. :rolleyes:

They're not fulfilling their duties. If not hypocritical it's damn ridiculous at best.

ART6

The Queen is the British head of state whatever her origins, and the people of the UK support her. NI is part of the UK, because the majority of its population want it to be. If an MP is elected in NI and refuses to take up his seat in Westminster then he is not representing his electorate. Refusing to do so because of the oath is putting personal issues before the needs of his electorate. In my view Cameron would be entirely correct if he imposed a system where all elected representatives are required to occupy their seats in Parliament or lose their salaries and expenses.

Personally I don't care either way as I don't live in either country, but if I was a citizen of the UK I most certainly would care. Why should the state continue to employ someone who never turns up for work any more than any other employer would?

Winty

ART6 wrote: »

Why should the state continue to employ someone who never turns up for work any more than any other employer would?

Sinn Fein are thugs.

The used the gun to get what they wanted, now they have Devolution, a seat on the policing board and the bloody Sunday report.

They should start to do some work for all in N.Ireland not just the Bogside. They should focus on International Investment creating jobs not filling their pockets

BluePlanet

ART6 wrote: »

Why should the state continue to employ someone who never turns up for work any more than any other employer would?

Because by not taking their seats, they are doing exactly what they were elected to do.

BluePlanet

rockmongrel wrote: »

They're not fulfilling their duties. If not hypocritical it's damn ridiculous at best.

They are fulfilling their duties very well.
They were elected by the people on the basis that they wouldn't take their seats.

ART6

BluePlanet wrote: »

They are fulfilling their duties very well.
They were elected by the people on the basis that they wouldn't take their seats.

OK. So why would you elect someone who's election manifesto was that he wouldn't occupy his seat? The whole point of that escapes me.

Surely the root of the Troubles was discrimination and the lack of democratic representation? So, fight that wrong by electing an MP who has stated that he will not represent you in the sovereign parliament of your country?

I actually have some leanings towards SF and believe that in general they do have the interests of Ireland at heart, but this particular issue seems just silly to me.

BluePlanet

ART6 wrote: »

OK. So why would you elect someone who's election manifesto was that he wouldn't occupy his seat? The whole point of that escapes me..

It escapes you really?
Have you studied Irish history at all?
There has been a tradition of this type of protest.

ART6 wrote: »

Surely the root of the Troubles was discrimination and the lack of democratic representation? So, fight that wrong by electing an MP who has stated that he will not represent you in the sovereign parliament of your country?..

That sounds like a criticism of voters, not SF.

Nodin

Winty wrote: »

They should start to do some work for all in N.Ireland not just the Bogside. They should focus on International Investment creating jobs not filling their pockets

SF take their seats in the NI assembly and negotiate NI's budget with Westminister as part of NI's government.

danbohan

Winty wrote: »

Sinn Fein are thugs.

The used the gun to get what they wanted, now they have Devolution, a seat on the policing board and the bloody Sunday report.

They should start to do some work for all in N.Ireland not just the Bogside. They should focus on International Investment creating jobs not filling their pockets

i am sure the DUP will look after your intrests winty , dont be worrying yourself about sinn fein , its up to sinn fein voters , if they feel they are not doing the job for them not to vote for them . as for the expenses if the british removed a rasist and discrimanating act from their parliment i am sure sinn fein would attend .

Coillte_Bhoy

I fail to see how taking their seats will further help representation of their constituents tbh. i presume they can still lobby ministers etc on their behalf. Taking part in set piece parliamentary procedures is a waste of time for them.

ART6

BluePlanet wrote: »

It escapes you really?
Have you studied Irish history at all?
There has been a tradition of this type of protest.

That sounds like a criticism of voters, not SF.

The answer to your question is yes, I have.

I accept that there has been some history of this type of protest, but my point was that we are not living in history. The people of NI are (supposedly) living in the present, where the nationalist minority have at least achieved most of their aims, and SF play a senior role in the devolved government. It's their decision, but given the circumstances now I still cannot for the life of me see the point of it, or why the UK taxpayer should pay their salaries. If only their electorate paid them then I could begin to understand, but from what I know of UK government that is not the case.

The one aim that they have little hope of achieving at the moment is a united Ireland. The government of Eire has relinquished claims to the Six Counties and the Unionist majority will not consider it. Therefore refusing to sit in Westminster is hardly going to reverse that.

As I said before, I really don't care either way as it has no effect on me or my family. I just don't understand the reasoning. That may have been a tactic in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but what purpose does it serve now?

BluePlanet

ART6 wrote: »

The answer to your question is yes, I have.

I accept that there has been some history of this type of protest, but my point was that we are not living in history. The people of NI are (supposedly) living in the present, where the nationalist minority have at least achieved most of their aims, and SF play a senior role in the devolved government. It's their decision, but given the circumstances now I still cannot for the life of me see the point of it, or why the UK taxpayer should pay their salaries. If only their electorate paid them then I could begin to understand, but from what I know of UK government that is not the case.

The one aim that they have little hope of achieving at the moment is a united Ireland. The government of Eire has relinquished claims to the Six Counties and the Unionist majority will not consider it. Therefore refusing to sit in Westminster is hardly going to reverse that.

As I said before, I really don't care either way as it has no effect on me or my family. I just don't understand the reasoning. That may have been a tactic in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but what purpose does it serve now?

I'm not sure, i suppose it's a bitter pill they don't want to swallow.

Why should they swear alliegence to a foreign monarch that is also the head of a church which has discriminated against their peers for a few hundred years? That strikes me as rather 17th-18th century.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yes, but that's not really the point.
They refuse to sit in Westminster due to the oath of allegiance. Plenty of SDLP MPs have done so with their fingers crossed in the past, but this tactic is apparently beyond the Shinners.
The real issue is the lack of representation in Westminster for the constituencies in question.
It would seem to be that would be best resolved by removing the oath, since MPs are elected to serve their constituencies and not some German in-bred.

ART6 wrote: »

If an MP is elected in NI and refuses to take up his seat in Westminster then he is not representing his electorate. Refusing to do so because of the oath is putting personal issues before the needs of his electorate. In my view Cameron would be entirely correct if he imposed a system where all elected representatives are required to occupy their seats in Parliament or lose their salaries and expenses.

It is not just the oath. It is equally a rejection of Ireland being ruled by Britain. One may argue by sitting in a UK parliament(Stormont) they are doing that but the difference is stormont actually is in Ireland

ART6 wrote: »

OK. So why would you elect someone who's election manifesto was that he wouldn't occupy his seat? The whole point of that escapes me.

Surely the root of the Troubles was discrimination and the lack of democratic representation? So, fight that wrong by electing an MP who has stated that he will not represent you in the sovereign parliament of your country?

I actually have some leanings towards SF and believe that in general they do have the interests of Ireland at heart, but this particular issue seems just silly to me.

The voters want it to be seen that they reject Britain ruling them. By voting for an abstentionist they are politically boycotting westminister

Wolfe Tone

It depends on how you look at them taking the money:

Are they hypocrites or:
Are they getting one over?

And the crap about them not representing their electorate is rubbish. They are elected by people who know they wont take the seats. If they wanted them to take their seats they would not vote SF.

ART6

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The voters want it to be seen that they reject Britain ruling them. By voting for an abstentionist they are politically boycotting westminister

OK, but they live in a region that is part of the UK by majority choice and that isn't going to change any time soon. To my mind it's a bit like the electorate of a constituency here deciding to vote for candidates who so object to FF's way of running the country that they refuse to take their seats in the Dáil, but still expect to be paid by the taxpayer.

Having just typed that I found my mind turning to the news items showing the almost empty Dáil during debates. Maybe it is a traditional Irish tactic after all:)

Bottle_of_Smoke

ART6 wrote: »

OK, but they live in a region that is part of the UK by majority choice and that isn't going to change any time soon. To my mind it's a bit like the electorate of a constituency here deciding to vote for candidates who so object to FF's way of running the country that they refuse to take their seats in the Dáil, but still expect to be paid by the taxpayer.

Having just typed that I found my mind turning to the news items showing the almost empty Dáil during debates. Maybe it is a traditional Irish tactic after all:)

It might not change any time soon but at the same time Sinn Fein would have no say in Westminister. There's like 600+ MPs, Sinn Fein have 5. Sinn Fein voters believe its better to boycott than have an unheard voice at Westminister.

Jaap

Sinn Fein should either take their seats...or their seats to go to those who came second in the voting in whatever contituency Sinn Fein came top!!!
Imagine if in a company you were made a director...and at every big board meeting you didn't turn up...I don't think you'd be a director for long!!!
They take the salary, they take the expenses...all from the British Government...maybe they are just interested in the money aspect???
Just like some nationalists in Northern Ireland who are happy to sit around claiming benefits from a government who they despise!!! They don't like the Queen and all things British...yet they are happy with a few Bank of England notes in their possession and Queen faces on the coins in their pockets!!!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Jaap wrote: »

Sinn Fein should either take their seats...or their seats to go to those who came second in the voting in whatever contituency Sinn Fein came top!!!
Imagine if in a company you were made a director...and at every big board meeting you didn't turn up...I don't think you'd be a director for long!!!
They take the salary, they take the expenses...all from the British Government...maybe they are just interested in the money aspect???
Just like some nationalists in Northern Ireland who are happy to sit around claiming benefits from a government who they despise!!! They don't like the Queen and all things British...yet they are happy with a few Bank of England notes in their possession and Queen faces on the coins in their pockets!!!

If business logic was applied to politics there'd be a lot more than just Sinn Fein MPs out of a job.

Jaap

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If business logic was applied to politics there'd be a lot more than just Sinn Fein MPs out of a job.

Maybe if politics was run like a business then maybe we wouldn't have such useless politicians...particularly those from Northern Ireland!!!
As people know...in Northern Ireland you get votes because you are green or orange...not because you are a talented individual with great ideas!!!

dlofnep

It's well and good to tell Sinn Féin to take their seats from the outside. Sinn Féin would be hypocrites if they swore an oath of allegience to the Queen. They are an Irish Republican party, and that much is evident. They did not place themselves in the position that they are in.

But suppose they took their seats, what exactly is it they would accomplish? They hold 5 seats out of 600. The combined nationalist seat is 9. Nationalist interests can never be served or protected under such imbalanced conditions. They would rarely have the power to swing votes, and if they did it may not be over anything on importance.

Sinn Féin serves their constituents by continuing to devolve power to Stormont. Their constituents vote for Sinn Féin knowing that they will not take their seats. Anyone who says Sinn Féin does not represent their constituents is silly. It was Sinn Féin that brought devolution of policing & justice to the North and it didn't require them to take one seat.

Westminster does not serve the interests of the nationalist community, and could never serve the interests of the nationalist community unless they held at least 100+ seats, which is not possible.

Sinn Féin will continue to devolve more power to Stormont, to ensure that the affairs of the people are not controlled by someone across the water who does not have their best interests at heart.

Same old useless Westminister babble that has been covered 1000 times on here. The anti-SF brigade will look beyond the reality of the situation, and will just bash them regardless. Sinn Féin supporters will highlight why taking a seat is hypocritical and meaningless in the broader scheme of things, but it will fall on deaf ears. So I don't really see why we need to continuously haggle around this non-issue.

RandomName2

BluePlanet wrote: »

Because by not taking their seats, they are doing exactly what they were elected to do.

Sinn Fein can be elected by their constituencies.

That's fine if that what their constituencies want.

Their Westminster wages are not being paid by their constituencies though. They are being employed by one lot (who don't care if they do the job) but essentially being paid by another. Besides which I don't see why Sinn Fein need tax-payers money when they can just rob banks.

If they swore allegiance it would be hypocritical.

Essexboy

A group of MPs are campaigning to scrap their traditional oath of allegiance to the Queen, the Mail can reveal.

The declaration has been sworn by those joining or returning to Parliament for more than 500 years.

But 22 MPs from all three main parties say their 'principal duty' should be to represent the people who voted for them - not the monarch.

They want the Commons and the Lords to be allowed to swear allegiance to their 'constituents and the nation' instead.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23528801-now-mps-want-to-ditch-500-year-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-queen.do

A solution to the problem? No chance of it being adopted by the present regime though.

BluePlanet

RandomName2 wrote: »

Their Westminster wages are not being paid by their constituencies though. They are being employed by one lot but essentially being paid by another.

MP's wages as well as the rest of the PS wage bill are paid through general taxation.
So yes, SF constituents are paying SF's wages as well as the wages of every other MP.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Besides which I don't see why Sinn Fein need tax-payers money when they can just rob banks.

pathetic

djpbarry

BluePlanet wrote: »

...SF constituents are paying SF's wages as well as the wages of every other MP.

But a huge chunk of SF constituents are being paid by British taxpayers?

dlofnep

djpbarry wrote: »

But a huge chunk of SF constituents are being paid by British taxpayers?

And a huge chunk of Unionist politicians are being paid by SF constituents. Do you really want to go around in circles on a non-issue?

BluePlanet

dlofnep wrote: »

And a huge chunk of Unionist politicians are being paid by SF constituents. Do you really want to go around in circles on a non-issue?

I think what djpbarry is saying, as well as RandomName2 is that since the bulk of the population of the UK and subsequent taxbase, resides in England; they therefore are entitled to more representation than their NI counterparts.

I don't understand why they would expect that representation to come from SF, or indeed any irish nationalist enclave, or even any scottish nationalist enclave. Maybe they are trying to make a comment about the English lacking a Parliment of their own, or maybe it's a comment about the numbers of MP's per population (ie: is it different for NI constituencies vs English ones?)

Nevertheless the idea in the OP's article probably won't fly.
It looks like a discriminatory policy aimed specifically at a single party and that would be struck down in the courts. They could try to "punish" every MP in the house that misses "a day's work", but MP's would likely shoot that idea down too.

SF have already won a similiar case against HMG when they were being denied access to resources they are entitled to, for being an elected MP.

I don't understand the mentality of some irish people here where they prefer to gloat in the idea that some irish people should be forced to swear an alliegence to the queen.

djpbarry

BluePlanet wrote: »

I think what djpbarry is saying, as well as RandomName2 is that since the bulk of the population of the UK and subsequent taxbase, resides in England; they therefore are entitled to more representation than their NI counterparts.

No, I'm simply pointing out that '...SF constituents are paying SF's wages as well as the wages of every other MP' is probably not at all accurate considering the North's huge budget deficit - residents of Northern Ireland receive a considerable amount without actually paying for it through taxation.

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

And a huge chunk of Unionist politicians are being paid by SF constituents.

Well, no, they're getting paid predominantly by taxpayers outside of Northern Ireland too.

BluePlanet

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I'm simply pointing out that '...SF constituents are paying SF's wages as well as the wages of every other MP' is probably not at all accurate considering the North's huge budget deficit - residents of Northern Ireland receive a considerable amount without actually paying for it through taxation.

Grand, so if the electorate in England are bothered, let them change their system so that they don't have to pay for MP's from smaller, less well-off areas.

:rolleyes:

dlofnep

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, no, they're getting paid predominantly by taxpayers outside of Northern Ireland too.

Keyword being too.

Both sides are paying for each other. What exactly was it that you were trying to highlight? That tax accumulated under British rule is used accordingly? You're hardly enlightening anyone.

BluePlanet

dlofnep wrote: »

Keyword being too.

Both sides are paying for each other. What exactly was it that you were trying to highlight? That tax accumulated under British rule is used accordingly? You're hardly enlightening anyone.

I echo that question, what exactly ARE you trying to say djpbarry?

I think you're just here trying to throw a broadside against SF but have rather missed the mark.

getz

am i missing something,how can SF stand to be elected to a parliament that they do not recognize ,yet expect to be paid for it with expenses ?, -its the all you are playing football,i dont want to be in the team,or play the game,but i want the ball anyway,

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

What exactly was it that you were trying to highlight?

BluePlanet wrote: »

I echo that question, what exactly ARE you trying to say djpbarry?

I think you're just here trying to throw a broadside against SF but have rather missed the mark.

No, I’m not. The point was made that SF constituents pay the salaries of not just SF MP’s, but all MP’s. I simply pointed out that SF constituents, given the North’s huge budget deficit, aren’t really paying for very much at all. That’s not an attack on SF, that’s me questioning how SF constituents are paying for their (or anyone else’s) MP’s. You can take SF out of the equation and broaden the point to all Northern Ireland MP’s if you wish – I addressed SF as they were referred to in the post I was questioning (and in the thread title).

BluePlanet

getz wrote: »

am i missing something,how can SF stand to be elected to a parliament that they do not recognize ,yet expect to be paid for it with expenses ?, -its the all you are playing football,i dont want to be in the team,or play the game,but i want the ball anyway,

I'm not sure the nuances of the game.
But whatever it is, it's working.
SF are the largest nationalist party and continue to erode the SDLP (whom ARE taking their seats, like good castle catholics as they say)

BluePlanet

Actually I just found out that infact SF are not receiving MP's salaries.
They forfeit those by refusing to take their seats.
I'm not sure if it's a HMG's rule, or a SF one however.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sinn-fein-mps-take-up-offices--in-westminster-664546.html

What they get

• Access to all House of Commons facilities, including car park, libraries, research, restaurants, bars, computer advice, vote office and travel office.
• The Office Cost Allowance (OCA) enables them to claim back expenses of running an office as long as it is work is for constituents and is not for party political campaigning. The OCA allows them to claim up to £70,000 a year for staff, £18,000 for "incidental expenses" and up to £19,469 for accommodation in London. They will also get thousands of pounds in travel expenses.
• They will lose only their MPs' salaries of £51,822 for their continued refusal to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen.

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

I suppose those advocating that Irish MPs should sit in a foreign parliament would also agree that the 1918 Dáil was also a waste of time?

Would you be of the opinion that Parnell taking his seat at Westminster was a waste of time? Was the Catholic Emancipation a waste of time?

Wolfe Tone

djpbarry wrote: »

Would you be of the opinion that Parnell taking his seat at Westminster was a waste of time? Was the Catholic Emancipation a waste of time?

How many seats did they have? Upwards of 90?

dlofnep

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I’m not. The point was made that SF constituents pay the salaries of not just SF MP’s, but all MP’s. I simply pointed out that SF constituents, given the North’s huge budget deficit, aren’t really paying for very much at all. That’s not an attack on SF, that’s me questioning how SF constituents are paying for their (or anyone else’s) MP’s. You can take SF out of the equation and broaden the point to all Northern Ireland MP’s if you wish – I addressed SF as they were referred to in the post I was questioning (and in the thread title).

Fair enough.

aDeener

Winty wrote: »

Sinn Fein are thugs.

The used the gun to get what they wanted, now they have Devolution, a seat on the policing board and the bloody Sunday report.

They should start to do some work for all in N.Ireland not just the Bogside. They should focus on International Investment creating jobs not filling their pockets

is there something wrong with that?

djpbarry

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

How many seats did they have? Upwards of 90?

So taking the Oath of Allegiance is ok if your party has obtained more than <insert arbitrary figure here> seats in Westminster?

Wolfe Tone

djpbarry wrote: »

So taking the Oath of Allegiance is ok if your party has obtained more than <insert arbitrary figure here> seats in Westminster?

No, not at all, but they had a very significant and say in how things were run. For instance the HR party got the 3rd HR bill and the 1912 parliament act as a result of them basically holding the balance of power. If SF were to take the Oath and go to Westminster they would have no say and no power. If SF today had a very high amount of seats were there voice may be heard, and they would have some power, then I could see a logical rational behind the argument for them to take their seats. However this is not the case is it?

And in my opinion, taking the Oath of allegiance is not ok at all, ESPECIALLY in circumstances which will not benefit anyone, especially Ireland.

OhNoYouDidn't

ART6 wrote: »

Personally I don't care either way as I don't live in either country, but if I was a citizen of the UK I most certainly would care. Why should the state continue to employ someone who never turns up for work any more than any other employer would?

But the people who matter here are the electorate who vote for them fully knowing of the abstentionist policy.

And besides, the SF MP's still do all the required constituancy work, hence the offices and expenses.

sceptre

Thread pruned of "mostly pointless off-topic crud stuff", as I've labelled it in the delete log.

There's an early exchange of which I've left one pro- and one con- post existing as one from each side. Other than that, "mostly pointless off-topic crud stuff" deleted.

/mod

jmayo

Winty wrote: »

About time that Sinn Fein stoped milking the system and started to do some work. Sinn Fein MPs could lose their right to claim hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in expenses unless they take up their seats at Westminster, David Cameron hinted yesterday. The Prime Minister pledged to 're-examine' the position

They will take the British Pound no problem but when the Queen wants to visit they opposes it because she is the so called commander-in-chief of the British armed forces.

So are Sinn Fein just a bunch of hypocrites?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/northern_ireland_politics/10394338.stm

I have no problem with them sticking to principle that they will not take oath of allegiance and not sit in parliament.
Similarly if there voters have no problem with it then fine.
Voters may indeed have only voted for them because of this principle.

But I do think it is a bit hypocritical to then have the hand out to accept expenses and salary.

It appears they have major problem with all things bearing the queens emblem bar the pound.

Winty

danbohan wrote: »

i am sure the DUP will look after your intrests winty

When Dan reads anything against Sinn Fein / IRA he jumps.

I am a SDLP man, you knew that Dan.

You know the SDLP dont you? the party that does not need to kill for people to listen

dlofnep

Winty wrote: »

You know the SDLP dont you? the party that does not need to kill for people to listen

Neither does Sinn Féin. What's your point?

Winty

BluePlanet wrote: »

Because by not taking their seats, they are doing exactly what they were elected to do.

Why do they not refuse the money and just use funds collected in bars and from business they intimidate