Irish Language Act in the North: Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal?

FrancieBrady

charlie14 wrote: »

I did, and your point appears to be that you believe SF should not put candidates forward for election to Westminster if they are not prepared to take their seats.

Feel free to correct me if I took you up wrong, but is that not what you are advocating ?

Yes, one could say that they are only interfering in who gets to parliament and not 'parliament' itself, if one wanted to be painfully pedantic.

charlie14

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, one could say that they are only interfering in who gets to parliament and not 'parliament' itself, if one wanted to be painfully pedantic.

True, but I have a feeling the hole attempting to be avoided is who in such cases gets to take seats in a parliament, and how representative of their constituents views they are.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Oscar, you are being pedantic.
We all know what it means pedantically, but that in effect, they will not interfere in the running of another country by sitting in it's parliament making decisions.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to carefully hand-craft a definition of some English language words in a desperate attempt not to be wrong, it's a bit rich to describe the act of reading the words at face value as pedantic.

charlie14 wrote: »

I did, and your point appears to be that you believe SF should not put candidates forward for election to Westminster if they are not prepared to take their seats.

Feel free to correct me if I took you up wrong, but is that not what you are advocating ?

If that's what my point appears to be, then maybe you should spend less time reading between the lines and just read what I wrote.

I'll save you the trouble of reading my posts by repeating myself: I'm not advocating anything. I'm pointing out that it is self-evidently untrue to claim not to be interfering in a country's parliament if you're standing for election to that parliament. That's not a judgement on the merits of abstentionism; it's pointing out that Sinn Féin's excuse for it is a stupid one.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, one could say that they are only interfering in who gets to parliament and not 'parliament' itself, if one wanted to be painfully pedantic.

One could say all sorts of things if one were determined not to admit the possibility that Sinn Féin said something stupid. But if you've denied anyone who voted for another candidate any representation in Parliament, and at the same time are piously claiming not to want to interfere in that Parliament, that's quite simply two-faced.

Once again: if they want to abstain, fine. If people want to elect people who won't represent them, fine. That's not what I'm arguing about. I'm arguing against the idea that deliberately keeping seats in Parliament unoccupied isn't interfering in that Parliament.

I know you're not going to agree with me, because I'm arguing against the Holy Scripture of An Phoblacht, which clearly means that Sinn Féin are speaking ex cathedra. But you don't get to call me a pedant just because I don't subscribe to the same twisted logic.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sorry, but if you're going to carefully hand-craft a definition of some English language words in a desperate attempt not to be wrong, it's a bit rich to describe the act of reading the words at face value as pedantic.

If that's what my point appears to be, then maybe you should spend less time reading between the lines and just read what I wrote.

I'll save you the trouble of reading my posts by repeating myself: I'm not advocating anything. I'm pointing out that it is self-evidently untrue to claim not to be interfering in a country's parliament if you're standing for election to that parliament. That's not a judgement on the merits of abstentionism; it's pointing out that Sinn Féin's excuse for it is a stupid one.

One could say all sorts of things if one were determined not to admit the possibility that Sinn Féin said something stupid. But if you've denied anyone who voted for another candidate any representation in Parliament, and at the same time are piously claiming not to want to interfere in that Parliament, that's quite simply two-faced.

Once again: if they want to abstain, fine. If people want to elect people who won't represent them, fine. That's not what I'm arguing about. I'm arguing against the idea that deliberately keeping seats in Parliament unoccupied isn't interfering in that Parliament.

I know you're not going to agree with me, because I'm arguing against the Holy Scripture of An Phoblacht, which clearly means that Sinn Féin are speaking ex cathedra. But you don't get to call me a pedant just because I don't subscribe to the same twisted logic.

By the strict rule of Oscar's language laws they are wrong.

That alright?

In reality, they are not interfering in the running of other jurisdictions/countries.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In reality, they are not interfering in the running of other jurisdictions/countries.

In a Sinn Féin slavish disciple's reality, maybe.

It really is impossible to argue against religious zealotry.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

In a Sinn Féin slavish disciple's reality, maybe.

It really is impossible to argue against religious zealotry.

:rolleyes: Really? Religious zealotry? Despite my belief that interfering in how people get elected to parliament is not actually interfering in the running of parliament itself?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...my belief that interfering in how people get elected to parliament is not actually interfering in the running of parliament itself?

Oh, OK. So it's morally wrong to interfere in the running of parliament, but it's morally acceptable to interfere in parliamentary elections? We're transitioning from mere religious zealotry to full-on Jesuitry now.

You'll have to accept that not everyone subscribes to the Gospel According to Sinn Féin, and not everyone is going to jump through the rhetorical hoops you've carefully crafted in order to avoid the unforgivable heresy of disagreeing with them.

I made the point simply earlier on, and I'll repeat it: if I don't want to interfere in the parliament of a sovereign country, I can achieve that very simply by not running in that country's parliamentary elections.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

If that's what my point appears to be, then maybe you should spend less time reading between the lines and just read what I wrote.

I'll save you the trouble of reading my posts by repeating myself: I'm not advocating anything. I'm pointing out that it is self-evidently untrue to claim not to be interfering in a country's parliament if you're standing for election to that parliament. That's not a judgement on the merits of abstentionism; it's pointing out that Sinn Féin's excuse for it is a stupid one..

I read your post and read nothing between the lines.
The particular line that caught my attention was :

"They are denying parliamentary representation to the people who voted for other candidates in their constituencies".

SF clearly state that the will not take seats in a Westminster parliament.
Their constituents elect them on that understanding so therefore are they not representing the wishes of their constituents!

So what exactly are you saying?
SF should not stand for election on a principle that is the wishes of their constituents , or that if elected they should drop that principle and take their seats ?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, OK. So it's morally wrong to interfere in the running of parliament, but it's morally acceptable to interfere in parliamentary elections? We're transitioning from mere religious zealotry to full-on Jesuitry now.

You'll have to accept that not everyone subscribes to the Gospel According to Sinn Féin, and not everyone is going to jump through the rhetorical hoops you've carefully crafted in order to avoid the unforgivable heresy of disagreeing with them.

I made the point simply earlier on, and I'll repeat it: if I don't want to interfere in the parliament of a sovereign country, I can achieve that very simply by not running in that country's parliamentary elections.

And by doing that you will achieve nothing for constituents that wish to protest a foreign country interfering in what they see as their country.

Of course if you wish to deny that there is a 100 year old problem with partition on this island and that we have some kind of normal society in northern Ireland, knock yourself out.

oscarBravo

charlie14 wrote: »

The particular line that caught my attention was :

"They are denying parliamentary representation to the people who voted for other candidates in their constituencies".

SF clearly state that the will not take seats in a Westminster parliament.
Their constituents elect them on that understanding so therefore are they not representing the wishes of their constituents!

You do know that not everyone votes for Sinn Féin, right? You know that some people would actually like to have a representative in Parliament, and as such vote for candidates who would take their seats if elected?

You further realise that Westminster has single-seat constituencies, which means that every constituency with a Sinn Féin MP has no representative in Parliament?

So what exactly are you saying?
SF should not stand for election on a principle that is the wishes of their constituents , or that if elected they should drop that principle and take their seats ?

For someone who claims to be reading my posts, I'm not sure why you're demanding an answer to a question that's orthogonal to my points.

I'll repeat myself again, in the hope that it sinks in this time:

I'm not arguing the merits or otherwise of abstentionism.

Got it?

I'm. Not. Arguing. The. Merits. Of. Abstentionism.

I'm making the point that you can't stand for election to a parliament, and claim not to want to interfere in that parliament. Well, you can, but it's not true.

If you want to discuss the actual point I'm making, feel free. I disagree with Francie, but at least he's doing me the courtesy of discussing what I'm saying. If you want to do the same, feel free, but if you want to continue to argue off on a tangent, do us both a favour and don't bother.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And by doing that you will achieve nothing for constituents that wish to protest a foreign country interfering in what they see as their country.

Absolutely! So, if you want to protest by interfering in a parliamentary election - by altering the arithmetic of Parliament in sometimes interesting ways - by denying representation to your political opponents - then you have a case for abstentionism.

But be honest about it and admit that what you're doing is deliberately running interference in that country's parliamentary processes. Piously declaring that abstentionism is about not wanting to interfere is a stupid own-goal - it's self-evidently untrue, at least to anyone who isn't prepared to tie themselves in rhetorical knots.

Of course if you wish to deny that there is a 100 year old problem with partition on this island and that we have some kind of normal society in northern Ireland, knock yourself out.

I would never dream of arguing that there's anything remotely normal about Northern Ireland. And, as I'm getting tired of repeating, this isn't about my views on abstentionism; it's about Sinn Féin's self-serving lies about it.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Absolutely! So, if you want to protest by interfering in a parliamentary election - by altering the arithmetic of Parliament in sometimes interesting ways - by denying representation to your political opponents - then you have a case for abstentionism.

But be honest about it and admit that what you're doing is deliberately running interference in that country's parliamentary processes. Piously declaring that abstentionism is about not wanting to interfere is a stupid own-goal - it's self-evidently untrue, at least to anyone who isn't prepared to tie themselves in rhetorical knots.

I would never dream of arguing that there's anything remotely normal about Northern Ireland. And, as I'm getting tired of repeating, this isn't about my views on abstentionism; it's about Sinn Féin's self-serving lies about it.

Oscar, they do not want to interfere in the running of 'other' jurisdictions.

They are only intefereing in their own jurisdiction. Not in parliament itself.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Oscar, they do not want to interfere in the running of 'other' jurisdictions.

They are only intefereing in their own jurisdiction. Not in parliament itself.

If that's the Jesuitical distinction it takes for you to convince yourself that Sinn Féin's position makes sense, knock yourself out. Nobody else is buying the theory that it's morally wrong to interfere in a country's parliament, but perfectly OK to interfere in its parliamentary elections.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

You do know that not everyone votes for Si Féin, right? You know that some people would actually like to have a representative in Parliament, and as such vote for candidates who would take their seats if elected?

You further realise that Westminster has single-seat constituencies, which means that every constituency with a Sinn Féin MP has no representative in Parliament? For someone who claims to be reading my posts, I'm not sure why you're demanding an answer to a question that's orthogonal to my points.

I'll repeat myself again, in the hope that it sinks in this time:

I'm not arguing the merits or otherwise of abstentionism.

Got it?

I'm. Not. Arguing. The. Merits. Of. Abstentionism.

I'm making the point that you can't stand for election to a parliament, and claim not to want to interfere in that parliament. Well, you can, but it's not true.

If you want to discuss the actual point I'm making, feel free. I disagree with Francie, but at least he's doing me the courtesy of discussing what I'm saying. If you want to do the same, feel free, but if you want to continue to argue off on a tangent, do us both a favour and don't bother.

I am well aware that Westminster constituencies are single seat and that in seven of those constituencies the wishes of the majority is that they do not wish to be represented in Westminster.
That is how democracy works.
It represents the wishes of the majority.
It is not a pick-and-choose where a minority get to represent a constituency unrepresentative of the wishes of their constituents.

You can do all the singing and dancing around that you like, but it is not going to change the facts

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

If that's the Jesuitical distinction it takes for you to convince yourself that Sinn Féin's position makes sense, knock yourself out. Nobody else is buying the theory that it's morally wrong to interfere in a country's parliament, but perfectly OK to interfere in its parliamentary elections.

Those parliamentary elections take place in and effect the disputed territory, not in Scotland, Wales and England etc.

Again, you are just simply being painfully pedantic without bringing the Jesuits into it.

oscarBravo

charlie14 wrote: »

That is how democracy works.
It represents the wishes of the majority.

We've seen how well that definition of democracy has worked in Northern Ireland throughout the 20th century.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those parliamentary elections take place in and effect the disputed territory, not in Scotland, Wales and England etc.

Those parliamentary elections are for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In the last election, the seats not taken came within a whisker of affecting the balance of power. In a future election, the balance of power could be a number of seats smaller than the number that Sinn Féin refuse to fill.

Now, in those circumstances, I'm sure Sinn Féin would continue to insist that they were not interfering in Parliament, and I'm sure you would continue to obediently parrot the Gospel. Would it be true? Of course not.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Those parliamentary elections are for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In the last election, the seats not taken came within a whisker of affecting the balance of power. In a future election, the balance of power could be a number of seats smaller than the number that Sinn Féin refuse to fill.

Now, in those circumstances, I'm sure Sinn Féin would continue to insist that they were not interfering in Parliament, and I'm sure you would continue to obediently parrot the Gospel. Would it be true? Of course not.

That has been the way since partition. Again, here is the 'gospel' in the words of SF themselves:

But even if the oath was removed and I was an MP, I would still not take my seat.

Even if Britain was a republic, I would still not take my seat.

Even if I held the balance of power and could get through bits and pieces of legislation (while flattering myself as to the magnitude of my importance), I would still not take my seat.

For me, it is quite simple: How can I object to Britain interfering in Irish affairs if I go over and interfere in theirs?

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

We've seen how well that definition of democracy has worked in Northern Ireland throughout the 20th century.

Well I haven`t seen in any of your posts an alternative that would better represent the wishes of the majority in a constituency.

FrancieBrady

charlie14 wrote: »

Well I haven`t seen in any of your posts an alternative that would better represent the wishes of the majority in a constituency.

In truth, in a 100 years of partition I have never seen the policy of abstentionism treated in such a pedantic way.
A tribute to boards there.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That has been the way since partition. Again, here is the 'gospel' in the words of SF themselves:

I think that's a quote from Danny Morrison.
It sheds some light on the thinking. Interesting to note that the oath of allegiance is not really the barrier at all.
Its more about refusing to participate in an illegitimate foreign "partitionist" parliament in Westminster.
He also says...

I am in the business of building a new society in Ireland out of the two states which currently exist. To do that I need to win over a significant body of support from the unionist community as well as winning over people in the South who have lived for a century under successive partitionist governments who have never acted in truly national terms.

When/if a UI does finally come into being (again) SF will triumphantly declare that they never recognised the legitimacy of either the 26 county state, or the "occupied" 6 counties.

But in the meantime there is a bit of cherry picking going on. They will quite happily draw salaries and expenses from both parliaments, and occupy seats in Dublin. While leaving the interests of NI severely under-represented politically at Westminster.

Edward M

recedite wrote: »

I think that's a quote from Danny Morrison.
It sheds some light on the thinking. Interesting to note that the oath of allegiance is not really the barrier at all.
Its more about refusing to participate in an illegitimate foreign "partitionist" parliament in Westminster.
He also says...
When/if a UI does finally come into being (again) SF will triumphantly declare that they never recognised the legitimacy of either the 26 county state, or the "occupied" 6 counties.

But in the meantime there is a bit of cherry picking going on. They will quite happily draw salaries and expenses from both parliaments, and occupy seats in Dublin. While leaving the interests of NI severely under-represented politically at Westminster.

Your point sort of contradicts itself, in that as SF are sitting in the Dail they are actually legitimising it just by doing that.
By using your logic then they shouldn't be!

recedite

There is a lot of inconsistency involved in their positions alright.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Well I haven`t seen in any of your posts an alternative that would better represent the wishes of the majority in a constituency.

How many SF seats were won with a majority?

In four of the seven constituencies that SF won a seat, the majority voted for parties that wished to take their seats in Westminister. In another of the seven, we are facing a by-election. That means only two of the current SF MPs were elected in seats where the majority voted for abstention.

Surely SF should bow to the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, and the majority of the constituencies that elected them and take their seats in Westminister?

After all, you are the one who is suggesting that the wishes of the majority in a constituency should be respected.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And by doing that you will achieve nothing for constituents that wish to protest a foreign country interfering in what they see as their country.

Of course if you wish to deny that there is a 100 year old problem with partition on this island and that we have some kind of normal society in northern Ireland, knock yourself out.

Nice shifting of the goalposts there.

Oscar is right when he points out the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein in running for election and denying representation to those who want it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nice shifting of the goalposts there.

Oscar is right when he points out the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein in running for election and denying representation to those who want it.

How can you be 'hypocritical' when you do what you say you are gonna do?

You have been voting for FG FF Greens etc for too long there!

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How can you be 'hypocritical' when you do what you say you are gonna do?

You have been voting for FG FF Greens etc for too long there!

It is hypocritical to state that you don't want any part in running a foreign country and then stand for elections to the parliament of that foreign country.

Hypocrisy plain and simple.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It is hypocritical to state that you don't want any part in running a foreign country and then stand for elections to the parliament of that foreign country.

Hypocrisy plain and simple.

They are standing for election in their own country though. They dispute the legitimacy of the British to run it.

And here is what you said was hypocritical. (moving goalposts did you say? )

blanch152 wrote:

the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein in running for election and denying representation to those who want it.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

How many SF seats were won with a majority?

In four of the seven constituencies that SF won a seat, the majority voted for parties that wished to take their seats in Westminister. In another of the seven, we are facing a by-election. That means only two of the current SF MPs were elected in seats where the majority voted for abstention.

Surely SF should bow to the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, and the majority of the constituencies that elected them and take their seats in Westminister?

After all, you are the one who is suggesting that the wishes of the majority in a constituency should be respected.

Your take on democracy is becoming either more bizarre or more desperate.

Using your analogy how many TD`s in Dail Eireann represent the majority wises of the majority of there constituents by getting more number one votes than the rest of the constituency candidates combined ?

Constituencies for the Westminster Parliament are single seat constituencies elected by the first past the post system.
He/she that gets the most votes, wins the seat.
You may not like it, but that is the democratic system used.

If you are suggesting Westminster elections should be held under the PR system, I`m not sure there would be much solace in that system for you. Possibly less in fact considering the results of the last Assembly elections.
In the Assembly election the DUP won 38 out of 108 seats (35%) under the PR system.
In the Westminster election the DUP won 10 of 18 seats (51%) under the first past the post system.

I imagine the DUP are more than delighted with the first past the post system for Westminster elections

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Your take on democracy is becoming either more bizarre or more desperate.

Using your analogy how many TD`s in Dail Eireann represent the majority wises of the majority of there constituents by getting more number one votes than the rest of the constituency candidates combined ?

Constituencies for the Westminster Parliament are single seat constituencies elected by the first past the post system.
He/she that gets the most votes, wins the seat.
You may not like it, but that is the democratic system used.

If you are suggesting Westminster elections should be held under the PR system, I`m not sure there would be much solace in that system for you. Possibly less in fact considering the results of the last Assembly elections.
In the Assembly election the DUP won 38 out of 108 seats (35%) under the PR system.
In the Westminster election the DUP won 10 of 18 seats (51%) under the first past the post system.

I imagine the DUP are more than delighted with the first past the post system for Westminster elections

Why is there this constant fallacy for the defenders of all things Sinn Fein that if someone is against Sinn Fein, then they must also be for the DUP?

The fact that the DUP won 10 out of 18 under the first past the post system and that SF won 7 of the others is the biggest reason to get rid of it. Both of them are sectarian political parties unfit for a modern democracy. You know well that is my view.

Your post also brings to mind another aspect of the SF hypocrisy. Since the Brexit referendum, we have heard ad nauseun from SF about how the result in the North should be respected because a majority voted for Brexit, yet here I am being told that the fact that a majority want their political representatives to take their seats in Westminister shouldn't be repsected.

I shouldn't be surprised I suppose.