SF Abstention

Our man in Havana

I think it is scandalous that SF can take seats if they won't actually sit.




MOD Edit: split from NI election results.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bond-007 wrote:

I think it is scandalous that SF can take seats if they won't actually sit.

Why?

Our man in Havana

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why?

Its depriving people of representation in westminster.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bond-007 wrote:

Its depriving people of representation in westminster.

And? It is their choice. Do you believe in the will of the people?

uberwolf

Lads - whilst I realise this is in context could a discussion of not taking up seats be brought to another thread if you want to continue- just to allow this one remain on topic. Cheers

Our man in Havana

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

And? It is their choice. Do you believe in the will of the people?

Its not my choice if i voted UUP or DUP. At least down here if a candiate I didnt vote for got elected they still represent the whole people and sit in the Dail.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bond-007 wrote:

Its not my choice if i voted UUP or DUP. At least down here if a candiate I didnt vote for got elected they still represent the whole people and sit in the Dail.

Under the FPTP system, it is the choice of the majority ion the constituency

Down here also had abtsentism, was that wrong as well?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Under the FPTP system, it is the choice of the majority ion the constituency

Down here also had abtsentism, was that wrong as well?

Who abstains in the Republic?
In fairness though thats the ticket SF stood on and got elected on.
Do you think they would sit in Westminister if there was no oath to the Queen?

uberwolf

afaik SF abstained the first Parliments back in days of yore under Dev which is what I presume ADIG is referring to

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Who abstains in the Republic?

Had.... The whole reason the Republic came into being... the 1st Dail

In fairness though thats the ticket SF stood on and got elected on.

Which is why I am trying to find out why it is scandalous. It is not as if they have suddenly sprung this onto the NI electorate.

Do you think they would sit in Westminister if there was no oath to the Queen?

or an oath to the UK.... Yes

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Had.... The whole reason the Republic came into being... the 1st Dail

Ah, its not in this day and age.

The rest of the reply I had for here would be more suited to the other thread, so off there I'm going with it.
Practising what I preach

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Which is why I am trying to find out why it is scandalous. It is not as if they have suddenly sprung this onto the NI electorate.

Do you not find it ironic that they're refusing to sit but drawing salarys, holding their offices and drawing their allowance.

It's just if they're going to abstain from Westminister on a principle, it's seems ironic that they'll happily take the Queen's crown, and plush offices, while refusing to sit on principle.

Villain

Do you believe the majority of Nationalists who have voted for Sinn Fein would want them to swear an oath and take their seat??

As Dub has said the people knew what they were voting for whether you like it or not you have to respect it.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Do you believe the majority of Nationalists who have voted for Sinn Fein would want them to swear an oath and take their seat??

As Dub has said the people knew what they were voting for whether you like it or not you have to respect it.

As I said my issue, is about the taking of salaries, allowance and offices, while refusing to take office.....

AmenToThat

Bond-007 wrote:

I think it is scandalous that SF can take seats if they won't actually sit.

What you seem to fail to realise is that those in the six counties that vote SF know they wont 'sit' as you put it.

And its a bitch when they play musical chairs

AmenToThat

mycroft wrote:

As I said my issue, is about the taking of salaries, allowance and offices, while refusing to take office.....

Jayzus sounds like my udeal job!

Villain

mycroft wrote:

As I said my issue, is about the taking of salaries, allowance and offices, while refusing to take office.....

Well IMO there entitled to the money because they have been elected, I can certianly understand why people have a problem with that but I personally don't.

boidey

yes it is bloody scandalous, they will take the queens silver, bitch about the suspension of their parlimentary allowances on a/c of the fact that they are thieves and murderers, play the oppressed victims and offer their constituents no representation.
Maybe people get the govt they deserve, i think people do vote them cos the SDLP hardly constitute a credible alternative. when I voted on thurs SF have put stickers up round the polling station with the slogan SMASH THE SDLP with a graphic lifted from the H-Block campaign

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

Well IMO there entitled to the money because they have been elected, I can certianly understand why people have a problem with that but I personally don't.

Unless you pay UK income Tax and are a citizen of the UK, your opinion on that doesnt mean didly squat to the UK.

That UK money is provided by the democratically elected UK parliament on behalf of the UK tax payer and a democratic vote by a large majority was taken on behalf of that taxpayer to withdraw the funding.
They had their reasons and were entitled to withdraw the money,it was a democratic decision to do so, I suggest you take your own advice and respect that democratic decision.

You cant be asking people to respect democracy in one thread and displaying a lack of respect for it in another tbh.

Do you respect the democratic decision of the UK parliament to come to a view that lead them to withdraw the funding as a sanction?

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

Unless you pay UK income Tax and are a citizen of the UK, your opinion on that doesnt mean didly squat to the UK.

That UK money is provided by the democratically elected UK parliament on behalf of the UK tax payer and a democratic vote by a large majority was taken on behalf of that taxpayer to withdraw the funding.
They had their reasons and were entitled to withdraw the money,it was a democratic decision to do so, I suggest you take your own advice and respect that democratic decision.

You cant be asking people to respect democracy in one thread and displaying a lack of respect for it in another tbh.

Do you respect the democratic decision of the UK parliament to come to a view that lead them to withdraw the funding as a sanction?

What about someone who is a UK taxpayer but not a UK citizen? Do they count?

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What about someone who is a UK taxpayer but not a UK citizen? Do they count?

Pedantic
Of course you're included as you are a voter in the UK , a resident and presumably a tax payer in the UK.
Do you accept the democratic right of the UK parliament to come to the view that it did and withdraw tthe funding? I know that you will disagree with their opinion and decision, thats not what I'm asking,I'm talking about their right to come to a democratic decision and to express their opinion.

Let me repeat the question for Irish1 too, lest he misses it on this new page

Rock Climber wrote:

Unless you pay UK income Tax and are a citizen of the UK, your opinion on that doesnt mean didly squat to the UK.

That UK money is provided by the democratically elected UK parliament on behalf of the UK tax payer and a democratic vote by a large majority was taken on behalf of that taxpayer to withdraw the funding.
They had their reasons and were entitled to withdraw the money,it was a democratic decision to do so, I suggest you take your own advice and respect that democratic decision.

You cant be asking people to respect democracy in one thread and displaying a lack of respect for it in another tbh.

Do you respect the democratic decision of the UK parliament to come to a view that lead them to withdraw the funding as a sanction?

The Muppet

Rock Climber wrote:

Unless you pay UK income Tax and are a citizen of the UK, your opinion on that doesnt mean didly squat to the UK.

That UK money is provided by the democratically elected UK parliament on behalf of the UK tax payer and a democratic vote by a large majority was taken on behalf of that taxpayer to withdraw the funding.
They had their reasons and were entitled to withdraw the money,it was a democratic decision to do so, I suggest you take your own advice and respect that democratic decision.

TBF Sinn Fein's position has been endorsed by their supporters who are also UK tax payers. Like it or not that's democrecy.

The Muppet

The Muppet wrote:

TBF Sinn Fein's position has been endorsed by their supporters who are also UK tax payers. Like it or not that's democrecy.

Thats certainly democracy allright The Muppet but, I think the original point was that the democratic majority in the UK decided to withdraw the funding.
That would be an overiding majority on behalf of the majority of UK tax payers.
They came to the opinion that the sanction needed to be done and we have to respect their opinion aswell or else there would be an inconsistency...

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

Pedantic
Of course you're included as you are a voter in the UK , a resident and presumably a tax payer in the UK.
Do you accept the democratic right of the UK parliament to come to the view that it did and withdraw tthe funding? I know that you will disagree with their opinion and decision, thats not what I'm asking,I'm talking about their right to come to a democratic decision and to express their opinion.

Let me repeat the question for Irish1 too, lest he misses it on this new page

As a democrat, I accept the fact that the parliament done what it did by democratic means.

Of course, I think it was the wrong decision and it does not auger well for the implementation of democracy.

It is akin to a vote in Westminster to remove the right to silence (assume that right was not protected by the EHRC). Would I recognise the decision was taken by the majority in parliament?... yes Would it mean it was the correct decision?... no

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is akin to a vote in Westminster to remove the right to silence (assume that right was not protected by the EHRC).

I dont see the comparison there

Would I recognise the decision was taken by the majority in parliament?... yes Would it mean it was the correct decision?... no

With respect to the funding issue that would be your opinion,I'd assume that those who voted for it would believe in their opinion and representing the majority of taxpayers views they would be entitled to democratically enforce that opinion.

I know where you are coming from on this,at least you are being consistent, in that you respect this as a democratic decision by a majority of the whole of the UK representatives against a few of them, whilst expressing your opinion that you disagree with it.

BuffyBot

Well IMO there entitled to the money because they have been elected, I can certianly understand why people have a problem with that but I personally don't.

Hmmm, well making a "moral" stand against a system generally comes across as being more effective and believable if you aren't getting a fat paycheque from said system..

The Muppet

Earthman wrote:

Thats certainly democracy allright The Muppet but, I think the original point was that the democratic majority in the UK decided to withdraw the funding.
That would be an overiding majority on behalf of the majority of UK tax payers.
They came to the opinion that the sanction needed to be done and we have to respect their opinion aswell or else there would be an inconsistency...

I see your point but I still think it's petty of the Uk Government to withdraw the funding from Sinn Fein for abstaining as Sinn Fein have been madated by their voters{uk citizens/tax payers} not to swear allegience to the crown and so have the right to abstain. Majority rule is the root of many of the problems they are trying to solve in the north so I feel it's unhelpful to the overall situation with little to gain by revoking sinn feins funding.

The Muppet

The Muppet wrote:

I see your point but I still think it's petty of the Uk Government to withdraw the funding from Sinn Fein for abstaining as Sinn Fein have been madated by their voters

They didnt withdraw it for them abstaining.
They withdrew it as their advice was that the "republican leaders" with whom they were negotiating were aware of the planning of the Northern Bank robbery

You'll find the background to how they formed that opinion here and specefically from page 14 onwards

Laredo

Earthman wrote:

They didnt withdraw it for them abstaining.
They withdrew it as their advice was that the "republican leaders" with whom they were negotiating were aware of the planning of the Northern Bank robbery

You'll find the background to how they formed that opinion here and specefically from page 14 onwards

In that case they were wrong, The only action that they should be allowed to take against SF over the Northern Bank affair is to prosecute them as accessories/conspirators. If they cannot provide enough evidence to prove these crimes then they should not be allowed take action against them. The same rules should apply to SF as to anyone else accused of a crime, Innocent until PROVEN guilty and all that.

Frankly the sidelining of such fundamental rights by a government is a much bigger deal to me than a bank robbery.

Cork

irish1 wrote:

Do you believe the majority of Nationalists who have voted for Sinn Fein would want them to swear an oath and take their seat??

Why do they maintain offices in Westminister then?

It is laughable these people stand for election and fail to participate in the forum that they are elected to.

But why has not claiming expenses from a parliament that makes them swear an oath come into the equation?


Devalara got anound the Oath. He also saw the merits of constitutional republicanism.

Cannot SF do the same??

ReefBreak

irish1 wrote:

Well IMO there entitled to the money because they have been elected, I can certianly understand why people have a problem with that but I personally don't.

Well, I think you're opinion is wrong. Can you imagine if you got selected for a job after an interview, but then decided not to bother taking the job, yet still demanded a salary? If I were an employer, I'd say "fúck you, you ignorant cretin". I'm not saying that the Northern Ireland secretary will say the same thing, but you never know....

A Dub in Glasgo

ReefBreak wrote:

Well, I think you're opinion is wrong. Can you imagine if you got selected for a job after an interview, but then decided not to bother taking the job, yet still demanded a salary?

You have it totally wrong. What if you told your interviewer that you had no intention of going to the office but will do all your work locally yet you would still like a salary

NIf I were an employer, I'd say "fúck you, you ignorant cretin".

Luckily you are not and luckily the vast majority of employers are not as rude as you.

I'm not saying that the Northern Ireland secretary will say the same thing, but you never know....

NI Secretary does not decide who gets the job, the people do and they have chosen.

ReefBreak

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You have it totally wrong. What if you told your interviewer that you had no intention of going to the office but will do all your work locally yet you would still like a salary

Guess what? The election was for a seat in the UK Parliament. Nothing more, nothing less. Do not kid yourself by pretending that Gerry Adams and his band of murderers, thieves, liars and terrorists were getting elected for anything else.

A Dub in Glasgo

ReefBreak wrote:

Guess what? The election was for a seat in the UK Parliament. Nothing more, nothing less. Do not kid yourself by pretending that Gerry Adams and his band of murderers, thieves, liars and terrorists were getting elected for anything else.

Yep and the people chose to elect people who are absentionist

The people were the interviewer and the people were the employer. It is not difficult.

Laredo

ReefBreak wrote:

Well, I think you're opinion is wrong. Can you imagine if you got selected for a job after an interview, but then decided not to bother taking the job, yet still demanded a salary? If I were an employer, I'd say "fúck you, you ignorant cretin". I'm not saying that the Northern Ireland secretary will say the same thing, but you never know....

The problem with your rather thick analogy is that SF's "employers" are the electorate who chose them KNOWING that the were not going to take up their seats. So they chose to employ the people who were not going to turn up.




Another point worth making is that sitting in the commons is only one part of an elected MP's job, and in the case of a tiny party sitting against a government with a large majority not a very fruitful part of the job either.

Like them and their actions or not, I don't think anyone could seriously say that SF representatives do not do a great deal of work in the areas they represent. This is a big part (or at least should be) of the job of elected representatives and one of the main reasons given by voters in the south that gave them a preference.

billy the squid

The UK voting system is seriously flawed. It only allows one representative per constituency.

The job of that representative is to speak for everyone in that constituency, not just the people who voted for them. I doubt very much that each of the sinn fein people who were elected received 100 percent of their constituency's vote. This means that the people who voted for other parties do not have any representation either.

They voted for other parties to represent them, but because sinn fein got elected to these seats, now they have no one to represent them in parlement.

Sinn fein MPs should take all their constituents into account, not just the ones that voted for them.

Laredo

Laredo wrote:

The problem with your rather thick analogy is that SF's "employers" are the electorate who chose them KNOWING that the were not going to take up their seats. So they chose to employ the people who were not going to turn up.

How can an anology be thick? only the person providing the analogy can be thick.
Two week ban for that.

Flukey

A lot of people elected don't sit very often in their seats. You very rarely see those chambers actually full. Often there is just a handful of people there. But there is a lot more than physically sitting in the seat, to being an elected representative. Most of the work done and things achieved for constituents by any elected person, is done outside of the particular chamber they are elected to. So the fact that SF don't physically sit in the House of Commons doesn't mean they don't actually do anything for their constituents.

Villain

ReefBreak wrote:

Well, I think you're opinion is wrong. Can you imagine if you got selected for a job after an interview, but then decided not to bother taking the job, yet still demanded a salary? If I were an employer, I'd say "fúck you, you ignorant cretin". I'm not saying that the Northern Ireland secretary will say the same thing, but you never know....

Well I think your opinion is just ignorant, these 5 Sinn Fein MP's have been elected by the people to represent the people. The people who voted for them knew they wouldn't be taking their seats in the chambers. Now Reefbreak if you think that the only thing elected MP's do is sit in the chamber you are seriously ignorant to the situation.

God knows if our TD's were only payed for the time they sit in the Dail they'd be on the breadlne.

Sinn Fein's MP's have been elected and will work hard for all the people of their constituency, imo they are entitled to their salary and expenses as much as an other MP.

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

Well I think your opinion is just ignorant.

If anyone else posted this about one of your threads you would be the first to report it. As I see this as a personal insult you can take a two week break from Politics for abuse.

Hydroquinone

I have a question
Do our TDs take a similar oath of allegiance to the flag/whatever symbol is equvalent (to the crown) before they sit in the Dail?

hawkmoon269

I personally wouldn't vote for Sinn Fein under almost any circumstances, but it is hardly "scandalous" that they refuse to take up their Westminister seats. Their policy of abstention is well known, their voters vote for them in the full knowledge that they will not take up their seats, and the policy is entirely consistent with their All Ireland objective.

And, in simple practical terms, where is the logic in going to attend a parliament hundreds of miles away and flying over and back on a weekly (or daily basis)?

It's about the only thing I agree with SF on now that I come to think of it!

monument

[in general] > sob, sob, sob, sob, sob - we don’t want SF in government…

[in this thread] > sob, sob, sob, sob, sob - SF won’t take their seats

[edited for clarification]

mycroft

monument wrote:

> sob, sob, sob, sob, sob - we don’t want SF in government…

> sob, sob, sob, sob, sob - SF won’t take their seats

Wow, as always thank you for the searing input, and insightful reasonings.

If you'd have read the thread you'd see a major issue isn't SF taking the seats, its them not taking the seats on a moral principle but happily taking the Queen's crown.

Reefbreak's analogy is flawed. If I refused to do a central part of the job I was hired to do, on moral principle, and made sure my future employers knew I wouldn't do all of my job because of same principle, but nevertheless I demanded full wages including expenses directly related to the carrying out of the duties I decline to do, then the analogy would work better.

monument

mycroft wrote:

Wow, as always thank you for the searing input, and insightful reasonings.

My insightful reasonings to SF bashers?

Sam Hain

Let's take a little ban holiday for insulting another poster - sceptre

mycroft

monument wrote:

My insightful reasonings to SF bashers?

And once again a vague insult aganist anyone who has an opinion that differs from your own. You do tend to avoid the thrust of a debate, and try to reduce things to their most basic level. Care to answer anything raised here, or just dismiss anything here that disagrees with your POV. You do seem to come from an Ann Coulter esque worldview, or at least argumentive style.

And Sam, I hope you've enjoyed your brief few moments on the politics forum.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

Wow, as always thank you for the searing input, and insightful reasonings.

If you'd have read the thread you'd see a major issue isn't SF taking the seats, its them not taking the seats on a moral principle but happily taking the Queen's crown.

Surely that is your major issue. The thread starter is quite clear in that he thinks it is scandalous that SF should get elected and not go to London. He is worried about the 'disenfranchised' of the areas where SF have MPs.

monument

mycroft wrote:

And once again a vague insult aganist anyone who has an opinion that differs from your own.

I don’t think the act of SF bashing is vague at all…

mycroft wrote:

You do tend to avoid the thrust of a debate, and try to reduce things to their most basic level.

Oh, sorry, is it possible I have in anyway lowered anyone's ‘debating’ to bashing at any available chance they think they can get away with?

mycroft wrote:

Care to answer anything raised here,

Sure... even if I already have...

mycroft wrote:

If you'd have read the thread you'd see a major issue isn't SF taking the seats, its them not taking the seats on a moral principle but happily taking the Queen's crown.

That would be nice and all, but the people posing the 'major issue', are the same people who have a major issue with SF being in government. And it looks as if the only people who have a problem with SF taking the ‘Queen's’ money are same people who have a major issue with SF being in government.

I'm sure, or - at least - I hope, one or two people got that point from my first post.

In fairness mycroft, they are being paid to do a job and Westminister is only part of it, they go there, they use their offices but do not go into the chamber due to not taking the oath, but they do do a lot of work.
I dont see the issue with them being paid for what they do by someone they dont like.
Lots of people work for people they dont like