nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

jimd2

Probably not a popular opinion as most I speak to are fully in favour of Sinn Fein's strategy ref the Irish Language Act in the North.

However I think that they have possibly scored a major own goal in insisting on the imposing of the Irish Language Act. I think they have handed the DUP a Get Out Of Jail ard with regards to Devoltion and, allied to not taking their Westminister seats have allowed the sitution develop where the British government will not act to impose their will on the DUP.

So the DUP seem to be getting what they wanted - a return to direct rule from London and, linked in to Brexit this must be against the overall nationalist.

Regarding the Irish Language Act, in my opinion a lot of the stuff s bells and whistles such as signage and will do very little to really increase the use of Irish in the North. I think Sinn Fein thought they were in a stronger position than they were and thought this would be easier to get than it was.

However I hink the price they look to be payin is too much but they have gone too far and cannot back down now especially with a new leader. So major wn goal from Adams and co..

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Good loser

The failure of the Brexit project is currently a matter of the greatest importance to the Irish people north and south.

Sinn Fein should be doing everything in it's power to ensure it's failure. The obvious first step now is to attend at Westminster.

If it comes to naught nobody can gainsay that they did their best.

It's time to put the national interest before party interest.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

The failure of the Brexit project is currently a matter of the greatest importance to the Irish people north and south.

Sinn Fein should be doing everything in it's power to ensure it's failure. The obvious first step now is to attend at Westminster.

If it comes to naught nobody can gainsay that they did their best.

It's time to put the national interest before party interest.

Every time this post comes up I do not know if it is a problem with mathematics, or some wish to see SF swear allegiance to the British crown.

Good loser

charlie14 wrote: »

Every time this post comes up I do not know if it is a problem with mathematics, or some wish to see SF swear allegiance to the British crown.

What an absurdly trivial outdated expression.

Resonances of the GAA 'ban on foreign games'.

Sinn Fein have to abandon this party before country attitude.

Professor Moriarty

Good loser wrote: »

charlie14 wrote: »

Every time this post comes up I do not know if it is a problem with mathematics, or some wish to see SF swear allegiance to the British crown.

What an absurdly trivial outdated expression.

Resonances of the GAA 'ban on foreign games'.

Sinn Fein have to abandon this party before country attitude.

“I … swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to Law. So help me God."

You expect a Sinn Féin MP to say these words? Seriously?

FrancieBrady

Good loser wrote: »

Sinn Fein have to abandon this party before country attitude.

Ha ha, this is priceless.

Maybe Sammy Wilson is right, FG are being wagged by the SF tail.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

charlie14 wrote: »

Every time this post comes up I do not know if it is a problem with mathematics, or some wish to see SF swear allegiance to the British crown.

What an absurdly trivial outdated expression.

Resonances of the GAA 'ban on foreign games'.

Sinn Fein have to abandon this party before country attitude.

I could not agree more.

In this day and age expecting democratically elected representatives to swear allegiance to a hereditary monarch is totally outdated.

The GAA got rid of Rule 27, so do you believe the British should do the same with their trivial outdated allegiance oath.?

charlie14

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Good loser wrote: »

Ha ha, this is priceless.

Maybe Sammy Wilson is right, FG are being wagged by the SF tail.

What are you trying to do to me Francie.:eek:

That reads as if I posted it, not Good Loser

FrancieBrady

charlie14 wrote: »

What are you trying to do to me Francie.:eek:

That reads as if I posted it, not Good Loser

oops, Fixed.

charlie14

FrancieBrady wrote: »

oops, Fixed.

No bother

FrancieBrady

charlie14 wrote: »

No bother

You fix yours now!

recedite

[QUOTE=Professor Moriarty

“I … swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to Law. So help me God."

You expect a Sinn F MP to say these words? Seriously?

It is a bit archaic, but you have to consider that historically the monarch personally represented "the crown", which simply means "the state".
Most countries would have some form of oath of allegiance to "the state".

Anyone wanting to become an Irish citizen is required to recite this oath of allegiance...

"I (name) having applied to the Minister for Justice and Equality for a certificate of naturalisation, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the State.
I undertake to faithfully observe the laws of the State and to respect its democratic values."

AFAIK SF do not, or did not, recognise the 26 county state. Is that still the case? Would they be happy nowadays to swear allegiance to it?

Obviously, if you are born in Ireland, you can neatly bypass the oath, so the Irish oath is a moot point for any SF member.

We should introduce an oath for all TDs wanting to enter the Dail; allegiance to the state, and no support for criminal activity.

charlie14

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You fix yours now!

Took me a while to get that.

Seems the problem started further down the line than you.:)

A classic case of that old army misunderstanding caused by passing word up the line.

What started out "Send reinforcement. We are going to advance" reaching the end of the line had become "Send three and four pence. We are going to a dance"

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

[QUOTE=Professor Moriarty
It is a bit archaic, but you have to consider that historically the monarch personally represented "the crown", which simply means "the state".
Most countries would have some form of oath of allegiance to "the state".

Now you are just waffling.

There is no mention of "the state" in the British Oath of Allegiance.

I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God.

Nor is it that particularly archaic.
The form and manner of administrating it are set out in the Oaths Act 1978.

So tell me why you believe SF who stood on a platform of never taking that oath, were democratically elected on that mandate, should swear allegiance to a hereditary monarchy and what you feel they could achieve with their numbers that the Scottish Nationalists haven`t been able to achieve with their 35 seats at Westminster ?

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

There is no mention of "the state" in the British Oath of Allegiance.

I know. But I'm saying that in effect, the monarch represents "the crown" = the state.
If they were asked to, would SF members be willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the 26 county state?

(This quotes thing has gone mad altogether)

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

charlie14 wrote: »

I know. But I'm saying that in effect, the monarch represents "the crown" = the state.
If they were asked to, would SF members be willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the 26 county state?

(This quotes thing has gone mad altogether)

It does not, and there is not.

The oath of allegiance is to the Crown. There is no mention of "the state".

There is no Irish oath of allegiance.
The Irish Free State`s 1922 Constitution had one (Article 17) and we know where that led.

Now..... do you want to explain what SF would achieve by taking an oath to a monarch after being democratically mandated not to do so in order to take seats, that the Scottish National Party with 5 times their number have not been able to achieve ?

This quote thing has really gone gaga.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

It does not, and there is not.

The oath of allegiance is to the Crown. There is no mention of "the state".

There is no Irish oath of allegiance.
The Irish Free State`s 1922 Constitution had one (Article 17) and we know where that led.

Now..... do you want to explain what SF would achieve by taking an oath to a monarch after being democratically mandated not to do so in order to take seats, that the Scottish National Party with 5 times their number have not been able to achieve ?

This quote thing has really gone gaga.

The Crown is the Head of State, therefore the oath is to the State.

It is a form of words, that is all.

It all comes down to whether a politician is prepared to put the interests of the country and the whole community ahead of his own political statements.

FrancieBrady

charlie14 wrote: »

It does not, and there is not.

The oath of allegiance is to the Crown. There is no mention of "the state".

There is no Irish oath of allegiance.
The Irish Free State`s 1922 Constitution had one (Article 17) and we know where that led.

Now..... do you want to explain what SF would achieve by taking an oath to a monarch after being democratically mandated not to do so in order to take seats, that the Scottish National Party with 5 times their number have not been able to achieve ?

This quote thing has really gone gaga.

It is wrong to hinge 'abstentionism' on just a reluctance to take an oath to a foreign monarch.
It is about more than that - simply put, SF will not interfere in another country's parliament.
That is the principle of it and a difficult one to end. We know who would be first on here shouting turncoats, flip floppers etc etc etc.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

The Crown is the Head of State, therefore the oath is to the State.

It is a form of words, that is all.

It all comes down to whether a politician is prepared to put the interests of the country and the whole community ahead of his own political statements.

Have you actually read that oath of allegiance ?
The oath is to a hereditary monarch.

SF`s position is not based on a "political statement"
It is based on the mandate they were given by the electorate in a democratic election.

Should you not really be getting on too the DUP as to who exactly is prepared to put the interests of the country and the whole community ahead of there political statements and position on Brexit.
In the Brexit referendum Northern Ireland voted 56% to 44% to remain.
Are they not the party that by propping up May`s government are acting against the wishes of the majority of their electorate ?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

The Crown is the Head of State, therefore the oath is to the State.

It is a form of words, that is all.

It all comes down to whether a politician is prepared to put the interests of the country and the whole community ahead of his own political statements.

Blanch, no offence. If you're not trying to rewrite history you're rewriting what oaths mean.

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Blanch, no offence. If you're not trying to rewrite history you're rewriting what oaths mean.

blanch's default position always seems to be - do what the Unionists want to do, because that is the national interest'.

Curious in the extreme.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is wrong to hinge 'abstentionism' on just a reluctance to take an oath to a foreign monarch.
It is about more than that - simply put, SF will not interfere in another country's parliament.

But they are interfering in that country's parliament. They are denying parliamentary representation to the people who voted for other candidates in their constituencies.

If I wanted to avoid interfering in Denmark's folketing, my first step would be not standing for election in Denmark.

There may well be more to the principle of abstentionism than a reluctance to take the oath, but your explanation makes no sense.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

But they are interfering in that country's parliament. They are denying parliamentary representation to the people who voted for other candidates in their constituencies.

If I wanted to avoid interfering in Denmark's folketing, my first step would be not standing for election in Denmark.

There may well be more to the principle of abstentionism than a reluctance to take the oath, but your explanation makes no sense.

Maybe consider the difference between 'abstentionism' and 'abdication'.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe consider the difference between 'abstentionism' and 'abdication'.

While pithy, that doesn't address the actual point I made.

If you don't want to interfere in a country's parliament, don't stand for election to it. If you're standing for election to a parliament - whether or not you intend to take your seat - you can't truthfully claim not to want to interfere.

recedite

I see nobody wants to answer the question as to whether SF would be willing swear an oath of allegiance to the 26 county state.

It just makes their unwillingness to swear an oath to the UK parliament that little bit less principled if they have never accepted the legitimacy/sovereignty of the Irish govt. in the 26 counties either.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

While pithy, that doesn't address the actual point I made.

If you don't want to interfere in a country's parliament, don't stand for election to it. If you're standing for election to a parliament - whether or not you intend to take your seat - you can't truthfully claim not to want to interfere.

Abstentionism has bound up in it a 'protest'.

What you are talking about is the abdication of having any influence or any signifier of the fact that a 'protest' is being made by the people SF get their vote from.

We can pretend these people don't exist, but that is impossible when they elect MP's.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Abstentionism has bound up in it a 'protest'.

What you are talking about is the abdication of having any influence or any signifier of the fact that a 'protest' is being made by the people SF get their vote from.

We can pretend these people don't exist, but that is impossible when they elect MP's.

No, what I'm talking about is your claim that the purpose of abstention is to avoid interference in parliament. You can keep trying to steer the conversation away from that self-evidently false claim, but that won't magically make it true.

I understand the reasons for abstentionism. I disagree with them, but I understand them. I'm not discussing the merits of abstentionism; I'm pointing out that your explanation for abstentionism is untrue, and the fact that you've been unable to defend it shows that you know it's untrue.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, what I'm talking about is your claim that the purpose of abstention is to avoid interference in parliament. You can keep trying to steer the conversation away from that self-evidently false claim, but that won't magically make it true.

I understand the reasons for abstentionism. I disagree with them, but I understand them. I'm not discussing the merits of abstentionism; I'm pointing out that your explanation for abstentionism is untrue, and the fact that you've been unable to defend it shows that you know it's untrue.

I am neither defending or supporting it either. I am just repeating what SF themselves say about it.

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

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/26915

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

But they are interfering in that country's parliament. They are denying parliamentary representation to the people who voted for other candidates in their constituencies.

If I wanted to avoid interfering in Denmark's folketing, my first step would be not standing for election in Denmark.

There may well be more to the principle of abstentionism than a reluctance to take the oath, but your explanation makes no sense.

That sounds like a proposal to put the cart before the horse.
Parties or individuals win seat in an election because people vote for their policies.

In constituencies where SF win seats on a mandate of abstentionism then there are a majority (or under proportional representation a representative number) of the electorate in those constituencies that support that position.
Are you advocating that, especially in constituencies where the majority favour abstentionism, voters should either abstain from voting or spoil their vote because they feel nobody is representing their wishes and have someone elected to represent them that is contrary to their wishes ?

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

I see nobody wants to answer the question as to whether SF would be willing swear an oath of allegiance to the 26 county state.

It just makes their unwillingness to swear an oath to the UK parliament that little bit less principled if they have never accepted the legitimacy/sovereignty of the Irish govt. in the 26 counties either.

Have you missed the point that their is no vote of allegiance in the Republic.
Article 17 was removed from the constitution in 1933 with no government since proposing a constitutional amendment to replace.

Can you seriously see any government proposing one (or indeed having a hope of winning support for such a proposal) on the basis that we should have such an oath for no reason other than we want SF to take one in a Republic because SF will not give one to a British monarch.

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

Have you missed the point that their is no vote of allegiance in the Republic.

As I pointed out, there is one for new (immigrant) citizens, but not one for people born here, or people elected to the Dail.

Can you seriously see any government proposing one (or indeed having a hope of winning support for such a proposal) on the basis that we should have such an oath for no reason other than we want SF to take one in a Republic because SF will not give one to a British monarch.

We had a situation once where SF were not allowed to speak on the national broadcaster RTE. I'm not saying that was fair, but I think an oath of allegiance to the state for anyone wanting to be elected to the state parliament is fair and reasonable.
And implementable.