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 ?
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.
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.
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » In reality, they are not interfering in the running of other jurisdictions/countries.
oscarBravo wrote: » In a Sinn Féin slavish disciple's reality, maybe. It really is impossible to argue against religious zealotry.
FrancieBrady wrote: » ...my belief that interfering in how people get elected to parliament is not actually interfering in the running of parliament itself?
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..
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.
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!
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
charlie14 wrote: » That is how democracy works. It represents the wishes of the majority.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Those parliamentary elections take place in and effect the disputed territory, not in Scotland, Wales and England etc.
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.
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?
oscarBravo wrote: » We've seen how well that definition of democracy has worked in Northern Ireland throughout the 20th century.
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That has been the way since partition. Again, here is the 'gospel' in the words of SF themselves:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
blanch152 wrote: the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein in running for election and denying representation to those who want it.
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.
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
