Sinn Fein, abstensionist policy, what's their logic?

Bottle_of_Smoke

So Sinn Fein are taking part in Stormont and have run people in the republic since the eighties.

Surely this is recognising partition/British rule to the same extent as sitting in Westminister. If they had people there they could probably further the nationalist cause more effectively too.

IS it just the oath of allegience to the queen? If that was changed to allegience to the UK would they consider sitting in Westminister?

ardmaj

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So Sinn Fein are taking part in Stormont and have run people in the republic since the eighties.

Surely this is recognising partition/British rule to the same extent as sitting in Westminister. If they had people there they could probably further the nationalist cause more effectively too.

IS it just the oath of allegience to the queen? If that was changed to allegience to the UK would they consider sitting in Westminister?

I agree with that, BOS. I expect that, assuming they become the biggest party after assembly elections [due to collapse in DUP vote and three way Unionist split] which SF will manoeuvre to get brought forward in a few days, SF will take seats at westminster. As you pointed out, their present position on that isn't fooling anyone. The nationalist seats at westminster could be level pegging with Unionists at 9-9. So the next weeks could see the DUP back to second place in unionism. and it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

CokaColumbo

I don't see how sitting in Westminster will further the Nationalist cause. Please enlighten me.
Surely, Sinn Fein MPs would be doing more for the people by remaining in Ireland and doing practical constituency work etc.?

dlofnep

Why should they swear an oath to the Queen? Stormont is a temporary compromise.

Fratton Fred

I don't think MPs have to swear allegiance to the queen anymore.

SF have offices in Westminster and take full advantage of the generous allowances MPs get so I don't see what sitting in Westminster would change. TBH though, the only people they are failing are the people who vote for them and if they are happy then good lcuk to them. I for one don't want to see Gerry Adams sitting in Parliament.

Is it right that their TDs are told which way to vote by the party's ruling council? If so, how do people feel about TD voting in Dail debates but being told which way to vote by people who are potentially not even affected by the vote due to them living outside of the RoI?

Bigdeadlydave

I dont see how SF sitting in Westminster could further the nationalist cause....

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't think MPs have to swear allegiance to the queen anymore.

I believe they do.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is it right that their TDs are told which way to vote by the party's ruling council? If so, how do people feel about TD voting in Dail debates but being told which way to vote by people who are potentially not even affected by the vote due to them living outside of the RoI?

All parties have a policy line with which their representitives tow.

T runner

Fratton Fred wrote: »

SF have offices in Westminster and take full advantage of the generous allowances MPs get so I don't see what sitting in Westminster would change.

Sitting in Westminister means that they are participating in the Parliament of the UK. They may argue that they have a duty to their constituents to have offices in London and expenses for official meetings there (as other parties do this). Dont think their constituents have much choice in the abstentionism (decisions are completely top down) although I would suspect there is support for it.
They may have to take their seats though if policing etc is delivered
Or if balances of power are held by small parties after the UK election.

Is it right that their TDs are told which way to vote by the party's ruling council?

Its up to them whether they have an all Ireland party or 2 seperate parties.
They may go for the latter in futur: they have accepted British involvement in NI and Gerry Adams dismal out of touch electoral campaign here, shows that a detailed knowledge of issues in the republic (particularly economic ones) is needed for the electorate to embrace a party here.

If so, how do people feel about TD voting in Dail debates but being told which way to vote by people who are potentially not even affected by the vote due to them living outside of the RoI?

The ruling council would be Irish citizens so technically they are affected by decisions made in the Dail.

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

Stormont is a temporary compromise.

before what?

Bigdeadlydave

ei.sdraob wrote: »

before what?

Pfff what you think? A united Ireland of course. I assume SF think that if they show that stormount can work the general public would be more open to the idea.

Mr.Micro

Lets not knock it as the Stormont set up is a hell of a lot better than the violence and murder that preceded it.

ei.sdraob

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

A united Ireland of course

i see ....


anyways
just out of interest

theoretically if we were "reunited" (theoretically, putting aside a lot of arguments for moment)

2007: 143,410 out of 2,085,245 on South ( 6.8%)

2005: 174,530 out 717,502 in North(24.32%)

thats ~318000 out ~2802000 (11.34% +/- few %) people in 32 counties who would likely to vote for SF

phew nothing to worry about so, unite away

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

before what?

Irish unification, obviously.

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

Irish unification, obviously.

considering that Ireland and UK are both members of European Union with free travel of goods, trade and people and full democratic rights for all

i find this nationalistic quest for reunification rather amusing

surely we have bigger issues (on both sides of the current border) to worry about and spend energy on

anyways since Sinn Fein would still remain an insignificant party in a united Ireland as per calculations earlier, unite away

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i see ....


anyways
just out of interest

theoretically if we were "reunited" (theoretically, putting aside a lot of arguments for moment)

2007: 143,410 out of 2,085,245 on South ( 6.8%)

2005: 174,530 out 717,502 in North(24.32%)

thats ~318000 out ~2802000 (11.34% +/- few %) people in 32 counties who would likely to vote for SF

phew nothing to worry about so, unite away

SF aren't the only party in Ireland that wishes to see Irish unfication.

Fianna Fáil's constitution states: "To secure in peace and agreement the unity of Ireland and its people."

Fine Gael have also claimed that Irish Unity is enshrined in their constitution.

You seem to be under the impression that only voters for SF wish to seek unification via the peace process.

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

SF aren't the only party in Ireland that wishes to see Irish unfication.

Fianna Fáil's constitution states: "To secure in peace and agreement the unity of Ireland and its people."

Fine Gael have also claimed that Irish Unity is enshrined in their constitution.

You seem to be under the impression that only voters for SF wish to seek unification via the peace process.

i dont care who seeks reunification

as long as it doesnt mean SF can get into power

and i hope these other parties get their priorities straight and get this country in order first before tagging along more counties! especially considering one of these parties you mentioned is responsible for the mess

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

considering that Ireland and UK are both members of European Union with free travel of goods, trade and people and full democratic rights for all

Membership of the EU doesn't mean anything. The EU doesn't make national law on a number of levels.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i find this nationalistic quest for reunification rather amusing

I'm sure you find the wishes of the majority of this Island and Britain to be amusing.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/02/story13121.asp

If you're interested in figures of public opinion in Britain, I can present you with statistical data over a 20 year polling survey, which demonstrated 2:1 support for Irish Unity in Britain.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

surely we have bigger issues (on both sides of the current border) to worry about and spend energy on

Doesn't negate the desire for Irish unification.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

anyways since Sinn Fein would still remain an insignificant party in a united Ireland as per calculations earlier, unite away

Sinn Féin is hardly insignicant. They are the largest nationalist party in the north, and soon to become the largest party in the north. Irish Unification will most certainly involve SF.

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i dont care who seeks reunification

as long as it doesnt mean SF can get into power

That's your democratic right. You're entitled to vote for who you want to vote for.

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

That's your democratic right. You're entitled to vote for who you want to vote for.

of course
and i will vote when time comes


by hanging around like a bad smell SF are not helping this unification "cause"

CokaColumbo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i see ....


anyways
just out of interest

theoretically if we were "reunited" (theoretically, putting aside a lot of arguments for moment)

2007: 143,410 out of 2,085,245 on South ( 6.8%)

2005: 174,530 out 717,502 in North(24.32%)

thats ~318000 out ~2802000 (11.34% +/- few %) people in 32 counties who would likely to vote for SF

phew nothing to worry about so, unite away

In doesn't take a genius to realise that you don't have to vote Sinn Fein if you are in favour of Irish unity. If you take the result of the SDLP, a fundamentally nationalist party in that election result, the total percentage of people who would likely favour unity is 44.5%. Also, a political lecturer in UCD stated that Catholics (albeit not nationalists) make up a majority of those people aged 20 and under. Unity is not a pipe dream; it is very possible indeed.

Either way, election results aren't always representative of the political demographic. In the next election, the unionist vote is likely to be quite fragmented in which case Sinn Fein will become the largest party in the north of Ireland. But that doesn't mean reunification is any more likely does it?

Joey the lips

Its simple. They dont reconise the british parlament or govt occupation of ireland. They are in stormont because its a means to an end if they did not think this they would not be here.

It might be argued that what they are doing is simular to sunningdale that may be so but honestly whats the point in trying to develop a discussion when the thread seems to be more critical of the fears of them ending up in govt than what they are trying to achieve

rovert

dlofnep wrote: »

Irish unification, obviously.

Bottle_of_Smoke

To people who asked about Sinn Fein furthering the nationalist cause by having MPsy

The good friday agreement leading to a UI requires the UK to agree to a referendum on it. For them to do this it may help that Sinn Fein members had more influence in Westminister. It may lead to Britain paying more attention to the amount of people who want a UI in the six counties. It may lead to British people taking Sinn Fein more seriously.

If there were no benefits why do the seven SNP MPs bother showing up at Westminister?

Now, I don't believe the good friday agreement will bring about a UI, but Sinn Fein claim to.

ei.sdraob

CokaColumbo wrote: »

In doesn't take a genius to realise that you don't have to vote Sinn Fein if you are in favour of Irish unity. If you take the result of the SDLP, a fundamentally nationalist party, the total percentage of people who would probably favour unity is 44.5%. Also, a political lecturer in UCD stated that Catholics (albeit not nationalists) make up a majority of those people aged 20 and under. Unity is not a pipe dream; it is very possible indeed.

Either way, election results aren't always representative of the political demographic. In the next election, the unionist vote is likely to be quite fragmented in which case Sinn Fein will become the largest party in the north of Ireland. But that doesn't mean reunification is any more likely does it?

of course i was just doing numbers with available numbers, i sort of unable to retrieve statistics from the future yet

as for unification, if people want to unite (or if cork wants to become a republic ) then all well and good

lets not forget there are much bigger issues to deal in both geographic "areas" at the moment, and imho this whole unification business is overrated

CokaColumbo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

of course i was just doing numbers with available numbers, i sort of unable to retrieve statistics from the future yet

as for unification, if people want to unite (or if cork wants to become a republic ) then all well and good

lets not forget there are much bigger issues to deal in both geographic "areas" at the moment, and imho this whole unification business is overrated

Nobody's talking about seeing into the future. You should deal with present figures accurately that's all.

Just because there are more immediately pressing issues facing this nation, it doesn't mean that we cannot reflect on the subject of unity. By merely talking it over and establishing an opinion on it, we are not automatically neglecting everything else.

And yes, I think everybody understands your lack of enthusiasm towards the issue.

T runner

ei.sdraob wrote: »

considering that Ireland and UK are both members of European Union with free travel of goods, trade and people and full democratic rights for all

i find this nationalistic quest for reunification rather amusing

surely we have bigger issues (on both sides of the current border) to worry about and spend energy on

anyways since Sinn Fein would still remain an insignificant party in a united Ireland as per calculations earlier, unite away

The variance of prices between both side of the border is a massive issue for governments and citizens (tax returns-cuts-job losses) of the republic. NI is getting billions from London and also hugely dependent on the republic. Having two juristinctions on such a small Island is crazy and was only ever meant to be temporary.
The European influence will clearly clear some economic boundaries but this will only make the case for future unification stronger.

lugha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

To people who asked about Sinn Fein furthering the nationalist cause by having MPsy

The good friday agreement leading to a UI requires the UK to agree to a referendum on it. For them to do this it may help that Sinn Fein members had more influence in Westminister. It may lead to Britain paying more attention to the amount of people who want a UI in the six counties. It may lead to British people taking Sinn Fein more seriously.

I don't think you would have any great difficulty in getting the British to agree to a United Ireland. I am sure they could find better things to do with the billions they pump in to the NI exchequer each year. And I never bought the line that NI is their last bastion of imperialism or a useful training ground for their army. I think they would be gone in a shot if they could. As Paddy Mayhew once said, there's nought there for them (he put it more elequently )

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and imho this whole unification business is overrated

Not with half a billion in trade moving northward, and businesses closing down all across the border because of the consequences of two economies on such a small island.

Moreover, the policing is still heavily embedded with old elements of the RUC which consistently harass nationalists. There needs to be a fairer policing system.

Cultural freedom is not protected either. That was very evident when staff members were told to remove an Easter Lilly, but yet others could keep a Poppy. There are also Irish language rights implications.

Partition is overrated.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

I don't think you would have any great difficulty in getting the British to agree to a United Ireland. I am sure they could find better things to do with the billions they pump in to the NI exchequer each year. And I never bought the line that NI is their last bastion of imperialism or a useful training ground for their army. I think they would be gone in a shot if they could. As Paddy Mayhew once said, there's nought there for them (he put it more elequently )

You're correct. Britain does not want the north.

http://www.britsocat.com/Body.aspx?control=Registration&ReturnUrl=%2fBodySecure.aspx%3fcontrol%3dBritsocatMarginals%26var%3dNIRELAND%26SurveyID%3d221&control=BritsocatMarginals&var=NIRELAND&SurveyID=221

Check for yourself (you'll need to create a login).

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

Not with half a billion in trade moving northward, and businesses closing down all across the border because of the consequences of two economies on such a small island.

Moreover, the policing is still heavily embedded with old elements of the RUC which consistently harass nationalists. There needs to be a fairer policing system.

Cultural freedom is not protected either. That was very evident when staff members were told to remove an Easter Lilly, but yet others could keep a Poppy. There are also Irish language rights implications.

Partition is overrated.

good points

in that case whats stopping a vote on unification being called in both countries?

lugha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

good points

in that case whats stopping a vote on unification being called in both countries?

There would have to be separate referendums in NI and the republic and it wouldn't yet pass in NI.

CokaColumbo

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

To people who asked about Sinn Fein furthering the nationalist cause by having MPsy

The good friday agreement leading to a UI requires the UK to agree to a referendum on it. For them to do this it may help that Sinn Fein members had more influence in Westminister. It may lead to Britain paying more attention to the amount of people who want a UI in the six counties. It may lead to British people taking Sinn Fein more seriously.

If there were no benefits why do the seven SNP MPs bother showing up at Westminister?

Now, I don't believe the good friday agreement will bring about a UI, but Sinn Fein claim to.

Your reasons for favouring Sinn Fein's involvement in Westminster lack any real substance. The fact of the matter is that there is no solid benefit for SF MPs to travel to England.
By remaining in Ireland, SF MPs can make much more of an impact in terms of working for their local constituents, and making a clear, tangible contribution to the political landscape of the six counties, and those who live within its borders.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ei.sdraob wrote: »

good points

in that case whats stopping a vote on unification being called in both countries?

Its also in the gfa that only northern ireland can decide to leave, not the entire uk. Northern Ireland majority would vote no for a variety of reasons.


- Catholic background people who feel healthcare is more important
-Catholic background people who may lose their businesses(this side of the border region businesses aren't shutting down)
-Catholic background people who may lose their jobs- no more British government paying massive civil service
-Pretty much all people from a protestant background for heritage and all of the above reasons
-People from both sides fearing a return to conflict

ei.sdraob

lugha wrote: »

There would have to be separate referendums in NI and the republic and it wouldn't yet pass in NI.

i understand

but we have a poster earlier claiming that SF are now )or will be) a majority there

a better question

what if 2 referendums/votes occur and the whole thing fails, what then?

Bottle_of_Smoke

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Your reasons for favouring Sinn Fein's involvement in Westminster lack any real substance. The fact of the matter is that there is no solid benefit for SF MPs to travel to England.
By remaining in Ireland, SF MPs can make much more of an impact in terms of working for their local constituents, and making a clear, tangible contribution to the political landscape of the six counties, and those who live within its borders.

Why do MPs from other parties and all the other countries in the UK do it then?

Don't Sinn Fein have MLAs/Councillors for that kind of thing?

lugha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i understand

but we have a poster earlier claiming that SF are now )or will be) a majority there

a better question

what if 2 referendums/votes occur and the whole thing fails, what then?

Sinn Fein are likely soon to be the biggest party but they still won't have anything close to an over all majority. Even with the SDLP the won't. And it's widely accepted that many people in the Nationalist camp, when push comes to shove, will opt for the status quo.
What happens if it fails? It will be held again automatically after 7 years and again after another 7 and so on. Still cannot believe the Unionist agreed to that, It all but guarantees a UI.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i understand

but we have a poster earlier claiming that SF are now )or will be) a majority there

That's solely down to there being more major unionist parties splitting the vote.

a better question

what if 2 referendums/votes occur and the whole thing fails, what then?

current system continues

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

good points

in that case whats stopping a vote on unification being called in both countries?

I would imagine waiting for the peace process to ferment for some time to stabilise the process. SF are also obviously waiting to become the largest party in the north and for nationalists to become the majority - which is progressing at a rapid pace. Once that is set in stone, a referendum will be called and it will pass.

It should be noted that in 1982, SF only had 10% of the vote in the north - they now command over 26% (which is expected to rise yet again). Infact, the combined nationalist votes from SF and the SDLP in 1982 was just shy of 29% - the total today is around 41.5%. It is growing, and the latest European elections demonstrate that even further when SF scored the highest first preference votes out of any party with a total nationalist vote of 42.2%.

ei.sdraob

lugha wrote: »

Sinn Fein are likely soon to be the biggest party but they still won't have anything close to an over all majority. Even with the SDLP the won't. And it's widely accepted that many people in the Nationalist camp, when push comes to shove, will opt for the status quo.
What happens if it fails? It will be held again automatically after 7 years and again after another 7 and so on. Still cannot believe the Unionist agreed to that, It all but guarantees a UI.

thanks for clarification

my main worry is SF (and their buddies of old) throwing a tantrum in case of a NO and returning to their "roots"

dlofnep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's solely down to there being more major unionist parties splitting the vote.

Not entirely. SF's total vote % has increased in every election since 1982. They are increasing nationalist weight, while unionist weight is decreasing. The splitting of votes hurt the DUP in the European elections, but the unionist vote is still declining.

1982: 10.1%
1996: 15.47%
1998: 16.7%
2003: 23.5%
2007: 26.2%

Bottle_of_Smoke

dlofnep wrote: »

Why should they swear an oath to the Queen? Stormont is a temporary compromise.

Doesn't matter really. Its still recognising the six counties status as part of the UK as legitimate. Therefore if it was an oath to the state rather than the monarch do you think they should abandon abstentionism to further the cause and give their electorate a voice in parlaiment?

dlofnep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thanks for clarification

my main worry is SF (and their buddies of old) throwing a tantrum in case of a NO and returning to their "roots"

Look - SF are committed to the peace process. Anyone who wasn't committed to it, left the party a long time ago. SF will continue to press for Irish Unity, but at the same time - try to ensure that peace is kept.

dlofnep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Doesn't matter really. Its still recognising the six counties status as part of the UK as legitimate.

They have accepted the current status quo as part of the Good Friday Agreement but not that British rule in Ireland is legitimate.

It doesn't recognise anything other than that it's a temporary process with which is intended to eventually bring about Irish unification in a peaceful manner.

lugha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Doesn't matter really. Its still recognising the six counties status as part of the UK as legitimate. Therefore if it was an oath to the state rather than the monarch do you think they should abandon abstentionism to further the cause and give their electorate a voice in parlaiment?

The line that SF talking their seats in Westminister would imply that they accept Britain as legitimate rulers of NI doesn't really stack up. By backing the Good Friday agreement, which SF did, they acknowledge that they (currently) are.

Bottle_of_Smoke

dlofnep wrote: »

Not entirely. SF's total vote % has increased in every election since 1982. They are increasing nationalist weight, while unionist weight is decreasing. The splitting of votes hurt the DUP in the European elections, but the unionist vote is still declining.

1982: 10.1%
1996: 15.47%
1998: 16.7%
2003: 23.5%
2007: 26.2%

From 1996 onward would those increases in figures be somewhat numerically similar to the decrease in SDLP's share of the vote?

I do however wonder about what effect the foreign immigration of the boom years might have. I'd love to know the figures for how many of them are still here and having families. Given many of these countries are Catholic and racism is more associated with loyalists I'd imagine most would have settled in predominately Catholic places. May mean their kids more likely to be nationalist voters in the future.

dlofnep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

From 1996 onward would those increases in figures be somewhat numerically similar to the decrease in SDLP's share of the vote?

I do however wonder about what effect the foreign immigration of the boom years might have. I'd love to know the figures for how many of them are still here and having families. Given many of these countries are Catholic and racism is more associated with loyalists I'd imagine most would have settled in predominately Catholic places. May mean their kids more likely to be nationalist voters in the future.

I spoke to a few polish lads in Belfast and they voted for SF, so I think you might be right.

RE: SDLP vote's reducing versus SF's votes rising - Yes this is true, but the overall weight of nationalist voting is increasing also.

Total Nationalist Weight per year.

1996: 36.83%
1998: 39.64%
2003: 40.50%
2007: 41.80%
2009: 42.20%

When you compare that to the 29% that nationalists held in 1982 - you can see that the voting weight is clearly increasing with every election.

imme

dlofnep wrote: »

It is growing, and the latest European elections demonstrate that even further when SF scored the highest first preference votes out of any party with a total nationalist vote of 42.2%.

the unionist vote was split 3 ways, DUP, UUP, TUV as someone else has said, might explain how SF was the largest vote getter in NI in terms of 1st prefs. Their 2009 EU result as actually down on the 2004 results. 26.31% in '04, 25.8% in '09.

imme

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes this is true, but the overall weight of nationalist voting is increasing also.


When you compare that to the 29% that nationalists held in 1982 - you can see that the voting weight is clearly increasing with every election.

I never heard the term 'weight of votes'/'voting weight', are you simply trying to say that more people are voting for nationalist parties or that more nationalists are voting.

dlofnep

imme wrote: »

I never heard the term 'weight of votes'/'voting weight', are you simply trying to say that more people are voting for nationalist parties or that more nationalists are voting.

Weight indicating the power that the said group represents.

Both more people are voting for nationalist parties, and more nationalists are voting. In either case since 1982, nationalist votes have gone up by 13.2% and continue to rise.

dlofnep

imme wrote: »

the unionist vote was split 3 ways, DUP, UUP, TUV as someone else has said, might explain how SF was the largest vote getter in NI in terms of 1st prefs. Their 2009 EU result as actually down on the 2004 results. 26.31% in '04, 25.8% in '09.

I've already state that that was the case - but that over the course of the last few general elections, SF's % has increased.

Regarding the drop in the EU elections, it was actually by only 0.3% of a percent - but the turnout was much less in 2009 so it's hard to really judge it. I would say it stayed pretty much on par.

We'll see what happens in the generals whether the vote % increases or not, but everything points to it.

imme

dlofnep wrote: »

I've already state that that was the case - but that over the course of the last few general elections, SF's % has increased.

Regarding the drop in the EU elections, it was actually by only 0.3% of a percent - but the turnout was much less in 2009 so it's hard to really judge it. I would say it stayed pretty much on par.

We'll see what happens in the generals whether the vote % increases or not, but everything points to it.

in '04 SF got 26.31% 1st prefs = 144,541 votes; in '09 SF got 25.8% 1st prefs = 126,184 votes. Turnout in '04 was 52%, in '09 it was 42.8%.
Yeah I can't wait for the next general election and the one in the UK.