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

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What an absurdly trivial outdated expression.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What an absurdly trivial outdated expression.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What an absurdly trivial outdated expression.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.

Edward M

recedite wrote: »

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

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.

What does that mean though?
Is it that you want swearing an allegiance to this state that seeking a UI would not be acceptable after you swear?
If not then I really don't see the point in your proposal.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

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

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.

In the context you are posting that is for immigrants wishing to become citizens and thus being able to vote.

When we in the Republic have survived without an oath for the past 85 yrs why do you believe we need to clutter up the constitution with another referendum proposal that not only would be divisive, difficult to word, and likely to fail anyway that faik has not been proposed by anyone in the intervening 85 yrs.
To me it simply comes across as nothing other than some sort of sideways swipe at SF because they will not bend the knee to a British monarch.

recedite

I have no problem with SF aspiring to rule over a UI, but in the meantime if they want to participate in democratic politics, and stand for election as either MPs or TDs they should be prepared to swear an oath of allegiance to the relevant state/parliament.
They have getting off lightly in Dublin because nobody has ever asked them to do it, Unlike the situation in Westminster. Which partly goes back to some unresolved questions in civil war politics which gave rise to the FF and FG parties. Some things were best left unsaid.

However, since the Good Friday Agreement, the 26 counties has given up its claim of ownership over the 6 counties. That's my understanding of the position anyway.

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

To me it simply comes across as nothing other than some sort of sideways swipe at SF because they will not bend the knee to a British monarch.

I don't care about that. I want to see them bend the knee to a 26 county RoI.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

I don't care about that. I want to see them bend the knee to a 26 county RoI.

And if they don't?

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And if they don't?

Then presumably they would want to adopt the same principled position of abstentionism that they have adopted north of the border.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

Then presumably they would want to adopt the same principled position of abstentionism that they have adopted north of the border.

They don't absent themselves from the Dail though. Does that not mean that like every other party they have 'bent the knee' (as you put it in a quaintly monarchist way)

recedite

No, I think nobody has asked them that awkward question. Whether they recognise this 26 county state as fully legitimate.

If they were not asked to swear that oath at Westminster, would they then be in a position attend that parliament? I know you are saying their abstentionism is for different reasons; out of a respect and non-interference in a foreign parliament.
But your answers to oscarBravo on that issue are less than convincing.

It seems to me a more like a stubborn pride and a refusal to bend the knee to what they see as an illegitimate regime occupying their country.
I simply ask, do they see the 26 county state in the same terms?

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

No, I think nobody has asked them that awkward question. Whether they recognise this 26 county state as fully legitimate.

If they were not asked to swear that oath at Westminster, would they then be in a position attend that parliament? I know you are saying their abstentionism is for different reasons; out of a respect and non-interference in a foreign parliament.
But your answers to oscarBravo on that issue are less than convincing.

It seems to me a more like a stubborn pride and a refusal to bend the knee to what they see as an illegitimate regime occupying their country.
I simply ask, do they see the 26 county state in the same terms?

Nothing to do with me really. SF have answered Oscar themselves, see link to Danny Morrison article.

Why would you only ask SF if you accept that every other TD attending has 'bent the knee'?

And why would it be an 'awkward question', as far as I know SF have dealt with dropping their abstention from the Dail many times. Google it and you will find the answers.
Are you that desperate for a stick to beat them with?

recedite

I think SF split over the issue in the past. And the faction that dropped the abstentionist policy within RoI have never had to face up to an actual oath of allegiance to this 32 county state.

And I'm not saying it should apply just for SF TDs.
I said..

recedite wrote: »

Most countries would have some form of oath of allegiance to "the state".
We should introduce an oath for all TDs wanting to enter the Dail; allegiance to the state, and no support for criminal activity.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

I think SF split over the issue in the past. And the faction that dropped the abstentionist policy within RoI have never had to face up to an actual oath of allegiance to this 32 county state.

And I'm not saying it should apply just for SF TDs.
I said..

Well, all I can say is belt away.

I think it is safe to say that by attending they have no legitimate reason to absent themselves.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

I don't care about that. I want to see them bend the knee to a 26 county RoI.

You might want to check out the definition of that R in RoI.

There is no requirement in this Republic to bend the knee.
Nor by definition should there be in any republic.

Article 17 of the 1922 constitution was the last oath we had, again to a monarch, but FF abolished that in 1933, not replacing it with anything so I doubt you would get much support there.
FG never proposed replacing it either, and considering we survived through the fascist period without one and their links to the Blueshirt movement, I cannot see them supporting one now either.

Best advise I can give you is give it up.
It is so transparent at this point that after running out of road as to why you believe SF should bend the knee to a hereditary monarch, you now want them to bend the knee to something regardless of who or what it is.

FrancieBrady

charlie14 wrote: »

You might want to check out the definition of that R in RoI.

There is no requirement in this Republic to bend the knee.
Nor by definition should there be in any republic.

Article 17 of the 1922 constitution was the last oath we had, again to a monarch, but FF abolished that in 1933, not replacing it with anything so I doubt you would get much support there.
FG never proposed replacing it either, and considering we survived through the fascist period without one and their links to the Blueshirt movement, I cannot see them supporting one now either.

Best advise I can give you is give it up.
It is so transparent at this point that after running out of road as to why you believe SF should bend the knee to a hereditary monarch, you now want them to bend the knee to something regardless of who or what it is.

I think it may be a refusal to accept SF and other republicans view that the 26 counties is a temporary arrangement.

Which he/she is quite entitled to reject. Partitionists are human too have the right to freedom of thought too.

FrancieBrady

Further proof, if it were needed that the DUP cannot be trusted at the moment.
Leadership change is needed before any deal can be made.

http://eamonnmallie.com/2018/03/dup-account-talks-not-stacking-eamonn-mallie-brian-rowan/

Junkyard Tom

Getting back to the question in the title I would say that, on the contrary, the DUP has been scoring own goal after own goal for months and years.

DUP support for Brexit has contributed to a disUnited Kingdom, has brought the idea of a UI to the fore of the public-consciousness more than ever. The DUP's mockery, sneering and petty behaviour towards the Irish language compounded by the blocking of an the ILA has energised the nationalist electorate and will aid a revival of interest in the language.

As for those who say that SF should take their seats in Westminster? That's an utterly clueless suggestion. Elected Irish Republicans swearing an oath to a British monarch? What planet are you living on if you think that SF would do this?

On top of all this with SF out of Stormont and no nationalist politicians in Westminster they can sit back and watch the Brexiteers steering HMS Britannia (with their DUP lackeys shovelling coal into the boilers) straight towards the Brexit Iceberg.

Good loser

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Getting back to the question in the title I would say that, on the contrary, the DUP has been scoring own goal after own goal for months and years.

DUP support for Brexit has contributed to a disUnited Kingdom, has brought the idea of a UI to the fore of the public-consciousness more than ever. The DUP's mockery, sneering and petty behaviour towards the Irish language compounded by the blocking of an the ILA has energised the nationalist electorate and will aid a revival of interest in the language.

As for those who say that SF should take their seats in Westminster? That's an utterly clueless suggestion. Elected Irish Republicans swearing an oath to a British monarch? What planet are you living on if you think that SF would do this?

On top of all this with SF out of Stormont and no nationalist politicians in Westminster they can sit back and watch the Brexiteers steering HMS Britannia (with their DUP lackeys shovelling coal into the boilers) straight towards the Brexit Iceberg.

The logic of SF attending at Westminster - whatever protocols have to be gone through - in the context of the current, crucial Brexit debates is inescapable.

Not to do so is potty in the extreme.

The logic of the SF position is that they would refuse (are refusing) to help abort the Brexit project because of a vanity obsession with an outmoded piece of trivia.
They show an outrageous disregard for the economic well being of their electors.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

The logic of SF attending at Westminster - whatever protocols have to be gone through - in the context of the current, crucial Brexit debates is inescapable.

Not to do so is potty in the extreme.

The logic of the SF position is that they would refuse (are refusing) to help abort the Brexit project because of a vanity obsession with an outmoded piece of trivia.
They show an outrageous disregard for the economic well being of their electors.

An outmoded piece of trivia that the British insist on, but no matter.

As to the rest, no matter how often people insist on posting this Brexit argument the facts, like the figures, do not add up.

Are not the party who are really showing an outrageous disregard for the economic well being of their electorate the DUP ?
NI voted remain in the referendum 56% - 44% yet the DUP are supporting Brexit.

Junkyard Tom

Good loser wrote: »

The logic of SF attending at Westminster - whatever protocols have to be gone through - in the context of the current, crucial Brexit debates is inescapable.

If we pretend the spectacle of Irish Republicans swearing allegiance to British Royalty was possible have you considered the implications? SF would essentially become the SDLP and would be replaced by 'New Improved SF with added Republican-ness' fairly quickly.

The logic of the SF position is that they would refuse (are refusing) to help abort the Brexit project because of a vanity obsession with an outmoded piece of trivia.

Aside from the archaic Royal arse-kissing ceremony what exactly could 7 MP's bring to bear in Westminster? They'd be politically toxic for any party to schmooze up to and their votes would count for SFA. SF would be even more politically toxic than the DUP amazingly enough.

They show an outrageous disregard for the economic well being of their electors.

This is just bizarre. It's the DUP who are showing outrageous disregard for all the people in the north. SF MP's are elected because they abstain.

You seem entirely oblivious to the long-term strategy and goal of SF - a United Ireland free of British interference - to move the political centre-of-gravity away from Westminster/England/Britain not toward it.

SF are playing the long game here while the DUP 10 bask in the short-term glory of Westminster 'power' secure in their delusions that the 'Ulster' will always be 'British'.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If we pretend the spectacle of Irish Republicans swearing allegiance to British Royalty was possible have you considered the implications? SF would essentially become the SDLP and would be replaced by 'New Improved SF with added Republican-ness' fairly quickly.



Aside from the archaic Royal arse-kissing ceremony what exactly could 7 MP's bring to bear in Westminster? They'd be politically toxic for any party to schmooze up to and their votes would count for SFA. SF would be even more politically toxic than the DUP amazingly enough.



This is just bizarre. It's the DUP who are showing outrageous disregard for all the people in the north. SF MP's are elected because they abstain.

You miss the entirely the long-term strategy and goal of SF - a United Ireland free of British interference - to move the political centre-of-gravity away from Westminster/England/Britain not toward it.

SF are playing the long game here while the DUP 10 bask in the short-term glory of Westminster 'power' secure in their delusions that the 'Ulster' will always be 'British'.

And because of the intrinsic absurdity of partition Fine Gael and Fianna Fail (bar Michael's pathetic attempt to gain political advantage) are now on board the SF wagon.

Junkyard Tom

Good loser wrote: »

The logic of SF attending at Westminster - whatever protocols have to be gone through - in the context of the current, crucial Brexit debates is inescapable.

Here's a logical conclusion of this inescapable 'logic' you write of. One of the comments on an article about SF possibly sitting in Westminster on sluggerotoole.com:



Precisely what would happen in my estimation too.