SF Abstention

Our man in Havana

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




MOD Edit: split from NI election results.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bond-007 wrote:

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

Why?

Our man in Havana

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why?

Its depriving people of representation in westminster.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bond-007 wrote:

Its depriving people of representation in westminster.

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

uberwolf

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

Our man in Havana

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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

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

A Dub in Glasgo

Bond-007 wrote:

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

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

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

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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

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

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

uberwolf

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

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Who abstains in the Republic?

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

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

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

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

or an oath to the UK.... Yes

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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

Ah, its not in this day and age.

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

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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

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

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

Villain

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

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

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

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

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

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

AmenToThat

Bond-007 wrote:

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

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

And its a bitch when they play musical chairs

AmenToThat

mycroft wrote:

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

Jayzus sounds like my udeal job!

Villain

mycroft wrote:

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

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

boidey

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

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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

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

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

Rock Climber wrote:

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

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

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

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

The Muppet

Rock Climber wrote:

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

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

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

The Muppet

The Muppet wrote:

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

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

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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

I dont see the comparison there

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

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

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

BuffyBot

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

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

The Muppet

Earthman wrote:

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

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

The Muppet

The Muppet wrote:

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

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

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

Laredo

Earthman wrote:

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

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

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

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

Cork

irish1 wrote:

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

Why do they maintain offices in Westminister then?

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

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


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

Cannot SF do the same??