Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jan 27, 2018 10:52:24 GMT
This year marks the 35th anniversary of the 1983 general election, the election where (thanks in part to Gerald Fitt standing as an Indpendent) Sinn Fein won their first seat in Parliament in Belfast West. I would like to ask what could have happened since then if Sinn Fein did take their seats in Westminster (by asking for a judicial review of the Oath of Office)?
|
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Jan 27, 2018 11:47:49 GMT
An implausible scenario, frankly. Apart from making life a little more difficult for Conservative-led governments, I don't think it would make a great deal of difference. The irony is that Sinn Fein might actually get more support if their potential voters knew they could speak in and vote in the Commons. In the Scottish Parliament, members are required to take the Oath or their seats are vacated. In such cases, they take the Oath "in protest", as Tommy Sheridan used to do. Such protests are recorded in the Official Report (their version of Hansard). www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=4160&i=26584 |
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on Jan 27, 2018 12:31:16 GMT
I think they would get exposed. The rhetoric that they display would be greatly (and rightly) tempered by parliament where they have actual work to do.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Jan 27, 2018 13:32:46 GMT
I still think it wrong that they receive a full Parliamentary salary when they have no intention of turning up. Look at the furore when his Lordship turns up, signs in and departs for the Club, but draws his allowance; Sinn Fein MP’s do even less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 27, 2018 14:38:57 GMT
I still think it wrong that they receive a full Parliamentary salary when they have no intention of turning up. Look at the furore when his Lordship turns up, signs in and departs for the Club, but draws his allowance; Sinn Fein MP’s do even less. Sinn Fein MPs don’t get any Parliamentary salary. Don’t know how often this fact has to be stated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 18:33:16 GMT
This scenario presupposes that that the little problem of taking the oath has been overcome. I wonder if that might be in the same manner that Eamon De Valera did when FF abandoned the policy of abstention of the Dail in 1927, to pretend basically that the oath didn't exist when sworn in "Remember, I have signed no oath"..it means nothing"? Dev may have been pretty cynical but could today's SF be more principled faced with the opportunity to create difficulties for the Westminster government?
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jan 27, 2018 20:00:23 GMT
I would like to ask what could have happened since then if Sinn Fein did take their seats in Westminster (by asking for a judicial review of the Oath of Office)? There is a lot of misunderstanding about Sinn Féin's abstentionism. It isn't because of the oath but because they believe in absolute self-determination - hence the party's name: "Ourselves". They reject the legitimacy of British rule completely and refuse to endorse it, which is what taking their seats would entail. (Indeed the 1926 split was basically over whether the oath was the only barrier to a constitutionalist participatory approach in the Free State parliament or whether to adhere to the sole legitimacy of the rump of the Second Dail.) |
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Jan 27, 2018 22:56:29 GMT
Wouldn't it have been fun if the SNP had a policy of abstentionism under the same principle? All but three Scottish MPs coming to sit and vote in the House of Commons in 2015.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 28, 2018 7:23:12 GMT
I would like to ask what could have happened since then if Sinn Fein did take their seats in Westminster (by asking for a judicial review of the Oath of Office)? There is a lot of misunderstanding about Sinn Féin's abstentionism. It isn't because of the oath but because they believe in absolute self-determination - hence the party's name: "Ourselves". They reject the legitimacy of British rule completely and refuse to endorse it, which is what taking their seats would entail. How do they justify standing for election to Westminster, then? Surely that's just as much of an endorsement of the system as taking seats would be. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jan 28, 2018 11:57:44 GMT
Officially it's to allow people to reject Westminster and it may also be to restock the Dáil (not that Dáil) though that would require greater success.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 9:55:06 GMT
This year marks the 35th anniversary of the 1983 general election, the election where (thanks in part to Gerald Fitt standing as an Indpendent) Sinn Fein won their first seat in Parliament in Belfast West. I would like to ask what could have happened since then if Sinn Fein did take their seats in Westminster (by asking for a judicial review of the Oath of Office)? The predecessor Sinn Fein did of course win many seats in 1918, which seems the more notable anniversary. As to what might have happened, I think not very much, until recently. The current parliament is probably the first in their latter day incarnation where their votes might actually make a difference. |
|
