“the ball is in Sinn Féin’s court”
Interesting to note that the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, told the NI Affairs Committee that he had had discussions with Sinn Féin about what would be required for them to take their seats in Parliament. And, as the BBC reports
The Secretary of State has said that he has asked Sinn Fein for an alternative text to the oath of allegiance to allow their MPs to sit in Westminster.
Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams has previously said that a change to the oath would be irrelevant. But there was some kite-flying earlier this year…
Tags: Abstentionism, Government, Northern Ireland, Owen Paterson, parliament, Parliamentary oath, Parties, sinn fein, Society, UK
Topic: Government, Politics
Region: Northern Ireland, UK
Topic: Government, Politics
Region: Northern Ireland, UK
Maybe the BritGov has some offers to SF if it would take its seats which we don’t know about yet – for example a UK-wide poll on whether NI should remain a part of the UK.
I have no doubt the majority of “mainland” Brits would love to get rid of NI. Those bowler hatted gents are an embarrassment.
And for the government, getting rid of NI would
1. ease the budget problems enormously (long-term). How much would the UK deficit be reduced?
2. Electorate (mainland) benefits abound because they may not have to suffer as many cuts (at least in the long term).
3. the NI loyalists are not in the slightest bit interested in supporting Conservatives, so they are useless for the Tories politically.
4.At Westminster with the DUP gone there is one less group to parley with in the event its votes are needed.
“Devolution is surely about local administration of what is largely centrally determined public finance allocation in accordance with local priorities but within financial legal and economic constraints that are unavoidably set centrally.”
These ‘largely centrally determined public finance allocations’ are set in Downing Street and Whitehall NOT Westminster. This is ESPECIALLY the case regarding supply bills! Let’s not delude ourselves with Athenian notions of where power lies. As the SDLP learned the hard way regarding policing and justice, you can waffle all you like in the Commons, but it’s important you’re involved in the pre-cooking in Downing St, not the theatre in Westminster.
“So its good to have an input there on the broader brush but very important issues.”
As I’ve said elsewhere, sitting in Westminster – apart from having a nice wee record on Hansard – is absolutely no guarantee of any input. If real input is needed, make sure you’ve got cool Dave number. He’ll take it from there with the Commons.
I think the De Valera back to O’Neill analogy only holds in the sense that they took an oath tactically rather than because they believed in it or thought it had any inherent value.
I think getting too focused on abstentionism as a policy is a distraction – really the need is to attract voters to supporting a UI – not Unionist politicians – by definition they won’t support a UI regardless so they will never be satisfied. While unionist politicians may be safe in the knowledge that they won’t be for turning, what is really at stake is a relatively small percentage of the electorate who may be persuaded that SF and nationalism can be pragmatic enough that they could act in their interests when it comes to guaranteeing rights etc in a UI (and unionists know this and fear any transformational moments that might arise – hence a truth commission is off-limits which also conveniently allows you to try to link McGuinness and Adams to any and every story if it serves a purpose). If token representation at some Westminister committee is an action that may contribute to attracting that vote we shouldn’t be dismissing it out of hand. Unionists biggest fear is that some of *their own* don’t buy into the union package anymore.
Also – don’t underestimate the Tories – they feel capable of making moves that Labour always fear (in case they look weak) – remember Mason is often cited as the most anti-nationalist SoS. Brook and Mayhew were the ones to really get the current process onto tracks (and Albert Reynolds).
Why require an oath at all? The people elect you and only the people can get rid of you even if you publicly swear allegiance to the Klingon Empire.
All the pageantry and dress-up that the British surround their institutions with is out of place in a modern democracy. I understand the tourism argument and it’s fair enough but the ritualistic elements of the system should not impact on the democratic side of it.
Having said that it’s a matter for the British to arrange their affairs to suit themselves and they shouldn’t change it unless they want to. Irish republicans certainly are not asking them to and I don’t see any logic in Sinn Fein suggesting the wording of an oath for the British parliament.
This is the type of thread that brightens my day. All the silly little republicans, eyes shut tight, hands clamped over their ears endlessly chanting the mantra ‘ There’s no Northern Ireland: Ignore the UK, there’s no Northern Ireland, ignore ……’
If only they had stayed with the comedy and kept the guns in the thatch.
It may be possible to influence some issues through Downing Street – this is an avenue that all MPs use. But only for some issues. Many other issues – important to constituents – will be promoted by speaking and putting forward the arguments in the legislature as well as of course votes in tight debates. It actually a little shady trying to do things by backroom deals and Downing Sreet isn’g going to be interested in such deals on a wide raft of detailed issues that can be discussed in Committees etc.
If Sinn Fein bit the bullet and adds Stromont to its long list of sell outs, the likes of Gerry Kelly will be able to afford a thrid Donegal summer holiday home to the two he already owns.
So I think you will find a large ground swell of opinion from the SF grandees for the new sell out to aid the Noveau Riche bourgeousise such as the Gerry Boy.
That may work on the “peace process” issues, but the PM is hardly going to give time on regular issues in that way.
That’s just cheap jibes, padraig. It does not reflect well on you.
Charminator: unlike other institutions SF participate in (eg Assembly, Oireachtas, local councils), Westminster is NOT located on the island of Ireland
What’s your opinion on SF sending MEPs to the EU? Do you hope that there are no important decisions to be made there either?
unfortunately unionist mobs burnt the thatch on Bombay street and elsewhere, upon realising they didn’t have any guns in said burnt thatch they went out and got shiny new ones to prevent unionist mobs from burning all the other nationalist thatches
And where would that change be enacted? Why, in Westminster, of course.
They wouldn’t contest elections; they do.
They wouldn’t take their seats in local councils; they do.
They wouldn’t sit in the Dáil; they do.
They wouldn’t sit in Stormont; they do.
See the progression? They won’t sit in Westminster; they will.
Sinn fein will definately eventually sit at westminster.
When its a devolved assembly from Dublin.
Republicanism is international and means the same everywhere, all HMG need to do is declare a republic and I’m sure SF will give serious consideration to the idea of taking their seats, like come on its not as if the Brits haven’t executed royality in the past, and they don’t even need to stick a red hot poker up said royal bum this time just sending them into exile will do.
Although it is really weird that the same people who objected to SF being in government in NI are demanding that they take the opportunity to be in government for all of the UK.
Even weirder that the local NI Tory Party is trying to get the main Tory Party to change the rules to prevent a SF First Minister in NI while at the same time the main Tory Party is trying to get the guy they don’t want in power in NI into Westminister.
OK lets put an end to it, SF will take their seats if they are allowed to have the position of SoS for NI and maybe one other cabinet post, MMcG as Foreign Sec or maybe Treasury or Armed Forces.
Afterall Dave more or less promised the UUP\UCUNF a cabinet seat, unfortunately none of them actually got elected, why can’t they offer SF the same deal.
What regular issues are you actually referring to?? ‘Regular’ issues, as in health, education, planning etc are decided at Stormont. That’s the essence of devolution: getting the ‘regular’ issues back local.
Policing and justice is the simple point. The SDLP sat in Westminster, watched the Govt steer it through and yet were impotent to do anything to change it.
Thanks slug.
You have noted:
“It may be possible to influence some issues through Downing Street – this is an avenue that all MPs use. But only for some issues. Many other issues – important to constituents – will be promoted by speaking and putting forward the arguments in the legislature as well as of course votes in tight debates.”
It MAY be possible. It certainly is possible. It is Downing Street sets the legislative agenda. I keep banging on about policing and justice, precisely because the SDLP sat in the Commons, watched the bill sail through Parliament in a form they utterly disagreed with, and yet remained incapable of exercising ANY meaningful influence.
You add:
“It actually a little shady trying to do things by backroom deals and Downing Sreet isn’g going to be interested in such deals on a wide raft of detailed issues that can be discussed in Committees etc.”
Let’s not be naive about the shadiness or otherwise of it. It’s politics, so that’s not a very relevant point.
But what are all these other issues you’re referring to? Are they really that important? We know that tax and income issues are solely the preserve (in reality) of the PM and Govt, so if any influence is to be exercised there, it had better be long before the Bill reaches the Commons!
What are all these issues that you are so exercised about to the extent that you feel SF need to waste their constituents’ time sitting in Westminster? Why not go the direct route on these issues to Downing Street or Govt Buildings, Dublin?
Please cite examples of these issues, as the clearest example to me of the SDLP’s failure by sitting in Westminster and SF’s apparent success in influencing legislation through dialogue with the PM is the devolution of policing and justice? What are the key issues where the SDLP three MP vote has been crucial in defending their particular constituents’ in Foyle, South Down, or South Belfast – or indeed the North generally?
Frankly, I’m at a loss to understand why SF – given their obvious reservations – would want to waste any time in Westminster when they can exercise far greater influence (whenever they deem it necessary to use it) long long before the Bill actually even arrives through the Commons door.
Finally, if you consider it important sitting in the Commons, why not also the Lords? Should the SDLP now accept representation in the Lords too? After all, we all know the theatre His Lordship of Bell’s Hill set off when he took his peerage. But your analysis is as much a reason to go the whole hog and sit in the Lords as much as it is to be in the Commons. Why should the good Nationalist/Republican people of ‘Northern Ireland’ be denied their full representation in both Houses?
Thanks Reader.
I’m going to give you enough credit and assume you understand your Nationalist/Republican neighbours well enough to be able to come up with a good answer to that yourself. I’m also going to assume you understand the workings of the EU well enough to know the role of the Council as well as the Parliament.
But here’s what President McAleese said yesterday in Russia re our relationship with the EU. It might help you as you think about it and seek a deeper understanding with your Nationalist/Republican neighbours.
“When we joined the European Union, some in Ireland feared that move would lead to a loss of sovereignty and that our national identity would somehow be overwhelmed. As a small colonised nation which had fought hard for its freedom and its identity, these fears were very understandable but have proven to be unfounded. Indeed, our sense of national identity has never been stronger.”
“Irish republicans certainly are not asking them to and I don’t see any logic in Sinn Fein suggesting the wording of an oath for the British parliament.”
Couldn’t agree more with that statement. This whole idea is a red herring. I’m certainly not aware of any great clamouring from Republicans/Nationalists to send their MPs to Westminster. Where are the petitions? Where are the protects? I suspect they’re far more concerned about jobs, education, health cuts etc, rather than jetting over to London (often high expense too, see McGrady)!
Thanks John.
“If token representation at some Westminister committee is an action that may contribute to attracting that vote we shouldn’t be dismissing it out of hand.”
That’s the big ‘If’ I guess. Personally, I’d expect it’s far wiser to invest in relation-building ‘at home’ in institutions which we envisage to likely endure post-unity, than investing in a political link which we want to sever. By all means nourish the cultural, the social, the broader East-West links, but the very political nexus that is the clearest representation of enduring British sovereignty in the North? For good reason, I can understand SF will think once, twice and then a third time about any moves in that direction.
I agree with your analysis about seeking a deeper understanding with Unionism though. I agree too about the marginal numbers necessary.
Re the Tories… hmmm, we’ll see how cool Dave does.
Regarding the Second Chamber, the present Coalition Government plan to bring forward changes. Nick Clegg has made clear that this will involve elections. Under a leading proposal those elected will serve for 14 years (3 terms of a standard parliament) on a rotational basis; and will not take the titles Lord or Lords. I hear that a leading proposal for title is MSCP (Member of Second Chamber of Parliament). I would argue that in these circumstance the SDLP would consider taking up their posts there.
Regarding the arguments you make, they are in fact arguments that, if taken to their logical corrollary, woudl suggest people should not attend legisative bodies anywhere in the world!
While the big knock-down peace process issues are indeed the domain of the Executive arm of government, the committees and debates of a leislature are and remain places where arguments can be put forward, impressions made, committee reports written, and votes cast on issues that set the default for policy elsewhere on the islands (including the South, which is impacted by policy in London due to the interdependent nature of neighbouring countries in a world and Europe of freely moving migrant labour, capital, goods, students, media etc).
I think we have rehersed the arguments back and forth enough and I understand your position. I am not saying its wrong but I am not convinced the SDLP’s position is wrong either. If anything, it seems to me the more sensible position, in the context of the GFA.
….. and once they had their hands on the hardware it was back to the good old Scullabogue times again.
Hey Endy, what’s the difference between a Cockeral and an Irish Republican? A cockeral lives by cock-a-doodle-doo, the Republican by any-Prod-will-do.
Yes, that might work. Give the Irish Army real weapons rather than plastic knives and forks and invade them. They would never see it coming. But do it sooner while their troops are still overseas.
Thanks slug.
“Regarding the arguments you make, they are in fact arguments that, if taken to their logical corrollary, woudl suggest people should not attend legisative bodies anywhere in the world!”
Not at all. The arguments are made within the prism of Irish Republicanism. I’m sure you would agree that there’s precious little about the North and the connected relationships that exist between Britain and Ireland that are quite replicated anywhere else in the world. Westminster cannot be treated like any other mere Parliament and trying to distil this issue into a sort of run-of-the-mill thing dodges reality.
But the big knock-down issues you refer to are gone for the moment. And if and when big knock-down issues arise again, it will be in Downing Street, all-party, and British-Irish dialogue that they are resolved. Not in Westminster.
I note your failure to note a single issue in Westminster where the SDLP have achieved progress that could not have been achieved through the Downing Street route? Any issues at all? The prosaic nuts and bolts of parliamentary bureaucracy you cite, if anything, make me even less inclined to encourage SF abstentionists to travel to London!
You have noted the possible reform of the Lords: but why not have SDLP peers there already? Lord McGrady of Downpatrick perhaps? It was good enough for the party’s founder and Tom Kelly had little difficulties accepting his OBE. It’s this whole Westminster navel-gazing, this incessant Westminster watching, that actually undermines much of the SDLP’s credentials. It chimes little with the Nationalist/Republican people if FST is to be taken as a good example.
I would far rather see an SDLP pressing for active engagement in the Oireachtas. Reform of the Seanad to ensure Northern representation. Active participation in committees discussing the North. All-island voting in presidential elections. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with seeking to ever-increase the range of issues determined on this island and this island ALONE. But not in a belligerent or aggressive way: in a spirit of full inclusivity and pluralism with Unionism. Instead of taking further seats in the British upper House, why not encourage Unionists to take Seanad seats in Dublin??
A lot of what you have said regarding the South being impacted by London, committees in Westminster etc is quite vague. I think if we’re going to ask SF to give up abstentionism, there would need to be far far clearer and cogent reasons – like pointing to SDLP’s success in the Commons.
As I said before, the devolution of policing and justice should be taken by the SDLP as a lesson. A very simple one. Neglect your base, sit idly by and watch your votes drift to SF, and there is a very substantial price to pay.
It’s a wee bit more complex than that Didlee, but thanks for your profound insights. You might like to cite Wolfe Tone, CS Parnell, Robert Emmet, Henry Joy McCracken, Ernest Blythe, Douglas Hyde etc as well… and they’re just a few that spring to mind.
Bit more balance perhaps? Bit less rhetoric.
Charminator: It might help you as you think about it and seek a deeper understanding with your Nationalist/Republican neighbours.
Well then, the difference between not sitting at Westminster and sitting at Brussels is nothing to do with sovereignty, it’s to do with old resentments, is it? That fits with SFs ethos, though SF were also anti EU for a long while, weren’t they? Did Brussels eventually win them over to an acceptable loss of sovereignty?
As Charmers points out a big bunch of stuff is carried out in Stormo and the British government has not yet found a way to resolve that old chestnut – the West Lothian – question. So surely it is time that Welsh and Scottish MPs (and Unionist and SDLP MPs) opted out of much off the Wetminster business (much of which applies only to England ayway) and they should only be required (if they desire) to turn up on (even more) limited number of days and of course receive half or quarter pay as there constiuents are already represented via Stormo.
It is largely 2 people (assuming no double jobbing) an MP and an AM doing the same job – a waste of fecking money. So SF should reply politely to Owen and point out to him that in these difficult economic times he can save much larger whack than simply cutting the number of MPs by only paying the English ones the full amount as the other should be part time.
Nobody has suggested a form of oath here. Another thread, to be filed under humour perhaps?
Reading all the comments on here is like watching people rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks.When the Republic goes down financially as it will in the new year if not before defaulting on it’s sovereign debt it will pull N.Ireland with it,like L. Cohen said “I have seen the future and it’s murder”.It should be all hands on deck right across the political spectrum to minimise the effects of the coming social and economic catastrophe on all the people of the island of Ireland and cease the squabbling.Ireland North and South is already haemorraging the best and brightest of it’s youth,cities like Toronto ,Boston,New York,Adelaide and Canberra are becoming home to a new generation of Irish emigrants and what makes it all the more heartbreaking is that most of these young people come from small families of 2 or 3 not like the emigrants of yesteryear like myself who left behind many brothers and sisters to keep the home fires burning so to speak.So I say to all the elected reps north and south get on with the job for the greater good of the younger generations coming up who have been left a legacy of monumental debt caused by greed and wrecklessness.
At the end of the day much of the points discussed are neither here not there. This move by Paterson is just a pretext for removing SF allowances. He wants to take back the money and will do it by hook or by crook. Cash is not an issue for SF so in the end they are not going give up anything to keep these allowances. It is all about the money
Of course Irish Republicanism attracted a few useful fools from the Protestant tradition. Taking 1798 as an example Prods were represented in the local and national leaderships. However the footsoldiers were of a different hue. The ‘Pikemen of ’98′ grabbed the opportunity in may places to have a 1641 Round 2 and many Protestant clergy and the laity felt the prick of Catholic pikes.
As the 19th century dawned Protestants in Ireland began to more fully understand that Irish Republicanism was not true Republicanism but merely sectarian nationalism.
Small numbers of Protestants did continue into the 20th century to buy into the strapline, but then again there’s always one or two is there not?
Hell I’m sure even today there are those who swallow the Shinners’ ‘Ireland of Equals’ bilge.
As to your “rhetoric” jibe, having read some of the nonsense you post you’d be best to look to that plank in your own eye.
someone’s learnt gerry adams’ books off by heart. . .
Thanks joeCanuck.
You seem to have suggested that Westminster is the engine-room of the devolution process….
“And where would that change be enacted? Why, in Westminster, of course.”
Eh yes Joe, if all you’re interested in is the rubber-stamping process of Westminster, rather than the ACTUAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS of Downing Street. (Indeed, perhaps we should start visiting HM, as she’s got a ‘technical’ role in the whole parliamentary process too). Perhaps you could provide us with an example of legislation brought through Westminster AGAINST a PM’s wishes…. Good luck searching.
Legislation is pre-cooked in Downing Street. If you’re not involved in the process there (as the SDLP learnt to their dissatisfaction regarding policing and justice), then tough luck.
Also to reiterate an old point already explained before. To most Nationalists and Republicans, there’s no comparison between the Dáil, Stormont, local councils etc AND Westminster. This is for good reason, both historical and current. But even if that were not so, attendance at Westminster for any Nationalist or Republican MP is a complete and utter waste of time (and money in these cash-strapped times). The expenses Eddie McGrady clocked up alone should prove a warning against sending bumbling provincial accountants to the imperial Parliament without a very clear purpose. If Nationalist MPs couldn’t exercise much influence when Ireland actually did possess a significant number of parliamentary seats, what bloody hope do they have of achieving anything with 3 SDLP MPs wandering around the place (two of whom persist in double-jobbing).
Moreover, the ‘attended Leinster House, attended Stormont etc waffle’ is as applicable to attending the House of Lords, as it is to attending the House of Commons. Why don’t the SDLP take peerages and sit there too? After all, it was good enough for their first leader. Westminster is a total distraction from the bread and butter politics that needs to develop in Belfast (and in local councils). If local politics can be improved, if decision-making can be improved, then let’s keep the devolution process moving, and stop the servile Westminster navel-gazing.
Reader, in case you didn’t understand President McAleese’s point above: the EU is perceived by the vast majority of Irishmen and women as enhancing our National identity. Our pooled sovereignty is and remains the voluntary choice of the sovereign Irish people. Irish MEPs attend the EU Parliament only because the Irish People sanctioned it.
Contrast that with Westminster? Could it be said to have made Ireland’s “sense of national identity … stronger”, to paraphrase the President…?
This has everything to do with sovereignty (as I’m sure you well know). And, for the record, what SF do or don’t think, is neither here nor there: I suspect abstention from Westminster is something which the vast majority of Irishmen and women understand and quite possibly even share.
Finally, to avoid any ‘old resentments’ or the likes, I can think of nothing better than steering through legislation in the Oireachtas to ensure that MPs elected in the North, of whatever political hue, can sit in the Oireachtas to debate and participate. In a much smaller chamber they would at least have as much speaking time, and likely as much influence, given access to Ministers, of what is, after all, an equally sovereign Government within the EU. If it’s the avoidance of ‘old resentments’ you’re concerned about – and in the full spirit of the GFA’s arrangements – let’s make our political institutions on this island as inclusive as possible. (I suspect the Oireachtas wouldn’t even require any nasty oaths or the likes to be taken before Unionist MPs could share their words of wisdom.)
Eat into the SDLP vote? What vote? Tactical Unionists in South Down or South Belfast??
And vote against the Cameron/Clegg budget? Why?? To hope to defeat it??
Wise up, Reader. I hope Nationalist/Republican MPs have better things to do than wander around Westminster partaking in such a nonsense.
If you’re going to encourage SF to go there, at least try to find some sensible, persuasive reason for it, rather than specious waffle about eating into the ever-declining vote of a moribund 21st century IPP.
Nobody’s suggested a form of oath because it’s not the job of Republicans or Nationalists of whatever hue to jump when Mr. Patterson says so.
No one asked him to come up with such a time-wasting pointless initiative and if people had sense, they’d merely ignore it and tell him – what a great many Tories ought be told regarding Ireland – if you’ve not got something useful to say, then best say nothing at all.
I agree that Westminster is important. To Britain. It is absolutely irrelevant to Ireland.
I think they should take their seats…. in return for a couple of trillion in reparations and a re-united Ireland.
I for one think the idea of a new oath of allegiance aimed specifically at SF and other republicans in Britain is a good idea. Any device which makes Politics more inclusive of other view points needs consideration. Don’t forget that Irish nationalism as an ideology developed most considerably between the 1790′s and 1830′s when Irish Catholics felt alienated from the Irish and then British state. Identity is not a stagant idea, less we should forget about the Irish Jacobite tradition where Irish Catholics willingly gave their acceptance and fought for the Stuart (British) kings. Why did they do this? the stuart kings were associated with the pre-conquest Gaelic kingship of Ireland and could thus be linked to Irish Catholic and Gaelic culture, something which the present monarchy lacks. Possibly the monarchy would accept as its head at least at some stage in the future a catholic or an Irish catholic (Not perpetually) .Changing the constitution and having multiple oaths are a good idea, (identites can change look at the old English and Gaelic Irish). The British failure do develop a society that is inclusive of Gaelic and Catholic variations of Irishness, is equivalent to the failure of Irish Nationalists to develop a society incluisve of British culture of Irish Protestantism hence the Ulsterisation of Protestant politics and the creation and development of the two nations theory of Ireland. Both states (Irish and British) need to move beyond their past and inclusive politics is an important symbol that can transend antagonistic identities. Who’s to say that Britishness can’t become inclusive or Irish Catholics, nationalists or republicans become accepting of it . A middle way needs to be steered, and I for one think the allowance of a different oath for SF members is a good idea. If the Oath were to be changed and SF not take their seats still, I would tell the British public not to be disheartened, as a symbol to Irish Nationalists and Republicans of good faith it could win their support.