No-one in ROI voted for the SF MPs therefore why should they get to speak in debates or contribute to the legislative progress of any laws etc being passed. It may be frustrating for Conor Murphy but it is just as frustrating for those people he represents, but who did not vote for him, to know that their interests and the interests of that constituency area will not be represented at all in Westminister.

That said all of our MPs are largely ineffectual at Westminster so I suppose it doesn't matter.

what I don't understand is why this wasn't negotiated as part of the Belfast Agreement if it's that important. Having signed upto the Belfast agreement surely the party agreed to accept the triple/fourfold nature* of representation, although abstaining from the third component ( Westminster)- so Conor can hardly complain. He has, after all, the option of standing for a constituency across the disputed border, he has party colleagues in the Dáil - and as such is in the same position as SF voters in consituencies in the ROI who are represented by a PD, FF or FG TD.

* Elections to Belfast:Dublin:London:Yurp

McDowell is a disgrace. He's becoming a one man ne plus ultra on the progress of Ireland's nationhood.

MCT: And the ball was where exactly?

McDowell's argument is a perfectly reasonable one, I don't think Northern Irish based SF representatives should be allowed entry in the Dail - they have 5 TD's to get the message across if required.

That he's becoming a one man ne plus ultra on the progress of Ireland's nationhood.

He's single-handedly (not to mention ultra vires) placing limitations on the ability and capacity of the Irish nation to function as a unit, thereby copper-fastening partition in ways it need not be copper-fastened, and excluding a section of Irish people who want to be included from participation in national debate. In doing so he's rejecting the concept of republicanism espoused by its founding fathers, whose legacy he has publicly claimed to pursue.

Blackadder

You couldn't miss the point more if you danced naked on a harpsichord singing points to miss are here again.

The point is representation of the people of the North in the Dail, particularly at a time when there is a representation vacuum. SF don't want representation in the Dail for SF MPS, but for all NI MPs, as an exercise in Irish nationhood - there would be as many unionist TDs as SF TDs.

Middle class taig makes a fair point and I don't think the man/ball arugument applies when we're taking about public figures.

Personally I think they should (and will) have speaking rights in either the Dail and Seanaid. McDowell has as much influence as any cabinet minister belonging to a junior coalition partner. All he's doing is playing to his audience in Ranelagh.

And his insulting and continued reference to the 'state' reveal his partionist views.

take it to the logical conclusion Carlos... as hundreds of thousands of Irish people live in the UK
and many thousands of UK citizens live in the ROI,
Westminster MPs should be present in Dáil and TDs in Westminster ... so why not just have a federal parliament of the Isles for the natural unit, the Archipelago usually known as the British Isles.

On the other hand - maybe Conor was thinking of the shocking quality of TDs that SF have representing them in Dáil - is it back to 5 yet? - and wants to lend a hand ? It's understandable, I have to say that Northern SF are of a far higher calibre (bad pun, sorry) than their Southern counterparts.

Carlos:

"I don't think the man/ball arugument applies when we're taking about public figures".

I'm afraid it has too - if only to keep matters sane.

I've spoken to a number of public figures, including journalists, who've been 'done over' on Slugger. To a man and woman they welcome the attention even if it entails pulling their work apart. But few can tolerate the kind of 'don't listen to what he says because he's __________ (fill in the blank)' ad hominem attacks that man playing entails.

At this point, it might be as well to revisit the reason for the rule in the first place.

Irish citizens in Britain are expatriates. Irish citizens in the north are not.
Having said that, there have been demands for the Irish abroad to get the vote, as British expatriates do.
I think the fact that they would have to sort out representation for the north, is one reason why this hasn't happened.

Davros,

And what about the natural unit of the island or Ireland? Maybe thats where we need the federal assembly ;-)

Mick,

You're the boss. And I accept that non insults keep the debate sharper.

Perhaps 'McDowell's comments are a disgrace. He's becoming a one man ne plus ultra on the progress of Ireland's nationhood' would have been better.

It was a hard tackle, but I got the ball, ref, you have to admit. Thanks Carlos.

Tom Griffin

"Having said that, there have been demands for the Irish abroad to get the vote, as British expatriates do."

Except "British expatriates" from which corner of the Kingdom?

You guessed it.

Carlos and MCT

It might just blow your mind, but there is nothing inherently wrong with partition.

The problem is Nationalists and Unionists in the North being unable to reach a permenent accomodation and perpetuating a conflict that is a throw-back to times long gone by.

The paradox is, if the people of the North take responsibility for their situation and reach accomodation, they just might turn a 'fail-statelet' into a viable entity - which would be much more appealling to people in the Republic than what it is today. But then the issue is whats the point? Republicanism is built on the false premise that things cannot (or won't be allowed to) work unless there is a united Ireland. And (as per usual) the opposite is the case for Unionism.

Now anyone with an atlas and a functioning brain knows that countries come in all different shapes and sizes and appear in the funniest of places, and none of this determines whether the country can provide a good society for its citizens.
Which is what it is all about. The fundamental problem for Republicanism and Unionism is that they are a means, not an end.

Maybe Mr McDowell should re-familiarise himself with the proclamation I wonder what Fianna Fail have to say about this. They don't seem to mind Irish people from the occupied six counties buying Irish passports, or competing for Ireland in Olympic sports and all Ireland GAA events. Why shouldn't people here have a vote in Presidential and other elections or have their opinion heard who is it hurting?

Nothing inherently wrong with partition? How about 50 years of misgovernment and 30 years of violence. The father of unionism Edward Carson was himself depressed by the granting of the thing he hated, Home Rule, to the northern six counties. Most people agree it was a disaster which took us years to get over.

Also, the aim of those in N.I is not to make N.I look 'more appealing' to people in the Republic. This is typical analysis common since the advent of the Celtic Tiger. We are looking for agreement and consenus, not approval from southerners who scoff at the North.

One thing I will agree on is that Provisionalism holds a United Ireland as a modern day opiate for the people. A genuines united Ireland, and not that advocated by Adams et al could deliver.

Carlos, nobody knows for certain whether or not partition is workable or not. Certainly the Republic can get by without the "fourth green field", but Northern Ireland has never been allowed to try and function as a normal state.

As ringo points out, remove the problem of Northern Ireland's divided society, and in essence, people working from the inside to bring it down - and who knows what might happen.

The question is whether the Provos would actually be able to survive if Northern Ireland 'worked' and people were happy there, secure in the knowledge that not living in the Republic didn't make them any less Irish.

MCT

I think that having representation for Northern politicians in the Dail is wrong given that a great deal of debate and policy is strangely enough based around their own national issues, not those of another state.

Obviously, sadly for yourself and others, the forum for Nationalist expression on Irish nationhood has to be one based in the country in which you live.

P.S. Like your Blackadder based joke at the start of your post.

Although I hate the 'this was a grand wee place' argument, NI was faily succesful economically until the 1970s. A pity the bigots in control continued to view Catholics as subversive instead of citiziens, who knows how different things could have been?

And I agree that something crucial for nationalists is realising that to be 'truly' Irish one must live in the Republic. We are far from this.
This sounds token, but when I see the Irish and British flag flying from City Hall maybe then I'll feel like that.

"there is nothing inherently wrong with partition."

If McDowell had the cojones to say that, then fine, but instead pretends to pursue the legacy of the 1916 republicans.

"Republicanism is built on the false premise that things cannot (or won't be allowed to) work unless there is a united Ireland."

Demonstrably untrue and deceitful following McGuinness' and deBrun's hard work in their departments. SF want devolution back, the unionists don't because it means republican participation, which, they have discovered, they can't live with.

Sorry that should have read:

'And I agree that something crucial for nationalists is realising that to be 'truly' Irish one doesn't have to live in the Republic'

There are Irish all over the world.

Carlos

Also, the aim of those in N.I is not to make N.I look 'more appealing' to people in the Republic. This is typical analysis common since the advent of the Celtic Tiger.

Fair point.

Nothing inherently wrong with partition? How about 50 years of misgovernment and 30 years of violence.

Before partition there was bloodshed.
After partition there was bloodshed on either side of the border.

This idea that partition is the root cause is only one degree away from the daft Republican notion that the root cause of all the problems on this island is 'the brits'.

We are looking for agreement and consenus, not approval from southerners who scoff at the North.

Are you prepared for a solution that stops short of a UI if the electorate here decide that is what is on offer?

Blackadder, you cannot seriously advocate Westminster as a forum for "nationalist expression on Irish nationhood". Is the session on Irish nationhood before or after the swearing of an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

"This sounds token, but when I see the Irish and British flag flying from City Hall maybe then I'll feel like that."

Jesus, now we're talking. I hope you mean Lisburn City Hall :-).

Why does the SDLP not demand this? A two flags society would genuinely make me feel more bought into this place. Why does the Alliance Party reject it? Is it just craven electoralism?

Ringo

"Are you prepared for a solution that stops short of a UI if the electorate here decide that is what is on offer?"

Of course. Are the PD's going to campaign for that? :-)

The Alliance reject it cos it'd piss of their (shrinking) base of latte drinkers and quiche eaters who "don't like that sort of thing"

Why don't the SDLP call for it? I think because they justifiably see flags as a stimulus for sectarianism. I'm not 100% with that as I think that flags in the right place are afforded the dignity they deserve and don't add to sectarianism.

Ringo, ironic that most bloodshed prepartition was South of the border. And arguably the choice facing nationalism now is which definition of UI it wants.

MCT

If McDowell had the cojones to say that, then fine, but instead pretends to pursue the legacy of the 1916 republicans.

I would say that McDowell is being a lot more honest than most other mainstream politicians here.

As for the proclamation of 1916 - it is available for all to tap into and take the bits they like and conveniently ignore the other bits. Just like SF, FF etc... Just like Paisley does with the Bible.

Demonstrably untrue and deceitful following McGuinness' and deBrun's hard work in their departments. SF want devolution back, the unionists don't because it means republican participation, which, they have discovered, they can't live with.

The failure to sign up to the policing like the SDLP and the continued existence of the IRA - the single biggest threat to government in NI over the past 40 years prove my point.

Same could be said about Dodds and Robinson carrying out their duties, by all accounts. So why isn't everything hunky dory?

The point is that representation in the Dail for northern elected representatives has already been conceded by the Irish government after it was endorsed by an all party committee on reforming the constitution. This leaves McDowell rather on the margins of his own government - not alone that but his view is probably outside the consensus view in the south. It's a partitionist and narrow minded view of the type we've come to expect from 26-County-Republicans.

The point is that representation in the Dail for northern elected representatives has already been conceded by the Irish government after it was endorsed by an all party committee on reforming the constitution. This leaves McDowell rather on the margins of his own government - not alone that but his view is probably outside the consensus view in the south. It's a partitionist and narrow minded view of the type we've come to expect from '26-County-Republicans'.

Blackadder, you cannot seriously advocate Westminster as a forum for "nationalist expression on Irish nationhood".

MCT,

Given that is where the politicians recently were elected to, and spent lots of money on campaigns and time to get there, it might do them some good to take a seat and make their feelings known.

Alternatively, they can sit and scratch their arses and shout from the sidelines, which they have grown increasingly adept at.

MCT, Carlos. Re the dual flags thing I don't see that happening. There's a good article on it which I will try and find a link to (in fact I may do a post on it over at Everything Ulster instead).

Basically it boils down to the theroy that for unionists a flag is a lot about sovereignty and allegiance, and the only time therefore that a tricolour would be appropriate would be under joint-sovereignty.

Ringo

"I would say that McDowell is being a lot more honest than most other mainstream politicians here."

You may well do so, but you'd be being deceitful.

"The failure to sign up to the policing like the SDLP and the continued existence of the IRA ... prove my point."

Only if you adopt the Playshool Rules of Debating

"Same could be said about Dodds and Robinson carrying out their duties"

Unionists in "wanting Northern Ireland to work" shocker

Carlos

And arguably the choice facing nationalism now is which definition of UI it wants

nationalism? How are you defining this - sounds like it is everyone who is not a Unionist that lives on this island? The idea that everyone, who sees themselves as 'not a Unionist', wants a UI is folly.

It is clear that the nationalist and republicans in the north are awakening to this false assumption. Conor Murphy accused John O'Donoghue of subscribing to a republicanism that stopped at the border. Gerry Adams has started harking on in the same vein. This may touch a raw nerve in the north - but it doesn't even appear on the radar down here.

OC
The point is that representation in the Dail for northern elected representatives has already been conceded by the Irish government after it was endorsed by an all party committee on reforming the constitution.

Which is meaningless in the absence of a comprehensive agreement in the North. post-agreement what they'll get is the right to speak in the Oireachtas on the odd occasion. It is purely symbolic and aside from giving Gerry his day out in the Dail, it will be of no practical use to their constituents whatsoever- but as long as the party benefits, SF don't really care.

"Given that is where the politicians recently were elected to"

Five of them were elected NOT TO GO THERE

"it might do them some good to take a seat"

so scrub the oath

Beano

"I don't see that happening. Basically it boils down to the theory that for unionists a flag is a lot about sovereignty and allegiance"

So, you're happy for the alienation of nationalists from the state to continue because of unionist theory of sovereignty. Real reaching out stuff, Beano.

I didn't say I was happy about it, don't twist my words. I'd prefer it if there was a flag both communities could find expression in and subscribe loyalty to, but in the immortal words of Harry Hill... "What are the chances of that happening?"

Beano

Sorry.

Wouldn't the Jack and Tricolour beside each other be more reflective of the allegiances which do exist and the respect to be afforded to each?

Have you ever seen anything as dull and boring as the Dail in the ROI.

Letting politicians from the north speak there would certainly brighten things up a bit. Can you imagine the Doc going on full-steam about discrimination against prods in the South. Can't wait!

Waken up guys (and gals), it's not going to happen for at least a generation, maybe never.

MCT

"Five of them were elected NOT TO GO THERE"

I know, the absurdity of it cracks me up.

However, they were not elected to sit in the Dail, so its probably best if they sat and scratched their arses.

6cp

"Waken up guys (and gals), it's not going to happen for at least a generation, maybe never."

I have five words for you. MartinMcGuinness: Minister of Education.

Ringo I think you're wearing your "Mr I know whats going on in the South" hat with pride and a touch too much enthusiasm.

I am well aware of political views in the South on a UI. But I'm also well aware that people are presented with a polarised view of UI instead of a workable sturcture. Perhaps it something more informed than the SF fly the flag nonsense we're used to was presented views could change.

Comments like 'it'd cost too much' ignore what the actual outcome would be.

Mr I know whats going on in the South hat

Alright - Carlos criticism accepted. It just really gets on my wick when I hear Northern nationalists rabbiting on about a UI, and wearing their 'I know what the attitude in the south is, and it is the same as here hats'. Like it or not McDowell takes no flak here for his views on provisionals or this State - he does on immigration, policing etc..

I am well aware of political views in the South on a UI. But I'm also well aware that people are presented with a polarised view of UI instead of a workable sturcture. Perhaps it something more informed than the SF fly the flag nonsense we're used to was presented views could change.

again, fair point. My beef is with the flag-wavers. But until the SDLP are calling the shots again, it is only natural to treat any talk of a UI with contempt.

Five of them were elected NOT TO GO THERE

The RM can be flexible :)

Remember when they swore they would never participate in British Rule in the Occupied 6 counties ? ;)

Not a bullet, Not an Ounce ?

Of course they posture about their mandate - while criticising the DUP for their posturing about THEIR mandate .....

Here's the link to Ahern's statement in 2002. The most relevant bits:

I share the Committee's view that it could be particularly valuable from time to time to have the expertise, experience and insight of politicians from Northern Ireland in appropriate debates in the Oireachtas. The Government therefore support the making of the necessary procedural arrangements to allow MP selected for Northern Ireland constituencies to speak in periodic debates on Northern Ireland matters and on the operation of the Good Friday Agreement, as envisaged by the Committee, and will seek the assistance of other parties in the Dáil to bring this about as soon as practicable.

The Committee rightly points to the valuable precedent established by the contributions of past and present Senators from the North in the Seanad. I fully agree that it would be valuable to extend and to formalise this existing practice. The Committee brings forward a range of options, some of which would require amendment of the Constitution. These deserve careful consideration and we will be seeking to move forward on the basis of the maximum political consensus to achieve an outcome that will provide, as soon as practicable, for a permanent presence from Northern Ireland in the
Seanad".

My italics indicate the reason it may just stay off the cards for some time to come. But at a guess I'd venture it's one of the things SF will be raising in the next round of negotiations.

Here's a link to an href="http://www.atholbooks.org/southbelfastclp/content.php?story=11">exchange in the Dail on the topic between the Taoiseach and Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

I have read comments from some SDLP politicians that indicate support for such a development. Does anyone know if it is offical SDLP policy?

Here's a link to an
exchange in the Dail on the topic between the Taoiseach and Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

I have read comments from some SDLP politicians that indicate support for such a development. Does anyone know if it is offical SDLP policy?

Ringo,

You're right about McDowell not taking any flak in the south. This is probably because those he is offending are in the north, and, therefore, cannot vote ine the South.

I agree with some of what he says by the wya, but part of me thinks he is good at the rhetoric but bad at follow through. This applies to other policies (Garda reform for example) as well as the North.

And, finally, I always get the feeling that he's playing to the coffee shops of Ranelagh instead of the entire nation/state/whichever you prefer as is befitting of his position.

MCT

He's single-handedly (not to mention ultra vires) placing limitations on the ability and capacity of the Irish nation to function as a unit, thereby copper-fastening partition in ways it need not be copper-fastened, and excluding a section of Irish people who want to be included from participation in national debate.

Dear, dear. You're making the worryingly common mistake of confusing the "nation" with the state. Considering oneself to be part of the "Irish nation" is not the same thing as being a resident of the Southern Irish state.

If people not resident in Southern Ireland wish to elect people to represent them in its parliament, they would need to move residence into Southern Ireland. Either that, or seek the inclusion of the territory in which they reside into that state.

carlosblanco

Personally I think they should (and will) have speaking rights in either the Dail and Seanaid.

Why?

Nothing inherently wrong with partition? How about 50 years of misgovernment and 30 years of violence. The father of unionism Edward Carson was himself depressed by the granting of the thing he hated, Home Rule, to the northern six counties. Most people agree it was a disaster which took us years to get over.

By citing Carson, you've contradicted yourself in your answer. You're confusing partition per se with the form of government that went with it.

PS. Shame on the DUP for signing up to the notion of NI representation in the Southern parliament.

The real "push-over unionists"?