Originally Posted by
Gather round
Are you being entirely serious about the other? This country (England) has millions of people who share their prejdices against gays and abortion and probably aren't too hot on the Theory of Evolution. Remember, this is an election where they don't trust people to mark 1,2.3 on a ballot paper...
The DUP's anachronistic views, whilst apparently popular in the north-east of Ireland, are way out of step with mainstream thinking in Britain, which, as you suggest, can be quite reactionary as it is. The British media, both on the right and left, have been lampooning the DUP all week because they regard them as so exotic, alien and retrograde.
The following comment by a commenter called Neil on Slugger O'Toole humoured me:
"I hope the DUP enjoy their moment in the sun, it's certainly not coming without a cost. The dawning realisation that a sizable chunk of your fellow British people view the DUP with contempt. We'll see how well they stand up to scrutiny now that they're attracting the attention of the kind of journalists that hack phones, as opposed to the normal NI type who circulate party press releases.
We'll see how this one pans out, but this 'deal' isn't a deal yet. As I said, imagine after all these years the vote actually fell within that magic, tiny margin where the DUP become relevant and they find that they're too toxic for the Tory party."
Ruth Davidson (Tory leader in Scotland). No-one will stop you getting married to your female partner, or insist on bowler-hatted marchpasts before every Celtic home game. Self-obsessed hypocrisy, I'm afraid.
Heh, her "expression of concern" did seem a bit like grandstanding alright.
Shaun Lord Snooty Woodward (ex Labour NI secretary, previously a Tory MP). There isn't and can't reasonably be a 'rule' forbidding two British political parties dealing with each other. If that contradicts the GFA then tough, the latter will need to be replaced.
The Good Friday Agreement states that "the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction [over the north] shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality":
In theory, if the DUP won enough seats to form a government by themselves, there's little that could be done about that, but surely any responsible non-Ireland-based British party with designs on forming a government should not be inviting coalitions or "confidence and supply" arrangements with unionist (or, indeed, nationalist) parties from the north of Ireland if they're obliged to remain rigorously impartial in their dealings with the region. The possibility of neutrality is necessarily compromised by such a blatant conflict of interest.
With what are you going to replace the GFA?
Gerry Adams TD: thanks for clarifying this weekend that your party isn't interested in goings-on in the Brit Parliament. And well done on your election results. As most Nat voters in Belfast, Derry and South Down clearly share your attitude, you can't expect a movement with no MPs to have a veto in Parliament.
What are you referring to? Did Adams say he expected some sort of veto in Westminster?
It's interesting to hear the demands in the media for Sinn Féin to take their seats, especially from southern parties like Fianna Fáil and the Irish Labour Party. Considering these parties - supposedly national - refuse to contest elections north of the border, they can hardly lecture others on such matters.
Also of interest, I note that a Tory actually suggested reform of the parliamentary oath of allegiance back in 2006 in order to facilitate Sinn Féin, although nothing ever became of it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...says-Tory.html
I'm not convinced that would make a difference anyway, especially judging by the unequivocal statements of Adams and other Sinn Féin members since the election. The rationale, which has remained unchanged for a century, was outlined pretty clearly again by Danny Morrison on Eamonn Mallie's site the other day and it doesn't merely relate to the oath: http://eamonnmallie.com/2017/06/form...anny-morrison/
Sinn Féin would surely have to have a vote involving party members at an Ard Fheis to change a policy like that. Taking their seats might seem like a no-brainer to the many urging Sinn Féin to take their seats, but I don't see it happening for a few obvious reasons:
- Sinn Féin's seven MPs were elected in the knowledge and on the promise that they would abstain from Westminster. That's what the largest number of voters in the seven constituencies where Sinn Féin won their seats voted for. For Sinn Féin to go back on that would essentially be to renege on an election promise.
- Abstentionism has been a core party policy of Sinn Féin's for a century, the purpose of which has effectively been to allow Irish electorates to use their vote to reject British rule in Ireland.
- Expressing an oath of allegiance to a monarch, whether foreign or not, would be an obvious contravention of republican principles. (In saying that, republican socialist Bernadette Devlin took a pragmatic approach and managed to get round it without damaging her republican credentials when she was elected to Westminster in 1969 as a Unity candidate.)
- Sinn Féin rejects Britain's asserted right to legislate over part of Ireland. If Sinn Féin were to start legislating in Westminster - or over Britain, in other words - they'd leave themselves open to accusations of gross hypocrisy. Arguably, their entire raison d'être would be seen to lack coherency and they'd perhaps lose credibility too. I'm sure unionists and "dissidents" would have a field day.
Whether one agrees with the rationale or not, the logic behind Sinn Féin's abstentionism is at least pretty solid.
Bookmarks