Even given the narrow general election results yesterday, Sinn Fein will again not take its seats (seven this time, it looks like) in the new House. I think I understand the point the Irish party is trying to make, but wonder why the rest of Parliament continues to let them stand for election, win seats and then refuse to take part in governance.
Has there ever been a serious proposal to bar from the British parliamentary ballot any party which was unwilling to take its seats, or to automatically award any such seat to whichever party was the runner-up in that particular election?
On what grounds would they be banned? I know we tend to make the constitution up as we go along here, but reversing the result of an election because you don’t like it seems a bit extreme.
I think the Argument is “Politics is about grown-ups participating, not toddler tantrums, so if you know beforehand you are not going to take any part, you’re just wasting time by going up in the election.”
I remember, back when in High School we had elections for the class Speaker, the teacher always stressed before we wrote the names on the Slips of paper and then a second time after the counting was done, that nobody was required to accept the result, they were allowed to refuse, and then we would have to do-over. (And the teacher deliberatly asked the winning candidate to clearly confirm that he was accepting the win and Position of class Speaker).
I always understood (along with the rest of the class I believe) that accepting the candidacy, but not the Position in case of win, was a dick move just wasting everybody’s time.
In this case, People voted for them in order to represent them. If they don’t take their seats, how can they represent their voters / constitutencies?
I think re-doing the election in the affected districts until the elected politicans agree to participate would be more fair to the voters.
However, if they have been doing that for some time now - so the voters knew ahead of the election that this would be the outcome - then I think the People have spoken and don’t want to be represented.
It’s tradition, damn it ! The Code, and the Code made the Empire !
I despise their cause, but honour their adherence to Ritual and keeping to the Old Ways. Such permanent refusal is now as part of political culture as Black Rod, or the Regalia being brought to the Commons in their own horse drawn carriage.
Yep, that’s basically exactly what’s happened. And even if they don’t formally take their seats, it doesn’t follow that they can’t do any work for their constituents. I don’t know if they do or not, but there’s a lot more to an MP’s job than voting in the Commons.
Why would they be successful in doing work for their constituents? Now government departments are responsive to request from legislators because they vote on bills affecting those departments. But if they don’t vote where is the leverage?
They can’t get any cabinet or Minister Posts, either, if they aren’t sitting, right?
I know that MPs don’t only sit around in Parliament all day - they meet with experts and draft legislation and talk to their voters.
But if they don’t sit, they can’t introduce drafts, either, right?
Most of an MPs work is local, and it’s possible that they have the same access locally as any other MP would have. I don’t know this, but I don’t know that it’s not true either.
There’s obviously some reason they still get elected, and I doubt it’s purely partisanship. But again, I could be wrong.
They wouldn’t anyway, they’re a tiny minority party.
A normal MP will spend a lot of time in their constituency dealing with local issues, often in informal or semi-formal discussions with various groups. Whether that’s helping to arrange funding for local charities, raising issues with large companies that their constituents disagree with, providing a link between local and central Government, and many other things. Most MPs won’t touch any legislation directly.
They already are banned. All MP’s swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch. Sinn Fein refuses to take the oath, since they deny the British Crown’s authority in Ireland.
Refusal to take the Oath can lead to a member having their seat declared vacant. Wich could certainly be done with Sinn Fein (and IIRC has been done for a member or so at times). However, since Sinn Fein represents extremely Catholic Constituencies, what will happen is that the resulting by-election will see Sinn Fein candidate returned again and the process continues.
For most of the previous century this arrangement suited the UK Government just fine, the number of seats was pretty less compared to the rest of the House and N Ireland was enough of a powder keg that no one was interested in making it an issue, and N Ireland seats typically were irrelevant in Westminster.
With the GFA 1998 and Sinn Fein joining the power-sharing executive and devolved legislature in Stormont (there is no requirement to take an Oath of Allegiance in N Ireland as a result of the GFA 1998, members take a pledge to undertake their responsibilities instead) the situation has changed.
Two out of the last three UK Election have resulted in no party having a majority. As anyone not under a rock now knows, May is forming a Government with support from Ulster Unionists. Already after 2010 Election, there was an attempt to get Sinn Fein to join by asking them to write what Oath they would be comfortable with.. They refused then.
If N Ireland seats start becoming important in deciding who rules in Westminster then I think there is a significant possibility that London could start demanding the Sinn Fein start attending and take coercive action to get compliance; although they probably would agree to reasonable accommodations as tp avoid hurting Nationalist sentiments,
But they are representing their electorate. In a vast, one-issue protest. It might be logically incoherent (if you don’t believe in the legitimacy of government, why play any of the government game at all) and self-defeating, but the electors voted for this form of protest.
Because it’s a very strong form of peaceful political protest. In a democracy we want to protect the right of the people to make political protests, by whatever peaceful means they see fit.
The hard-core of the Sinn Féin and their supporters view the British as a foreign occupying force. Why should they be forced to collaborate with the political system of the occupying foreign oppressor? (Note: not saying I agree with that characterization, but that’s my understanding of it.) By standing for election but refusing to take their seats, they’re making a very powerful statement that the British Parliament has no legitimacy in Northern Ireland. Denying them the right to make that statement is contrary to general principles of free expression and free political choices.
That would be anti-democratic. Since Sinn Féin again started to stand for election in 1982, they’ve steadily increased their share of the popular vote and the number of MPs elected. Their supporters obviously agree with the Sinn Féin strategy, since they have been given Sinn Féin more and more support, even knowing that the MPs they elect will never take their seats in the Commons.
On what basis should the British government overrule the democratic choices of Sinn Féin’s supporters?
And then there’s the practical difficulty of trying to enforce it. If the government bans Sinn Féin, then you’ll just have “Real Sinn Féin” popping up in the next election to contest the seats. Same people, of course, just another name. And when “Real Sinn Féin” is banned, then there’ll be the “Sinn Féin Loyalists”, and so on.
And since the candidates only want to win the polls, not take their seats, the normal political principle that elected officials want power doesn’t work. If you ban Billy O’Toole this election because he refused to take his seat last time, then his brother Danny O’Toole will stand instead. And Billy’s supporters will vote Danny in. And if the British government then bans Danny, Billy’s other brother Danny will stand the next time.
As for putting the runner-up candidate into Parliament, I think there’s a good argument that would violate Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights:
If the Government overrides the choice of the people in composition of the Legislature, for a political reason, that looks like a breach of this article to me. (Willing to be corrected, of course, since i’m just noodling around.)
Thanks, all, and especially AK84 for some very interesting historical and political context. Didn’t know they’d been given the opportunity to write their own oaths and had refused.
A similar issue has arisen in Canada. When the Bloc québéois had a large caucus, they had to take an oath to Her Majesty to take their seat. They would take it, but under protest and with no ceremony, then cross the river to Gatineau and have a very public oath-renunciation ceremony.
No, they are. They are stating that the Westminster Parliament is illegitimate and should not have any Irish sitting in it. That is a statement about the choice of the legislature. They want to choose representatives to the Dáil Éireann. By refusing to take their seats in Westminster, they are making a public statement about their choice of the legislature. And their voters are supporting that choice.
Sinn Fein also thinks that the Republic of Ireland is illegitimate. They don’t practice abstentionism in the Dail Eireann though. Which has annoyed some Irish commentators.