Does anyone think Sinn Fein might rethink this policy considering the DUP is going to be propping up the government? Of course, a surprise like that would be more splashy if the Tories were relying on slightly less than 325 and were counting on their absence.
Unless a party approaches Sinn Fein to form a coalition government, what’s the point?
They are a tiny minority party.
I guess they could say to the Tories “Form a coaltion with us instead of the DUP”.
But that would only work if the DUP were going to be more of a pain in the ass to deal with than Sinn Fein. Something tells me Sinn Fein would be a major pain in the ass for any coalition partner. Just a feeling.
Why would the Conservative and Union party ask a separatist party to join them? Fundamental difference in ideology.
The DUP is a tiny minority party too. The point would be more obvious if, as I suggested, the Tory/DUP coalition added up to 324 and counted on the Sinn Fein abstentions to govern.
They wouldn’t, of course. I think Lemur was just suggesting a wild scenario. But as far as I can tell, asking the DUP to join was almost as unthinkable before this week.
And then look at their position on social issues today. This is a rather insane alliance.
Why is “leverage” required? An elected representative is just that and it’s the civil service’s job to deal with the issues they raise on behalf of their constituents. Why should Mrs McGinty not get an answer to the problem she’s having with her pension or Mr. Mendoza with some immigration problem just because they’ve sent it via the person elected to be their MP (whom they might not have voted for) but who chooses not to take the oath?
Sinn Fein members work as councillors and, until it was recently closed for business, as members of the NI Assembly, where they could effect some actual change for their electorate.
An MP’s office provides them with the opportunity to show their constituents some symbolism (sticking it to the Brits) and deny their opponents both Unionist and Nationalist back home the chance to take that office themselves. They get expenses for their effort too.
Leverage in Parliament came from IRA actions until that started becoming counterproductive and then some grand speeches and gestures.
Having said that, I do remember a doctor aiming to be an MP on a platform that would keep an A&E Department in Tyrone County Hospital and being reasonably successful for an outsider despite losing. Members of the Assembly from both “sides” have had many opportunities to improve health services but haven’t really bothered to act on them.
Yes and no. The Unionist parties have always voted with the Tories, and there’s very little chance they would abandon that to join a progressive coalition with a chum of the IRA. The formal agreement, such as it is, is unusual, but not particularly problematic. What is a problem is that it looks bloody awful and hypocritical, even if the reality is rather more mundane.
I guess I’m missing something here. Of course there is more to being a member of parliament than voting. But if someone refuses to take the seat, then that person is not an MP, so how can they do any of the other things an MP is supposed to do?
Nah, it’s not like that. A constituent issue raised by an elected Member is treated seriously by the Civil Service at all levels (there’s a certain amount of quality control, obviously), and cascaded further down to local government, if that’s more appropriate to deal with it (it’s usually about bins). There’s no distinction whether the Member’s sworn an oath or not, and the current crop* of Sinn Fein MPs, and their constituency offices, do this work routinely. Even the Prime Minister does constituency work sometimes.
- Some previous Sinn Fein MPs maybe didn’t, I dunno
No, their constituency returned them as the duly elected Member for <wherever>. After that it’s up to the Member, and the constituency is free to vote otherwise at the next election.
But then why make any formal agreement at all? Just go minority gov and let the DUP vote how they normally would. I can only suspect that there’s a couple issues the DUP wants to wrangle on and an agreement beforehand is to keep that wrangling private.
Not to mention that Baron Tebbit’s head would explode if it was the Tories who asked.
Interesting article - thanks!
No, it’s a bit fuzzier. Once the returning officer certifies the election in a constituency, the winner of the poll is the Member for that constituency.
The oath is necessary to take the seat in the Commons, but it doesn’t make the person a member.
Whatever the reason, like the rest of this election, May has handled it terribly. Private discussion and an attempt to form a minority government would have probably been the way forward - but then, people would probably have asked what kind of agreement had been made behind closed doors, and criticised the Tories for that. Perhaps correctly.
This is overall about the worst possible result. May will struggle to form a government that anyone views as legitimate, and unless the Scottish Tories defect Corbyn can’t form a government. Really, another election, and soon, is the only possibility.
Following up on this point, here’s an extract from a briefing paper prepared by the Parliamentary Library:
In summary, the winner of the election in a constituency is a Member of Parliament, but cannot sit or vote the House of Commons until swearing the oath.
Note that the penalty for sitting or voting without taking the oath is that the seat is declared vacant. That’s another indication that the person is a Member of Parliament, even without taking the oath. There is a member in that seat, it’s just that they can’t participate in the Commons until they’ve taken the oath.
So as long as a Sinn Féin candidate has been duly elected, there is a member for that constituency. There can’t be a by-election on the grounds of vacancy in the seat just because the member does not take the oath.
The counter-argument is obvious; if you deliberately exclude from the democratic process those whose central platform is the illegitimacy of British rule in Ireland, you leave them no option but to advance their cause by undemocratic means, and you can hardly disclaim all responsiblity when they do that.
Sinn Fein is not really interested in who governs the UK, a question which they regard as basically none of their business. Sinn Fein is interested in who governs Ireland.
I’m not saying that nothing would ever induce them to abandon their principle/strategy of abstention from Westminster, but they only thing that might conceivably do so would be a realistic opportunity of advancing their fundamental goad of Irish unity and independence. If their participation in Westminster would result in a party committed to delivering Irish unity and independence taking power in the UK, then they might take their seats. Anything short of that, they’re not really interested.
Yes, and the circumstances - the platform of illegitimacy, and the voters knowing beforehand - are Special in this case (I didn’t know about this before this thread, only Sinn Fein as legitmate Party for Irish parliament), so I was talking generally.
On the Weekend, the Left Party here had their Party Meeting, deciding on what platform to run in autumn, and the left-wing ideologues decided (once again) to stay pure by badmouthing potential ally SPD and esp. by making impossible demands (the SPD might agree with them on the two social issues, those are important, but no Military? Not as NATO et al members), and while they pulled this shit before, I’m still frustrated: just when we Need a strong Opposition on the left side, we get a small Party of pure pie-in-the-sky never compromise Party, and a big Party who tries to copy the consies.
At least I won’t have to consider the left when voting: if they are Content to criticize and make impossible promises without taking responsibility like grown-ups, then I’m Content to not give them any votes.
Sure, and not voting for Sinn Fein is a perfectly rational response to their policy of abstentionism.
But there’s a huge difference between not voting for them and not allowing them to participate in elections, which was the suggestion in the OP.