LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSurely a oath to act in the best interests of your constituents is more appropriate.
These oaths go back to a bygone time when responsibilities to lords and Kings rather than land defined a kingdom.
Surely a oath to act in the best interests of your constituents is more appropriate.
These oaths go back to a bygone time when responsibilities to lords and Kings rather than land defined a kingdom.
Daft proposal by Patterson.
Its like saying to Rosa Parks well if you dont want to sit in the designated seats at the back you can pick the designated seats yourself and stick with it.
The wording of the oath is not the problem, the fact that its an oath to a monarch is not the problem. Remove the oath and get rid of the queen and Sinn Fein still wont sit in Westminister.
But I wonder is Patterson aware of this and being a useful idiot rather than just a regular idiot. They want out as much as we Irish want them out.
Its striking how few unionist minded people can accept that or at least say in public they accept it.
Do they take their seats in Brussels?Originally Posted by bradán feasa
Maybe they could make reference to the GFA agreement.
Something like, "For as long as the majority of the People of Ireland support the Good Friday Agreement, including the principle that Northern Ireland has the right to decide by simple majority which jurisdiction it shall be part of, I recognise that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom with Queen Elizabeth as Queen".
Having said that, it isn't like they represent that many votes anyway. It seems that they get little benefit in return for a loss of principle.
I reckon the pair of them would take their seats in a heart beat if they thought they could square it with the base. Apparently they couldn't resist lecturing Blair on Iraq back in 2003. Imagine the thrill Gerry would get from standing up in a packed Commons and telling off Cameron about Afghanistan. He'd absolutely love it...
That's the point of the proposal.
to be honest...i see no reason why they wouldn't take their seats in westminster...as long as there was no pledge of allegiance...
a simple oath to promise to represent all constituents to the best of their abilities is all that is required...
sitting in stormount/westminster...no difference...
at this stage they should be using all possible avenues to further their goals...
those old republican hangups with everything relating to britain are dragging republicanism ever further backwards....
its time to break the mould in as many ways as possible...
the days of armed resistance and boycotting are long gone...
time to move on...
"goddam it!...when you tell me not to click on something...i have to click it!"............Ard Eoin!...
Patterson's right to ask the question. The SF line has matured from "We're not sitting, because we don't like the oath" to "We're abstaining, and the people who vote for us know we're abstaining"
Which is great for say the 60% of people that vote for an SF MP. Not so much for the 40% who didn't, and are now denied a voice in their house of parliament.
If they want to stand and not do the work great. But you shouldn't get paid for not working. In the Republic we were all up in arms demanding financial penalties for TDs who don't attend the Dail. Surely there should be financial penalties for those who don't attend Westminster. Turn around's fair play.
Beanie is my anti-drug.
Excellent point.
But the 40% that didn't vote for SF presumably didn't do so as they don't think SF speaks for them....so in fact, that 40% have lost nothing.
Reply With Quote