Sinn Féin in Westminster

Started by Maguire01, November 02, 2010, 06:48:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Maguire01

No outcry over this? Does exclusion from the party beckon, or is this merely preparaing the way?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sinn-fein-member-first-to-address-parliament-2120506.html
Sinn Fein member first to address Parliament
By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor

Saturday, 30 October 2010

An Irish teenager made parliamentary history yesterday by becoming the first ever Sinn Fein member to cross the threshold and speak in the House of Commons.

Connor Morgan, 18, had been invited to Westminster as the representative for Co Derry in the UK Youth Parliament. The party has five MPs and the largest share of the vote in Northern Ireland, but no one from Sinn Fein has ever stepped foot in the chamber of the House of Commons.

Shortly after noon he stood at the dispatch box – in an unusually packed Commons chamber – and made the case for free higher education. But before he did so he made a second piece of history by addressing the chamber in Irish.

"It is a great honour to stand here before you and to have the opportunity to address you in Irish," he translated afterwards, having just been introduced by the Commons Speaker John Bercow, who was chairing the second ever meeting of the UK Youth Parliament (UKYP) in the chamber.

Around 300 members of the Youth Parliament aged between 11 and 18 sat on the Commons' green benches during the meeting. MPs voted earlier this year to allow the UKYP to hold an annual sitting in the Commons for the remainder of the parliament, which is due to end in 2015.

Mr Morgan, from Maghera, who is studying politics at Leeds, spoke to oppose the proposed removal of the cap on university tuition fees.

"Students will be trapped beneath a crushing burden of debt up to £95,000," he said before adding, to cheers from the chamber: "We need to send a clear message to decision-makers that we matter."

Speaking afterwards, Mr Morgan insisted his Sinn Fein membership was "completely irrelevant" as members of the Youth Parliament do not have party loyalties.

"This event is not party political," he said. "I'm here today just for the young people of my area. I want to represent their views."

Sinn Fein's MPs do not take their seats in Westminster because they refuse to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaKHn4sMLqY


A Tory take on the situation here - if nothing else, it shows the importance of knowing your privacy settings on Facebook!
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/10/sinn-fein-member-of-uk-youth-parliament.html

ziggysego

Did he swear allegiance to the British Crown?
Testing Accessibility

Puckoon

Quote from: ziggysego on November 02, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
Did he swear allegiance to the British Crown?

I dont think he had to with it being a Youth Parliament - from that article.

Maguire01

Quote from: Puckoon on November 02, 2010, 08:47:16 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on November 02, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
Did he swear allegiance to the British Crown?

I dont think he had to with it being a Youth Parliament - from that article.
No, he didn't have to.

ziggysego

Quote from: Maguire01 on November 02, 2010, 10:49:16 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 02, 2010, 08:47:16 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on November 02, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
Did he swear allegiance to the British Crown?

I dont think he had to with it being a Youth Parliament - from that article.
No, he didn't have to.

Then what would the uproar be for? Surely that's why Sinn Fein don't take their seats at Westminster, because the allegiance.
Testing Accessibility

TacadoirArdMhacha

Quote from: ziggysego on November 02, 2010, 10:53:16 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 02, 2010, 10:49:16 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 02, 2010, 08:47:16 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on November 02, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
Did he swear allegiance to the British Crown?

I dont think he had to with it being a Youth Parliament - from that article.
No, he didn't have to.

Then what would the uproar be for? Surely that's why Sinn Fein don't take their seats at Westminster, because the allegiance.

I think the official SF position is that they wouldn't take their seats even if the Oath was abolished. I'd doubt that the party even knew Mr Morgan was planning to attend Westminster never mind sanctioned it. Looks like a simple personal decision.
As I dream about movies they won't make of me when I'm dead

ziggysego

Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on November 02, 2010, 10:55:19 PM
I think the official SF position is that they wouldn't take their seats even if the Oath was abolished. I'd doubt that the party even knew Mr Morgan was planning to attend Westminster never mind sanctioned it. Looks like a simple personal decision.

Really? I always took it, that their stance was over the allegiance to the British Crown. Mind you, I've been wrong 100s of times in the pass about 100s of things.  :D
Testing Accessibility

Maguire01

Quote from: ziggysego on November 02, 2010, 10:57:29 PM
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on November 02, 2010, 10:55:19 PM
I think the official SF position is that they wouldn't take their seats even if the Oath was abolished. I'd doubt that the party even knew Mr Morgan was planning to attend Westminster never mind sanctioned it. Looks like a simple personal decision.

Really? I always took it, that their stance was over the allegiance to the British Crown. Mind you, I've been wrong 100s of times in the pass about 100s of things.  :D
According to Gerry, the oath is "a distraction".
http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/05/04/gerry-adams-its-not-about-the-oath/

ziggysego

Quote from: Maguire01 on November 02, 2010, 11:33:14 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on November 02, 2010, 10:57:29 PM
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on November 02, 2010, 10:55:19 PM
I think the official SF position is that they wouldn't take their seats even if the Oath was abolished. I'd doubt that the party even knew Mr Morgan was planning to attend Westminster never mind sanctioned it. Looks like a simple personal decision.

Really? I always took it, that their stance was over the allegiance to the British Crown. Mind you, I've been wrong 100s of times in the pass about 100s of things.  :D
According to Gerry, the oath is "a distraction".
http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/05/04/gerry-adams-its-not-about-the-oath/

Well then, proven wrong again ;)
Testing Accessibility

ardmhachaabu

What's the difference between sitting in Stormont & Westminster?  After all, all legislation passed in Stormont still needs royal assent
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something

Zapatista

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 02, 2010, 11:45:32 PM
What's the difference between sitting in Stormont & Westminster?  After all, all legislation passed in Stormont still needs royal assent

Whats the point in sitting in Stormont?

ardmhachaabu

You tell me.  They are both funded by the British state.
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something

Zapatista

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 02, 2010, 11:53:02 PM
You tell me.  They are both funded by the British state.

I was asking you.

ardmhachaabu

Is this a trick question?  Have you got a point?  Are you going to ignore my question and keep asking me the same thing?
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something

Zapatista

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 02, 2010, 11:45:32 PM
What's the difference between sitting in Stormont & Westminster?  After all, all legislation passed in Stormont still needs royal assent

If there is no difference between these two then they are the same and there is no need for these two. Do you agree? If you believe there is no difference between them (as I judge your question to be rhetorical) then why would anyone sit in stormont?