SF’s abstentionist MPs can’t serve the voters
He asserts that SF “has no desire or need to sit in a foreign imperialist parliament” and that “as abstentionist MPs from Westminster, SF representatives have served their constituents well.”
It seems the ‘no surrender’ mentality is alive and well in Cobh.
The Good Friday Agreement, democratically endorsed by the populations of both parts of this island, settled the constitutional status of Northern Ireland: it will remain part of the UK unless and until a majority of the people there vote to change that status.
How then could Westminster be described legitimately as a “foreign parliament” by elected Northern Ireland MPs? As for abstentionist Sinn Féin MPs serving their constituents well, how exactly are they serving their unionist constituents?
Representation is an essential ingredient of any democracy and elected representatives are supposed to serve all their constituents, not just the ones who voted for them. This is particularly important in the first-past-the-post Westminster system.
How are the interests of Northern Ireland farmers, business, fisheries, etc, represented by abstentionist MPs?
In the South, we see how active are the lobby groups representing such interests when key ministerial decisions are being made in Brussels.
Cllr McCarthy asks if, as a well-meaning gesture to Ian Paisley and unionism in general, I’d ask my local TD to switch allegiance to the House of Commons as an act of good faith? Happily, in the case of the three Government deputies!
However, the proposal to grant Dáil speaking rights to elected Northern MPs should not even be considered for MPs who refuse to exercise their speaking rights, on behalf of all their constituents, in the parliament to which they have actually been elected.
Peter Molloy
9 Haddington Park
Glenageary
Co Dublin
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
