WI Bobby Sands seated in the UK Parliament?

As we know, Sands won a 1981 NI by-election, but died before Parliament could seat him. I doubt that Thatcher would allow a terrorist in the Commons, and the courts as well. But how would that play out?
 
As we know, Sands won a 1981 NI by-election, but died before Parliament could seat him. I doubt that Thatcher would allow a terrorist in the Commons, and the courts as well. But how would that play out?

Sinn Feiners don't take their seats as they have to take the Oath of Allegiance to do so.
 
So why do they run for Parliament then? :confused: Why not the NI Assembly?

There was no assembly then.

They run to prove a point. also it is a salaried and expensed position, and thus they can still be full-time politicians with staff and researchers.
 
As we know, Sands won a 1981 NI by-election, but died before Parliament could seat him. I doubt that Thatcher would allow a terrorist in the Commons, and the courts as well. But how would that play out?

If Sands was prepared to take the oath then there would be nothing Thatcher could do to stop him taking his seat

Of course he'd probably have refused to take the oath as do all Sinn Fein MPs to this day
 

Dure

Banned
As we know, Sands won a 1981 NI by-election, but died before Parliament could seat him. I doubt that Thatcher would allow a terrorist in the Commons, and the courts as well. But how would that play out?

Sinn Feiners don't take their seats as they have to take the Oath of Allegiance to do so.

Wozza is correct about this. The first woman elected to Parliament was Georgine Markiewicz who fought for the ICA in 1916, then stood for Sinn Fein in the election of 1919 and won along with 72 others. She never took her seat, neither did her fellow MPs. Neither has any other Sinn Feiner elected to the British Commons since.

The other more obvious reason that he could not take his seat was that he was banged-up, a political prisoner in the Maze.

However, times change, I suspect that because the oath is patently undemocratic, that is its support of a monarch, and because of the Church of England/Ireland view of religion espoused within it, that it may be contrary to European Law and the various principles upon which the Union is founded. I do not mean that the monarchy is illegal just that requiring an oath of alligance to the monarch may be. I suspect that if Sinn Fein were to challenge the oath in the European court it would cause the British Govt. great pain. Unfortunately, the ECHR did not exist in 1981 and it is very difficult to get a case before the ECJ.

Incidentally, in passing Thatcher's wishes in this do not matter, neither do the courts. It is a matter for Parliament and the Speaker who does and does not sit.

It is also worth remembering that whilst he may have been a Terrorist to the then PM, she did after all force through the representation of the people act to keep IRA POWs out of Parliament he was a freedom fighter to most of the world. You can count on the fingers of one hand people regarded as freedom fighters in the Old Communist block, the Arab states, the USA and Western Europe - Bobby Sands was one of them. Only in the UK was he branded a terrorist.
 
The other more obvious reason that he could not take his seat was that he was banged-up, a political prisoner in the Maze.

Ahem.

I am not entirely sure why possession of a firearm which had been used to shoot at polict is a political crime.
 
there are 2 legal forms of the oath, the first (and most commonly chosen) is:

"I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."

the second is:

"I... do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law."

It is up to the individual MP which version they use
 
Last edited:

Dure

Banned
The second form is not an oath at all it is an affirmation. Unfortunately affirmation still hold connotations of sub-standard truth in British society.

Both forms require allegiance to Elizabeth of House Windsor NOT the Country, Parliament, nor primarily we the people although this is part of the military oath (or was when I was familiar with it).

Wozza,

I am not entirely sure why possession of a firearm which had been used to shoot at polict is a political crime.

By polict you no doubt meant oppressive armed British storm trooper involved in the suppression of the Irish people and their desire to be a free nation?
 
The second form is not an oath at all it is an affirmation. Unfortunately affirmation still hold connotations of sub-standard truth in British society.

Not really, in fact the vast majority of British people don't have a clue what's in either oath

Both versions are legally equivalent. The reason there are 2 is so that those who do not believe in God can choose to swear an oath that doesn't immediately brand them as hypocrites
 
Bobby Sands was both a Freedom Fighter, in that he believed he was fighting for his peoples freedom and a Terrorist, in that he employed the techniques of terrorism

Which you see him primarily as depends upon your political views. It should be noted that whilst he fought to overthrow both (and yes, it was both) British rule in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, wishing (assuming he adhered to standard PIRA beliefs) to reinstate the ruled of the First Dail Eireann over the whole island of Ireland the majority of the population of Northern Ireland did not support this goal
 
Oath of Allegience

But both have that "according to law", which appears to make not breaking the law a part of being there.

Just a thought.
 
If Bobby Sands had been seated in parliament he would not have gone on hunger strike and history would have been different. It wasn't a question of whether Thatcher would allow him to take up his sit. Sinn Fein didn't recognise the UK parliament and refused to take up their seats and still refuse. Had Bobby Sands taken up his seat he wouldn't have been an extreme republican but a member of the more moderate SDLP or an independent like the M.P he replaced. So therefore the quesion is irrelvant
 
Top