There are any number of examples of where Sinn Fein holds contradictory positions in Northern Ireland and the Republic
www.thetimes.co.uk
In 2013 the Northern Ireland assembly introduced new laws that banned people with serious criminal convictions from being appointed as special advisers to ministers. The discussions was prompted after Sinn Fein appointed Mary McArdle to an adviser post. She had taken part in the 1984 killing of Mary Travers, a schoolteacher who was shot dead when the IRA attempted to murder her father, Thomas, a Catholic magistrate, as he left Sunday Mass in south Belfast in 1984.
While Sinn Fein opposed the legislation, it eventually appeared to accept it. Except, it didn’t. One such adviser, Aidan McAteer, previously convicted of IRA membership, continued to advise Martin McGuinness, then deputy first minister, after being given a specially created role to oversee and manage Sinn Fein’s special advisers and ministers, sidestepping the legislation by paying his wages with party funds. News of this arrangement came to light during the inquiry into the cash-for-ash scandal.
Fast-forward to 2021 and Simon Coveney, the foreign affairs minister,
sparks a furore by appointing Katherine Zappone, a former cabinet colleague, to a cushy special envoy role at the UN with little transparency about the process involved. Sinn Fein said the move smacked of cronyism and eventually put a motion of no confidence down in the foreign affairs minister. Sinn Fein appear to say one thing in Dublin, but do something entirely different in Belfast.
The issue has raised its head again this week when Declan McAleer, the party’s spokesman on agriculture,
told the assembly that his party opposed a bill that would ban the hunting of mammals with dogs.
Mary Lou McDonald, its leader, has previously said her party would vote in favour of a ban on fox hunting at the “next opportunity”. But when this “next opportunity” arose, the party cited problems in the legislation itself and a lack of time to scrutinise the bill before the next election. While McAleer said the party supported some elements of the bill, there was one line from his remarks that stood out. He said the party “does not agree with a ban on hunting”.
McAleer also said there was a “strong lobby” that considered hunting with dogs to be an important economic and recreational outlet, particularly in rural communities. “We did not take a position on the bill,” he added. Sinn Fein, however, is adamant that it is still in favour of a ban on fox hunting
Speaking before the last election in 2020, McDonald said the party was working on policy in this area. However, when
The Times asked for a copy of this policy this week, no response was forthcoming. Louise O’Reilly, the party’s enterprise spokeswoman, said Sinn Fein wanted “heavy legislation” on the sector. So, which is it? Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds surely springs to mind.
There are any number of examples that one can point to where the party does one thing in Belfast and another thing in Dublin. Back in June the taoiseach said Sinn Fein was “politically dishonest” by
calling for the abolition of the property tax in the South, while implementing a very similar system in Northern Ireland.
The party has also walked a tightrope on abortion. In the Republic, it ended up giving full-throated support to the repeal campaign, and even suspended two members from the parliamentary party over the issue. But it’s not as simple in the North. Last March it abstained on a bill from the DUP that would have prevented abortions in cases of non-fatal disabilities.
And let’s not forget that McDonald and other senior members from the party in the South
attended Bobby Storey’s funeral in June last year during the first wave of the pandemic. But when golfgate happened, the party said it showed the “chaos and dysfunction” at the heart of government.
Does this even matter? Clearly not, according to opinion polls north and south. Sinn Fein can rightly argue that the executive in Northern Ireland is not a fully functioning government with revenue-raising powers, and is subservient to the Treasury and No 10 in London on matters of economic policy. It can also point to working with one of the most conservative political parties in western Europe, in the DUP. Some of its members are creationists. It can also say it is the only major all-island party and some contradictions are to be expected across the jurisdictions.
Sinn Fein voters in the North are more loyal to the party brand than those in the Republic, and are more prepared to accept a strategic fudge around economic issues. A more jaundiced view is that voters on either side of the border don’t know much about the other political jurisdiction, and if they do, they simply don’t care. Southern voters are supporting Sinn Fein based on its promises around housing and taxation and are enthused by their articulate and engaging spokespeople. There is also the view that Sinn Fein voters in the North are more conservative than the left-leaning voters they court in the South, and the party is unwilling to push them any further than is strictly necessary.
Perhaps it is a combination of all of the above with a dash of good luck has made the Sinn Fein “hare and hounds” strategy such a success. But how long could it hold such contradictory positions if it were in government in Dublin?
