a Faustian pact – redux?
I was sceptical of this story when BVG mentioned it on this thread last night, and it’s still speculative, as well as being highly cyncial and highly risky for the UUP if true, but the BBC report that PUP leader David Ervine has been approached to join the UUP within the Assembly [while remaining leader of the PUP outside? - Ed] in order to secure an additional ministerial post in an executive that may not be formed for some time.. There’s currently no indication that the PUP’s Dawn Purvis will follow suit on the Policing Board Update Press Association report that the PUP have confirmed that David Ervine will join the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group. More Young Unionist blogger, and Slugger contributor, Michael Shilliday defends the move.
Seems it ain’t over yet and the UVF/UUP broad front might fall on the rock of Big Ian. The Belfast Telegraph reports:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=690702
If either unionist party could rely on Mr Berry or co-opt one of the other individual unionists – Robert McCartney of the UKUP or the PUP’s David Ervine – they would get that extra ministry back off Sinn Fein.
Kieran Deeney, the doctor elected as an Omagh hospital campaigner, could also change the balance, but initial interest will focus on Mr Berry.
“People think that automatically I will be voting along DUP lines, but I will do what I think is in the best interests of the unionist community,” he told the Belfast Telegraph last month.
“It is going to be very interesting to see how what the DUP does pans out.”
…….
Seems Ulster will be saved by sodomy after all.
Is it just me but wouldnt you think that David Ervine has enough on his plate appearing on that BBC programme .. Its not easy being Green…
Shilliday writes :
Would anyone like to suggest other ways of engaging Loyalists in the democratic process as opposed to criminality? So far all the criticism I’ve had leveled at me seems to be based on the idea that David Ervine should be spoken of only while pinching one’s nose and preferably when he doesn’t matter much anyway. Either mainstream Unionism can watch Ervine try to change loyalism, or it can help him.
Sorry Michael, that’s more mealy-mouthed double standard crap. Why doesn’t the “bring them in from the cold and help them fix it” policy apply to SF and the IRA ? Where did the “guns before government” policy go ? Don’t bother replying, I already know the answer.
Can’t believe that unionists are trying to get out of this by regurgitating the an Orange version of Hume-Adams. As Michael illustrates, all that stuff about guns before government, commitment to peaceful and democratic means, democratic “bona fides” was rubbish and they don’t require it. It was just a handy ruse to keep the taigs out of power and to avoid responsibility.
CS, don’t be giving the Shinners ideas!
The last IMC report said the IRA had more or less given up but the UVF were still in business.
I can just see it now.. Martin McGuinness – “Well the sityeation is that we’re not prepared tee sit down with people who are democrats by day and blah blah blah………”
“Can’t believe that unionists are trying to get out of this by regurgitating the an Orange version of Hume-Adams. As Michael illustrates, all that stuff about guns before government, commitment to peaceful and democratic means, democratic “bona fides” was rubbish and they don’t require it. It was just a handy ruse to keep the taigs out of power and to avoid responsibility. ”
Some of us hoped that it was a principled stand, of course it was soon forgotton once it got them the votes they needed.
Oh and comrade
“Can’t believe that unionists are trying to get out of this by regurgitating the an Orange version of Hume-Adams”
Just some unionists!
TAF
Gotya point.
There’s so much bluff and double bluff surrounding the issue of paramilitarism, and entry to gov’t, it’s become a joke.
So I agree with the posters saying, let’s make politics work to isolate the paramilitaries.
No more “holier than thou” statements please from leaders, and lily-white presentations, as has been alluded to here.
Talk about Virgins, Whores and Martyrs.
There’s a distinct flavour of “catholic language” used by protestants, when push comes to shove, and I find that quite revealing, indeed.
Can “norn iron” be saved, or is it going to Hell?
Sorry Michael, that’s more mealy-mouthed double standard crap. Why doesn’t the “bring them in from the cold and help them fix it” policy apply to SF and the IRA ? Where did the “guns before government” policy go ? Don’t bother replying, I already know the answer.
Sorry, but didn’t we try that with Sinn Fein? Didn’t they show such poor ability to acknowledge this that they took 6 years to surrender? You’re making comparisons that don’t exist and wiping things from history. Ervine has admitted what is in his past was wrong and has demonstrated his determination to help the loyalist community move to normality. None of the above can be applied to Sinn Fein.
“Ervine has admitted what is in his past was wrong ”
Now if only the UUP could do the same.
Taigs (self named as above)
Ervine is really the only movable object ina ll of this.
Berry is tainted as far as the UUP are concerned due to his press coverage but alot more to do with how intolerable he was towards UUP members during his DUP days.
McCartney is far too big headed and full of his own self love to ever join any groupng other than the BOB McCartney appreciation society, this with his history with the DUP make him unlikely (although the best option)
Mark Robinson is also a movable object though, currently counted in the DUP 32 but a comlpete outcast from that group.
PUP/UUP have made a good move, they have saved a DUP seat going to Sinn Fein which I dont think the DUP could have saved themselves.
I dont think there is much that Sinn Fein can do about this move anyway, the only movable object they have his the good doctor deeney and I find a move to sinn fein unlikely, he is far more likey to have been courted by the Alliance party and the SDLP in that order (although the move will have no seat changing consequences)
I might add the the only other really movable person within the assembly was Seamus Close who i imagine the UUP considered as an option instead of Ervine, dont know how that would have gone down.
I dont think Unionists should be complaining, it does keep a seat within the (divided) Unionist Family and keeps it from Sinn Fein.
As for the person involved (Ervine), he does have a past and the UVF ceasfire is not recognised anymore, but I do think he is a genuine person that is trying to move Loyalist Paramilitaries on. I am optimistic about commets made by the UVF and by press commentry on the internal consultation they are apparerently involved in. If they are truely questioning their own legitamacy and future this can only be a good thing.
Michael
Are you seriously trying to tell us all you invited Ervine into your group to try to end Loyalist paramilitarism, rather than to take an extra Executive seat? So much for “law and order”.
Pathetic.
The fact is you are now a fully paid-up defender and supporter of the UVF, a ruthless organisation which is a greater threat to security than the IRA. One which continues to engage in feuds, gang crime and violence. One which continues to take young children’s futures and condemn them to a life of drugs and mayhem. So much for “no guns no government”.
Shameful.
Your party has lied, lied, lied – kidding people that its enemy was terrorism and paramilitarism but now accepting them into their ranks in order to have a cheap shot at nationalists. So much for “an inclusive Northern Ireland”.
Disgusting.
To think, this was a party talking about “bringing Catholics into its ranks”…
Will Robert McCartney’s UKUP be taking it’s
seatsseat in the new assembly??The politics show today had the general feeling that this 3rd seat was being taken from SF…
And also, as far as I know Ervine has not joined the party, he’s only joined its assembly grouping (in move against SF), therefore I cannot understand why some people are getting so carried away with this…
What is the moral difference between him joining the party and joining it’s assembly grouping?
I thought that the UUP was opposed to terrorists. But I’m forgetting “No guns, no government!” was just an election slogan.
That’s an uncharacteristic outburst Ian. How likley is it that this Assembly will ever form an Executive? In a big way its very unfortunate that this does affect d’Hondt. This isn’t something that I heard for the first time yesterday, and it was not mentioned in the context of an executive.
As the person who broke this story let me add a couple of points
1) I have just returned from a long lunch, at which some journos were present. One of them assured me that he was picking up a lot of “grassroots discontent” at this decision. He also told me that “one of the party’s most influential thinkers and voices” (not a big choice there, then) was planning to voice concerns and misgivings within the next few days.
2) Mr. Shilliday, your defence of this move to embrace Ervine is as pathetic and inaccurate as your defence of the UUP’s strategy and campaigning in the run-up to the last election. I won’t add to your shame by reminding you of how much of your so-called analysis then turned out to be entire bunk.
The UUP has been scrambling around trying to find anyone to join their group, including at least 2 Alliance and 2 DUP. Ervine was the last throw of the dice.
While it may be true that Ervine has trotted out a self-serving mea culpa, the same cannot be said of the groups he continues to front. They remain unreconstructed terrorists.
In December 1999 the UUP put terrorists in government. Now, they are using terrorists to give themselves an extra seat in government. It is despicable and utterly immoral behaviour. So much for Mr. Empey’s view, expressed during his leadership campaign last year, that the UUP might even refuse to take seats in an Executive (on the back of a SF/DUP deal) if SF hadn’t fully bought into democracy!!!
4) This story came to me originally through the PUP (I subsequently confirmed it during a conversation during the Balmoral Show on wednesday)—and it came as a consequence of the consultation exercise conducted by the PUP in the run-up to this decision. Ervine has already been made a promise (a Chairmanship, I understand) but his shadowy chums clearly hope to use the UUP for both cloaking and clouting purposes.
5) This is very bad stuff from the UUP and I am led to believe that it is fully supported by McFarland. At least when Donaldson and others were on board there appeared to exist a voice of conscience. I suspect even more members will just drift away.
BVG
Thankfully, in relation to this story, I don’t have to spend ages typing out my own response, because others have got there before me. Suffice to say the UUP’s behaviour is absolutely disgusting and shocking. My family has suffered at the hand of loyalist paramilitaries and this olive branch to Ervine – a man who publicly identifies and supports the dregs of society – is sickening. Shame on them.
BVG
drift away? Try flee in disgust.
What are Reg and the Tank Commander playing at? I thought the Lords rejected assisted suicide last week. Apparently not for ailing political parties.
Sorry, but didn’t we try that with Sinn Fein? Didn’t they show such poor ability to acknowledge this that they took 6 years to surrender? You’re making comparisons that don’t exist and wiping things from history.
So do you support it Michael or do you not ? If the Hume-Adams strategy to bring the IRA out of violence was right, then why don’t you say so and endorse the outcome ? If it was wrong, then why are you applying it to loyalists ?
Ervine has admitted what is in his past was wrong and has demonstrated his determination to help the loyalist community move to normality. None of the above can be applied to Sinn Fein.
This is mealy mouthed crap. Johnny Adair said that he supported the Good Friday Agreement for christ’s sake. Look at where that got us. Ervine has few votes and almost no mandate. Unionists constantly tell everyone about how righteous they are because their electorate don’t vote for terrorists. So where is the sense in bringing in those who have no votes, just guns ? Why reward the terrorists when they have no support ? What’s the UUP going to do next ? Put burglars and rapists into police uniforms in order to persuade them to get on board with the law ?
No Michael. The truth is that the UUP have a cuddly association with loyalist paramilitaries, and have done even since before the peacefires. You’re just trying to dress this up as some sort of angelic olive-branch exercise, which it isn’t. It’s just unionists getting into bed with gangsters in order to secure themselves more power.
To the other unionists here, I don’t see what you people have to fire on Michael about. First of all, none of this is new. Go back to the UWC strike and beyond, and you’ll find unionists jumping in bed with paramilitaries. Fast forward to the present day, and find that the DUP are equally as bad. They may be more clever about it but they have their own associations with loyalism too.
Don’t forget that it has been DUP MPs have taken up the fight by Billy Wright’s father to find out who killed him; it has been DUP MPs who have been pursuing the interests of UDA/LVF inmates in Maghaberry in the commons. DUP members such as one Gary Blair have even been calling for the release of LVF prisoners under the terms of the GFA (a document the DUP are supposed to repudiate) and there is at least one convicted terrorist serving as a DUP councillor (he got God apparently, but sure they’ll say anything to improve their chances of getting remission). The DUP would not be able to achieve any of the above without talking to terrorists.
It’s time for unionists to stop the pretence; let’s get all our elected representatives to sit down and work out a decent future for the people in this country.
What are Reg and the Tank Commander playing at?
pakman, what’s all this Reg business ?
James Molyneaux was UUP leader whenever the UUP elected Hugh Smyth (PUP) as Lord Mayor of Belfast. Why, despite the rest of the thread, do you keep trying to characterize this as a Reg thing ? this stuff has been going on for a long time.
I couldn’t agree more with Alliance Party East Belfast Rep, Naomi Long
“The party is now directly and indisputably linked to a paramilitary organisation which is not on ceasefire, and which is described by the IMC as a ‘greater threat than the IRA’.”
“Engaging people to try to move them on from paramilitarism is one thing — involving them directly within your team is quite another. This is the party which brought the last Assembly down over allegations of spying by paramilitaries linked to Sinn Fein but which is now happy to allow those linked to other paramilitaries to join their group. This is rampant sectarian hypocrisy of the worst kind. Is that what ‘decent people’ support?
http://www.allianceparty.org/news/2086.html?PHPSESSID=f9838d634e88b958be94e9b235fb0a53
I don’t see what all the fuss is about – it’s not exactly a bolt from the blue!
The UUP have been banging on about poverty in loyalist communities, social responsibility, child poverty etc etc for months now. Reg made bringing loyalists in from the cold a major part of his recent speech to the party’s ruling council – said it was the responsibility of mainstream unionists who’s inflammatory rhetoric in the 1970s encouraged many young people into loyalist groups.
Given that both Reg and McFarland are on board, and seeing as it grabs a ministry from the Shinners, i can’t see the grassroots having much of a problem. Ervine is quite widely respected well beyond his own loyalist constituency, not least for his work as a persuader in trying to move that constituency towards peace.
So, could turn out to be an astute move – at least it shows they are reaching out beyond the comfortable middle classes.
Fermanagh Young Unionist,
Re your post of 03.50 today and your comment, in relation to Ervine; “he’s only joined its Assembly grouping.”
This may come as a surprise to some of the UUP’s MLA’s. My original UUP source–at Wednesday’s Balmoral Show–said that Ervine would be part of a newly created “Ulster Unionist Assembly Group”, and not part of the Ulster Unionist Assembly Party. In other words, while he would accept the general whip of the broader group, he would not be a whipped member of, nor attender at, existing UUP group meetings. A pedantic point perhaps, but one which may have an impact upon MLAs and the wider membership.
If you are correct, then I suspect that Reg Empty and Major “irritation” McFarland will require a very large fan to deflect the excrement that is heading their way.
Straw and camel’s back, FYU, straw and camel’s back.
BVG
“Don’t forget that it has been DUP MPs have taken up the fight by Billy Wright’s father to find out who killed him; ”
As far as I am concrned Billy Wright was an evil bastard but he was murdered and his father has evrry right to want to find out who and to be supported in that.
“it has been DUP MPs who have been pursuing the interests of UDA/LVF inmates in Maghaberry in the commons. ”
I’ll admit that I know nothing about this but in general even these people have rights that may need protecting and being advocated.
“DUP members such as one Gary Blair have even been calling for the release of LVF prisoners under the terms of the GFA (a document the DUP are supposed to repudiate)”
Even if you repudiate the BA, if this is not being applied fairly (sic) then it is legitimate to raise it (although I personnally would let him rot.
“and there is at least one convicted terrorist serving as a DUP councillor (he got God apparently, but sure they’ll say anything to improve their chances of getting remission). The DUP would not be able to achieve any of the above without talking to terrorists.”
I have no probelm with a genuinely repentant ex terrorist who is no longer a member of the organisation or organically linked to the one which he belonged. Talking to terrorists is an unfortunate part of being a politician, police officer, prison officer etc, That is a different thing to negotiating with them and doing deals.
Just what is the fuss on here?
Bear in mind, the UUP entered the talks with the UDP and PUP whilst neither had decommissioned, nor renounced violence…
This was because they needed a majority of unionist reps to carry their ‘negotiation’ team.(with the udp and pup they reached 52% or thereabouts)
So, whats new? Nothing.
Ukup wouldnt ever have a terrorist about them, from any side, and the DUP would have to work hard for Bob to join them, as he is 100% D’Hondt formula being used.
Personally, I would agree, and hope the assembly folds as soon as possible.
I would rather have direct rule any day than have terrorists from either side dictating to me how to govern my country, especially those who have spent the last 40 years blowing the shit out of it.
last comment; all this is irrelevant, as the DUP will not be nominatiing, so speculate all you want, but it will never be known!
bvg, it is irrelevant.
all of this is irrelevant and a non story, as nobody will have ministries.
The DUP will not nominate, so the UUP can have twenty shinners join up, it wont matter!!
get it?! lol
Michael
I had taken you for an honourable democrat that other honourable democrats could deal with.
Now you reveal yourself as a supporter of sectarian hypocrisy and unrepentant active paramilitarism.
Just think about what you’re saying, Michael!
Let me rephrase the question: whether now, in November, or in 2050, do you think that Assembly groups with direct links to active paramilitaries should qualify for ministerial positions?
“The DUP will not nominate, so the UUP can have twenty shinners join up, it wont matter!!”
It’s irrelevant to the hypocrisy of the UUP!!!
get it?! lol!
bertie:
As far as I am concrned Billy Wright was an evil bastard but he was murdered and his father has evrry right to want to find out who and to be supported in that.
Yes Bertie, I agree. But remember, the theme here is hypocrisy. Any time the chuckies ask for an enquiry, the unionists say that it’s a waste of money, and that the soldiers/police/etc were good lads doing a good job anyway. However when the shoe is on the other foot it’s a totally different story. Clearly, the unionists have two sets of standards. One for themmuns, and one for “our lads”.
I have no probelm with a genuinely repentant ex terrorist who is no longer a member of the organisation or organically linked to the one which he belonged.
In the case of one of the DUP councillor candidates I’m thinking of, he distributed a leaflet during an election in South Antrim which said that he’d been loyally serving Ulster since he was 16. That was the age he was when he got convicted for some sort of loyalist related offence. I remember David Ford condemning it.
kensei, I agree with you.
As a Unionist, the UUP cannot have it both ways.
Either you oppose terrorist reps sitting in government without decommissioning, or you dont.
In fact the provos have made a start, the UVF have not even handed in a spud gun!
This I am glad to say is the nail in the coffin for the UUP, and hopefully after the next elections that will be the end of them.
No terrorists in government full stop, until there is clear and unequivocal evidence that they are not engaged in paramilitary groupings, or criminality.
In other words, exclusively peaceful means.
big difference in the nio and inla conspiring to kill someone INSIDE prison cs.
Also, surely the number of enquiries to themuns is more than usuns?
It will be interesting to see how much the uup spend at the next election
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,,1774531,00.html
stephen, I’m not arguing the merits of any specific enquiries (Wright deserves answers at the least), merely pointing out the contradicting positions taken by unionists over them.
stephen: Bear in mind, the UUP entered the talks with the UDP and PUP whilst neither had decommissioned, nor renounced violence…
This was because they needed a majority of unionist reps to carry their ‘negotiation’ team.(with the udp and pup they reached 52% or thereabouts)
So, whats new? Nothing.
I have already said here that the UUP will need to decontaminate before they ever get my vote again. But I don’t agree about the above. When the UUP was negotiating on the basis of the forum headcount, they were talking to the PUP, UDP and SF, all associated with terrorist groups on ceasefire. If the DUP had been there, the PUP and UDP could have been frozen out, and we may have managed without prisoner releases. But the UUP were *there*, and needed unionist votes to make an *agreement*. The situation now is far worse. The UUP are cosying up to paramilitaries for political advantage. This time they aren’t just getting their hands dirty.
It must be great to live in an ideal world. A world where you can chose who you negoitate with, a world where it doesn’t matter what you do, or don’t do, you still get paid, your children still get educated, and our old folk are safe, warm and nourished…. but we don’t live in an ideal world, the problems facing Northern Ireland are very real, nobody is addressing them.
There is no political progress, there is no meeting of minds, there is no generousity of spirit and without that it is hard to see how any progress can be made.
None of you are providing a solution, you are all therefore part of the problem.
Solution
1. SF join the policing board
2. IMC provides (PIRA provides?) clean evaluation of PIRA organised criminality (again)
3. DUP agree to joint nomination for FM&DFM
4. SoS excludes UU Alliance until IMC provide 2 clean evaluations of UVF organised criminality
We get on with business.
Does this “solution” demonstrate the required “generosity of spirit”?
Rubicon
No, point 4 in particular demonstrates a desire to create rather than resolve problems.
You can’t pick the other sides negoitating team, you can only pick your own.
If you want to negoitate, get on with it, if you don’t, stop wasting peoples time and money….close the Assembly down and let our politicians find a job that more closely matches their abilities.
David Ervine is a bit player in all of this. He will probably end up drifting into the UUP, the same way as the OIRA took over the Labour Party. Ervine does not equate to Adams. Adams had and has a committed core of cadres/MI5 agents working for him and they are now the dominant Nationalist force. The UVF/PUP were just house cleaners for the UUP/UDR. Ervine might help to give the UUP blue rinces some street cred and a bit of rough for those who are interested in jolly times. Who knows? Who cares? The UUP are history anyway. Good riddance to them.
Heck,
“what is the PUPs position on grammar schools?”
Probably that around 45% of them ought to be petrol bombed.
Michael Shilliday deserves some credit for attempting to brazen this one out, but the simple facts ae these:
(a) For years the Ulster Unionist Party banged on about decomissioning, with special emphasis on the Provos, every UUP manifesto since 1998 stated that decomissioning was an absolute necessity. Having performed this latest enormous volte-face, by admitting Ervine into their midst, how can anyone ever take the UUP seriously on the issue of crime and guns again?
(b) This is not Hume-Adams. Hume-Adams was a series of clandestine meetings through inter-mediaries aimed at politicising the Provos. Hume, to be fair, took great personal risks and kept the matter secret. At no point was it suggested that the SDLP would admit Adams and co to their ranks or that the SDLP would share responsibilities with Sinn Fein in local councils. This initiative on the other hand smaks of naked political expediency. Reg is so desperate to get his mits on that third ministry that he whores himself to the representatives of an armed and active paramilitary organisation. I personally know dozens of people inside the UUP who will be revolted by this move. The only reason i can think of as to why the Tak Major isn’t annoyed is because he’s in line for one of the minsterial posts.
(c) By pursuing this course of action Reg shows yet again the schizo nature of his leadership. One week he’s next door to the Alliance, the next he’s trying to outflank the DUP to the right. By jumping into bed with the UVF in this way he will repulse literally thousands of Alliance-y UUP voters, who the Purple Turtle had previously won over. These people will return to Alliance at the next assembly poll.
(d) In his desperation, reg has missed the big picture. The DUP will force an assembly election sooner rather than later in order to solidify their position. They will be coming back with around 40 seats. Alliance will probably go up to 8-10 sets as a result of Reg’s actions.
A disatrous move that will lead to a greater decline in the UUP’s fortunes.
Loyalist your are completely right.
The UUP has no sense of shame and no sense of honour.
Empey and McFarland have lost whatever credibility they had. They may pretend that it’s about stopping SF getting a Department, but the price is embracing another terrorist frontman.
I may only be one vote but it is a vote that will no longer be going to the DUP
BooBoo
Sorry, that last line should read “..no longer going to the UUP”
BooBoo
I refrained from comment as I thought this decision so stupid that the hypocrisy and electoral folly just don’t need explanation.
I once thought that the SDLP would be the party that would face melt down first, I was wrong it will be the UUP unless it finds clear direction and leadership.
The space in the centre just got a little larger, Alliance will gain marginally. More probably more people will simply not turn out to vote. On one hand there is a fair degree of hypocrisy in the Unionist camp regarding association with terrorists, but in that camp, more so than in the Nationalist – Republican camp, there is a body of opinion that has an utter distaste for terrorists. That is why the PUP and UDP did not make any significant political gains.
What puzzles me is where does Reg think he is placing the party? Short term gain against long term loss. Madness.
crataegus–same as Loyalist post earlier–I agree.
Stupid Stupid Stupid.
Silence from people like Sylvia hermon and Alex Kane is deafening, although I have geard on grapevine that both are very pessimistic about the move.
BooBoo
All,
This was a purely logistical move on the part of the UUP to stop SF geting another seat on the executive. Fact. But by getting into this deal, I don’t believe they had even considered that the first criticism levelled at them would be that they were getting into bed with a preceived loyalist terrorist.
The Unionist version of Hume/Adams? Possibly not in real politic terms, but I would imagine electorally it might have the same effect! In the Pre-Hume/Adams 1992 Westminster elections SDLP held 23.5% of the vote in NI and SF held 10%. Post-Hume/Adams in the 2005 WMEs the SDLP had slipped to 17.5% while SF held 24.3%. Depressing reading yes, but it could herald the fact that the UUP will do even worse than their frankly laughable 17.7% last time out!!!
Given all the negative criticism here comes from UUP supporters this has bad move written all over it. No wonder there are no pro-DUP voices here, they are all too busy adding all those disillusioned UUP voters to their mailing list for the next election.
Another thought. Given Naomi Long’s reaction, I think its safe to assume that the UUP has just lost APNI support in their bid for the Lord Mayor’s post in Belfast. Smart move Reg.
It’s simply not good enough to justify this move by claiming it prevents Sinn Fein from getting a ministerial position.
The only sustainable position for denying anything to Sinn Fein is on the basis that they were wedded to paramiltarism and criminality in a way that those taking the seat from the were not.
Now in effect a party moving away from paramilitarism has just been denied a seat by a party moving towards it.
And to think they had the brass neck to claim that decent people vote for the UUP?
Alliance may well do OK out of this, but the biggest winners in the long run will be the DUP and even more so Sinn Fein.
Who thinks for a moment that given the option of that ministerial position or being able to link the UUP directly to loyalist paramilitaries that Sinn Fein would have gone for the seat?
There’s been a lot of talk about the British establishment infiltrating the Republican movement and manipulating it for their own ends, but I can think of fewer acts that smack of outside manipulation more than this suicidal act by the UUP.
The only question is what Empeys title shall be?
Lord Lemming anyone?
TAFKABO
Assuming Lord Turtle doesn’t take it, I think “Vichy” is still available for a title for the UUP-UVF leader.
Does this mean we can create a hyphenated tag for the [thugs in the] UUP?