Yawn. And yet another (Groundhog) day dawns…
Peter Hain is looking for a 100% deal from the St Andrews junket summit. This morning he also, slightly misleadingly, characterised the challenge as a two-headed beast: Sinn Fein must accept Policing and Unionists must accept power sharing. There is no doubt that Sinn Fein know what is expected of them. Gerry Adams’ rousing speech last night was the first time the party even sounded like it was even in the zone for a deal, when he said:
Sinn Fein is opposed to criminality of all kinds. Those who profit from crime have to be effectively challenged and put out of business. So too must those who target the elderly and vulnerable. Rapists and racists can have no refuge and our communities should not have to put up with the scourge of death drivers, or intimidation and lawlessness by criminal groups.
It is as close as Adams has managed to get to having a Clause Four moment. But read the detail, and it remains strictly aspirational. There is no question of him facing down his movement over policing and criminal justice, not yet at least.
Adams leads a movement, a significant part of which only last year offered the family of Robert McCartney to shoot the people it held responsible their brother’s killing. The family is still waiting for the help and support Adams himself promised he would give.
It was this that finally ripped to shreds whatever was left of the once mighty pan nationalist front, that reputedly stretched from the Clinton White House, through Dublin to the moderate SDLP and even the IRA itself. More than the DUP is uneasy about the possiblity of an easy deal emerging from St Andrews. The SDLP fought tooth and nail to stop legislation from going through Westminster last November, that would have allowed ‘on the run’ (OTRs) what amounts to an amnesty. This is likely to be one of the side issues most fought over.
Community Restorative Justice schemes, once touted by a prominent Sinn Fein MLA “as a viable alternative to the PSNI”, have been powerless to end a six month feud (involving over 600 attacks on a range of properties) against a single family in Adams’ own backyard in Ballymurphy.
Some commentators have argued that Paisley’s meeting with Sean Brady, the Catholic Archbishop of Armagh was a cheap PR trick to debunk the idea that his party did not (in that time honoured phrase) want a Catholic about the place. Considering the timing, it is a charge that’s hard to refute. But the principle of power sharing with nationalists has long since been accepted (albeit in the theory of their position papers) by the DUP. But sharing power with Sinn Fein remains the acid test.
The events of the last two years have only served to strengthen the DUP’s hand. A so-called heads of agreement document is what most pundits are backing as an outcome to St Andrews. One that would require consultation at least, and possibly a referendum or, more likely, fresh elections. We will be better able to judge on Friday to what extent a viable roadmap emerges.
Neither of these parties has a reputation for closing a deal. Indeed some worry that Sinn Fein would prefer to keep things open as long as possible. It is a party above all others that thinks and visions itself in the long rather than the short term. Its leaders are long accustomed to riding out the risks of political isolation.
On the today programme earlier this year, prominent Sinn Fein represntative Mitchel McLaughlin, let slip in an early morning interview on the Today programme that his party’s greatest achievement was the undermining of the confidence of the Unionist community.
This time, his party may just decide to gamble its considerable political fortune by finally closing a deal its opponents can actually live with.
To be honest Mick, that’s a bloody appalling post.
Policing isn’t a Clause 4 moment any more than any number of issues the SF leadership has delat with over the years. They are not likely to run hugely far ahead of their movement and “face down” anyway without a payoff. Who exactly, takes risks without reward?
“Pan Nationalist Front”. For the love of god, get a grip. It’s not like it ever existed in the first place.
The PSNI has spectacularly failed to end any loyalist feuding or much else. CRJ is on a par with local policing, then.
The DUP’s hand strengthened in the past 2 years? They have the most to lose if they fail to conclude a deal. There will be political consequences to failing to conclude a deal and SF gives a timetable for policing.
McLaughlin’s statement has been went over a million times and again you stick way too much mephasis on it.
“Closing a deal his opponents can actually live with”? The responsibility for that failure hardy resides with SF.
appalling? That is the most sensible and informative post I have seen on slugger (or anywhere else in a long time.
‘closing a deal their opponents can actually live with’ The responsibility for that failure hardly resides with SF.
Then who else does it reside with? They know what the DUP want- SF to sign up to policing, support for the police- end to criminality….and on and on. If they cannot deliver on the issues the DUP have already laid out then why go to Scotland? At some stage the face down has to come. SF will have to put policing before their party for a yes or no. Until they do that its stalemate. The reality is, if the base of the republican movement say yes to policing the rewards are SF in power, if the base doesn’t endorse policing, then its game over. Therein lies the responsibility, and the responsibility to deliver republicans to support policing is Sinn Feins’ No one elses.
“Then who else does it reside with?”
The failure of the GFA to satisfy Unionism is not SF’s fault. That failure lies with those on the Unionist side that negotiated the deal. SF has no responsibility to the other side; just to get the best deal it can for those it represents.
On policing, SF’s position is known. The quid pro quo on Repubican support is local accountability. Where is the political advantage in “facing down” the movement with nothing to show? They ahve been positioning for a potential move for months, anyway.
“Therein lies the responsibility, and the responsibility to deliver republicans to support policing is Sinn Feins’ No one elses.”
SF has no responsibility to deliver anything to anyone, except it’s electorate. A lot of its electorate is suspicious and hostile to policing. Its responsibility to is voice those concerns and to negotiate a police service it’s electorate and Ard Dheis can support.
It has no responsibility to anyone else.
LOL SF’s responsibility to its electorate. Since when did that become important to the leadership in SF? Their electorate was opposed to decommissioning – not a bullet not an ounce but the leadership had a responsibility to deliver because of what they had agreed in the GFA. Now they have to deliver the rest….ie policing. Yes the electorate may be opposed to policing, but as a party SF must deliver the goods-what they agreed or no power . They are going to have to go the whole way on this because they are not dealing now with the people who agreed and worked with them on the GFA, these are a whole different bunch . These guys weren’t even involved in negotating the GFA.
They are caught by the goolies on this one, and as was said in the movie all the presidents men,in a picture on the wall in the watergate building ‘when you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow’.
Would have thought that the most interesting phrase was when Gerry said that if unionism wasn’t up for a deal then ‘the process would continue without them’.
Unionism has managed to weaken it’s own position in Ireland and at Westminster to such an extent that their compliance in building the future is no longer required. Though an inclusive democracy would be preferable one with a mandate of 50%+1 will do.
Ken,
“It has no responsibility to anyone else”.
(Within certain limits) I agree. It is Sinn Fein’s call. If they are not happy, they should not deal.
As for the gamble’s payoff, the gains are for the party to calculate for itself. As smcgiff has said on Pete’s thread, that is the subject of closed negotiation.
But the cost of not doing a deal, surely, is further drift?
On the other hand as mick has pointed out unionists must accept power sharing
With respect lib, I’ve been blogging that phrase repeatedly from November 2002 from Gerry and from Ian/Peter. Now if it ever materialises in fact, that would be worth blogging!
Yawn it certainly is although the side show of spotting the differences develop within the DUP could turn out to be the main attraction. Yep, it’s that dull.
“But the cost of not doing a deal, surely, is further drift?”
Previously, Unionism could be assured by not doing a deal that Direct Rule would continue pretty much as is. That is no longer the case – North-Southery and all other kinds of nasty decisions taken on our behalf now add consequence to that action. For all the talk of stubbornness, the British Government has the tools to break it if it so wishes.
Moreover, I fancy that at least some of the DUP’s vote come from people who want a tough negotiator but nonetheless, a deal. Constantly saying no will not work forever. It hasn’t in the past, and the DUP have went through periods in the losing votes by saying no. I think that with a credible deal on the table, saying No damages the DUP.
So, it comes down to The Blame Game. If SF gets blamed, some of the effects above will be mitigated on the DUP. SF will deal on policing to avoid taking the rap, but there’ll have to be some bottom line met, like devolution.
Course, there is always the possibility that SF deal and the Ard Dheis rejects it. That would be an intersting scenario.
Mick,
with the British and the Northern republicans agreeing that the process will go forward with or without the unionists you feel that the unionist position is strengthening?
(Incidentally I’ve been disappointed in the British refusal to point out publically to unionists the consequences of constant refusal to move forward, but I’ll take your word for it.)
The significance of Paisley and other leaders of the DUP gang meeting with Brady are whether that visit marks an attempt to lead their followers towards towards normal politics. Sinn Fein as a political party much less tainted by clericalism than the DUP will not be affected by such a visit.
Couldn’t the meeting between brady and paisley be refered to in ecumenical terms rather than political. Much like muslim leaders meeting christian leaders on the basis of promoting relations between the two sides, rather than looked at in terms of politics only. Isn’t it a misapprehension to refer to it only in political terms?
Brady after all is not a political representative, and it then renders libs point null and void if SF or nationalism in general need the help of theocrats like brady to push their agenda.
Of course one could argue that they (SF/nationalism) did not ask brady to negotatiate with paisley, but they are hoping to reap the benefits of any reward the meeting would throw up.
Is it only me, or do any others see this as a backward step, that the link between church and state is still strong in NI, and that our future first minister will be over 80 and an old theocrat? It says alot about society here.
The british and northern republicans cannot agree to move forward without the DUP-since there is inclusivity engraned in the GFA, and it wouldn’t work. It would be undemocratic and unrepresentative, and nothing more than we had pre 69 except the shoe would be on the other foot.
as mick has said unionist must accept power sharing and sf must accept the police. without that deal there is no deal.
Brenda
Their electorate was opposed to decommissioning
That is nonsense. Guess who speaks for the Sinn Fein electorate?
As for the thread I think it completely misreads the situation. The questions are not about SF but about the DUP. Is there a deal they can live with without a split?
You know what henry you are right. I was talking about republicans being opposed to decommissioning, but I keep forgetting SF is a NATIONALIST party, why did I refer to them in terms of a republican constituency?
I’m still catching up! How things have changed.
Brenda,
Nonsense – unionist agreement is only required for a power sharing Executive. If unionists don’t want powersharing then the Agreement must proceed. A majority of the electorate supported powersharing and the Agreement in the referendum and a way must be found to implement their decision whatever the decision by the DUP.
It was Unionists, with the support of the British Government who failed to implement an acceptable form of democracy pre-1969 just as it is the unionists with the support of the British Government who are failing to introduce powersharing now.
The British Government cannot and will not be seen to fail again. That is the significance of the American guarantee, which will be implemented by the next Democratic administration whatever about the Bushies.
Furthermore the Irish Government may be more circumspect about it’s operations but it can exert enormous pressure at Brussels should Britain continue to refuse to operate the Agreement.
Brenda
why did I refer to them in terms of a republican constituency?
There’s nothing to stop anyone running on a dissident ticket. Then we’d see who speaks for whom
Iris govet exert “enormous pressure” from Brussels. Please, Lib you are going to have to do better than that!
Whinge all you like about how evil the Unionists are and attempt to paint a doomsday for Unionists if they don’t jump into bed with Gerry at the earliest possible juncture, but don’t try to palm it of as serious analysis. Frankly it’s Provette wishful thinking.
The elephant in the living room is policing. Every other party bar one is signed up on the issue, the pressure will therefore be upon that party to sign up QED the pressure is on Sinn Fein. Unionism is not blocking power-sharing, Sinn Fein is through their refusal to support the rule of law and thos who have to implement that law in the PSNI.
Henry,
That’s certainly the way it is being sold. And it’s true up to a point. Certainly there would be a leadership cost to the DUP for refusing to do a deal just for the sake of the refusal.
But, at the heel of the hunt, who is being asked to ante up here? DUP or Sinn Fein? If it is the former, what precisely is it being asked to do?
If a solid deal of the kind that’s being talked up by Hain is actually forthcoming, the DUP will have little choice but to strike deal or at the very least lose important forward momentum.
But if it only gives unto yet another dark alleyway, few will blame them for walking away from another planned political mugging.
Henry that is a whole other thread.
lib with out the power sharing executive what is left? cross border bodies?
‘the british gov cannot be seen to fail again’
It won’t be seen as the british governments failure, it will be seen as a failure on the part of the elected representatives here who are not mature enough even for face to face talks let alone power sharing.
No one would blame the brit government for saying put up or shut up.
Mick
What the DUP are being asked to do is operate the Agreement negotiated by David Trimble in their absence. That, more than anything to do with Sinn Fein, is what they are afraid of.
They risk a split not if they refuse to do a deal but if they agree. They will automatically create a space on the right because there is a unionist constituency opposed to power-sharing at any price.
They have a dreadful political hand going into the talks but they picked the cards themselves.
Not just this in this speech but the very public statements by republicans especially Kelly that they are moving towards the creation of acceptable policing emphasise that this is not a problem. It is in the process of being sorted, may in fact have already been sorted.
As I’ve posted earlier in this thread the important point is that at last the process will go ahead with or without the unionists.
Bushmills – it isn’t ‘the earliest possible juncture’ but the last chance for the unionists and even for the Brits.
For the last thirty years Britain has claimed that it’s role here is as peacemaker. The upcoming revelations about collusion will put pay to any claims of British neutrality in a religious war. One thing even the Paisleyites know is the religious composition of Europe. You think Martin Ingram and the like attacked and murdered Catholics with impunity? Watch this space, friend.
As for America – big Irish-American bloc in the Democrats and an even bigger Catholic one extending right across both parties.
Henry,
That is, if you’ll forgive me, suitably vague.
Mick wrote:
It is as close as Adams has managed to get to having a Clause Four moment. But read the detail, and it remains strictly aspirational. There is no question of him facing down his movement over policing and criminal justice, not yet at least.
Really Mick? And how do you know? Might as well pack up now then so.
lib what do you mean by acceptable policing?
A fair and accountable force? If so the changes made to policing equal a fair and accountable force. great strides have been made.
Or acceptable to republicans who still find a british police force unacceptable.
Can a british police force EVER be acceptable to republicans? On the other hand a fair and accountable force can be acceptable to nationalists. And as I said before SF are a nationalist party-thus they will back policing IMO.
I fail to see how power sharing can go ahead without those with whom you are meant to share power?
Niall Stanage yesterday who also thinks the pressure is on the DUP:
“Sinn Féin’s position on policing is also flawed and its leader’s room for manoeuvre limited. Adams’s old hints that pushing him too far could result in the IRA’s return to war lost credibility years ago. However visceral their feelings about the issue, it is not tenable for republicans to argue that they can join the government of the state they once fought to destroy, but that backing its police would involve an unacceptable breach of their principles”.
I heard that the DUPs are now concerned that provisions to ensure Ministers abide by the the collective will of the Executive (No more Marty McG – 11 plus moments) could now be abused by allowing SF to force any Executive vote they wanted to be held on a cross community basis where weight of No’s would let them (or either of the largest parties – it cuts both ways) kill any decision by automatic failure of the cross community criteria.
If the parties are already busy thinking up ways of screwing over the opposition when in Government then I’d see any deal lasting about as long as George W in an Al-Qaeda training camp.
Guess we get the politicians we deserve but f*cked if I can recall ever being that bad!
Indeed baldrick getting the deal is one thing, but how long would it last? However,it would be nice to see a bigger and better brawl in the hall!
We’re missing all the drama.
Brenda,
What on earth has the nationality of the police force got to do with anything? If one accepts the GFA then the North, including the police, is British until and unless the electorate decides otherwise.
Powersharing has been introduced because unionists have not been able to deliver acceptable democracy on their own. If they don’t want to play their part in powersharing then British nominees must take the place of unionist representatives, or whatever other other formula can be devised. Republicans cannot be denied their share of power forever or we would indeed be in a pre-1969 situation.
The nationality of the police has got every thing to do with it. For republicans (not of the SF kind).
Powersharing has been introduced because unionists have not been able to deliver acceptable democracy on their own. LOL. That is nonsense. Read over that sentence again lib. NO one could deliver democracy on their own by its very nature.
British nominees must take the place of unionists? Are you kidding me? Over ride the unionist electorate and substitute card board cut out brit representatives in place of those they democratically elected? LOL
republicans cannot be denied their share of power for ever. so power sharing at any price? I say we put tape over the mouths of the brit representatives to make them more acceptable to the electorate.
LOL your post cheered me up.
‘Republicans cannot be denied their share of power forever.’
Yes you can and you should and you probably will if you refuse to accept that in the western liberal tradition the possession of power is only legitimised by the acceptance that with this comes responsibility. The primary responsibility of an executive is to ensure that its jurisdiction and citizens are policed. The jurisdiction and the police are British – tough luck boys – you signed up to the GFA which enshrines it.
If Shinners want the benefits of power they must (and of course they will) embrace policing providing this outweighs the tactical political advantage of refusing to engage with the PSNI. This advantage is set to become less and less as the republican communities come to terms with the fact they have lost even the dubious advantage of men with power tools for community control.
If they are serious about power, they’ll suck their lemons and say a grudging’yes’ to the PSNI. The DUP would then have to submit to power sharing as the last skeleton walked from the Republican closet. Simple. Deal with it.
Baldrick:
–I heard that the DUPs are now concerned that
–provisions to ensure Ministers abide by the
–the collective will of the Executive (No more
–Marty McG – 11 plus moments) could now be
–abused by allowing SF to force any Executive
–vote they wanted to be held on a cross
–community basis where weight of No’s would let
–them (or either of the largest parties – it
–cuts both ways) kill any decision by automatic
–failure of the cross community criteria.
If they get rid of this idea they’ll have killed the only decent thing about the power sharing executive. It will be doomed and deservedly so. I hope Durkan has the balls to fight this but I’m not holding my breath.
“But, at the heel of the hunt, who is being asked to ante up here? DUP or Sinn Fein? If it is the former, what precisely is it being asked to do?”
Is this really anything new since the 2004 deal? SF were ready to do the policing dance then involving devolution of powers.
I assume you meant pressure on SF, Mick:
““Sinn Féin’s position on policing is also flawed and its leader’s room for manoeuvre limited. Adams’s old hints that pushing him too far could result in the IRA’s return to war lost credibility years ago. However visceral their feelings about the issue, it is not tenable for republicans to argue that they can join the government of the state they once fought to destroy, but that backing its police would involve an unacceptable breach of their principles”.”
Flawed? Where is the flaw in not supporting a policing service with dubious history until it is properly, locally accountable? Personally, I think SF would love to back the police to help in the Southern elections and probably put pressure them to tackle loyalism.
While the PIRA returning to war may have “lost credibility”, the threat of dissidents has most certainly not, and if anything intensified in recent months. We are in a dangerous phase, and one of SF’s prime motivations has clearly been to prevent splits in the movement.
As for “unacceptable breach of principles”, the principle is proper accountablity. The Assembly has it, the justice system, as yet, doesn’t.
I don’t wknow where all this is coming from. SF’s position on policing has been clear for months, if not years. Adam’s speech is just th elatest in a succession of speeches and quotes from SF.
Bog on the other hand as mick has said unionists MUST accept power sharing. There is as mick has said a repsonsibility on SF to deliver a deal that their opponents can live with, but once that is done, once they have sucked their lemons then it is time for the DUP to suck their lemons also, and sit down and do a deal of power sharing for all the people of NI. With power for unionists also comes responsibility and not engage in what baldrick has outlined-how to get one over on your opponent before you even get in there.
What the DUP does or says doesn’t matter in the real world. They have no power and are like an itch that can be ignored or scratched.
Policing is all that matters here to both governments so Sinn Fein will sign up to it (and throw in a ringing endorsement of an Garda while you’re at it).
Otherwise, there will be a big stick to hit them with at the next Dail election and everyone after it. The way to a possible united Ireland is crystal clear boys and girls (read the Agreement on consent that the people of this island agreed to) and it doesn’t involve being vague on policing in the interim.
As for the Executive, nobody really cares in Britain or south of the border.
All the British want is to cut costs and the moaning while all the Irish government want is a stable economic and social environment and if that can be achieved without an Executive, no problem.
The majority of businesses in Northern Ireland say it isn’t affecting them having no devolution so as long as this stays the same, the only people losing out on the Executive are the parties themselves.
So SF, sign up to policing before next May, get your eight Dail seats and take it from there.
DUP, keep protecting the Union if that’s what rocks your boat.
In the meantime, the other 60 odd million of us living on these islands will get on with our lives.
Brenda,
Unionists are guaranteed their positions in a powersharing executive. It is their own decision not to enter such an executive.
They cannot continue to exclude Irish nationalists from all acess to power in their own country. Powersharing is a compromise, not an excuse for a unionist veto.
That compromise is needed because historically unionists did not, possibly could not, involve the nationalist community in the government of NI. As long ago as the early 1960′s McAteer and the Nationalist Party agreed to become the ‘Loyal Opposition’ with the promise that they would be rewarded with acess to power at committee level. That promise was not delivered on with the results we all know about.
Just eight George? Are you taking money on that?
Mick
With talk of dark alleyways and political muggings I thought vague was in vogue.
‘They cannot continue to exclude Irish nationalists from all acess to power in their own country.’
Wrong again. Republicans exclude themselves by being morally and intellectually unable to accommodate the concept of the rule of law beyond the casual dispensation of SF authorised ‘street justice.’
If militant republicanism finally slaughters this sacred cow they would leave rejectionist unionists without anything to hide behind – the deal would be made. Checkmate. Not the endgame they were looking for but we all know that deal means making a deal with ‘usuns.’ This is diplomacy for slow learners
I had to say I thought Reg Empey’s piece in today’s News Letter was a bit cheeky, accussing the DUP of preparing for a sell-out, bla,bla,bla bearing in mind that at a recent meeting in Albertbridge Orange Hall, Peter Robinson asked those present if they would go into government with Sinn Fein tomorrow to put up their hands, none other than Michael Copeland, Reg’s fellow MLA in East Belfast fired his hand into the air!
This is the same Michael Copeland who is now on the UUP negotiating team!! Some negotiator he’ll be!
“Though an inclusive democracy would be preferable one with a mandate of 50%+1 will do.”
Great to see lib2016 outing himself as a supporter of Stormont there.
Libbie, haven’t you noticed yet- Unionists have always had 50% and then lots more – and will continue to do so?
and you will be making a serious misjudgment if you think that the process is going anywhere without Unionists-the Shinners have had all the goodies to date, theres’ nothing left for them but a big slice of humble pie
Lib the only way the process moves forward is thru inclusivity. Otherwise its stalemate. If they decide not to enter the power sharing arrangement that is their democratic right. Once again I am saying to you, you cannot have power sharing without those with whom you are elected to share power with. You cannot substitute the other side with someone else, and as to your remark ‘They cannot continue to exclude irish nationalists from power in their own country’, I have this to say.
1) It’s their country too.
2) I am glad you used the term ‘nationalist’ rather than republican to describe SF.
“and you will be making a serious misjudgment if you think that the process is going anywhere without Unionists-the Shinners have had all the goodies to date, theres’ nothing left for them but a big slice of humble pie”
Tell me darth. Suppose no deal, the British Government increases North South bodies all over the place and gives the Irish government a bigger role, even if it remains a consultative one. Super councils around the border do everything in their power to weaken it, and direct rules ministers make life more painful and expensive for everyone.
What, exactly, are you going to do about it?
‘Unionists have always had 50% and then lots more’
Not in recent elections, friend. They might, probably would get it in a referendum while thetwo parts of the are still so far apart but they don’t get it elections anymore.
Nationalists are used to humble pie – if a return to Stormont means accepting Paisley as First Minister then that will be accepted, along with whatever other sacrifices are necessary. If unionists had cared enough about winning to compromise they could have had it all. Republicans care enough to accept whatever deal is required.
Mick,
SF aren’t going anywhere south of the border until they sign up to the rule of law and whether they like it or not, that includes the PSNI at this stage.
It also includes not getting your pictures taken with Garda killers, who rob banks with Limerick criminals.
Sometimes I think SF really don’t get the southern psyche when it comes to “subversives”.
The populace can take them demanding a bit of tweaking on policing but the principle of signing up and acceptance of policing has to be clear.
Dail election next May is probably too soon for SF to fully reap the benefits of completely coming in from the cold but there is a sea change happening in Irish politics at the moment with everything to play for in the coming decade or so.
If they want to be a real player, now is the time to make the move. Anyway, they have come this far, there is nowhere else to go.
I don’t see SF sweeping the boards here and 8 seats is all they need to maintain a sense of momentum as long as McDonald gets in in Dublin Central.
After that, it’s focus on being an opposition party and try break that 10% ceiling that most people down here think they have.
Either that or become acceptable enough as a coalition partner, which will only happen if they accept policing and be as ruthlessly loyal to Dail Eireann, the Irish Army etc. as Dev was when he took the plunge all those decades ago.
North south bodies are toothless entities. They are a joke, they have achieved nothing to date AFAIK. You can put them all around the place if you like, question is who will pay for them. Up until now its the british who have been doing most of the paying, so the electorate not just here but in britain may have something to say about that. Especially if it takes money away from essential services. to date a dead stormont has cost millions, money that could have went to essential services.
Who is to say that direct rule will be more expensive? Perhaps they will bring in the rates, but IMO stormont or no, revenue will have to be found, and water rates are a foregone conclusion. jWhy the rates issue is troubling SF whose main supporters are in working class areas and this levy will hit malone road and its environs harder than any one else is anybodys guess. but thats another issue.
without the unionists, more direct rule. water rates will come even if stormont does ordoes not. as will some form of rates increase. that arguememt by SF can you afford it, doesn’t add up. We can afford direct rule very much easier than an expensive stormont-considering their wages and expenses and more besides.
Life will not be more painful or expensive, but we will have lost the opportunity to govern ourselves like scotland and wales. but then lib for republicans that isn’t really what they want is it.
Sf need this more than anybody else they invested too much in it for it to sink in the water. They’ll do policing and anything else required of them-they’re power hungry.
sorry that should say ken not lib.
kensei: “Suppose no deal, the British Government increases North South bodies all over the place and gives the Irish government a bigger role, even if it remains a consultative one. Super councils around the border do everything in their power to weaken it, and direct rules ministers make life more painful and expensive for everyone. ”
The North South bodies are limited to common-sense matters — infrastructure, police-cooperation, etc. All good and necessary if the border is to be weakened, but not inherently weakening to the border. The “super-councils,” regardless of how super they are (or aren’t) are not going to have their own foreign policies, regardless of some folks fever dreams.
As for the home rule ministers, perhaps a splinter in the ass is what it will take to get folks to quit fence-sitting.
DC that is surprising. I didn’t know they dealt with policing, I thought they were about trade mostly. and the other stuff you mentioned. But of course it would make sense of the garda exchange, when gardai came north, however, it didn’t amount to much.