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.
Brenda: ” 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. ”
I am working from memory — there was a whole “to-do” about North-Southery, with the UUP est. a “North-South Watch.” One of the items referenced were plans for cooperation. Given the common border, the issue of smuggling (an inevitability, regardless of recent political difficulties, given the differing tax structures), and other common issues, such cooperation makes sense.
Of course, common issues and common sense seem to be endangered species…
“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.”
Sure. But all those little things begin to add up, a little mission creep here and there, and the border becomes weaker. Co-operation looks a little more like integration. And if it’s working for x and y, then surely it’ll work for z?
And to me, it’ll be the practical common sense things that convinCe people of a UI.
“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.”
No, but they can do a lot in terms of making the border invisible, with regardless to health services, police services, education services, symbols and the like. Again – it’ll be the little practical things that will make the difference, and a slow weakening.
“As for the home rule ministers, perhaps a splinter in the ass is what it will take to get folks to quit fence-sitting. ”
Hey, they stopped fence sitting and came down on the side of pissing people here off ages ago.
Wasn`t too long ago that the dupers were screaming that they wouldn`t sit on the policing board with the shinners.Why the road to damascus conversion.Could it be that the dupers believe that policing can be a preserved unionist structure and that they can stymie change more effectively with the shinners on board.Hence you signed up to it so it couldn`t be that bad, so no change needed.
kensei: “No, but they can do a lot in terms of making the border invisible, with regardless to health services, police services, education services, symbols and the like. Again – it’ll be the little practical things that will make the difference, and a slow weakening. ”
That’s just it — they can’t. Integration of the health services won’t work, even if its a good idea — too many sacred cows. Police? Let’s see if cooperation floats first. Education — not likely — given all the pissing and moaning over Catholic and State / Protestant schools, throwing in Southern schools is not going to fly. As for symbols — you really are an optimist, aren’t you?
The super-councils will find themselves ham-strung, making anything beyond cooperation a pipe-dream. Money and bureaucracy will be the fence that hems them in and keeps them on the reservation, so to speak. They are not going to be or even become self-regulating fiefdoms with their own foreign policies.
“No, but they can do a lot in terms of making the border invisible, with regardless to health services, police services, education services, symbols and the like. Again – it’ll be the little practical things that will make the difference, and a slow weakening”
Here we have yet again displayed the total lack of reality.
Protestants are wholly opposed to a UI –ambulances to and from Letterkenny won`t alter that.
The ROI and its citizens are regarded as apologists for murder gangs (at best) and direct participants in murder campaigns at the other extreme.
No right thinking protestant will associate voluntarily with such people
“That’s just it—they can’t. Integration of the health services won’t work, even if its a good idea—too many sacred cows. Police? Let’s see if cooperation floats first. Education—not likely—given all the pissing and moaning over Catholic and State / Protestant schools, throwing in Southern schools is not going to fly.”
It’ll be a slow process. At the start, integration will be limited to sectors like energy or tourism with minimal political spark. But who is going oppose that a sick person near the border goes to the closest hospital to get treatment. Opposition to that is madness. Or school kids near the border can go to the closest school, rather than the closest on their side? Little things like that will happen before any major integration and while the border exists there will always be some separation, it’s unavoidable.
Nationalist super councils will push for moves like these, and the border will weaken. It’s inevitable.
“As for symbols—you really are an optimist, aren’t you?”
You think an SF run Super Council is going to have the Union Jack all year round? You think they’d knock back a Connolly memorial a la Belfast City Council?
“The super-councils will find themselves ham-strung, making anything beyond cooperation a pipe-dream. Money and bureaucracy will be the fence that hems them in and keeps them on the reservation, so to speak. They are not going to be or even become self-regulating fiefdoms with their own foreign policies. ”
You mentioned foreign policy, not me.
Indeed some worry that Sinn Fein would prefer to keep things open as long as possible.
Really Mick? Most commentators are openly speculating that the DUP are the ones playing for time, as they themselves have been quick to pour scorn on any prospect of a deal next month.
You have cited a comment by Mitchel McLaughlin as part justification for this assertion, and then close with a remark that Sinn Fein may now sign up to a deal its opponents can live with.
Of course it’s your prerogative to use such quotes to back up an assertion, but you fail to adopt a similar approach to the comments of DUP leaders.
In this regard, Paisley’s 12th July speech was nothing if not clear on where the DUP stand on power-sharing and a deal.
Furthermore, accepting power-sharing with catholics in a position paper is nice; but the reality at local government level is a much more credible barometer of where the DUP are at the moment.
The Brady meeting aside, (and a notable feature of that welcome development was how long it took the DUP to arrange a time for the meeting in Paisley’s busy schedule…)Paisley and the DUP have yet to take any steps to publicly prepare their grassroots for the compromise which will see Paisley/ Robinson sharing the OFM/DFM office with Martin McGuinness.
The final comment, that Sinn Fein may sign up to a deal their opponents can live with, is particularly perplexing. Is it not the job of political leaders to negotiate such a deal on behalf of their own community? Is the ‘living with it’ not the responsibility of a community and its political leaders- as opposed to their opponents?
Unionist concerns/ sensitivities are obviously important; but the problem of too many commentators is that they regard these as somehow superior to those of nationalists.
The beauty of the scenario opening in front of us at present is that unionism will have no bogeyman to threaten the process with once Paisley and the DUP cross the Rubicon.
It is that realisation within political unionism that has meant we are more likely to crawl than gallop to a deal in the time ahead.
“The ROI and its citizens are regarded as apologists for murder gangs (at best) and direct participants in murder campaigns at the other extreme.
No right thinking protestant will associate voluntarily with such people
Posted by barnshee on Oct 11, 2006 @ 04:44 PM”
That means 186,000 (according to the 2002 CSO census) are wrong thinking Protestants in your eyes ?
JESUS WEPT!
‘JESUS WEPT!’
Yeah but they’re tears of laughter.
At such a mind-numbingly stupid ‘Prods good, Taigs evil murdering bastards’ mentality as so eloquently displayed above.
kensei: “It’ll be a slow process. At the start, integration will be limited to sectors like energy or tourism with minimal political spark. But who is going oppose that a sick person near the border goes to the closest hospital to get treatment. Opposition to that is madness. Or school kids near the border can go to the closest school, rather than the closest on their side? Little things like that will happen before any major integration and while the border exists there will always be some separation, it’s unavoidable. ”
You figure wrongly, kensei. It will be the little things that derail this idea. The first to scream will be the entrenched bureaucracies on both sides of the border. Issues will include such diverse matters as differentials in spending per pupil, spending per patient day, differing contractual allowances between the two health systems, etc.
The second to scream will be one of two groups — those teachers and nurses whose workload increases or those whose workload decreases. A general din will arise over differences in individual pay.
Third to scream the tax-payer, who either has to pay more to make up for the differentials. Alternately, the tax-payers on the other side will holler should they find themselves subsidizing the others services.
Quit thinking like a political science major, believing that wanting and wishing will make it so. The proverbial devil is in the details, kensei. Integration of differing systems takes more than happy thoughts.
Mick
“The events of the last two years have only served to strengthen the DUP’s hand”.
The DUP have a stronger mandate from the Unionist community but that’s it.
As time passes Unionism is negotiating from a progessively weaker position, no matter who represents it. Admittedly, the growth in the Catholic/Nationalist population has slowed a lot but the changes in NI demographics still favour nationalism and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
The DUP can obviously prevent the formation of a local assembly but that’s it. If they don’t move forward, the 2 govts will proceed with joint stewardship. There is no electoral risk for either of the govts with that. The UK electorate don’t care about NI and Unionism has no real voice and little support at Westminster.
The last remaining challenge for Sinn Fein is policing and the leadership are clearly trying to move forward on that.
I think it’s clear that, if a clear timetable for assembly restoration is not in place by Nov 24 – the 2 govts will move on. Labour has a leadership election and local govt elections in May to worry about + Bertie has a general election coming.
As Labour will be in power for a minimum of another 2.5 years and Gordon Brown will not devote anywhere near as much time or effort into NI, the joint stewardship solution clearly suits Nationalism more than Unionism.
I would say that the DUP are in the same position as all Unionist parties have been – with each successive round of negotiations they are bargaining from a weaker position.
Their best strategy would be to get the best possible deal this time round.
Chris,
I have picked up some residual thinking that SF is planning to spin out this process even further. But that’s essentially outsider fears.
It doesn’t make sense to me. But then a lot of things that SF has done and said in the last two years haven’t made sense either.
I’m generally hearing positive vibes on both sides, but it’s hard to know where they are orginating from.
Billy,
“I would say that the DUP are in the same position as all Unionist parties have been – with each successive round of negotiations they are bargaining from a weaker position”.
A lot of our commenters believe this to be true, but I struggle to see either the evidence or the logic? There is nothing inevitably one way about this process.
Weston Park seems to have been a high point for Sinn Fein. Honestly, since then the DUP have been consolidating their position within Unionism – by doing nothing and conceding nothing – meanwhile SF have steadily got more and more stuck. They now resemble the lumbering predictable UUP project they once ran rings around than their former lithe, and endlessly distruptive selves.
Also, the DUP have been charming people the UUP under Trimble never managed to entirely convince of his bona fides. More than that they’ve been building alliances with other parties that would have been inconceiveable under Trimble.
All in all, they are well placed to make a deal and carry it off without the need for heavy on the ground consultation. Another election would suit them better than any of the other parties as affirmation of a new deal – the last two years will make it difficult for SF to pull back to anything like the momentum they had before.
If they were ever serious about attracting middle class voters to the cause, and I have every reason to think they were, the last two years has blown it: possibly for good.
“Quit thinking like a political science major, believing that wanting and wishing will make it so. The proverbial devil is in the details, kensei. Integration of differing systems takes more than happy thoughts”
I am not wanting or wishing anything. I am merely following the logic of combined political will and power invested in super councils. The rest follows from this as an immutable law of the universe.
The question is whether or not they have enough power to do it. Enough to destroy the Union? No. Enough to lay serious groundwork. Certainly.
Mick.
The DUP may have consolidated within Unionism, which has undoubtedly placed it in a stronger position in the short term. But the base on which that strength is built is weakening all the time. Regardless of whether or not the magic 50.00001% happens, the Nationalist share of the vote will continue to grow in the foreseeable fututre. That in itself strengthens Nationalism, and weakens Unionism.
The DUP has talked a good game since they made the Unionist ascendency, but alliances? Certainly not with the Nationalist parties and certainly nothing major with the English ones. Moreover, there has been a lot of window dressing a not a terrible lot of subtance; the DUP still refuse to share power with Nationalism in general and SF in particular and some of the behaviour on councils is ridiculous. And lot of the DUP’s position is our way or the highway.
And again, saying “No” only works for so long: eventually you have to deliver. This is where parties get “stuck”. They are helped by the UUP doing most of the heavy lifting but that does not rule out the possibility of trouble ahead. Out of power they could take the blame for not closing, in power there is an awful lot SF could do to piss them off.
On SF, several points. I don’t believe there will be much difficulty in selling a deal to the grassroots, the groundwork for the only major remaining issue has been going on for at least a year and a half now. Second, at some point SF was going to either have to dump or distance itself from its baggage. Unavoidable, and I’m certain they are glad to have had their ‘slump’ well in advance of the Dáil election. Third, it doesn’t actually take many seat gains to count as a forward progression in terms of Dail seats and produce momentum.
And losing something forever? That’s a rather rash prediction for a political commentator. The SDLP remains moribund, at any rate.
My ‘prediction’, as you put it, is not so much a prediction but more to do with ‘tarnishing the brand’. Going into the last two years I would have agreed with you about the SDLP, but I’m not so sure now.
Although it may have been a reasonable political risk to take it’s never a good strategy to rely on the perceived weakness of your opponents. Next year’s elections (possibly in NI as well as in the Republic) will be the only reliable measurement of whether there has been any serious long term damage, or not.
“My ‘prediction’, as you put it, is not so much a prediction but more to do with ‘tarnishing the brand’. Going into the last two years I would have agreed with you about the SDLP, but I’m not so sure now.”
Political parties all over have had their “brand” tarnished in the past, and come back from it. Canadiamn Conservatives? English Conservatives? Labour? And the damage isn’t anywhere like that scale – SF are after all, still the largest Nationalist Party.
The SDLP has had some success by playing up cordite. A deal will effectively neutralise that, and the policy of attacking SF constantly may start to backfire. Demographics skew for SF too.
“Although it may have been a reasonable political risk to take it’s never a good strategy to rely on the perceived weakness of your opponents. Next year’s elections (possibly in NI as well as in the Republic) will be the only reliable measurement of whether there has been any serious long term damage, or not.”
SF had to bite the bullet sometime on decommissiong, policing and the like. Not because of Unionism, but because it is such an easy target for opponents in the South. So where do you take the hit?
In terms of elections, SF will make gains in the South and it doesn’t take an awful lot there to produce forward momentum. And I would be utterly shocked if they didn’t have a few gains in any Northern elections – they still gained last year, at probably their lowest point.
That seems a reasonable appraisal. Playing it tight to the electoral ground is standard practice for SF, and no doubt will serve them well in the next elections. Also agree there has been a failure with the SDLP not grasping the full opportunity offered them by the last two years of SF’s troubles.
I also expect some forward movement in the south, but it could be more testing in NI. Deal or no deal, a degree of credibility has been lost to the party that it will find hard to get back. It’s a case of whether the SDLP can grab back some of their lost voters, or if they continue to haemorrage from the ranks of the voting public.
That requires more than exposing a single weak flank in the current SF position. But it’s biggest existential problem facing it is that in many places SF is now comfortably incumbent. I’d be targeting just a very few winnables, building strong defences around the vulnerables, and rolling out a more convincing narrative that powerfully segments the Nationalist voter base.
Given the success of the party’s strategy in 2005, in preventing a wipeout, I think the first two are likely to be actioned but they show no sign of actioning the third.
kensei: “I am not wanting or wishing anything. I am merely following the logic of combined political will and power invested in super councils. The rest follows from this as an immutable law of the universe. ”
ROFLMAO!
I think you grossly over-estimate the South’s enthusiam for reunification, de facto or de jure. The super-councils are only one half of the equation and not the big half at that. It is doubtful they will be allowed to cut their own seperate deals with the South on these issues. Even if they are allowed a little daylight in these areas, the differences in the systems, the unintended consequences of the combination of two disparate systems, will undermine any perceived gains.
I also think you will find that there are no “immutable laws of the universe” that apply to politics and certainly none that apply to bureaucracy. The “physics” of a bureaucracy are strictly Newtonian and that is on a good day.
“I think you grossly over-estimate the South’s enthusiam for reunification, de facto or de jure. The super-councils are only one half of the equation and not the big half at that. It is doubtful they will be allowed to cut their own seperate deals with the South on these issues. Even if they are allowed a little daylight in these areas, the differences in the systems, the unintended consequences of the combination of two disparate systems, will undermine any perceived gains.”
Polls in the South consistently show support for reunification.
Common sense measures remain common sense measure on both sides. If local authgorities here make sensible deal with local authorities in the South, then I suggest the super councils would welcome the fight.
“I also think you will find that there are no “immutable laws of the universe” that apply to politics and certainly none that apply to bureaucracy. The “physics” of a bureaucracy are strictly Newtonian and that is on a good day. ”
Rhetorical flourish. Nevertheless, political will and corresponding power will produce some movement, and we’re starting form a low base.
agree with Mick’s analysis @13. The seismic act of decommissioning came far too late to put any pressure on the DUP- just think how completely isolated they would have been if it had happened in 1999. The DUP are being asked to bite the bullet of power sharing which most Unionists have long ago conceded, and they even nearly formally did in November 2004-with the Shinners-everyone in Unionism knows the price for devolution. Most will probably pay that price, provided they see pain for the Shinners on policing. And of course for all the bombast from Gerry about the lawabiding republican community (!) that’s going to be a very hard sell indeed in Ballymurphy. The changes Gerry wants to policing are too great for either government to stomach. So for all the talk about Free P backwoodsmen spontaneously combusting, as usual the focus is on the wrong people. The people who have been out of step for 30 odd years are the republican community, weaned on a diet of MOPEry and an inability to come out from behind the circled wagons. If their leaders are now deservedly crushed by political expediency what are they going to do-go back to armed struggle?
kensei: “Common sense measures remain common sense measure on both sides.”
What sounds good as a sound bite on the news seldom reveals that the pitfalls and pratfalls that accompany that notion. Yes, access to the nearest hospital in the case of an emergency is a common sense notion. That said, there are a whole host of bureaucrats, each with their own fiefdom and personal perview, that have to be convinced that its a good idea that they cede some portion of their personal kingdoms in the name of this good idea. One will make a stink about crossing the border, another about who is going to pay the difference between what one plan pays vs. the other. If there is too great a disparity, your wonderful “common sense measure” will run dead on into a buzzsaw of bureaucratic red tape. Bureaucracies do not run on “common sense measures.” I would have thought you realized that by now.
kensei: “Nevertheless, political will and corresponding power will produce some movement, and we’re starting form a low base. ”
Oh, some of the dominos will wobble — one or two may even topple. But its not going to be the neat and simple wave the wand you keep trying to pass it off as. Political will is nice. But its not going to create a working interface between the disparate systems, nor the resultant bureaucratic nightmares that arise in the wake of even a “good” arrangement. Likewise, there are any number of spanners that can fall or be thrown into the works.
“…there are any number of spanners…”
The point is that especially in the Civil Service the spanners are now reaching retirement age. Check the ‘Equal Opportunity Commission’ website for frequent observations of the fact that the NI Civil Service is becoming the preserve of Catholic women.
This situation is becoming so extreme that eventually discrimination in favour of Protestant applicants may be required. What a pity all unionist politicans oppose such practices as Fair Employment laws!
The majority of people in middle management in NI are Catholics and within the next few years so will the majority of senior management be from a nationalist background.
Despite constant denials from unionists on this site and elsewhere the demographics of the NI population are changing, and this is reflected in the workplace.
It so happens that the changes are disproportionally evident in the Civil Service, a fact which can be easily checked on the ‘Equality’ website.
I will concede that though the spanners may increasingly be Catholic the nuts will continue to be Protestant nuts. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
“Oh, some of the dominos will wobble—one or two may even topple. But its not going to be the neat and simple wave the wand you keep trying to pass it off as. ”
I am patently NOT trying to pass it over as a simple wave. If you have that impression you have the wrong end of the stick. Regardless of compliactions, the pressure remains.
And as I said before, negativity helps no one.
kensei: “And as I said before, negativity helps no one. ”
Do not mistake a hearty cynicism and past experience with bureaucracies as undue negativity, kensei. A realistic understanding of the size and scope of an undertaking should be a prerequisite, not an afterthought.
lib2016: “The point is that especially in the Civil Service the spanners are now reaching retirement age. Check the ‘Equal Opportunity Commission’ website for frequent observations of the fact that the NI Civil Service is becoming the preserve of Catholic women. ”
First, Catholic does not always mean Nationalist. Secondly, just becuase the bureaucrat would appear to sympathize with you does not mean they will actually help you. A bureaucracy is like an oil tanker — regardless of how fast you spin the wheel, its ability to actually change course is limited. No matter how hard you believe in leprachauns and clap your hands, the super-councils are not going to win the day. They will, at best, be a small step. Kensei is long on “won’t it be wonderful!” and woefully short on “and this is how were going to do it and how it will work.” Until and unless a working interface between the two bureaucracies can be devised, its going to be a pipe-dream. Even that does nothing to address the unintended, but readily forseeable, problems that will arise from such an interface.
For example, even if its just a simple clearing house for medical care and reimbursement, there is still the matter of level of reimbursement — if there is a differential between what N.I. pays and the ROI hospital expects, will the patient have to make up the difference? Will these rates be subject to currency fluctuation? Will ambulances now be exempt from border considerations? If shifts in hospital utilization become sufficiently great, will hospitals be closed as redundant?
Bureaucracies follow the three laws of infernal dynamics (hat tip: Solomon Short)
1) An object at rest in is the wrong place;
2) An object in motion is going the wrong direction; and
3) The amount of energy required to correct either 1) or 2) above is never so much as to be objectively impossible but always more than the viewer would care to expend.