Adams: every individual must be accountable…
Gerry Adams provides some limited clarity on his party’s position on policing:
“Peter Hain understands our position fully and so should everybody else. He is playing politics with the policing issue. We have seen, even as I stand here, the difficulties he has got himself into by playing politics with victims, playing politics with the Orange Parades, playing politics with equality and other issues.“We are not about playing politics with policing. We are about depoliticising policing. I don’t think anyone would expect us to take responsibility for policing without there being executive authority.
“However other parties, and I think particularly the SDLP, have bought into MI5 involvement in the PSNI, they have bought into no timeframe at all on the transfer of powers of policing and justice. Sinn Fein has a different position. We believe in civic policing – the vision which was outlined in the Good Friday Agreement.
But his sign off line is intriguing, to say the least:
“We think we can get there and rather than Peter Hain asking us for clarification, he should provide clarification on these matters so we can have depoliticised civic policing where every citizen can be given some sense that every police officer will be held accountable in the mechanisms outlined.
Hmmm… That line may cause some discomfort within the McCartney household… but it is also considerably more concrete than anything placed in the public domain on the vexed issue of policing by Sinn Fein heretofore.
You think the SF electorate will actually punish SF for not signing up to policing? You cant be serious -
In that case the SF electorate cannot complain about not being in power, they have excluded themselves based on their own sectarianism
exuup:
I refer you to my previous point:
“SF have not stated they refuse to take the pledge, they want to know if they will be included in the process that taking the pledge will create.”
This is hardly sectarianism.
exuupIn that case the SF electorate cannot complain about not being in power, they have excluded themselves based on their own sectarianism
If people were excluded from power in NI because of sectarianism Stormont and the council chambers across the six counties would be pretty empty places…
“SF have not stated they refuse to take the pledge, they want to know if they will be included in the process that taking the pledge will create.†-
Yes they have refused to take the pledge or we couldve taken it on friday – they would be as included as everyone else , no more , no less and thats the problem – they always want more!
exuup:
“they would be as included as everyone else , no more , no less and thats the problem”
Likewise on Friday, the DUP could have stated that SF would not be excluded from P&J, but they didn’t.
To which party does the person who said SF wouldn’t be included in P&J for a lifetime belong to?
To which party does the person who said SF wouldn’t be included in P&J for a lifetime belong to? -
That wasnt said, what was said that p+j wouldnt be devolved, again Unionists would be in EXACTLY the same position as SF, so SF cannot complain about being excluded when theres nothing to be excluded from!
exuup:
And the DUP can prevent P&J from becoming devolved. That’s the whole point.
McGrath: And the DUP can prevent P&J from becoming devolved. That’s the whole point.
Likewise, SF can prevent P&J from being devolved. That’s equality. Both the GFA and SAA are based on locks and vetoes. This is just one more.
FD wrote:
> For example, if SF is not in a position to
> nominate in March that is fine, the other
> parties can their seats.
Am I missing something? Who is refusing to nominate or accept nomination?
As for the DUP giving up something requiring reciprocation from SF, what would they be giving up by the devolution of P&J? Isn’t an agreement on this the very definition of a win-win situation?
McGrath
“How important to unionists would a declaration of PIRA disbandment be?”
IMO it would be very helpful and largely cancels out the need for any default/exclusion mechanism. I think it is also useful for SF, no more waiting for the IMC or PSNI to say whether IRA members are acting with or without the leadership’s ok as there would be no IRA leadership or membership.
“How helpful would it be to expand the parades committee to include more members of the OO and residents groups?”
I would be looking for something a bit more radical than that also court rulings make it near impossible for an OO member (and resident groups) to go on the PC.
dpef
“Stop giving us a red-herrings. You are against the SAA on multiple grounds (on prnciple?).
Even if SF agreed to endorse policing in the north without any ‘concessions’ you have made it clear you reject the proposals outright and wrote at length why. What are you and the other rejectionists asking for? If you can ever be satisfied”
It is obvious that you either did not read what I said or did not understand it.
I did not reject it “on principle” or “outright”. I listed what I was concerned about. I also said that if I saw some improvements on these (not all of them) I was perfectly willing to move and become supportive.
Briso
A ministerial nomination were the nominee refuses to take the ministerial pledge of office is not a valid nomination.
SF says it cannot allow its members to take such a pledge until an Ard Fheis decides hence they are either not in the position to nominate or if they do it is invalid.
FD, can you point out a link to the wording of the pledge to me? I would be interested to read it.
What about my second question? Here it is again:
As for the DUP giving up something requiring reciprocation from SF, what would they be giving up by the devolution of P&J? Isn’t an agreement on this the very definition of a win-win situation?
Briso
Here is the full bill/act
Link
Here are the specific bits added to the previous pledge
7 Pledge of office
(1) In the pledge of office set out in Schedule 4 to the 1998 Act, after paragraph (c)
insert—
“(ca) to promote the interests of the whole community represented
in the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the goal of a shared future;
(cb) to participate fully in the Executive Committee, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council;
(cc) to observe the joint nature of the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister;
(cd) to uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts as set out in paragraph 6 of the St Andrews Agreement;â€.
(2) At the end of the pledge of office set out in that Schedule insert—
“Paragraph 6 of the St Andrews Agreement says:
“We believe that the essential elements of support for law and order include endorsing fully the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the criminal justice system, actively encouraging everyone in the community to co-operate fully with the PSNI in tackling crime in all areas and actively supporting all the policing and criminal justice institutions,including the Policing Board.â€â€
“As for the DUP giving up something requiring reciprocation from SF, what would they be giving up by the devolution of P&J? Isn’t an agreement on this the very definition of a win-win situation?”
1. SF want something then they have to give something. No free lunchs.
2. There is an agreement on it but SF aren’t happy with the terms.
Fair_deal,
I think the point Briso is trying to make is that the DUP stand to benefit at least as much, if not more than SF from an early devolution of P&J powers.
It could be argued that SF are offering something to the DUP by making it clear that they won’t use their veto on the timing of the devolution.
If both parties stand to benefit i.e a win-win situation then it’s not a question of either party giving a concession to the other party. It’s just stubbornness that prevents the DUP from claiming the prize of a Justice Ministry (as well as locking SF into support for police and the rule of law etc) for themselves.
Ian
“the DUP stand to benefit at least as much”
As a far as I can see that is not the DUP’s assessment of the situation. SF can try and persuade them otherwise. Good luck.
“It could be argued that SF are offering something to the DUP by making it clear that they won’t use their veto on the timing of the devolution.”
A very nice try. The Ard Fheis delay is a self-imposed blockage. The DUP veto on P&J is the law.
“the DUP stand to benefit at least as muchâ€
“As far as I can see that is not the DUP’s assessment of the situation.”
I’m trying to understand the DUP’s assessment i.e. why they seem to fear devolution of P&J so much, when they clearly stand to gain an extra Ministry out of it. You yourself have stated (in your six-part analysis) that you don’t share their hang up over it.
I see it as a failure to move away from their zero-sum analysis, i.e. if SF call for it then it must be opposed. Maybe, just maybe something that benefits republicans might also benefit unionists?
Ian
I haven’t done the d’hondt figures lately but I
don’t think they are in-line for the ministry so that benefit you percieve may be a false one.
No I don’t share the objections about but the discussion is about the DUP position (as best I understand it) not my personal one.