“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”
As mentioned earlier in the comments, Reg Empey told Talkback that he backed Margaret Ritchie, in that he was not prepared to pass the disputed minutes. He is critical of the late delivery of the minutes. The production of four (action?) points unseen before the meeting during an ad hoc discussion (ie, only added to the agenda at the last minute).
“Normally when someone has a problem with a minute it is deferred until they can produce evidence of inaccuracies or until they can talk to the First Minister or Deputy First Minister to sort it out. This happens regularly. There was no requirement for that minute to be passed yesterday, sometimes minutes are months behind. I was puzzled by that. I was asked if I would go down to my department and my home to see if I could find any notes that might help, and I said no I am not in the middle of a meeting like this. What’s the urgency of this?”
His recollection, he said, was closer to Ritchie’s than that of the minutes. He also confirmed that his understanding was that Ritchie had sought guidance, but had been told that it was her ministerial responsibility.
Tags: Government
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Delicious](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/delicious.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Delicious")
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Digg](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/digg.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Digg")
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Facebook](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/facebook.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Facebook")
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Google+](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/googleplus.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Google+")
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on LinkedIn](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/linkedin.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on LinkedIn")
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Pinterest](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/pinterest.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Pinterest")
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on reddit](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/reddit.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on reddit")
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on StumbleUpon](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/stumbleupon.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on StumbleUpon")
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Twitter](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/twitter.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Twitter")
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Add to Bookmarks](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/bookmark.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Add to Bookmarks")
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Email](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/email.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Email")
![Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Print Friendly](http://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-social-bookmarks/images/printfriendly.png "Share '“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”' on Print Friendly")
Again my apologies Pete.
When I posted at the beginning:
Did any of the three move a motion to table the adoption of the minutes until the next meeting?
Posted by tweedledee on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:58 PM
I thought it was clear.
Now that it has been clarified, without accusations of misconduct levelled at each other, you see my point? She could have avoided all this brouhaha, and come out smelling of roses on all fronts. As it stands, attention has drifted from her primary objective of stopping money going to the UDA, and in defending herself against Robinson’s ‘code of conduct/minister acting beyond her powers’ accusations, she has levelled accusations that she may not be able to substantiate, and could land her in legal hot water if one of those, say a civil servant, she maligned decided to sue.
All completely avoidable.
To add.
In circumstances were a majority, consisting of Sinn Féin and DUP ministers, are proposing the adoption of contested minutes, the suggestion that a motion to postpone such an adoption of those minutes would be a strategical master-stroke would seem to be wilfully ignorant of reality.
Voting against an adoption of those minutes achieves exactly the same moral position that is being claimed for following the action advocated by tweedledee.
“All completely avoidable.”
If Peter Robinson had not sought to attempt to rein in a minister who had already been authorised to take the decision on her own.
Closely followed, in that attempted reining in, by Martin McGuinness – “losing the run of herself”, indeed.
You’d almost think there was a belief that Ritchie would be forced towards a pre-determined outcome.
Perhaps Shawn Woodward could assist in that..
Voting against an adoption of those minutes achieves exactly the same moral position that is being claimed for following the action advocated by tweedledee.
No, it doesn’t. By moving to have the item discussed/voted at a later date, she can later claim, rightly so, that she was trying to be reasonable and wanting to seek further information that could help clarify, and the others were unreasonable and Noel Thompson should go ask them why they behaved so unreasonably. So then she would have 1 brownie point for stopping funding to the UDA and another brownie point for appearing the most reasonable and considerate.
She buys herself time, as it deflects pressure to answer questions hastily, and then she can go make sure she has her ducks in a row before accusing everyone but the Pope of altering the minutes.
They yanked her chain, and she reacted. And, as it stands, she may have reacted stupidly.
Pete,
Thanks for the link.
[quote]loftholdingswood: Standby for face saving ‘exclusives’ in tomorrows Sunday rags. Watch out for a statement from Ms Ritchie late next week ‘bigging up’ what she has ‘made’ the UDA do. But you know the truth don’t you?[/quote]
Has loftholdingswood been left holding wood?
You’re missing the point, tweedledee. The adoption of those minutes was already scheduled for a vote.
Your phantom ‘avoidance of the issue’ may seem to be a strategic master-stroke to you, but it’s ultimately meaningless.
Opposing the adoption of the minutes is as strong a signal, if not stronger – and was supported by the 2 UUP ministers.
As for chains being yanked – who yanked Martin McGuinness’ chain?
Tweedledee
Are you trying to quote Loftholdingswood in your defence?
Check the archives.
Adoption of minutes from the last meeting is normally the first item on the agenda, Pete, so of course it was scheduled for a vote. Formally putting down a motion to move the item back signals that you are more than willing to consider further information.
Opposing the adoption of the minutes is as strong a signal, if not stronger – and was supported by the 2 UUP ministers.
And instead of saying look how reasonable I was, she started saying there was no mistake on her part, the minutes were altered, blah blah blah. To be frank, that’s idiocy. Rank amateur at best, slightly unhinged at worst.
Pete,
Are you trying to quote Loftholdingswood in your defence?
No, I was just making fun of his name, in that context.
Apart from that, I don’t see myself as defending anything.
Should I be?
And therein lies the problem for her. She has provided no evidence that is the case.
Posted by tweedledee on Oct 19, 2007 @ 10:13 PM
Hello again, ref the above Sir Reg sounded very convincing on Talkback, I smell a fish…..
Yep, tweedledee
It’s entirely unreasonable to say – “These are not accurate minutes of the last meeting of the Executive.”
And your point is?
Oh, I see, “slightly unhinged”..
Well, as Martin McGuinness himself declared – She has “lost the run of herself”..
tweedledee,
That’s an awful lot of futuring. You are speaking of some things as though they had already happened when, to all intents and purposes, they have not. On the other hand, if you wish to make a disclosure at this point, just make sure it is legally robust.
I get your point about potential drift from her intention to act against the UDA, but that would appear to have blocked by the actions of her ministerial colleagues. Though I do also understand that the points you are making have more to do with interpreting the PR game than actually getting to the nub of the problem.
Reg Empey has provided useful information about how this Executive meeting departed from the norm. He also recalls telling Ms Ritchie that the upshot of the previous meeting was that she had been left on her own. He also noted:
This last is interesting since the substance of this particular dispute is an alleged insertion in the minutes of something Ms Ritchie denies ever happened. I would suggest that much of the irregularity around that meeting requires less answers from Ritchie than from her DUP and Sinn Fein cabinet colleagues.
There is also the disputed account of the behaviour of Ms Gildernew, who was variously reported in the mainstream press as having voted and abstained. It may not come to much in the end but at this stage, when we are so short of full disclosure, it pays to keep all potentially relevant detail close to hand.
There is no need to second guess future events. There is another meeting on Tuesday. Perhaps a resolution will be found by then? In the meantime, all I see is a lot of smoke and a few disingenuous mirrors.
Mick,
There is no need to second guess future events.
Welcome onboard, at last. Slugger’s is full of innuendo and speculation.
As it stands, Ritchie made a decision on stopping funding of the UDA/CTI project, the majority of her colleagues on the exec have voted to adopt the minutes of the second last meeting, Ritchie has accused some people of altering those minutes.
Though I do also understand that the points you are making have more to do with interpreting the PR game than actually getting to the nub of the problem.
Any speculation or innuendo on what the nub of the problem is allowed?
Here’s mine: SF control the nationalist side of the exec and assembly, the DUP control the unionist. The SDLP and UUP are bit part players at this stage. And it’s all a farce to date. Including Ritchie’s decision and Empey’s rush to hold her hand. Amateur politics and dramatics all rolled into one. But sure it keeps them off the streets anyway.
You have an opinion to share yourself?
Pete,
It’s entirely unreasonable to say – “These are not accurate minutes of the last meeting of the Executive.â€
Not at all. Minutes are often, if not always, inaccurate to some degree or another. It may, on the other hand, be considered unreasonable to accuse someone of altering them unless you can substantiate that accusation.
See? It’s not that hard to understand.
tweedledlee, would you care to speculate on why there was such a rush to adopt the minutes bearing in mind Sir Reg’s account?
tweedledee
A full quotation would be more acceptable –
As in
“And your point is?
Oh, I see, “slightly unhingedâ€..
Well, as Martin McGuinness himself declared – She has “lost the run of herselfâ€..”
Alex,
I could, but I can’t think of a good PR line to go with that one.
She played a blinder, but she should have held her cool while all around …
At this stage, I’m trying to follow the relevant detail. As such I’m not prepared to second guess the provenance of a meeting that’s in ongoing dispute: the outcome of which could cut either way. It is only proper to view all of the participants with a healthy dose of scepticism. On your majority point, that does not preclude the possibility that the minority view turns out to be the more truthful one.
I see Robo’s transparent concern for coherent governance. It’s something he has voiced consistent concern over long before his party enter negotiations with SF never mind government. But I am puzzled as to why the Executive appeared to allow Ms Ritchie to take independent action two months ago and then stepped in so abruptly with that point of order two days ago, and then following it up with this mess of a meeting yesterday.
As for Sinn Fein? Their messaging has been all over the place. They clearly set a trap for Ms Ritchie on Tuesday which just as clearly backfired on them. I am always sceptical of the potential for any long term electoral damage out of short term skirmishes. And I also consider that the very real plaudits that Ritchie has earned are largely for her individual performance, not her party’s.
The flip flop between Ni Chuilin’s accusation that Ritchie had authorised the funding in the Assembly on Tuesday to McGuinness’s assertion two days later that it was the decision was taken by Peter Hain in the first place to fund the UDA is no kind of fatal blow. And granted they were talking about slightly different things. But the transparent intention to hoist a SDLP minister upon the meat-hook of UDA funding (even forty minutes after she had actually cut it) in the first instance, and in the second, the Deputy First Minister blatantly trying to get himself off precisely the same hook was damaging.
But how damaging I’m no position to say.
On your majority point, that does not preclude the possibility that the minority view turns out to be the more truthful one.
I agree. But it reminds me of a question I asked earlier:
“it occurs to me to also ask why if she thought she was to pass on to the FM, DFM and Robinson the legal advice she received, what she believed to be the purpose of that.”
Just a courtesy fyi? Or they thought it was to come back to the exec? This could turn out to be a genuine misunderstanding on what was agreed at the second last meeting. There’s not enough information in the public domain for me to form an opinion yet.
As for SF, they’re all over the place these days trying to figure out what they still believe in, so who knows. She made them look bad so they tried to take a lump out of her and it backfired. That’s not evidence of a conspiracy against her though. That’s politics.
I’m off to bed now. But one last point.
Ritchie, it seems to me, and I may be wrong here, has calibrated her most serious attacks on cabinet colleagues only, but she also seemed at pains on H&M to make it clear she simply wanted to focus on action, not recrimination. It’s pretty clear she’s been widely been briefed against, but it doesn’t look like a sticking point in any path to resolution.
SF’s first embarrassment was entirely self inflicted (40 minutes for goodness sake, how long do you need to change shortish speech?). Such apparent incompetence has its own price, not least with activists. Nothing eats away at confidence like failure to perform in the front rank.
Night.
Tweedledee:
“Did any of the three move a motion to table the adoption of the minutes until the next meeting?”
If we ditch the apparently ambiguous word ‘table’ in the above and replace it with ‘defer’ – I think that’s what you’re asking although you seem to be confusing yourself as well as everyone else – well if you read or listen to what Reg Empey actually said, then that’s [i]precisely[/i] what the three ministers tried to do, but they were voted down by the DUP/SF axis so the minutes were adopted as the official (albeit still disputed) version of events.
Ritchie just wanted it on the record that she disagreed with the adopted version of events. You can debate whether it was wise to explicitly make accusations of minutes being deliberately tampered with (as opposed to it coming down to some kind of misunderstanding).
However, bear in mind that a certain senior civil servant has previous form when it comes to massaging the truth when it comes to producing official version of events (see judicial review of IVC case). And you can understand her anger about the same individual’s alleged behaviour two days beforehand – attempting to physically stop her from entering the chamber to make a Ministerial announcement in a legislature that she, not he, was elected to.
On a wider issue, Reg Empey’s always come across as rather dull. But that, in a way, could be a virtue in this instance.
He strikes me as having the diligence and attention to detail that means one is more likely to believe his version of events over that of the DUP Ministers who probably spent their time shouting and sniping during the disputed meeting.
SF and the DUP made their way to the top of their respective tribal pile by being the loudest and brashest during the protracted negotiating period of the [i]process[/i], but now that politics has moved onto the nitty gritty, boring bread-and-butter stuff, the UUP and SDLP’s qualities such as consistency, logic and attention to detail, may become the more important attributes signalling a change in fortunes for the latter parties?
There’s much in your last there Ian.
The impression given here (whether it is fair or not) is that they are spending more effort on trying to make sure things don’t get down than actually doing stuff. To be fair they have some of the more difficult Ministries (Ruane’s Education brief offers a particularly onerous cocktail of competing priorities).
But I suspect as this controversy continues that that impression will just sink deeper with each successive anaemic, direct-rule-policy-affirming directive that comes out of the ‘big two ministries’.
It will be interesting when the full legal advice given to Minister Ritchie gets leaked and leaked it will, if only, to show how wrong she was from a legal point of view as I am sure no one disputes the moral stance she took.. Never mind her breaking her Ministerial Code and whatever other things she breached, regarding the minutes of the meeting would it not be interesting to see the note takers writings or even Reg’s own notes of that meeting perhaps then Reg & Michael’s memory would be a bit accurate. If I was in the civil service I would take a case against her and that may still happen and also if I was Farset I would take her on too for I am convinced she would lose. Do not get me wrong I am totally behind the decision not to hand money to the URPG/UDA it is the excuse and the reason for stopping the money I find very disturbing. There is no moral or legal reason why the money could not have went to one side of the community that was a little feeble. Millions has gone to the national community for single identity schemes and not a word about it.
These shenanigans need to be seen in the context of the wider ‘conflict transformation’ project in Belfast, in which the DSD is one of nine partners.
3 October 2007
Public consultation on draft Peace Plan for Belfast …
Four consultation events have been planned at venues across the city:
Belfast Castle in North Belfast on Monday 29 October (10am to 12 noon)
Malone House in South Belfast on Wednesday 31 October (2pm to 4pm)
Farset Centre in West Belfast on Thursday 1 November (10am to 12 noon)
The Mount in East Belfast on Friday 2 November (9.30am to 11.30am)
Has Ritchie consulted with her other partners? Will she be attending the consultation in the Farset Centre?
What are the implications for ‘joint’ ventures such as the McAleese (and SF) endorsed Finaghy Crossroads Group? Did someone forget to tell Comical Marty where his 2d went?
“SF and the DUP made their way to the top of their respective tribal pile by being the loudest and brashest during the protracted negotiating period of the process, but now that politics has moved onto the nitty gritty, boring bread-and-butter stuff, the UUP and SDLP’s qualities such as consistency, logic and attention to detail, may become the more important attributes signalling a change in fortunes for the latter parties?” – Ian
It’s hard to guess that one. Northern society is split into two tribes, so the politics reflects those tribal divisions. PSF and the DUP came to prominence by pitting one tribe against the other. I don’t think you can ignore the power of that dynamic, hoping that opportunistic manipulators will forget the best trick in the book or that the society will cease to be divided into two tribes. The tribal division regarding The Irish Language Act, for example, indicates otherwise.
Morality and principled behaviour from a political party will win votes, but will they win enough votes? PSF have been completely unprincipled on the issue of support for the UDA godfathers, but rather than condemn them for that, many of their supporters chose to either divert their eyes from it and onto the propriety of Her Majesty’s law (a delightful ultra pro-state juxtaposition for the old anti-state ‘republicans’) or they chose to praise PSF’s lack of principles as a virtue in politics. Either way, they recognise that they set the low standards by voting for PSF.
It might be that the public has been so corrupted by the process of being persuaded that mass-murderers are fit and proper people to hold elected office that they simply don’t have the required integrity to ‘purify’ their own politics at this late stage – which is probably why it isn’t necessarily a bad thing that you only have a puppet administration in the north, anyway.
I wonder if FF really know what they are letting themselves in for?