“Sinn Fein needs these powers to be devolved..”
Sinn Féin’s u-turn over their previously demanded “safeguards” in any devolved justice ministry, however Martin McGuinness cared to portray it, might have bought them the appearance of movement.. however briefly.. But Gerry Adams is still talking about failure of the “indigenous” deal threatening to take the ball away. And he’s still pointing, again, to ‘promises’ at St Andrews. Not that he can point directly at such a promise on policing and justice.. as the DUP’s Peter Robinson has re-stated. The problem for the Sinn Féin leadership is that those promises were made elsewhere by them, and to a particular audience – as Maurice Hayes identified in March.
Sinn Fein needs these powers to be devolved, not only because they represent the last piece of the Patten jigsaw, but because it was a main element in the bill of sale on which they persuaded republicans to buy into support for policing.For Patten, it was a defining function of government, and a manifest of the commitment of parties to defend the institutions and the common good, that they should exercise these powers. For Sinn Fein and republicans, it is symbolically important that these powers should be exercised by local politicians responsible to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Without that, the Sinn Fein leadership would not have got agreement, and failure to deliver will seriously damage their credibility.
manichaism ,
‘I love your repartition idea.’
Well it beats looking forward
to 40 more years or longer of SF and DUP playing ‘here we go round the mullberry bush ‘ for the millionth time pretending it’s self government or ‘democracy ‘
As I said a House of Cards and no longer funny not that it ever was .
CS ,
‘If we’re going to dick with the border, we might as well get rid of it.’
Great idea in theory -In practice simply neither practical , possible or even desirable from a Southern perspective either economically , politically or from a constitutional long term stability perspective . We have as a nation a moral obligation to those Northern nationalists and republicans who were cut off from the Irish State against their expressed democratic desires in 1918/20 . Thus ‘repartition’ . We can be ‘good ‘ neighbours with our Unionist fellow islanders across a new border . To be blunt . The crap has gone on long enough . There is no Godot and not only is he not arriving but he’s nothing to offer anyway .
NI is a liability . There is little prospect of it ever being anything else in the short to medium term ie the next 10 to 50 years .
‘ The problem is that the political parties seem to want to make us believe that we can “solve” things without addressing the core problem.’
Just another diversionary Godot then. It’s a never ending story and always will be while NI is a 6 county State .
‘ The fact that Iris Robinson was able to make the remarks that she did and get away with it is symptomatic of the problem.’
Throw in Mr Storey and others of the pentecostalist / born again /creationist / ilk into the equation and if you can add one and one you should be able to deduce that these NI politicians are so far out on the looney fringe that we in the Republic are better off having nothing to do with them. NI nationalist and republicans have to do with them simply due to the ‘present ‘ border’ location .
Good people that Robinson and Storey may be they belong to a different century . We want to move forward and not be dragged back to ignorance and superstition .
Greenflag
As an SDLP supporter I can say that repartition is an extremely attractive proposition at this juncture.
In fact I’ve published a booklet about such an outcome. See
http://johnoconnell.org/an_irish_velvet_revolution.htm
Greenflag,
I thought you were a bit isolated on your pet topic – but turns out God is batting for it as well.
Have you considered repatriation – for the Ulster Scots – it not only sound repartition but might also lead to civil war?
observer, given that you’re a DUP sympathizer, you’re in no position to make judgements on people using violence.
—————-
Really? hows this all those connected of terrorist offenses should remain behind bars for life with murders receiving capital punishment…too harsh ?? sure let them all out and give the shinners a few pressies
ITSMNWDI,
‘but turns out God is batting for it as well.’
I don’t think so. The Intelligent Designer is too busy at the moment trying to establish if his follower Robinson seriously expects him to intervene personally so that all the gays can be cured . I mean where would he find the time ?
‘Have you considered repatriation – for the Ulster Scots -’
No. They already have a country. It just the border that needs adjustment so that ‘politics’ can work .
Greenflag, I conjecture that repartition will become a more attractive option to many nationalists in the six counties in Scenario 2021: a hypothetical scenario in which nationalist demographic/political growth is seen to come to a halt short of the critical mass needed to generate a vote for Unity in the six counties. (Basically it’s like Betamax versus VHS in the 1980s, critical mass is what is needed and at some point its clear whether it is going to be attained). If nationalism fails to get the needed critical mass then nationalists will begin to look favourably on a fair and agreed repartition. Many people are now coming out already: e.g. well known letter-writer RG Cuan and highly-regarded Derry Journal business columnist Gerry Murray.
Greenflag,
as I always like to say times like these – do you think we could get shot of Cavan during the re-partition – as a sort of payback to the Englezes for their misbehaviour over the years?
Greenflag
Are the West Brits in Dublin area free to join the unionists in NE Ireland.
Perhaps the new border will run from Coleraine to Waterford and include all territory to the East.
Hows that for re-partition? Nearly as sensible as your proposal!
If we could get back to the actual topic..
..rather than Greenflag’s pet hobby-horse.
CS
One reason I’m suspicious about the link being made between crime in West Belfast (and other places) is because I haven’t seen a proposal from Sinn Fein about how the problems might be addressed. The Police Board is responsible for policing policy and practice at the moment, and I’ve seen no evidence that SF have put any proposals forward there to improve the situation
I’m sure they could propose, and Hugh Orde could tell them it’s an operational matter. In all seriousness, have the Police Boards done anything? In which case, scrap them and replace them with something that has at least some teeth.
Like I said, the idea that this will magically change once we are in charge of the policing ministry, particularly in the absence of any specific plan, seems highly fanciful. The executive parties, broadly speaking, have shown no inclination to challenge the worldview of things put forward by the civil servants, and I’m sure we will agree that the civil servants who have been in charge of policing and so on for the past 30-odd years are going to be, shall we say, somewhat set in their ways.
The existence of the ministry creates its own momentum. If have it, and a minister, then proposals need made. Questions will be asked to the Minister in the Assembly, and in committees. Failure will carry a political cost. It is wholly better than where we are now.
A lot of people, including myself, have underestimated the resilence of the SDLP vote despite their own silliness. Personally, I do not think that the nationalist electorate right now have time for politicians who walk out.
I will note the Alliance leaning keenly honed instincts toward the Nationalist electorate. Then like any sensible person, ignore them completely. The SDLP have avoided a total UUP style collapse but are still falling, and are vulnerable in a few places. Being cast as Uncle Toms will not do them any good. I doubt they have the balls for it in any case.
As I said, it’s SF’s gamble, and what the SDLP do is not directly relevant.
Despite Sammy etc.’s weird assertions, a walkout will leave SF isolated and without a negotiating hand. I would predict that all-party talks will resume and the resulting governmental structures will see a substantially diminished role for SF. The aftermath of the IRA’s disarmament will be Gerry Adams hand-delivering letters of protest to the doorman at Stormont. That’ll make republicans really happy.
The aftermath of that scenario is dangerous instability. Absolutely no one wants the scenario you’re after and I have absolutely no idea what would happen in such a scenario. If SF retain support then they need dealt with. The entire thrust of the Process has been locking people in.
IWSMNWDI < ‘do you think we could get shot of Cavan during the re-partition’
No them mane Cavan b*****ds own all the good pubs . We’d die of thirst
Declan ,
I don’t ever see a future referendum on the issue despite the ‘theory’. I agree re your ‘critical ‘ mass but don’t see why people should wait until 2021 to prove what’s already known fact. Any movement towards repartition would of course have to be generated by nationalists and republicans from within NI.
ulsterfan ,
‘ Are the West Brits in Dublin area free to join the unionists in NE Ireland.’
Of course all three of them – but not being retards they know which side of the border earns the most dough and has the brightest medium term future . Just because they may be West Brits doesn’t mean they can’t count
Anyway as PB says back to the main issue lads .
What will SF actually do if Justice is not devolved ? Will or can Unionists ever trust an SF Minister of Justice ? or vice versa ?
Trust comes dropping slow we know – but it can’t be a half way house if it’s to work effectively . I can see all kinds of difficulties for an SF Justice Minister.
The fact that ten years on from the GFA that this kind of issue is still extant just adds to the ‘ great but necessary ‘fudge’ that the GFA was bound to be . Adding the St Andrews ‘modifications’ onto the original bill of sale to mollify DUP voters has quite naturally led to an opposite effect on SF voters .
I mean seriously folks can anyone really look forward to a generation of DUP v SF poncing about over flags in offices , kerbstones , language , protocol , and who’s turn it is to stick to the other side .
The fact that it beats what has gone on for the past 20 plus years is a valid one but I wonder for how much longer .
“The natural instinct of any political party is to weaken its opposition.” – ulsterfan
True, but only true if both parties are competing for the same voters. As this isn’t the case with SF and DUP voters, the actual opposition is constitutional/ethnic/quasi-sectarian (take your pick) rather than political, with the ‘opposing’ voters being on opposite sides of the constitutional issue. I say voters there rather than parties because both parties are actually on the same side on the constitutional issue (as resolved in the GFA/St. Andrews agreements) whereas SF voters have an understanding of where their party stands on that issue that differs from where the party’s leadership actually stands. Their surreal view is that their leadership is leading them toward a united Ireland, when the reality is that the leadership is implementing the British government’s policy of normalisation of the status quo in return for self-serving concessions from the British government for the leadership and its cronies and lackeys, e.g. lucrative high-profile careers, get-out-jail-free cards, turn-a-blind-eye and keep-your-buried-treasure deals, etc.
Greenflag,
I can only read the first three lines of your contributions before falling asleep. You might want to find a more terse way to get your point across. I’d just reiterate that tinkering with the constitution of the state, no matter what way you do it or what direction you take it in, is a sideshow.
kensei, thanks for the reply:
I’m sure they could propose, and Hugh Orde could tell them it’s an operational matter.
Which is exactly what he will tell a minister. You then get into the dangerous territory of deciding what is an operational matter and what isn’t.
Government ministers cannot, by the way, interfere in operational matters. They are there to set the policy to guide the implementation, not do the implementation itself.
In all seriousness, have the Police Boards done anything? In which case, scrap them and replace them with something that has at least some teeth.
The Police Board runs the PSNI and all PSNI staff are it’s employees. I would be willing to entertain the argument that it is ineffective, but I see no particular evidence, as I said, that any representations have been made by Sinn Fein to address any of the specific law and order problems we have here.
You said yourself earlier something along the lines of “we do not want to have to ask a British minister to fix it, we want to do so ourselves” which was revealing, suggesting that this is a matter of principle to some people rather than a matter of tackling law and order problems more effectively. Sinn Fein MPs have to represent their constituents in London on a regular basis, so there is nothing new about this idea, it’s the reality. Sinn Fein should be meeting the security minister to discuss how policing policy could be improved. If I had heard that they had went to the minister with a set of proposals (which is what they would have to do if it was devolved) then I would have less of a hard time believing that they were serious about this.
The existence of the ministry creates its own momentum. If have it, and a minister, then proposals need made. Questions will be asked to the Minister in the Assembly, and in committees.
I can’t dispute the merits of these points.
Failure will carry a political cost. It is wholly better than where we are now.
But I can dispute these. The political system here shields the parties from political cost. I guess that is one of the main problems for Alliance.
The aftermath of that scenario is dangerous instability. Absolutely no one wants the scenario you’re after and I have absolutely no idea what would happen in such a scenario.
I appreciate that you’re not in favour of a return to violence by the IRA, but I don’t think the circumstances or the motivation exist for it. People aren’t going to go to war over the absence of a locally-run policing service or the fact that the street signs aren’t in Irish. The volatility of 1969 is not in the air. I don’t like to overestimate the stability of this place, but the serious grievances of that time do not exist to the same extent.
CS
Which is exactly what he will tell a minister. You then get into the dangerous territory of deciding what is an operational matter and what isn’t.
The minister will have the teeth for a fight. So when Order makes a crazy 0statements like whether the PSNI becomes an unarmed force (or the rate of doing so) is not a political manner he can kindly tell him otherwise.
Someone needs to define the lines in any case. You can’t simply have the Chief Constable pronouncing and that’s it, either. Like most things in the world, the lines can always blur. We also nee dot get out of this “the police want it therefore it must be right” attitude before we wind up with habeus corpus fully suspended.
suggesting that this is a matter of principle to some people rather than a matter of tackling law and order problems more effectively. Sinn Fein MPs have to represent their constituents in London on a regular basis, so there is nothing new about this idea, it’s the reality
Oh please. Of course there is principle behind it. Is this revelatory? The belief that it would better tackle crime stems from the underlying principles. I know that’s hard to grasp, since Alliance don’t have any other than a vague “Why can’t we all get along”?
The “reality” may be as you say but the direction and movement should be clear. Republicans should be avoiding patronage politics. It’s the politics of Unionism, and debilitating. If they make demands, it should be the demand for the ability to do it ourselves.
But I can dispute these. The political system here shields the parties from political cost. I guess that is one of the main problems for Alliance.
SF are getting a kicking over their performance in the Assembly. The deadlock is hurting the DUP too. The idea that there is no political cost is a lie. If the DUP or SF were reduced to the status of the UUP, you think they’d be happy? It goes double for a ministry that could well be isolated.
I appreciate that you’re not in favour of a return to violence by the IRA, but I don’t think the circumstances or the motivation exist for it. People aren’t going to go to war over the absence of a locally-run policing service or the fact that the street signs aren’t in Irish. The volatility of 1969 is not in the air.
No, but instability might emerge if a whole section of society was being sidelined. It also does not take out and out violence for this place to regress. You really want to start lighting matches and test your confidence?
Just watched the BBC recording of the June nominations of the FM and DFM and in particular
Martin’s insistence that his electorate both needs and wants professional policing.
I can’t help but feel that, rather than appoint a new minister, Martin should get the Justice role as DFM/Tánaiste. Who else to take on and close down the irregulars in the defence of the new state but an ex-leader of the Volunteers turned chief negotiator and politician.
Best keep him away from West Cork.
AAl,
Plenty of committment and (mostly) good play from all those concerned (especially on the first couple of pages) on this thread. Worth a bookmark, I reckon.
There might be some value in recapping the overall themes arising here (although I suspect that this is the wrong time of night to attempt something of that nature).
Ken,
It’s probably worth nothing that most compromises on Habeus Corpus in the UK have been driven by politicians, not the cops themselves. At this moment I am not entirely sure what political controls on policing are likely to become available which could fulfil either SF’s optimism about their potency in tackling crime in Derry or West Belfast.
Or indeed, for that matter, the DUP’s fears about what might happen if they fell into the ‘wrong hands’.
There’s NO doubt that there is growing frustration within the Nationalist & Republican community at the foot dragging by the DUP & British Government on the Policing & Justice issue. There is now an obvious attempt by both Britain & Unionism to link this with IRA Army Council disbandment. They are moving the goalposts ONCE AGAIN. While Loyalists still hold on to their weapons and are under NO real pressure to disarm the media reports today that Republicans have told the DUP & Britain to Get To F**k would be in line with most Nationalist thinking. Many within the Catholic community are sick to the back teeth with the IRA being forced to take the ENTIRE blame for the conflict and the meek acceptance of a weak Sinn Fein leadership in all of this. Is it any wonder the Shinners are losing members?
” They are moving the goalposts ONCE AGAIN” – lurig
Are they moving the proverbial goalposts? If the SF leadership and their masters wanted a pretext to disband the Army Council with minimum resistance from the remnants of ‘the movement’, then what better way to do it than to have it linked to unionist caution about the transfer of P and J as a pragmatic requirement to end the stalemate? SF supporters won’t see the dogmatism (de facto termination of SF/PIRA’s claim to be the legitimate government of Ireland and the oft-proffered justification for its sectarian murder campaign, i.e. that they were a government entitled to declare war rather than a self-appointed murder gang) for the pragmatics, seeing the disbandment as a victory for ‘republicans’ rather than another surrender for militant nationalists, etc.
It’s probably worth nothing that most compromises on Habeus Corpus in the UK have been driven by politicians, not the cops themselves. At this moment I am not entirely sure what political controls on policing are likely to become available which could fulfil either SF’s optimism about their potency in tackling crime in Derry or West Belfast.
Oh certainly, authoritarian politicians will push the legislation, but the cry will always and forever be “the police say they need these powers to stop crime”. Oh course they do. It’s called a police state for a reason.
As I said, the transfer of powers, however limited, creates it’s own momentum. There is also the tendency of devolved institutions to demand more when they run up against those limits, too.
The weight of police opinion on ’42 days’ seems to have been anti- rather than pro-. That’s hardly ‘always’, or ‘forever’.
Closer to home, there has been a fair amount of dissembling going on around this issue, and from more than just SF. As for momentum, I’d want to know just what we’re getting before we buy that particular pig in poke. The precedents are not promising.
The double veto of St Andrew’s – an agreement which was sold to the public by Gerry Adams, and not Pete Baker, as an ‘indigenous deal’ between Sinn Fein and the DUP – has given us fouled up government: apparently because that deal is not actually the deal Adams claimed, to the public and his supporters alike, it was last year.
As it happens SF’s attempts to extricate itself from the actuality of St Andrews have only served to highlight the weakness of its own position. Not least because in signing up to St Andrew’s SF willingly gave powerful safeguards to the DUP over the devolution of Policing and Justice, against the comprehensive ending of selective education across the state sector, and the Irish Language Act.
Tragically, IMHO, this last has become little more than a minor political football for the distraction of the masses, and the purposes of political negotiation inside the Executive. Tragic, because the large Irish speaking community in Northern Ireland is an important public good which is ill served by its use as a political football. And all the more tragic when it is becoming obvious that such gambit could never have resulted in any discernible pay off when, under St Andrews, the best a radical party can achieve is stalemate.
Mick
The weight of police opinion on ‘42 days’ seems to have been anti- rather than pro-. That’s hardly ‘always’, or ‘forever’.
I’m not sure I buy it. Why did they request 90 in the first place then?
Closer to home, there has been a fair amount of dissembling going on around this issue, and from more than just SF. As for momentum, I’d want to know just what we’re getting before we buy that particular pig in poke. The precedents are not promising.
Some control is always better than no control. Potential is better than nothing. And neither the DUP or SF will control the ministry.
And all the more tragic when it is becoming obvious that such gambit could never have resulted in any discernible pay off when, under St Andrews, the best a radical party can achieve is stalemate.
I don’t buy this one either. Paralysis in government cannot last forever, though perhaps some conservatives would like the experiment. The sides must move or collapse the whole show. If we have an unstoppable object meeting an unmovable force, then we have collapse. But SF’s “gambit” was that the DUP have more vested interest in keeping the Assembly running than collapsing it. Given we have seen some aparent movement in the past week that reality might be sneaking in. The wider question is are these initial particularly sensitive issues that once we get over, we get generally smooth running, or do we hit this problem every single time there is a disagreement?
Can I also ask — when did devolving Polciing and Justice powers, supporting an Irish language Act and comprehensive education comprise a “radical” programme, exactly?
Mick, as Kensei has pointed out, you are challenging the non-democratic deal as something worthy of holding up when in essence the real work should be conducted within the democratic setting.
It is this operation of devolution itself that the DUP have been unable to work; unable to give a reason worthy of delaying transfer of policing and justice, a structural transfer, remember, and it is refused because of lack of confidence. It doesn’t sit.
Besides, if I were in SF I would be looking at the money raised in the bank and investing it on transforming itself in the Republic will merely standing still in the North allow votes to continue to be backed up with little expenditure on the easily copied responses to predictable DUP approaches and intransigence.
kensei ,
‘or do we hit this problem every single time there is a disagreement?’
Probably . It’s built in to the D’Hondt set up . When you have two parties who are diametrically opposed on the ‘constitutional’ question and who’s voters do not ‘transfer’ then it’s inevitable as night following day.
The ‘constitutional issue ‘ may be a sideshow in the immediate political as CS suggests above, but it’s the rock on which both parties foundations are built .
There is no escaping it -not 80 years ago – not 40 years ago -not now -not ever – as long as the NI State exists in it’s present format. We forget that the DUP and SF did not ‘willingly’ forge this coalition . It was pushed down the respective throats of both parties by their ‘outside’ guarantors .
“It was pushed down the respective throats of both parties by their ‘outside’ guarantors .”
And voted on in favour thank-you, get over that one!
DC,
‘And voted on in favour thank-you, get over that one! ‘
No problem I did -get over that one I mean .
The problem is the parties haven’t. Otherwise they would ‘trust ‘ each other wouldn’t they ?. No matter which way you look at this ‘forced’ marriage that’s all it is . It’s a house divided . Both D’Hondt and the GFA provide sufficient background ‘fudge’ to just about keep the rickety show on the road for now .