“If we are serious about a truly shared future..”
The Irish News frontpage story [subs for now] picks up on SDLP leader Mark Durkan’s speech at the British Irish Association Conference at New College, Oxford. And the Sinn Féin response from Northern Ireland deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness. Adds UUP leader Reg Empey’s response. Added The DUP responds and the Alliance Party reportedly welcomes the speech. From the speech. [link added]
A formula for ‘sufficient consensus’ was a necessary confidence measure in the agreed rules for the [pre-1998] Talks. Therefore, it was not exceptional that such cross-community decision-making protections were also built into the institutions which resulted from those negotiations. As with d’Hondt, the referendum and the need to persuade and reassure was a strong consideration.I remember, at the time, saying that the system of designation was necessary because of what we were coming from but should not be necessary where we were going. I argued that such measures with their arguably sectarian or sectional undertones should be bio-degradable, dissolving in the future as the environment changed. Most, if not all of us, had such future adjustments in mind when we wrote the review mechanisms into the Agreement.
As we move towards a fully sealed and settled process we should be preparing to think about how and when to remove some of the ugly scaffolding needed during the construction of the new edifice.
We need to reflect on the dangers of the decision-making protections acting as decision making prevention on more and more important issues. The possibilities for political realignment with new or changing party offerings in the future could be stunted by permanent reliance to the present degree on designation. If we are serious about a truly shared future then we have to allow for truly shared politics where parties can – and have to – appeal across the traditional divides. The fault-line in our society will still be there but it should not determine the party political cleavage for future generations.
Protections of rights, interests and identities will still be needed but not only for, or only as, either unionists or nationalists. In the stance-off over other issues recently, little attention is being paid to the rut that the Bill of Rights debate is stuck in. There are those who dismiss the need for such a bill or for it to be robust and extend to some social and economic issues. Maybe they and the rest of us need to start thinking about how a sound Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland might offer more productive and articulate protection for all our rights in a new democratic society than vote-locks and tit-for-tat vetoes in perpetuity. ‘One man-one vote’ was the start of a journey – made longer and harder than it needed to be. ‘One side- one vote’ should not be the final destination of that journey.
That would probably have to be accompanied by poet Michael Longley’s process of civilisation.
And, of course, some people would “just have to be tolerant of that..”
This is interesting as it is essentially the first departure from ‘Hume’ thinking at a senior level of the SDLP.
The key phrase here is “we should be preparing to think”.
It would be madness, as per Alliance suggestions/policy to start tampering with the architecture of the agreement before sufficient time has been given to first try and resolve extremely difficult issues (e.g. police and justice) within the existing framework.
The agreement is a failure you can not promise the union to the unionists and promise self determination to Republicans
only a 32 county solution will bring real peace and stability to Ireland Republican Sinn Fein belive Eire Nua is a radical and viable alternative to the failed Belfast Agreement read the document on their home page at rsf.ie
Very interesting speech from Mark. The double lock system, which I was never a fan of, was predicated on the people in power actually wanting to do business. It doesn’t work if the people in power believe in creative destruction. This is a welcome step forward.
At the end of the day, what works better – Belfast City Council or the Northern Ireland Assembly?
fair_deal
In its thoughtful analysis of “process” I thought it was Hume-ish but would be interested in how you think it departs from what Hume would say at this point.
If you get a moment could you elaborate a bit more?
Funny how the powersharing model they advocated for decades is surplus to requirements immediately it benefits others over them. Suddenly the BCC model and the possibility of being Alliance like king-makers is the attractive option.
An utterly transparent dropping of party position to gain advantage.
And what a pity that the deal they negotiated means they have no chance of getting the plan implemented.
How much is this the SDLP retaliating for the perceived exclusion from P&J;? Or has the amount of nationalist middle class bithcin about Ruane had an impact?
Spanish
The Belfast Agreement was essentially a Hume document and to shift away from a key element is the shift IMO.
IWSam
“before sufficient time has been given”
He indicates a time-frame – the next review. IIRC that is a few years off, anyone know for certain when it is due?
SM
I agree the operation of BCC is interesting. A structure with an executive is a different creature.
I have an alternative suggestion.
Westminster should tell them ‘operate it or close’. They have to learn to co-operate. Anything else is a flight from that fundamental underpinning issue. The alternative(as we saw before) is a sectarian bun fight of policies
Astounding remarks by MD – a party in absolute meltdown – a horrendously bad leader. Their only hope is if FF arrive to save them.
I wouldnt be one bit surprised if none of his party knew what he would say.
cynic ,
‘Westminster should tell them ‘operate it or close’.’
That sounds about right . After 40 plus ? years of procrastination – Westminster would be entirely justified in giving them another eh 5 minutes or all NI Assembly members are out on dole street !
Remember the politicians motto
‘When in danger or in doubt
Run in circles
Yell and shout ‘
But not for 40 years
It’s a bad move to trade voluntary coalition for a Bill of Rights if that is what Durkan is thinking – especially when that BoR would amount to a program for government, obfuscating rights with socio-economic and political policies that are properly the function of government and the people who elect them to decide rather than something that is decided by a socialist quango once and for all time and act as a handicap on the freedom and power of government that would be even more stagnating than mandatory coalition.
“This is interesting as it is essentially the first departure from ‘Hume’ thinking at a senior level of the SDLP.”
f_d, you need to place Mark’s remarks in the context of the SDLP mission statement:
The SDLP’s vision is a reconciled people living in a united, just and prosperous new Ireland.
You’ll probably find that Unionists are still merely a tradition on the island, a tradition with a zero-rated aspiration. [cf the Unionist take on the UI aspiration]
[b]“If we are serious about a truly shared future..”[/b]
We all have to dissagree with terrorists having power in government. If we are serious about a truly shared future we must vote for political parties who aren’t terrorist related
Well if Mark Durkan is serious about change and Unionists too then come next election they can include in the respective manifestoes that they will opt out of designation with a view to changing the system. Ergo, it will only be Sinn Fein using it thus making it fail. But the real issue is confidence not just in the assembly but inside and between the parties too. For example, the ability to talk to each other to strike up such deals and then ensuring they will stick by them after election – if it goes favourably the voters will likely back the parties for that working together spirit.
This would create the real alternatives, hopefully showing that electoral politics can bring real change not just in terms of improving socio-economic standards but governance structures too, perhaps as a result of that structural change?
Martin McGuinness’ statement rings a bit hollow in terms of equality as what sort of equality is it when certain groups veto certain other groups using a constitutional aspiration in a non-constitutional setting? Besides, even the republic operates an administrative system on a different basis than Stormont and similar to the British system. There is nothing ‘republican’ in the Stormont governance structures and anything that drives a divide between the people on the island of Ireland must be running in contrast to that strive for unity. The border is one of course but so too this assembly set-up.
And there’s the rub. It’s just an anti-SF ploy they hope others will sign up with.
Utterly pathetic, trading a decades long principle in the hope it brings electoral advantage over SF. What a bunch of wasters, no wonder they are imploding. Can’t sell their policies so they’ll try changing the system they designed to benefit themselves – seems they leqrned something from that campaign in the 60s. Utter twats and they think this will get them votes?
“Utterly pathetic, trading a decades long principle in the hope it brings electoral advantage over SF.”
Not like you would care about GFA arrangements Mark? Besides the Republic doesn’t operate on a system like Stormont and is itself quintessentially a ‘small open polity’ why bluff about unionist and nationalist designations if striving to remove them brings people closer?
Sinn Fein must be playing a blinder for Mark Durkan to come up with this.
DC,
I’m a disinterested observer of the stormont charade but can’t help but ridicule this further ridiculous attempt at relevance by selling your soul by the SDLP. We already have an Alliance party, that niche is filled. As an attempt to save themselves from oblivion and irrelevance this one is up there with their best.
Posted by Nevin on Sep 06, 2008 @ 08:41 PM
f_d, you need to place Mark’s remarks in the context of the SDLP mission statement:
The SDLP’s vision is a reconciled people living in a united, just and prosperous new Ireland.
You’ll probably find that Unionists are still merely a tradition on the island, a tradition with a zero-rated aspiration. [cf the Unionist take on the UI aspiration]
I do hope so Nevin, but it sounds like post-Nationalism resurrected to me. If they go down this road, they’re dead. FF, please come and rescue us from Shinner hegemony.
Carlsberg don’t do disastrous policy shifts, but….
This policy shift by the SDLP is right up there with the ill-fated ‘post-nationalist’ move which expedited their descent from the position of majority party within northern nationalism at the turn of the century.
It is also evidence, if such were needed, of how out of touch the party is with the sentiment of their electoral base.
Today’s Irish News front-page headline will make great doorstep introduction: “Power sharing should end soon says Durkan.”
What Durkan is really conceding is that his party has all but given up on contesting with Sinn Fein for the status of lead nationalist party, and is instead hoping to be in a position to sell themselves as a more acceptable face of nationalism to the DUP.
Quite how the party reached the decision to go in this direction at this time is beyond me.
Expect to see/ hear a rolling back from this position in the months ahead. But the damage has been done.
Mark,
Well that remains to be seen as zero sum approaches to politics has brought the people zero, whereas a coalition pact among the other parties could well deliver – if they can agree to deliver that between themselves.
Now that would be democracy in action; however, I was disappointed to see the collapse of the attempts to broaden the coalition in opposition to DUP-SF, so we will have to watch this space.
It is after all that *delivery* of aims on which people will judge the success of the parties by – at present they all look doomed to failure; part of this failure rests with group rights being used to amplify issues which should perhaps best be discussed in an open environment, open to change, not pressurised into acceptance without that open negotiation in the first place.
Time to think wisely as for all Martin McGuinness’ ‘I’m an optimist, hand on heart’ kinda guy – this stance looks straight into the soul of Sinn Fein where we can see the true pessimistic ‘divide and rule’ rights before responsibility, the responsibility being to talk and negotiate on issues, Unionists too, and be prepared not to come out with all demands met every time to the maximum of the wider nationalist vote bloc. Take Irish language – this is being played straight down the group rights line where we are made to believe that this issue is equivalent to half the population in NI and that those that speak it must measure the full ethnic bloc democratic weight of the ‘nationalist’ designation. It clearly doesn’t and is a distortive and unhelpful approach to politics.
McGuinness talks about ‘giving leadership’ – this from a man who has had a process given to him, written for him in parts by the then ever optmistic New Labour – true leadership is about taking what is there for the taking, which will come from proper negotiation and consensus, as you can’t rely on being given everthing on your own terms.
“You’ll probably find that Unionists are still merely a tradition on the island, a tradition with a zero-rated aspiration.”
Nevin, I think you’ll find that 100% of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland are also merely “a tradition with a zero-rated aspiration” to northern nationalists, whose State is to be discarded and replaced with a “new Ireland” by said self-serving quislings.
Quite why they labour under the delusion that those who contributed zero to the success of the Ireland, but who contributed enormously to the social, political and economic disparity that exists in Northern Ireland, would be given the leading role as architects of some imagined “new Ireland” is probably best explained by an experienced psychiatrist.
As some future point reality is going to have to re-enter the equation and folks are going to have to accept that two competing nationalisms can never share one sovereign territorial entity without constant enmity between them; and realise that re-partition is going to be the only workable option since there is no dynamic to encourage British nationalists to become loyal to an Irish nation state in the same way that there is a dynamic to encourage northern Irish nationalists to become loyal to the UK state.
To be honest, who the hell wants one million displaced British people among their nation? Nobody who has given the matter due consideration. As a small colony of British nationalists on the north-east corner of the repartitioned island, I’m sure Irish taxpayers would help them out along with British taxpayers if they had a plan for how they could make their small economy workable – and other smaller countries have managed it.
“If we are serious about a truly shared future”
I feel Mark is being a little economical with language in his portrayal of the SDLP agenda. Perhaps I could complete the phrase: “If we are serious about a truly shared future on this island”.
Chris – I hardly see how a change in operation of Stormont by effective renewal is both a betrayal of a unification project and sell out to nationalists. Please explain that one to me? The inability of Sinn Fein to effectively deal should not make it right that they can intimidate the SDLP who are giving new thought to more appropriate change.
Mark Durkan is showing not ‘surrender’ as claimed by McGuinness but solidarity by thinking about putting in place a system of governance similar to that of the Republic and one that works better based on genuine co-operation.
There is no shame or no surrender to be had in renewing institutions, wonder why Sinn Fein view it so – for whom are they doing it?
The designation system was meant for use as group security not for out-and-out group first practicality.
As some future point reality is going to have to re-enter the equation and folks are going to have to accept that two competing nationalisms can never share one sovereign territorial entity without constant enmity between them; and realise that re-partition is going to be the only workable option since there is no dynamic to encourage British nationalists to become loyal to an Irish nation state in the same way that there is a dynamic to encourage northern Irish nationalists to become loyal to the UK state.
To be honest, who the hell wants one million displaced British people among their nation? Nobody who has given the matter due consideration. As a small colony of British nationalists on the north-east corner of the repartitioned island, I’m sure Irish taxpayers would help them out along with British taxpayers if they had a plan for how they could make their small economy workable – and other smaller countries have managed it.
Posted by Dave on Sep 06, 2008 @ 10:41 PM
Well said, Dave! Re-partition is the most practical solution and would mean approximately 97% of the people living on the island of Ireland would be living in the nation of their choice. It would be far better than the present never-ending mess imho.
That makes three now for re-partition.. any more takers?
“Re-partition is the most practical solution and would mean approximately 97% of the people living on the island of Ireland would be living in the nation of their choice.”
97%. How do you manage this? Does West Belfast become part of the Republic?
Nevin ,
‘You’ll probably find that Unionists are still merely a tradition on the island, a tradition with a zero-rated aspiration.’
Zero ? That’s a bit strong . I’d have said negative 20 at most in the Republi
In England probably negative 80 
Ergo a fair ‘repartition’ of NI presents itself as the best way forward for the ‘real ‘ Unionists of NI -imo. Some day their politicians will tell them the truth probably at a point when it’s too late
DC ,
‘Mark Durkan is showing not ‘surrender’ as claimed by McGuinness but solidarity by thinking about putting in place a system of governance similar to that of the Republic and one that works better based on genuine co-operation.’
Wonderful theory once again from Mark Durkan . Seems a bit cruel to bring it down to ground with the brutal facts ! No matter which way you dress it up- an Orange cannot be an Apple . You can paint it red , yellow or green but once you stck your teeth below the skin -it’s an orange . NI is not the Republic . Both States have very different foundation supports, both in terms of original democratic legitimacy and n their very different political histories re ‘opposition parties’ having a real possibility of becoming the government . In addition there is a major difference in the almost 100% support for the Republic as a Independent State by it’s citizens , compared to Northern Ireland’s much smaller degree of popular support for the long term future of the State in it’s present format .
Northern Ireland does not YET have the strength of constitution that would enable it to have a real change of government any time soon . Perhaps in a generation by which time Messrs Durkan, McGuinness, Robinson , Dodds etc will be political history. In the meantime get used to involuntary forced power sharing and a longer term unhappy marriage of opposites .
Who said power sharing had to be with those one loves ?
“Ergo a fair ‘repartition’ of NI presents itself as the best way forward for the ‘real ‘ Unionists of NI -imo.”
Same question. What are the boundaries of this fair repartition? A straightforwrd Antrim & Down split would give you a 2/3 prod majority in those two counties, with the transferred four at about 60/40 the other way. We’ve been at a 2/3 unionist vote in NI before. It wasn’t exactly considered enough of a majority to justify partition.
“NI is not the Republic . Both States have very different foundation supports, both in terms of original democratic legitimacy and n their very different political histories re ‘opposition parties’ having a real possibility of becoming the government .”
The Republic is still at this moment a small open polity, it has made a quiet yet successful entrance to the European stage under the EU and its monetary system. Most of the problems in NI are largely identity and relational, particularly relationships with internal parties. Post GFA-98 sovereignty (as Dave harps on about) is not really the crux of the matter it is more about respect and approaches to demands for change, SF admittedly by Chris Donnelly are not the appropriate face of nationalism neither the DUP unionism, they appear to miss the best bits.
One thing to admire about the SDLP is that they were never negative and warmly approachable and likeable because of that. Mark Durkan carries on that tradition and has put in a few paragraphs an idea for change that is more articulate and therefore buyable than a decade of the same stuff from Alliance, sadly. It seems all the more doable with Durkan.
Also the concept of governance is complex today and not just about unionists or nationalists, but it is built on, supposedly, better policy theories in terms of providing improved socio-economic benefits; such as approaches to schooling systems, workforce skills and social security benefits, all of these operate with delegated leadership with managerial skills being the key as to success.
All this balls up at Stormont with big ideologies thrown against one another hides the truer nature of modern governance.
I do however accept that the big issues should be gotten out of the way under mandatory coalition but feel that there is a certain negativity being used to curry electoral favour, whereas if there was a voluntary coalition positive agreements could be entered in to, perhaps making this place and its politics more appealing and cheerful. Is there really a need to see our politicians acting as a negative shower of shites when we need only go and stand outside to be pissed upon?
Greenflag, perhaps you need to look at the political geography of NI. My shared sovereignty proposals make far more sense in this patchwork quilt scenario – IMHO
What might be the structural consequences of the removal of designations? More fluid, ad hoc coalitions in the chamber voting case by case. Or preferably, the formation of a tighter “centre” grouping of SDLP, UUP Alliance, and independents. It might be logical for the former two parties to leave the Executive and go into formal opposition, supplemented by Alliance whose votes would at last be of equal value. Acting as a co-ordinated group, they could achieve something close to a de facto separation of the powers like members of Congress in the US, initiating legislation, calling the Executive to account for a change, making vigorous use of petitions of concern to block unpalatable measures and voting often as a “shared future” group. Voting by legal designation has been a constraint on action. A requirement to reach a threshold case by case would be a driver for change. A revised weighted majority with a higher single threshold of 70% could unlock the Assembly and release pressure to work for the common interest.
The two biggest parties cannot be circumvented nor should they be. UUs should resist any temptation to try to gang up to exclude SF. That aim might lie behind Peter Robinson’s hints about a voluntary coalition, but if so, it should be rejected.
It would be right to explore the ramifications of abandoning D’Hondt for the formation of the Executive and substitute weighted majority approval of the Assembly for a negotiated coalition.
Removing designations would surely require Westminster primary legislation with Dublin’s consent, and a Stormont election. There would be a reasonable case for another referendum, to include a question on entrenching the fundamental right to cross community procedures in the Assembly. Mark Durkan now needs to make all that worth it and so do the others. Signs of life are emerging at last.
I couldn’t get the Irish News column but in this piece in tomorrow’s Observer Durkan makes no mention of abandoning d’hondt – he just suggests that a bill of rights could replace the need for community designation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/07/northernireland.northernireland
Well done Mark & the SDLP! A cracking and reassuring comment at just the time when nationalists like me who were TOTALLY pissed off at the weak incompetence of Sinn Fein were thinking of switching back to the SDLP. Ten out of ten there Durkan. Real good timing and a vindication that the SDLP are ONLY interested in themselves and NOT the wider nationalist community. It seems that the STOOPS are throwing the dummy out of the pram over P & J. I listened to Durkan rip Sinn Fein apart on BBC Radio Ulster last week over the triple lock mechanism but now he wants to completely hand over the keys of the sweetie factory to the Billy Bunters of Unionism. Another cracking own goal from the SDLP. Is it any wonder that the DUP lords it so easy over such an incompetent bunch of weak Nationalist politicians. Unionism doesn’t really have to do much when it knows that Sinn Fein & the SDLP are too preoccupied and busy with ripping the pish out of each other. What a ridiculous statement Durkan, TOTALLY foolish and a Godsend to the bigoted little Englanders of Unionism that will pick this up and run with it forever and a day. I actually believe that this is a resigning issue for Durkan, he has in one speech totally negated the concerns and issues that Northern Nationalists have argued with great difficulty for 40 years. What was the Civil Rights all about if the SDLP want to hand over total majority rule to Unionism once again. Go and visit Ballymena, Ards, Larne, Castlereagh, Ballymoney councils if you were ever in any doubt about Unionist majority rule Mark. Shame on you!!
Next up, the Blueshirts in talks with Queen on re-entry into UK.
SDLP must be desperate to get the middle ground voting for them again, and UUP can grab a slice of the spoils, leaving SF out in the cold. Won’t work.
Interesting that there are no backers for this proposal. Where have all the SDLPers gone?
I hate to say it, but it seems to me that Durkan is only telling it like it is. And he may not be the only one thinking that way. Sammy Mac’s remarks seem only to be critical of timing, rather than the proposal. Fell free to correct me if I’m wrong there Sam.
Taking a hint from Pete’s reference to civilisation, it has always struck me that the natural condition of northern nationalism has been one of (bearable/unbearable) exile and displacement. Two myths, one Greek the other Babylonian, have always seemed to me to speak directly to that experience. Make of it what you will!
The first is Persephone and her abduction into the netherworld by Hades: http://tinyurl.com/czvod.
“Zeus sent Hermes down to Hades to make him release Persephone. Hades grudgingly agreed, but before she went back he gave Persephone a pomegranate (or the seeds of a pomegranate, according to some sources). When she later ate of it, it bound her to underworld forever and she had to stay there one-third of the year.”
There’s the epic poem of Gilgamesh, who servant journeys into the netherworld. His parting advice (http://tinyurl.com/5tjtcw):
“You should not put on your clean garments: they would recognise immediately that you are alien. You should not anoint yourself with fine oil from a bowl: they would surround you at your scent. You should not hurl throw-sticks in the nether world: those struck down by the throw-sticks would surround you. You should not not hold a cornel-wood stick in your hand: the spirits would feel insulted by you. You should not put sandals on your feet. You should not shout in the nether world. You should not kiss your beloved wife. You should not hit your wife even if you are annoyed with her. You should not kiss your beloved child. You should not hit your son even if you are annoyed with him. The outcry aroused would detain you in the nether world.”
Of course, the servant does all of these things and is detained, and, as a consequence forced to witness the sorrows of the departed souls of the netherworld.
Mick
Rather than focusing on Persephone and Gilgamesh, I think you’d find nationalists more concerned about the plight of nationalists in majority unionist councils like Lisburn, Antrim and Ballymena.
As for examples of exile and displacement, surely the northern unionist community fits into that billing even more credibly than northern nationalists- witness Slugger highlighted campaign to alter the Olympic Team GB label and the open deriding of the unionist attachment to the British national anthem by Britons at a recent international soccer friendly.
But you’ve correctly identified a collective silence from the SDLP on this one.
Here’s an alternative approach long advocated by Peter Emerson – preferenda and the politics of consensus.
Adds: Why don’t party leaders put their speeches on-line within hours of delivery? Poor Sluggerites are forced to survive for days on a few morsels provided by ‘lazy journalists’ in the MSM
El Matador has posted entire speech on a comment appended to piece about speech on El blogador.
Funny how none of the shinners ‘shocked’ by Durkan’s comments were put out at SF conspiring with unionists to deny nationalism the p&j; ministry. It appears that their demands of strict adherence to power-sharing only apply to others.
For anyone paying attention, Durkan’s speech does not indicate a significant policy shift. Mallon made similar comments earlier this year – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7305927.stm
Personally, I think the nationalist parties shouldn’t waste too much energy on trying to ‘make NI work’ – an impossible task. The goal should be to ‘make NI history’.
DC,
‘One thing to admire about the SDLP is that they were never negative and warmly approachable and likeable because of that.’
This is why Sunningdale was so successful
‘Also the concept of governance is complex today and not just about unionists or nationalists, but it is built on, supposedly, better policy theories in terms of etc etc ”
Well yes but the ‘governance’ of NI is restricted to a haggle over the division of political spoils and who gets the biggest share of the 6 billion a year to ‘micro manage’ where politically possible . NI governance is not (not yet anyway) about encouraging ‘wealth ‘ creation at least not from an outside perspective of what the NI economy needs . It’s basically damage control management at a level which will keep the ‘new ‘ politicos ‘ satisfied and the rest of the population either ‘numbed’ or just relieved that the bad old days are going away forever.
Durkan seems to forget that this Assembly and it’s convoluted D’Hondt electoral system of involuntary power sharing took 30 years to establish . There are many reasons it took 30 years to get to this point and one of them was the nature of the ‘voluntary coalition ‘ established under Sunningdale .
What Micheal Longley refers to as ‘civilisation’ or civilising process has to be allowed to take it’s course – not just for the hard men of SF republican nationalism but for the just as hard men of DUP . Trying by fair means or foul to ‘ditch’ SF into ‘permanent ‘ opposition in NI at this time is a foolish exercise . Mr Durkan should not get carried away in dreams of a ‘new ‘ Sunnigdale .
Nevin,
‘perhaps you need to look at the political geography of NI.’
I did . I remain unconvinced
‘ My shared sovereignty proposals make far more sense’
What makes ‘sense ‘ does’nt always work in practice the way it’s supposed to in theory . Look at the present Assembly .
We can ‘revisit’ the ‘repartition’ debate when the present Assembly collapses as no doubt it will sooner or later.
That makes three now for re-partition.. any more takers?
I’ve thought about it before, and started a thread on the issue on politics.ie a while back.
It’s clear that there are very differing opinions on the realignment of our two states but it may well be on the table in the future. There should at least be some public discussion on alternatives to the current Stormont setup.
Durkan’s right.
NI has become a demographic boxing ring under the GFA. We are simply voting either strong green or strong orange. That is disastruous for good governance.
It leads to exactly the kind of impasse that has dogged the process over the last year with everything an issue of egoic grievance and masculine pride.
Durkan was simply doing the womanly thing and suggesting a solution that might work in getting around the Neanderthals. That has always been the role of the SDLP.
“This is why Sunningdale was so successful
”
Yes and sadly I don’t disagree with Chris Donnelly and others that major issues need to be gotten out of the way but that Unionism on the whole is still at this time a poor partner, especially to reacting fairly to this change.
Cue the SDLP stance re the decommissioning deadline, totally missed by the UUP back then but that was an opportunity and a half squandered and could have built up a common stance against delay.
But all in all Durkan’s comments should be built upon by those centrists looking for positive change rather than negative stagnation.
Durkan’s right, but he’s put the cart before the horse.
The Left/Right Wing designations; the stuff of “normal” politics, will only work post irish-unification.
Hi Chris,
Those councils are not long for this world, so I’m not sure too many are worrying about them just now. The new councils will be larger and more heterogeneous and (should) have fewer councillors. I’d argue there is even more reason to be seen to work across traditional lines.
I agree re the GB thing, although I am not sure if people are any more exercised about that than they are about people like Trevor Ringland, Davy Tweed and Tyrone Power playing for Ireland.
Cultural/national identities tend to be a lot more fluid than some of our politicians would like us all to think. Your Slugger league is testimony to that. The guys who take part seem to me to be pretty evenly divided between Unionists and Nationalists. Contrary to a popular/lazy myth it doesn’t make one any more or any less sure of their own political convictions than the other.
Some of the rigidities simply arise from ‘wartime’ conditions when people just felt safer with their own, and constructed and internalised stories about ‘de udder side’ that frankly now, 25 or 30 years later look quaint and risible.
The exile/abduction myths above either work for you or they don’t. For me they do. You can see small tell tale signs, like painting UK letterboxes green in Nationalist areas. Or (dare I mention it?) Minister’s asking senior civil servants to play semantics with their references to the official name of ‘Northern Ireland’ (‘here’ and ‘there’).
Another rather oblique example of this kind of thinking was in a cracking programme on Radio 4 last night, which recounted the last days of the Callaghan government. In one memorable rejoinder, a Union leader told Denis Healey (then Chancellor) that it was his Union’s policy that ‘pay increases had no effect whatsoever on inflation.’
I would like to register my sympathy with the re-partition option.
I would be difficult and a number of population islands would be produced.
The best example would be the Glenns of Antrim and the area around Cookstown, but if free movement of goods, capital and people was garanteed, would I be a problem.
Indeed apart from the sings changing to Km outside Carnlough would anyone notices.
Finance could be provided to help people left behind who could also benefit from a strong Human Rights Package to be adopted in both jursidictions and a contination of the GFA as a base line in both.
It would not be ideal and I suspect that unionists would seek as much territory as possible even if it meant continuing with a significant nationalist minority, but if they could be convinced to go for the 90 percent option, it might just work.
I do belive that senior unionists are giving it thought andd that it is the long term tactic of unionism.
I would be difficult and a number of population islands would be produced.
That’s true but there is nothing to stop areas like the Glens or West Belfast actually being part of the Republic, eventhough they would be geographically isolated.
Indeed there is a precedent for such an arrangement – check out Spanish/Catalan town Llívia which is entirely surrounded by the French state.
RG Cuan ,
‘ There should at least be some public discussion on alternatives to the current Stormont setup. ‘
There will when the the present set up is seen to have failed . It may happen tomorrow or may take a few years . Nothing is certain and that’s the fundamental weakness underlying the present temporary ‘settlement’in NI . For a society to go forward there has to be a widespread communal belief in a common ‘constitutional’ future . NI is not there yet and may never get there IMO.
This does not mean that Irish Nationalists should withdraw from trying to make the present system work -merely that they should be mindful that it comes with major limitations on what it can achieve.