There’s only one thing worse than a u-turn, and that’s another u-turn, now Durkan’s facing no-one who has an interest in him!

Clever one.

I’ve added a link in the original post.

‘People are ahead of the politicians’

Indeed – ‘There go the people I must follow them for I am their leader’ is an old but true adage for most politicians . Every so often a ‘leader ‘ will emerge who will ‘lead’ rather than be ‘led’. In a divided society like NI I suggest that it’s almost impossible for such a ‘leader’ to emerge for he/she cannot emerge alone but must be accompanied by his alter ego from the other ‘side’.An emergence of a Mandela/De Klerk progressive duo does not seem a possibility for NI. The ‘Chuckie Brothers ‘ doesn’t quite cut it -too brief -but it at least moved one of the logjams . The devolution of P & J is the next big logjam .

‘It seems faintly embarrassing today to watch politics being played out to gridlock as a result of vetoes, especially as Britain and Ireland have largely reconciled in the fight to remain modern and economically effective; the politicians at Stormont seem stuck in a rut with 20th century ideology’

It beats the alternative DC . You surely meant 19th century ideology for Ireland both North and South were IIRC about 50 years behind the emergence of ‘nationalism ‘ which spread across central Europe in the mid 19th century. We were ‘ensconced ‘ ye see within the UK with most of us ‘traumatised’ from the Famine years to rise up other than a brief near lunatic episode in Tipperary somewhere .

I would not rule Alliance and the UUP deciding to form an opposition coalition at some point down the line – probably when it’s too late as per usual . But it’s very early days yet and as the ‘leaders ‘ have such a long way to go to catch up on the people their ‘minds’ are already engaged in trying to hang on to the hooks they are already impaled on. As the UUP are now looking at being embedded within the British Tory Party the UUP will find the SDLP being ‘repelled’ IMO .

‘What do you think is the way forward in order to get the issue in the public sphere? ‘

I don’t think the ‘public’ at large are much exercised by the issue in truth .

The French have an expression ‘reculer mieux pour sauter ‘ it means withdrawing or reversing in order to leap forward -think of the way a tiger retreats a few steps before lunging forward .

In evolution ‘withdrawing ‘ or reverting to a more embyonic state has been a traditional method used for a new species to evolve away from it’s parent species and thus make progress along a new track . But in order to make any advance it cannot be too specialised or too adapted to it’s present ‘niche ‘ or stuck in it’s present mode .

Unlearning is more difficult than learning . Going forward the DUP/SF means progressing along the narrow cul de sac -both parties have signed up for. As they progress the walls of the cul de sac will narrow and at some point one or other will try to reverse out . We are seeing this already .

In my view before there can be a going forward . there needs to be a going back to ‘Unionism’s ‘embryonic’ state ie the 1880′s and the then debate between Liberal Unionists and the Anti Home Rule Unionists .
Can they go back ? I don’t believe so. They have ‘specialised ‘ too far away from the original ‘tree trunk’ that both parties are now clinging on to separate branches which have become progressively thinner and thinner . Neither can now risk ‘turning ‘ around to retreat for they know that they no longer have the flexibility and may fall off . The UUP the party of the thinnest branch have tried to turn but have slipped and now find themselves hanging by their fingernails above the political chasm . Meanwhile they see Tory Boy clmbing up the main trunk with some kind of tool in hand . Is it some kind of rescue tool or is it a saw . Hard to tell from this distance .

They do but it depends on the amplification of these ‘two’ identities in a world, Europe and Britain and Ireland in which people expect culture and behaviour to be accommodated not aggressively fought out to fail. The national identities are in flux, the Ireland of today is not gaelicised to the extent that SF makes us believe that it is, Irishness should not be stunted that is true, neither should Britishness.

Given the challenges of today’s world with China showing that it is outdoing America by economics alone, so then economics will remain the basis of success. India too. China and India are 5 times the size of Europe and USA combined. We must be careful that the people and countries don’t grow old in comparison to these countries that seem to be growing anew.

It seems faintly embarrassing today to watch politics being played out to gridlock as a result of vetoes, especially as Britain and Ireland have largely reconciled in the fight to remain modern and economically effective; the politicians at Stormont seem stuck in a rut with 20th century ideology that even Britain and Ireland have moved on from, joining the European Union has changed the debate which has helped change the way NI operates. I don’t agree much with the old notions of sovereignty but more so with whether people’s values and beliefs and behaviours can be respected, and that everyone has access to power and opportunities fairly, especially now it is economics that is the baseline.

What Mark Durkan is suggesting is that a bill of rights should safeguard these national identities as best is possible and negotiated to a level that is acceptable and appropriate so that a shared vision can be constructed – like everything cultural, it is socially constructed, I see no reason why a shared vision cannot be constructed.

Perhaps the vision might best be induced if the Republic’s government joined in and helped out, but it is busy remaining modern and effective in this downturn, which is not the case up at Stormont, even if parts were to be repartitioned the people moving are out of kilter with the skills needed to successfully operate in the Republic’s workplace, that is why for example Gerry Adams flunked the leader’s debate at the last southern election, as he didn’t have the inherent attitudinal skills to win the hearts and minds of that electorate.

I agree, but does this shared vision also reflect the fact that two national identities share the same political jurisdiction?

Unless NI becomes truely shared – where all national expressions are allowed; where Dublin has as much say as London; where both Irish and UK flags fly from official buildings etc – then realignment is probably the best solution.

If people are serious about realignment as an alternative to the current stagnancy, how do they go about it?

What do you think is the way forward in order to get the issue in the public sphere?

People are ahead of the politicians, we work together for each other, some work even harder and closer depending on the nature of the work – not just globalised companies but local workplaces too shows a matter of fact and truth that people are already ‘flying’ together.

So I don’t accept that divisions are that ingrained because at a local level, while people leave their houses, largely segregated, they mingle in the likes of the Odyssey and go back home with a shared experience, so it isn’t just in work but in play.

Time for that shared vision to enter the political realm like Alliance and Durkan seem to be suggesting should happen.

’1998 the GFA in which there was no option for repartition ‘

In 1920 there was’nt an option either . Neither side wanted it -both sides got it. They almost got it right in 1920 . Best to leave to a neutral international organisation next time.

Tatty bye for the Assembly I’d say not now but odds on for later . A bird can’t fly on one wing and neither can it fly if one of the wings prefers to detach itself from the body of the bird whenever it sees fit. This bird is heading for a crash landing -the only question is when

Tatty bye now to repartition.

UKIP.

If all committed to a shared future but were clear about the centre of gravity for their member’s aggregate constitutional preferences (personal choice in a liberal, pluralist UK for the tories, integration and reconciliation for the Liberal Democrats, decolonialism through civil rights and consensual unity for Labour) this gives most people’s priority.

To add a bit more variety a next step would be for the “UK” parties in the North to recognize and develop further their fraternal relations with their europarl sister parties in the south (The European People’s Party includes the Tories and Fine Gael; in the Council of Europe the liberal democractic and reform group includes Fianna Fail and the Liberal DEemocrats; the Party of European Socialism includes both Irish and British Labour parties. If someone wanted to advertise their nationalism they could hold cards for an all-Ireland and an all-UK party. So for example I might hold my Alliance membership card (rebranded LibDem) to allow me my tiny part in the running of the UK (including defence / monetary policy etc) for so long as the union exists, but also my Fianna Fail card, registering my interest in North-South projects and my long-term political affiliation in a united-Ireland.

This could spare southern parties the confusion of defending policy positions in two jurisdictions (especially if in government in one) but allow them a contribution to the development of their northern sister party’s positions. We could get used to seeing Fianna Fail and PD politicians (until they’ve all rejoind FF) at northern LibDem conferences for example, and the same in reverse.

This makes most sense east of the Bann where the Lib Dems (Alliance) have 35 or so council seats. Maybe it’s an Antrim and Down option. West of the Bann Alliance have no councillors – the SDLP have the liberal/social democratic franchise there as they take more first pref votes that the Alliance party and many/most of their transfers.

Q. Would west of the Bann nationalists vote for the Liberal Democrats if they were tied cross-border to Fianna Fail? Would they vote for Labour as the SDLP’s inheritors? Can Irish nationalism be wrapped, temporarily in a UK-party’s packaging? Could nationalists ever vote Tory if the Fine Gael relationship were strong enough.

‘Pollsters have rarely asked the population of Northern Ireland about their attitudes to repartition but it was asked twice in the early 1980s.’ In June 1981 and February 1982 the percentages of Protestants agreeing to repartition was 9% and 8%; the percentages for Catholics were 22% and 24% ‘

That was almost 30 yeara ago DC . How many were ‘polled’ , under who’s aegis was it held . I’m actually surprised that as many as 22% of RC’s polled in favour at that time . That would have been in the aftermath of the hunger strikes and ‘It’s a UI or nothing ‘ reemergence of SF as the leading ‘nationalist ‘ party ‘

Dave however is right on the nail in Post 5 above -when he states

‘Even if the union collapsed in a decade or two, or those seeking to leave the UK surpassed the magic level, unionism will revert to type and use violence to resist democratic will, so unity wouldn’t happen even in a situation where the magic number was reached. It’s better to cut them loose and concede they have a right to determine their own affairs in a smaller statelet where they can make up the overwhelming majority.’

The fact that the SDLP, DUP and others are ‘already ‘ after just a year ? of power sharing , wanting to change the ‘rules’ , is a strong indication that the ‘present’ settlement is not going to work longer term .

Percy, that’s a nationalist context for a unionist-nationalist tug-of-war …

Perhaps then the sweetness might show itself where the apple and the orange can co-exist within a united Ireland framework.

If the SDLP tactically re-designated as ‘other’ in order to bring about the change it describes, it wouldn’t make any practical difference to ‘parallel’ cross-community votes, as the votes of ‘others’ are ignored.

However, if the UUP could be convinced to come along with them (a road that the UUP might be already on, if its potential link-up with the Tories is any indication of its desire for left-right politics), it would mean that the Assembly voting system could maybe be usurped.

Just looking at the two forms of cross-community voting, such a move by the SDLP and UUP would not affect parallel consent, i.e. a majority of those members present and voting, including a majority of the unionist and nationalist designations present and voting – since ‘others’ simply have no say here.

But a coalition of ‘others’ that encompassed the SDLP, UUP, Alliance and independents would have the necessary numbers to prevent the other form of key vote being carried – a weighted majority (60%) of members present and voting, including at least 40% of each of the nationalist and unionist designations present and voting.

While there would, in such circumstances, very likely be at least 40% of nationalists and unionists in favour of the proposal (in fact, it would probably be 100%, if the only parties so designated were the DUP and Sinn Fein), the other required condition may not be met.

If the expanded coalition of ‘others’ opposed the proposal, there would not be a 60% majority in favour. (It would be 56.3%, for the anoraks.)

Petitions of concern requiring 30 signatures to force such votes would ensure that the signatories to the ‘other’ designation could not be sidelined, as they are at present.

Admittedly, these circumstances are highly unlikely in the near future, and would be more likely if the SDLP and UUP were in actual opposition, or really prepared to ditch their designation. It would, however, be an opposition that could exercise real power.

But it makes you think…