“The generals feared they were too far ahead of their troops..”
In today’s Irish News Patrick Murphy identifies the correct questions to ask in order to understand the current blocking of the Northern Ireland Executive by Sinn Féin.
Two questions are central to understanding the row which is preventing the Stormont executive from meeting – does it matter if policing powers are devolved and was there agreement at St Andrews on the devolution date? The answer to the first question is a matter of opinion. The answer to the second is a matter of fact.
That “matter of fact” has already also been identified by others. And, in case anyone hasn’t been paying attention, Patrick Murphy focuses on the correct issues too [no subs req]. Added links throughout.
The ard fheis motion stated that the party’s leadership was mandated to support the police only when the assembly was restored and the ard comhairle was satisfied that policing powers would be transferred. The wording at St Andrews was sloppy but it clearly satisfied the Sinn Féin leadership. This suggests that they may also have received additional assurances from the two governments in one of the many side-deals at the event. But, as Samuel Goldwyn said “a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on”. Armed with only a vaguely-worded view from the two governments, Sinn Féin bought into policing.They received no guarantee on the devolution date and they have no mechanism for determining how or when such a guarantee might be achieved. Their membership of policing boards is in line with the letter of the ard fheis motion, but not with its spirit, which was based on devolution of policing by May 2008. In June, executive meetings stopped.
The generals feared they were too far ahead of their troops. Politically the leadership could not withdraw support from the police and practically they could not achieve devolution as long as the DUP adhered to its view on community confidence. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, they claimed a denial of equality and partnership and brought the executive to a halt.
Cont.
They created the problem for themselves through three mistakes. They trusted Tony Blair to deliver devolution of policing at a future point when many recognised that he would not be in office.
They failed to get the devolution date agreed in writing and, most significantly, they misread the mood of unionism.
They mistakenly believed that Paisley’s post-election chuckling represented unionist thinking, when it merely represented Paisley.
And on the “matter of opinion”.
Opinion in favour of devolved policing is based on the belief that locals can administer policing better than non-locals.
The argument against devolution is that because of its potential for actual and perceived political misuse, polcing is safer away from local control.
Either way it would make little difference in terms of day-to-day policing.
The British by allowing the Unionist veto, in this instance on Police and Justice, ………
No, SF allowed not just a Unionist Veto, but a mutual one. Thats what they agreed to at St Andrews. are you another one who didnt read it?
I am a business man
Spare us the self-made tough guy enforcer bollocks for pete’s sake.
No there was no written agreement but it was implied even in the dupes own literature,
You’re going to have to substantiate that. Until you do, I’ll file it away alongside your claim that joint authority/plan B was/is official British government policy.
SF were silly to take onionists word as gospel but considering how pious dupers see themselves you think they would be men of their words. Bible thumpers lie, who knew?
I am glad you are now conceding that devolution of policing and justice powers were not promised by a fixed deadline in the agreement. I am also glad that you are conceding that SF made a gross tactical error in staking their reputation based on trusting the DUP. Essentially, we now agree.
Trusting the DUP at their word rather than what is written down is, to me, an unforgiveable error. How can you trust SF’s judgement on anything else ?
Strength, you seriously don’t see that SF are in the cat bird seat? you have some unique perspective there! Take off the onionist blinders there is no reason to be scared
I took off my unionist blinders and was immediately dazzled by the brilliance of the force of your argument.
No, I can’t see SF’s position of strength. I don’t have unionist blinders on. I stated a few facts – about the state of play in Westminster, and about the reality of joint authority and Irish government policy, and the security of the DUP position. Are you going to refute them ?
SF have given up a paramilitary wing that had turned into an international liability and gained international respectability and promenance.
They haven’t only given up that, Steve. They’ve jettisoned all of their republican principles; the ones about reunification, the ones about opposing devolved government, the ones about ending British rule in Ireland, the ones about policing. What is there left ?
DUPers have given everything away, their principals and any claim to being a moral force.
They’ve passed up on the principle of never sharing power with SF. On the other hand, they have been able to present themselves as people who are tough in their dealings with SF, and indeed people who are successful in making SF squirm and extracting more concessions from them. Up until the SF boycott, every single time the DUP raised their finger, SF backed off and fell into line. When it came to the issue of cutting off loyalist paramilitary funding, Sinn Fein – instead of enthusiastically backing the minister who was trying to bring it forward – fell into line and sided with the DUP. The reason for this is that SF have no coherent strategy about how they intend to wield the power they’ve got. Frankly they’re substandard at doing politics.
They have shown they are just another bunch of grubby onionists wh are only too willing to sell out for the levers of power.
Isn’t that true of SF as well ?
and they are hamstrung unless they play nicely with the unrepentant terrorists
This is the trouble that you’re going to have. They’re not. If this collapses, the DUP can go back to their electorate and say “we tried and failed to make it work, now we need to try something else”.
SF have to go back to the electorate and say “we jettisoned everything and ended up with nothing”. That’s why SF are in the weak position here. Without powersharing, they’re nothing. They’ve no friends in Dublin or London, and the US administration isn’t at all sympathetic to their point of view. In fact, most of the pressure upon SF to back policing came from the US.
I do not for one moment like the fact that the lunatics in the DUP are in charge. It’s a situation which has developed because of SF’s incompetence, and because SF believed a few years ago that it would be strategically more favourable to destroy Trimble rather than helping him consolidating his position. SF had a hand in creating the current DUP monster.
DC
No, but arguably the DUP can be perceived as pre-St Andrews somewhat sectarian, then for Iris to raise this up binds back in the strong ethnic colours of the DUP to homophobia, which either stand alone or together under a party platform is still repellent.
DC, come on, for christ’s sake. You think the DUP association with homophobia is new ?
I’m struggling to identify semantic content in the rest of what you said for me to argue with, so I’m afraid I’ll have to pass, unless you can explain your argument a bit more clearly.
??
The British and Irish governments and the Nationalists parties all want the DUP to move on Police and Justice – irrespective of what is or is not in the STA.
The DUP are not even arguing that they are not vetoing progress on Police and Justice but that they have the right to do so because of the STA – this still makes it a Unionist veto and politically they will still rightly get the blame if they wish to indulge themselves in using it.
The British and Irish governments and the Nationalists parties all want the DUP to move on Police and Justice – irrespective of what is or is not in the STA………..
once again, as with the GFA and decommissioning, nationalists are not to be trusted to keep their word.
“once again, as with the GFA and decommissioning, nationalists are not to be trusted to keep their word.”
Maybe not. But politics is a dirty old game – which Unionists should have learned by now – and if you dont play ( ie you use your veto) you get a kick up the arse.
Dodsie playing the tough guy may get him re-elected with a bigger majority in North Belfast but it does the Unionist community no favours in the long run as it only increases their political isolation.
The DUP the party that like to say “NO” – except to Creationism, Homophobia and of course it all time favourite and life blood – sectarianism.
CS, here is a reply, apologies for not condensing sweetly but here is the best I can do for you to explain where we are.
Re: “DC, come on, for christ’s sake. You think the DUP association with homophobia is new ?”
No but linking it to paedophilia was and then this was picked up in media and blogosphere the result was a party tarnished and the ability to deliver credible and sympathetic public messages thereafter affected by that silly outburst at House of Commons level.
I am saying too about your attempt for the executive to resolve the problems with St Andrews is a silly attempt because the NI executive did not create the condition-led DUP St Andrews Agreement, neither will it resolve it then. The DUP focussed the St Andrews Agreement solely around SF meeting its conditions. SF has done so.
You were posting on the other thread were I showed the option back in May 2006 when the DUP could have driven a new executive by nominating and at that point could have used consensus politics to ensure that SF backs the police. That could have been executive-led, but it wasn’t created and conditions were met under the terms of St Andrews.
The DUP chose St Andrews, an inter-governmental deal that reads as if it were two governments talking throughout and there is a reference to May 2008 in as much as there is backing the police and rule of law. DUP and SF have both gotten backing but May 2008 was used as the timeframe for debate.
But I would say think back to 2006 it was the DUP that refused to nominate so rather than an Assembly deal of itself the DUP went with St Andrews. That is why the executive cannot deal with this problem as it has conditions linked outside its remit – the endorsement of particular parties to May 2008. A response is needed by the DUP linked to the St Andrews agreement. Here is proof, 13 October:
Parties consult, including through the DUP Assembly group, the Sinn Fein Ard Comhairle and other appropriate party bodies, on the St Andrews agreement, and respond by 10 November.
There were other issues too:
Single equality bill
Bill of Rights
Irish language act
Not to mention the money linked to concluding this deal from security sites.
Rev Ian Paisley (House of Commons 27 June 07):
I am glad that I can stand here today and say to the Prime Minister that the people of Northern Ireland felt the same way as him—they were angry and cross, lost their tempers and were sad—but we made progress. It is not as great as I would like, but the Unionist people for whom I speak in the House are dedicated to seeing what was started concluded, so that every man and woman in Ulster has the same rights, liberties and opportunities to lead their lives, have their families and have a future.
The DUP the party that like to say “NO” – except to Creationism, Homophobia and of course it all time favourite and life blood – sectarianism.
Posted by It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it on Oct 05, 2008 @ 10:06 PM
Amazing how the DUP is sectarian because its says NO to a aparty that murdered protestants!
as for creationism and homophobia, guess we have a lot in common with the Catholic church
rights, liberties and opportunities to lead their lives, have their families and have a future……………
so what rights, liberties and opportunities do unionists have that nationalists dont?
??
The DUP is not sectarian because it will not agree to the transfer of police and justice – but because of the bigoted ideology that pervades it. Most secular sensible Unionists (SSUs) would agree with that assessment.
There is indeed a similarity between the DUP and the Catholic church views on some matters – not that I ever heard an elected Dupper say that – as he would be on his bike – but unlike the DUP the Catholic Church is not a political party. The Unionist people have elected a political party that combines fundamentalist religion and politics that must make the SSUs despair at how they are portrayed internationally.
comrade
I am a business man
Spare us the self-made tough guy enforcer bollocks for pete’s sake
Eh? what are you on about? When did I say I was an enforcer it was supposed to show my position
as for the rest I am tired of the circular discusion so bollocksto it
its the other thing you learn in business…. cut your losses and get on with it
CS
You sound like a propagandist for the DUP.
Are you denying that the UK govt are effectively blaming ths DUP for the current impasse? Funny because I thought Gordon Brown made it pretty clear when he spoke at Stormont.
In fact, so did the DUP – their representatives have used words like ‘partial’, ‘biased’ and ‘ham-fisted’. Robinson (presumably as part of his “serious consequences”)stayed away from the Labour Party Conference (big deal!) because of what Brown said.
Are you claiming that the US administration don’t feel the same way? – even more likely under a Democratic administration if elected.
The tactics that Sinn Fein are currently using are the same as the DUP used for years.
I don’t delude myself that Direct Rule will deliver everything Nationalists want but it’ll be a lot better for us than for Unionists.
You seem to think that the DUP have a lot of sympathy and/or power in Parliament – I don’t know where you get that from.
There is precious little sympathy for them after their recent antics especially Iris’s comments about homosexuals, paedophiles and the honesty of the Hansard people.
I am not aware of any upcoming votes where the govt will have to rely on the DUP – are you?
If the assembly collapses the UK govt will conclude, correctly,that the DUP are currently incapable of making an internal power sharing arrangement work.
Again I’m not saying that they’ll jump straight to joint authority. However, there is precious little sympathy for NI Unionism in the UK – they are seen more and more as out of touch hompohobic evangelists and, more importantly, whinging scroungers in these austere times.
The UK govt will gladly cede more influence to the RoI govt in the running of the North and there will be nothing that Unionists can do about it.
If you have any evidence that the DUP are not being seen as intransigent or that the 3 govts are not blaming them rather than Sinn Fein for the current impasse, please provide it.
I have yet to see any Nationalist politician who is worried or frightened by the prospect of the assembly collapsing.
On the contrary, the DUP are clearly in a panic and trying (and failing) to turn the PR battle around.
It’s they who have painted themselves into a corner and are struggling to get out of it.
Sinn Fein crossed their rubicon by getting support for the PSNI passed by their Ard Fheis – the 3 govts know and appreciate the massive risk that Sinn Fein took.
That’s why they are all blaming and pressurising the DUP.
The DUP is not sectarian because it will not agree to the transfer of police and justice – but because of the bigoted ideology that pervades it.,… such as?
Sinn Fein crossed their rubicon by getting support for the PSNI passed by their Ard Fheis – the 3 govts know and appreciate the massive risk that Sinn Fein took….
WOW! the decision NOT to continue to kill police officers was a brave one! Time to let the Shinners go their own way.
I hope they do, bye bye Gerry and Martin
The UK govt will gladly cede more influence to the RoI govt in the running of the North and there will be nothing that Unionists can do about it. …
well, if the government wants to do that fine, Unionists dont have to help the Shinners along.
At least direct rule will GUARANTEE no republican minister for policing or justice, and we still get SF supporting the PSNI and British courts. NOt a bad days work – End of the provos, weapons surrendered, IRA neutered, Martin and Gerry towing the British governments line on matters.
Many unionists could live with that.
??
“Many unionists could live with that”
If that’s true, why are Unionists (the DUP in particular) running around in a major panic trying to restore the assembly without seeming to back down?
I don’t see any sign of Nationalists in a state of panic. That’s because they know that either a DUP climbdown or a return to Direct Rule will benefit them.
You’re entitled to your opinion but I doubt you’re on message with Unionism in general.
I think most Unionists are wise enough to see that the UK govt have been following a policy of gradual disengagement (and much greater input from the RoI) since Thatcher signed the Anglo Irish Agreement in 1985.
As the Tory Party has changed over the last few years, there are a lot less old right-wing Unionist sympathisers in it.
In truth, there is little (and rapidly diminishing) support for NI Unionists in Parliament or the UK as a whole.
If you want to trust the future of the “Union” to the Westminster govt, good for you. There are many in the Unionist comunity who believe that the UK govt will “sell them out” – of course, it’s common knowledge that any UK govt would like nothing better to drop NI and would do so in a heartbeat given the chance.
There would be no political price for them in GB -the vast majority of UK people don’t give a shit about NI and, of those who do, the majority would be delighted to see the back of it.
Like I said, if you think a return to Direct Rule would benefit Unionists, good for you.
I think you’ll find that Unionist political leaders have read their history and are only too well aware of the real UK govt agenda. They are also aware that they would be powerless to prevent the UK govt from involving the RoI govt as much as they want.
That’s why, unlike you, they are plainly shit scared of the assembly collapsing. They know that it’s a large backward step for Unionism and, also, that they are being seen in a very bad light – intransigent, homphobic etc.
I suggest that you take a look at the historical actions of the UK govt over the last 23 years. They explain why the DUP are so scared of losing their assembly and why they’re currently wriggling on the hook.
Nationalists on the other hand certainly wouldn’t be any worse off with Direct Rule. In fact, given the DUP’s sectarian behaviour in the assembly, we’d almost certainly be better off.
So, for once I agree with you, Direct Rule – bring it on!
If that’s true, why are Unionists (the DUP in particular) running around in a major panic trying to restore the assembly without seeming to back down? ………..
I assume because they believe they can offer more accountable government than direct rule.
If SF belive they can get everything they want from Gordon, why not just go there?
Billy , you obviously dont get out around unionists much
“There are many in the Unionist comunity who believe that the UK govt will “sell them out””
Trust me, there are many, many more who rather not be in a government with SF AT ANY COST
??
“Trust me, there are many, many more who rather not be in a government with SF AT ANY COST”
You may well be correct as you would obviously have a lot more connection to the Unionist community than I.
If so, how do you believe that this will manifest itself? Assuming the DUP don’t change their current strategy of being “in govt” with Sinn Fein, are you saying that they will suffer for at in the next elections?
If “many, many more” Unionists feel as you describe, then surely they would be supporting Jim Allister and the TUV.
My impression (admittedly from the media) is that the TUV is a bit of a damp squib with limited support that is unlikely to make any electoral impression.
Are you saying that this is not the case?
Steve,
I note you ran away from the argument. Thanks.
Billy,
That contribution of yours addressed to me contains a lot of “are you saying .. ?”. What I’m saying is written there in black and white. Are you going to respond to any of it ?
I don’t delude myself that Direct Rule will deliver everything Nationalists want but it’ll be a lot better for us than for Unionists.
In what way ?
Again I’m not saying that they’ll jump straight to joint authority. However, there is precious little sympathy for NI Unionism in the UK
Yeah, and there’s exactly how much sympathy for SF ? Warrington ? Manchester ? Bishopsgate ? Since when did sympathy in the UK count for either unionism or nationalism ?
The UK govt will gladly cede more influence to the RoI govt in the running of the North and there will be nothing that Unionists can do about it.
This is starting to get distinctly boring. I have asked you several times now :
- how can this happen given the arithmetic at Westminster ?
- what makes you think the RoI are so interested in doing this given Anglo-Irish policy, and their policy towards unionists, for the past ten years or so ?
If you have any evidence that the DUP are not being seen as intransigent or that the 3 govts are not blaming them rather than Sinn Fein for the current impasse, please provide it.
I don’t agree with the DUP’s position. But that doesn’t matter. They are holding the trump cards and SF are not. And there is no excuse for SF to stay out of the executive. The DUP are calculating that SF’s boycotting of the executive will damage them. To me, that calculation looks correct.
I have yet to see any Nationalist politician who is worried or frightened by the prospect of the assembly collapsing.
As the Americans say, do the math. You might be ignorant enough to believe that SF would essentially give the whole house away – policing, the IRA, arms – to enter a government that nationalists did not want. Reality is different.
On the contrary, the DUP are clearly in a panic and trying (and failing) to turn the PR battle around.
I see no evidence of a DUP panic any more than I see evidence of a nationalist panic. Nobody is going to admit in public that they are frightened by the assembly collapsing. You have to look at who wins and loses, and I’ve already given my opinion on what way that works.
It’s they who have painted themselves into a corner and are struggling to get out of it.
That argument is only true if you think that joint authority is a serious threat. The truth is that it is not, so there is no corner for the DUP to get out of.
Sinn Fein crossed their rubicon by getting support for the PSNI passed by their Ard Fheis – the 3 govts know and appreciate the massive risk that Sinn Fein took.
Sinn Fein’s risk amounts to fuck all right now, likewise the opinion of the three governments. That’s not a nice situation, but that’s the situation.
That’s why they are all blaming and pressurising the DUP.
Which of the governments said “I blame the DUP” ?
And exactly what pressure can the governments place on the DUP ?
To the poster under the name ?? :
Government with Sinn Fein counts as a compromise. The DUP have acted for decades as the de-facto voice for loyalist paramilitarism. I certainly don’t see any reason why they are any less fit for government than SF on that basis; the SDLP are really the only significant party in NI, not counting Alliance, which has no historic ties to any paramilitary groupings. Clearly a government which excluded anyone with a history of being sympathetic with paramilitaries would exclude almost everyone that the people here choose to elect.
CS,
It is hard for anyone to work out exactly who loses and benefits from a collapse of the Assembly. Harder still because the politics of the next admninistration in the uk are not yet really known re: the north. from a nationalist point of view what is disturbing is the tory rhetoric of ni being a full member of the uk and their link up with the uup, and the corresponding failure of FF to make good on their move north. the other unknowable is the attitude of the next us administration. there is no doubt that sf have delivered on all their commitments this time round… the unionists in that sense are in the dock. and if the dup succeed in doing to sf what sf did to trimble, then we are looking at more radical nationalism being strengthened. the major flaw in your argument is that somehow nationalists in the north are like unionists and that sf can be excluded from office. If you really believe this then it seems to me you understand nothing about the realpolitik of the north. and that you do retain some unionist blinkers!
Hear hear Dub. Some may criticise me for not being clear at times but to those that do I say I am not a unionist or nationalist and I try to get a radar sweep of general public and political opinion.
Sometimes it is a bit green and grainy and not a Google Earth picture but I would love to be able to see things so simply as along unionist and nationalist lines but the futility of division makes even trying in itself futile. And I too believe there are some genuine concerns needing addressed by the DUP that cannot be discounted. St Andrews was itself supposed to provide the fourth leg on which devolution would sit as stable on this newly conceived political table
The reason why the executive cannot resolve the problems is simple in that it is not that fourth leg, grassroots backing of the final piece of the peace process provided that fourth leg.
St Andrews was an upfront and coercive agreement, this fourth leg disintegrates when the other parties fail to recognise the need to coerce and condition themselves into new accommodating positions as well.
dub, thank you for injecting some sense.
It is hard for anyone to work out exactly who loses and benefits from a collapse of the Assembly.
In truth, I think we all do. Joint authority will be the only way that we can make real progress. Unionism and nationalism can never hold the monopolise levers of power without each other, and without political power, what purpose do they serve and how can they advance their objectives ?
Harder still because the politics of the next admninistration in the uk are not yet really known re: the north. from a nationalist point of view what is disturbing is the tory rhetoric of ni being a full member of the uk and their link up with the uup, and the corresponding failure of FF to make good on their move north.
I agree completely. I don’t think the Tory hookup is going to amount to anything, although a Secretary of State from a unionist background could potentially be a serious problem, indeed it could lead to serious instability if whoever it is is stupid enough to try and force anything through.
the other unknowable is the attitude of the next us administration.
9/11 and the political situation mean that there is unlikely to be any reversal on the attitude shown to anyone deemed associated with terrorists. The relationship between the administration and the UK is important here. A lot of the stuff that happened, such as the American forcefulness over policing, and the refusal to invite SF to the White House, came through the British embassy.
there is no doubt that sf have delivered on all their commitments this time round… the unionists in that sense are in the dock.
I can’t deny that SF have delivered on what they said they would. Unfortunately, they miscalculated and even though I believe the delay in devolution of policing and justice powers is largely contrived, I don’t see the boycott as a justifiable way to deal with it, and I would personally find it a lot easier to argue SF’s case if they had not resorted to abstention.
and if the dup succeed in doing to sf what sf did to trimble, then we are looking at more radical nationalism being strengthened.
I don’t see that radical nationalism has a political voice, and I don’t see the conditions for a seriously organized armed conflict emanating from the dissidents, who are already heavily penetrated by the intelligence services. The conditions right now just aren’t anything like 1969. You’re not going to get 16 year olds joining the ‘RA because policing and justice powers couldn’t be devolved quickly enough.
the major flaw in your argument is that somehow nationalists in the north are like unionists and that sf can be excluded from office.
Nationalists are like unionists, just the opposite side of the coin.
If you really believe this then it seems to me you understand nothing about the realpolitik of the north. and that you do retain some unionist blinkers!
I don’t know if it’s realpolitik or not, but if it’s the case that a powersharing government can’t be devolved even if 75% of the electorate want it, and is subject to a permament SF veto, then frankly it’s never going to stick. I don’t see why 2/3rds should be dictated to by the other 1/3rd.
The way to fix that is to allow business in the executive to proceed based on a quorum that does not require full attendance.
“I don’t see why 2/3rds should be dictated to by the other 1/3rd.”
Ignoring the last 10 years, erm, don’t you realise that the DUP refused to nominate back in May 2006, one party it was then and it was that one party refusal that created St Andrews. Have you not listened to the two governments who are extremely supportive over setting a date? Is there something wrong in that and why isn’t Alliance trying to put itself to good use, if it so understands the conflict surely it should be able to grasp the wider public mood. Or, is it the case of the Alliance Party of South Antrim?
Obviously policing transfer discussions are not going well, but what do we do: mock, ridicule, solidify into fixed positions whenever we know, given previous similar stances, that it will not help in any way? Why are such difficulties often made into political deadlock whenever there are real opportunities to advance past all of this by a bit of leadership and understanding of why policing powers are being asked for – symbolically perhaps? The republicans have backed the police, hallelujah the people should say and the IRA have gone away. Yet it appears politicians can only resort to negativity and say begrudgingly ‘to hell with it’. Are there any politicians that have good leadership skills to see where we have come from and can talk in the positive?? The parties in NI are woeful and are without any vision, it really isn’t ‘bread and butter’ it is the absence of vision that creates this stuttering executive, grinding to a halt under micro-politics. A vision could overcome this, none have it.
If there continues to be a lack of political ingenuity then devolution will fall into deep freeze unless unionists make this move in the spirit of the compromises that brought about both the GFA and indeed St Andrews. To hold back now on that given the wider dissident concerns too is another misreading of the political situation which only unionist-leaning thinkers deny is a problem, in doing so they also deny the chance of supplying answers to that problem.
I don’t get the arrogance of some people and politicians or the failure to give a bit of vision and leadership. Martin McGuinness said the DUP is trying to hollow out the achievements of the peace process thereby ignoring some if not most of the sensitivities required for progress. I’ve always suspected that the DUP were just biding for time to eradicate a memory of a peace process they refused to validate by not joining in, but I also suspect that that peace process also poses challenges to, and questions of, their own negative and aggressive political behaviour, which the DUP in particular don’t seem to want to address. It is almost as if it is like the DUP is playing let’s pretend St Andrews was just about domestic policy.
Sadly there is one section left of the peace process that prevents that from happening. A piece that that party inadvertently or otherwise dragged up when going into government with SF under St Andrews.
My impression (admittedly from the media) is that the TUV is a bit of a damp squib with limited support that is unlikely to make any electoral impression. ……….
two words explain why unionists arent rushing to the TUV, Jim Allister.
Unionhists are just fed up with the whole thing, if it gets going without have to give in to SF all well and good, but if the shinners get their way the DUP will pay a price
I could certainly understand the DUP wanting to break the May deadline or target date. And I could also understand them wanting to fight an election having “stood-up” to Sinn Fein on the issue.
But the long term political consequences of over-playing their nice hand could be very messy indeed for them and for everyone else.
The danger with policing in nationalist areas is the each-way bet. People accepting to police in so far as their day to day functions go by holding a mental reservation about their legitimacy.
That is dangerous for everybody and delightful for the dissidents. I think that is why it is such a big deal for Sinn Fein. Devolution of P & J changes things on the ground for the better.
Political games have their place and Sinn Fein have played them too but political leadership is what really counts. I think Peter Robinson knows he needs to bring this one home and I hope he knows how he is going to do it.
Ignoring the last 10 years, erm, don’t you realise that the DUP refused to nominate back in May 2006, one party it was then and it was that one party refusal that created St Andrews. Have you not listened to the two governments who are extremely supportive over setting a date?
My theory is based around the SDLP breaking ranks with Sinn Fein, which the UUP refused to do in 2006. Watching Ritchie in the assembly, shameful as the way she chose to present herself was, it’s becoming clear that Sinn Fein can’t assume that the SDLP will fall into line with them.
The assembly collapsed previously because both the UUP and the DUP were essentially on the same hymnsheet when it came to the issue of maintaining it.
Is there something wrong in that and why isn’t Alliance trying to put itself to good use, if it so understands the conflict surely it should be able to grasp the wider public mood.
That’s an excellent idea, why didn’t I think of it before ? Suspend the assembly and set up a three-man committee, headed by Lord Alderdice, to run NI. Better yet, make Alderdice NI secretary.
Alliance want the end of tribal politics but they are not stupid enough to believe that powersharing can happen without agreement. It predicted the inherent instability of mandatory coalition and it has been campaigning for the reforms it believes are necessary to achieve that agreement for quite some time.
Henry
“I could certainly understand the DUP wanting to break the May deadline or target date.”
There was nothing to ‘break’, as you should well know by now.
DC
The problem is that there are two, separate, issues under discussion.
The first is the one promoted by Sinn Féin, and yourself – namely the reluctance of the DUP to agree to devolve policing and justice powers to a set time-scale.
The problem with that argument is that the DUP’s consistent position has been that it isn’t about meeting deadlines. It’s about everyone building towards such a move.
Recent history has not seen Sinn Féin building towards such a move. Endorsing policing in name, rather than sending out paramilitary goon squads to mete out summary justice, is progress – of a sort. In fact, it’s a basic pre-requisite as the US politicians involved knew.
But it’s not the required building towards such a transfer of power – see Henry’s “mental reservation about their legitimacy.”
The other issue is what Patrick Murphy identifies.
And it goes to the core of the current manufactured crisis.
Why now?
Not having made any such agreement to devolve those powers within a set time-frame it is fundamentally unjust to now attempt to pressurise any party to do so just because another party falsely promised others that it would happen by May.
It’s the answer to that question, contained in the original post, that illuminates all discussion of the current deadlock – Not the faux-outrage about not being helpful witnesses to The Process.
The answer, by the way, lies in the battle between the SF leadership and their grassroots activists.
After all, it’s not the completion of devolution some present it as.
Yes the SDLP has seemingly broken ranks with SF but that I wonder might hark back to St Andrews and the negotiations there that left that party out of the bigger picture, which ultimately was really DUP driven – it was a DUP-SF deal. That’s why there is this problem now re SF. For the SDLP, I’m afraid that it might be arrogance not substance that drives that party’s position now. Possible proof of that suspicion is in last week’s assembly performance re Ritchie where things got nasty with Maskey; not sensible, nor mature nor politically relevant.
As to executive formation, I am not 100% sure if this is still the case, but I think for the executive to be legitimate there needs to be at least 3 nationalists or unionists at the executive table, Ritchie alone is not sufficient to sustain this ideal.
For changes there will need to be some positive politics and recognition of achievements and some give and take.
So then on to this: “Alliance want the end of tribal politics”
Okay I always appreciate that, but there is one thing in the way of that and that’s politics. Has Alliance got some, even ideas that can act as an engine, that can gain some traction to get there?
I think you might need to come closer to the wall and you will see that you aren’t actually fighting anyone, but merely shadow boxing yourself and your own protestations.
However frustrating things may be re SF it is probably best for all to change tack.
Pete, re Wales. Devolution itself took two shots to launch and was a reluctant New Labour 97 initiative, it never sat in the same context as per NI with its own parliament, with its own significance, post the 1921 signing of the Treaty.
The reason as to why the DUP is not able to command SF to the slowly slowly confidence together line lies in relation to the fact that that party, DUP, continued with the elite-led, intergovernmental deal brokerage i.e. St Andrews.
The DUP could have settled this as per building up confidence by nominating in May 2006, but it became top-down, condition-led under St Andrews. Ergo conditions have been met, however much you suggest it might rest with tokenism or symbolism. Perhaps then the DUP should set a token timeframe to take the sting out of this, or be positive by shifting posture and pace towards an atmosphere more conducive to good relations. Buy in to the achievements of their own agreement, it was quite remarkably to see Paisley and Adams at that table in March 07.
Also no one asked the DUP to prove itself, however, over the last 2 years since St Andrews many many other issues have slipped, some slipped under in a bad atmosphere leading to the handbrake coming on.
Why now can be simply be countered as to why not now? But there are some other issues coming to the surface that do hark back once again to something we were supposed to be getting away from. Let it not be said there was no opportunity to move forwards not back.
“Why now can be simply be countered as to why not now?”
Crap, DC.
That ignores every single issue behind the current [SF] manufactured crisis.
“Let it not be said there was no opportunity to move forwards not back.”
Let it not be said that we should all be helpful witnesses to The Process..
Do the parties actually have any objective measure of when the timing for transfer of P and J powers would be right or is it an entirely qualitative and subjective assessment, i.e. political? I’m surprised that Gordon “Quangoes-R-Us” Browne doesn’t try to resolve the deadlock by getting the parties to agree delegate the decision to an ad hoc commission of independents with a quantitative analysis being the core driver re timing. That way, both of the disputing parties can continue in Stormont without being seen to have backed down, and with both of them being seen as ‘reasonable.’ The danger, of course, is that quantitative assessment may uncover attitudes among Shinner supporters that sees the transfer as a sectarian victory over the
RUCPSNI and an opportunity to “put manners on them.” Oh dear… better hire a few puppets rather than independents just in case. Perhaps Lord Alderdice could call a friend?Pete
“The answer, by the way, lies in the battle between the SF leadership and their grassroots activists”
Does it really?
Apparently Gordon Brown doesn’t think so and nor do the US + Irish govts.
Whether you think it’s “fundamentally unjust” or not is irrelevant, the political reality is that it is the DUP who are under pressure.
In terms of building confidence, all the DUP have done is block absolutely everything that they see as a benefit to Nationalists. I understand that Unionists have issues trusting Sinn Fein but you need to realise that the vast majority of Nationalists don’t trust the DUP either and with good reason given their behaviour in the assembly to date.
This issue isn’t going to go away and, clearly, Sinn Fein are not going to back down.
The reality is, that if the DUP don’t compromise, the assembly will almost certainly fall and that the blame for this, outside NU Unionism, will be put on the DUP for their intransigence.
There is little support for NI Unionists in Westminster, the UK or globally.
For all the DUP pedantry and cries about “fairness”, the overwhelming perception is that the DUP are being intransigent and blocking progress. And, as we are all aware, perception is reality.
I think the DUP need to get real and amke some sort of timetable deal that will allow them to save some face.
There is no way that the assembly can continue without Sinn Fein and, if it goes, it’s a much bigger blow to the DUP than to Sinn Fein.
For all the DUP rhetoric, they are the ones under pressure. Instead of repeating pointless hard-line statements or trying to fool Nationalists with phoney meaningless, “open agenda” promises, they need to look at what’s achievable.
In my opinion, they need to negotiate some type of clear timetable for P&J;being devolved (over the next 6 months or so?)to a non SF or DUP minister.
It’ll be a lot easier to sell that to their supporters than a return to Direct Rule from a UK govt that is hardly a hotbed of Unionist support.
Pete,
if this is a ” [SF] manufactured crisis.” why did El Gordo tell the DUP to set a date for the transfer of Police and Justice.
For Jaysus sake just admit you called it worng and stop re-posting the same old DUP/Newsletter jibber-jabber.
Pete, I understand your frustrations and am aware too of this clear weakness in the timeframe or guiding date that was May 2008, as you have so assiduously kept reminding everyone about.
About this ‘why now, why not now’, I mean you could say why even have St Andrews, why put lines in the sand and get others to cross them, particularly whenever SF was actually in government before under the GFA and with the DUP too, the other parties were as well. Ultimately in relation to this ‘why not now’ is that the DUP took SF’s moves, at elite level, as suitable proof that the deal was on and so if a party-led instigation was suitable as per SF then community confidence should flow from the DUP following suit. It is my view that the State shapes civil society here, that is why it is divided, therefore SF cannot shape the DUP’s grassroots only the DUP can do this like SF has done with its own base.
Also, it is important to understand the shambles that was the past, I actually don’t believe in finding the ‘truth’ to the past. This aspect of reasoning is based on there being far too many complex human variables, much of this will sit outside the acts of SF-IRA. However, it is possible to understand where people have come from and perhaps why they did what they did. Importantly then, I think if certain parties do ignore the significance of the work leading up to and the progress after that GFA-98 that it could well lead to more political problems than to any practical solutions.
All I can say is that it might be seen to be giving in to SF, but does it really have to be seen to be giving in to SF because is politics constrained like that so it becomes narrow and win / lose. To me, yes, it is giving in to SF but only in part, there are many other parts that are at stake here, devolution and the concept of Northern Ireland as a functioning democracy and a place with ideas with the potential to shape its own direction inside the realm of devolution. Once that goes up in smoke that chance of taking Northern Ireland to another level becomes harder, in fact another direction will be set by someone else. So, a vision for the future must outweigh this notion of giving in to SF.
Bread and butter issues in the end can be delivered on but in the meantime the DUP must give this aspirational vision that will act as the glue. If the DUP can keep things together and well oiled then that party can deliver.
It’s all going to shit at the moment and republicans will not stop being republicans, however dry, acrid and prickly they can be. The question is what do you do to get what they want done while getting what you want too and delivering for those constituents that are in the need? That’s leadership with a capital L.
DC. Margaret Ritchie did not say anything that was not true.It may not have added to the debate about environmental improvement in the markets,but it did focus on what the real issue is , if we are to respect human life as our standard of rights,the right to live must be more important than where we live or how nice our area is.a man was murdered ,SF members were present,nobody saw anything.Alex went on tv to condemn the knife culture and condemn the searches that were a follow up to this killing.The IRA offer to shoot the murderers.
Of course Danny but it draws people in to that negative environment where it becomes so easy to join in and open a barrage of other claims, sadly for the SDLP they are the wrong side of this turned century for that kind of stuff now.
Where were those in the SDLP around the more sensitive times whenever others called on them to assert themselves better. This is intra-bloc fallout between the two parties as they split over what the SDLP views to be antics linked to St Andrews. A deal not of the SDLP’s making nor texture, however I imagine some constituents might disagree.
if this is a “ [SF] manufactured crisis.” why did El Gordo tell the DUP to set a date for the transfer of Police and Justice.
He didn’t. That’s the point.
Billy, you gonna respond to any of the arguments put to you, or are you just going to keep repeating the same ones that you posted when you started ? What’s the point in that ? Isn’t that intransigence?
Pete
Number 1.0: Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
—
There was nothing to ‘break’, as you should well know by now.
This is somewhat disingenuous. Everyone now accepts that there was no formally binding deadline. But if the target date was to have absolutely no consequence, then why was it in the Agreement?
Politics does not always proceed by strictly defined agreements. A target date introduced flexibility into the system, but it also set expectations. Sinn Fein more than likely could have coped with some movement on the timing, as long as it resulted in a definite date. That was implicit in SF accepting less than a hard and fast deadline. Agreement could not have been reached if there was no timing in there, so we can’t really argue that SF were happy to wait indefinitely.
We had a full year to prepare the ground for this; the Assembly was stable, the polls were relatively benign. Strong leadership, a focus on law and order could have carried it. The DUP could have been seen to extract a price from SF and had a win. Probably keeping the impression they got the better out of the deal. But that wasn’t enough for the DUP.
You can point to the fact that Sinn Fein should have listened to the DUP’s statements on the matter at the time. But that argument cuts both ways. SF were adamant that the powers needed devolved, and devolved by the deadline. The text of the Ard Fhies motion is also fairly straightforward. The DUP must have known they’d set a timescale — the statements from players in both governments have made it clear they at least knew what they were doing — and that there would be some kind of consequence when this failed to happen.
Which makes this statement:
Not having made any such agreement to devolve those powers within a set time-frame it is fundamentally unjust to now attempt to pressurise any party to do so just because another party falsely promised others that it would happen by May.
Just utterly bizarre. There is no moral case. This is simply politicking. The principle of devolution of P&J;has been conceded. The DUP might be on the right side of the detail of the Agreement, but it is largely irrelevant if the issue is of such importance to Republicans that they are prepared to bring the Assembly down over the head of it. That is the Big Picture of how the zero sum game of the Assembly works.
Why now?
Policing has always been a totemic issue for republicans, stretching back to the War of Independence. Why now? Because the original target date was a concession by Republicans — the powers would have ideally been devolved right away. Now has always been the right time. This isn’t a lighting strike, it has been a gradually increasing current until it gets too painful for republicans to bear.
The answer, by the way, lies in the battle between the SF leadership and their grassroots activists.
What battle? Where is the evidence that the leadership is content to wait until the DUP decides it is happy to for the powers to be devolved but for the pressure from activists? The grassroots are unhappy, but so is Gerry Adams. What split? It runs top to bottom. You have nothing but assertion on this one.
Billy
The DUP don’t give the impression of being under pressure. Except, electorally, NOT to agree to devolve P&J;(now that SF have made such a pig’s ear of the issue).
CS,
Thanks for your open response to my post.
Your points about mandatory coalition are well made but the realpolitik i was referring to is that nationalists are unlike unionists in that they were excluded from power from 1922 to 1972 and a war ensued. The realpolitik is that unlike the dup a few years ago, the main voice of northern nationalism, sf, can never be outside of the administration. That is the realpolitik which all 3 guarantor govts subscribe to. When i referred to radical nationalism i did not mean a return to widespread violence. rather a movement still dominated by sf which would give up on the idea of partnership govt with the unionists and would look to maximising their power in the new councils and push for green power in green areas. this would in effect herald movement towards repartition. some nasty violence might accompany this change in political direction. i honestly believe that the only sensible way forward is full on joint sovereignty. unfortunatelyi do not believe that the political will in Lon
london or dublin exists for that.
” The realpolitik is that unlike the dup a few years ago, the main voice of northern nationalism, sf, can never be outside of the administration”
It depends on each party’s vote. So parties that don’t get a lot of votes can be outside of the NI government. The DUP increased its vote which is why it is now in government. If either SF or DUP were to suffer a decline in vote to teens (in share of vote) then they wouldn’t have to be in government.
Slug
If either SF or DUP were to suffer a decline in vote to teens (in share of vote) then they wouldn’t have to be in government
I could see this as a possibility for the DUP particularily if onionism develops into a three way tug of war
But as Durkan keeps gifting SF voters by opening his mouth and inserting his foot it looks like less of a possibility every day
Durkan keeps gifting SF voters by opening his mouth and inserting his foot
SF are going to have to do more than just attacking the SDLP if they want to maintain their vote.
Runciter
I wasn’t talking about Sf attacks on SDLP I was talking about SDLP attacks on themselves
It’s true that nationalist politics is a SPECTACULARLY uncontested space right now. Warning: that breeds complacency and that is not good for politics.
I was talking about SDLP attacks on themselves
Why would the SDLP attack themselves?
“Why would the SDLP attack themselves?” unwittingly through incompetence.
Is this just not a case of the DUP trying to get one back for decomissioning? SF promised guns, but no specifics mentioned. Hence, they delayed the process as long as poss, meanwhile getting as many concessions as poss. Payback time?
DC got it in one try
Slug
“The DUP don’t give the impression of being under pressure”
Funny – I thought that Gordon Brown was incredibly blunt (for a world leader) when he came to Stormont and effectively told the DUP to get on with it.
What did the DUP do in response? – whinged about it and Robinson didn’t attend the Labour conference (big deal). He also didn’t attend the Tory conference because of Cameron’s “links” with the UUP – again big deal. Hardly the “serious consequences” that Robinson laughably threatened.
In case, you hadn’t noticed – Westminster is hardly sympathetic to the DUP. Mind you, when you send people of the “calibre” of Iris Robinson, McCrea, Wilson, Campbell and Simpson – what do you expect?
You are correct that the DUP are under pressure from their own backwoodsmen NOT to deal with SF but, frankly, that’s their problem.
Clearly the economic issues are prevelant in the world media at the moment – another blow to Unionists as NI is a massive sponging drain the the UK exchequer – there is no doubt that when Gordon Brown needs money, he will have no problem taking it from the NI budget as it will have absolutely no electoral impact on him – no-one in GB really cares about NI or considers it to be a real part of GB.
I can assure you that, outside NI, the vast majority of the limited coverage that NI gets in the media is blaming the current impasse on the DUP.
That is clearly the position of the UK govt and the US + Irish govts obviously agree.
It’s all very well DUP people making hard-line speeches to their own backwoodsmen. It’s a completely different story when they have to go cap-in-hand to Downing Street or Washington.
Robinson can try his famous grumpiness there or perhaps threaten them with “serious consequences” and see where it gets him.
Whatever way Pete Baker and Unionists try and dress this up, the fact is that the people who matter are pointing the finger of blame at the DUP.
The DUP have very little support outside NI. In the global PR battle, Unionists are (and always have been) well beaten, it’s that simple.
It is true that the DUP cannot be forced to devolve P&J;but that will simply lead to a collapse of the assembly – there is no way that any of the 3 govts will contemplate doing a deal without SF – I seriously doubt that even the SDLP would be that stupid.
If the 3 govts were blaming Sinn Fein, we would have seen a LOT mor from the UK govt and media in particular. I think Gordon Brown made it clear that they are not blaming SF in any way but are blaming the DUP.
The DUP need to get real – they like the trappings of power and, if the assembly goes, it’ll be a very long time before Unionists will be trusted with it again.
My money is on a timetable being agreed (perhaps 6 months or so to allow the DUP to save face) to devolve P&J;to a non SF or DUP Minister.
The DUP are under pressure – either take on their backwoodsmen or lose the assembly. On the contrary, the vast majority of Nationalists that I know (mostly non SF supporters like myself) are united on this issue.
If the DUP are not prepared to start genuinely contributing and compromising in power sharing govt, then I’d be quite happy to go back to Direct Rule.
The UK govt and public don’t have a very sympathetic view of NI Unionists (recent comments from Iris Robinson and events in Limavavdy have been a great assistance in the PR stakes.)
A return to Direct Rule will probably benefit Nationalists or, at the very least, we’ll be no worse off. On the contrary, it’ll be a body blow to Unionists and the DUP in particular.