It is an opposition that gives accountability and transparency teeth. Without opposition, you have to depend upon the ethics and morals of politicians to address matters of corruption, peculation and other internal misdeeds. By making government cooperative, rather than oppositional, you diminish one of the few practical reasons for a politician to stand against corruption.

On the rest of it: I wonder – and I’m really asking here, I don’t know – how invested is the average person in the ongoing ethnic entrepreneurship at Stormont? Shouldn’t effective and efficient government take precedence over the old tribal lines? The nationalists and unionists in government find the need to politicize everything from language to sports to policing and justice. But does it really need to be a winner-loser scenario? I understand that I sound astoundingly naive right now, but I honestly don’t see why someone learning Irish is devastating to another learning Ulster Scots. Give them both equal funding and cultural protection and be done with it. What’s the difficulty? (Again, actually asking here.)

The point of consociationalism was to reduce ethnic violence. It was never going to be the most efficient or ‘democratic’ form of government. Peace was the pressing issue, and I think on that front power-sharing has generally been a success. But I’ve always seen consociationalism as a stepping stone, not a permanent solution. With consociationalism, it is impossible to have any other identity but the old tribal lines, and in the long-term that is obviously detrimental to any nation. Grassroots linkages, cross-community support…all old news, but really crucial things for the future. Maybe someday, generations down the line, the nationalists will get their 50%+1 and the unionists will indeed wave a tricolour along with the rest of them. Maybe not. But as Pete Baker has rightly said, waiting on a demographic flip is absolutely no solution. The dreamers and idealists can look to the future, and perhaps make it happen. In the present however, what seems much more important is the organic, peaceful, gradual construction of a new Northern Irish identity that doesn’t allow for the ineffective sectarian bullshit in government. Parades and painted kerbstones are not going to create jobs or bring down crime. Politics and life has too-long been framed in terms of ethnicity and religion; it’s really time for a new frame of mind.

It shouldn’t be enough that nationalism or unionism leads to a ticket to government. Parties should be required to draw cross-community and multi-district support as advocated by some political scientist that I can’t remember (sorry, I’ll try to look it up). This means running on platforms that don’t rely on flags. As for democracy – well, once you leave power-sharing I suppose you will always have a tyranny of the majority. But if the majority isn’t based on ascriptive characteristics, then the opposition can generate healthy, constructive debate instead of old, useless divisions. And maybe we can work from there.

And then we can all get together and sing kumbayaa. I know, I know how I sound but I think it needs to be said once in a while.

It might be revealing to look at police resources in Belfast at the week-end and their deployment.

Statistics show that the PSNI currently has a surfeit of senior officers and a deficit of about 500 constables. Things are unlikely to improve for front-line policing when they prune the full-time reserve.

Statistics might also show that there are just as many brownie points for apprehending a speeding motorist as a recreational rioter.

Recent news reports have referred to police officers ‘liaising’ with ‘community representatives’. Perhaps the officers were waiting to liaise and the community representatives were too busy rioting

Kensei, the actuality IMO is more likely to be civil war. The 50%+1 arrangement leaves us at the mercy of the extremists. The law has been pretty impotent when it came to protecting the weak and the vulnerable.

The vast majority of Unionists on here keep telling me that they will respect the 50%+1; so much so they would be waving Tricolours and the rest and I should be doing the mirror image while the six counties remain in the UK. I can only take them at face value.

Second, Unionism never backed down in the face of violence. I don’t see why Nationalism should be expected to do any different.

I do agree the impotence / incompetence / who knows of the police is quite astonishing. On a taxi home on Friday night, I witnessed close to a full scale riot in the Oldpark. The thing is that there is a large time before a United Ireland becomes a serious possibility. It is important to use this time to change expectations of policing. Hopefully devolution of P&J will start the process of facilitating that,

BTW, I expect Nationalism would have some sympathy with merging strands 2 and 3. Future pain is easier to take than current pain. But Unionism simply won’t but it, and it’s there you would need ot convince.

In theory, kensei. However, it merely switches one slim majority for another; it doesn’t accommodate the two constitutional aspirations. Also, we have to navigate the 1916 anniversary in 2016; the 1966 one left us on the rocks for more than a generation.

No, Nevin, in actuality. People can continue to have whatever constitutional aspirations they wish, as long as they are within the law. If they want change, they need to engineer it through suitable processes. In all likelihood though, a United Ireland is unlikely to be reversed; it is hardly possible to pull out those areas West of the Bann with huge Nationalist majorities into a state they don’t want to be, regardless of how the East of the Bann votes., And inertia is the most powerful force in the universe. If it occured on even on a slim vote, assuming we got through the period that followed, it’d rapidally gain ground.

In theory, kensei. However, it merely switches one slim majority for another; it doesn’t accommodate the two constitutional aspirations. Also, we have to navigate the 1916 anniversary in 2016; the 1966 one left us on the rocks for more than a generation.

This is extraordinary – it assumes that on a left / right and authoritarian / liberal spectrum that the Nationalist and Unionist communities are the same – and there is little evidence to suggest that is the case. If we had majoritarianism and SF/SDLP had have been in power, then nationalism could have rammed home removal of selection at 11, for example.

Second, suppose we had up/down majoritarianism and the DUP are in power. Equality legislation does not prevent them from say, directing money away from Irish and towards Ulster Scots. Or towards the Orange Order and away from the GAA. Or maybe banning activities on a Sunday. Indeed the DUP has tried to do as much of this within the current Assembly anyway. And, crucially, even if there is a valid reason to do it, simply doing so will create bad feeling and acid corrosion.

Third, at the council level there is still ample evidence of behaviour that would not go down well in government. By both sides, though I’d venture Unionism is a little worse on this point.

Fourth – does Nationalism trust British courts to such an extent this argument flies? Probably not, no.

You cannot have majoritarian government while people continue to vote on tribal lines. It cannot be done. Whast is produced is a nonsense. And the UUP and SDLP are not “centre” parties. They are different tribal parties. To do otherwise results in these options:

1. Permanent coalition. Possible as the centre is very small.
2. Yo-yo government. Unionists come in, do everything one way, nationalist come in and do it different. Repeat. There is plenty which both sides would do that the other finds intolerable.
3. Places extraordinary power in very small middle ground parties that are capable of tipping the balance to make coalitions. This is appalling, and certainly not “democratic”.

Rhetoric is fine but you ignore the question of how do you get to that constitutional change?

You convince people that they’d be better off under a United Ireland, have a referendum and get a 50%+1 vote. It is not complicated. Perhaps the options for doing that in the current arrangements for doing that, people will consider other options. But not before, you know, they have any traction whatsoever.

The veto is an absolute guarantee that either side can block something they find intolerable. The behaviour of the DUP in government so far hardly engenders trust. Exactly what are you offering that is worth that guarantee, except vague notions about better government and more “democracy” that is worth it? Especially considering at this point that is highly likely nationalism would be the big losers. Answer: nothing.

Aren’t there Prods and Micks in Cork (and Glasgow), Brian? You seem to be confusing alleged religious affiliations and constitutional aspirations.

“I’d just like to nail this two nations thing” … “numerous points of contact between the two sides”

How can you nail it if you operate it?

“a Brit looking on .. much of it in C20 passed Ireland by” [BW] and “Irish history tends to be a rerun of the same events.” [PM]

The ‘island of Ireland’ context doesn’t accommodate the two opposing constitutional aspirations, the unionist and the nationalist mindsets.

Aspirations involve unity of identity.Ni cannot have aspirations as it is not united and never will be.

What research is Patrick Murphy commenting on?

“the same degree of competence and fairness”

How does their competence or lack of it compare with ministers in, say, Edinburgh and Cardiff? Just exactly how many muppets are there in these devolved institutions? In the words of a friend of mine, some of them couldn’t even be trusted to run a bath.

On the theme of fairness do our ministers (and senior civil servants) treat all citizens the same when it comes to breaches of the law or do they make exceptions? Just how much sleaze is there floating around in our little cess-pit compared with other regions in these two islands?

“Sometimes those events are repeated in reverse. In 1965 some Labour MPs formed the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster, a forerunner of the civil rights campaign. Jim Allister might give his campaign that same name.”

As Jim hasn’t why is Patrick trotting out such gibberish?

“But Adams fails to address the core issue”

I’d label it a core issue for democracy and governance, Pete. Another core issue is the presence of parapoliticians in government. For me, it debases civilisation; it’s a retrograde step.

I’ve had an opportunity to blog on the actions of ministers from several parties (and senior civil servants) and I’ve been struck by the apparent lack of accountability in the governance system. The committees seem to be little more that droves of donkeys whereas what we need are nests of hornets

We should have higher aspirations than having 70,000 too many civil servants and a subvention of £8 billion per annum.

We need a government that takes decisions and at least tries to talk about things other than Ulster Scots and Irish languages and one that does not place our children in an impossible position re transferring to secondary education.

If we had an opposition (alternative government)then those in power would be much better in at least attempting to change the situation we find ourselves in or be voted out.

We really need to get the focus on the UK v UI to be relegated to something that can be dusted down and re-examined in 10 years when a lot of the other problems have been dealt with. However the priorities of the SDLP and SF mean this cannot happen regardless of how futile it currently is and a voluntary coalition with a paid opposition is not therefore an option.

Stormont wasn’t actually intended to make you all rich and prosperous – or civilised. The strategy was to provide a political alternative to violence in the pursuit of constitutional goals and to keep the thugs off the streets and focused on ‘home rule’ rather than direct rule. Obviously, you can’t provide a political alternative if you omit the little matter of a local parliament, can you? And besides, who would elect thugs and bigots if you actually intended to have great statesmen and empire-builders? If you want to improve parliament, then you’ll just have to elect a higher calibre of people and focus on the little matter of economic policies. I don’t see how an opposition is going to achieve that. Anyway, why does nobody talk about benchmarking its performance if everybody is so keen on improving its performance? Patrick Murphy hasn’t shown that it is underperforming. That’s odd, since it is central to his claim that there is a better method of delivery. Perhaps, like me, he just doesn’t like having the Shinners in any government but won’t say it?

Of course, but I don’t see it as a reason why I should elect members of another nation to run the Irish State. I’d much rather that members of the Irish nation ran the Irish state as this, oddly enough, is more in keeping with Article 1 of the UN’s ICCPR (the cornerstone of international law): “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” The state then is the means by which the nation orders its own affairs in accordance with its right to national self-determination. This right of self-determination is defeated if the nation does not control its own state, but delegates control of it to another nation.

As Article 1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann puts it (and this is where the UN’s Article 1 is derived from): “The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form of Government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions.” It doesn’t say: “The Irish nation hereby affirms that control of the Irish government is delegated to the Japanese nation because this document offers sufficient guarantees that a foreign nation can govern another nation just as well as that nation can govern itself.”

You seem to believe that control of the state is (or should be) an irrelevance to the two nations in NI when it is of absolutely critical importance to them. If in transient doubt about how badly nations fare without the protection of a state, they need only look to the (dearly departed) nomadic Roma or to the Palestinians or the Aborigines, et al – and those are just the stateless nations who have survived. They both understand how important it is to their respective nations that members of their own nation should control the state, and that is how they continue to operate. Isn’t that why the unionists insisted on seperating from a proposed Irish state? I seem to recall a big fuss about Home Rule meaning Rome Rule. They wanted a state wherein their nation could govern itself.

Bunreacht na hÉireann is mainly a set of negative rights (stipulating what government must not do). It does not stop the Irish state from operating as an Irish nation-state, being designed to do – rather obviously – the exact opposite. What your present system in NI is designed to do is stop NI from operating as a nation-state – from being a protestant/unionist/British parliament for a protestant/unionist/British people. You cannot be a nation-state because you have two nations of approximately equal size. As I said “When you have one nation, then you can have one-nation government.” And when you have one nation, then you can have a system that is designed for a nation-state (majoritarinism). Until then, you’re stuck with a system that is designed for a state that has two nations (consociationalism).

Now, leaving aside the protection of negative rights, there are applicable treaties such as the European Charter on Lesser Used Languages that proffer positive rights (stipulating what government must do), but the Irish language activists (Pobal) haven’t had much luck with those in the face of discretionary powers of government so far, have they? No, because the functions of government are not performed by quangos and courts and are not controlled by rights-based legislation. Government in NI has power and how that power is used still depends on who is using it – a minister’s discretion, his parties policies, etc, are all influenced by which nation he belongs to, so these factors cannot be ameliorated even by a government that is so hamstringed by legislation that everything is effectively predetermined and determined for all time. It isn’t, of course, but the point being that even if such an attempt was made, it can’t control ministerial discretion.

Part of this control system that Patrick Murphy sees as ameliorating this competition between the two nations is in how the government itself operates (the so-called mutual veto). His problem is that he is arguing that the two nations can be trusted to operate as one nation because of controls that are in place precisely because the two nations cannot be trusted to operate as one nation. Well, if they could, then you wouldn’t need any controls at all. And because they can’t, then the best form of control is already in place: consociationalism.