Since debate over whether integrated education in NI is a good idea invariably unravels as soon as someone attempts to define what it actually means, I’ve canvassed the opinions of some prominent thinkers from NI’s leading political parties in an attempt to clarify a way forward. What follows are the unedited quotes offered by leading thinkers from each party in response to this question.

What would an integrated NI look like?

UUP: “See NI 1921-Oct 4th 1968. Or, as our party wants to see it described in school classrooms, “The Peaceful Years”. ”

SDLP: “A society based on mutual respect for the diversity of all our people, even the Unionists. The SDLP is committed to forming partnerships with our Protestant brothers and sisters where we spill our sweat, working together to take down their provocative flags. The SDLP believes we must be sensitive to issues of symbolism and identity which is why our party is committed to consulting our unionist neighbours on their feelings with regard to deconstructing the Northern Ireland  state before consigning it to history.”

DUP: “The day Fenians drop their bigoted opposition to Orange marches and Twelfth Night bonfires and join The People of Northern Ireland in enjoying our traditions as the inclusive community events that they are.”

SF: “An electoral disaster.”

Alliance: “Like the Alliance Party of course!  Noo, noo, seriously though, an integrated Northern Ireland should look like Manchester or Birmingham – with some exceptions. You see, one must understand and take account of some of our uniquely Northern Irish sensitivities. For example, celebrating St Patrick’s Day as they do on the mainland, with Irish flags and so on, this would be quite inappropriate – much too divisive for Northern Ireland. We must learn to have a shared future where offensive identity differences are whitewashed away and we all embrace our new state-sponsored Northern Irish identity. This approach is working well in modern France – where it’s quite beautiful this time of year, have you been?”

The article quotes Ulster People’s Forum chair John Wilson:

The groups have decided to ask all Protestants to submit 11/1 forms if they are walking anywhere, even places such as the grocery store to their home, and ensure the PSNI are made aware of all groups of more than 2 people and they have sought notification from the parades commission.

It seems the move will force a speedy judicial review of the legislation which does not clearly define how many people or what constitutes a procession.

The catalyst for this prank is reported to be the suggestion that some of the flag protesters who have been arrested have been told by the PSNI that a procession is “two or more people on a road or footpath walking with a common purpose”.

It could all get terribly recursive if protesters go together in twos to hand in their 11/1 forms at police stations and need another four weeks prior to permit them to walk to the police station.

Perhaps people opposed to these spurious parades will apply (14 days in advance) with 11/3 forms to hold equally specious protests against specific shopping trips and marches to pick up the morning paper!

I wonder when the Parades Commission’s new IT system is due to go live …

“As our first move in implementing our new strategy “Together: building a United Community “ we are delivering a political bombshell.  We solemnly declare that, following the precedent set by the former IRA which made stable power sharing possible, we intend as soon as possible to dismantle our respective parties, the DUP and Sinn Fein. We call on the other parties to do the same and join us in forming new centre left –centre right groupings which will in time become new parties, all bearing the common character of Northern Ireland First and leaving the nationality question to the People. Tomorrow we will submit our plan for a voluntary cross community system of government with provision for an Opposition  to the Assembly, where we are confident of winning overwhelming support. We will then call on Westminster with the support of all parties in the Dail to pass the necessary transforming legislation as soon as possible.”

Ahhh dream on. Keeping in tune with my last blog post on the subject which went down like a lead balloon I don’t want to be cynical.  There is enough of that out there without me adding to it. We have nothing to be cynical about more than cynicism itself.

There is much to commend about the new United Community strategy, now that it has finally emerged. But questions follow the headlines straight away.

“Good relations” is added to “Equality” as a principal aim of government. But good relations cannot be legislated for in the same way as equality. How then can they be created? How substantial are the new incentives and how robust the mechanisms ? Top down to grass roots? Which grass roots?

“We are committed to:

• Establishing ten new shared education campuses;

• Getting 10,000 young people, not in education, employment or training, a place on the new United Youth volunteering programme;

• Establishing ten new shared housing schemes;

• Developing four urban village schemes;

• Developing a significant programme of cross-community sporting events;

• Removing interface barriers by 2023; and

• Pilot 100 shared summer schools by 2015

All very commendable and in parts even bold. But apart from the  aspiration (or is it  commitment?) to remove the peace walls – ( how did they fasten on 10 years, why not 8 or even 12?) –  these are experiments, not policy itself. Such as it is the policy is  tentative. It  pins hopes on organic development and is light in social engineering. This is a not altogether bad thing. But the bland acceptance of the sectarian and social divisions in education is a glaring omission, beyond the FMdFM’s political capacity to tackle and  beyond them  it seems, even to analyse in public.

“This an Executive Strategy which places responsibilities on all government departments”.

Is it really? Can it be so when the other parties were apparently excluded from devising it? Never mind  the restive communities which so far are beyond the horizon. An all party strategy should be planned by all the parties. That is what is meant by a multi- party coalition.

“ For the purposes of this Strategy, sectarianism is defined as: threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour or attitudes towards a person by reason of that person’s religious belief or political opinion; or to an individual as a member of such a group..”

 Yes yes yes. But as in my little fantasy above, you the leading parties are the epitome of sectarianism, the problem not the solution. How then can you make it wither away? Sectarianism is not an add-on, it is intrinsic to the system and culture. So you’re facing up to  that fact are you?

“This Strategy is not about managing division or allowing our history of segregation to continue. We are committed to creating a new, united, reconciled and shared society and we believe the vision outlined in this Strategy highlights the ambition that we all share. Later sections of this document outline a clear mechanism for delivery that will enhance the accountability of government to the community and enable the community’s voice to be at the centre of strategic decision-making.”

Brave words. But how to flesh them out? What is the funding, how is it targeted and what are the  sanctions for failure, at all levels including the ministerial. Is the reformed structure of local government fit for the purposes of delivery? Will the new councils be onside?

So must it be all smoke and mirrors? Emphatically not, if the communities can form implementation groups out of the community relations structures and  the appalling communications gaps  exposed by the flags crisis are filled.

The paper itself contains evidence for cautious optimism. It includes  the familiar polling results favouring  living together which shouldn’t be dismissed as  reverse nimbyism – ( integrate in  everybody’s back yard except mine) – and the researches of Ian Shuttleworth, presented to  the Assembly and noted by the Economist.  Housing segregation  he found, is not as complete as feared  and has even slightly moderated. Out of such blue patches, the sun starts to shine.

The political  parties will have a nerve if they go on stoking sectarian embers while professing these ideals and passing judgment on everyone except themselves. At the very least the ridiculous  Janus-like facing  in opposite directions at once as so stop.

My snap verdict is: we will have to change society before we can change the government. I ask:  are we really happy with that?

It relates to a number of talking points and concerns raised about the competence of the bill itself and specific concerns that it could be in breach of Article 7 of the European  Convention on Human Rights.

As the AG makes clear in his letter this does not relate to whether the law is a good law or not. That’s a political reserved to political parties involved. But it does mean objections on the grounds of retrospective criminalisation of acts and omissions provision in the ECHR are in his opinion ill founded.

Ms Travers has met with the SDLP leader this afternoon and has expressed herself more hopeful afterwards. With the Assembly in recess the SDLP Assembly group now has some time to reflect on its final decision over or not whether to launch a petition of concern.

After decades of practising the Swedish model of generous welfare benefits, Stockholm has reduced the role of the state since the 1990s, spurring the fastest growth in inequality of any advanced OECD economy.

While average living standards are still among the highest in Europe, successive governments have failed to substantially reduce long-term youth unemployment and poverty, which have affected immigrant communities worst.

Around 15% of the population is foreign-born, and unemployment among these stands at 16%, compared with 6% for native Swedes, according to OECD data.

Youth unemployment in Husby, at 6%, is twice the overall average across the capital.

The left-leaning tabloid Aftonbladet said the riots represented a “gigantic failure” of government policies, which had underpinned the rise of ghettos in the suburbs.

Stand out difference is that whilst 78% of nationalists would still vote Yes, 41% of unionists would. There’s no way of really measuring that against the original poll, but Wesley Johnston estimates that 60% unionists voted Yes whilst Nationalists came in at 94% (which I think is a tad optimistic).

But the proportions of those who would vote NO is also down, with just 4% of nationalists and 25% unionists. So the balance on either side is shifting to ‘don’t know’…

And on whether Stormont is working well, or not 70% of nationalists and 39% of unionists say Yes, whilst 41% of the latter say No.

Tackling sectarianism? For all the talk of share future, and building united community, the public’s response is pretty universal: Get away with ya! But interestingly whilst 39% nationalists say Yes, just half of that proportion of unionists approve (22%).

Are we more divided? More says no than yes. 59% of nationalists and 41% of unionists say we’re less divided, whilst the figure for no are 11% and 19%. A significant proportion (29% nationalists and 39% unionists) say there’s been no substantive change.

Thoughts? Mine are that unionists are generally more sceptical than nationalists. I don’t see any catastrophic collapse in sentiment, but perhaps an acceptance that we are in a new space. And as Alan has noted in the past, unionist voters are looking for performance where nationalist may in aggregate just be happier with representation at the top table.

“I think society has got to make a choice. Either it decides now to go down the route, the very difficult route, of determining that we are going to forego the investigation and prosecution of the past in favour of embedding the political institutions or the peace process, or between that and deciding whether or not the peace process is best served by continuing to prosecute the past…” .

“If it is going to be the latter then I think there needs to be a very clear investigative structure established with very clear lines of definition and with significant resources and if that is going to be done it needs to have terms of reference which will cover all criminality from all sides.

“The prosecutorial aspect of this will have to be significantly resourced as well. That has not yet happened.”

This sounds appropriately  even handed. And yet McGrory knows like everybody else that likelihood of the local parties – and the British government – agreeing “ terms of reference.. to.. cover criminality on all sides” are  just about  nil. And resources are something else.  Westminster signaled long ago that not an extra penny more will be provided for this; indeed the budget is being progressively reduced.

It’s true of course that Stormont’s  legal responsibility is limited ; there are other stakeholders, other DPPs,  police forces , two sovereign governments , all have a role. At the moment Westminster shrugs, a mite disingenuously, saying that all depends on Stormont. Not over the Army and MI5 it doesn’t. Their favoured approach remains, which is to open the heavily redacted closed cases archive 30 or 40 years after the crime.

In one sense McGrory as an independent prosecutor needs little guidance.  He can prosecute if there is more than a 50% chance of securing a conviction. What’s keeping him? He has access to the Stevens report on collusion; he can order cold paramilitary cases to be reopened. We can draw our own conclusions. In many cases the evidence may be cumulatively damning but in individual cases the evidence is not strong enough to stand up in court. Omerta prevails on all sides.

McGrory knows that for all their bluster none of the political parties has the slightest interest in exhuming  old sins  and no leverage exists to make them do it – except that from members of the criminal justice system like Barra McGrory. . And as I read it,McGrory is telling axe grinding politicians and the campaigners that he aint going to do anything much on his own.So the argument is circular and the deadlock is complete.

By itself this is a dangerously arbitrary situation which leaves far too much power to the operational independence of this or any police service or prosecutor. Sinn Fein have made their inevitable protest against the arrest and charging of John Downey.in the tradition of their objections to the arrest and conviction of Gerry McGeough.  Everyone also knows surely that if such prosecutions proliferate they could have  destabilising potential and diminish whatever faint hopes remain of former republican paramilitaries coming clean, local pressures notwithstanding.

We await PSNI action on the Boston College tapes. Anything new on the Stevens and de Silva reports anyone?  A formal amnesty is rejected. So deadlock remains, smothered in  verbal chaff.  There are two choices:  let the whole business run on and on and on until the campaigners are exhausted and  the public wish to move on is finally  exposed : or the two governments give public advice jointly that further prosecutions are not in the public interest.  This would have no legal status  but might send a powerful signal to the independent enforcers. For the Republic there would be the little matter of the clearing up the Dublin and Monaghan bombs first..

Dealing with the Past is intractable.  It should be decoupled from dealing with parades and  protests, the rubbing points of today which need to be tackled . But for all of this,  the time for ending humbug and hypocrisy is long overdue. There is danger in delay.

…the mass exodus of people from the North during the height of the ‘marching season’ or the amount of people put off from coming here by the associated trouble linked to those few controversial parades,” he said. “The cost of this negative image is incalculable.”

Quite… The real question is though lads, what are youse going to do about?

…it is very very unlikely that while the FF party has a heartbeat, so to speak, that it will enter into a unity government with FG. Indeed the very most that might occur would be a sort of reverse ‘Tallaght strategy’. And as demonstrated by FF in recent times they’re not above getting the digs into FG and the government even now in our supposed time of crisis.

Still, the Phoenix makes the point that for FF SF remains the ‘most logical coalition party’ even above and beyond a coalition with a rump LP and a ‘rag-bag of Independents’. Whether that day comes to pass remains to be seen.

It seems to me that what escapes most observers in the Republic about both Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail is that neither party thinks in single electoral terms, even if journalists and voters are both compelled to.

The thing is this Irish government’s policy (largely set for them by FF and the Troika) might just work in time for the next General Election, sufficient to save the worst damage currently on the cards for Labour in Dublin and enough to keep the pair of them well ahead of any gains FF/SF might make.

Since 2011, nothing is as predictable as it was in Irish politics. FF have made gains, but that’s just its core vote. What buoyed it up to past levels was its broad popularity amongst non politically engaged types. It won’t want to go into government until it makes headway in that territory.

And as for SF going into government, lay to one side the fact that they have the largest and most practiced oppositionalist muscle of any party on the island, I cannot see them going for anything that ties them too closely to a party they ultimately want to replace.

The rule in Irish electoral politics is that the more parties are alike the less likely they are ever likely to want to work together.

Lisburn City Council has used ratepayers money to pay for a meeting of the Unionist Forum in the Lagan Valley Island centre, cynically using the Council’s Good Relations programme as cover to enable them to finance an organisation established with the specific objectives of maximising the unionist vote, devising a joint PUL parades and flag-flying strategy and address issues relating to socio-economic deprivation, but only in protestant communities. The story is the front page lead in today’s Irish News.

The meeting was jointly requested by the UDA-aligned UPRG and the Unionist Forum and was introduced by UDA Leader, Jim McDonald, and addressed by the DUP’s Jeffrey Donaldson, UUP Leader, Mike Nesbitt, TUV Leader, Jim Allister and PUP Leader, Billy Hutchinson.

Lisburn Council has admitted in a reply to a Freedom of Information query by myself that they covered the full cost of the meeting, using their Good Relations budget. The Director of Leisure Services, James Rose, provided the following reason for agreeing to pay the costs of the meeting:

“The cost of the event was met through the Council’s Good Relations budget on the basis that the event encouraged sections of the local Unionist community to engage in facilitated discussion on a number of issues relevant to improving Good Relations, including with democratically elected representatives.”

The Council has confirmed that no equality impact assessment was carried out in regard to the decision to pay for the event.

This is not the first time Lisburn City Council has been in the spotlight for the actions of its elected representatives and council officers. The unionist-dominated council has steadfastly refused to introduce an inclusive power-sharing arrangement, with Sinn Fein yet to hold the office of Mayor in spite of being the largest nationalist party on council since 1997. Lisburn’s unionist majority also voted in recent years to donate land in the centre of the town so that a UDR memorial could be erected.

In 2008, the UUP Mayor of Lisburn, Ronnie Crawford, and senior council officials helped the then loyalist leader (and since convicted paedophile) Mark Harbinson fill in an application form for money for the controversial 11^th Night beacon gathering in the centre of Stoneyford, securing £2,400 in a funding commitment from the Community Relations Council- money that was never released after it emerged that the Mayor lit the beacon with a poster of Sinn Fein MLA, Paul Butler atop the fire.

In an earlier thread, Mick cited a statement released outlining the rationale of the Unionist Forum, which clearly identifies it as a political body striving to advance a unionist cause and exclusively lobby on behalf of the protestant and unionist communities.

I have pasted the statement below:

The Unionist Forum will be convened by the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party and the leader of Ulster Unionist Party. For the first meeting, invitations will be extended to other unionist political parties, representatives and interested groups. The participants in the forum will be discussed at the first meeting.

The purpose of the Forum will be to seek to engage with the entire unionist community and seek to address issues of concern. It will seek to channel unionist efforts through political means. While participants in the forum will be limited, working groups may be established to provide a more extensive reach across the wider unionist community.

The forum will be a body through which unionists could meet to consider matters of interest and concern to the unionist community.

All participants will share the core values of support for the maintenance of the Union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, non-sectarianism, commitment to a shared future and commitment to the successful operation of devolution in Northern Ireland.

The forum would not be a decision-making body but would act as a body within which a consensus might be built and implementation of any actions left to individual organisations. It would seek to engage positively with representatives from all sections of the Northern Ireland community.

The Forum will hold its initial meeting as soon as is practicable at Parliament Buildings, Stormont.

The agenda items, in no particular order, for the first meeting may include matters such as;

·       A strategy for addressing the Flags issue,

·       Measures to increase voter registration and turnout in unionist areas,

·       Strengthening British cultural identity in Northern Ireland,

·       Proposals to address problems surrounding parading,

·       Proposals to tackle deprivation and educational underachievement in the unionist community,

·       Broader political and economic matters,

·       Steps to increase capacity building in unionist areas.

Given the transparently political and sectarian agenda being pursued by the Unionist Forum, ratepayers are entitled to ask why a council would use their money, under the cynical guise of good relations, to cover the cost of the meeting?

Shatter stood his ground. No idea how the commissioner came by the information. He never looked for it, in the same way he never seeks information on any member of the House.

Wallace and his sidekick, Clare Daly, were furious with him. But they got no answers. And in the end, Shatter, who is a street fighter, ended the bout with a haymaker of a story about Ming Flanagan writing to him to explain his travails with the traffic corps.

The Minister, putting on a plaintive little voice, read out the letter. It was a hilarious performance, but a vicious closing attack. In the letter, Flanagan names (and blames, as Shatter helpfully pointed out) the people who had done him a turn by helping him lose his penalty points.

“I do not hold any malice against Mr ‘Blank’ for this,” said Shatter, as the place erupted. The trio of Wallace, Daly and Flanagan shot sulphurous looks across at the floor at Shatter, who knew he was through the gap and clear.

Along with James Reilly and Phil Hogan, Alan Shatter is one of three unlucky Fine Gael Ministers. But the truth is that they are none of them used to wielding executive power but have already acquired the habit of treating the Oireachtas with contempt.

Nothing can be done about their experience (or incompetence depending on where you are viewing them from), but its surely time the balance was shifted in favour of parliament?

The Roman Catholic hierarchy has formally stated its position on abortion by declaring definitively that the direct and intentional killing of the unborn is immoral. Yet, my dog-eared old Maynooth textbook tells me otherwise.

Abortion is there defined as the expulsion of a living but non-viable foetus from the womb. The expulsion is then further defined as direct abortion, if the means used are such as to kill the foetus by the very nature of the act; as in craniotomy, for example.

But it is indirect abortion, if the means used have as their immediate and direct effect the prior purpose of protecting the life of the mother; even if it is clearly foreseen that the act will result in the expulsion of a not yet viable foetus.

Hence the first legal rule: “Indirect abortion is permissible for sufficiently grave reasons.”

Next, taking the example of the induction of premature labour as a case of indirect abortion, my trusty old textbook informs me: “if the means used (eg induction of premature labour) have as their immediate and direct effect the health of the mother, although it is foreseen that this means the expulsion of the foetus”, then, the second, more precise legal formulation reads: “The induction of premature labour and indirect abortion are permissible for sufficiently grave reasons.”

This legal ruling might have been written specifically for the tragic Halappanavar case. Especially since no hard and fast distinction between threats to the health and threats to the life of the mother is entertained.

Now, as Mackey goes on to point out, the case of suicide is a different kettle of fish. But the frenetic stand off between pro life and pro choice lobbyists is obscuring where the line might legitimately be drawn.

Arguably, if the Church had been clearer and more up front about the detail of its own doctrine, the conversation might have been less hysterical, and believers might have felt more empowered to step up to their own ethic responsibilities with regard to the mother.

[Gerry Kelly] “John Downey is a member of Sinn Féin and a long time supporter of the Peace Process. The decision to arrest and charge him in relation to IRA activities in the early 1980s is vindictive, unnecessary and unhelpful. It will cause anger within the Republican community.

“Clearly if John Downey had been arrested and convicted previously he would have been released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

“As part of the Weston Park negotiation the British Government committed to resolving the position of OTRs. John Downey received a letter from the NIO in 2007 stating that he was not wanted by the PSNI or any British Police Force. Despite travelling to England on many occasions now six years on he finds himself before the courts on these historic charges.

“This development represents bad faith and a departure from what was previously agreed by both governments.

“John Downey needs to be released and allowed to return home to his family.”

[They're not listening, are they? - Ed]  Indeed.

As for those on-the-run…  the Irish Government has repeatedly reminded his party colleagues in the Dáil that

Proposed draft legislation by the British Government to deal with this specific issue as referred to in paragraph 20 of the Weston Park accord was formally withdrawn by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain MP, on 11 January 2006. The draft legislation, the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, had been opposed by the majority of the Northern Ireland Assembly parties and the Secretary of State was compelled to withdraw the legislation when the only supporting party, Sinn Féin, could not accept certain aspects of the proposed legislation. [added emphasis]

And if Gerry Kelly doesn’t remember that, he should ask Conor Murphy, MP.  I believe he was there at the time.  [Or Gerry McGeough? - Ed]  Indeed.

…Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan pointed to legal authorities which set out that an abuse of process depended on an unequivocal guarantee of immunity being given by those bringing the criminal case.

“We do not consider that the evidence indicates any basis for the conclusion that Mr Kelly was a representative of those responsible for the conduct of the investigation or prosecutions,” the judge said.

“We further agree that in any event the statement attributed to Mr Kelly, who did not give evidence, did not contain any representation, never mind one which could be said to be unequivocal for the purpose of this test.”

From today’s BBC report

Sue Hemming, head of special crime and counter-terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service, said: “The Metropolitan Police Service has been investigating the explosion near Hyde Park in London which occurred on 20 July 1982.

“We have reviewed the evidence gathered and authorised them to charge John Anthony Downey, 61, of County Donegal, Ireland.

“It is alleged that Downey is responsible for the improvised explosive device contained in a car parked in South Carriage Drive, SW1, London, which resulted in the deaths of four members of the Household Cavalry, Blues and Royals, as they travelled on their daily route from their barracks to Buckingham Palace.”