Sunday, January 14, 2007
“and when the Ard Chomhairle is satisfied that the policing and justice powers will be transferred.”
Sinn Féin have published the text of the motion to be put to the Ard Fheis on January 28th, and the conditions under which the Ard Chomhairle will be authorised to implement it... leaving a question for the Secretary of State to answer..
From the Sinn Féin text
The Ard Chomhairle recommends:
That this Ard Fheis endorses the Ard Chomhairle motion. That the Ard Chomhairle is mandated to implement this motion only when the power-sharing institutions are established and when the Ard Chomhairle is satisfied that the policing and justice powers will be transferred. Or if this does not happen within the St Andrews timeframe, only when acceptable new partnership arrangements to implement the Good Friday Agreement are in place. [added emphasis]
That would seem to answer one question..
and it would indicate that SF intend to campaign for an election whilst futuring..
The question now is can the election go ahead on that basis?
Adds Does, for example, what is being suggested fit with Taoiseach Bertie Ahern’s previous description - “[Sinn Féin] now know that the path to shared government in Northern Ireland passes through a Sinn Fein Ard Fheis at which the policing issue is definitively and successfully addressed.”
Pete Baker @ 04:58 PM
Pete
That, to me, means the Ard Chomhairle doing what it is mandated to do in the motion. But the declaration is from the Ard Fheis and has effect once the Ard Fheis votes for it. That does not require implementation.
In other words these words Sinn FĂ©in reiterates our support for An Garda SĂochana and commits fully to: Support for the PSNI and the criminal justice system. become party policy once the motion is passed.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 12:27 AMhenry - that the Ard Chomhairle is mandated to implement this motion only when the power-sharing institutions are established and when the Ard Chomhairle is satisfied that the policing and justice powers will be transferred.
not one part of the first section of the motion can be implemented UNTIL devolution occurs. Devolution wont occur if SF do not already support the PSNI.
Another SF own goal. They still take the blame because EVERYONE will be expecting them to support the PSNI come jan 28th
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 12:29 AMHenry remember the DUP is not looking for words but clear actions on behalf of republicans
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 12:31 AMHenry
“But the declaration is from the Ard Fheis and has effect once the Ard Fheis votes for it.”
The declaration, yes. But the declaration imposes a condition on the Ard Chomhairle about when they are authorised to implement the motion.
A condition which echoes Motion 395.. but passes the judgement on those conditions from the Ard Fheis to the Ard Chomhairle.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 12:34 AMActually, more than that.
The Ard Fheis had set in place the conditions under which they would debate the policing issue.
The Ard Chomhairle want to by-pass those conditions and take the decision themselves.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 12:36 AMIf i understand this right, and i stand to be corrected, if this motion is passed Gerry Adams, Gerry Kelly etc WILL NOT be able to give their support to the PSNI, encourge people to work with the criminal justice system or call on republicans to join the police UNTIL devolution occurs and not before
A lot of people will be looking for the m to do just that on Jan 29th
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 12:38 AMNot wishing to detract from Henry’s very interesting analysis but I’m reasonably sure he isn’t a SF member.
Those being asked to vote on the proposal will be part of a wide ranging discussion on what it actually means for SF as a party.
Until then, it’s interesting to read the opinions of those removed from the discussion but it should be remembered that both Henry’s and Pete’s reading of semantics is just that, their reading of something that will be clarified by others in good time and after a healthy and extensive debate then vote.
I understand you want this all clear today, or in some cases want to make waters as muddy as possible, but it seems you’ll have to wait (not for long).
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 12:48 AMobserver
The motion will allow them to make that declaration and everything is in place for the practical implementation of it.
Pete
The Ard Fheis has the power to give the power to the AC. That would supersede any previous decision.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 12:49 AMMark
I have no doubt it will be clear by the time a vote is taken.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 12:51 AMMark
The thing is, there isn’t any actual confusion about the text to be put to the Ard Fheis, in conditions contrary to those described by Motion 395, although there may be an uncertainty about what that Ard Fheis will ultimately decide to do.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 12:57 AMMy question is if this motion is passed on the 28th, that come Jan 29th Will SF be supporting the PSNI or not????
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 01:03 AMRory
Hain’s announcements tell us more about his own personal ambitions than anything else. I would ignore him as a reliable source on past performance, and he is now making about as much sense as a stag in the rutt.
We appear to nose forward, sadly we could have been here 30 years ago if not for a certain Ian Paisley.
The behaviours that create a problem are often not the type of behaviour necessary to solve the problem. You need a bit of flexibility and in the end you need to extend some trust in the credentials of others. You also need to keep focussed on the end objective. Day to day fire fighting is symptomatic of bad management.
In business, and I would imagine in politics, you can only effectively address those things that you have some control over. If you are in SF or the DUP you can only effectively control your own actions. What others may or may not do is up to them and the consequence of that action is for them to carry.
It is not a question of being soft or a push over, but being clear in your intent and your expectations. It is about being frank. If you have issues with a group that you have to do business with then you have to state those difficulties in a mature and constructive manner, that is if you are at all serious about constructing a deal. Petty point scoring and playing to the gallery are both inappropriate and juvenile. Such behaviour says more about the character of the persons making the utterances than the ones being slighted.
Laying traps and adding additional conditions as the contract proceeds is totally inappropriate. If the DUP or SF have further conditions they need to declare their hand if they are serious about constructing a workable agreement. If they are not they should have the strength of character to say they are not and stop wasting everyone’s time.
Remember those that blame others and refuse to accept responsibility themselves are weak of character. If you constantly run others down and blame you simply run your own credibility down and become a person that is not worthy of trust. Address your own weaknesses and spend less time publicly reminding others of theirs.
Hain and Co should stop hyping it up for their own political gain, they cheapen this process and make it a sound bite opportunity. It should be remembered that this is an agreement to stop an armed conflict that claimed the lives of over 3000 people and left many more severely injured. It needs to be taken seriously. Their position should be to state clearly and in an appropriate manner their perception of what is agreed and what the timetable and consequences are. The tone of this process is wrong. As I have said before in my opinion Hain does not have the attributes necessary and should be replaced perhaps with someone who has diplomatic experience.
Regarding the election I think both SF and the DUP, in the heat of optimism, thought that an election would provide opportunity to strengthen their political position. It has turned out to be more problematic, but both will still come out of the election as strong as they are now. A referendum was probably the correct process to validate, but it is highly possible that it could have been lost, certainly it would be likely that the majority of Unionists would vote against and many who supported the original agreement may not bother to vote.
I dispair, so so so S L O W.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 01:04 AMobserver
I would say yes. Support for the PSNI will be party policy. But the timing of the practical measures required by the motion will be up to the AC.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 01:06 AMHenry,
I hope you don’t think I was dismissing your opinion.
I was trying to show that interpretation and semantics of those not involved aren’t necessarily the understanding of those involved.
As Pete tried to convince people that his reading of earlier statements meant a special Ard Fheis wouldn’t even take place, his and your readings are again both interesting but only personal opinions.
You may have been correct before, Pete was completely wrong but Pete could be correct this time – though I doubt it.
(glass half full against the bias of you have no glass IMHO)
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 01:42 AM“As Pete tried to convince people that his reading of earlier statements meant a special Ard Fheis wouldn’t even take place..”
No, Mark. I was putting into the public domain the facts about what had, or had not, been agreed by the Sinn FĂ©in party membership - as supplied by a Sinn FĂ©in party member, btw.
What they now choose to do is entirely up to them.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 02:02 AMThis process needs to breathe, and moves be taken stock off;there’s little point peteb and others in presenting it as a continual cliff-hanger.
To me you’re just reflecting your own agonies.
What is happening overall is hugely significant, and yous will all miss it, if you keep making crisis threads and crisis posts.
Let the light in, for goodness sakes !
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 02:05 AMParcifal,
The added emphasis nonsense and wrong reading needs raised.
So many blogs - the analysis utterly wrong. Why do the current ‘you don’t have a glass’ biased presentations have any credibility?
It’s just I hate you crap. Well referenced though but merely I hate you and shown to be nonsense.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 02:14 AMI agree totally Mark, and its tough for us ,as lets face it we’re the plebs and don’t get to do the threads; with all the pain that causes me when you see so much naked bullying and “I hate you” crap going on.
We have to defeat it though, and we will :)Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 02:19 AMparci
“Let the light in, for goodness sakes !”
Let the clarity in. It’ll be better for everyone.
Mark
“It’s just I hate you crap. Well referenced though but merely I hate you and shown to be nonsense.”
Well, at least you admit it’s well referenced. And until you can argue that the analysis is nonsense, as you claim.. that analysis remains.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 02:23 AMI may not be adding anything new here (it’s a bit hard to decipher the comments on this thread), but it looks to me that support of the PSNI will be effective immediately.
The party will still need to create and execute procedures for choosing the representatives to the bodies and for holding them to account internally, such as how often are members to report to the party, and so on. This will obviously take time and the Ard Chomhairle has to wait until devolution before actually appointing those members.
But the recommendation to the public to support the PSNI is effective immediately and is much more interesting than the timing of SF’s appointments to the boards.
Am I totally wrong here?
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 02:23 AM“Am I totally wrong here?”
Aaron
Implementation of the motion will be entirely dependent on a subsequent decision by the Ard Chomhairle.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 02:26 AMI have to say that Pete is right on this one.
The motion, considering it is passed at the Ard Fheis, will only be implemented when the Ard Chomhairle are satisfied that certain conditions have been met.
It really is very clear
“That the Ard Chomhairle is mandated to implement this motion only when the power-sharing institutions are established and when the Ard Chomhairle is satisfied that the policing and justice powers will be transferred. Or if this does not happen within the St Andrews timeframe, only when acceptable new partnership arrangements to implement the Good Friday Agreement are in place.” [added emphasis]
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 02:40 AMIf this means members of Sinn Fein getting the same kind of beatings Denis Bradley and others got, then there should be a qualified acceptance for this in the wider Republican family.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 04:51 AMPete,
What I meant to say is something like this order of events might happen after the AF:On second thoughts, this probably isn’t the reality.
1) AF passes motion.
2) Republicans and the public at large are encouraged to cooperate with PSNI at once.
3) Some time elapses during which republicans are working with the police, but SF hasn’t yet appointed its Policing Board members.
4) SF AC completes it procedures and chooses its members and appoints them to the Board.i.e. I thought ‘implement’ only refers to internal party things like appointments to the PB, and that the general ‘support’ is immediate from the AF. But I don’t think I believe that any more.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 09:10 AMCan I ask were in the St Andrews Agreement a timescale for the devolution of policing and justice powers is printed?? This is all i’ve heard being ranted by SF in the past few weeks.
The people of NI want delivery on policing by those who dont support it, but on the other hand want a place in democratic politics in this country.
SF get on with it.. or else sit out of government
Posted by on Jan 15, 2007 @ 09:51 AM
