Tuesday, September 09, 2008
How an Assembly without absolute “unionist and “nationalist” vetoes could transform the scene
I’m coming back to the discussion following on from Pete’s post and Mark Durkan’s idea of scrapping the unionist, nationalist other designations because I have something new to offer, even after 100 and more comments. Here’s a link to “The Trouble with Northern Ireland” a devastating critique of the political system by the political scientists Robin Wilson and Rick Wilford. They explain exactly how a new system without designations would work while still guaranteeing cross community support.
A new threshold of 65% of Assembly votes would be required to form an Executive and pass laws. The threshold compels each side to win at least some support on the other side. That’s the key point of this “integrative” model, the need to reach out across the divide to get things done.
If 65% was unattainable, the threshold would drop to 50% to form a “minimum winning coalition.” If any party walked out, the remaining parties would stay in office for the rest of the four year term. With a new Bill of Rights guaranteeing “fair treatment “ under the European Convention on Human Rights, a court would immediately rule ultra vires (beyond the competence of the Assembly) any law which did not have cross community support.
A new Assembly would acquire more powers to bind it together and divert attention from the past, including P&J and some tax varying powers.
A new electoral system such as the alternative vote AV plus, would force parties to win support from the other side, in order to reach a required 50% of the vote.
The paper written in 2006 (before the St Andrew’s Agreement became operative) argues that the system was fatally flawed from the start. It was bound to entrench sectarian division. The aim of forming a grand coalition was too ambitious, because of too many mutually cancelling vetoes.
Wilson and Wilford want to see dynamic developments in both the British and Irish strands, a federal UK and a confederal Ireland. Main funding would still come from London but the Assembly would be able to develop any all Ireland policy with the agreement of the Dublin Parliament.
This critique is no sneak scheme for excluding one party or another. But it was written from the viewpoint that ‘If you reward divisions and divisiveness … you increase and eventually heighten divisions and divisiveness” That message is for all parties.
I recommend a thorough read with the thought in mind that mechanisms are at least as important as motives. Mechanisms offer a forward path. Motives by definition precede mechanisms in time and hark back to the past. Any contributors still left standing please note.
Brian Walker @ 05:52 AM
“I recommend a thorough read with the thought in mind that mechanisms are at least as important as motives.”
If only there were anything attached to read.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 08:18 AM“The Bill of Rights guaranteeing “fair treatment “ under the European Convention on Human Rights would immediately rule ultra vires (beyond the competence of the Assembly) any law which did not have cross community support.”
The European Convention on Human Rights doesn’t go far enough in protecting against the exploitation of N.Ireland’s citizens, especially children, the elderly, those with learning difficulties and those with mental problems such as depression.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 08:40 AMWhat’s the problem? Is this not the link?
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 08:44 AMWhy not just have a 32 county republic? It would have strong links with Britain, indeed the 26 county state already does, tax varying powers, coalition govt etc etc. Seems like common sense to me. London will never afford any of the UK regions tax powers for if they do it will be the end of the UK. Can you imagine, for example, if Scotland was able to slash its corp tax to a rate below that of the rest of the UK? There would be a mass migration of business from south of the border!Indeed England’s south east would become a ghost town. As an Island nation I think we here in Ireland could be great. We would be the envy of the world.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 08:45 AM“As an Island nation I think we here in Ireland could be great”
Well, you’ll have to start and learn to be more tollerent of your Unionist/Protestant neighbours a bit better, instead of creating terror gangs determined to drive them to the sea.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 08:55 AM“Well, you’ll have to start and learn to be more tollerent of your Unionist/Protestant neighbours a bit better, instead of creating terror gangs determined to drive them to the sea.”
Posted by Ulsters my homeland on Sep 09, 2008 @ 10:55 AMDid I mention religion? How do you know if I’m not a Protestant? Sounds like you have a bit of a job to do in terms of shedding some of your sectarian attitudes. People in glass houses and all that.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:06 AM“Replying in November 2005 in the Dáil to Ruairi Quinn on his government’s attitude to A Shared Future, the minister for foreign affairs, Dermot Ahern, saw the document as implying action only by Northern Ireland departments. Yet there is a tension here—a tension, for example, between the restoration of the military parade along O’Connell Street on Easter Monday, in time for the 90th anniversary of 1916, and the contemporary aspiration to restore power-sharing in Northern Ireland.
A more reflective consideration of 1916 would see in it both the nobility of the republican ideal and the bloodshed it could spawn. And it might consider that, like a sepia image of the event, it should be allowed to fade into history, rather than being airbrushed from it or being allowed to constrain the emergence of novel political arrangements, north and south — arrangements more attuned to the world in which we live today and what we know about it.” - Rick Wilford and Robin Wilson
And a “more reflective consideration” of these two individuals and the ulterior agenda they proffer that seeks to emasculate both Irish nationalism and the sovereignty of Ireland might be inspired by their closing paragraph for A Shared Future quoted above.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:08 AMMark re: What’s the problem? Is this not the link?
Yes it is - I had the it filed as pdf in my docs and totally forget to search in Cain. Many thanks.
That’s what comes from thinking in tram lines.Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:10 AMulster’s my homeland says “The European Convention on Human Rights doesn’t go far enough in protecting against the exploitation of N.Ireland’s citizens, especially children, the elderly, those with learning difficulties and those with mental problems such as depression.”
The ECHR is a fundamental document of basic rights, it’s not the whole story. It’s not suggested that an NI Bill of Rights would only guarantee cross community rights in the Assembly. Social rights for the NI Bill and a UK Bill are being considered. A children’s commissioner does exist.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:22 AM“Did I mention religion?”
No I mentioned it.
“How do you know if I’m not a Protestant?”
No sane Protestant of Unionist persuasion would describe the island as being an Island nation.
“Sounds like you have a bit of a job to do in terms of shedding some of your sectarian attitudes. People in glass houses and all that.”
I don’t have to shred any sectarian attitude. Anyone who takes the time in reading my posts correctly knows I’m not sectarian. I do however know what country I live in and I know it’s not an island nation, so if you’re claiming to be Protestant and Unionist, you’re a very silly Protestant and Unionist.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:27 AMUMH
“No sane Protestant of Unionist persuasion”
Must all Protestants be of Unionist persuasion?
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:36 AMTranslation of the document: “If we could get this through we could keep the Shinners out forever!!”
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:38 AM“Social rights for the NI Bill and a UK Bill are being considered. A children’s commissioner does exist.”
Are they going to be seperate bills or a UK wide one?
Are there not other areas in the courts where the ECHR underperforms, like trial by jury, etc?
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:39 AMI never claimed to be Unionist, just possibly Protestant. Its not just a simple case of Protestant = Unionist. You may live in the north and describe yourself as British but you are still part of the Irish nation in my eyes.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:39 AMUMH
... if you’re claiming to be Protestant and Unionist ...
You should try reading people’s posts, rather than imagining what they said. Quagmire only asked “How do you know if I’m not a Protestant?”. You automatically assume that Protestant is synonymous with unionist. Well, here’s a newsflash for you - it isn’t. There are many Protestant nationalists, including myself.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:41 AMLe Main Rouge said: “Must all Protestants be of Unionist persuasion?”
I’m not going to continue with this conversation any longer so as not to divert the thread, but will you please read my posts properly. I wrote “Unionist/Protestant” SEE THE SLASH, IT’S THERE FOR A REASON, SO DUMBASSES LIKE YOURSELF DON’T GET CONFUSED.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:43 AMHorseman said: “You automatically assume that Protestant is synonymous with unionist.”
No I haven’t. I replied to Quagmire by saying, “No sane Protestant of Unionist persuasion”. That does not imply Protestant is synonymous with unionist.
Now stop diverting the thread and read the posts properly.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 09:47 AMBesides which its obvious that UMH is not sane so obviously his own posting doesn’t apply to him
code word: southernPosted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 10:11 AM“No sane Protestant of Unionist persuasion”.
That would seem to me to be a contradiction of terms! No sane Protestant would be of unionist persuasion, especially given those Protestants who are of Unionist persuasion are as contrary as UMH!
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 10:12 AMUMH,
No I haven’t. I replied to Quagmire by saying, “No sane Protestant of Unionist persuasion”. That does not imply Protestant is synonymous with unionist.
Fair point. I over-reacted to your non-reply to Quagmire’s question. He never claimed to be either Protestant or unionist - you introduced the implicit duality, which I disagree with. But there’s so much of what you write that I disagree with, so I’ll leave this one to die ...
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 10:18 AMThe Problem of Premature Evaluation
We are in the middle of intense negotiations between the 2 rival camps - the outcome of these negotiations and the ability of Stormo to settle issues like Police, Education and the Bobby Bowl(Maze) will inform us as to what, if any, reform is needed. These funny feckers would make better use of their time analysing political systems that have had sufficient time to settle in before playing politcal agony aunts.
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 10:35 AMPass the sudocream lads UMH has a raw one !
As regards the thread Brian, this proposal isn’t a runner, for a start it seems to be unionist-lite…‘Rather than Northern Ireland being of uncertain constitutional
location, it would clearly have a federal relationship with the
rest of the UK and a confederal relationship with the rest of
Ireland. Within a UK context, a new assembly would accept
there would be some powers which would be retained at
Westminster, but where it could come to agreement with the
Oireachtas through the North/South Ministerial Council it
could act in any policy domain.’Eh…no thanks !
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 10:37 AMHang on RS - did you miss the point there?
Sounds like Westminster saying to Stormont “you can do anything yourselves that the south agrees but if they don’t you need to act within the confines of your establishing act. The Dail can’t control the assembly but their endorsement gives Stormont complete independence. What could be more encouraging of all-Island working togetherness?
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 10:56 AMDurkan is suffering from the same problem as most of the political parties here. It’s called DENIAL. If we’re honest we all know that the current set-up and any future arrangement are just stepping stones to the re-unification of the island.
When the British are satisfied that the threat from Republicans is nullified and unlikely to be
resurrected, they’ll begin the handover process. The strange thing is that Unionists/ Protestants will probably feel more at home as part of the new Brussels influenced Ireland than Republicans.Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 10:59 AM“When the British are satisfied that the threat from Republicans is nullified and unlikely to be
resurrected, they’ll begin the handover process.”Yes you could be right, but let’s first enter with cool heads and in a slightly more harmonised spirit, mind and with the skills to succeed, if you like; rather than entering as a twisted and divided people who know nothing about its administration or lifestyle.
Now, about this Brussels-led Republic GDP, yes many Unionists would like a bit of that…
Posted by on Sep 09, 2008 @ 11:06 AM
