Friday, October 19, 2007
“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”
As mentioned earlier in the comments, Reg Empey told Talkback that he backed Margaret Ritchie, in that he was not prepared to pass the disputed minutes. He is critical of the late delivery of the minutes. The production of four (action?) points unseen before the meeting during an ad hoc discussion (ie, only added to the agenda at the last minute).
“Normally when someone has a problem with a minute it is deferred until they can produce evidence of inaccuracies or until they can talk to the First Minister or Deputy First Minister to sort it out. This happens regularly. There was no requirement for that minute to be passed yesterday, sometimes minutes are months behind. I was puzzled by that. I was asked if I would go down to my department and my home to see if I could find any notes that might help, and I said no I am not in the middle of a meeting like this. What’s the urgency of this?”
His recollection, he said, was closer to Ritchie’s than that of the minutes. He also confirmed that his understanding was that Ritchie had sought guidance, but had been told that it was her ministerial responsibility.
Mick Fealty @ 01:05 PM
“He also confirmed that his understanding was that Ritchie had sought guidance”
Mick, did he state when? Was it before or after her public statement that placed a time limit on UDA actions?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 02:34 PMListen to the playback Nev. It’s right at the beginning. And no, he didn’t.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 02:36 PMCheck Ritchie’s first exchange on Hearts and Minds. She gives a clear account of when, which is not (currently at least) in dispute.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 03:05 PMGood for Reg.
I can’t quite decide whether the 3 UUP/SDLP ministers would be better off outside the executive, with Alliance, etc, in an honourable, critical opposition untainted by association, or whether they need to be in there watching DUP/SF more than ever.
Time will tell ....
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 03:22 PMPerhaps this issue will signal a better working relationship between the UUP and SDLP. That would be one positive to come out of it.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 03:40 PMGood man, Reg.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:16 PMAbsolutely, Chekov - and, in response to Gav, possibly UUP/SDLP are becoming an “opposition within government”.
I think UUP/SDLP are on the side of the “man on the street” on this one, even if DUP/Provos are shown to be technically correct on the procedures, etc.
This is also doing the profile of the SDLP, and Margaret Ritchie, a world of good. Mrs Ritchie hitherto has been relatively unknown, but I’m sure many more people know of her now.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:17 PMWhat was the big rush about? The exec were meeting the next day anyway, so why didn’t she hold her horses until after?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:25 PMWhat was the big rush about? The exec were meeting the next day anyway, so why didn’t she hold her horses until after?
She had already waited for 65 days.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:38 PMShe had already waited for 65 days.
Is 66 an unlucky number or something?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:44 PMThe statement says :
Some Ministers said they may have private notes of the meeting in question and they were offered the opportunity by FM/dFM to consult those notes during a proposed further adjournment. This opportunity was declined as some Ministers said they felt there was no need to pass the minutes today. The meeting moved to a vote and the minutes were adopted as an accurate account by a majority. The DSD, DEL and DHSSPS Ministers voted against the minutes being adopted.
So who exactly was in a rush? Not Reg, McGimp or Margaret…
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:46 PMIt’s not like that executive ever showed an interest… until after the statement was made anyway.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:47 PMBriso,
So who exactly was in a rush? Not Reg, McGimp or Margaret…
Indeed. Did any of the three move a motion to table the adoption of the minutes until the next meeting?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:58 PMFor the first time in a while Reg is showing some political acumen.
But when this all goes to court the SDLP and UUP will have egg on their face.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:11 PMBut when this all goes to court the SDLP and UUP will have egg on their face.
Costs money to go to court. Will the UDA (a proscribed organisation by the by) be footing their own bill or applying for legal aid?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:15 PMIs 66 an unlucky number or something?
Ach, sure it’s only the odd peeler the UDA are shooting and the odd house they’re bombing. It’s no big deal. Why don’t we just give them until 2010 to stop their antics?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:20 PMSammy,
Ach, sure it’s only the odd peeler the UDA are shooting and the odd house they’re bombing. It’s no big deal. Why don’t we just give them until 2010 to stop their antics?
They’ve managed to fund their murder campaign without this extra dosh for a long time. Putting the UDA out of business isn’t about whether or not you give them money, it’s about policing and the will of the PUL community to see the back end of them.
Another day wouldn’t have made any difference. So, again, I ask, why didn’t Ritchie simply wait until after the exec meeting?
Because, now, instead of the focus being on not giving 2d (as Mr McGuinness put it) to the UDA, the focus is on minutes, ministerial code, legal advice, whose legal advice, blah blah blah.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:30 PMSammy
The UDA scum are shooting people in an area where the CTI does not apply.They are dispicable criminals and should be treated with contempt. Their political representatives sholud never been given any credence like Alliance/UUP/SDLP/SF/two goverments give them in the past.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:39 PMPosted by tweedledee on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:58 PM
Indeed. Did any of the three move a motion to table the adoption of the minutes until the next meeting?
some Ministers said they felt there was no need to pass the minutes today.
I would have thought that was clear enough, tweedledee. Their wishes were ignored. Unless you were expecting a particular procedural device from them, which might leave you open to the charge of being a bit of a ‘mierenneuker’ and missing the big picture. Salvation is not to be found in hairsplitting.Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:41 PMBut when this all goes to court the SDLP and UUP will have egg on their face.
Posted by PP on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:11 PM
Not where it counts, in the ‘court’ of public opinion, if the public percieves the UDA are getting the cash because of the actions, either directly or indirectly of S/F DUP the SDLP and the UUP will benifit.
Robinson is proving that it’s easier to bark at the bike, than ride it!
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:55 PMBriso,
some Ministers said they felt there was no need to pass the minutes today.
I would have thought that was clear enough, tweedledee.That isn’t moving a motion to table the minutes. I don’t know if they did or not, hence my question. Had they done so, Ritchie could have dismissed questions that seemed to trouble her in the interview by pushing that whole issue back onto the DUP and SF. All she had to say was her recollection was different, she didn’t agree with the minutes, she’d moved to table the adoption of the minutes, the others refused to table them, go ask them why they did that, and move on to what is supposed to be her focus. At best she’s come out looking like a rank amateur; at worst, ever so slightly unhinged.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:56 PMAt best she’s come out looking like a rank amateur; at worst, ever so slightly unhinged.
Posted by tweedledee on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:56 PM
Take another look!
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:58 PMtweedledee: “At best she’s come out looking like a rank amateur; at worst, ever so slightly unhinged. “
Alex S: “Take another look! “
And this time with your glasses…
I am reminded that the twins had a difficulty remembering who was who… perhaps Dee is really his twin…
Either way, listening to scraping sound of the bottom of the barrel as folks try to rationalize giving money to the UDA, while annoying, does prove we’re on the wrong side of the looking-glass.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 06:10 PMtweedledee:
Hmmm… I’m generally suspicious of this sudden need to focus attention on the last meeting to the exclusion of all other context.
Reg’s stuff is fairly clear. There also have to be questions asked about this growing tendency of the DUP and Sinn Fein Minister to ask for a break during committee meetings to confer with one another. Nothing illegal about, nor necessarily unethical. But we are seeing a very clear split between those who have been conferring, and those who haven’t.
As for amatuerish. Martin’s ‘losing the run of herself’ comment was in response to a supposed statement that she never actually made.
I can tell you straight that the press think it is Martin that’s rattled, not Margaret.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 06:20 PMTake another look!
Done. She looked good at the start, she has the right issue, so it would be hard not to. But, as I said on another thread, she allowed others to yank her chain, and started to toss out accusations about who all was out to get her. She might be right, but it’s best to ignore that, that is politics afterall.
Hopefully she can put it down to lessons learned, including how to use procedures to her advantage, and to deflect criticism from her detractors back onto them.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 06:20 PM
