Saturday, September 06, 2008
“If we are serious about a truly shared future..”
The Irish News frontpage story [subs for now] picks up on SDLP leader Mark Durkan’s speech at the British Irish Association Conference at New College, Oxford. And the Sinn Féin response from Northern Ireland deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness. Adds UUP leader Reg Empey’s response. Added The DUP responds and the Alliance Party reportedly welcomes the speech. From the speech. [link added]
A formula for ‘sufficient consensus’ was a necessary confidence measure in the agreed rules for the [pre-1998] Talks. Therefore, it was not exceptional that such cross-community decision-making protections were also built into the institutions which resulted from those negotiations. As with d’Hondt, the referendum and the need to persuade and reassure was a strong consideration.
I remember, at the time, saying that the system of designation was necessary because of what we were coming from but should not be necessary where we were going. I argued that such measures with their arguably sectarian or sectional undertones should be bio-degradable, dissolving in the future as the environment changed. Most, if not all of us, had such future adjustments in mind when we wrote the review mechanisms into the Agreement.
As we move towards a fully sealed and settled process we should be preparing to think about how and when to remove some of the ugly scaffolding needed during the construction of the new edifice.
We need to reflect on the dangers of the decision-making protections acting as decision making prevention on more and more important issues. The possibilities for political realignment with new or changing party offerings in the future could be stunted by permanent reliance to the present degree on designation. If we are serious about a truly shared future then we have to allow for truly shared politics where parties can – and have to – appeal across the traditional divides. The fault-line in our society will still be there but it should not determine the party political cleavage for future generations.
Protections of rights, interests and identities will still be needed but not only for, or only as, either unionists or nationalists. In the stance-off over other issues recently, little attention is being paid to the rut that the Bill of Rights debate is stuck in. There are those who dismiss the need for such a bill or for it to be robust and extend to some social and economic issues. Maybe they and the rest of us need to start thinking about how a sound Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland might offer more productive and articulate protection for all our rights in a new democratic society than vote-locks and tit-for-tat vetoes in perpetuity. ‘One man-one vote’ was the start of a journey – made longer and harder than it needed to be. ‘One side- one vote’ should not be the final destination of that journey.
That would probably have to be accompanied by poet Michael Longley’s process of civilisation.
And, of course, some people would “just have to be tolerant of that..”
Pete Baker @ 12:13 PM
This is interesting as it is essentially the first departure from ‘Hume’ thinking at a senior level of the SDLP.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 12:43 PMThe key phrase here is “we should be preparing to think”.
It would be madness, as per Alliance suggestions/policy to start tampering with the architecture of the agreement before sufficient time has been given to first try and resolve extremely difficult issues (e.g. police and justice) within the existing framework.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 12:45 PMThe agreement is a failure you can not promise the union to the unionists and promise self determination to Republicans
only a 32 county solution will bring real peace and stability to Ireland Republican Sinn Fein belive Eire Nua is a radical and viable alternative to the failed Belfast Agreement read the document on their home page at rsf.ie
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 01:14 PMVery interesting speech from Mark. The double lock system, which I was never a fan of, was predicated on the people in power actually wanting to do business. It doesn’t work if the people in power believe in creative destruction. This is a welcome step forward.
At the end of the day, what works better - Belfast City Council or the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 01:29 PMfair_deal
In its thoughtful analysis of “process” I thought it was Hume-ish but would be interested in how you think it departs from what Hume would say at this point.
If you get a moment could you elaborate a bit more?
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 05:01 PMFunny how the powersharing model they advocated for decades is surplus to requirements immediately it benefits others over them. Suddenly the BCC model and the possibility of being Alliance like king-makers is the attractive option.
An utterly transparent dropping of party position to gain advantage.
And what a pity that the deal they negotiated means they have no chance of getting the plan implemented.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 05:28 PMHow much is this the SDLP retaliating for the perceived exclusion from P&J;? Or has the amount of nationalist middle class bithcin about Ruane had an impact?
Spanish
The Belfast Agreement was essentially a Hume document and to shift away from a key element is the shift IMO.
IWSam
“before sufficient time has been given”
He indicates a time-frame - the next review. IIRC that is a few years off, anyone know for certain when it is due?
SM
I agree the operation of BCC is interesting. A structure with an executive is a different creature.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 05:58 PMI have an alternative suggestion.
Westminster should tell them ‘operate it or close’. They have to learn to co-operate. Anything else is a flight from that fundamental underpinning issue. The alternative(as we saw before) is a sectarian bun fight of policies
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 06:22 PMAstounding remarks by MD - a party in absolute meltdown - a horrendously bad leader. Their only hope is if FF arrive to save them.
I wouldnt be one bit surprised if none of his party knew what he would say.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 06:26 PMcynic ,
‘Westminster should tell them ‘operate it or close’.’
That sounds about right . After 40 plus ? years of procrastination - Westminster would be entirely justified in giving them another eh 5 minutes or all NI Assembly members are out on dole street !
Remember the politicians motto
‘When in danger or in doubt
Run in circles
Yell and shout ‘But not for 40 years :(
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 07:04 PMIt’s a bad move to trade voluntary coalition for a Bill of Rights if that is what Durkan is thinking - especially when that BoR would amount to a program for government, obfuscating rights with socio-economic and political policies that are properly the function of government and the people who elect them to decide rather than something that is decided by a socialist quango once and for all time and act as a handicap on the freedom and power of government that would be even more stagnating than mandatory coalition.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 07:05 PM“This is interesting as it is essentially the first departure from ‘Hume’ thinking at a senior level of the SDLP.”
f_d, you need to place Mark’s remarks in the context of the SDLP mission statement:
The SDLP’s vision is a reconciled people living in a united, just and prosperous new Ireland.
You’ll probably find that Unionists are still merely a tradition on the island, a tradition with a zero-rated aspiration. [cf the Unionist take on the UI aspiration]
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 07:41 PM“If we are serious about a truly shared future..”
We all have to dissagree with terrorists having power in government. If we are serious about a truly shared future we must vote for political parties who aren’t terrorist related
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 07:52 PMWell if Mark Durkan is serious about change and Unionists too then come next election they can include in the respective manifestoes that they will opt out of designation with a view to changing the system. Ergo, it will only be Sinn Fein using it thus making it fail. But the real issue is confidence not just in the assembly but inside and between the parties too. For example, the ability to talk to each other to strike up such deals and then ensuring they will stick by them after election - if it goes favourably the voters will likely back the parties for that working together spirit.
This would create the real alternatives, hopefully showing that electoral politics can bring real change not just in terms of improving socio-economic standards but governance structures too, perhaps as a result of that structural change?
Martin McGuinness’ statement rings a bit hollow in terms of equality as what sort of equality is it when certain groups veto certain other groups using a constitutional aspiration in a non-constitutional setting? Besides, even the republic operates an administrative system on a different basis than Stormont and similar to the British system. There is nothing ‘republican’ in the Stormont governance structures and anything that drives a divide between the people on the island of Ireland must be running in contrast to that strive for unity. The border is one of course but so too this assembly set-up.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 08:14 PMAnd there’s the rub. It’s just an anti-SF ploy they hope others will sign up with.
Utterly pathetic, trading a decades long principle in the hope it brings electoral advantage over SF. What a bunch of wasters, no wonder they are imploding. Can’t sell their policies so they’ll try changing the system they designed to benefit themselves - seems they leqrned something from that campaign in the 60s. Utter twats and they think this will get them votes?
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 08:28 PM“Utterly pathetic, trading a decades long principle in the hope it brings electoral advantage over SF.”
Not like you would care about GFA arrangements Mark? Besides the Republic doesn’t operate on a system like Stormont and is itself quintessentially a ‘small open polity’ why bluff about unionist and nationalist designations if striving to remove them brings people closer?
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 08:35 PMSinn Fein must be playing a blinder for Mark Durkan to come up with this.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 08:37 PMDC,
I’m a disinterested observer of the stormont charade but can’t help but ridicule this further ridiculous attempt at relevance by selling your soul by the SDLP. We already have an Alliance party, that niche is filled. As an attempt to save themselves from oblivion and irrelevance this one is up there with their best.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 08:56 PMPosted by Nevin on Sep 06, 2008 @ 08:41 PM
f_d, you need to place Mark’s remarks in the context of the SDLP mission statement:The SDLP’s vision is a reconciled people living in a united, just and prosperous new Ireland.
You’ll probably find that Unionists are still merely a tradition on the island, a tradition with a zero-rated aspiration. [cf the Unionist take on the UI aspiration]
I do hope so Nevin, but it sounds like post-Nationalism resurrected to me. If they go down this road, they’re dead. FF, please come and rescue us from Shinner hegemony.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 09:12 PMCarlsberg don’t do disastrous policy shifts, but....
This policy shift by the SDLP is right up there with the ill-fated ‘post-nationalist’ move which expedited their descent from the position of majority party within northern nationalism at the turn of the century.
It is also evidence, if such were needed, of how out of touch the party is with the sentiment of their electoral base.
Today’s Irish News front-page headline will make great doorstep introduction: “Power sharing should end soon says Durkan.”
What Durkan is really conceding is that his party has all but given up on contesting with Sinn Fein for the status of lead nationalist party, and is instead hoping to be in a position to sell themselves as a more acceptable face of nationalism to the DUP.
Quite how the party reached the decision to go in this direction at this time is beyond me.
Expect to see/ hear a rolling back from this position in the months ahead. But the damage has been done.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 09:22 PMMark,
Well that remains to be seen as zero sum approaches to politics has brought the people zero, whereas a coalition pact among the other parties could well deliver - if they can agree to deliver that between themselves.
Now that would be democracy in action; however, I was disappointed to see the collapse of the attempts to broaden the coalition in opposition to DUP-SF, so we will have to watch this space.
It is after all that *delivery* of aims on which people will judge the success of the parties by - at present they all look doomed to failure; part of this failure rests with group rights being used to amplify issues which should perhaps best be discussed in an open environment, open to change, not pressurised into acceptance without that open negotiation in the first place.
Time to think wisely as for all Martin McGuinness’ ‘I’m an optimist, hand on heart’ kinda guy - this stance looks straight into the soul of Sinn Fein where we can see the true pessimistic ‘divide and rule’ rights before responsibility, the responsibility being to talk and negotiate on issues, Unionists too, and be prepared not to come out with all demands met every time to the maximum of the wider nationalist vote bloc. Take Irish language - this is being played straight down the group rights line where we are made to believe that this issue is equivalent to half the population in NI and that those that speak it must measure the full ethnic bloc democratic weight of the ‘nationalist’ designation. It clearly doesn’t and is a distortive and unhelpful approach to politics.
McGuinness talks about ‘giving leadership’ - this from a man who has had a process given to him, written for him in parts by the then ever optmistic New Labour - true leadership is about taking what is there for the taking, which will come from proper negotiation and consensus, as you can’t rely on being given everthing on your own terms.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 09:27 PM“You’ll probably find that Unionists are still merely a tradition on the island, a tradition with a zero-rated aspiration.”
Nevin, I think you’ll find that 100% of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland are also merely “a tradition with a zero-rated aspiration” to northern nationalists, whose State is to be discarded and replaced with a “new Ireland” by said self-serving quislings.
Quite why they labour under the delusion that those who contributed zero to the success of the Ireland, but who contributed enormously to the social, political and economic disparity that exists in Northern Ireland, would be given the leading role as architects of some imagined “new Ireland” is probably best explained by an experienced psychiatrist.
As some future point reality is going to have to re-enter the equation and folks are going to have to accept that two competing nationalisms can never share one sovereign territorial entity without constant enmity between them; and realise that re-partition is going to be the only workable option since there is no dynamic to encourage British nationalists to become loyal to an Irish nation state in the same way that there is a dynamic to encourage northern Irish nationalists to become loyal to the UK state.
To be honest, who the hell wants one million displaced British people among their nation? Nobody who has given the matter due consideration. As a small colony of British nationalists on the north-east corner of the repartitioned island, I’m sure Irish taxpayers would help them out along with British taxpayers if they had a plan for how they could make their small economy workable – and other smaller countries have managed it.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 09:41 PM“If we are serious about a truly shared future”
I feel Mark is being a little economical with language in his portrayal of the SDLP agenda. Perhaps I could complete the phrase: “If we are serious about a truly shared future on this island”.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 10:10 PMChris - I hardly see how a change in operation of Stormont by effective renewal is both a betrayal of a unification project and sell out to nationalists. Please explain that one to me? The inability of Sinn Fein to effectively deal should not make it right that they can intimidate the SDLP who are giving new thought to more appropriate change.
Mark Durkan is showing not ‘surrender’ as claimed by McGuinness but solidarity by thinking about putting in place a system of governance similar to that of the Republic and one that works better based on genuine co-operation.
There is no shame or no surrender to be had in renewing institutions, wonder why Sinn Fein view it so - for whom are they doing it?
The designation system was meant for use as group security not for out-and-out group first practicality.
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 10:33 PMAs some future point reality is going to have to re-enter the equation and folks are going to have to accept that two competing nationalisms can never share one sovereign territorial entity without constant enmity between them; and realise that re-partition is going to be the only workable option since there is no dynamic to encourage British nationalists to become loyal to an Irish nation state in the same way that there is a dynamic to encourage northern Irish nationalists to become loyal to the UK state.
To be honest, who the hell wants one million displaced British people among their nation? Nobody who has given the matter due consideration. As a small colony of British nationalists on the north-east corner of the repartitioned island, I’m sure Irish taxpayers would help them out along with British taxpayers if they had a plan for how they could make their small economy workable – and other smaller countries have managed it.
Posted by Dave on Sep 06, 2008 @ 10:41 PMWell said, Dave! Re-partition is the most practical solution and would mean approximately 97% of the people living on the island of Ireland would be living in the nation of their choice. It would be far better than the present never-ending mess imho.
That makes three now for re-partition.. any more takers?
Posted by on Sep 06, 2008 @ 10:41 PM
