Saturday, January 06, 2007
In case you missed it..
Given the current situation, and the apparent inability of some to recognise the reality of that situation, it’s worth recalling some of the inter-party discussions which were on the record.. and in particular a contribution from the Alliance Party’s Naomi Long in Hain’s the Preparation For Government Committee on 9th August last year. [useful things archives - Ed]
From the archive
Mrs Long: For policing and justice powers to be devolved, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must put a motion jointly to the Assembly, which would be subject to a cross-community vote. The Secretary of State would then have to ensure that the appropriate conditions were in place, and a vote would be held in Westminster. That is laid out in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006. Therefore, the powers cannot be devolved unless they achieve cross-community confidence.
Taking that as read, is it possible to set a target date by which policing and justice powers can be devolved? It is possible to suggest that conditions must be right and, at the same time, suggest that a target date should be set - those propositions are not mutually exclusive. Setting such a date puts down a marker - members are not saying that devolution of those powers will happen in two years’ time, but simply that it is their wish that it should happen then. It shows that they are prepared to commit to working towards it. That is important for those who believe that the issue of devolution is a key part of this negotiation process. Indicating at least a willingness to move forward does not mean that in two years’ time all the other locks can be unpicked. It is simply a matter of showing willing, and it is important that members are willing to set a date.
I do not want to set a prescriptive date or deadline. It would be pointless to suggest that if this issue were not cleared up in two years’ time, the entire matter should fall apart on that hook. However, it is important to set a target towards which we can work in respect of the legislative framework, and so on. At a certain point, the Secretary of State will also need to introduce legislation to allow for policing and justice powers to be devolved. A process must be entered into, and a two-year target is not an unreasonable one.[added emphasis]
And another reminder of the St Andrews’ Agreement text, paragraph 7, as discussed previously here
7. Discussions on the devolution of policing and justice have progressed well in the Preparation for Government Committee. The Governments have requested the
parties to continue these discussions so as to agree the necessary administrative arrangements to create a new policing and justice department. It is our view that implementation of the agreement published today should be sufficient to build the community confidence necessary for the Assembly to request the devolution of criminal justice and policing from the British Government by May 2008.[extra added emphasis]
That previously noted post also details the inclusion of the target date in the legislation.
And I’ve tried to point out how that confidence will be needed in order to proceed with devolving powers on policing and justice.
Another archive gem can be found in Mick’s reaction, in October, to Sinn Féin’s self-imposed conditions
None of this is disablingly specific. But if a similar motion were adopted for the party’s special Ard Fheis we might expect some vigorous debate around the precise meaning of the term ‘acceptable timeframe’. In the past, the DUP has argued that it is not a matter of time, but of judging the quality of Sinn Fein’s committment to the rule of law.
Intriguingly, the St Andrews Agreement does contain a timeline, albeit one that allows for considerable and unspecified slippage. But, it seems, devolution of policing powers to a local minister has been relegated to last place on the list. And oversight of MI5 would seem to remain with Westminster.
That’s the background as I see it. And the question reality again..
Pete Baker @ 06:27 PM
there’s an old saying: fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. question: what do you call a media that has been fooled by sinn fein using the same sham crisis tactics so many times in the peace process that it defies arithmetic? answer: the irish media. its really quite simple: who needs an assembly up and working and a place in government more, the dup or sinn fein? next question: why does sinn fein always create a crisis at a moment when movement is required? answer: because the media pander to sinn fein and there’s an idiot in downing street called blair who can always be guaranteed to reach in his desk drawer for more goodies for sinn fein. last question: what should sensible people do? answer: ignore it all!
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 07:37 PMpeteb,
could you put this picture on top of your thread, as it reflects the reality of what SF are being asked to do, also it reflects the reality of what many DUP spokesmen say will happen , just after SF make the first jump:
there are 3 rings
then you could delete this post of mine.http://www.myloupe.com/disp_thumb_images/1038/display/195779.jpg
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 08:05 PMparcifal “the reality of what SF are being asked to do………… just after SF make the first jump: there are 3 rings”
Well at least jumping through ‘rings’ is a lot safer than jumping aside ‘rounds’ like a lot of folk have had to do for too many years.
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 08:45 PMWay Icit
you might like to educate yourself by reading the thread:
What is whataboutery
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/glossary_what_is_whataboutery/Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 08:54 PMthe apparent inability of some to recognise the reality of that situation…
Pete
Glad to see you’ve clearly been wound up all day after reading my post.
On the ‘reality of the situation,’ I stand by what has been already stated. There are two steps to be taken at this point to get us from deadlock to the breakthrough required for a return of the Good Friday Agreement institutions.
1. Sinn Fein will have to endorse policing and justice structures, through an Ard Fheis.
2. The DUP will have to commit to power-sharing to return this March and for the devolution of policing and justice by May 2008.
You can surf the archives (and, as your posts repreatedly indicate, you spend a lot of time doing just that...) all you want for pearls of wisdom from Mick (apologies Senor Fealty) and/ or Naomi Long, but their relevance during a political negotiation, where the situation remains quite fluid, is questionable.
Which leads me back to the comments by Martin McGuinness today. When he declares that republicans need Ian Paisley to state that he ‘agrees’ with Tony Blair’s position that devolution of policing/ justice should happen by May 2008, he is seeking the DUP to declare their support for May ‘08 as a deadline, regardless of the waffle around community consensus- which is patently just that.
Perhaps you’d be happy with a scenario in which the DUP determine when nationalists/ republicans can be responsible for policing and justice matters, but I can tell you that you’d be in a small minority within the broad nationalist community on that one.
It is an important attempt to clarify the matter so that what Mick identified as potential ‘slippage’ does not occur.
You may not be able to comprehend that- and for the life of me I can’t understand why not- but that is the ‘reality’ of the current position.
Whether or not it is a case of republicans imposing conditions upon themselves is actually irrelevant: at various stages of the peace process, unionist parties- not least the DUP- have unilaterally drew a line in the sand around certain issues. It is a quite common negotiating strategy.
Hope that clarifies things for you [look! didn’t even need archives- ED!]
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 09:25 PMParcifal “you might like to educate yourself by reading the thread: What is whataboutery “
I think you ought to read it again yourself and refresh your memory “Some define it as the often multiple blaming and finger pointing that goes on between communities in conflict.”
You presume too readily that I am pointing the finger at one community – wrong. I am not a DUP supporter – never have and never will be, just trying to put your ‘rings’ into perspective. I too am a sinner!
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 09:47 PMwhile the betting has to be that this is one more sham fight one has to hope that this time it might go pear-shaped and that the people of northern ireland will be spared their own repellant version of the hitler-stalin pact and the whole pack of cards will collapse - another bonus is that it will deny that shiester blair of any kudos and, after the debacle of iraq and his romance with the other idiot bush, no legacy worth talking about! but i think not, unfortunately. but where else has sinn fein to go except to accept what is on offer? the dup doesn’t need an assembly. everyone is bored silly with the peace process, sf’s support is slipping south of the border and the ira is a dead duck, the blame game has run out of steam, nothing more to be gained. yawn! yawn!
as for unionists drawing lines in the sand, is that why trimble is history?Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 09:57 PMfair enough Way Icit.
bye the way is peteb affliated to any political party? He seems very anti-SF
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 10:06 PMChris
Thanks, but I’m perfectly clear on the reality of the situation.
The reason why the archive is useful in this case is that we can refer back to when exactly everyone else acknowledged the difference between a target date and an enforceable deadline - and when that target date was placed in the public domain and, subsequently, the legislation.
As I’ve previously tried to point out, it’s all about that crucial cross-community support in the Assembly. No-one, not even Peter Hain, can force those devolved powers, nor a Minister, on an Assembly without that cross-community support - it just isn’t possible… as even Peter Hain has admitted.
And as the St Andrews Agreement acknowledges, there is a need to build community confidence.
Demanding a pre-determined deadline, which is unenforceable, just encourages the idea that there will be no attempt to build that confidence.
Which brings us to your point 2.
2. The DUP will have to commit to power-sharing to return this March and for the devolution of policing and justice by May 2008.
I realise this is just what Martin McGuinness is stating, but why do you suppose that anyone else will demand that the DUP commit to something beyond what the Pirme Minister Tony Blair has already stated is needed?
On the above basis the Government is in a position to facilitate the timeframe set out in para 7 of the St Andrew’s Agreement, namely on or before May 2008, provided of course that the Sinn Fein commitments are translated into action within that timeframe; and the DUP undertake it will do nothing to delay or obstruct devolution of policing and justice when those conditions are met.[added emphasis]
Everything, everything, will depend on the conditions on the ground.
I realise that doesn’t chime with Motion 395, but that brings me to another point.
The reason why that particular motion is significant is that it was Sinn Féin placing a condition on Sinn Féin holding the Ard Fheis to decide on policing.. an Ard Fheis which there is still no confirmed date for.
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 10:06 PMparci
“He seems very anti-SF”
Feel free to argue against the points made in the original post.
In other words - Play the ball, not the man.
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 10:15 PMHH.
I heartily agree with you. This is a complete and utter waste of taxpayers’ money, a sham that should be over.
Question: how many gathered here have ever attended a debate in the Assembly?
Another question: look closely; do we really want that lot to govern us. Are they capable of it, “fit for purpose”, to use a modern idiom?
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 10:22 PMEverything, everything, will depend on the conditions on the ground.
Pete
Not true. Who interprets ‘conditions on the ground?’ Gregory Campbell’s interpretation of those conditions would seem to suggest we’re back to ‘not in a political lifetime’ from the DUP.
Failure to secure a public commitment by Paisley and the DUP to the May 2008 date will mean that it will be the DUP who hold the whip hand in that regard- a scenario nationalists will, naturally, wish to avoid.
Thus, what is required is an explicit acceptance of the timeframe by Paisley at this moment.
Of course, he could always theoretically back out of such a commitment some distance down the line, but he- and the DUP- would suffer a severe credibility loss in the process and the British government would come under pressure, in such circumstances, to force their hand.
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 10:28 PMChris.
Martin McGuinness is merely singing a song to his diminishing flock. The British PM has made it clear only this week the terms for a potential deal.It clearly was not a message either you or your leaders appreciated but Eh thats life.
Sinn Fein have to move FIRST. That is a price to be paid in part for taking the P**s out of the UUP a few years ago.
Republicans word is not trusted by all parties . The date for any devolution of limitted powers is SUBJECT to a number of subjective conditions .
You and Sinn Fein might not like it but that is not Pete`s fault.
He is merely pointing out to everyone the public positions adopted at different points in time by all sides.It seems that he is picking upon Sinn Fein? he is not , he is just accurately reflecting the number of back flips Sinn Fein have peformed on this issue.
What seems to annoy you is Pete`s use of the archives to back up his points. I think that is a positive in Pete`s postings and I for one congratulate him on his diligence in these matters.
It is time you took a chill pill and gave Pete a well deserved pat on the back for a long series of in depth and accurate appraisals of what are by design complicated issues.
Whilst we have your attention, could you explain the current Sinn Fein situation regarding MI5 involvement in policing Republicans and the IRA OTR issue.
Thank You
Martin
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 10:29 PMChris
“Not true. Who interprets ‘conditions on the ground?’”
While Martin may be provocative at times, he’s fundamentally right on this - thanks by the way Martin.
It’s not about which party’s version of events dominates, it’s just about trying to get at what everyone is actually signing up to.
In this case, everyone else has set out their stall. And that stall is one of a target date to be worked towards… not an enforceable deadline.
And for the very good reason that no deadline would be enforceable without cross-community support.
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 11:04 PMPete Baker
Thanks for an excellent comment (number 9). You have clarified this whole thing very well.
In particular the following point you made is key:
“Demanding a pre-determined deadline, which is unenforceable, just encourages the idea that there will be no attempt to build that confidence.”
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 11:10 PMPete.
I was looking forward to Chris giving us an update on the current position of Sinn Fein on the OTR and MI5 issue.
It seems he is not available at the moment. When he finally reports back would you be so kind to archive the response for further use.
Thank You.
Martin
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 11:10 PMright pete, in your thread,
why didn’t you highlight this bit?But if a similar motion were adopted for the party’s special Ard Fheis we might expect some vigorous debate around the precise meaning of the term ‘acceptable timeframe’
Is it not clear that what’s been happening on Sluggers recently is
a “vigorous debate” on what is an “acceptable timeframe”.And this in advance of a possible motion.
What do you think will happen after that motion comes out?
A clue:
A vigorous debate around the precise meaning of the term ‘acceptable timeframe’Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 11:13 PMparci
You haven’t thought that point through, have you?
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 11:27 PMyou’re making assumptions peteb; perhaps if you could liberate yourself from your archives I think you’ll find that the point I’m making is very salient.
Both Hain and Blair have said they are working towards the acceptable timetable of March 2007 ,
and May 2008. SF are satisfied with this, we’ve yet to hear from the DUP if indeed this is their understanding, in simple clear words.
Then the process can move on.Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 11:40 PMparci
“Both Hain and Blair have said they are working towards the acceptable timetable of March 2007 ,
and May 2008.”Working towards… as in a target date.. not an enforceable deadline.
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 11:43 PMPete.
You can bring the horse to water BUT you cannot make it drink.
Martin
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 11:46 PMThe Sunday Times January 07, 2007
DUP sets further tests on policing for Sinn Fein
John BurnsA DEMOCRATIC Unionist party MP has created a new hoop for Sinn Fein to jump through before the parties can share power in March.
Gregory Campbell, the East Derry MP, says that after Sinn Fein endorses the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) at an ard fheis, the DUP has a series of tests to make sure its commitment to policing is genuine.
This would include Republicans helping to bring criminals to justice, assisting with the investigation of the IRA murder of Robert McCartney in January 2005 and providing information about the “disappeared”.
“After the ard fheis we have a series of things to put into practice to test them to see if their support for policing means anything,” Campbell said. “If they do go ahead and support the police, that is good and proper, but when criminal activity continues they have to play their parts as everyone does in bringing people to justice. That would be a practical out-working of the decision they took.”
Campbell said that, in particular, Sinn Fein members could not “turn a blind eye to criminals because they are former colleagues”.
Raising the bar for Sinn Fein adds to the problems of Gerry Adams, who is facing unrest in his party after the DUP failed to respond “positively” to the calling of an ard fheis to support policing. Adams has sent Alex Maskey, a senior republican, to America to drum up support for Sinn Fein’s policy change.
“There can be no certainty about what way the ard fheis will go,” Adams writes in this weekend’s Village magazine. “Predictably, and wrongly, most of the media will assume the Sinn Fein leadership has the ard fheis in its pocket. I think we are going to have a very rocky few weeks. I have every confidence that we will stay united. Most of us have been through too much to throw it away at this stage.”
One sign of the strain is that five assembly members have said they will not seek re-election or have been stood down for the proposed election in March.
There is also unease within the DUP over the prospect of sharing power with Sinn Fein. Four of its nine MPs have said they do not believe power sharing can be achieved by the deadline of March 26, or that policing and justice can be devolved.
Ian Paisley, the DUP leader, “welcomed” an assessment of the political situation provided last week by Tony Blair, but did not say that he agreed with his road map for moving forward.
Add to these new hoops the DUP require Lord Lucan to arrive at Stormont riding Shergar before they will share power.
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 11:50 PMRecently Mr Baker spent a day trying to downplay Shiela’s entry on the SF Ard Chomhairle meeting, today he spends the day attacking Chris’ reading of events.
Why can’t you just blog your own thing and leave us free to read the other bloggers’ opinions without a challenging/competing narrative of their position? They afford you that respect.
Though the idea of an internal blog bun fight is interesting but it isn’t much fun when it’s always the same Bugsey throwing buns at his fellow bloggers.
Posted by on Jan 06, 2007 @ 11:56 PMArt Hostage.
It seems Mr Campbell was reading a slugger exchange between me and Miss Fitz of last week.The case of Mr McCartney was an example discussed in those exchanges.
The McCartney murder was always going to be a card to be used by the DUP. Adams admits to holding an inquiry and speaking to those IRA man involved.The IRA offered to shoot those Republicans involved.
The family from their conversations with Adams say he knows who killed Robert.
He is in a position to show leadership and make that information available to the police, now that he recognises the British criminal justice system.Let the police judge what material/information is and is not of evidential value
Miss Fitz did not agree with me.
It seems the DUP from the above reporting does. That said it aint rocket science and was always likely to be used by the DUP to provide a “ Handy” acid test of Republicans committment to the police.
Thanks for the piece Paul.
Night.
Martin
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 12:01 AMMark.
Grow up and debate the point with him! if you have one?
Ding Ding
Martin
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 12:04 AM
