Tuesday, August 26, 2008
“It is clear that Sinn Fein has always known that no agreement was reached..”
Northern Ireland First Minister, DUP leader Peter Robinson, has responded to Sinn Féin’s apparent threat, via TD Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, to take the ball away - notwithstanding Mary Lou McDonald’s clarification..
When Ministers were appointed they made public and legally-binding pledges which are not being fulfilled. This cannot continue. A meeting of the Executive has been scheduled for 18th September. If this meeting were not to take place it is self-evident that there would be serious consequences for the good government of Northern Ireland and indeed potentially for those who refuse to fulfil their legal obligations.
Let me make it clear the DUP will not respond to threats such as that which Sinn Fein has made. If we were to do so on this issue we would be vulnerable to having the republican threat of bringing the institutions down used again and again in order that we would comply with other Sinn Fein demands. Nor indeed will we make political concessions in order to encourage any party to do that which it pledged to do and carry out duties which it is legally required to perform.
And he provides some clarification on the details of what agreements there actually are.
Let me deal with the inaccurate propaganda which is being disseminated by republicans about policing and justice. The St Andrews Agreement between the Government and the government of the Republic of Ireland neither bound nor required the DUP to accept the devolution of policing and justice nor did it impose any timetable for such devolution. Moreover even the hopes of those two governments were set within the context of the legal requirement known as the triple-lock which the DUP wisely negotiated before St Andrews.
More detail of that clarification
Rather than accepting republican claims about what was agreed at St Andrews let me quote from the document published by the Government.
“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 (i.e. The view of the two governments) that the 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.”
The reference to policing and justice in the above statement was aspirational and without any binding timeframe. However, so that the matter of where the DUP stood on this issue is clear let me also quote from Dr Paisley’s statement agreed by the whole DUP negotiating team and made at St Andrews as soon as the two governments published their agreement.
“There is no definitive date for the devolution of policing and justice powers. We remain of the unshakable view that those powers can only be transferred whenever there is the required community confidence.”
It is clear that Sinn Fein has always known that no agreement was reached and that the DUP were working on the basis of the statement issued by the party at St Andrews. Moreover the reference in the St Andrews agreement by the two governments expressly acknowledges that any devolution of policing and justice was conditional to the Assembly asking for the functions to be devolved – this is a direct reference to the triple-lock veto.
Pete Baker @ 12:10 PM
Just as elvis parker highlights on another thread:
“We said then, and I say now, that we do not believe there would be support for the devolution of such powers to a SINN FEIN Minister in the foreseeable future.
It is for these reasons that we have indicated the context within which the Assembly and Executive Review Committee should explore modalities for the devolution of such powers. The DUP does not believe there would be support for the devolution of policing and justice if SINN FEIN Ministers were to have responsibility for any policing and justice function. “
So forget about the tough talk, if Sinn Fein agree to convene the next Executive meeting, Robinson will cave in on the devolution of policing and justice.
Do the DUP think they can keep on DUPeing the people?
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 12:37 PMIf this meeting were not to take place it is self-evident that there would be serious consequences for the good government of Northern Ireland and indeed potentially for those who refuse to fulfil their legal obligations.
If SF’s threat is seen as idle, then this one takes the biscuit. Even if somehow the DUP maanged to get SF out of the Assembly without them simply switching tactics and leading them a merry dance another way, or simply collapsing it, it remains unclear what the consequences of such instability would be. I doubt they’d be pleasant.
If this is an attempt at a “bring it on”, then we’re into serious brinkmanship and people are talking themselves into boxes where they cannot back down.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 12:38 PMDUP re-state their position in response to SF restating their position...no change in either position.
DUP still isolated - British and Irish Governements, SDLP and SF wait for Robbo to jump as he peeks over the edge has a bit of a wobbler.
The 2 wee-fellahs Reggie and Davy still obfusticating on the issue.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 12:45 PMhttp://www.newsletter.co.uk/3425/Robinson-makes-devolution-warning.4426601.jp
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 12:48 PMPosters are requested to stick to a consistent nickname on a thread
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 01:12 PMRead this morning that Peter is kicking moves to stop dual and triple mandates into touch because of the uncertain nature of events at Stormont. Wouldn’t do if the poor dears were to loss two wages as a result of taking the moral high ground. Just imagine the strain of living on a councillors allowance.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 01:23 PMI have to wonder if Sept 18 is a “definite” date or more of an aspirational one.
I seem to remember a certain party not meeting a “definite” date but turning up a few weeks late to show that they could not be pushed around (haha).
A gauntlet has been thrown down; are SF likely to come home wagging their tails behind them?Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 01:31 PMRobo is getting frustrated. The Shinners mightn’t turn up to the executive, last time it was Robo who wouldn’t turn up.
The mess that is St Andrews just continues our socalled politicians are still locked into their own political fantasy worlds.
The rest of us want a decent health service, clarity on education, relatrively dry roads after a few spits of rain and a job to pay for the mortgage. Not that much really - but too much for the muppets on the Hill
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 01:42 PMI think it would be unfair to say that SF are engaging in brinkmanship. The SF leadership had a hard time carrying the P & J vote with the membership, as part of that vote P & J was promised (to delegates) by May…
If the party leadership cannot deliver what was promised in the near future then they would be bound, not by St. Andrew’s but by party rules, to walk away from an executive that does not have the power envisaged by the St. Andrew’s Agreement.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 02:56 PMThis political sham and mess we currently have up at stormont is totally unsustainable.
having power sharing up and running is not benifiting anyone. It is a complete joke and no way at all to run a country
I suppose when you go for an undemocratic setup like what was agreed in the St Andrews agreement then this is what you get. can the people of this country not see though that this is just going to go on, and on, and on, and on, and.....
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 03:22 PMIt is a complete joke and no way at all to run a country
The traditional unionist way was hardly a resounding success either.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 03:32 PMNeither was it democratic.....
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 03:38 PMGlensman,
That’s as honest a reading as I’ve read in the comment zone here for some time. And you have it in one. Effectively the party is asking the DUP to sub them so they can stay inside the Executive and not be forced to walk.
Whilst it doesn’t do the DUP a lot of good to be seen to be unreasonable in all of this, it won’t pay them to be too generous to Sinn Fein either. Politics is a rough old business, vulnerability in one often invokes ruthlessness in another. So don’t hold your breath!
Yet there is a keener sense abroad amongst the politically engaged population (ie, senior businessmen, etc, and not anoraks/hacks) that none of our politicians are up the jobs they all applied for last year.
I buy the idea that the floods both last year and this were new and seasonally exceptional. Nevertheless the response from the various Ministers was poor and disjointed.
It’s as though they had learned nothing between last year’s populist buy off of those affected, and this year when what people wanted to hear was reasons, and a plan of action to tackle the cause of the problems.
And that would seem to go to the problem raised by TU. Is this government capable of governing, or simply using their terms in government in order to undermine one another in what is fast turning into a government salaried full term election campaign?
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 03:46 PMSorry guys, that was me. Just been doing some routine maintenance.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 03:50 PMHenry94,
maybe not, but this is simply not democracy. It is unsustainable, and that is why this kind of political setup is not used anywhere else in the western world.
Has nobody wondered why it isnt used anywhere else?
maybe for the reason that it simply doesnt work
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 03:58 PMHaving a unionist majority government is also unsustainable - because it seems that such a government would only seek to govern for one part of the community and would simply oppress the other part. No doubt the same could be said of SF on the other side. What needs to happen is the DUP must accept that it is sharing power with SF and work that arrangement for the benefit of all, not just its own constituency and its future election hopes....
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 04:05 PMMaskey back-peddling like mad on the radio now! The problem for SF is that the more they highlight this and issue threats, the more they show how impotent they are over this issue.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 04:22 PMtraditional unionist .
‘can the people of this country not see though that this is just going to go on, and on, and on, and on, and..’
Not sure about the view from within NI but the view from the Republic would be that it has always been going on, in one form or another and will always go on because what is or appears to be at stake is the fundamental constitutional position of NI going back to 1920.
‘Has nobody wondered why it isnt used anywhere else? ‘
Nowhere else has Northern Ireland’s unique political and sectarian history ?
‘maybe for the reason that it simply doesnt work’
How appropriate then given that NI has a history of being ruled as either one party quasi fascist State (1920 - 1972)or as an offshore ‘colony ‘ complete with Colonial Governor masquerading as Secretary of State, up to the present Assembly ? At the very least the present system is maintaining continuity with multiple past non achievements of NI administrations .
NI cannot be governed as a normal democracy for the very simple reason that it is not and can never be a normal ‘democracy’ in it’s present 6 county format !
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 04:26 PMTU
maybe not, but this is simply not democracy
It is. It just isn’t majoritarianism. There is a difference.
Mick
That’s as honest a reading as I’ve read in the comment zone here for some time. And you have it in one. Effectively the party is asking the DUP to sub them so they can stay inside the Executive and not be forced to walk.
The DUP conceded the principle of devolution and justice at St Andrews. There was also a proposed time table, which while not binding, set expectations. I suspect that if there was some indication of timing, or what “Community Confidence” constitutes, or positive talk form the DUP, this crisis would have at least been postponed. They haven’t.
SF made a balls in not tying down concrete dates and commitments for what they wanted. But I’m not sure they are asking for a “sub” here. It’s more like asking someone when they are going to pay up what they owe. And given the principle is conceded, they do owe it.
It’s easy to focus on SF. But the DUP have taken this as a jolly way to throw their weight about and try to play some electoral games. Fine. Politics, is as you say, a rough business. But sometimes you can be so sharp you cut yourself. It is easy to say “This is only an issue for Republicans”. But if it is so important to them that they’ll collapse the whole show, then it’s an issue for everyone. Just like decomissioning was.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 04:30 PMGreenflag,
if you want to go about calling the political setup in Northern Ireland years ago a “fascist State”, and saying it can never be a normal democracy. Can I suggest you also look into the Republic’s own treatment of Southern Unionists?
One could say Northern Ireland learnt all these “bad things” you claim it has had in the past from its nice neighbour the Republic?
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 04:31 PMKensei,
The reality of democracy is that the majority decision goes.
That is democracy. There is a motion tabled by a member of the house which he feels will improve the country, and the members vote. whatever way the majority vote then that is what happens, passed or not.
Some people may not like it, but that IS democracy. It really is that simple
what is your view of democracy?
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 04:36 PMTU:
“One could say Northern Ireland learnt all these “bad things” you claim it has had in the past from its nice neighbour the Republic?”
One could certainly say that, if one wishes to display a complete disregard for history as it happened. But do continue with the grossly exaggerated what-aboutery…
And if one wants to lecture about majority rule, looking at it one way the northern statelet would have never existed if the wishes of the island-wide majority were followed eighty years ago. But then again, unionists can come up with very elastic definitions of a “majority” to suit one’s purpose.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 05:17 PMAs honest as far as it goes, Mick.
“The SF leadership had a hard time carrying the P & J vote with the membership, as part of that vote P & J was promised (to delegates) by May…
If the party leadership cannot deliver what was promised in the near future then they would be bound, not by St. Andrew’s but by party rules, to walk away from an executive that does not have the power envisaged by the St. Andrew’s Agreement.”
And who promised the delegates P&J;by May?
The same leadership who are now being envisaged walking out of the Northern Ireland Executive in keeping with “party rules”.
bisto
No wonder Maskey’s “back-peddling like mad”.
He was one of the party leadership making statements about imaginary agreements.
Look at it this way, Peter Robinson has just called the Sinn Féin leadership liars [to their own party delegates and in subsequent public statements] - and he quoted the evidence.
What’s been the Sinn Féin leadership’s response to that charge?
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 05:27 PMI guess when you’ve lived most of your life as a common thug, using violence to impose your will on others, setting up your opponents for assassination, disappearing women, donning your black beret and sending others off to a fate with fellow agent Scap in a Border barn, and organising ‘spectaculars’ in London to vent your frustration at not getting your own way, it must be hard to adjust to a new reality in the form of Peter Robinson, who doesn’t give a toss about double-dealing scumbags and the difficulties that they get themselves into by lying to their own supporters.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 05:44 PMTU ,
‘Can I suggest you also look into the Republic’s own treatment of Southern Unionists?’
I did but obvioulsy you haven’t . The best reference to read is Ireland’s Holy Wars by Marcus Tanner . He’s English. So you can rely on his ‘neutrality’.
‘ Some people may not like it, but that IS democracy. It really is that simple’
Well it would be if the State was democratic to begin with ie established with the support of the vast majority of the population . Northern Ireland never came close to having that degree of support which is why it could only ever become a one party state until ‘enough was enough ‘
The United States , France , Germany , Britain (UK mainland) , and th Irish Republic are all working democracies because the vast majority of their citizens almost 100% accept the State as constituted . Northern Ireland never had that degree of popular support which is why today the only way for it to have any kind of self government is to have the ‘monstrosity’ of mandatory power sharing imposed by Westminster .
Can’t you see that ? Or did your history begin in 1969 ?
Posted by on Aug 26, 2008 @ 05:45 PM
