Thursday, April 17, 2008
“ it would be foolish for anyone to try and mimic his style of leadership..”
The unanimous decision by the Assembly party’s executive committee follows the unanimous decision of the party executive Assembly group. So, it’s offical, albeit not until early June, Peter Robison is the new leader of the DUP and the next First Minister.
Adds More from the First Minister designate hereMr Robinson and Mr Dodds, in a joint statement, said they were “deeply honoured” to be given the responsibility to lead the party. “We want to pay tribute to Dr Paisley and the stirling service which he has given,” they said. “The DUP and Northern Ireland owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr Paisley for his leadership over many decades. He has a unique ability and it would be foolish for anyone to try and mimic his style of leadership.”
Quotes from Peter Robinson in the Belfast Telegraph
“I made one request of the executive members tonight and that was, when some months or years down the road they want to make a judgment on the leadership of the Democratic Unionist Party that will follow Ian Paisley, that they compare it to (UUP leader Reg Empey) and all the others rather than comparing it to Ian Paisley. On that score I think we will come out ahead. But it is a very difficult, almost frightening prospect to follow the leadership of someone of such a mighty standing in the community, someone who is a legend within the unionist community.
“It is up to Nigel (Dodds) and I to give leadership along with our colleagues in the Assembly to the party and to the unionist community to make it clear we are fighting for the unionist agenda, we will oppose republicans at every possible opportunity we have.”
Pete Baker @ 11:24 PM
As for Northern Ireland, if it doesn’t want to meet the stipulations laid down for receiving the investment, it can always say no.
There’s no need. Northern Ireland’s own legislation is probably just as stringent as the McBride principles. Its the humiliation of having to admit that they’ve been forced to apply equality that irks unionists. And McBride is proof that the outside world (or, powerful Irish-America at least) believes that force is still needed to stop them reverting to their old ways. It would be so much easier if unionism actually stopped fighting equality!
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 11:59 AMHorseman, the ‘commie’ threat was to the institutions in both jurisdictions and the RoI definitely prospered in relation to NI during the past forty or so years and it burned only a little.
It would have been better IMO if the administrations in Belfast and Dublin had been able to stand together against the hard men.
I and the young folks who worked with me put a lot of effort into cross-community programs and we did so mostly at our own expense. But the crack was great and the emotional reward was fantastic. And we’ve paid our taxes - probably ...
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 12:04 PMIt was a three strand deal, Horseman, and you’re asking me to ‘discriminate’ in favour of Strand 2 ...
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 12:07 PMNevin,
It would have been better IMO if the administrations in Belfast and Dublin had been able to stand together against the hard men.
Which administration in Beelfast do you mean? There was no ‘local’ administration for most of the period between 1972 and recently. Do you mean the Brits? The ones who were up to their elbows in it, and still are shy to admit their role?
And which are the ‘hard men’? The UDA? The uniionist establishment? The Paisleyites? Since they were all largely contained within the north, and fully subject to British treatment, the fact that they were allowed to carry on for so long is strong proof that the British were not at all interested in standing up to ‘hard men’, with or without the south.
Anecdotal evidence (all I have, sorry) is that the Gardai and the army in the south hated the IRA with a vengeance, and left no stone unturned in their fight against them. Ask any IRA man whether he got a better treatment from the SB in the south than in the north!
If the south didn’t ‘burn’ it was because the south had (and has) no disaffected minority. The north did - the minority it could do nothing about, but the disaffection was entirely unionism’s own creation. So if the north burned, a lot of the fuel was unionist-provided!
A genuine commitment to equality and economic prosperity for all would have dampened that fuel, but it wasn’t there. Don’t blame the south!
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 12:18 PM“and “sort of endorsed” nothing else.”
You can see why I used ‘sort of endorsed’, George.
However, surely the RoI electorate could be forgiven if they believed they were endorsing the reforms that Bertie had signed up for:
”Mr. Ahern said the agreement was ‘’a major breakthrough in terms of consolidating peace and ending 30 years of conflict’’ between Protestants, Catholics and British police and military forces.
He added that approval of the agreement in the North and the South of Ireland would represent the first time since 1918 that ‘’a concurrent act of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole’’ had been made.”
Does the RoI’s Equality Commission collect the same range of statistics as its northern counterpart?
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 12:21 PMHorseman, I was thinking of the administrations that were in place prior to 1972. The ‘hard men’ were to be found amongst the two ‘tribes’ and not just in NI.
The south didn’t burn much because the southern government did a deal that displaced the then ‘commie’ leadership of the IRA and left the fire to rage mainly here.
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 12:33 PMThanks for the pdf extract based of the Freedom of Information, i remember doing this years ago when the de facto first minister was councillor and was told where to go lol
In all seriousness duel-jobbing is now a more serious issue than before given the economic climate we all live it. Not withstanding what the report on MPs ‘John Lewis’ expenses may or may not revel; there is at least an apparent conflict of interest and duty, but it is now becoming immoral and repugnant for any politician of any hue to justify this on any basis.
I include an external link to 2 letters that the Irish News kindly published before the committee at Westminster attacked the socialist (sic) Labour Government at Westminster.
What do our MLAs have to say on this matter that affects us all …..
http://www.irishnews.com/pageacc.asp?tser1=ser&sid=582058
http://www.irishnews.com/pageacc.asp?tser1=ser&sid=583799Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 12:46 PMHorseman, Bertie also described himself as a socialist but obviously not one in the Sean Garland mode.
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 12:46 PMNevin,
I was thinking of the administrations that were in place prior to 1972. The ‘hard men’ were to be found amongst the two ‘tribes’ and not just in NI. <i>
Well if there were ‘hard men’ in the south, they had long since been softened by the comforts of ministerial life! 99.9% of the old ‘hard men’ were in Fianna Fail or Fine Gael, and had long since given up the gun. The microscopic IRA remnants were simply irrelevant in the south. They would have been irrelevant in the north too if <i>someone hadn’t lit a fuse!
The south didn’t burn much because the southern government did a deal that displaced the then ‘commie’ leadership of the IRA and left the fire to rage mainly here.
The leadership of the ‘commie’ branch of the IRA stayed in the south, working its way eventually into the government (SF --> official SF ---> SF The Workers Party --> The Workers Party --> Democratic Left --> Labour Party). The ‘fire’ that raged was the cause of the split that gave us the provos. Since the ‘fire’ was lit in the north using some unionist kindling, its hardly surprising that it raged there! There simply wasn’t any fuel in the south to light any fire, so I cannot see your point. If you’re trying to resurrect the old canard about the provos being a devious creation of Jack Lynch and the southern government, don’t bother. It was, at best, a figment of unionist imagination, invented to try to absolve themselves of any blame for the little conflagration.
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 12:57 PMAnecdotal evidence can be more illuminating than government spin, horseman. Remember that the police, north and south, were acting under political direction.
It’s also interesting to listen to the differing perspectives on this topic that emanate from civil servants in the departments of justice and foreign affairs.
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 01:00 PMHorseman, Garland refers to attacks in the south that appear to have predated those in the north. The intent to remove the two ‘conservative’ administrations was fairly clear.
PS The ‘hard men’ in the south included the likes of Neil Blaney.
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 01:05 PMNevin,
Remember that the police, north and south, were acting under political direction.
I’m not certain if you’re agreeing with me or not now!
The Gardai certainly operated under political direction, or at least a variable-lenth leash. During the 1973-77 government it was given a free hand, and it used it. The resulting abuses of human rights were sufficient to give Fianna Fail a landslide victory in 1977. Having said that, though, there has neveer been sympathy for the IRA in the southern establishment. Remember that De Valera executed a few IRA men in the 1940s - he was detested by the IRA ever since, and his party returned the sentiment.
The irony in all this is that the unionist establishment in the north (pre-1972) had more in common with the Fianna Fail establishment in the south than it knew. Unfortunately the unionist blanket dislike of everything ‘Irish’ led them to lump everything and everyone together, and cost them a generation of progress. I think Paisley’s snowballs-to-walnut-bowls evolution is a pathetic example of the period of unionist isolation and reverse.
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 01:16 PMHorseman, Conor Cruise O’Brien, I thought, gave a pretty fair portrayal of how de Valera and Lemass could stand their ground whereas Lynch and, on this side of the fence, O’Neill couldn’t.
We also had the street politics of the likes of Paisley and Hume and, in traditional fashion, it wasn’t long before the mobs were unleashed.
There has been a degree of hypocrisy on the use of baton-wielding to clear the streets. When it happened in Dublin in 1966 there was barely a murmur; when it happened in Derry in 1968 there was an international outcry.
PS I based some of my analysis on a Unionist/Nationalist/Socialist divide and that throws up a different range of perspectives to the simple Unionist/Nationalist one.
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 01:35 PM“a figment of unionist imagination”
I think by-product is a more apt line than creation, Horseman, and I doubt if Lynch had very much control over those events. You can see why the southern establishment wished to protect its own butt ...
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 01:46 PMNevin,
‘Baton-wielding’ is not the same in all cases. I don’t know who was hit by batons in Dublin in 1966, or what the context was. But we all know who was hit in Derry, and why. The Derry incident was only a small part of a much wider and longer picture. On its own, the batoning may not have amounted to much, but because it was caught on camera we give it a lot of attention. The subsequent conflagration was not caused by the batoning - it had much deeper roots, and the international outcry was as much a reaction to the longer story than to the pictures.
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 01:48 PMNevin and the Horse
I have come to a blog about the new DUP leadership right?
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 01:50 PMBigger Picture
lol
I’d have thought from your name that you knew that everything is connected to everything ...
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 02:10 PM“Dr. O’Connell: Does the Minister agree that this baton-swinging democracy serves as a showpiece as suggested by the Taoiseach, when we have disturbances like this provoked by the police?
Mr. B. Lenihan: The Deputy and certain other members of his Party appear to want to bring parliamentary democracy in Ireland into a state of anarchy in which anything might happen.” .. Streets of Dublin 1966
Much better to have anarchy somewhere else, Horseman. Cue the neighbours.
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 04:10 PMWe only endorsed the changes to Articles 2 and 3 and “sort of endorsed” nothing else.
No offence George, but you’re completely wrong there - although you have fallen victim to what is a very common misconception.
The Irish constitutional amendment covered by the referendum included an addition to Article 29, which authorized the Government to ratify the Belfast Agreement (go read it - the amendment is still present in the latest version of the constitution - see article 29 section 7). The Irish people were therefore giving their consent to ratify the Agreement. Take away the constitutional legals and you’ve got a straight referendum on the GFA.
So let’s put to bed this notion that the citizens of the RoI did not have a referendum on the Agreement. Yes they did.
Horseman, from my recollection the McBride principles require “positive discrimination”. I am opposed to any kind of discrimination, positive or negative, and any democrat should oppose any such legislation - two wrongs don’t make a right. The only place I am aware of where this is legal is in the 50/50 police recruitment legislation.
Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 06:25 PMIrish Constitution - see Article 29, Section 7
“7. 1° The State may consent to be bound by the British-Irish Agreement done at Belfast on the 10th day of April, 1998, hereinafter called the Agreement.”
“The question on the referendum ballot paper was:
Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill, the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1998?”Posted by on Apr 18, 2008 @ 07:36 PM
