Wednesday, March 19, 2008
“major problems ahead..”
That’s the prediction of the deputy First minister, Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness, on what will happen if the devolution of policing and justice powers is not completed by May in his interview with UTV’s Ken Reid - Direct streaming link here [wmv file]. He also denies having that conversation with Jonathan Powell. Of course, the deputy First Minister is still referring to May 2008 as a “deadline” rather than a ‘target date’.. And, as well as pointing to these comments, and these, he states that “It’s a big issue for Sinn Féin.” Indeed. Although he doesn’t predict what the SF leadership will say in response to that Ard Fheis motion..
Pete Baker @ 07:52 PM
“I thought that the rule change was that the Englezes couln’t collapse it”
Meaningless twaddle- see s. 5(6) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. You know the bit about “the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Northern Ireland”. If the government wanted to suspend they could.
Could you also make up your mind about collapse. Which is it:
“This is an excellent move by SF - if the DUP dont agree to devolution of police and justice SF will collapse the executive”
or
“neither do I think they will collapse it”
Let’s examine what collapse means. There would be a resignation of the DFM a la Trimble. That would set the clock for a new election unless there was a suspension. So either the government intervenes to suspend (or worse) or there is an election. All the SF bluster would just lead to Westminster exercising its’ powers to dispose of a elected assembly whose powers, rules and composition ALL parties signed up to or an election to that self same Assembly with P&J;devolution being the single issue.
SF are NEVER going to collapse this assembly. So the DUP have a meaningful veto and the Provos are left to threaten the nuclear option which the dogs in the street know they won’t exercise. So much for having the DUP “by short and curlies with a bigger veto of their own.”
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 11:20 PMWhy is there a dearth of SF posters on this thread?
Hope it’s not a Holy Week thing.Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 11:35 PMBoner,
you got it right with the parallell with the ‘nuclear option’ - I dont think they will collapse it because it will be a deterent to the DUP to behave in line with the spirit of the STA.
If everybody but the DUP are in agreement and they are holding up progress do you not think that Friends of Sinn Fein (i.e. the British Government) will wave their Plan B under Robbo’s nose?
If the unlikely event the Englezes dont behave as they have in the past i.e. do the decent Nationalist thing, then Grizzly will tell Martin to push the button.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 11:42 PMBonarLaw
I’d forgotten about the specific nature of the ‘Office of the First and deputy First Ministers’.
How parties would fare in such a forced election would be purely a matter of speculation.
But I doubt that, whatever the result, that ‘contitutional nonsense’ would be resolved.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 11:42 PMSammy
“If everybody but the DUP are in agreement..”
You seem to have missed the point.
Everybody is in agreement that May 2008 is a ‘target date’.
Except the Sinn Féin leadership.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 11:46 PMPete,
ok, so it’s a target date. A date that all the parties are obliged to work towards. If one of those parties does not work towards it - and the other parties think they are being obstructionist then they are in breach of the ‘spirit’ of the STA. That’s the crucial point.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 11:56 PMWell, I guess SF did take their eye off the ball on that one at St.Andrews. They’re going to have to accept the penalty.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 11:57 PMSammy
a deterent only works if your opponent believes that you will use it. No one believes SF will press the button. Yet already the DUP have vetoed the 7 council model, the ILA and now P&J;devolution (by May at any rate) and what from SF? Grizzly making some piss-poor remark about blocking the RoboDome in East Belfast!
To think unionists were scared of these people being let near government!
Pete
The constitutional nonsense would not be resolved- the Shinners are hoist on their own petard. Lobby for the institutions to be legislated out of existance and remove the vehicle to which P&J;was to be devolved to or stick with the agreed structures and accept the DUP has the final say on when (if) it happens.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2008 @ 11:58 PMJoeC,
until I read Marty’s comments I thought that as well - cutehoors them fenians.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:02 AM“Clearly there are rejectionist elements in Sinn Fein who wish to destroy devolution and, ultimately, the peace process. I hope that Gerry Adams can show the rejectionists the leadership to move things forward.”
Who exactly are these rejectionst elements Comrade?
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:03 AMSammy
“ok, so it’s a target date. A date that all the parties are obliged to work towards. If one of those parties does not work towards it - and the other parties think they are being obstructionist then they are in breach of the ‘spirit’ of the STA. That’s the crucial point.”
And the time spent between then and now by Sinn Fein?
Repeatedly pointing to a ‘deadline’ that didn’t exist? - just as one example.
BonarLaw
I’d tend to agree.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:05 AMOne, purely technical, caveat, BonarLaw.
“accept the DUP has the final say on when (if) it happens.”
Not necessarily the DUP.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:08 AMBoner,
dont forget the Englezes will be on our side not yours.
The DUP will opt out of the battle of the vetos by accepting the Army Council deal.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:11 AMSammy
If they [the DUP] do it will be on their terms - see Lord Morrow’s response.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:15 AMPete Baker
You are, of course, correct. SF have to accept that the party which can deliver the majority of unionist designated MLAs has the final say. For this mandate that party is the DUP.
Sammy
“The DUP will opt out of the battle of the vetos by accepting the Army Council deal.”
I hope they will use their veto to much greater effect than that. There are a number of issues surrounding the devolution scheme OF p&j;that need to be resolved in such a manner as to maximise unionist confidence. As we have seen from the Executive Review Committee Report that discussion has not yet happened either with the government or with Sf.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:21 AMI’m in agreement with my Conservative colleague Mr Law. Sinn Fein will not collapse the Executive. Mcguinness is just posturing.
I too noticed Adams rather childish remark about vetos ‘If you annoy me any more I’lll, I’ll… I’ll stop you building a small football stadium in East Belfast. That’ll show you!’.
Even sadder is the fact that Adams probably cannot stop this. When the Maze Stadium plan is seen to have no economic clothes the rugby guys will get on with Ravenhill, the GAA will be happy with their stadia but the IFA will need somewhere for internationals.
A proposal to build a small football stadium would hardly require cross community support - the need for a stadium having been established.I find the posts by others frankly amazing - especially this idea that the UK Government cannot collapse/ change the institutions. The UK Parliament is sovereign and can change anything in the UK it wants (well as long as it doesnt cut across any EU Directives).
So, for example, a future Conservative administration could abolish the system of designation, change the system for electing the FM and phase out mandatory coalitions.Secondly the idea that there is some obligation on the DUP to devolve P & J in May is also laughable. It is simply not the case. Shanun Woodward and his butler can ‘spin’ poinion polls til cows come home and maybe get Bertie and the Bush administration to encourage/push the DUP but that is all.
Unfortunately any traction they might have had has been sent into reverse by President McAleese’s remarks. Is she a secret member of the DUP? I think we should be told.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:22 AMPete,
the Englezes have framed this beuatifully and allowed the DUP to be technically correct about deadline/target issue but handed SF the loaded political gun by stating that the DUP should work towards this date - if the DUP dont meet the target then it is they who are out of line.
This is the main reason DUP are soft pedalling on this - as mentioned above the short hairs in the nether regions are being reined in.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:23 AMSammy
“if the DUP dont meet the target then it is they who are out of line.”
You’re not paying attention to the detail.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:27 AMI just hope it isn’t Catriona Ruane MLA with the security portfolio,
Jane Kennedy was bad enough, Paul Goggins made my work in Britain almost impossible, Ms Ruane would be the cue to ask for political asylum in the USA.
I’d be likely to face a high treason charge for betraying the GLF.
It could be rather Stalinesque - a confession by a beaten man from the dock - “I wasn’t queer enough”. I surely admit I wasn’t GLF enough.
Speaking of which, I gather tomorrow the Minister for the DENI will be reported in the print media as presiding over a philosophy of child friendly sex offenders in our schools.
It is an amazingly complicated mish-mash of criminological non-reasoning and blame-transfer.
The explanation is as follows,
SB and the NCIS (presently CEOP/SOCA) were far more involved with non-vetting imperatives than the faithful flock at Ardfheiseanna might think wise, or indeed, safe, for our kids.
The British spook agenda was how to manage the FBI, who wanted pedo teachers arrested (net grooming re: US kids for example) and the Brits who do care very deeply, but only about the British teaching unions.
So the compromise was that sex offenders can work in schools in Britain & NI, no problem with that, and the Brit intel services *respond* to RCMP/FBI requests and otherwise do nothing positive.
I can safely say this, in the 7 years that I have worked on teacher vetting, not one single SF MLA propositioned on the matter, has supported a ban on sex offenders in schools.
Well, I am glad I am ‘not queer enough’. As Pink Floyd have stated, leave those kids alone.
I don’t want justice & policing devolved, I have enough probs with Jim Gamble & the Brit security services as it is. I don’t want to add the PSNI to my troubles.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:33 AMBOBW.
RE. Collapsing the agreement - I was under the impression that the British government included a clause in the STA re. their own ability to collapse the executive. Are you saying this is not the case? Whether they could introduce fresh legislation to collapse it is a seperate point. There may be an issue with changing GFA/STA elements without the agreement of ROI as at some level this is an international treaty. Are you saying this is not the case?
Re. Grizzly and the stadium - if the DUP dont meet their ‘target’ committments (devolution of police and ustice ) under the STA then all sort of deals will start to look problematic.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:33 AMCan we all agree that P&J;will not be devolved by May? The Lord Chief Justice, the Chief Con. and the entire legal establishment were all talking about October before the FM indicated his resignation. Given the transition within the DUP, the vast amount of work required on the who, what, where and how much of P&J;devolution and the Irish Presidents’ remarks I think anytime this year might be optomistic. What can be done is appointing designate law officers and agreeing on the role of the Attorney General (and if necessary, the Solicitor General). But even that looks unlikely by May
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:37 AMPete,
does the STA not oblige all parties to work towards the ‘target date’ for devolution?
If one of those parties does not do this then will they not be in breach of the spirit of the STA?
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:39 AMBoner,
I agree and as long as the DUP agree a reasonable timeframe, probably under a year, then SF will run with that.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:42 AMSammy
“There may be an issue with changing GFA/STA elements without the agreement of ROI as at some level this is an international treaty. Are you saying this is not the case?”
The GFA and STA were given legislative force by the UK legislature. Parliament can ammend or repeal its’ own acts at will without reference to any external body.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:42 AMBoner,
if you make an agreement with another country which covers areas of mutual interest then could you not be in breach of that agreement if you decide to amend your own legislation which is relevant to that mutual interest?
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 12:52 AM
