Thursday, January 04, 2007
“no point proceeding unless there is clarity”
Prime Minister Tony Blair, just off the plane, has issued a statement. Full text here Updated below the fold Updated again
The full statement
I have spoken intensively to the leaders of both the DUP and Sinn Fein over the past days. Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams have made their positions clear to me, on the two crucial issues of power-sharing and support for policing, justice and the rule of law.
So let me set out my clear understanding of these positions.
I need both leaders to agree to this understanding.
Both parties have already publicly agreed to power-sharing on the basis and timeframe set out at St Andrews.
On policing, justice and the rule of law Sinn Fein will propose to their Party’s Ard Fheis that Sinn Fein commit now and fully to support the PSNI and the criminal justice system and actively encourage everyone to co-operate fully with the police services in tackling crime in all areas as well as actively supporting all the criminal justice institutions. These proposals, if committed to, and acted upon amount to the support by Sinn Fein for the rule of law, police and courts that is necessary.
For their part, the DUP require that the Sinn Fein commitments to support for the police, the courts and the rule of law are translated into action so that there is real and tangible evidence of such support. It is delivery on those commitments that creates the conditions for devolution of policing and justice to take place. When there is delivery, there will be devolution.
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]
My view therefore is that if there is delivery by Sinn Fein of support for the police, courts and rule of law within the St Andrew’s timeframe, then there should be devolution of policing and justice within that timeframe.
It is only on this basis and with this clarity that we can proceed to an election. I am confident that both parties want to see progress and will honour their commitments.
But there is no point in proceeding unless there is such clarity.
Update As Ian points out in the comments, Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams has stated - statement here [Added link]
The West Belfast MP said: “The core of a motion I would put to a Sinn Fein ard fheis is accurately summarised in the British prime minister’s statement today.”
And in case you missed them, a reminder of previous posts on the differences between target dates and deadlines and conditions and commitments
More It’s worth remembering what Ian Paisley has already said “the sooner we have delivery, the better for us all.”
And What he has said today
In his statement tonight, Mr Paisley said he had made it clear to Mr Blair that upfront delivery was expected from Sinn Fein.
“Sinn Fein must deliver on policing in a real and meaningful way,” the North Antrim MP stressed.
“There can be no movement unless we have clarity on the need for everyone to support the rule of law.
“The Prime Minister is well aware that we are willing to make progress on a level playing field when there is full support for and co-operation with the police.”
He reiterated: “We have remained steadfast on the need to achieve full delivery and if confidence is to be built then it is up to Sinn Fein to match their words with deeds.”
Pete Baker @ 01:43 PM
Cynic seems to have got it bang on, get attention away from the crisis in SF by creating a general crisis.
“at ST Andrew’s where Paisley looked a most chastened man”
Hmmm, “chastened” was not a common description of his press conference performance at St Andrews
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 03:25 PMI am confused as to exactly what SF want the DUP to say?
No more sackcloth and ashes, boys!!
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 03:26 PMPaisley and Adams both have the jitters. No wonder Blair came back from a holiday. It wasnt necessarily because Paisley had problems. Adams had his doubts about DUP commitment which initiated a Dup response from Dodds this morning etc...This translates into DUP reactionism which of its very nature is nervy. get it right guys!
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 03:26 PMJohn,
I’m willing to be convinced. But the trail that dumps this at the door of DUP is either not there, or I am just not seeing it.
If Adams is simply asking for more time, then he should say so.
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 03:32 PMPat McL said:
it is clear that in such matters Adams deals directly with Blair and Powell. I would assume he replied so readily because he and Blair have been in constant contact and are already in agreement. Blair has returned to deal with the DUP.
You’ve hit the nail on the head Pat. GA wants assurance that the DUP will follow.
That said, I’m really not sure that they will. If they do, they will bolster SF, if they don’t they could cause GA serious damage for even taking this as far as he has.
There’s no doubting that this is causing concern within SF ranks. If nothing comes of it in terms of devolution then the pain currently being suffered by SF may well have been for nothing.
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 03:34 PMPaisley speaks:
http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=79059&pt=n
Does this fall short of what SF want?Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 03:37 PMDualta,
I am pretty sure it will not be for nothing. If past experience is anything to go by, this is not the end, and possibly not even be the endgame.
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 03:40 PMParcifal
It seems from GA’s reference to his policing motion that SF want the DUP to say
“The DUP haven’t seen SF’s motion nor has it been passed nor acted upon but the DUP promise they will do whatever SF want on this issue. The DUP will give SF a deadline on the devolution of policing nor object to a side deal on OTR’s etc etc.”
As a New year bonus they would also like “The DUP will gladly ignore that under St Andrews we don’t have to do these things because we are feeling generous and giving political movement away for free goes down well with our voters. The fact that on the day of St Andrews (and since) we told SF and everyone else that DUP movement was dependent on delivery was just a little jest between non-friends. We also agree to sit in the corner and be quiet little boys and girls and wait for the inevitable 32 county socialist republic.”
Caricaturing aside, Blair’s repeated references to delivery mean the DUP can couch anything they say with “subject to delivery” and Ian has already pointed out IP’s position to devolution in May 08 is an open one.
The cross-community voting takes the sting out of the tail of the devolution of policing and justice powers with the ‘test’ period for Sinn Fein effectively to 2011.
“No more sackcloth and ashes,”
I wondered when that would make a reappearance which statement will be latched onto this time?
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 03:43 PMDualta,
rather than bolster Adams I would see it as weakening Paisley. The vultures have been less than subtle hovering around the Doc.
As for the ‘pain’ in the SF ranks, this matter had to be addressed and post GFA SF stated that it would, if certain conditions(discussed elsewhere) were met. I heard that being said on hundreds of occasions but apparently some SF members did not.
Clearly Adams (at least) believes this to be the occasion and has decided to face it now.Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 03:45 PMMick,
You could well be right, but I must say that SF is having a torrid time in public. Is it possible that the DUP would be happy to drag SF along in this process to exacerbate their internal difficulties and then not commit? This is what Paisley has said:
“If we are to see further political developments, then it must be in the context of full and final delivery from republicans.”
Does that mean that action must be taken on other issues that the DUP has repeatedly flagged up such as criminality, the IRA’s cash and even the IRA’s structures, i.e. the continued existence of the Army Council.
If they do then Adams will be made to look like he’s being led by the nose, just as SF made Trimble look. It has been said already that the DUP may well be playing the same game with SF that SF played with the UUP, seriously damaging that party.
Does Paisley see an opportunity to finally smash SF?
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 03:54 PMFrom the UTV link - this is what Paisley said:
“Sinn Fein must deliver on policing in a real and meaningful way,” the North Antrim MP stressed.
“There can be no movement unless we have clarity on the need for everyone to support the rule of law.
“The Prime Minister is well aware that we are willing to make progress on a level playing field when there is full support for and co-operation with the police.”It would be helpful if Sinn Fein indicated what they want to hear so no-one is left guessing as to whether the above Paisley statement is enough. Unless, of course, there is no intention of proceeding no matter what is said.
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 03:56 PMPat
Clearly Adams (at least) believes this to be the occasion and has decided to face it now.
Pat, that’s for sure. Adams is a strong, determined leader. I also see your point regarding the internal machinations in the DUP. If the Doc does move into a devolved administration with SF it will hurt him severely. It will then be him suffering the internal splits.
I don’t think he’s going to jump this time. Of course Blair can threaten him with whatever, but might Paisley consider whatever moves are made towards the implementation of Plan B as being the lesser of two evils?
Having Martin McG as a deputy would split his party whilst the implementation of Plan B would galvinise it.
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:02 PMThere will be a deal.No matter what.Adams has come too far and Paisley as well believe it or not.If his party bring up another precondition after this issue, Adams will be in a strong position.
What is wrong with supporting the rule of law anyway? If you flood the Psni with Nationalists who gives a monkeys whether it is old British Law or Northern Irish law or whatever?In the Irish republic we have the same model of law believe it or not!So everyone needs to cool their kecks and remain rational whatever camp you are supporting.
Adams, go for policing !Ian lets get devolved!Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:02 PMSo all Paisley has to do is say ‘I think the PM’s remarks are fair’ and make refernce to the issue of verafiable delivery. At the end of the day the STAA talks of 2008 as the hoped for date, black and white and the DUP know it. Its easy for Paisley to say that it would good if the situation on the ground was verifiably transformed enough for devolution to go ahead.
I suspect something will be forthcoming from the DUP to that effect shortly.
Maybe the truth of the situation can be seen from this headline from that well known DUP rag…
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/northernirelandassembly/story/0,,1982943,00.htmlPosted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:05 PMHaving MmcG will not necessarily split his party. That is fear mongering nonsense! Speaking to RTE’s worst reporter, recently, IP said he would “do whats best for the country” in a conciliatory manner. Sure the DUP have to work with SF in City Hall in Belfast for goodness sake! The deal is very possible and we shouldnt be negative
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:11 PMParcifal,
I think at this stage it’s not so much a question of what SF would like Paisley to say, but what Blair has required of him, i.e. a very simple yes or no response to Blair’s statement.
Blair laid out his understanding of what the agreed way forward is, having had discussions with Adams and Paisley about their respective positions. He simply requests that both leaders agree that his understanding, as detailed in his statement, is a correct interpretations of the two leaders’ positions.
Adams gave an affirmative response almost immediately. All that is required is for Paisley to follow by saying Yes.
It all comes down to that one little word. But can Paisley change the habit of a lifetime and say it?
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:16 PMIt seems we now have 2 Cynics!
Two Cynics in NI on this issue. Amazing!
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:17 PMJohn,
It could even split his church.Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:20 PMDon’t people get the fact that the DUP were supposed to state something in their sequence but only half said it on New Year’s Day? There was more that was unsaid but should have been. Just listening to Reg Empey letting the cat out of the bag.
This is certainly not about internal SF difficulties but about the DUP not stating what is needed. I hope that they will now state it so everyone can move forwards.
The notion that SF do not want to move into policing because of internal difficulties is wrong. The leadership have clearly decided to do so and are focussed on that objective. If the DUP do not step up to the mark - the ball will be in the British Government’s court to finalise the deal on Policing as they have on other issues e.g. CRJ and MI5.Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:27 PM“It seems from GA’s reference to his policing motion that SF want the DUP to say
“The DUP haven’t seen SF’s motion nor has it been passed nor acted upon but the DUP promise they will do whatever SF want on this issue. The DUP will give SF a deadline on the devolution of policing nor object to a side deal on OTR’s etc etc.” “
Or how about, you know, what Blair said?
That if SF sign up to policing, then policing powers should be devolved assuming normal caveats and the talk of “Generations” was just hot air?
You know, what was meant to have been agreed?
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:28 PMHis church isn’t his party.
Sorry lads the DUP has already got what they wanted, the cross community voting method. The truth is that the DUP just don’t want Sinn Fein to have it and Sinn Fein want it. On that score, with the cross community voting idea apparently being accepted, the DUP have the whip hand.
Fair-deal, who I have no idea if he is involved in the machincery of the DUP or not, is probably right, Paisley can just say that the PM’s statement makes sense and thats what he hopes for. I theorised ages ago that maybe the DUP were wiping a few eyes, stirring pots and making plenty of statements, some soft some hard.
Gerry, bless him, needs love but he’s looking in the wrong place, its in his own party where the issues lie that he is trying to deal with.
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:29 PMIf you remove the Press Association journalese ("threat.... deadlocked… uncompromising… tough statement.... etc") from the u.tv piece, this is what you’re left with: “The time for action from Sinn Fein is now. If we are to see further political developments, then it must be in the context of full and final delivery from republicans. On this there will be no weakening. Sinn Fein must deliver on policing in a real and meaningful way. There can be no movement unless we have clarity on the need for everyone to support the rule of law. The Prime Minister is well aware that we are willing to make progress on a level playing field when there is full support for and co-operation with the police. We have remained steadfast on the need to achieve full delivery and if confidence is to be built then it is up to Sinn Fein to match their words with deeds.”
For every doomsayer in the North, there’s a naive optimist like me who can’t see where IP departs substantially from anything in the Blair statement.
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:31 PMeolas,
What was it they were supposed say?
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:33 PMLatest at the BBC, the NIO have apparently accepted Paisley’s statement as satisfactory, but now Dodds has stuck his oar in:
The Northern Ireland Office in a statement said: “It is positive that the leadership of both Sinn Fein and the DUP have accepted and welcomed the prime minister’s assessment as set out in his statement today.
“We believe that the parties can move forward on that basis within the timeframe of the St Andrews Agreement.”
(I’m not sure how the NIO arrived at that conclusion on the basis of the BBC/UTV quotes - does anyone have access to Paisley’s statement in full? It’s not on the DUP site yet, unlike Adams’ quote on the SF site. It’s possible the BBC/UTV might have missed out a crucial phrase like they did with Paisley’s New Year speech.)
However, the North Belfast DUP MP Nigel Dodds, said that the 2008 target date had not been agreed by his party and would not be.
“The DUP has made it clear consistently that there will be no timetable for the devolution of policing and justice powers agreed by us,” he said.
“Such a timetable or target date is a purely republican demand only. It was not required of us at St Andrews and we are not about to renegotiate something on which our party’s position is well settled.”
(Dodds obviously didn’t pick up on Robinson’s recent statement to the effect that objections to early devolution of justice powers would evaporate if cross-community consent was built into the mechanism for minsterial appointments - more trouble in the pipeline for the DUP camp?)
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:38 PMBoxty,
IP’s statement leaves room for more preconditions, such as criminality, IRA cash and the continued existence of the IRA army council. The DUP could drag this out for ever and a day. SF seem to want more clarity.
Posted by on Jan 04, 2007 @ 04:38 PM
