Friday, August 29, 2008

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

1. Brian

   The Irish Times report, noted below, has the DUP meeting the IMC today.

   Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:04 AM

2. Good battle-a-day copy for Saturday’s News Letter.

   Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:11 AM

3. Brian,

   you are surely not encouraging the dreadful practice of futuring? If Pete Baker finds out you could be in for a lecture - though he is busy at the moment with a very similar thread.

   It could be that Robbo needs some cover for his arse from an attack from big Jimbo or even Wee Reggie (nice imagery) if he jumps or even slithers on Police and Justice and the evelation of a procedural wrangle to the courts probably better than feck all.

   Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:15 AM

4. And why is Robinson meeting the Independent Monitoring Commission next week, flanked by party colleagues.

   To demand an update on loyalist decommissioning?

   Sorry, couldn’t resist.

   Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:31 AM

5. He may have an interest in putting a date and (former) owner on the semtex used last week in the dissident attack - if it is still amenabe to that kind of analysis.

   Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:37 AM

6. One important point here is that Sinn Fein just aren’t up to the game played at this level. Retorting, in effect, when the Punt sends you a message, that, ‘we’re pretending not to be cognizant of this message because you are merely a co-first-minister, and therefore can’t communicate with us without Murderin’ Mart’s co-signature on your own messages’ is something more than pathetic.

   Unable as they plainly are, I don’t actually believe Sinn Fein are going to keep themselves in the position of defaulting, which is very obviously where they currently are. But I have to ask: how much more self-inflicted humiliation will their voters take from their ‘leaders’ before they begin to, well, wise up? The SDLP may have got things wrong to an almost Trimblesque extent at the tactical level, but they’d be up to the job of following the rules. Especially if they were the rules they they themselves had negotiated. Yet I keep coming back to this: Robinson has Adams exactly where he wants - exposed, vulnerable and with no retaliatory leverage - and it’s Adams himself who has put SF there. You almost begin to wonder . . .

   Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:39 AM

7. He may have an interest in putting a date and (former) owner on the semtex used last week in the dissident attack - if it is still amenabe to that kind of analysis.

   Or indeed the numerous previous dissident attacks which used semtex (though not to such fanfare).

   Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:53 AM

8. Its a Repetitive Rooster

   “Yet I keep coming back to this: Robinson has Adams exactly where he wants “

   The problem for Robbo is that he has been summoned to talks before the Executive meeting by SF - and so he’s dancing the merry dance of distraction - which will probably be enough to fool a lot of his supporters e.g. yourself.

   There was all sorts of funny jibber-jabber (Smash SF etc) before they signed up to “chuckle a day” with Marty and Co - so Robbo may well be getting ready to to do the jump thing.

   Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:59 AM

9. Sorry Pete and everybody. I held off for an hour as I was sitting at the computer and wanted to put down a marker for “one to watch.” Old news instincts die hard! I should stop twitching as I’ve plenty else to be getting on with. “Next week” corrected to “today”, Pete. And over to you for the inevitable follow-up.

   Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:03 AM

10. Robinson has the Ministerial Code tucked under his arm and its a ‘weapon’ which hasn’t recieved much scrutiny.

    Unlike post-1998 its actually binding this time, so the threat of legal challenge against Ministers would have teeth.

    Whilst the IMC do have the role of monitoring paramilitary activity I believe they now also have at least some role in judging the actions of Ministers and whether they are fulfilling that code.

    There could be more than one item on the agenda for the IMC meeting.

    Sammy McNally
    “The problem for Robbo is that he has been summoned to talks before the Executive meeting by SF”

    Lets remember that SF made great play of holding talks after their last ‘smash the executive’ climbdown. What exactly did they get from the DUP at those talks? Nothing of course.

    “There was all sorts of funny jibber-jabber (Smash SF etc) before they signed up to “chuckle a day” with Marty and Co - ”

    There was clearly plenty of Shinner jibber jabber also - telling the troops that P&J;would definitely be devolved by now was probably a jackanory too far for some of the hard-nuts in east Tyrone and west Fermanagh.......

    Maybe you could shed some light on a question I posed before.... With the Shinners saying they’re going to hold a number of “consultations” with their members across what they euphamistically call the north, what exactly are they going to be ‘consulting’ them about?

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:13 AM

11. interested,

    Maybe you could shed some light on a question I posed before.... With the Shinners saying they’re going to hold a number of “consultations” with their members across what they euphamistically call the north, what exactly are they going to be ‘consulting’ them about?

    My guess is it that its some sort of orchestrated display of unity.

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:18 AM

12. I have been accused by Sam, Sam, the single-transferable-post Man of ‘repetition’. Can any other Sluggerite think of a comparable accusation ever having being made before in all of recorded history thus far? (Also: if, say, the Emperor ever accused Darth Vader of, ‘an inclination towards slight misanthropy/abusing the force’, we can accept that or similar examples from Great Works of Western Literature).

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:27 AM

13. I think everyone is waiting for the Sinn Fein climb down on this issue. Adam’s ‘interventions’ of late have done more harm than good for SF in the credibility stakes. The DUP and Sinn Fein are dependent on each other - if they fail in their attempt at good governance they are both up the creek sans paddle.

    Posted by Ignited on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:55 AM

14. Without the threat of the IRA, Sinn Fein are a mere protest party.

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:56 AM

15. Sammy
    “My guess is it that its some sort of orchestrated display of unity.”

    Why the need for such a display? That implies that there is currently sufficient disunity within SF to require such “orchestrated displays”.

    Why would there be such disunity at the present time then if they, as you put it, have Robinson dancing to their tune.

    An orchestrated climbdown might be another way to describe it of course....

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:57 AM

16. interested,

    “An orchestrated climbdown might be another way to describe it of course”

    Well of course you may be right...but as a betting man I’ll wager you otherwise.

    “Why the need for such a display? That implies that there is currently sufficient disunity within SF to require such “orchestrated displays”.

    There surely is disunity - the extent is not clear - but if they get the Transfer ( which I think they will ) then it wont matter a feck.

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 12:06 PM

17. Yeah, that’s right, they’ll get [sic] the transfer, but on the Punt’s terms (which he has already set out), not, of course, on the ones Sinn Fein have set out. That, after all, would require a time machine.

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 12:45 PM

18. Rory,
    If you’re about this would be an excellent thread in which to re-post that Magnificent Seven clip from the previous thread. It being the same theme and all. Who will win the standoff?

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 12:52 PM

19. Are the IMC’s powers relevant in the Conor Murphy case? Surprisingly they may be, even though Peter Robinson’s complaint implies no breach of the Pledge to use exclusively peaceful means. The IMC’s functions according to the 2003 Act include “ to consider whether..a Minister of the devolved administration was not committed to non-violence, or HAD BREACHED THE TERMS OF THE PLEDGE OF OFFICE.

    At the time the IMC was set up in 2003 the Pledge was limited to the terms fo the 1998 Act, It was greatly added to in the St Andrews Agreement Act 2006, as was the ministerial code. It seems anomalous that the IMC should consider breaches other than those to do with violence, but I don’t think that’s at all clear.

    However the IMC must report to the Secretary of State not the Assembly and it’s up to him to recommend action against a minister to the Assembly. If a resolution fails to attract cross community support, the SoS can suspend the minister himself. None of that is relevant to the Murphy example.

    However at St Andrews, the DUP were keen to bind in SF tightly to as much collective decision taking as possible, to avoid solo runs like McGuinness’s on the 11 plus and exploit the DUP’s greater muscle. The rules for Executive decision taking was altered accordingly. The St Andrews Act imposes a whole host of obligations on ministers - many of which it can be argued SF have breached, assuming its conceded or proven that they are solely responsible for the long gap in Executive meetings, which are normally required every fortnight as the Act states.

    The DUP envisaged that a significant breach of the Pledge and the Code would be actionable in the courts. But how a minister would actually be removed if a court found him/her in breach is not spelt out, as far as I can see.  Does anyone know the answer?

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 01:18 PM

20. Sammy
    “There surely is disunity - the extent is not clear - but if they get the Transfer ( which I think they will ) then it wont matter a feck.”

    No-one’s really debating if there will be the transfer of Policing and Justice. The sticky point for the Shinners is when. Given that they told their supporters it should be here already then every passing day is troublesome for them.

    As Rooster pointed out - in the rush to get the transfer they manage to u-turn on all their previously stated positions. SF previously strongly opposed it going to a single Department and a single Minister after devolution. Now because they’ve seen that agreeing to those things are the only way in which they might speed up the devolution occuring they’ve abandoned that.

    Previously John O’Dowd was getting all hot and bothered at the DUP daring to suggest that SF shouldn’t be eligible for the position - remember the “Sinn Fein is not in the business of excluding itself” stuff?  Well now again they’ve agreed to a mechanism for transfer which ensures that they wont take the post (and Adams’ claims that it was a one term arrangement are utter sh*te).

    They managed to backtrack on two of their main issues around the devolution of Policing & Justice yet they still aren’t any closer in reality to actually knowing when its going to happen.

    I suspect that when the transfer of P&J;occurs some of those issues actually will “matter a feck” (to quote you).

    I’m glad though that you do accept that there clearly are problems within camp Shinner. Everytime they threaten the Executive and subsequently back down after getting some (increasingly transparent) fig-leaf for cover will only increase those tensions. The first aborted ‘nuclear option’ has managed to weaken Adams’ credibiity and not only will their continued threats manage to diminish in seriousness everytime they try it, but their whole air of superiority and credibility crumbles too.

    They’ll end up becoming the republican version of Trimble’s UUP, and we all know what happened then....

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 01:19 PM

21. Just bring the whole lot down. Its an absolute farce. “Our wee country” is simply ungovernable. It always has been and always will be. Too many pesky fenians living here for the DUP’s liking. If only it were the good oul days when the croppies would know their place and lie down. The sooner the political entity known as Northern Ireland is resigned to the history books the better in my opinion. Once Stormont is gone this time it should never return. Mandatory coalition doesn’t work and voluntary coalition is an absolute non-runner from a nationalist perspective. Ironic thing is that in the event of direct rule from London we will probably get an ILA anyway. Unionism always harks on about the benefits of the union i.e. the UK is a pluralist society rich in cultural diversity bla bla bla, except if you are a fenian. Hypocrites the lot of them. They are miles out of touch with their Parliament in London and indeed with the majority of public opinion in Britain. A strange lot altogether! Time for Plan B, if there is one.

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 01:26 PM

22. Interested,

    we’ve been through this a thousand(seems like) times. Lets talk up SF difficulties and ignore the DUPs as per Pete Baker’s and the Repetitive Rooster’s Recycling.

    Adams original threat still stands - Robbo by his procrastination will now been be seen (correctly) when he mysteriously magics up the ‘confidence of the Unionist people’ to be responding to that.

    So what way do you think the Maze/Bobby Bowl decision will go? Up until this week I would have said NO - but I think Robbo is getting a bit tetchy lately so I’m not so sure.

    No sign of you taking me up on the offer of a bet re. the SF meeting.

    p.s. I’m not trying to be provocative, or suggest anything about your own behaviour but do Prod Fundamentaliss have a thing against betting? Is there a biblical reference to it being sinful?

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 01:40 PM

23. I have trawled through the Code and wonder just what sections the DUPs allege Murphy has broken. The only ones I can see that might be relevant are

    PLEDGE OF OFFICE

    Includes

    1.4 (f) to support, and to act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly;

    MINISTERIAL CODE

    Ministers must

    1.5 (iv) operate in a way conducive to promoting good community relations and equality of treatment;

    In any case the problem is what this little spat reveals about the sheer childishness of what is going on. It seems to focus on putting a paper to the Executive with “Northern ireland” in it, getting approval and then changing all the language before publication to remove that term at every stage.

    If that is true, how utterly devious, pathetic and childish. Why oh why are we playing these clowns to behave like this? If they cannot cope with basics like this there is no hope on bigger issues so begone with the lot of them.

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 01:44 PM

24. “Time for plan B”

    I’ll second that. This phase of the process is over.

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 01:49 PM

25. Sammy,

    Why do SF (and their supporters) think that they must always get what they want, even if that means shooting their neighbours to get it?

    Where is Marty in all of this? Maybe his “handler” has tightened the leash!

    Posted by  on Aug 29, 2008 @ 01:57 PM
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.