Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Sort it out yourselves
Liam Clarke highlights that no big pow-wow over policing and justice is being planned. He argues it is up the two parties to get it sorted and non-government intervention the wisest option:
“If governments intervene at this point, it will dissipate any pressure on either party to get on with the business of government. The best message London can send to both parties is “if you sort this out between you, then talk to us about money. If not we’ll work something out with Dublin”.
However, he believes that McGuinness’s Guildhall speech and Adams comments in Cleveland indicate Sinn Fein are laying the ground work for an election, seeking to rally the nationalist community with a victim narrative and the standard issue caricature of the DUP.
Fair Deal @ 09:53 AM
The victim narrative is so PATHETIC.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 10:05 AMstandard issue caricature of the DUP
Recentevidence to the contrary please?Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 10:20 AMDec
The clearest and most obvious break with caricature was agreeing to power-sharing with SF and operating it in within the agreed rules until SF started blocking things.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 10:31 AMfair_deal,
Can mutual-vetoing really be deemed to be ‘power-sharing’?
Operating in an arrangement where power-sharing may be possible, is not the same as operating actual power-sharing. I don’t believe that the DUP ever intended to actually share power.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 10:42 AM...agreeing to power-sharing with SF and operating it in within the agreed rules until SF started blocking things.
FD
You appear to have your timeline somewhat http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7046117.stm
“]askew[/url].That being said I will miss your robust defences of the DUP’s ‘Heads I win, tails you lose’ notions of partnership.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 10:50 AMLink.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 10:52 AMHorseman
“Can mutual-vetoing really be deemed to be ‘power-sharing’?”
Most power-sharing systems have vetos. Also if you agree to operate a system with checks and balances then the grounds for complaining about the checks and balances being used are IMO highly restricted.
Also there has been much more done were things were sorted out than not and that would be even more true but for the present impasse.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 10:53 AM“Sinn Fein are laying the ground work for an election,”
O’Dowd just about said as much last night on Radio Ulster.
Horseman
“I don’t believe that the DUP ever intended to actually share power.”You may believe what you want, but one thing which is definite is that the DUP were & are quite prepared to operate the systems arranged at St Andrews.
Sinn Fein were prepared to operate those, at least for a while, but it would appear they are now backtracking.
Those arrangements may be power-sharing, or they may be mutual vetoes, but all the parties, and in particular the DUP and SF signed up to operate those arrangements. If they aren’t working out quite how SF would like them to then that isn’t the fault of the DUP. The Shinners mightn’t like what the DUP are doing, but they’re working perfectly legitimately within the arrangements which were agreed to by SF.
My biggest gripe is that the SDLP cant seem to find the b*lls to take on the ‘victim’ narrative of the Shinners. They sometimes look like they’re up for a fight but inevitably then shrink in behind the SF coat-tails and let Adams & co set the narrative.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 10:56 AMfair_deal,
... if you agree to operate a system with checks and balances then the grounds for complaining about the checks and balances being used are IMO highly restricted.
The same, of course, is true in respect of the DUP. They agreed (nay, insisted upon) the mutual veto, so their grounds for complaining about Sinn Féin’s use of it, is a bit weak. Did they not realise that it was mutual?
You didn’t really answer the question of whether the DUP really intend to share power, rather than let others do things as long as they don’t run counter to the DUP’s wishes. That, of course, is not sharing power, but merely letting others implement DUP policies or vetoing them when they do not.
Unfortunately for the DUP the only way out of this impasse is one where SF (and the SDLP) get to take decisions that the DUP don’t like. In other words, the mutual veto must go, or the DUP must learn not to use it.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 11:02 AMDec
The ILA issue was a manifesto commitment (as it was for the UUP). It was flag-posted well and truly in advance. Also the statutory obligation for a Language Strategy is still there so the cupboard is not bare.
Also as I said to horseman “if you agree to operate a system with checks and balances then the grounds for complaining about the checks and balances being used are IMO highly restricted.”
“That being said I will miss your robust defences of the DUP’s ‘Heads I win, tails you lose’ notions of partnership.”
I would point out that my argument goes beyond that (for both SF and DUP). There is an alternative to the coin toss that is to trade.
Unionism has not yet sought something that Nationalism doesn’t want to give but it will occur. It will then be faced with exactly the same choices.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 11:03 AMUnionism has not yet sought something that Nationalism doesn’t want to give ...
Care to name something?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 11:08 AMF_D
“Unionism has not yet sought something that Nationalism doesn’t want to give but it will occur.”That is a good and very interesting point. It possibly shows that actually unionism, in the form of the DUP, has been prepared to share power, in that they haven’t decided to use Government to bring forward a unionist wish-list which they would know wouldn’t get cross-community support and which would only damage the possibility of devolution lasting and succeeding.
SF on the other hand seem to have made a skill out of bringing forward policies which they know don’t have any chance of gathering the cross-community support which is necessary for Government here and so increase the chance of crisis. I wonder which way of doing business actually represents good government and in that actually is closer to real power-sharing.
Claiming you want power-sharing but then bringing forward policies which your partner in Government are clearly never going to support doesn’t show much of a willingness to actually operate the power-sharing you claim you want. The DUP therefore can hardly be blamed for rejecting things which SF knew well would never be accepted.
The motivation of why SF want to create a crisis is what is interesting though. They either messed up their negotiations and want another bite at the cherry, or they just can’t handle Government and they can only trade on instability.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 11:13 AMHorseman
SF isn’t using the formal vetos but an admin game that I think wouldn’t succeed if challenged in the courts (although you never know with judges and lawyers). Although the fact the DUP hasn’t gone down this route so far is interesting. I can only presume they do not want things to escalate too much.
“You didn’t really answer the question of whether the DUP really intend to share power,”
Yes they are.
“Unfortunately for the DUP the only way out of this impasse is one where SF (and the SDLP) get to take decisions that the DUP don’t like. In other words, the mutual veto must go, or the DUP must learn not to use it.”
This is the difficulty. Everyone agreed to a mandatory coalition with vetos but the republican position seems to be it must behave like a voluntary coalition.
Also this ‘partnership government’ is very nice blarney but is essentially what you accuse the DUP of, give us our own way.
It is also essentially to develop a victim narrative to avoid the St Andrew’s cock-up narrative. “We didn’t mess up at St Andrew’s and sell you a dodgy line its all because of them’uns and ‘some’ of them’uns hate you”
Over time the DUP will not get all its own way because of the nature of the system.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 11:15 AMFD
The clearest and most obvious break with caricature was agreeing to power-sharing with SF and operating it in within the agreed rules until SF started blocking things.
It’s nice of you an’ all, like, but just turning up is not really a concession.
Also as I said to horseman “if you agree to operate a system with checks and balances then the grounds for complaining about the checks and balances being used are IMO highly restricted.”
And again, this runs both ways. What are we talking about here when talking about “checks and balances”? We are talking about both parties trying to use the system to get what they want, and to limit the things they don’t want. Policing and Justice was a major issue for Republicans. The noises on the target date were consistent. Expectations were set. The DUP must have known there would be trouble if things ran on.
They probably calculated they could take it. But if SF are effectively using their “checks and balances” on a issue they deem fundamental to make the DUP squirm then they have absolutely no right to complain either. This is check and balance in action: SF have clearly flagged this as a big issue. Either it gets sorted it, or the machine breaks from being jammed. Unionism have done precisely the same thing on decommissioning, and have not a leg to stand on in dismissing it.
I’m not surprised SF are preparing for an election: this Assembly appears to be in a death spiral. An election will be the result of that. The DUP might well not fear it. But that’s another political choice.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 11:18 AMSF isn’t using the formal vetos but an admin game that I think wouldn’t succeed if challenged in the courts (although you never know with judges and lawyers). Although the fact the DUP hasn’t gone down this route so far is interesting. I can only presume they do not want things to escalate too much.
It’s more obvious than interesting. The threat of the courts to enforce this is an utterly idle one. If the DUP go to the courts who say, yes, SF must organise the meetings, then in the event that SF hasn’t found another way to block progress - of which I’m sure there are probably a number - then they simply collapse the Assembly. Congratulations, the DUP just won the world’s most useless victory.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 11:31 AMfair_deal,
... Everyone agreed to a mandatory coalition with vetos but the republican position seems to be it must behave like a voluntary coalition.
A mandatory coalition with opposing viewpoints and mutual vetoes cannot work unless it behaves like a voluntary coalition. Surely that’s obvious?
Also this ‘partnership government’ is very nice blarney but is essentially what you accuse the DUP of, give us our own way.
Again, if the DUP are interested in sharing power, then yes, give SF their own way. Or face the inevitable stagnation.
It seems clear that what the DUP want is that SF join in the anodyne administration of the status quo, whilst that status quo remains untouchable. In other words, that SF administer a symbolically and structural ‘British’ arrangement, without getting any movement towards their issues of concern. And you are surprised when they refuse?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 11:34 AMThis is the difficulty. Everyone agreed to a mandatory coalition with vetos but the republican position seems to be it must behave like a voluntary coalition.
Also this ‘partnership government’ is very nice blarney but is essentially what you accuse the DUP of, give us our own way.
No, it isn’t. Apparently mandatory coalition means that the various partners should do nothing else other than try to block the policies of the other parties and try to stab out their eyes. The DUP have not given any ground anywhere. They nuked just about everything SF wanted and then boasted about it. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t violate the “mandatory” or “voluntary” part. It violates the “coalition” part, and no multiparty government organised in any way can function on that basis.
It is also essentially to develop a victim narrative to avoid the St Andrew’s cock-up narrative. “We didn’t mess up at St Andrew’s and sell you a dodgy line its all because of them’uns and ‘some’ of them’uns hate you”
Being on the right side of the detail of St Andrews when SF are prepared to bring the whole shebang over P&J;means about as much as Iraq complying with UN resolutions while the US Army builds up beside it. You might be right but it’s not going to matter a lot to the outcome.
SF want P&J;devolved (and certain other things, but this does seem to be the one causing the most pain), and the DUP are blocking it. It doesn’t really matter if SF fucked up St Andrews.
If the electorate want it, and the DUP are currently blocking it and reuse to move, then SF have every right to say they are the DUP are the current problem. Others might say that it doesn’t matter, or that SF fucked up and they could do it better, but SF screwing up doesn’t actually matter one way or another for what happens next.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 11:42 AMHorseman
“A mandatory coalition with opposing viewpoints and mutual vetoes cannot work unless it behaves like a voluntary coalition. Surely that’s obvious? “
No it’s someone wanting their cake and eating it. The clue is in the term ‘mandatory’. If someone wants the benefits of the VC system then agree to it.
“yes, give SF their own way.”
There is a contradiction in your argument. Earlier it was bad for the DUP to get its sole way
“let others do things as long as they don’t run counter to the DUP’s wishes. That, of course, is not sharing power, but merely letting others implement DUP policies”
But it is all right for SF to get its sole way “yes, give SF their own way.”It is impracticable because there are some areas were the two simply disagree. Power-sharing never promised everyone was to get everything they wanted.
It is a recipe for ever escalating demands not stable and consistent governance - Monday SF demanded x or else and it was granted - Tuesday the DUP demanded x or else and it was granted. Wednesday was the UUP’s turn and Thursday they didn’t want the SDLP left out so gave them something too.
“status quo remains untouchable”
No one has said it is untouchable just don’t expect something for nothing. Trade for it.
Do not presume that everything is hunky dory for Unionism and they think present circumstances are how they like the world.
Using the alternative strategy of threatening the entire structures is an option that creates the least room for flexibility as moving in those circumstances greatest a very dodgy precedent.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 11:53 AMfair_deal,
A VC is a non-starter, given the clear unionist intention to try to freeze Sinn Féin out of it. However, a mandarory coalition with mutual vetoes is unworkable unless one of two things happens; one side surrenders (no hope), or both sides respect each others right to a slice of the pie. That is where the DUP are still found wanting.
Power-sharing never promised everyone was to get everything they wanted.
Of course not, nor did I say that SF should get its “sole way”. But the DUP has to stand back on a number of issues - otherwise it is back to the stagnancy of the mutual veto. That is what power-sharing means. That is why I continue to believe that the DUP is not implementing it.
... don’t expect something for nothing. Trade for it.
Trade what? I already asked for your suggestions, but you gave none. What do nationalists have that unionists want?
Do not presume that everything is hunky dory for Unionism and they think present circumstances are how they like the world.
Ditto on the other side. But both sides will have to have some gain as well as some pain. So far, it all seems a bit one-sided.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 12:17 PMWhat is government ‘intervening’ in other than government? The British government has a duty to ensure that its devolved administrations are functioning as designed. Of course, there isn’t a management consultant in the world worth his fee who will tell you that mandatory coalition between demented representatives of two competing nationalisms (three if you include European nationalism) could deliver a stable and successful management system, so the British government may wish to wash its hands of it but it can’t that until the Shinner supporters have become fully adjusted to their new roles as assistant administrators of British rule within the agreed internal settlement. In regard to the Shinner leadership, they’ll do well out of this cynical exercise: they’ll appear like anti-Stormont ‘republicans’ while consolidating support among their voter base for a return (again) to Stormont. Where else would you have schizoid sheep like that?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 12:19 PMHorseman
“A VC is a non-starter, given the clear unionist intention to try to freeze Sinn Féin out of it. “
Offers the UUP a better deal than the DUP offers the SDLP. Show a little bit of confidence in nationalist negotiating skills ;)
“both sides respect each others right to a slice of the pie”
Fine it does not mean they immediately agree on the slice or type of pie. Hence they trade.
“Trade what? I already asked for your suggestions, but you gave none.”
Sorry I didn’t see that question. I would have thought there are potential trade offs around culture through the executive strategies, symbolry etc.
“What do nationalists have that unionists want? “It isn’t a case per se of Nationalism giving Unionism something. It would be more a case of what you are arguing against, use of veto.
“So far, it all seems a bit one-sided. “
As CC has pointed out Unionism has adopted the ‘don’t ask’ approach so far while SF has went for ‘gimme gimme’.
So far but no reason why that will be the permanent state. Unionism will have to ask for something sometime and SF can either return the veto favour or offer a yes in return for x.
“Of course not, nor did I say that SF should get its “sole way”.”
True you said “own way” but I would contend there is little difference between ‘own’ and ‘sole’.
“the DUP has to stand back on a number of issues”
Why does SF not stand back by not asking for them? Get things bedded down then start working on the agenda.
I would also point out that one area of disagreement the transfer test the DUP did not adopt an F-U approach, the 11plus or nothing, even though they they could have done so based on what they got at St Andrews. It is the Education minister who has adopted a my way or no way approach (I also think if here approach had been different things overall would have worked out better).
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 12:40 PMfair_deal,
I still cannot see what you think that nationaalists would offer unuionists as part of the ‘trade-off’ ... except perhaps your strange proposal that they would stop asking for anything! So, to get something, they should stop asking for it?
Get things bedded down then start working on the agenda.
Exactly my point. The DUP are trying to persuade nationalists to become mere edministrators of British rule, in return for .... nothing at all!
Why does SF not stand back by not asking for them?
Power-sharing. Remember that? Administering a unionist agenda only is hardly power-sharing!
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 12:54 PMHorseman
“perhaps your strange proposal that they would stop asking for anything!”
In the short-term and it is as CC suggest how Unionism is acting. It isn’t asking nationalism to behave differently from itself.
There is the issue that we do not really know one another and it wouldn’t hurt to take time with the familiarisation. It avoids either side going straight to conspiracy land when a blockage is reached.
“Power-sharing. Remember that? Administering a unionist agenda only is hardly power-sharing!”
It isn’t a Unionist only agenda. The budget, Executive decisions legislation etc need the approval of both. To present power-sharing structures as one party rule is a fallacy.
Also while I think SF did not make a good fist of St Andrew’s and after, I do find the implication that they would both negotiate and agree to a return to NI 1921-72 as the least bit credible.
Unionism haven’t been bringing out its greatest hits. There is plenty to be getting on with that is little to do with either Unionism or nationalism per se.
Power-sharing was supposed to enable work on what could be agreed while managing the disagreements through checks and balances.
“edministrators of British rule”
They administer the government they sought election to and took positions in.
If the end of “British rule” is the aim it ends when a majority in NI and the RoI in two referendums vote for it. It won’t be achieved by administrative fiat but by persuading enough voters.
In the meantime I think most would like a decent infrastructure, good education, an adequate health service and a job to go to while the new set of practical working relationships are developed (rather than expected to be instantaneous) but maybe that is me wanting to impose a ‘Unionist’ agenda.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 01:20 PMfair_deal,
... I think most would like a decent infrastructure, good education, an adequate health service and a job to go to ...
No argument. But in order to demonstrate their bona fides in respect to power-sharing, the DUP must let nationalism visibly gain something from its agenda. Don’t forget that ‘normalisation’ under British rule is a unionist objective. Your attempt to present it as a ‘reasonable’ middle way is disingenuous.
The idea that, at present, neither side is achieving its objectives is blatantly wrong. The status quo is unionist, so the continuance, unchanged, of the status quo represents a success for unionism. Sinn Féin are not so blind that they haven’t seen that. They gave the DUP a decent period of time to show that they were actually going to implement power-sharing, but when it became obvious that this was not about to happen, then they used the nuclear option that, ironically, the DUP had built into the St Andrews (non-)agreement.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 02:10 PMFD
Unionism haven’t been bringing out its greatest hits
The thing about Unionism’s greatest hits is that they are as much about blocking anything to do with Nationalism as anything else. For example, Unionism banned the display of Tricolours. Now, that’ll not happen again, but attacks on the Irish language, the GAA, on removing Southerners from committees is all of a piece.
But still. I could have swore blind I saw the DUP boasting that they’d transferred money from Irish to Ulster Scots. I could have swore there was a switch in community festival funding that favoured Unionist events. And not in the Assembly, but I could have swore blind I saw Unionism pushing through “homecoming parades” for troops that Nationalism was set against. Seriously, spare me.
I could also add that SF could have opposed allowing the Assembly into the commonwealth group, and held it as a bargaining chip. But they just said they didn’t care and allowed it through. Perhaps they should have held on to it to squeeze something out of the DUP? Perhaps everything should come down to horse trading and want you can get, without room for magnanimity?
And finally - the principle fo Policing and Justice has already been conceded. The DUP “want it” too. The argument is over timing - which let’s be frank here - is driven largely by crude political calculations—how much electoral damage the DUP will take form the TUV, how mach damage they can do to SF. Now political parties will always look out from themselves, but the high horse act gets somewhat old int he circumstances.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2008 @ 02:14 PM
