Saturday, October 04, 2008
“The generals feared they were too far ahead of their troops..”
In today’s Irish News Patrick Murphy identifies the correct questions to ask in order to understand the current blocking of the Northern Ireland Executive by Sinn Féin.
Two questions are central to understanding the row which is preventing the Stormont executive from meeting - does it matter if policing powers are devolved and was there agreement at St Andrews on the devolution date? The answer to the first question is a matter of opinion. The answer to the second is a matter of fact.
That “matter of fact” has already also been identified by others. And, in case anyone hasn’t been paying attention, Patrick Murphy focuses on the correct issues too [no subs req]. Added links throughout.
The ard fheis motion stated that the party’s leadership was mandated to support the police only when the assembly was restored and the ard comhairle was satisfied that policing powers would be transferred. The wording at St Andrews was sloppy but it clearly satisfied the Sinn Féin leadership. This suggests that they may also have received additional assurances from the two governments in one of the many side-deals at the event. But, as Samuel Goldwyn said “a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on”. Armed with only a vaguely-worded view from the two governments, Sinn Féin bought into policing.
They received no guarantee on the devolution date and they have no mechanism for determining how or when such a guarantee might be achieved. Their membership of policing boards is in line with the letter of the ard fheis motion, but not with its spirit, which was based on devolution of policing by May 2008. In June, executive meetings stopped.
The generals feared they were too far ahead of their troops. Politically the leadership could not withdraw support from the police and practically they could not achieve devolution as long as the DUP adhered to its view on community confidence. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, they claimed a denial of equality and partnership and brought the executive to a halt.
Cont.
They created the problem for themselves through three mistakes. They trusted Tony Blair to deliver devolution of policing at a future point when many recognised that he would not be in office.
They failed to get the devolution date agreed in writing and, most significantly, they misread the mood of unionism.
They mistakenly believed that Paisley’s post-election chuckling represented unionist thinking, when it merely represented Paisley.
And on the “matter of opinion”.
Opinion in favour of devolved policing is based on the belief that locals can administer policing better than non-locals.
The argument against devolution is that because of its potential for actual and perceived political misuse, polcing is safer away from local control.
Either way it would make little difference in terms of day-to-day policing.
Pete Baker @ 09:15 PM
you still peddling this fairytale Pete
I know they say if you repeat a story often enough it becomes the truth but except you and few in the cadre are the only believers
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 09:35 PMOut of interest, what has he got wrong steve?
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 10:11 PMSt Andrews
Discussions on the devolution of policing and justice have progressed well in the Preparation for Government Committee. The Governments have requested the parties to continue these discussions so as to agree the necessary administrative arrangements to create a new policing and justice department. It is our view that implementation of the agreement published today should be sufficient to build the community confidence necessary for the Assembly to request the devolution of criminal justice and policing from the British Government by May 2008.
Timetable for implementation of the St Andrews agreement (Annex D)
March:
*****b>Endorsement by the electorate of the St Andrews agreement</b>*****
14 March:
Members of the Executive nominated by party leaders.
Failure to agree to establish the Executive will lead to immediate dissolution of the Assembly, as will failure to agree at any stage, and the Governments will take forward new partnership arrangements on the basis previously announced.
So I don’t hear Pete calling for dissolution or you Mick, but it’s in there, or maybe you both can’t find that because it’s in there too.
But hey sure it’s Northern Ireland Mick, everyone’s right don’t ya know?
SF is right
DUP is right
UUP is right
SDLP is right
Pete Baker is rightThat’s why we cant compromise Mick because everyone is right dontcha geddit??????? Pass the sick bucket.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 10:34 PMthe 2 ‘correct’ questions to ask are.
Firstly, who do the powerbrokers in this situation ( the 2 governements) support? The answer is SF.
Secondly who has the most to lose from the collapse of Stormo. The answer is the DUP.
The DUP are vetoing progress - which is their right to do - but they will have to take the political blame for this indulgence in the form of greater cooperation with ROI as the Englezes will not risk the unravelling of the Peace process by allowing the Unionist veto to go unpunished.
My, and presuambly Steve’s, problem with Pete’s analysis is that he convienently omits these considerations from his posts.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 10:36 PM“Either way it would make little difference in terms of day-to-day policing.”
which, of course, is merely Patrick’s opinion. On the other hand, if local controllers didn’t feel the need to appease the paramilitary godfathers then day-to-day policing could be very different.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 10:43 PMPete
The other bit here is that the wheel has turned full circle since 1998, when it was SF that gave the vague assurances on decommissioning and democrats who were left wondering what had happened to their “deadline”.
SF is effectively being left to sup on its own medicine.
However, two wrongs don’t make a right. If SF felt it had assurances on policing and justice, it is up to the rest of us to point out they got it wrong - but also to attempt to deliver something.
Just as there was a genuine sense that we democrats would reluctantly swallow prisoner releases for decommissioning (which wasn’t much an exchange and then, to make matters worse, didn’t happen and rightly caused much bitterness), SF is now having to swallow the effective final surrender of the IRA for a devolved justice ministry.
The devolution of justice itself is not the issue. Trust is the issue. That is why, in addition to the general point it is about time we grew up and learned how to govern this place ourselves, we should be devolving justice and policing as soon as we reasonably can.
SF could help that process, mind, by ensuring there’s still an Executive worth devolving it to.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 10:44 PMDC
On Annex D
“Failure to agree to establish the Executive will lead to immediate dissolution of the Assembly, as will failure to agree at any stage, and the Governments will take forward new partnership arrangements on the basis previously announced.”
That “basis previously announced” being the St Andrews agreement - as detailed in the original post.
Do Sinn Féin want to call for the dissolution of the Executive? They are free to do so.
Sammy Mac
“The DUP are vetoing progress..”
And if you’d care to address the actual topic you’d see that it is Sinn Féin who have the problem.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 10:46 PMIJP
“If SF felt it had assurances on policing and justice, it is up to the rest of us to point out they got it wrong - but also to attempt to deliver something.”
Possibly.
But Sinn Féin would then have to admit to getting it wrong.
And, despite it having been pointed out repeatedly to them, they have resisted that honest admission.
And the reason behind that resistance is detailed in the original post.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 10:52 PMPete,
“And if you’d care to address the actual topic you’d see that it is Sinn Féin who have the problem. “
But not as much of a problem as the DUP - who have threatened serious consequences and done ... jack shit. Dodsie has now talked his party into a corner.
To understand why SF are blocking the assembly ( the actual topic ) you have to understand that this is a critical peace process issue for which SF know that they have the backing of the 2 governments - a fact you chose to ignore.
SF are absolutely correct to block the executive as everyone knows that the DUP would simply seek agreement on other issues and leave this one to fester indefinitely.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 11:04 PM“My, and presuambly Steve’s, problem with Pete’s analysis is that he convienently omits these considerations from his posts.”
As they don’t alter the facts of the matter, they’re just cushion covers,
I could argue that for a party that wants to devolve justice, Ruane is very quick to defer to London on every issue I put in front of her, some of which are related directly to Justice, Home Office, Interpol, CEOP and DENI.
If one is going to rely upon something absolutely, it is often a good idea, to get it in writing,
as the late Tony Wilson would say, it is difficult to sell factory records beause the bands didn’t sign anything, a Samuel Goldwyn style perspective made in Manchester.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 11:09 PMIt’s Annex D of the St Andrews Agreement, so it would hardly refer back to itself having failed?
The closest interim form of inter-governmental partnership we can get rests with Hain’s statement prior to that actual St Andrews Agreement, where a ropey previous ‘basis’ was mooted.
If, however, the Assembly has been unable to achieve a power-sharing Executive by 24 November then there will be no choice but to cancel Assembly Members’ salaries and allowances forthwith, and to cancel the election due in May 2007. It would be absurd to elect Members unwilling to discharge their duties to an Assembly that will not have sat for over four and a half years. !!!! No, really?
Restoration of the Assembly and Executive would then be deferred until there was a renewed political willingness to exercise devolved power.
The two Governments would then continue their commitment to developing North-South cooperation and structures as set out in the Good Friday Agreement. In this scenario, the Agreement would remain very much alive.
And that’s the closest hint we ever get to that ‘basis’.
And then this:
http://www.nio.gov.uk/restoration-remains-on-track-hain/media-detail.htm?newsID=13749
The Secretary of State said: “Restoration of devolved Government remains on track, but politicians face the choice, either devolution or dissolution.
“The Assembly will sit on Friday, November 24 and on March 7, the people will speak through an election and the parties will be given a mandate for the St Andrews Agreement.
“This is a crucial period in Northern Ireland’s history with the prize of devolution on March 26. I am confident that MLAs want to grasp the opportunity and get to work in a power sharing Executive.”
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 11:14 PMThe idea that SF should have got the DUP to sign up to Police and Justice in the STA presumes that the wild men like Dodsie would not have broken ranks and scuppered the whole agreement.
SF were spot on - get into government and then the pressure will be put on the DUP by the 2 governments - if the DUP dont meet their political obligations ( that being what the governments expect of them ) then they can pull the plug and the DUP get blamed. Seems like a plan to me - and one the Robbo has yet to come to terms with.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 11:16 PMSO Pete, will you and Mick now start posting for dissolution under Annex D:
Failure to agree to establish the Executive will lead to immediate dissolution of the Assembly, as will failure to agree at any stage, and the Governments will take forward new partnership arrangements on the basis previously announced.
SO...can we please have a dissolution post now?
Mick, dissolution blog too then?
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 11:19 PM“To understand why SF are blocking the assembly ( the actual topic ) you have to understand that this is a critical peace process issue for which SF know that they have the backing of the 2 governments - a fact you chose to ignore.”
Oh, sorry, there you go, well the DUP should just throw it in then,
I didn’t realise SF had a cartel signed up for delivering their non-guarantee, I’m gobsmacked by my own stupidity to have missed those aspects.
As Samuel Goldwyn use to say, .... Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer was never part of anything I was owning because I didn’t get it in writing.
He took the ‘wyn’ part of his new name with him, Samuel Goldwyn made a name for himself, he got that out of his early ( written) agreements.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 11:25 PMDC
Once again
On Annex D
“Failure to agree to establish the Executive will lead to immediate dissolution of the Assembly, as will failure to agree at any stage, and the Governments will take forward new partnership arrangements on the basis previously announced.”
That “basis previously announced” being the St Andrews agreement - as detailed in the original post.
Do Sinn Féin want to call for the dissolution of the Executive? They are free to do so.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 11:27 PM“if the DUP dont meet their political obligations”
Try selling ‘obligations’ to a Serb who has the benefit of elevation.
What does ‘obligations’ mean when one is dealing with SF? Did they do the UUP any favors? I don’t really think so. The UUP got themselves wrecked.
The blank space agreements, so frowned upon by moviemakers in the United States, that is always to benefit SF is it?
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 11:35 PMThat’s right Pete, you’re post is right.
If the St Andrews Annex refers to itself then what was the previous announcement, oh it must be St Andrews, er?
And the governments are going to take up (old) St Andrews themselves and go into an (old) devolved governance structure as a means of ‘new partnership’ together?
It refers to the noises made by Hain in House of Commons and other such fuzzy ‘joint interest’ threats, re ‘new partnership’.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2008 @ 11:53 PM“The wording at St Andrews was sloppy but it clearly satisfied the Sinn Féin leadership.”
In much the same manner that a deed to a property with a clause which states “Title passes to the purchaser at the sole discretion of the vendor” would satisfy the mortgage company.
There are two competing theories here: one is that the SF leadership were hoodwinked by the DUP and the two governments with a false promise that P and J would be devolved by date that was stipulated by SF’s Ard Fheis as a pre-condition which must be met before the SF leadership were mandated to enter the Executive, and the other is that the SF Ard Fheis was hoodwinked by the SF leadership with a false promise that the pre-condition had been met. In the first theory, the SF leadership are the good guys (albeit a bit thick) who acted in good faith and the DUP are the bad guys who acted in bad faith (lying to the SF leadership about a timetable with absolutely no motive to do so), and in the second theory, the SF leadership are the bad guys and their Ard Fheis are the hoodwinked simpletons who were lied to by their leadership about a timetable because the SF leadership could not enter the Executive unless they claimed to have agreed a timetable.
Assuming the second theory is true (and it is the most probable), the SF leadership hoped that the DUP would help them out of their self-created ‘difficulties’ with their own supporters and agree to a date for devolution in support of the Shinners dragging their supporters across the Rubicon of endorsing the police, being persuaded of the need to do so by British government. Sadly for the Shinner leadership, the DUP preferred to rub their noses in their new status as neutered corgis rather than assist the British government to integrate them into the reformed British political system.
Now that their own supporters are catching on that Stormont doesn’t promote their selfish interests as they were led to believe it would by their leadership, they’re wondering why the leadership were so keen on it and whose agenda it actually serves. Hence you see the SF leadership pretending that they aren’t all that keen on it either, when the reality is that they will stick with Stormont because that is what their controllers have instructed them to do. It’s basically a game of ‘stop and let the supporters catch back up, then lead them back into Stormont again.’ In other words, the shepherd trying to persuade the sheep that he is leading them to the four green fields rather than to the market as directed by the farmer.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2008 @ 12:35 AMDave
Sinn Fein are shrinking at the grass roots? They are getting smaller, delivering their own leaflets and stuff. I’ve noticed that in West Belfast.
SF use to be like free door to door Daz samples, it was a blitz of garden gates.
So what does it matter if people get upset, who in Turf Lodge, Ballymurphy, or the Falls Road, actually cares in a practical way, about the devolution of justice?
Or. do you mean like they might lose face within the SF party? The electorate don’t seem to care one way or the other, and a fair few republicans
I’ve bumped into are not really engaged except to remark that His Greatness is slightly less than inspiringly competent.
I do tend to attract critics of His Majesty. I’m not saying it is a perfect opinion poll.
Yvette Doll
Posted by on Oct 05, 2008 @ 02:32 AMMick
“what has he (Pete) got wrong steve?”
In terms of fact, not a lot Mick. There is no doubt that Sinn Fein were outdone at St Andrews as Mark Durkan correctly pointed out (and I rarely agree with him!).
There are in my opinion 2 problems with Pete’s analysis:
Firstly, it ignores the fact that P&J;is really the final straw for many Nationalists (Martin McGuinness recently pointed out on BBC radio a list of things where the DUP had shown that they are really interested in power sharing). I personally am not too bothered about the ILA and I don’t agree with Sinn Fein’s education policy. However, for the majority of Nationalists, this has become a matter of principle.
I and pretty much all my Catholic/Nationalist family, friends and colleagues feel that the DUP clearly is not genuinely interested in power sharing. By the way, neither myself, my family or the vast majority of my friends are (or have ever been) Sinn Fein supporters.
Pete seems to be perpetuating the myth that there is massive pressure on Sinn Fein from within the Nationalist community to have an executive meeting - there isn’t! In my opinion (and I daresay that I have a lot more contact with ordinary NI Catholic/Nationalist feeling than Pete) is that most Nationalists would be as happy or happier with direct rule - we wouldn’t be any worse off and more than likely better off - especially with the way the DUP are behaving.
Frankly, I see no great worry in the Nationalist community if the assembly goes. Whether Unionists on this site like it or not, they are seen as the cause - just ask Gordon Brown.
That’s the second flaw in Pete’s analysis (or perhaps pro DUP wishful thinking). He seems to think that Unionism (or the DUP) is winning the PR battle over this issue.
It most certainly is not! Gordon Brown more or less point blank told the DUP that they were to blame and to sort it out. Any international coverage that I have seen is laying the blame at the feet of DUP intransigence. That is most certainly the case in the US
Let’s face facts, the Irish Nationalist cause has a lot more global support than NI Unionism. Usually it’s the UK govt who defends Unionists but, in this case, they are blaming the DUP also -and in public!.
What Pete says about St Andrews is valid. However, the issue and the situation have moved well beyond that.
The DUP (Dodds in particular) have painted themselves into a corner. Either they bend or the assembly will fall. Gordon Brown has made it clear who he blames and the US + Irish administrations will do likewise (particularly in a US Presidential election year).
If the UK govt have to reluctantly go back to direct rule, I have no doubt they will gladly give the RoI even greater input into the running of the North - another step toward joint authority in fact.
The DUP (especially after their recent antics) have very little support in Westminster. There is no doubt that they will suffer much more from the loss of the assembly than Sinn Fein.
The pressure is not, as Pete would have us believe, on Sinn Fein but on the DUP. They can either start genuinely participating and sharing power as equals or they can lose their assembly - it’s that simple.
As I said, Pete may be right about his reading of St Andrew’s but any attempt to portray the DUP as being in a strong position currently is dead wrong. They have painted themselves into a corner and no-one (including the British govt) is going to help them out of it.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2008 @ 02:37 AMMethinks minds need to be focussed,Brown and Cowen meet,set a date for an executive meeting,if it is not met pull the plug,sack the lot,re-introduce direct rule plus more north /south co-operation,whtch neither the DUP or SF will want.
Two governments then tell people why the issues that affect Fuel Povery and Health etc are not being addressed-because our two bigger brothers cannot agree.Posted by on Oct 05, 2008 @ 03:01 AMA plague on both their houses, it is clear that the DUP and SF are incapable of working together as their internal party politics are more important than the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. They are incapable of running their current departments and we have not moved on from the Civil Servants who have run the country for the last 30 years; they are still in charge of the departments not the politicians.
So what difference, apart from a symbolic one, would devolving P & J make?
Posted by on Oct 05, 2008 @ 06:30 AMSteve
“you still peddling this fairytale Pete”
Your posts on this issue look increasingly desperate.
Face up to it. SF cocked up their side of the Agreement. They didn’t get the deal firmly pinned down and then sold it to the membership as if they had. Given that they are masters of this slippery approach themselves you must ask why their eye was so far off the ball.
As a smokescreen they are now trying to conflate this with all the other grievances - Maze, language, education etc. They demand that they must get everything they want or they won’t let anything happen in the Executive.
The problem is that it’s a threadbare argument. Did you see how Nigel Dodds (Nigel Dodds for Gawd’s sake) took Connor Murphy apart on the BBC last week? SF now make the DUPs look like good politicians and reasonable people.
So nothing happens in the Executive? So what? What are SF going to do? Start bombing again? Organise the odd wee riot to ginger up the process?
They are boxed in. In the pipeline they are blocking are plans for an end to prescription charges, employment issues, housing measures and cold weather payments. I have no doubt that the other parties will ladle in as many more sweeties as they can.
Your granny can’t afford fuel? You still have to pay for your prescription drugs? You have lost your job? Cant get a house? The ambulance broke down? Well, sorry we cant’t help you but we are taking a glorious stand in reaffirming your identity (as part of the UK) and demanding things you didn’t know you wanted until you were told they were such a huge issue. Now just say ‘baa’ and do as you are told.
That will really go down well on doorsteps and that’s why this hurts. Welcome to the world of real politics.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2008 @ 07:38 AMI have supported this process but now I think we are near the end. It’s just not working and SF’s absolutism and insistence on ‘we get everything or nothing’ just wont work. So time for Plan B.
Government should set a clear deadline for them to settle this. 1 January looks very attractive.
If they don’t the Assembly should fall and not be resurrected. Plan B should include:-
* direct rule for the forseeable future
* more devolution to the new councils which should be cut to 7 and given real responsibilities in some areas
* a bigger role for Dublin in consultation
* co-opting some sitting NI MPs into the NIO. What about McDonnell Hermon and Dodds as Junior NIO Ministers?Posted by on Oct 05, 2008 @ 07:48 AMI think it is wrong to say that Sinn Fein need the devolution of policing and justice. They may want it but to say they need it is an unjustifiable argument which is disproven by history. All Pete’s cobblers about the Ard Fheis is a complete red herring. Gerry Adams has never failed to bring the Ard Fheis with him in the end. And if there was an election today would Sinn Fein lost one vote to the SDLP? No. Sorry Pete, but while you deal in minutiae and endless links back to other stories which no-one reads, the rest of us would like to deal in realpolitik and what will actually happen.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2008 @ 09:48 AM
